White Warlock

i noticed there's no mercedes. The Mercedes Benz Hammer is supposedly a remarkable kit car, with godlike performance combined with ultimate luxury & safety.

Let me enter in one more closing comment: MMA competitions are a great thing, don't misunderstand me. Any competition allows you to hone certain skills, but they are not the end-all. They are not the litmus test. There really is no other litmus test than to survive a real-life encounter with a very lethal assailant(s), and this not a litmus test you can redo if you fail. There are no rules in real life, and no second chances. The MMA, and other full-contact competitions, help you to hone 'particular' skills, but not ALL skills, and certainly not all the skills needed in a real life confrontation. Therefore, they should not be the benchmark.

Okay, let me point out a few things (and only a few): If you throw down a person with force, against concrete or jagged rocks, you will likely end the fight and cripple them. However, if you throw down a person with force, against a padded floor... they bounce. If you scrape a person across the ground, and that ground is jagged, debris-filled, or pitted, you'll shred your opponent's back, possibly tearing major muscle groups. However, if you scrape a person across canvas, they'll get a mild rug burn. If your strength is in grappling, you can keep the person on the ground until you are able to 'end' the confrontation with a choke or a limb break. However, if someone 'interrupts' your groundwork, because the audience wants more action, you're thrown out of your element... and back into theirs. If you act like you're not going to fight, then thrust a pencil through thier neck, grab a handful of dirt and shove it into their face and eyes, then rip off their ears, bite their carotid artery and spit it out, stab a branch through thier indefensible underarm, tear off chunks of their hair, push a rock through their teeth, take a chair and bounce it off them a few times, toss a few cue balls off their noggin', grab a baseball bat and rearrange their jawline, maneuver them backwards to trip on items or slip on a puddle, impale them on a fencepost, distract them by exposing your nipples, break off a few fingers, pull their shirt over their head, drop their pants, and remove their reproductive organs... i think you just might have a chance of winning an encounter. However, if you're not allowed to do any of those things in your competitions... and don't practice such concepts strenously outside of these competitions... it is not likely you'll end up trying such in a real fight. A fight where your very existence may be on the line.Closing comment: If you have the ability to avoid a confrontation altogether, and do so, that's absolutely fantastic. However, if both you and your opponent are set to fight, with stated rules... then the resultant survivor will be the one who is better able to 'abide' by those rules, and has thus adapted their fighting style by them. This, however, does not indicate who is the better martial artist (for the better martial artist would have been the one who avoided the confrontation as a whole), but who has better adapted themselves to work within the restrictions placed by a given competition. The problem here is this: If you are conditioned by a particular type of competition, and then you are entered into a 'real confrontation,' where rules don't exist, it is exceedingly likely that you will 'still' abide by the rules you have 'conditioned' yourself to abide by. So, here you are fighting MMA competition style, pseudo-no-holds-barred, and here the assailant is... fighting 'truly' no-holds barred. If you want, i could elaborate.

Yes but thats been said a billion times, its more interesting to bring up new points. Well, when the debates discuss persons of different styles as a means to indicate one system is better than another, it's a good idea to rehash this thought. There are always exceptional persons in various styles, and these persons create a lot of interest in this or that style, whilst these persons bloom. When they are no longer blooming, there remains the afterglow... and the repeated claims that a system works, because this or that person was able to apply it effectively. Yet, in the end, it is the person, moreso than the style (or styles). Thus... my reason for repeating something said a billion times.

I disagree. Partly because it 'can' be a bribe if a 'guarantee' is associated with paying the fee (and yes, there are those out there... plenty, in fact), and partly because one should not even be considered for testing if he/she is not considered by the instructor to be ready for a test. I.e., if you are allowed to 'pay' to test, and yet are not ready, that is an injustice. Only the teacher, and possibly some of the high-ranking students, have the capability to 'gauge' if a particular student is ready to pass a test, and thus ready to take one. Also, if you must pay for 'each' time you test, what's the student's protection against a teacher who fails the students two or three times before allowing them to pass... thus obtaining 4 or 5 times the money per belt upgrade?!? Corruption exists, because there are corrupt people. To deny this is to be a victim. As well, a corrupt person may not view his/her actions as being corrupt and may, in fact, consider it either part of a lesson or part of the way things are done... being that was how it was done to them. The cycle of abuse. It is, indeed, very difficult for a student of 'one' school, having no other schools to compare with, to be able to determine if an instructor is 'worth' anything. Agreed Ahh, but tennis, dance, cheer, and gymnastics don't require you to pay for testings. And while this is partly due to them not having 'ranks,' it is also partly due to the fact many 'present-day' martial arts studios have enacted ranks where there were none before, including adding more 'sub-ranks,' so as to provide more opportunities to 'test' for additional income. Another point is, just because other people 'exploit' is no reason for martial artists to do so as well. And, i've noticed that 'private lessons' are actually the things that cost more, for good reason. So i'm not exactly comfortable with the examples posed. It is comparing private lessons of other endeavors with group lessons of the martial arts.

It has been my opinion that a properly obtained BB is like a properly obtained marriage license. It is not something one obtains to marry two persons, it is something someone obtains to satisfy bureaucratic requirements of two people that are, for all intensive purposes, already married (when such is not the case, divorce is more likely to be the end result). I.e., for all intensive purposes, a person should obtain a BB because he already is one. The little paper helps in presenting a satisfier for bureaucratic issues such as requirements by organizations, lenders, etc. To look further is to treat the symbol as if it were somehow 'deitific' in and of itself. Idolization.

I agree with your wife. And Ninjanurse, i agree with SS. So then, why did she have to pay? Then i guess 99% of dojangs are doing something i don't agree with. Oh, and i only attended 'one' school (out of the 'many' i studied at) that had testing fees ($10 for the belt and certificate), so i don't agree with your percentages.

Aye, the goal is not the coveted black belt. The goal is to obtain knowledge, along with skills.

Aye, tough to respond to that poll. You can only choose one answer, it fails to mention things like boxing and wrestling (other just doesn't really work for that), combines aikido with jujutsu but separates judo, separates wing chun and jkd which are both considered kung fus (for lack of a more commonly understood term), the things noted by SS, etc. I'll abstain.

The story is bogus. The reasons both NY and CA initiated laws on the use of nunchakas was because of the craze during the 70's, yes. But part of the reason for this was there were too many people hurting 'themselves.' In both NY and CA you may transport nunchakas to and from your training facility, and you may use the nunchakas, for training purposes, in your training facility. In California, they made a foolish maneuver of writing 'dojo' to define training facility. Because dojo means more than merely 'training facility,' you can actually store them and practice with them pretty much wherever you 'train.' Logically, however, it must not be a 'public' area, nor Federal or State property. The 'dojo,' or the 'place that you train,' must be private property and the owner or lessor of the property need have provided permission. That's essentially it for California. NY does not have this confusion, and thus is not as readily 'exploitable' via the route of foreign language semantics.

Aye, the martial arts have given me more pain and suffering than any other relationship. Since i don't do the martial arts as a form of income, i am always finding myself questioning my dedication. But, not just why i dedicate so much time and so much of my thoughts to it, but if i'm dedicating enough. One foot in the water, one foot out, and i'm still drowning. Go figure. Something i noted in your writing, Mantis99, is that you indicate a guilt about studying a system other than that presented by your instructor. Why? Why should you feel guilty? Are you receiving the training for free? Is he a relative, a roommate, a house guest? Will discontinuing your studies at that school, or with that instructor, ruin your relationship with him or any of the other students? If so, why? Is it because their friendship is dependent upon you being a student?!? I truly doubt this... You are in the martial arts for yourself, not for your instructor, or for the school. Martial arts is a very selfish endeavor, with the means to be applied selflessly. Do not reorient this, and make it a selfless endeavor with the means to be applied selfishly. Do not allow yourself to feel guilty, and do not allow others to shame you into continuing in a particular school. If your goal is to learn new things, then do so. It is what you want. As to questioning your instructor, by all means you should question 'everything.' This is not to say you should ask him 'why' all the time. It is to say that you should think and determine for yourself, after all is presented, whether there may be more to it than what was presented, and whether this 'more' somehow changes the parameters, and thus presents an invalid or ineffective technique or concept. As simple as i can make it, the greatest students are those who 'question.'

Define 'conditioning'

Make sure the steel belts aren't exposed (that could seriously tear you up) and there isn't anything embedded in them.

I disagree, at least not with the present day MMAs of UFC and Pride, with all their extra rules. In the early 90's, when it started happening here in the U.S., it was a great thing. Now, not so much... and people are focusing more on things that are 'within the rules' and that work best under the restrictions of said competitions. Well, no... it's more than just that. You mean, if you train right "for MMAs." I won't argue your opinions about which systems are better. It's rather pointless to do so.

oi, odd this topic coming up now, since i was going to post about my unwittingly busting my metacarpal two months ago, catching a punch, and now they're going to go in and rebreak it to have it set right. Nasty little spot, so i don't believe i'll even be able to type 'as much' for awhile. A one-handed typist would look something like, "hi, hih, on' mk n." Translated that was, "this, which doesn't make sense." Back to greenbelt_girl15, i recommend exercising everything else instead. When it comes time to rebuild, do it with the assistance of a physical therapist, not on your own... or you'll do some nasty damage to your atrophied tendons.

Aye, agreed. I forget this on occasion, since i don't work with younguns much anymore. The younger they are, the more 'in a hurry' they are, and thus the more they are likely to 'leave behind' as 'too time consuming to get the hang of.'

Systems do not define a person. A person defines himself.

If that is all that you gleaned from all that i wrote, then i have failed.

Not necessarily true. Flouride has been on the market for 60+ years now, mixed in with toothpaste, water, and other products, and yet substantive reports have clearly indicated it does 'nothing' to whiten your teeth or protect your teeth from decay. In fact, the EXACT OPPOSITE is the case. In mildly large doses (about 4 times what you would normally be subjected to by brushing your teeth 3 times a day), i can cause your teeth to yellow, and weaken them structurally... to the point they can decay far more rapidly and even become brittle. Fact is, flouride is rat poison... tested by the U.S. military on an unsuspecting Ohio community back during WWII. It was determined, by that test, that the residents teeth became white due to the flouride mixed in with their water. However, what they failed to realize was that at the same time, there was a change in the filtering process of the water, which effectively removed some chemicals found in the Great Lakes... that was causing the teeth to yellow (i believe, but don't quote me on this, one of those chemicals was lead). The test was improperly done and thus obtained false results, yet the toothpaste industry jumped on that report immediately... and it became the wonder drug of the times. So... why is it that it's still out there? The more prominent belief is because both the government (that presented the first 'positive' flouride report, and thus would be held ultimately responsible) and toothpaste companies would be sued repeatedly were such information made public. Another tobacco industry scenario (and, on that note, don't forget how long the general populace was left ignorant about the harmful effects of tobacco, eh?)

It is a false assumption that one can enter tournaments outside of a school and somehow step out of the school's test tube learning environment. The tournaments themselves are test tubes. Each tournament has different rules that restrict action or option. Many tournaments are 'style-specific,' so you only compete against others of same style, and thus don't learn of the inherent flaws with your particular style, or end up reinforcing certain actions that although work effectively against a person of the same style, would pose a serious disadvantage against those of some other styles... or no style. Mixed martial art competitions, with less rules than other scenes, provide the opportunity to determine the effectiveness of your skills, to a certain degree. While still plagued with many rules that hinder one or more style types, they do provide more opportunity for you to determine if the system you are learning is providing sufficient depth in training to handle differing types of assaults. Even real fights do not present viable information, because in those cases, the variables are too 'varied' and the results are dependent upon all those indeterminate variables that can run havok on your ability to 'reliably' gauge your skills. In the end, it is the practitioner that must take responsibility for his/her training... not the school, and not the instructor. Granted, you pay for these people to provide for you what you want, but if they aren't, it is your call to 'recognize' this, and move on. I don't care much for money, but i would be a fool to dismiss it outright and say, "i dedicate my life so that others can learn." In another thread, there were some exceedingly valid arguments for the process of charging reasonable rates to your students. As noted, there are people who practice silly things, like cheerleading, and then have the audacity to charge thousands of dollars a session. The thing to remember is, people are willing to pay. Many skilled martial arts instructors have been studying/teaching for decades. For them to receive very little income for their teaching of others is ludicrous. If what the instructor teaches is worth learning, then the students should be willing to pay, and not all instruction is the same... thus not all prices should be set. However, as always, caveat emptor. I wholeheartedly disagree. Children are not adults, and thus they are not going to 'absorb' adult mentalities about the martial arts so readily. They came to play, to socialize, to have fun, not to undergo boot camp at the age of 14, 12, 10, or even 8. And, although 'just playing around' isn't advocated, one can still make the learning experience a fun one.. by including 'games' into the learning process. Indeed, when i was in college wrestling, we used to play wrestle-football and other interesting fun stuff that kept our interests going whilst providing a new learning experience. Belts are a relatively new development that has hindered, more than helped, the learning experience... in that it has presented an artificial measuring stick on what persons know how much in whatever style they are studying. This artificiality is a crutch, in that people assume one without a belt is a novice, and one with a black belt is an expert. These falsivities exist because belts ranks are determined at a local level, with no governance and no checks/balances. What philosophy? That by wearing a belt you are somehow elevated? That a belt somehow denotes an achievement, rather than a marker of your understanding and growth in that particular artform? I fail to see any 'philosophy' associated with belts, other than possibly one contrived by a certain school or instructor, for commercial purposes. No, martial arts were created for war. Some people who have created particular styles, incorporated in those styles their belief systems. That's their choice, and as well it is your choice to ignore such beliefs and focus instead on the study of the techniques and the ingrained 'approach' associated with said style(s). It is both a good and a bad, but it did not start in the U.S.. Sports competitions has broken from some of the older approaches, where persons would practice without applying in full-contact.. and thus not have gained the opportunity to develop certain skills that can only truly be developed by direct application. On the other hand, the rules inherent in any sport competitions, that are 'usually' there to protect the practitioners from permanent injury, have the side-effect of communicating to those competitors that the many 'lethal' techniques taught are somehow irrelevant and ineffective. I.e., merely because they have been outlawed in a competition, somehow they are no longer effective?!?! Common sense would say otherwise, but knee-jerk reaction is to assume that whatever you apply in full-contact competition is the end-all of the arts. This... is the bad. What i did want to say was that this comment you entered directly contradicts what you stated about #4, in the very same post. Depends on the goals of the student. Loyalty to the founder of a system is not a prerequisite for the dedication to learn, absorb, and possibly even reinvent. Indeed, 'every' existing karate system was 'created' by a practitioner of 'other' systems. Evolution of the martial arts demands that we continue to think 'beyond' what is presented before us.

People taking advantage of other people. Is and always will be a reality, thus the call for, "caveat emptor."

Hehe, they taste like chicken too. And you're welcome, was fun to write it.

daedelus, you're going to find the same problem many others bump into. Competitions are geared towards one or another fighting style, and so the rules provide inherent advantages to particular styles of fighting. For example, the tae kwon do competitions encourage actions that tkd practitioners would emphasize, and discourages or outright restricts actions that are not in their repertoire. This, you'll find, is across-the-board. I entered a variety of different competitions in the 80's and was thoroughly frustrated, even got disqualified twice because i couldn't stay within the tight baggage of rules. I've been watching competitions since, and while some have become more free-form, rules still exist that provide inherent advantages. In the greater competitions, like K-1, UFC, Pride, etc, the rules exist to encourage particular types of fighting that would be more 'entertaining' to the audience, and not necessarily more effective in a 'real life' scene. So, in my straight-out opinion, the best one can do about the naysayers, is to ignore them. In order to prove wing chun's effectiveness, you'll have to jump through thier narrowly defined hoops... and wing chun, like san soo and others, is simply too big. It will get stuck in the rim.

conditioning

Well, i've been attacked aplenty, mostly by dogs & cats, but also by various other varmints including a bull, baboon, goat, snake, rooster, duck, rabbit (vorpal), turtle, etc. I guess the best answer is, every animal and their triggers are different. Wild animals fall more on instinct than domesticated animals, and so they would behave as their calling (predator/prey survival instincts). Herbivores fear you will eat them or their offspring. Carnivores want to eat you or your offspring. Small creatures will generally run away, while large creatures will generally run after. Creatures that act alone are more likely to attack you unawares, while creatures that act in groups will be more bold and you'll likely have plenty of time to kiss your butt goodbye. You are right in that we spend an inordinate amount of time studying how to defend against a man or woman, but almost no time studying how to defend against an animal. Part of this is because there are so many different types of animals that the best we can do is know which ones to avoid outright, and which ones taste like chicken (dogs, for example). There are, however, some things you can learn. One of the most important is 'respect.' As one should always respect another human being, so should one respect every animal. Failure to do so means you will take for granted their lethality. And, make no errors on this: animals ARE lethal. Even a cat, a cute little hairy furball, can rip you to shreds before you can get a decent enough grip on her to 'tear' her off you and throw her against the wall. And, if she's ornery, she'll come right back on you and keep at it until death ends the physical debate, because even a smack on a wall is not likely to take out a cat. Oh, and man... they can run upside down on ceilings and sideways on walls when their going nuts. I've seen it and heard the wildest tales from my sister who used to work as a vet nurse. Don't even dare underestimate those little hairy furballs. Which touches on the next thought. Humans have a tendency to hold back when it comes to defending against animals on the attack. Don't ask me why, but i've watched enough incidents in which men hold back. We don't go for the eyes, the throat, breaking of limbs, nor even biting. Here these creatures will use everything at their disposal, and we tend to leave it at pushing, pulling, punching and kicking, thinking somehow we can avoid this confrontation while this creature is attempting to disembowel us. In contrast, animals are usually aiming to kill, are better equipped than we are to perform such an act, and also tend to be rather talented at keeping us off-balance, increasing their likelihood of succeeding in such an act. For example dogs, the domesticated ones, instinctively know to ram you upon attack, and then to pull at you until you fall. How about some insights? Dogs A good thing to know about dogs is that they are inherently pack animals, which means they work best in groups. The reason this is important is that dogs are predisposed to attacking limbs, unless you fall to the ground. While standing, they will attack a limb, or your head, and try to pull you to the ground... then will go for the throat or the back of the neck. This is because they are encoded with the thought that they will receive help bringing you to the ground, and that if each creature in the pack attacks a separate limb, you will be unable to strike back... thus the entire pack is safe while taking down the kill. The two main weapons of a dog are his fierce jaw and his ramming ability, which is usually what catches people off guard. They think, "well, all i need to do is put my arm in front and he'll attack the arm, and then i can knee him in the chest." Unfortunately, because the majority of dog attack victims that know well enough to do this, still make the error of not taking into consideration the amount of force a 30 lb (13kg) to 200 lb (90kg) dog accelerated to 40 mph (65kph) can do to your ability to remain standing, not to mention their horrid tendency to start swinging their bodies aggressively back and forth once they have a firm grip on a body part (let us hope it's not your face... happened to me). Dogs have weaknesses. One is, they like snacks. You seriously can dispel a threat by providing a snack, but i wouldn't recommend betting on such a tactic and definitely don't recommend that tactic if the dog is not quite decided on whether to attack. Your reaching for a snack may be the only trigger he needs to get into action. Also, tossing a snack to a dog could very well cause him to think you're throwing something 'at' him. So, if you really don't have very many choices left, and you have a snack handy, then a friendly voice, without eye contact (looking to the dog's feet is the more respectful approach... similar to doing a mild bow, knees bent in case of body collision), and a snack laying loosely on your upward facing palm (really friggin' critical, as a downward facing palm is often associated with a smack on the nose... negative association), may just mend relationships. And DO NOT try to pet the dog, even after he takes the snack. If he feels your offering is sufficient, let him be the one to lick your hand, and hopefully he's not doing so to see if humans really do taste like chicken. Be 'absolutely positive' the relationship is mended before crossing such a boundary. As to places to strike, dogs are all different in shape/size, but their bone structures are basically the same and their organs are in the same place, so their weaknesses will be easy enough to exploit... especially since they are not designed to go solo against a creature that has four limbs, nor especially one that is trained in weird war rituals (katas). I recommend, if needs comes to that, to strike the snout, nose, ears, rear legs near the buttocks, inner thigh of rear legs, and underarms, breaking or tearing off of the legs, reproductive organs (if any), and ears (tail is too difficult and too dangerous to implement, so don't bother). Attacks to the neck are usually going to come up empty, but it can be a good area to 'hold' while attempting to determine what to do with this volatile creature. Still, be full aware that dogs can wriggle out of neck holds or grabs. Movies would have you believe that a dog would stand in such a grip and growl and bare teeth, but we all know how educational movies are. We can use the weapons we've developed through our ma studies, and even some of the various grappling/break techniques, but they need to be adapted to the type of threat... and we must recognize that animals are 'born' with lethal weapons, so a great emphasis must be presented to deal with such embedded weapons whilst not putting so much attention to said weapons that we fail to deal with the creature utilizing them. More importantly, however, is... as always, knowing how to 'avoid' confrontations. Even animals can be avoided. Wild animals are just that, wild, and domesticated ones are not too far off, so knowing to steer clear and to give respect to nature's creatures will help to ensure your continued survival. Anyone have recommends for the handling of other animals? A cat, badgers, roos, bears, or more on dogs?