White Warlock

Interesting. Thanks Ramy.

My opinion is that it is for the instructor to decide whether she should maintain the belt he gave her, and if she received her belt somewhere else, it is still the instructor's decision whether she should be allowed to wear that belt in his school. Were i the instructor, and a yellow belt came up to me questioning the qualifications of a higher ranking student, i would demote him to white belt for a day, just to make it clear 'who' decides what rank a student wears in my school. Basically, politics and questioning of rank receipts doesn't belong in a dojo and the best way to discourage it, is to remind them that it is not a democracy.

All these nice Tekken titles are cool, fine and dandy... but would anyone care to describe what this so-called 'no-shadow' kick is? All i've gathered so far from this post is that it is a kick that is not seen. Well, i do those all the friggin' time. The training i received in regards to this came from san soo, and is basically ensuring i kick when the opponent's attention is elsewhere, or his view of my leg is blocked, and i do not telegraph it. Nothing magical there, although some people do find it amazing... as well as amazingly simple in theory (not in application).

Welcome.

Yep, whatever tournament it is, the first thing to do is find out the rules, since they're all so friggin' different. Once you know the rules, you can adjust your training program and your in-dojo sparring matches to accommodate those rules. Lots of competitors don't do this, and their performance suffers because of it.

Don't forget muay thai and mcdojo-at-the-Y.

Yes, completely different animal. The name 'san soo' was posed by grandmaster Jimmy Woo around 1970 as a means to pacify the Americans that wanted something easier to say and market than 'tsoi li ho fut hung ga,' the original name of the art that is argued to be over 4000 years old. Sanshou, on the other hand, is far younger and is a 'byproduct' of relatively recent Chinese/Thailand competitions. Read the article, noted above by Natural, for what seems to be a 'biased' report on sanshou.

It was a beautiful movie, but even moreso because it was loosely based on a real event in Japanese history, referred to as the Satsuma Rebellion, which was led by the real last samurai, Takamori Seigo. Cruise's character was utter fiction, but a nice touch for the occidental audience.

dead link.

Okay... which karate? For that matter, which TKD?

Ahem... Natural. Sanshou/sanda is not San Soo. Not even remotely similar. You're doing that guessing thing we talked about...

Edited my previous post. It didn't properly convey my thoughts.

Some things posted here did not hit me at all right. People are not like volcanoes, but emotions that are constantly pampered become extreme (and thus the buildup) until eventually it grows to a state where others can be injured by it. When you strike out in anger, regardless of the object... you are feeding and expressing an emotion in an unhealthy manner. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, what they did was psychotic, anti-social and criminal. They were predisposed to commit the murders they did. It had little to do with anger, and everything to do with mental disease. Many of the journalists that covered the events decided they were qualified enough in psychology to make diagnoses and then broadcast their ignorance. This is a personal peeve of mine, having worked as a journalist for a time. These 'easy media' journalists were wrong, and such was attested to in print by 'qualified' professionals. There is a huge difference between those with mental disorders, and those not applying proper anger management. There is no need to cloud the issues by pulling out extremes, then stating, "this is what is going to happen to you if you don't hit a bag in anger." I disagree. It doesn't start to become a problem then. At that point it has already gone too far. Different emotions produce/inhibit different chemicals in your body. Someone subjected to one mourning state after another, gains an extremely strong chance of becoming chronically depressed. Their body becomes accustomed to the decreased levels of serotoninergic neurotransmission. A larger threat is posed by extreme cases of emotional imbalance, such as that experienced when angry. By striking out, you 'feed' this emotion. It may feel as if it is being released, but in actuality you are encouraging it and forcing your body to be accustomed to it. This, in turn, causes a biochemical change that, if experienced frequently, can become chronic. The rose garden analogy is a straw man. This isn't a debate, so there is no need to toss out fallacious reasoning. There is no rose garden, nor did anyone insinuate anything analogous to it. To close, anger is an emotion and everyone has it, but it is not healthy to pamper it or encourage it. The occasional 'beatdown' of an inanimate object (excluding the criminal act of vandalism) is not going to cause someone to turn into a psychotic murderer, just as the occasional non-violent response to being angry will not. But, hitting a bag also doesn't release this anger... it only expresses it. If you or anyone you know find themselves getting angry frequently, there are community services offering anger management courses. A thought: Anger is an emotional response, triggered. Look to see what triggered it and you become a bit more aware as to what your issues are and how others are able to 'manipulate' your emotions. When I get angry, the first thing i do is determine what caused me to get angry. Invariably, it is something someone else did... which triggered an unhealthy response from me. Something in me that they were able to exploit, which I refer to as my 'buttons.' Now, i can choose to give someone else that much power over me, and give them access to those 'buttons,' or not. I choose... not.

I studied it, and yes it is. What are you trying to figure out? edit: After a little thought, i feel obligated to mention that it's been almost 15 years since i studied it. My knowledge is somewhat intact, but there 'will' be gaps.

Hehe, thanks Draven. It just came to me while i was in line to renew my registration.

That obvious, eh? I have taught in the past, but lately only on an individual basis. And yes, i gathered that perspective from one of the teaching seminars i was in (obviously someone there read, "The Learning Style Inventory.") I'll have to check out Howard Gardner's writings. Sounds interesting, thanks.

Red J has a point. When you get angry, releasing it through 'violent actions' is not good, under any circumstances. There are ways to deal with anger, and there are ways to express or manage anger, but a human mind is not a volcano, nor is it reasonable to think of it in such a manner.

Almost everything works at half speed and most things work at 3/4 speed but... hardly anything works at full speed. The true test, is the litmus of reality.

lol

I've come to like both of your insights, so this is tough. I'll have to side with both and neither of you two here. There really is no 'majority' of cases to base it on. I do agree that a strike or kick is a good starter if you're the aggressor, and if you're given the opportunity, but even if you don't have the striking skills, you can opt to go right into a grappling scenario, if such a situation warrants it. The thing to realize is... if you build up the mind and your understanding of the psychology of violence, you can better 'choose' to have a confrontation work your way and to your strengths, whatever they may be. So... both striking and grappling skills are essential and, depending on your strengths, one could be more essential than the other but... what truly matters is the 'art.' What i mean by this is, strikes and grappling techniques are like the paint and paintbrushes, while the circumstances of a conflict is the canvas. It takes the creative mind of a practitioner to apply just the right paints and strokes to the varying canvases encountered. Canvases are all different, but in many respects all the same. The more skilled one is with the paintbrush, and the more variations in hues (paints), the more options available to the artist. But, no matter how many brushes or hues available to you, if you can't see the end result on the canvas (as Michealangelo used to see the figure trapped within the stone), then your efforts will be in vain. Time, however, is the one huge difference between that of a paint artist and that of martial artist. A painter can stare at a canvas until he 'sees' what is there. A martial arts practitioner, when posed with a canvas, has but a fraction of a second... or less, to see and to act.

40 degrees fahrenheit in Surrey, England. Hot if you're a penguin... or living somewhere else... But... let's drop it. Counterproductive.

You think? Openminded yes, delusional, no. Risingdragon, it's obvious you're young (having indicated you got into a fight with a 10th grader a year ago, i can gather that you're likely right now in 10th grade) and your enthusiasm is notable, but don't delude yourself. Martial arts is the study of violence and all the morbidity that goes along with it. Also don't delude yourself into thinking you can create a system from scratch, and have it be anything viable. For thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of people dedicated their entire lifetime to the study of martial arts. They hashed and rehashed techniques, applying them in 'real situations' and 'real wars' against both unarmed and 'armed' assailants. If you think you can take a snapshot of this or that, grab all those pictures, and make a viable system... on the day and the moment you are forced to apply it in a true, life-threatening situation, you very likely will not survive. I'm saying this with all sincerity. Be true to yourself. A fight isn't entertainment... it is survival. Enter a school and master a system. From there, you will have a base and a degree of understanding you presently do not have. Look, i've studied for quite a long time (since before you were conceived), and i'm still growing and learning. I'm a fairly intelligent and introspective individual. Have been all my life. I remember back when I 'thought' I knew what i was talking about. I was wrong. My pride, ego, self-esteem, and personal insecurities initially drove me to 'think' i knew what i was doing. I was lucky. 'Real life' broke my nose and got me to realize i was deluding myself. I was lucky because it wasn't a knife in my gut, or bullet through my head. I was lucky because i found out while i was still relatively young (slightly older than you are right now), that the amount of knowledge i had, was but a fraction of the knowledge i needed to survive a life-threatening encounter. Learn from a professional. Don't delude yourself. Seek professional trainers and, at the very least, obtain mastery of the basics (3-5 years of dedicated study) in one particular style. From there, you will have a foundation and a deeper understanding. A clue into your psyche and the lies you presently pose to yourself as a means to survive the emotional hardships and insecurities associated with youth.

Monkeygirl's assessment is pretty good. Lots of info not available, as always... but from what you've presented, it does sound like she's unwilling to marry you, for whatever reason. If she had no doubt, this would not happen, but doubt does seem to be there... and it's an ugly beast with long fangs and a hairy butt. As hard as this may sound, you're likely not going to be able to salvage the relationship and like others have said, it sounds like a good idea to spend a lot of time outdoors and an opportune time to reestablish relationships with old friends (but be picky. Sometimes time and distance allows you to recognize those friendships that are unhealthy. No need to walk back into the mire). The choice, in the end, is hers. She may be afraid of commitment, might have found herself interested in other men, or maybe she realized she doesn't see a future with you. I suppose the question is... did you see a future with her, or were you walking the steps into marriage because you figured that's what she wanted? It is always possible... hell, even likely, you may have been giving signals to her that you really didn't want to marry her, or weren't ready for a commitment. It may have been subtle, or blunt... but partners are often very good at catching such signals, and if you're not committed, they're going to be looking to the door before you know it. I suppose the scary part for many is, it may have been you that intentionally, if not subconsciously, ended the relationship. I know i ended quite a few that way, thinking 'woe is me' until i finally realized the common denominator. I wasn't ready and was intentionally jumping into relationships where the chips were stacked against longevity. Even helping with the outcome, by posing ever-so-subtle signals that i was not ready to commit. Be careful though. If you find out it was you that posed the doubts in her mind... I would say leave it be. You weren't ready and messing with your 'superconscious' will only get you into a marriage you didn't really want. Trust in yourself and learn to understand 'how' you work. Then again, maybe it's all on her end... or it was a mutual feeding of doubts. Really, not having been there... this is all but a silly little entry into 'what ifs.' And we all know how much of a waste of time that is. In the end, i suppose i can only offer you some one-liners. C'est la vie. Move on with 'enjoying' your life and hold onto the good memories, but don't cling to them. There is past, present, and future. Where do you want to live?

Hmm... not seeing it, i couldn't say. But... it sounds more like the yellow belt has picked up a nasty habit. A common misconception is to think of the human body, or of muscles, as rubber bands. Using the biceps/triceps as examples, one contracts while the other relaxes. When a muscle contracts, it pulls at whatever it is attached to, such as the bones in the forearm. When a muscle relaxes, it does not 'bounce back,' it merely relaxes, thus releasing the bone it is attached to. Granted, there's also gravity... but again, not analogous to a rubber band. The common misconception of 'winding up' or 'pulling back' to generate force is great for us, because it lets us know what the inexperienced person is about to do. Now, distance traveled 'can' help in allowing you to accelerate up to a higher velocity... but that's about it. The more distance traveled, the more time... and the more distance. The more time, the larger the opportunity for the opposition to react. The more distance, the more 'space' between zero point and impact point, and the larger the possibility of the path between those two points being disrupted (block, parry, refrigerator door, etc). I'm tempted to start talk about circular vs linear, as this 'touches' upon that topic, but maybe in another thread.

Hmm... sounds like your strength is auditory. Reading is, oddly enough, an auditory skill. I.e., when you read, you are essentially having the book talk to you (by having you talk to yourself). It may be that your instructor doesn't talk very much in class, which would account for your learning struggles in that particular school. It does sound like you're handling it well though, in that you're reading about the employment of techniques and ideals prior to every session, as a means to compensate for your instructor not being 'perfect' for your learning base.