White Warlock

An acquaintance of mine was stabbed 49 times, and was back at work within a month. The effectiveness of a knife is largely dependent upon the skills of the wielder, as is a gun, a boot, or a fist of fury.

*burp*

The other day i went to the hardware store and saw a girl standing outside at the hotdog stand with her friend, ordering a dog and a drink. She was probably 14 years old, wearing her GI and a black belt. On the back of her GI were the words, "Kwon's Black Belt Academy." Nuff' said.

Krunchy, Those you practice with in the gym are not the 'average joe' you would meet on the street. For many years i was very hard on myself because i would practice with other instructors/students and occasionally find i wasn't as good as i would have liked. But, then i was thrown into a group of n00blets and realized my aptitude was far higher than the 'average joe.' Rather than punishing yourself, take each session as an opportunity to note those things, whether they be physical or mental, that are inhibiting your overall performance. Also, continuously remind yourself you're not in there to beat them, but to grow. Compare yourself to yourself, not to them. Compare yourself to how you were 9 months ago... when you were an 'average joe.'

If it's through pain, i usually listen, assuming the pain is extreme. With exhaustion, i simply decrease my energy output until my second wind kicks in. Matter exists. Physicists have been able to determine that matter is energy, and vice versa. One is tangible, the other not. Matter/energy may change in properties or state, but they exist in one form or another. All that rambling aside, the human body functions because of matter/energy that works in collusion, creating a sentient entity with moveable material parts. Electrons are used by the human body to transfer data and to encourage muscular retractions. It is the brain, an organ, that is comprised of both matter and energy. A masterwork symbiosis that is generally considered to be finite and limited in its influence to that of the matter/energy contained within the human body it inhabits. However, such is not the case. One can lift an object, insert foriegn objects within the body and convert it to other forms of matter/energy, blow out a candle from a distance, exude chemicals into the atmosphere (pheremones, etc) that impact distant material compositions (other human bodies, for example), influence changes in other material compositions (such as the way one idea is expressed to another, thereby illiciting 'new' thoughts and/or emotions), etc. Mind over matter... no such thing. Mind is matter, and it is energy... and it is neither. It is the matter/energy symbiosis that provides one the ability to see beyond the 'assumed' limitations imposed by 'other' symbiotic matter/energy entities. The proper definition of such, would be to step beyond the 'socially assumed' limitations associated with the matter/energy symbiosis of the human body. In that, my answer would be yes... Physics, as it pertains to existence and not merely the theoretical aspects. Specifically, every action having an equal and opposite reaction. Age 17 (approximately 123 years ago), practicing for a wrestling tourney. Decided to work out with my brother, who was not a wrestler, but was nonetheless a willing scrapper. He became annoyed at my face cross-overs and decided to relocate his elbow into my thigh. My leg stiffened up and then many minutes later relaxed. A few hours later it stiffened up again, and remained that way for almost six months. Nothing broken. He merely 'accidently,' yet intentionally struck me at a critical nerve center.

I do, and i still contend it is a linear strike, despite the dance. Yeppers, a peeve of mine as well. Comparative studies, in the form of chest poundings, organ dimensions, and "my dad is bigger than your dad" ... all very shallow and simple-minded. I suppose one of the reasons i don't get into many conflicts these days is because i assume everyone can beat me up, and vice versa, under differing circumstances. Recognition of one's mortality helps to keep ego in check and attention fixed to self-improvement, instead of competing for superiority. Who cares really, as long as you do what needs to be done... when it counts.

Umm... someone standing up can shoot you far more easily. As to the knife, you actually can feel and counter the actions of your opponent far better when grappling on the ground than you can when standing up. It may sound odd to you, but if someone has a knife, and i gain the opportunity to take him to the ground, i'll probably take it.

Ugh! Bushido was developed as a means to implement some codes of behavior on samurai and soldiers in general. It was developed by the ruling class, not by the samurai. Its underlying intent was to provide a means to enforce behavior, using the pre-existing society's fixation on maintaining family honor. Bushido actually never really took hold until after peace had been enforced by the Tokugawa family. Prior to that, samurai were pretty much just guys with armor and weapons and far too many rights and privileges. Mostly, they were considered to be bullies. Do remember, Japanese history was written by the scholarly, which so happened to be the samurai class. Anyway, as to the ninja/samurai crossover... history on these issues is a bit fuzzy, but as best i can give on it is that there were two samurai families given specific imperial responsibilities. I'm sorry, i can't recall the family names. One family was given the responsibility of protecting the emperor and the capitol, while the other was given the responsibility of providing information and performing actions in-the-interest of the imperial family. Essentially, one was given the responsibility comparable to the U.S. Secret Service, while the other was given the responsibility comparable to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Eventually the boundaries became less clear and the families more intermixed. One thing that really tends to throw chaos into the historical writings, are the shinobi, which were spies / informants / infiltrators / etc. Shinobi were used quite frequently in the early Japanese conflicts. Shinobi came from most every class, including samurais, artisans, peasants and even geisha. Essentially, they consisted of turncoats, moles, counter-insurgents, etc. The confusion arises when attempting to differentiate events in historical descriptions. It is often very difficult to discern what is a peasant revolt, a betrayal, a surreptitious action, and whether these were done by design... or lonewolf.

And here's my opinion. If the intent of entering a martial art school is to study a culture, language, or customs of another country, then by all means enforce such things as bows, foreign definitions to basic techniques, or societal norms of a distand land. However, i enter a martial art school to study martial arts, not to cater to some foreign social ettiquette. Granted, if my instructor finds my actions revolting, because he's not familiar with my culture, then i should attempt not to be so offensive to him. In truth, i would try my best to be cordial and to accommodate the social 'needs' of my instructor, assuming doing so does not impose undo humility or insult to me. That is, really, one of the bigger issues. There are plenty of native instructors imposing foreign ettiquette, language and customs into their martial arts training regimen. Many do not implement them correctly, or have simply added them as a means to try to present a more 'traditional' ambiance. Personally, i find that not merely discourteous to the other natives, but also disingenuous.

Will agree with WomanInBlack's assertion. I truly doubt anyone has actually gone out and performed a viable collation of data on streetfights, and thus been able to come up with such a silly statistic. But, even assuming such was the case (which we all know is outright b.s.), 90% of people don't know how to fight, be it stand-up... or on the ground. Given this, common sense would tell you that two fumbling idiots pounding on each other would eventually fall over and continue their ineffective poundings on the ground. Now, don't dismiss your need to study groundfighting merely based on this. The fact of the matter is, if you encounter someone who 'does' know how to fight on the ground, that's where he's likely going to take you... which would put you out of your element. It is essential to be well rounded, that way you can choose where to take the fight... rather than your opposition making the choice.

I am, as well, not altogether keen with tots entering martial arts, but this has more to do with the overwhelming amount of rip-off pseudo-babysitter martial art schools than with the children themselves. There's just far too much exploitation of parents and their ignorance going on nowadays, with schools charging ridiculous prices to provide substandard, barely supervised instruction in overcrowded classes. All that said and done, if and when i do pose recommendations to parents on what system to enter their child into, it is rare that they listen to my advice of not to... so i usually follow up by advising that girls would most benefit from an aggressive system that emphasizes kicks and strikes, while boys would benefit from a passive system that emphasizes wrestling or grappling. This is because girls are socially instructed to be passive and submissive, while boys are socially instructed to be aggressive and assertive. That and the fact boys also have testosterone to deal with.

The initial positioning was linear, the secondary positioning was circular (assuming i understood your example). However, the strike itself... was linear. Agreed. As i stated, i would call it a linear punch. A linear punch is dealt with and reacted to differently than a circular punch, regardless of its' initiate point. A pistol is a linear weapon, a flail is circular in action. You can run around in circles, move the pistol in cute semi-circles, but once the trigger is pressed, the bullet only knows 'point A to point B.' As well, when wielding a flail you can run straight toward someone, but the weapon's effectiveness is only going to be realized if swung in a semicircle to its intended target. Neither. It is the end result. I suppose that may be where we differ. I do not define hard/soft by body actions. I define them based on internal/external emphasis. To me, both linear and circular can be hard or soft, internal or external. Well, here's where i lose everyone. Linear/circular... basic geometry. The body is not so basic, nor are the laws of physics so basic. When i stated earlier that it is an oversimplification, i wasn't being facetious. The martial arts is very much interdependent on an understanding of mechanics and physics. Geometry is taught right after basic algebra, yet when we utilize our physical arts, we encounter and perform complex mathematical computations, far beyond such simple math referred to in these discussions. Granted, the vast majority of us rely on 'fudge-factor' in a confrontation, but when you don't always have all the variables in advance, what else can you do?

i've heard the ol' adage of circular to counter linear and linear to counter circular. Listened to it, examined it, and found it too rigid... oversimplified, so yes... i agree. Circular can just as effectively counter circular, as linear can counter linear. All that is required is differences in training, perception, and an unwillingness to adhere to fixed concepts. /tangent on I suppose this touches upon one of my older peeves and i'm glad you brought it up TSG. That of systems imposing rules that become law, yet were only initially implemented as a means to assist those in learning the basics. I'm not keen with these rules, despite the initial benefits they may provide at the onset. At a later stage, they become significant obstacles. Rules defining how and what you should and should not do, locking you up to dance a certain dance. Many systems impose such arbitrary rules, although some do this more than others (tkd, in my opinion, being one of the bigger culprits). When training large quantities of individuals, such as military units, such approaches make it far easier to get people up to speed. But, on an individual basis, i find it to be far more a disservice and it is unfortunate that so much instruction still focus heavily on such rigid 'shortcut' preconceptions. Shortcuts that, in the long run, undercut. /tangent off

Well, this is getting silly. Linear is not always hard, nor is circular always soft. As well, soft does not always beat hard. Polar generalizing is a good way to fixate and become mentally (if not physically) rigid. Anyway, there seems to be some disagreement as to what linear is and what circular is. Clearly there are linear elements in any action committed, just as there are circular elements in any linear action committed. The human body is composed of both rigid (bone) and supple (muscle) elements. When we utilize our bodies to perform an action, we emphasize one aspect of our body over another... or apply all aspects evenly (depending on the degree of dominance one element may have over another, given the parts of the body utilized in an action or series of actions, and depending on the emphasis one system or other may encourage in training). At the most basic, linear consists of actions which are defined as the endpoint (point of contact or control) traveling in a straight line, from point A to point B, while circular is defined as the endpoint traveling in a circular/semicircular pattern, oftentimes with no definite point A or point B. The manipulations of rigid or supple elements of the body serve to enforce the endpoint's actions, but do not redefine the actions in and of themselves. Linear is still linear, circular is still circular, despite the body contortions we must apply in order to implement these geometric concepts.

In 5 seconds i can throw: 15 clean, hard, circular strikes or, 20 clean, hard, shoulder-generated linear strikes (karate punches) or, 30 clean, hard, center-line generated linear strikes (wing chun style). Both linear and circular can be used for block, parry, and attack. Linear is clearly faster and most effective in disrupting the opposition, but circular provides more opportunity for control/mobility of opposition and can generate more power. As always, circumstances dictate what is most appropriate, but i prefer to defend circular, initiate attack with linear, obtain dominance with circular, and close with linear.

And i wouldn't argue this. What i noted when i taught conflict resolution courses, as the most important aspect to being effective in de-escalating, is having the confidence in knowing that, if all else fails, you will be able to handle the outcome. Having such confidence removes the little frozen-spot in the eyes and the high-pitch in the voice that triggers the predator's 'pounce.' Having muay thai to fallback on can increase your effectiveness in de-escalating, or resolving, a conflict. And, it helps further in having a system, such as aikido, that allows you to provide less lethal options (and thus less legal consequence) should talk and posture prove insufficient. In short, if you have nothing to lose by going physical (including no danger of being incarcerated), your threat will recognize this and realize that someone must have something to lose. Being there is only you and them... connect the dots. Good discussion

It doesn't cause it directly, but it does cause the body to require more water intake, so yes... i think you're onto something there krunchycookie.

ooo... new word. What's it mean?

Well, the snippity bit came from this, "If it were that hard on your discs, there would be no fat man on earth with painless backs," but no biggie. The know-it-all was in reference to me and how you may have viewed my input as someone who was trying to act like he knows it all. I was clarifying that i wouldn't have responded if i didn't feel relatively confident in the information i was providing... Anyway, dismiss it. I posted the above when i was utterly exhausted, so obviously i was just a tad too sensitive at the time to be visiting discussion forums.

Radok, there is something to consider here with your reasoning. Overweight people don't gain 100 lbs in a day. They build up their weight problem over years, thus allowing their muscles to adjust to the weight increase. Despite this, as glingglo stated, overweight people actually do suffer from chronic back and joint problems, so even a gradual increase in weight does not protect your joints or supporting muscles from over-exerting. The damage is not overnight, but gradual. Really, the potential gains do not outweigh the potential losses. These are temporary illusory effects. Essentially, you could always jump that high and could always move that fast, but now that your weight is decreased, your muscles are overcompensating. The problem then becomes overextension and injuries such as tendonitis. Back to the original statement i made... no magic pill. Oh, and if you ask for advice, but don't like the advice, maybe you shouldn't ask for it. But really, there's no need to get snippity. My initial post wasn't an attempt at being facetious, to take you down, or to pose as some know-it-all. If i don't feel relatively comfortable with the content of my advice, i generally don't give it.

Umm... why differentiate? In a ring, things are very different. Rules set the pace for what can and cannot be applied. Some include minimum kick counts. Some, don't allow either kicks or punches... so... pull it out of the ring if you want to look at it with any viable perspective. Also, put yourself in the picture, not Mike Tyson, Superfoot Wallace, Batman or Jimmy Cagney. In a confrontation, if i had to choose between punch or kick, i would choose the one at the moment that provided the most advantage over my opponent. But, honestly... punch vs kick... that's so friggin' limiting. I mean, how many of you go to a fancy restaurant only to be served a menu that offers a choice of hamburgers or hotdogs? Granted, their popular and can satisfy the hunger, but is that all there is to a meal?!? Hey, i'm tired... so forgive my silly analogies. When i'm tired i have a tough time dealing with such limited comparisons.

I have, in the past and on occasion, taken urban (and rural) field trips with my student(s) and those i've worked out with. The goal would be to continuously find things around as viable weapons and apply them in mock attack or defense. The rule, of course, is no trespassing, no destruction of personal property (vandalism), no 'carrying' of items (once applied, it is returned), appropriate attire (casual clothing, etc), and no hostile or unruly actions near or around pedestrians, moving or stationary vehicles. I.e., unseen, inobtrusive, non-threatening, and yet deadly when needed. Granted, these restrictions pose significant limitations, but that's what makes such an exercise a challenge. Edit: An additional challenge i sometimes posed, usually when i wanted things to start winding down, was to state that new weapon-types must be used for attack, although previously encountered weapon-types would still be viable for defense.

Gravity takes precedence. Most of the weight will be distributed to your spine and joints... where muscles merely serve to stabilize, not buffer. Sounds like you may be looking for a magic-pill to body building. There is none. To get the most out of a workout, it's best to concentrate on certain areas (upper body, legs, back, etc), perform isolation exercises, and rotate periodically the areas you target.

No, not at all Mart. If they don't fight... they followed the path of peace. Sometimes it's better just to cause someone to question their own motives than it is to prove them wrong.

I actually crack up when i see some hard-style martial artist pestering an aikidoist to fight. The aikidoist just stands there and asks, "why?" The hard-style martial artist gets all frustrated and eventually walks away saying to their friends that aikidoists are all a bunch of fairies and they wouldn't be able to fight their way out of a paper bag. The reason i crack up? The aikidoist won the fight.