Karate Kid

Yes. The techniques we practice are few, and we are taught that a simple base set of techniques are most effective in self defense, and so far I have found this to be true. Not only this, but our sensei has had enough experience to advise us appropriately and realistically for confrontations. Same with the Ching I class, and I must also note that although the conditioning may not be as intense as in karate, I find many of the concepts to be very useful (folding, covering, etc.).

Not to say you need it, but I find sparring black belts to be very humbling experiences. Of course, how bad you get pummeled depends directly on how much control the black belt in context has, or possibly how angry you make him before hand.

Actually... http://www.raynerslanetkd.com/video/others/willywilliams.wmv

After quickly scanning through the page, I have a few quick questions about Muay Thai in general. 1) What are the body mechanics involved? Many Chinese, Japanese, etc. styles stress good form and that form brings power and speed. In the vast majority of the Thai fights I have seen, the form is less than notablel; granted, the fighters themselves are still superb. 2) What do Thai fighters aim for in actual confrontations? In both Matsubayashi Ryu and Ching I I have been taught to go for knee breaks and elbow breaks with the appropriately placed joint locks; and of course with the obligatory strikes. From what I understand, Thai fighters have somewhat different aims, although my grasp of the details is somewhat vague.

My karate school (also Matsubayashi Ryu) has a heavy emphasis on technique and tenacity, and it takes an average of about seven years for one to reach black belt. In my Hsing I class (kung fu), black belts are acquired in approximately four or five years.

I do have a clip where the six-inch punch is demonstrated three or four times. To my understanding there isn't that much of a difference in body dynamics when it comes to performing the two. In any case, I hope this helps: http://www.stamerra.it/Wingchun/Video/Grados%20Wing%20Chun.mov

In my very un-professional opinion, the best method would be to intercept them with some powerful kick (ie., side thrust, front thrust), or redirect them and attack.

Actually, no. My class focuses primarily on low and mid-height kicks, ruling out higher kicks due to their general lack of effectiveness. In all honesty I 'learned' that after watching 'Return of the Dragon'. I believe Chuck Norris used it liberally, so I attempted to see what exactly he was doing.

Assuming this has not been mentioned in the previous twenty-three pages (very unlikely, but oh well), I basically believe that some arts are more practical than others street wise. That is, high kicks in taekwondo may not be the best idea; this is not to say however that taekwondo as an art is ineffective in such situations. With a base degree of understanding and experience in confrontational situations, a taekwondo practitioner will adjust his techniques to be more efficient. What I look for is moreso the 'martial knowledge' taught by arts. Because of this, I generally frown upon those classes that focus on tournament fighting or just katas. Therefore because of my aforementioned views, I would say Okinawan karate and Chinese kung fu would be the most effective styles due to years upon years of refinement and the basic philosophies incorperated into the arts. This is just my opinion, however, and does not represent the absolute truth (just as a reminder for those who may be offended) on fighting.

Just to clarify, what I mean by 'fancy' is something complicated or very specific in its means of execution, ie., a crescent spinning hook kick combination as a basic example. It relies essentially on the opponant still being in range after the crescent and that they cannot react fast enough to take advantage of your momentary disadvantage. The difference between 'fancy' techniques and basic techniques would be essentially the brief combination described above compared to a three step attack consisting of a jab, reverse punch, and front kick. Also, Shorinryu Sensei, I realize the difference between a fight and a point match (thank you for the advice anyways), and my question is what is the extent of the complicated attacks you may (or have) attempt(ed) to perform when one mistake could result in your being taken to the ground?

Fascinating. Are there any other details you would care to type up? I am focusing now on differentiating between tournament safe attacks and those that would be effective in real life confrontations. After all, I would hate to be taken down when I executed a spinning hook kick at an inoppurtune moment.

Those of you with a respectable amount of fighting experience, I have a few quick questions. What is the 'fanciest' (to elaborate, generally complicated or very specific) technique you have successfully used in a confrontation? Do you focus on attempting the aforementioned techniques or do you simply react with them? I was just contemplating where the line between fancy and effective (hence the title) is drawn as I practiced a few techniques a day or two ago. Any relevant input will be most appreciated.

Humility has not necessarily been lost in the martial arts. While the methods of teaching and perhaps even some of the philosophy may have been altered over the past decades, I believe humility itself can only be taught through one's own defeat and other such humbling experiences. In my recent excursion to a local tournament, I was placed amongst two other fighters. Before the match we wished eachother good luck, and afterwards we complimented eachother and shook hands. I digressed from my general point, but I also believe this example may have enforced it to some degree.

Not so. Morals may vary person to person, but this does not imply that each individual will have their own set of morals to suit their environment and personality. Logical reasoning can dictate whether one should start conflict to test themselves, as you will see in the following. When answering such a question, one must consider what is at stake and who is involved. Do you mean pick a fight as in challenging a person? Do you perhaps mean to simply agitate someone to the point of where they willingly fight, ignorant of your true motives? If it is the latter, than that is by no means 'right', morally, lawfully, etc.. To manipulate a person in such a manner as to test your own skill at the expense of their body is illegal, and undeniably selfish. Each person has their own individual rights, and without the knowledge of what you are trying to do, tempting them into a fight would be virtually the same as simply attacking them when they are alone and unwary of such an attack. If the former, that is a totally different matter. Although technically illegal to my knowledge, such an act occurs at both individuals' consent and is substantially different than what I mentioned above, thus being moreso up to you. Remember, though, if you are truly a skilled fighter, their well-being may lie in your hands.

Most of what has been said here is of course correct. One aspect that seems to be overlooked, however, is that sparring early on when one's technique is still shaky can lead to some bad habits, such as short cutting moves and/or frequent inuries. Once one has had enough practice to successfully execute moves, this becomes a signifigantly smaller issue, and one can focus on other problems, such as those listed above.