White Warlock

There needs to be a 'learned' balance between both hard and soft. To tighten in defense, as well as flow. Consider 'where' the strike is made. If someone strikes the jaw and it is lax, it can far more easily be dislocated. On the other hand, if someone strikes the jaw and it is tight, the bone can far more easily be broken.

Hmm... It is necessary, under any condition, to be able to validate authenticity. Effectiveness can only be determined by direct application in a real-life setting and/or through 'full resistance' training, so stating "it works" is not sufficient, and many people are suckered into believing something works, when it only works at 1/2 speed (the training norm)... not at full speed. I find that information on lineage helps to determine the 'viability' of the art, whether there is an undercurrent of dishonesty inherent in it. As i've indicated in some other threads, there are arts with a lineage that presents quite disturbing information. Information that clearly shows falsivity. With this comes the concern that 'all you learn' may not be 'all that valid' in an actual situation. And while lineage does not 'guarantee' the quality of instruction, it does give at least a base for the art you are attempting to study, as well as a base for the artist you are attempting to study under. It's just that, not all good artists can teach, just as not all martial arts actually work. A lineage that stretches too far back into a different time, or different circumstances, tends to present a problem for me. What we deal with now, how the arts are now... with the mixing and merging of Eastern, Western, Southern and other... there is a clear evolution to the arts that a particular system, adherent to the 'ways of yore,' may simply not be up to the task that such changes have presented. On the other hand, if i wanted to learn the use of the katana, i would far prefer a lineage that reaches to that different time... because we don't use, nor do we apply, katanas in this day and age.

Hmm, i've never heard of this slow twitch / fast twitch reference to muscle-types. Can you elaborate?

ooo yeah, i'm sure sleeping in the doghouse was reeaaall interesting.

I do understand your point e&k. Accidents do happen, but if the intent is to tear out a larynx, gouge eyes, break spine, remove reproductive organs and tout them around... it makes a big difference. Lethal is on the 'target, use and intent.' And i think you'll agree that the majority of present-day martial art schools don't teach such with proper mindset or intent. The difference between high school and real school is the intensity and intent. When they're not merely out to 'beat you up,' but are aiming to 'end your life,' niceties go out the window. They have to, because the situation requires a 'real' no-holds barred approach. But i should have not said lethal, as i should have said maiming, or similar. I suppose there is a difficulty in finding the right words here, at least on my part. What i was trying to present was that of things like pulling off ears, breaking fingers, hooking and tearing of the nose, gouging or puncturing of the eyes, and some of those i mentioned above, as well as utilizing weapons, improvisation, exploit of battlefield irregularities, use of psychological warfare (sometimes referred to as gambits when such is applied to single persons or small units), etc. And to bring up a personal point: When i've grappled various persons in dojos or on the mat, i've found plenty of 'opportunities' to do serious, irreparable damage to my opponent. But, obviously that is not the intent, and thus i refrain. Instead i focus on working for a finishing technique or in getting a 'clearly' dominant position. I will admit, though, i have used gambits in many of these cases... whispering distractions in their ear, breaking down their resolve or causing 'adrenalin' to rage... and thus mistakes and fatigue.

Consider it another challenge. If she is interested, it should be her choice to study, not yours. If you find yourself distracted... stop. Stop being distracted. You are there to study, not to court and not to protect. I.e., focus.

Well, actually, considering you didn't discuss with him what exactly constitutes a year... i think it is a bit premature to jump to the conclusion it is that much. But, regardless, they should have allowed you and your family to study for free for a month or two, under the circumstances. I can say very little about the health of the owner... other than it is grave. Definitely move on and find a different place. Some place where money doesn't dominate their conscience.

A very interesting read: http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=125

Well, the foil and epee existed because it presented a viable alternative to outright force. If you wish to think about it, fencing is the Western aikido of swordplay. It was devised to exploit the 'gaps' in armor. To puncture and to manuever. An apt example of fencing can be found in the movie, "Rob Roy."

I sure hope so. My fingers are getting tired.

Here is where i present how i feel. That these discussions have not been inconclusive. That these discussions progressed to tangible conclusions: The present focus is that of competition, with as few rules as possible. This is a good thing, and the first 'modern' presentation of it was that of Jigaro Kano, with Kano ju-jutsu (judo, as we know it today). Visiting various ju-jutsu schools, they promptly demonstrated that 'full-resistance' training enhances effectiveness. One important point to realize in this is that what Jigaro Kano presented was not altogether different than what most of the other ju-jutsu schools were studying. It was the 'manner' in which they studied that made the difference. The conditioning. Another important point to realize is that the other ju-jutsu schools were following the 'rules and guidelines' presented by Jigaro Kano during these inter-dojo competitions. Therefore, many of the more lethal and devastating techniques were simply not allowed. This throws heavily the weight of favor (a bit of a pun there) to that of conditioning, over that of technique. And while modern MMA competitions and studies present a 'newer' and more 'expansive' full-resistance set of studies, it still emphasizes the 'non-lethal.' And therein lies the conundrum of lethal studies. The lethal, the ugly and socially discouraged, but nonetheless possibly necessary, studies that can give you the edge in surviving a gross encounter. How to determine what is effectively lethal, and what is a hoax. What is real, and what is a pipe dream. Without the ability to apply these things in a 'full-resistance' setting, no guarantee of effectiveness is presented. Yet, there is common sense and experience. It is here where common sense, experience and diligence are needed. Just because there are a multitude of posers and dreamers, does not mean that all studies outside of MMA 'competition-applied' are ineffective. Abandoning such studies merely because there are posers out there presenting things that 'obviously' don't work... is a disservice to the hundreds, possibly thousands, of years of study that has already gone into the martial arts. The conclusion i gather is this: To ensure someone obtains as close to a complete study of the arts, one needs to definitely incorporate 'full-resistance' training, as well as weapons, improvisation, adaptability, environmental awareness, lethals (dirty and competition-illegal), situational, and communications. MMA studies are not enough, nor are they the totality. Nor is it sufficient to study blindly. Those of us who have the knowledge, and the knowhow, to present 'common sense' functional concepts should endeavor to do so with a degree of diligence that yells louder than the posers. Specializing, due to preference, is absolutely acceptable. But let us keep to the fact there is far more to the martial arts than what we may opt to specialize in. As martial artists, it is our duty to ensure the arts aren't watered down, and that every advance is embraced. But, in doing so, we must not abandon all prior advances. There is a tremendous amount of information out there about the arts, and it can be a daunting task to determine what is real and what is not. But, those of us who have the experience and insight to be able to tell the difference should continue to present what is viable in the hopes this 'positive' approach will eventually drown out the falsivity that is prevalent in the field.The martial arts is far more than a spectator sport, and we should not allow it to be relegated to that. The arts are for us, not the fans, and it is only by the actions of 'true' practitioners that they remain viable studies. Thank you for reading

Depends if anyone was open-minded. If the intent was to argue a point merely to entrench oneself in one's beliefs, then no. However, if the intent was to discuss and present things for the goal of sharing 'differing' outlooks... perceptions that one or another feels may be missed, and those who examined these differing outlooks had indeed allowed themselves to absorb... to grow, then yes. In the end, it is dependent upon the reader... not the debater. I like to think i am both.

/tangent Whoa! Umm, no. Bum rushing someone means a head-on approach. That's straight at the barrel. When it comes to your life, taking chances that the wielder of the gun will freeze up... is taking too many chances. Best to edge your bets and ensure you're not in the line of fire as well. Anyway, when it comes to a gun, most times the person wielding isn't standing close enough for melee. As to whether you should 'abide' or 'act,' it truly depends on the circumstances. Something every person here will need to determine instinctually, if the time comes (and let's hope it never does). /tangent off As to the boxing vs karateka, as indicated earlier there is a tendency for training and conditioning to be more intense when it comes to boxing. As well, boxers practice diligently only a few techniques. Therefore their techniques are far more developed, on the average, than that of a karateka (who is presented with a multitude of techniques, including katas, theoretical and even philosophical studies). Boxing is about working within a very restricted set of conditions. This allows for a far more refined implementation of the limited techniques they have available, so if given the chance to utilize those techniques, they can be quite devastating. However, their studies also present problems, in that they do study under tight restrictions. These restrictions leave them wide open to certain assaults, angles, ranges and altitudes. They also practice with padding and rules protection, which causes them to develop some bad habits (like striking the side of skull, point of jaw, and cheekbones with a fist, and like not working to protect the groin or legs). So, all in all, assuming we're dealing with 'purists' (which nowadays just doesn't happen), the karate practitioner can devastate a boxer if he is assertive in exploiting the boxer's weaknesses. On the other hand, if the karate practitioner hesitates, the boxer can close the distance and devastate the karatekan. Assuming neither are purists, thier 'other' studies can fill the gaps of knowledge and make either/or quite formidable. The best of both worlds would be for someone to have studied 'both,' and thus have a far more intuitive feel for where the weaknesses and strengths are. And again... in the end it is determined by the practitioner (how he thinks) and by the manner of conditioning (how he studies).

I don't agree. i think vastly different points were presented than the usual MMA discussions.

you get behind, not because it is only one day a week (or two, or even three days a week), but because you come back to class and start 'all over again.' No reinforcement of what is learned.

I would, but you never logged in again after that post. Let me know if you log in again.

I find that to be a blanket statement of personal preference applied to everyone with a broad brush. Part of learning karate is teaching _for you_, but not necessarily for everyone else. I personally don't feel like I've learned something until I am prepared to explain it comprehensively and concisely seventeen different ways to someone else. Ever try telling someone about a book that you didn't remember the main plot twist? My brother teaches physics, and while he feels very comfortable nowadays with the 'fundamentals,' he also feels he has lost a lot of time in studies to expand his knowledge on the breakthroughs due to the time spend instructing. Also, there are many very talented practitioners that simply cannot teach. Thier skills are ingrained in thier muscle-responses that they have a difficult time communicating the intricacies. To them it's, "just do it." With that in mind, being an instructor may, or may not, make you a better martial artist. It depends more on what your goals are. I find i like to instruct, like to 'share' my knowledge and open up new avenues of thought in others. I like to do this because it helps me to expand my knowledge in return, especially when working with 'non-standard' students. I.e., those that question, test, and present their own observations... however primal. To me, instructing is an avenue for learning... but only one of many. Without trying to step on your point, i would like to state that a student of the arts should 'never' be done learning. For once they are, then they are no longer students. And, one should always strive to be a student. To know is one thing, to tell is another, to be... is but a moment.

yeppers, the nurse is correct.

i don't answer to anyone calling me nicknames. But, then again, i don't answer to anyone.

Aye, but there is an issue here, in that it has presented a societal measuring tool. A means to 'gauge' whether someone is 'qualified' to teach or not. This is where the problem lies, for it also presents an 'accepted' norm by which persons can shop. And this falls well into the lap of the unscrupulous. In a way it adds one more avenue for the 'problem people,' as you put it, to exploit. I agree that it is the persons, and that these issues have been plaguing the arts for ages. As the martial arts becomes more commercialized, and the opportunities for networking services/products becomes more readily available, far more unscrupulous sorts will weed their way through the cracks. But, the belt system is more than merely a crack...

Okinawan karates are so far different from taekwondo as to make no 'appropriate' comparison. Just because both have kicks does not make them 'same or similar,' any more than muay thai is compared to savate.

hehe

Agreed, at least for here in the U.S.

Brazilian ju-jutsu is Japanese ju-jutsu, specifically Kano ju-jutsu (judo), with a greater emphasis on ground techniques. As to Japanese ju-jutsu, there are a multitude of different styles.

I am aware of the one you are mentioning, although not aware it is called the 'olympic double.' The problem with that particular one is that it is dangerous, in that if they do succeed in doing a sprawl 'while' you are gripping their legs, it can present significant pressure on your neck as your head is 'trapped' in their abdomen while they lean back and you get pulled forward.