White Warlock

Aye, it is a good read. The book, that is, not the unsubstantiated metaphorical stories included at the end.

hehe

if u get into an attack with more than just one, don't let them get behind you in the first place. High kicks, as a whole, are a bad scene in a real life confrontation. Granted, you might be able to get a chance to use one, but more often than not, you could have done something else instead that was more reliable, less likely to put you in a disadvantageous position. I like to think of high kicks as sacrifice throws, with a higher probability of failure.

Hard/Soft ... Soft/Hard I was recently diagnosed with a broken metacarpal (verification pending, stupid insurance). It was caused by me 'catching' an incoming fist. So, if we wanted to, we could say that a fist is mightier than a palm, in a head-to-head confrontation. Or, we could say, "man, that was a dumb thing to do." Because of the padding gloves provide, punches to hard surfaces (such as the skull) can be performed at higher velocities with less concern over damage to self. Thus, more potential for concussive damage. I.e., one is 'more' likely to cause a k.o. with gloves on than without.

Aye, and chi doesn't exist. ... or does it? Legend and fancy have created some rather grand illusions on things. From immense reptile-like intelligent creatures that flew and breathed out flames, to internal energies that one can harness to create balls of flame... the truth and the legend are lost in the miasma of fantastical impressions and the retelling of stories by word of mouth. The dull story, or textbook, rarely finds itself traveling beyond a few conversations, but a creative story gains momentum and carries with it all the exuberance of every listener. The magic of communication... the blur of time.

It is another story. True or false, real or imagined, is not determined and therefore not something that should be taken at face value. If you one day come upon the names of these individuals, if they exist, i would like to hear more.

Yes, a krag maga student would take it to another technique, if the opportunity presented itself. But, a counter to a counter is not another technique, per se. It is a counter-technique. In judo, for example, you learn a throw, then you learn how to counter that throw, then you learn how to counter the countering of that throw by applying certain actions that counter their actions and thus allows you to commit the throw despite their actions, or allows you to use their counter to initiate a different throw. These, in turn, present opportunities for new counters, with counters upon counters from there. This is also the way that bjj ended up being developed. Because it used judo as the base, it was formulated with the thought that every action has a counter, and every counter has a counter, etc. Krav maga is not taught in such a manner. Or, if it is being taught that way, it is due to the 'changes' presented by a particular instructor. The system itself does not approach the arts in such a fashion. Does that make more sense?

Well, before we go to those points, let me clarify i'm given the impression you do not practice the concepts presented above. These things aren't 'by default,' they are by design. Also, you are using a 'single' incident as base for your presentation of thoughts, when i'm sure you know that each incident is different. It is likely the throw was not performed with the 'intent' to cause injury. Judoists specialize in throwing, and in my opinion are the best at presenting devastating throws, but even they 'assist' their ukes in a fall so as to decrease injuries. These 'tournament/training' habits can undermine the effectiveness of techniques. The acceleration in the throw, the angle of the drop, the point in the body of first contact, the hold or grip maintained while posing a throw... all these things can effect a serious injury when impacting a hard surface if that is not merely the intent, but within the execution of the technique. Your single incident does not dismiss my point, which is that if you 'practice' with the intent to cause serious bodily harm when dragging one against such surfaces, you will likely succeed in doing so... unless they're wearing a leather jacket, or other protective clothing. Also, it is not merely the dragging, but knowing how to 'center' your wieght and pressure on a specific point (or points), which are vulnerable to such. In the example i posed at the last post, i presented pressure against a person's head, causing it to scrape against a 'mat' so hard as to cause the 'experienced wing chun/jujutsu black sash/belt' practitioner to frantically tap the mat and me. Consider this, and then consider the outcome had i 'not' stopped and had the surface been a jagged/hard surface... My point being. The act alone is insufficient. There needs also to be intent and training, just like 'any' other martial art action. These actions are not 'symbiotically' attached to all martial artists, as not all martial artists are trained in grappling, throwing, takedowns, strikes, kicks, or energy redirection. Which strengthens my argument, but only partly. It is a single incident, again, and the opponent may not have known any means to counter. Blindfolded, with one hand tied behind the back, an aggressor can perform devastating techniques on a child. Not merely because the child is physically incapable of countering, but also because he doesn't know how to counter. Both these factors apply to the child, yet only one is needed to bring about the same end results. And while this example may be a little disturbing, it nonetheless presents a vivid picture. And THIS is EXACTLY my point e&k. Or, at least one of my points. Most people do not think this way, and especially not ones who place competition skills on a pedestal. Some intentions in my posts may be getting distorted, so let me iterate where i'm coming from. Competition skills are segregated techniques, presented in a rules-based environment so as to decrease injuries. By doing so, people are able to hone those 'particular' skills to a very high degree, and this is very important to recognize as one of the great benefits of competitions. Not merely MMAs, but all types, for all types segregate techniques, by the mere presentation of rules. Boxing, with modified Queensbury, has developed into one of the simplest yet most precise systems of striking available. Freestyle wrestling, with its rules, allows practitioners to hone their takedown and ground-control skills. Etc, etc, etc. The MMA competitions are developing a new 'set' of segregated techniques, applicable to the set of rules presented in those types of competitions. This said, there is still 'plenty' that is not presented in any competition, because the techniques, the actions, the tactics, are simply too damaging. As i stated in an earlier post, when the intent of a technique is to cause permanent bodily injury or death, we have a 'training' problem. This problem is in the conundrum of building your skills and your mindset so as to be able to apply lethal or near-lethal force when necessary, yet without direct application or the 'live' factor. Because of this, and mainly because of this, many sport practitioners of today are 'dismissing' these techniques as 'irrelevant.' The trend of now is to praise mma competitions and competitors. This is where the limelight is, and thus this is where the fanfare will be. These are the persons catching the headlines and the praise, because these are the persons 'putting their stuff' on the mat. However, this same 'overemphasis' and exuberance to these competitions is causing a backlash against all things not 'applicable' to the ring. And this... is my main point. Although we can praise the competitions out there for presenting insight into various phases of combat and specific areas of study, we must not dismiss the need to keep things in perspective. What is practiced and applied in competitions is not the totality of the arts, nor may they be the most crucial when it comes to a life or death scenario. One can hone their skills, see beyond what is there, work with the adrenalin to 'reverse' tunnel vision, and think outside the box... outside the tunnel. The hardest part of all this, unfortunately, is being able to differentiate between fact and fiction. Since these things cannot be readily applied without loss of students and time in jail, there lies within the practice the 'potential' for falsivity, sham, or simple delusion. So, when such things as, "using a particular voice to cause their bodies to enter a state of shock" are tossed in a training regimen, common sense says, "yeah right." And it's a good thing too, because you need to have a discerning eye, a non-gullible mind, in order to ensure what you are learning isn't smoke and mirrors. For example, many 'so-called' pressure points only work if a person is relaxed, if his muscles are not tense and certain vulnerable nerve centers are exposed because of this lack of contraction... lack of defensive contraction. Indeed, most of these 'so-called' pressure points disappear in a 'real' scenario, because many of the concepts are based on non-resisting opponents. But, some things 'are' going to be effective. All the things i noted in the previous post very likely will work, and thus be able to significantly influence the determinants... of who will go to the hospital. The 5-time MMA champion, who dedicated his entire training regimen to sport mma, can fall victim to one or all of the above noted 'mma illegal' actions because he doesn't train to defend against, and doesn't train to apply, actions that would get him disqualified and likely barred from competition. First off, there is almost no place that is devoid of weapons, and of objects that 'even immoble' can influence the outcome of a conflict. Even the Sun presents itself as a useful tool. Ignoring this, i'm sure you saw that less than half of the things i noted in the previous post even 'required' loose foreign objects. People still wear shirts, still have hair, still have reproductive organs. To see weapons as objects to be utilized is not seeing all the weapons available. The body, the limbs, the targets, the utilities presented on your own opponent, and the list goes on. In closing, what one exposes one to, what one does and views, is what one ends up learning. If these concepts are not practiced in the dojo, dojang, kwoon, or other-titled training facility, then they will not be 'available inside you' to save your life, or the life of a loved on, should a real life incident occur.

Used to have a subscription as well, awhile back. I found myself disagreeing with so many of the articles that i eventually stopped giving it much attention. Still, on occasion i catch an article that intrigues me, and purchase a copy. Other than that, i agree with the previous posters. It is commercialized, a tool for advertisers.

It is argued that it usually takes about 3 times longer to master the basics of aikido than it takes to master the basics of hard systems. I don't agree with this argument and believe it is dependent on the practitioner, both mindset and dedication. A person who is 'fixated' on strength and power generation would have a much harder time making the transition to aikido, or to any 'soft' art. Women tend to be faster learners of 'soft' arts, while men tend to be faster learners of 'hard' arts. As to krav maga, it is a 'taste' of various techniques utilized in different systems. It is, as a whole, a shallow system with no history and no 'fluidity,' merely a lot of effective techniques presented as package of tools. Because of this, it is also 'attack-based' and not altogether effective for situations where your opponent presents 'knowledge' of the arts, and thus is able to counter said techniques. From what i've experienced and witnessed, it does not practice 'resistance,' meaning that if a person effectively counters, it does not practice transitioning to other techniques that are the counters to the counters, etc. It was devised as a means to train the Isreali military units, providing a set of efficient tools that can be learned quickly. If you wish to 'open-up' your mind to other concepts, it is a good start. For many, it presents a hard-reality presentation that usually jars them out of their high-school fight mentality and into the reality of death and fragility of life.

This misnomer was already corrected in an earlier post on this thread. http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=21532&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=14

Do you know the time frame for this story, the newspaper in which this challenge was printed in, or the name of this chi kung master?

hehe, another victim of the april fools joke.

That's the thing about discussions... they are rarely linear. Anyway, it traveled this route because some comments were presented that prompted tangential discussion. The original discussion had already run its course, as far i could tell. And, the goal of these discussions should not merely be to post one's views, but to learn and grow. By discussing various topics, rather than maintaining a linear approach to such, we all gain an opportunity to delve into other facets of the arts... other areas that 'deserve' exploration and examination, a deeper examination into our assumptions and perceptions. We are not automatons, and yet we are capable of gaining very fixed perceptions. Only by sharing our perceptions with others can we, or they, find the possibility for change. For none of us is right, on everything.

Hi Aodhan, actually meniscus refers to any cartilage, in the form of a disk, that serves as a cushion at ends bones of any joint. It is merely that the most common injury to meniscus happens to be at the knee, so people associate it in such a fashion. Still, the sound is more likely made by ligaments moving over bone, which means the ligaments are likely too tight and need to be massaged and stretched more before being subjected to the torture associated with snap kicks. Visiting a specialist will help you determine if that is the route to take, or whether strengthening exercises are in order, or whether you have to go under the knife to obtain relief. I found this article, which is very informative on the issue: http://www.caringmedical.com/conditions/Snapping_Hip_Syndrome.htm And this one, which is also interesting: http://www.thebodyseries.com/newsletters/2004/01/01_09_2004.html

No argument there, but i wasn't referring to honest people. In your school, but what about the thousands or so other schools that are doing so? That's good, and as it should be. Well, except for all this paying in the first place, but that particular point is more my peeve than anything morally inappropriate. I suppose you would say that, because of the 'capacity' and the 'tendency' for unscrupulous sorts to utilize belt testing fees in exploitive fashion, i would prefer it be removed entirely from the picture. I also see it as redundant, in that they are paying for lessons, and then must also pay to be tested so they could obtain ranks in the system they are already paying to learn. I'm sorry, but they don't even do that at the college level. There are plenty of people who trust unscrupulous instructors. It's not a matter of the individuals, it's a matter of the whole. there is a problem out there, and it is this problem that i have a problem with. Although i am a firm believer in 'caveat emptor,' that does not remove the cape tied about my shoulders. I still have this incredible urge to 'save the day' for those being victimized. If they charge too much, then yes, it is exploitation. In the case of cheerleaders and dance classes, it's very much like those unscrupulous acting agencies.. that take your money and don't ever open any doors for you. People take cheerleading and dance classes in the hopes they will get the 'big break' to stardom. But, if the training is substandard, and the price is high, then it is merely exploitation of people's fantasies. If that were only true. Unfortunately, people do pay for it, only to find out later that it is not worthwhile... or to find out later they could have obtained exactly the same thing, or something far better, for significantly less. Worse, however, is when they never find out they're being scammed. I think martial arts training is invaluable... assuming the training is actually well presented. However, the discussion was about belt fees. testing fees, or anything remotely resembling belts, do not exist in golf, dance, cheer, or gymnastics. Indeed, they don't exist in most every type of sport or self-improvement program. And, if you attempt to compare it to obtaining a university degree, realize that students don't need to pay for testing, nor do they have to pay for graduation, although they do have to pay to rent the silly graduation outfit (but attending the graduation ceremony is not a requirement, so that point is moot as well).

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Names? Stories of such incidents mean nothing if they cannot be verified. There are plenty of urban legends. I only believe in the legends that turn out not to be legends, but fact (such as Pompeii).

After 10 pages, a discussion is bound to tangentialize. Also, comparing one system to another is not necessarily a valid approach, especially when utilizing persons... or conditioning... as a means to gauge systems. The problem is, you are relying on 20 'individuals.' You are also not defining 'what boxing gym or what dojo. The manner in which a teacher instructs a class, or a student studies an art, is not entirely dependent upon the system. Granted, there are tendencies, but no steadfast rules. You did cover the point i made earlier... conditioning. It is the manner in which you train, and the energy at which you present in your studies, that determines your overall effectiveness with a system. Ahh, but they do reveal something about individuals... and what can be accomplished.... .... .... with any style. I agree on all points here.

Disagree- the pavement would give mild scrapes, cuts, and abrasions. I seriously doubt the ability to tear major muscle groups. As i stated, if the ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you can do so. I did fail to mention that you must also have the intent to do so and be trained in being 'able' to do so. It is a merciless act, which most fail to recognize as an option whilst in a confrontation... because of the tunnel vision you noted and their lack of training in maintaining, as you call it, situational awareness. As have i, and i hurt the person pretty bad by centering my mass and driving my chest into their head, then scraping their head against the ground. A similar tactic i've used to make a point with a jujutsu BBer while on the mat. But, on the mat, it was only sufficient in causing him to tap repeatedly and in a frantic manner. I agree that it is common, especially in those not trained in handling the effects of tunnel vision. Borrowing your definition for it, situational awareness is the antithesis to tunnel vision. It is what counters it, and it is something that must be studied, honed, encouraged. Practicing in an environment that subjects you to tunnel vision, such as MMAs, helps you to develop your ability to 'function' whilst under the assault of adrenalin. However, because of the type of conditions, it does not develop your... what did you call it?... situational awareness. By being subjected to such circumstances and NOT working on situational awareness, you actually 'increase' the gap in being able to go there. Thats not entirely true, and we can take a few examples from it as well. Wes Simms got DQed for stomping a downed opponent when he mauled Frank Mir's head against the cage. This technique is clearly illegal in UFC competitions. The same happened with Igor Vovchanchin when he fought Mark Kerr and delivered knees from a front headlock position. During this fight, the 4 points rule was in effect (no knees or kicks to a downed opponent). I'm glad you presented those examples. By acting 'outside' the rules, applying tactics that would be acceptable in a street-survival incident, they were rewarded with negative reinforcement. Tell me, have they been disqualified since? I disagree. I've been sharing the classification for it all as, "situational awareness," so as to maintain a common ground for points, but it is not sufficient a descriptor. It is more than merely situational awareness, it is also the ability to improvise, your ability to quickly develop a strategy (as opposed to merely applying situational tactics), as well as an innate understanding of your 'other' weapons, your other choices. To develop this, it takes a 'very very' long time. Far longer than merely learning the skills necessary to win in a competition. And the reason for this is two-fold: One is, because these studies are the juxtapose of tunnel vision and all the other negative aspects associated with an adrenalin rush. Two is, practice is hindered by the inability to do so under real conditions (lest one wishes to spend a significant portion of one's life behind bars). Despite these study hardships, they are an essential aspect of training that can be developed, and should be.

Agree with e&k. It has the 'potential,' but it is not practiced with that in mind. Stances, as a whole, are transitional endpoints. When in action, we switch between stances. If we develop our awareness of each particular 'ideal' position for said stances, our transitions will be cleaner, and our endpoints will be more precise. But still, these static studies do not present the kinesthetics associated with generating power. This comes with training in action, in motion, in application of techniques. The habit of the untrained, when changing elevations on an attack or defense, is to bend at the waist while keeping their legs locked. Stances help to train a practitioner in keeping their knees bent and their back relatively straight. Of course, there's more... but i believe that is the most important lesson.

Well, keeping to a side stance to minimize target areas is actually only applicable if strikes are all linear. Yet, the more devastating strikes are circular, and thus by having a side stance you make yourself vulnerable to the more devastating strikes. From a grappler's perspective, having a side stance exposes you to a single leg takedown and the very real possibility that someone would manuever behind you. All in all, side stances are okay for 'spar-type' scenarios, but are not a good idea for full-on confrontations. If your opponent maintains a side stance as well, you may have the advantage because of your training, as opposed to theirs. However, if the other does not maintain a side stance, you may be the one at a disadvantage, despite your training. Regardless, side stances are not related to 'centerline' theory. I'll see what i can do to present info about that later on today. Limited in time at the moment.

On the other hand, it could be miniscus damage.

Easily two to three times more expensive than a Hummer. And although worth the price in comparison to other vehicles, not worth the price in comparison to human lives.

thanks