dbrillha

If you consider what I mean by a "fight" to be essentially an unarmed combat duel, then your points are very valid. If you consider what is meant by "fight" to be a self defense situation, I think your points are somewhat less valid. In a self defense situation, where your real goal is to get out of the "fight" as quick as you can, groundfighting is not really the way to go. Very often running, or striking once or twice then running is the absolute best defense. Doesn't ground work sort of rule that out?

Like a lot of people, I saw practitioners of striking arts such as Karate, Kung-Fu, etc. doing really badly in the early UFCs (the first 4 or 5) - and thought that these arts might not have a lot of utility in an actual fight. After all, the practitioners of these arts didn't exactly come off looking that great in these contests. However, here is my theory on this these days. I feel that the UFC and similar contests are somewhat artificial enviroments that favor certain techniques and approaches over others. There is a fair amount of cross over between what works in the UFC and what works in situations that you would find yourself in actual fights. There's also a fair amount that wouldn't cross over. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that almost anyone who did well in UFCs would do really well at defending themselves. I don't think there is any doubt. They'd win the majority of fights they got in just from their build, conditioning, and size. Their martial skills would be a great help, and I'm sure that they wouldn't fight like they do in the ring. These days UFC fighters do way more striking, and it seems like for some fighters the focus they have on grappling is mostly "anti-grappling" so they can play their striking game without being easy prey for the grapplers (as most strikers were in the early UFCs). In fact, I think that a lot of the things that are very successful in the ring, are very risky in "real life". Groundfighting as a major strategy to win a fight might be one of those things. Yes, I know a lot of fights end up on the ground, and having some ability there would be useful - but having ground fighting as the main goal as a fight ending strategy seems pretty risky. It's pretty obvious that in a UFC type event that a groundfighter/grappler will be able to beat a PURE striker almost all of the time. However, I think it might be entirely possible that "In real life" striking might be a superior strategy to the exclusing of groundfighting entirely. Of course, there is no set situation in a fight, all are different. My point is that groundfighting is overempasised in the UFCs vs. the amount of utility that it would have "in real life". While grounfighting might work really well against a striker in a UFC type contest, striking might be better suited to "real life" than groundfighting - hence the subject line of this post. Anyways - just an idea that popped into my head. Any thoughts?

Well, I've never done TKD so I can't speak to that. But I have done Shotokan and Tang Soo Do, and to me they are very similar in many ways. I'd say 95% of what you learned in one would carry over to the other. I think some of the forms are the same/very similar.

Sounds like you and I are in agreement on this then.

I just think it's a bit of an overstatement when I hear someone (in person, not on this forum) saying something like "my style is totally different from style X. See we do this kick with the edge of the foot, and they use the heel. On this kick they use the ball of the foot, and we use the top of the foot. See how high their stance is? And our stance is about 3" shorter than theirs. Also, we include a lot of standing grappling, and chinese infuence that they don't. It's obvious our style is totally, and completely 100% different" Sure their are differences between these styles, and every teacher teaches things a little differently. But If you switched from one of these styles to the other, probably 90% of your knowledge would transfer. Imagine a TKD'er learning Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. How much of what he knows is going to transfer over? I'd say 15% if he's lucky, but probably more like 5%.

Yea you've got the idea! About that different. I mean no offense, but from you later description of what sort of techniques you practice in Okinawan Kenpo it sounds like it is subtly different from any Okinawan Karate style, which is pretty similar to Japanese Karate in my mind. From what I have heard of American Kempo, although it is certainly different - it doesn't sound that different. I mean compared to the styles listed above - maybe they are as different as Savate and Western boxing, but I'm thinking the other two comparisons are MILES different. If I'm way off, please correct me, but aren't they both sort of "Karate" styles with some grappling elements included? I'm generalizing of course, but TKD and Brazillian Jujitsu are very, very different. If these two Kempo styles as so different, can you explain more? I'm sure they share a lot of techniques - front, side, round, back kicks, etc. isn't that so? They both mainly train striking, and practice standing most of the time, right?

Let me tell you a bit about my first experiances at a martial arts school, and it may give you some insight into your situation. I had taken some parks and recs Karate classes, but the first actual school I studied at was a Kung Fu school. I was there for about a year, and earned the rank of "blue sash". The instructor and other students at this school would always talk trash about the Karate school down the street. How their techniques were bad, how they did stupid things, etc. To hear them talk, they were the lowest of the low. Well, due to personal family reasons, I left this school. A few years later, in college I started taking martial arts from a professor there. Guess who he was? the instructor from the much maligned school down the street. Turns out he was quite a good instructor with lots of skill, great teaching ability, and a really good attitude. He opened my eyes to lots of things I had never thought about with the martial arts. The instructor at my current school has heard of him, so apparently he is still at it. I would have been much better off spending that year with him at his school down the street from the "Kung Fu" school. Later on I heard from some of the other students at the "Kung Fu" school. They had discovered that the instructor there was a fake. The style he was claiming to teach didn't exist. He made it up. I talked to some people from other schools who had sparred with him - they said he was at a karate brown belt level at best. From what I have learned in the 16 or 17 years since I was at the "Kung Fu" school, I know that a lot of the techniques I learned there were entirely valid, but I'm not so sure all of them were actually "Kung Fu". I DID learn a lot there, so it wasn't without any value - but it certainly wasn't what the instructor said it was. This school when to some karate tournaments and did pretty good in sparring and forms, so obviously we learned something there. A school can be a bit dodgy and still do something for you. The thing is there may be a better school nearby that is the REAL deal, as in my case. Life is too short to waste your training time on somethign that might be 50% valid and 50% smoke and mirrors. Use your own judgement about your school, but if I were you - I'd spend and hour or two watching classes in every school within a 30 minute drive of where you are at. Then you might have some comparison.

Cool, thanks. Always good to know exact figures. I had heard it was 98.333%, but I guess those are the old numbers.

Sure, I guess I can see why you would think that from what you are saying. Just keep in mind a round kick coming from the ground isn't always a bad thing.. There is a lot of information to be had at http://groups.google.com/group/rec.martial-arts

I'd really doubt an instructor who said TKD doesn't chamber it's kicks. It's not like chambering kicks is unique to Oom Yung Doe - many styles do this. I'd like to point out one exception - the Muay Thai round kick isn't chambered. It's a great kick. It works fantastic at what it does. Just because it isn't chambered, doesn't make it bad - it just makes it different. There are probably some other non-chambered kicks in other styles that are perfectly good, as well. There are SO MANY arts out there, that I bet you could find one that has all the things you like about Oom Yung Doe. It's pretty obvious that there is good reason to suspect Oom Yung Doe, and be doubtful of it as an art. Make up your own mind of course, but it's obvious you already have doubts about it, otherwise why would you post with the question?

Old Joke I've heard - "What's the difference between Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do?" Answer - 5 letters. Actually, it's not a very good joke, because there are some differences. Short Answer - To my non-expert eyes, TSD is much, much more similar to traditional karate. Lots more focus on punches and hand techniques. Less focus on kicking. I've went whole TSD classes where not a single kick was thrown. Long Answer - I'm not going to go there (I'll leave that to someone more qualified to compare the two - and there is some politics involved), but TSD is supposed to included elements of Ancient Korean arts that GM Kee observed as a youngster, and Kung Fu that he studied in China. I don't believe TKD is supposed to include those Chinese elements. I'd really, really like someone to post a detailed analysis of the Kung Fu elements in TSD. I'm not qualified to pull them out of the style and analyse them, but it would be very interesting.

That's what you said. Personal development and "tradition" are not focused on ahead of self-defense, at least not in old school Okinawan karate. Maybe in modern karate, especially Japanese karate (some). The "tradition" you speak of...what do you mean by that? If you mean "kata", then I would argue that is still the study of self-defense. If you mean "meditation" and all that...that's not very traditional, at least not to karate. Well, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. By "tradition" I mean training with methods such as kata, 1/2/3 step sparring, point sparring, standing grappling, non-resisting opponents, etc. I understand you don't feel that way, and I mean no offense. I think I can understand where the original poster is coming from, and I think that studing the same (or similar) katas from the perspective of another Karate style isn't really going to fix what ails him. Only he can answer that of course.

TJS - I agree with what you said. But if the original poster can't find BJJ, I'd say Judo is the next best choice. Hapkido and Japanese Ju-jitsu would probably be less of what you are looking for, but if there is no BJJ or Judo...

Shorin Ryuu wrote: Just my opinion based on what I've seen of karate in general and other arts, I meant no offense. But surely you'd have to admit an art like Krav Maga has more of a self defense focus than any Karate style. I'm not saying Karate teachs no self defense, just that it spends a fair amount of time on things that aren't self defense.

Seems like pretty often. Isn't "the battle of Baltimore" Oct 16th? Might be worth checking out.

Since you have more that 20 years experiance, I bet you know a lot more about Shotokan than I do. That being said, I feel compelled to offer some input. It seems that you are focused on self defense or fighting. It seems likely to me that Shotokan and Karate in general focus on other things (personal development, tradition, etc.) ahead of self defense. This isn't meant to be a knock on any traditional art - I like traditional arts myself. I think you know that a lot of the techniques you are doing are sub-optimal for self defense, and the training methods aren't going to have the maximum impact for self defense. If self defense is your main concern, then I think you need to seek out and practice a style that is better suited for this mindset. I suppose that you could work on picking Shotokan techniques that look like they would work for self defense, and modify the other techniques to be more suited for self defense. On the other hand, a lot of people have done this sort of thing with all sorts of martial arts, and their combinations - so why re-envent the wheel?

Not that I'm a BJJ expert (I'm not, cause I posted with a newbie question here just the other day) - but I have heard that there is a pretty big amount of crossover between BJJ and Judo. Maybe you could expand your search to include Judo. I bet you could find some sort of Judo club close by if you can't find BJJ - it is very common (and usually quite inexpensive).

I haven't been to a point style karate tournament in a while. I know trophys and such are handed out. What about cash prizes? Anyone here win any? What is a typical amount?

Note - that the 2 schools I mentioend by name aren't Hapkido or TKD schools. They are more MMA/BJJ type schools, but i have heard they are very good at that.

I'm pretty sure there was a Hapkido studio on Rockville Pike (355) in Rockville, across from the white flint mall - at least a few years ago. If it's still there, I bet it's pretty good! There is a BJJ/MMA school called Yamasaki's (sp?) in Rockville that is pretty highly regarded. Also, I have heard Lloyd Irvin's in VA is very good as well. Try searching using https://www.yellowpages.com . You'll find something close to a metro that way.

I'm of the opinion that knowing some BJJ is probably a good idea for self defense. However, for someone that doesn't really have the time, inclination, or money to train in BJJ for a long time - how much would it take to get something really useful out of it? I've read some stories on the Internet (all of which I'm sure I can believe, because everything on the Internet is automatically true) of folks studing BJJ for 3 or 4 months, and being able to easily beat wrestlers, Japanese Ju-jitsu practitioners, in grappling. Specifically, BJJ whitebelts with no prior training vs. Traditional Ju-Jitsu Brown and black belts. Judo seems to hold up pretty well against BJJ. I've also heard some accounts of folks who have had a couple months of BJJ lessons, and competed in BJJ tournaments and did pretty well. From what I hear it is almost as if BJJ is "magic" and even though it might take you 10 years to get a black belt, you will have a usuable level of skill in only a couple of months. From reading about it, I have some idea of some of the basic BJJ techniques, and I understand about the training methods, which are very different from Japanese Ju-Jitsu, etc. Myself, I have wrestled for a few years, and studied Japanese Ju-Jitsu for 2 yrs. off and on. I don't really think I could apply either to a self defense situation effectively. From what I hear though, a few months of BJJ would be able to do that. The way it sounds, BJJ is so superior to other grappling arts that it takes almost no time to get the basics to a usable level. I'm not really that interested in BJJ for BJJ's sake. It's not that attractive an art to me - I'm really more interested in striking arts. However, I can't deny that there is a useful component to BJJ. One goal I have in mind would be to learn a minimal amount of BJJ, and "maintain" it, by occassional practice. My question is, how long would you need to train in it to be able to use it reasonably well?

I'm looking to spend around $100 a month. I have done various types of karate (Including some Tang Soo Do), Japanese Ju-jitsu, wrestling, and some kickboxing. I also have done a bit of Tai-Chi that wasn't done with an idea of martial application (If I could find a place nearby that did it with a martial application, I'd be tempted) I agree that TKD isn't exactly what I need to be looking at. I'm flexible about some of the stuff I listed. I'm really looking to have fun more than anything else.

Ideally I'd be looking for a school that taught something like this: 40% punching and various hand techs. 30% kicking 10% elbow/knee, etc. strikes 10% wristlocks, throws, etc. 10% ground grappling Ideally I'd like something that is inbetween a rigid traditional attitude, and a very modern MMA style attitude as far as training goes. I like a bit of tradition, but some modern ideas as well. I'd like like a place that isn't a McDojo/Dojang, and has a freindly atmosphere where they don't milk you for all your money. Ideally some place that isn't 100% centered around kids classes, but also not some place that thinks they are training you for the next UFC. I'm in the Columbia, MD area.

I agree that GM Rhee is a pretty amazing guy. Just out of curiousity, can you name the school you are at now? If you were going to the Jhoon Rhee school in MD I'm probably not too far, and right now I have my eyes open for schools...

I could never get a straight answer from them on the phone about what everything costs. Whenever I'd ask them, they'd change the subject. I asked about belt test fees, and they said their main office did the tests, and I'd have to check with them. They wanted me to come down in person before they'd get into the pricing with me. Turned me off from the whole thing. Not sure if this is a proper thing to ask here, but what DO they actually charge? I have heard that belt tests are manditory after a certain amount of time, and that they do charge for them...