Eric_

Me!

It al started one fine summer day at the beach . . . My dad called me on my cell to tell me an interesting story about an 18-yr. old bartender he had hit on the night before (he was mostly giving her a hard time), who happened to be, along with her entire family (including her father, who turned out to be the gargantuan ape sitting next to mine ) a black belt in TKD. It just took that brief mentioning of the subject to get me interested, and then i spent the next few days researching the local styles and then selected a school (2 options, and one was a TKD McDojo in a basement . . . not a tough decision).

"Lt. X's" claim of an highly efficient teaching method may be valid. But the simple fact that he doesn't use his name because the techniques are "too deadly" makes his entire pitch suspect. I have to admit, though, he brings up a valid point that learning how to learn is the most important step in mastering a martial art (or anything else), but if you're interested in that, then you can find a plethora of information elsewhere (much of it from more trustworthy sources).

It really helps for brick breaking with your fists. I hardly see how injuring your hand by punching a hard object, for the sole purpose of punching other hard objects, could be of any benefit.

I feel much the same as UseoForce. Everyone assumes an asailant to be armed. Not always so. Also, I would rather fight a "coward" armed with a knife than an unarmed guy who's a total hardcase. I think that the scenarios to consider here are ones in which victory is the greater probability, and where you are not risking death by opposing the agressor (unless, of course, you think he wants to kill you anyway). If some big dude grabs you one day thinking he can intimidate you out of your money, then it isn't a matter of the two dollars in your pocket, but, rather, one of letting this guy get away with robbing people. You could just give him your wallet and avoid the risk of getting beaten up, but that just means you're passing him off to his next victim, and his next, hoping that at some point the police will catch him. Not only will retaliation get him in jail faster, it will further discourage any recidivism. If this is the mugger's first mugging (and it may very well be) then kicking his butt now will probably stop him from trying it again. Martial artists or not, we wouldn't stand by and allow such a crime to happen to someone else, and by allowing ourselves to needlessly be a victim, that is exactly what we are doing. We don't negotiate with terrorists . . . this is the same principle, just on a smaller scale.

Just play arround a bit, and find a training schedule that doesn't interfere with the rest of your life, but that also allows your skill to grow to the level and at the rate you want.

Well, my instructor has threatened to demote within colored belt rank if you forget your material. Also, a brown belt student, who was very close to testing for black belt, has returned after a very long absence, and the instructor is making him retest for his brown belt curriculum before he can proceed to his black belt test.

Not as nuts as you seem. I've actually refused dates because I wanted extra training time that week!

Ooo, I like that. May i use it?

If you're a black belt, then, if he loses, he has an excuse. If he wins, he has a trophie.

"I was told . . . " or, "Sensei said . . ." usually help. You presumably learned what you know from the instructor, so if they tell you something contradictory to what you have learned, you should state your argument; you're probably right. If they say it's A, thell them that the instructor told you it was B, and check with your sensei to see which is the correct method. When you do, make sure the other student hears too, so that they can correct themselves, and not risk teaching others improperly. Another safe aproach is to suggetst that they might be confusing one technique with another (since they're an upper belt, they know so many more, after all ).

True, the damage may have been done, and they may feel the effects of it later, but what good does that do you? Unless the context of your fight is a war, your goal isn't physical damage itself, but, rather, the imediate effects of the damage done. If their liver is injured, and they require a trip to the hospital the next day, you might still be dead. The blow had an effect, but unless that effect occured during the fight, it was still ineffective.

lol, ditto

mmm, marshmallow nunchakus lol, i'm filling out an application right now! adress: 1600 pensylvania avenue home phone: 911-679-4352 height: 4' 6" weight: 257lbs primary art: tai chi rank: 11th degree secondary art: fencing rank: supreme master of the world Titles and Awards: 8th grade spelling bee champ Why did you get involved with martial arts?: to compete in final fu Do you have a hero? Who inspires you?: superman Have you ever been on TV or Film, when and what?: america's most wanted, last tuesday Why do you want to compete in this televised tournament?: to kill people Describe your attitude towards competition: im pretty much better than everyone What events in your life motivate your competitive spirit?: the fact that i'm awsome Are there any days/times/dates you are DEFINITELY not available?: whenever Buffy's on

Just remember: tying a belt on someone else is backward from tying a belt on yourself (remembering when someone tried to show me how to tie my belt the first time)!

I'm assuming you refer to strikes delivered with the intent of cousing pain or injury. If it was a distraction, then it may have been effective, but then such a comment really wouldn't appy, because you just followed up with something else. If, then, the strike didn't hurt, it was innefective. If the guy is on drugs, or an adrenaline rush, or is just too freaking tough for it to hurt, then you should be moving on to techniques that disable the opponet without being required to hurt them, such as throws, holds, and chokes. If you him, and it hurts the next day, then it does you now good during the fight, when it counts, so it would still be considered ineffective. lol, i laughed, at least!

How could that scare you? Clearly you were better prepared for a non-violent approach. Your training illustrated the true scope of your body's destructive capabilities. You wouldn't have needed Kenpo training to kill the guy; grabbing him around the throat and hurling him headfirst down a flight of stairs would have done the trick . . . and without any martial arts training, that probably would have been your most likely reaction (assuming you did try to hurt him). Entertaining scenarios of beating the crap out of the dude has nothing to do with your training. Being a martial artist, you imagined breaking his knees. Before you began to study martial arts, you would have been doing the exact same thing, except that you would have been imagining punching him in the face a lot, instead.

Hmm, reminds me of a game i used to play called "mind trap" . . . lol

Well, I have no idea how to break a board in slow motion (that defeates the physics behind board breaking altogether), but to break with an egg in your hand, you would have to have a very stiff fist, and distribute the force of the impact over a large area of the shell, preferably with the egg leading with the fat end.

As for guns bought legally, yes. These are not the firearms in discussion.

Well, yeah, that is more what "REAL FIGHTS" look like. True, in a "REAL FIGHT" there will be strikes to the groin, eyes, knees, etc., but those strikes would be delivered in much the same manner as all of the head and body strikes in the UFC; the targets and weapons would broaden, but the mechanics remain the same. If you don't believe me, you and a friend from your school should try a match with the same rules as national MMA competitions, and see what it looks like. Of course the UFC doesn't represent the "best fighters in the world," just because there are probably a lot of people who are better, but don't compete, but these competitors are top-of-the-line fighters, and could probably make a meal of any two of us. Furthermore, the fact that they don't train "foul tactics" for the competition, doesn't mean that they never trian for non-competitive fighting.

I disagree. Most fighting skills are intended to cause pain, harm or even death to the attacker, but the purpose for doing so may either be for self-defense against criminal elements (considered justified or good) or unprovoked aggression towards innocent people (considered unjustified or bad). I did not mean that martial arts are not designed with the intent to cause harm, I was referring to the likelihood of one's knowledge of a martial art ever being actually used to cause harm. For any given individual buying illegal firearms, the chances of the weapon purchased being used unlawfully is extremely high. For any given student of the martial arts, the chances, statistically speaking, of the individual ever using their training in combat is very small.

An intriguing analogy, although I think that Willannem's statement best summed up the differences between a martial arts instructor and a gun runner. Just as a gun is a machine, so is a martial art a science. As a science or a machine, it possess as much ability to accomplish evil means as good. A good chemist can make a poison and a medicine with equal ease. Yet, even the poisons he produces are not without their benefits. Morphine, for example, is a toxin used to relieve injured persons of their pains. The morality of science, like that of a machine, lies in its application, or, more appropriately, in the intent behind it's application. A martial arts sensei does not teach his skill with the knowledge that it will be put to ill use, yet he has only the assumption that it will not be used maliciously. Both the gun runner and the martial artist provide people with both a means of defending themselves at the expense of their assailant's life or well-being, and tools capable of causing injury or death. The most likely situation is that the firearms will be used to cause harm, and the fighting skills will not. The one divider between these professions, then, is probability, and probability is entirely subjective. If the investment and possible return remain the same, how favorable must the odds of success be to make the venture worth the investor's risk, and how great must the prize be for the same wager and odds before a gambler places his bet? Ah, the places this could be taken!

Hmm, I hope you didn't start training at 26 . . . Since begining MA, I've learned the cliched, yet immesurably valuable lesson: you can do anything if you put your mind [and sweat] to it . I've found myself, NEVER the athletic type in any circumstances, achieveing physical acomplishments of which I would have never imagined myself capable. I've found something to be passionate about, and hopefully it won't be long before I can make a career of it (hmm, then I'll be a haircut away from making my mother proud!). Of course, thanks to MA, I'm now I'm in the best shape I've ever been in (there's still not much to me, but I'm pretty confident that I could hold my own agianst a strong breeze ).

Can't wait to be in that position