White Warlock

You all?

And you got member of the month? btw, cute belt there.

Jerry, you didn't understand the intent of my post.

Conflict resolution is not cut and dry and there is no one pill. It requires that you be sharp, confident, and in control of 'yourself' (not necessarily the other person). If someone is being aggressive, standing firm is 'generally' the better policy. Not stepping forward, nor stepping back... but staying where you are and communicating firmly the 'potential consequences' of a confrontation, including communicating the action as being a felony, the time generally served, the very real possibility that some or all participants could end up permanently disabled or even possibly dead. That jobs could be lost, faces disfigured, reproductive organs made inoperable, etc. Posing reality to an aggressive person can 'often' snap them out of it. Not merely because of what you say, but because you give them enough time to stop and think. You give them enough time so that their adrenalin starts backing up on them, and they eventually start getting the shivers, which undermine their confidence and sap them of their will to fight. You can effect this in as little as 30 seconds, or as much as 5 minutes... but delaying a confrontation from getting physical, works to your advantage. There are quite a few more factors associated with conflict resolution, but i'm heading to bed. Gnight.

lol oop, laughing at my own jokes.

lol, it's an inside joke. On an rpg forum i frequent, they often joke about the idea of pirate-ninjas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/weekinreview/25wade.html?ex=1076302800&en=a8fedc88855b2783&ei=5004&partner=UNTD I read this awhile back, but figured some here would find it interesting. It requires you log-in to the NY Times website (if you don't already have an account, registration is free and without email spam).

A good point there xma1 (any relation to delta1? hehe) The 'being used' principle. A lot of people who are asked to instruct feel as if they are being used, but they fail to grasp the fact that teaching ingrains the basics and helps you realize those things you take for granted when you perform. It also helps ground you, in that it lets you know just how good you really are, in comparison to when you were a n00b like the student you are presently instructing. Last, it provides opportunities for you to delve into things you had not previously considered, as for those times they ask you a question... and you don't have the answer to it. Suddenly, you're forced to think about something you had previously taken for granted. Lots to gain from instruction, besides the obvious.

Just felt it appropriate at this point to log in with my other account and validate my earlier assertion. Drunkensevenwarlock1 lives! okay, done.

i posted there again, to clarify some of what i was trying to relate.

I agree that working for zero state is a good endgoal, but invariably you will be hit with emotions, especially if caught off guard. Learning to 'use' these emotions, rather than allow them to 'use' you is an essential mental training concept. Returning to the initial post, i have witnessed countless situations where people simply freeze and watch. They don't participate unless directed to, and they don't react, except in a defensive manner, with comments like, "i don't believe this" or "this can't be happening to me." These reactions are 'civilian' crutches. Concepts ingrained in them about what is 'civilized' and what is 'barbaric.' Problem is, violence falls in the category of 'barbaric,' despite the fact it is a daily occurance. In order to maintain their personal perceptions of what is civilized, they do not react, with denial being the primary tool to such an endeavor. To break this concept, they need to accept barbarism as a 'part' of all of us. San soo pushes a concept known as predator/prey, whereby attackers perceive you as prey. In a confrontation, this is usually where it stands. You are the prey, and they are the predator. In order to deal with such a situation, you need to perform a mindset change, and perform it quickly. You need to start looking at them as the prey, which makes you the predator. Time for lunch.

He has a 3rd degree black belt in Wado-Ryu. Seems he didn't like some of what was being taught in his system and decided to create something 'slightly' different. From all the photos, it looks like he still missed the mark, as it seems what he's teaching, this mugendo, is yet one more form of 'fancy pants' martial arts. I also ran through the pics of some of their 60 black belts. Lots of kiddies in the ranks, as well as a few out of shape bbers. Some pretties as well, i might add. What really kills me about it though, is his rates. They're outrageous. Pass...

Do they have a website?

And yes TDA, that was the other point to my post. If we focus heavily on building acceleration in our techniques (not speed, not power), while at the same time aiming for reasonably small targets, we will increase all three factors discussed in other threads. We will build 'speed,' 'power,' and 'accuracy' (at least as they refer to the layman definitions).

first off, /me smacks TBA Okay, continuing... Agreed, velocity would be more appropriate to use, but the thing is... many of the ongoing discussions here in this forum have had to do with speed, and not velocity. Let me put it in the reader's digest version what it is i'm trying to relate: Basically, the concept of power is being incorrectly used. The concept of speed, as discussed in these forums, should actually be referred to as velocity. Accuracy is always a percentage, but to determine accuracy, you need to rely on variables. Whether the object used is large or small, distance is long or short, target is large or small, angle, linear vs circular, etc. Well, that wasn't my line of discussion. I was basically saying that if we're going to discuss theorems, we should at least use the definitions correctly. Part of the problem with a lot of these discussions is that we're all going on different 'layman viewpoints' as to what these various concepts refer to. Because we're all not talking from the same foundation, we are unable to discuss these issues with any degree of common ground. And, because of this, we're really not getting nearly as much out of the discussions. Everyone has a different way of approaching things, but communication requires commonality of reference points. In order to be able to share thoughts and ideas, we need to really be talking about the same friggin' thing, lest we spend countless hours (or days) just trying to understand where the 'other' person is coming from. I've witnessed countless discussions here, and in other forums, where two people were in agreement to the principle, but had no idea that was the case, because they were discussing things from different 'assumptions' as to what each of the words they were using... actually meant. A real short? Okay... I could be talking about how a fruit requires peeling and you could argue otherwise. If you thought i was talking about an apple, when in fact i was talking about an orange, how the hell would we be able to make sense of any interchange of ideas and information?!? Until such time as we start out talking about the same 'foundation' to our arguments, it's all moot. As for Treebranch, quit trying to tangentialize, you friggin' pirate-ninja!

The site is incomplete and doesn't provide enough information to validate or invalidate its claims. Otherwise, it's a pretty website.

Then don't. When i instruct, i'm equal to the persons i instruct. The difference is, i have knowledge and information they want, and i'm willing to share it with them.

There are two theories of practice. One is to practice while full-tense, while the other is to practice full-relaxed. I prefer the latter, but both help to expose you to how you 'are' in a fight, as opposed to how you 'should be.' If you practice full-tense, you will become more familiar with that feeling of your body not quite cooperating, and your muscles fighting themselves. Full-tense practice is helpful in bringing you to a more 'comfortable' state with your body, in case you find your body behaving this way. Just don't pop a blood vessel doing this. If you practice full-relaxed, you will bring to your mind the 'state' at which you 'want' to be whenever you enter a confrontation. Practicing this state is beneficial, in that you are training your mind to either 'be' this state, or attempt to 'attain' this state whenever you enter into a confrontation. So, in short, practice both. In a confrontation you will actually need both. You will need to be able to repeatedly and rapidly switch between being relaxed and being tense.

Excellent points Lucky. Continued a tangential, but nonetheless relevant, discussion here - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=171902#171902

A recent post by TDA helped bring me back to my senses on much of these discussions (thanks TDA): P.A.S. - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13623 A Principle of Training: Power in Hitting - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=11247 Power is Nothing without Speed - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=171901#171901 Skill vs Strength - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13678&highlight= Force and power are not the same and it is this that had been nagging me. In these discussions, of accuracy, speed, and power, we are mixing 'physics theorems' with 'layman' definitions and oftentimes coming out with some rather ambiguous arguments. In physics, the definition of power is clearly defined. Power is the rate at which work is done: power = work / timeWith work being a force acting upon an object to cause a displacement: work = force * displacement * cos (theta)Which can also expressed as: work energy = mass * acceleration * lengthI prefer the latter. The work energy theorem, referred to herein as work, requires an understanding of the two types of forces: internal and external. I could go into that at another time, if so pursuaded. Okay, now that i lost you... and me... Speed is a change in distance with respect to time: average speed = distance traveled / time takenor speed = distance / timeAccuracy, on the other hand, is a relative term. It is dependent on having same or similar points of reference. I.e., if i say i am accurate and you say you are not, and yet i am using an large object to hit a large object, at a distance of one foot, while you use a small object to hit a small object, at a distance of one thousand feet, our relationship is flawed. We aren't using the same basis for comparison. Accuracy seems to be where much of the confusion is, and it is understandable. In many respects, we are working with different relative states. I am bigger than some of you, and smaller than others. I have more or less mass than some of you, and i can create higher or lower acceleration than some of you. Accuracy, in no uncertain terms, is going to be different, depending on the person who examines his physicalities without considering the physicalities of others. I.e., what works for me, may not necessarily work for you... because, i'm different. Because of the short distances associated with these discussions, speed is dependent upon acceleration, and upon angular influences (linear vs circular, for our frame of reference). Oddly enough, so is power. Therefore, if we examine one's ability to accelerate, we actually directly influence both speed and power, at least in relation to our frame of reference. I.e., speed is dependent upon the 'average' speed one attains. Since all actions in a fight start at 0, we must then attain a certain speed by the time we impact (or commit to an action). This, obviously, requires a high degree of acceleration. Acceleration can be enhanced by plyometric exercises. So, if you want to boost your 'average' speed and your power, practice plyometrics. If you wish to enhance your accuracy, and be able to apply this accuracy with any degree of effectiveness, aim for tiny targets using plyometrics. Another thesis out of the way. References: Design Notes Log, by Robert Compton Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere, by Westbrook / Ratti St. Vincent College website http://www.physicsclassroom.com/ and, of course, http://www.karateforums.com/

http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=171902#171902

lol, probably because the 'World' wasn't invited. Out of curiousity, why do you say it was lame?

Well, there's also a reference to being like water in Sun Tzu's Art of War, which precedes Confucius. I suppose all the ol' masters were into soiling themselves, eh?

Here's an excerpt from Don Cunningham's thesis on the subject: Many stories abound regarding the honored black belt in various martial arts styles. The one most commonly heard is that the novice martial artist traditionally started with a white belt. As he trained and practiced over the years, though, the belt became soiled, first turning brown and ultimately black as he perfected his martial arts skills. Notwithstanding the extraordinary metaphor provided by this charming bit of folklore, unfortunately, it has no foundation in truth. Colored belts were never part of any ancient martial arts tradition.His well written and fully documented thesis could be read in total here - http://www.e-budokai.com/articles/belts.htm

From my sources, i understand the colored belts originated in Britain on or about 1953. The specific reasons for 'why,' are somewhat fuddled in a miasma of people trying to take credit (or blame) for it. Jigoro Kano (founder of judo) was the first 'Asian' to have implemented the belt ranks of black belt for experts and white belts for everyone else (no colors inbetween). I understand that, back then, it took judokas approximately 12-20 years to obtain black belt status. Prof. Kano implemented it in 1886 or 1887, and it is believed he based it on the fact that expert swimmers in Japan wore black ribbons, while student/amatuer swimmers wore white ribbons... or some such drivel.