Martial_Artist

BKJ, I see what you're saying. It is on the lower end of the many ailments of society compared with other, more pressing problems of society. But, the question was asked of me, legalize or not. I gave my opinion. Now, I will be the first to state that maybe my opinion isn't 100% applicable all the time, but it is still what I believe. For me, marijuana wouldn't be an incarcerating offense, a penalized one involving a fine and a marred personal record. Like I stated before. They can do what they want. I don't have to condone it. Going to prison over it is too extreme. Paying a nice fine and having personal records marred is fine.

Guns & training on how to use that gun do not make defense situations worse. They improve the odds. You can take a martial art for the aerobic benefits, there's nothing wrong with doing such. But some martial arts can effectively prepare you for defense situations. Now, a good point you made is that nothing is 100%. But that's not reason enough to abadon the attempt altogether. I have been jumped by multiple attackers. I won. It's not a guarantee that just because you get jumped you're going to get messed up. I didn't get injured. Fluke of luck? Maybe. It doesn't matter. It happened and it's over. Pepperspray is not effective against 4% of the population. Should you limit yourself to one tool when the job requires the possibilty of using every single tool? You made a good point. How often does someone actually have to fight? Does the frequency affect the necessity to train? If you fight all the time, yes. If you fight rarely, no. You may only use your skills once in your entire life. But why shortchange yourself for that one instance? Also relying solely on weapons isn't good strategy either. What if you can't get to your pepper-spray, brassknuckles, or club, &c? Your hands may be the only weapon you have access to at every single moment. Why lesson their training? If personal self-defense is what you desire, then your focus should be on effective self-defense. If are indifferent, then fine, that's your choice. Some of train for self-defense. Some for exercise. To each his own. I am an adult. I have been involved in several self-defense situations. All of which I tried to avoid to the extent of my ability. Sometimes, outside of all that we do, we are placed in situations over which we have no power. I prepare myself for such situations. I would rather over train and never use my skills than never train and have no skills to use should such a situations arise. Again, to each his own.

I voted no. Then again, if I was the grand potentate of the world I would also ban alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and some other things I consider useless to the human race. For me, in my experience, those who use any kind of drug have a deeper psychological reason for trying to escape life through chemicals. Mostly, that reason is weakness. Weak people use drugs recreationally. By weak I mean: weak-souled. I've traveled much and it's the same everywhere. Then again, this is America and freedom was won. Unfortunately that means having to put up with those who abuse freedom. It all boils down to when we were children and taught, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. And even doing so doesn't prove you are expressing freedom by doing so. Just because you have the right to smoke and ruin your body and soul doesn't mean you should. I've heard the arguments that marijuana is "safe". Mind-altering is not safe. External substance to get high? Doesn't sound very intelligent to me. Want high? Get a better life. Finding escape or "relaxation" in a drug is weak. I voted no because I don't think it should be allowed public use. Even now it's easy to obtain. I wouldn't make it any easier. I don't believe there is any valid reason to make it accessible to everyone. Those who want it can apply for it using medical reasons. Recreational use, I don't believe such a reason is valid for a mind-altering(you get high, right?) drug. So I vote no to make it legal. Letting everyone do whatever they want just because they have the right to doesn't mean tey should. It's your right to do whatever you want to your body. But that doesn't mean I have to condone it.

Oh, and don't worry. I don't attack people for their beliefs, unless those beliefs involve harming another person. I don't respect tyranny. I will, however, seek to understand that person's belief, and if I feel they are misguided, or that their belief will someday affect my life I will talk to alter it. But nothing degrading or violent. Simple logical discussion.

Real person who lives in a country where guns are banned? I think I can answer that as well. Guns are banned in the Philippines. I lived there for several years. Honestly, I did not feel any safer. Crime did not go down. I lived in both Cagayan Province and in Metro Manila. In the provinces having guns banned didn't really seem to make any surface differences. I mean, the farmers out there usually use bolo machetes, not guns. The rich are packing and so are their guards. In the provinces I would have to say that crime didn't change with guns being banned. But most crime in the provinces is simply burglary. Very rarely is there a murder with a firearm. Primarily because no one can afford to own one. I had friends who owned illegal firearms in the provinces because they didn't feel safe without them and almost everyone I knew either had a bolo machete or a knife of some sort. And stabbings are always high. In Metro Manila. Gun bans worked adversly. The week the government imposed the gun ban. There were 59 gun murders in the area of Manila that was supposed to be the strictest controlled. While in the Philippines I was teaching unarmed fighting to local law enforcement and holding private instruction. The topic of firearms came up quite often. In the case of a good friend of mine, who was shot at, if he had a firearm then the police there would have been happier he shot back at the criminal, hopefully killing him, rather than have to deal with a search for a hiding criminal. But the opinions vary. Most people I know in the Philippines all believe they should own guns. Many would if they could just get the money to. Now, many won't ever because guns have been essentially banned from the Philippines. Even Police officers have been arrested for owning guns in their homes. This may sound baised, considering my previous rant, but I'm just retelling what was told me. The only people who didn't think having a gun was a good idea were teenagers in highschool, and college students in Manila. Almost universally, everyone I spoke to, or had acquaintance with, owned or wanted to own a gun to protect themselves and feel safer. My mayor friends had bodyguards that carried Armalites. My retired military friend in the Philippines owned several HKMP5's. My chinese businessmen friends owned and carried, even illegally at times. For me, having lived there without a firearm(not being a citizen of the Philippines there were certain restrictions), I can honestly say I didn't like it. I had to walk through some bad parts of Manila at night and even had some encounters that probably would have just ended in me brandishing the gun rather than having to injure. Just to put perspective on the political climate during the years of my stay in the Philippines. Pres. Estrada was "removed" from office. Martial Law protests. Anti-America Protests at the Embassy. 9/11. Bombings at malls. Violent uprising of the peasants to remove Pres. Arroyo. Elections(live in the Philippines and you'll know why elections are dangerous.) Abu Sayyaf. Moro-Islamic Liberation Front. And the National People's Army (the communist terrorist group in northern Luzon) Crazy times. The temperment still isn't getting any better. Davao Airport was just bombed recently. But having lived through such turmoil I can honestly say that firearms are not the problem.

I hear you. At the least the CCW I have has reciprocity with several nearby states. So when I travel to neighboring states I have 60days CCW permitance. However, there are some states nearby that are nazi-like in their gun-control. I mean, let's be honest, can any gon-control advocate give a logical, real reason as to why I, me personally, shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun? If the answer is: guns kill. Then my response is: I don't have any intentions of killing people. If the answer is: guns cause accidents. Then my response is: My family has been taught properly. My guns are kept away, and still readily accessible. If the answer is: guns cause crime. Then my response is: My gun hasn't. If the answer is: guns shoot children at school. Then my answer is: not my gun; and if I ever saw anyone shooting children at a school I would use my gun to stop that person. (And in doing so I would be breaking a few laws, even though my gun would be used to save lives.) If the answer is: guns make the world unsafe. Then my answer is: my guns makes my world safer. So, it would seem that all anti-gun advocates really can't say anything that applies to me, personally, as a responsible gun owner. It does, however, become appearent that everything they say applies to those who use guns the wrong way, i.e. criminals. I don't mind background checks. I do not believe every person should carry a gun. Some people, I believe, just do not have the mental maturity to bear such a responsibility. But I also do not believe in restricting the right to own and carry of any person responsible enough to do so rightly. However, sadly, any restrictions placed to regulate firearms really do nothing to curb criminals acquiring firearms. If they want a gun they can get one. They do not walk into a gun store, as I do, and give my information and purchase a gun through the NICS background checks system. They buy them illegally. Why? Because if they did it the way I do it, they would be denied. So the regulations don't stop criminals from getting guns. They just inconvenience the honest citizen. (Historical point in reference. The Columbine shooters got their guns illegally and managed to break 20 some odd gun laws--(the gun laws didn't seem to stop them from doing what they did)--they had someone with a clean background buy their guns for them. So, even then the background checking system failed.) Banning guns only disarms the honest and empowers the evil. Those that commit crimes with guns need to be punished mroe severely so that they may realize that using guns for evil purposes is not right. (Case in point: a known drug dealer, and shooter for an LA gang was arrested in California for possession of two handguns. He was released on bail and out taunting the police who arrested him. The DA decided not to try to press a court scene because there was too little evidence and it would have been fruitless. The penalty for breaking the law was not strong enough to warrant taking action. The criminal was released back onto the street and was out mocking the very officers that arrested him.) It seems the problem here is weak penalties for gun-related crime. The strict gun laws in California obviously didn't prevent this known shooter and drug dealer from having guns in his possession. Whew! oops, it seems I got on my soapbox about this. Sorry. I just can't see the logic in taking effective means of self-defense away from the honest citizenry.

I'm going to have to disagree here. I am a martial artist. Self-defense is paramount to my existence. Today there is no better weapon, aside from the mind, awareness, etc. etc, than a handgun. In America the reported crime is greatly overexaggerated and some serious facts are always missed. For example crime rates in cities with strict gun control are much higher than in states with lax gun control. Take Vermont, for example, they have almost no gun control laws and they are close to being the lowest in crime. New York, Washington D.C. have very strict gun control laws and crime there is astronomically higher than in states with lax gun control laws. A number: every year 2.5 million crimes are prevented by armed citizens. Of those crimes only 0.9% actually result in a criminal being shot. Most of these crimes were prevented by merely brandishing the firearm. In a study conducted by the US Dept. of Justice. 70% of criminals would not attack a person they knew had a gun. approx 53% said they [edit: typo] wouldn't attack if they thought the victim had a gun. Approx. 60% of criminals are more afraid of an armed citizen than they are of police. About guns being in the hands of only police. Police accidentally shoot an innocent person: 11%. Armed citizen: approx 2%. I fail to see where taking guns away from the citizenry actually affect law-breaking criminals behavior. Most of which obtain guns from an illegal source. Bypassing all of the 80,000 words of federal gun laws. Also, I cannot see where not carrying a gun makes me safer from crime. That's the same mentality as not training in self-defense will make you safer. Why cheat yourself from an effective means of self-defense? As far as the UK being a better place, or Australia because of gun control laws. The statistics show otherwise. Situations where crime, even murder, could have been prevented had the victim had a firearm are significant. Think of it this way: More gun control laws is not what is necessary. Better enforcement and punishment for crimes commited using these tools is. Does this make any sense to you: when your life is threatened to make a phone call or defend yourself then are there. You decide. BTW, those who do not fight back are 1 in 3 of getting injured. Those who fight back are 1 in 7. Carrying a gun increases your chances of surviving a violent attack by numbers so convincing it doesn't make sense not to carry a gun. When your life is in danger what will you do? ps. all statistics taken from Unified Crime Reports of the FBI, US Dept of Justice, and studies done by Kleck, Lott, and other researchers. Check out these books: More guns, less crime. John R. Lott Jr. The Bias against Guns: Why almost everything you ever heard about gun control is wrong. John R. Lott Jr. Also check this link out. https://www.keepandbeararms.com look at the sidebar on the right and click on GunFact v3.2 It's a .pdf file.

Korek ka diyan.

amp, That is an excellent point. But something along those lines wouldn't make me quit martial arts all together, just find a new school.

Quit because of injuries? Spear wound to abdomen. Knife wound to forearm. Severed tendons in strong hand from katana. Damaged ligaments in strong foot. Bruises from sticks, poles, and metal rods. 4" Machete wound to right shin. Blood blisters galore on fingers. Luckily, no broken bones. I won't quit. It's too much a part of my soul. My body suffers because of the choices of the spirit. Each injury teaches me something new. MA.

Ingrown...ouch. Well this is what you have to do: A. Understand that the ingrown is a result of poor foot hygiene. (I will explain later) 1. Get it fixed. This will most likely mean a type of surgery. I had an ingrown once and the doctor took half of my toenail off. 2. After you get it fixed don't wear shoes. Sandals or the such, nothing that covers your toes. 3. When you have healed and your nail is looking good. Buy new shoes. Wear shoes that do not compress your toes. Change the style of shoe you wear. Now, here's the important part to keep it from coming back. When you cut your toenails DO NOT FOLLOW THE TOE. Don't cut with a curve that goes back down inside the side the toe. CUT STRAIGHT ACROSS. I have had three ingrown toenails. Since I learned how to take care of it. I have not had a recurrence in four years, and it doesn't look like I ever will. Hope that helps. It did for me. MA.

doaninja, I see what you're saying, and you're making a good point. But, Kendo is more than just sword play. There is a philosophy to the movements and subtle nuances behind many of the forms and katas usually demonstrated in books. The art of Kendo is deeper than mere swordplay. Now, however, you bring up a good follow-up point. Craknek can teach himself swordplay. It would be cannibalized and mostly based off of his perception of the movements of kendo found in books. He would learn to wield a sword in a manner that resembled Kendo but wouldn't quite be Kendo. It would have too many of his own little perks added into it that are not taught as the original art. He could technically learn to swordfight that way, but he shouldn't call it Kendo because it wouldn't be Kendo as the art is taught. I understand where your perception of it's just a sword nothing more complex than the weapon. But Kendo is an art and has certain things that distinguish it from other arts. That's the very reason it was systemized and made into an art. There are things in Kendo that are not found in other systems of swordplay. It is an art that requires a teacher. Otherwise, you're just learning to swing a sword and calling it Kendo. This doesn't mean Craknek can't learn to use a sword. I already said he could learn to wield a sword that had roots, and resembled Kendo, but it wouldn't be Kendo. That doesn't mean he won't be any good at using a sword. It just means it won't Kendo. Even seeing an instructor once a week is better than never when trying to learn another's art. He could go to the instructor for grading, &c., however I'm not sure the instructor would grade a self-taught student and rank him according to the standards set by his school. Doing so would mean the instructor would have accept Craknek as an example for that particular rank. Meaning, Craknek's rank would be given by the school he sought grading at, and since he never attended the lessons just went for grading he would still be associated with that school. Meaning, his credentials would be from that school, because that school would judge and rank him. That means the instructor would have to accept that Craknek is as good an example of the teachings of his school without ever having attended a single lesson. I don't think any instructor would readily do such a thing: give a rank to someone who has never attended a class, has never learned the philosophy of that school, and who never made the sacrifice to be a student. And even then, Craknek, if he could go for grading, etc., still wouldn't be learning the art of Kendo. Because he didn't have a teacher who customed tailored the philosophy and lessons of kendo to Craknek's personal needs and progression. But, Craknek, could learn to swordfight in a manner that resembled Kendo, even give himself a good foundation of understanding in preparation to take the actual art. That is, if he even wants to learn that art and not just plain swordfighting. Which he can do very well on his own. MA.

Well, it seems we have an interesting topic here at hand. I would just like to add my 2 pesos. If you are talking about learning an established art, that is, a system of martial arts with fundamental philosophies and techniques, then I would have to say that you cannot learn such an art on your own. No book would ever be sufficient to instruct you in the nuances of that art to any degree of proficiency. You may be able to learn the basics, as far as photos and videos can direct you, but without a teacher of those arts there to instruct you along the way both mentally and physically, you will not learn that art as that art is intended to be learned. A teacher as that teacher teaches you about the art will be able to impart things to you on a personalized level that cannot be found in any book directed to the general public. Therefore, if you wish to learn a system of karate, aikido, or kung fu then go find a good school. Now, there is something else I would like to give light upon to help answer the questions that might be lingering in the minds of some readers. If you were to approach the martial arts with the intent of developing your own art, not founded in the principles or philosophies of any other then that is a task a person can accomplish without a teacher. THIS PATH IS VERY DANGEROUS AND RARELY PROVIDES THE DESIRED RESULTS, BUT IS POSSIBLE. For example, if you wish to create a style based solely on you philosophy of the arts approaching such from a methodical, what works what doesn't work, then someone could actually create and learn a style all their own without the aid of an instructor. I will be the first to say such task is neither easy nor recommended for hundreds of such systems have come and gone with the lives of their creators without any real benefit to their masters. More danger is placed upon the mind that has convinced itself capable when it is not than upn the mind of one who knows their limitations. A student of a traditional system knows where they stand by virtue of their rank. But, as was already stated, nothing is impossible. But that doesn't mean everyone is capable. It only further demonstrates the need to learn from a master in order to find the right path. MA.

Just to help clarify. KALI is not a Filipino word. It is an adopted word applied to an art used widely and practiced in the Philippines. But Kali is not tagalog, ilocano, visayan, cebuano, hilgaynon, ybanag, itawis, waray-waray, or any of the other 80+ dialects spoken in the Philippines. Neither is the word SILAT. ESKRIMA and ARNIS are the words commonly associated to filipino stick arts. ARNIS being more understood by those not in the martial arts community. Go to the provinces and people will more often than not understand you when you refer to ARNIS. But say KALI, SILAT and you'll get more blank stares than comprehension. ESKRIMA is what the martial artists in Manila call their art on the street. My knowledge of this comes from having spent many years living in the Philippines (Northern Luzon and Metro Manila). I speak Tagalog and Ilocano fluently, I can communicate in Visayan. I admit to not having historical knowledge concerning origins or migrations, but I am a recognized authority on the Filipino language. I taught it in the Philippines to foreigners. NOTE TO FILIPINOS: "Di, po ba? Pumunta kayo sa pinas at tanong kayo tungkol sa kali, silat; sino ba'ng nakakaalam niyan? E, 'di yung mga dayuhan at mga pinoy na gumagamit ng salitang kali at silat dahil sa pagsasalin ng kano sa bansa natin. Pero kung sa taumbayan kayo magtanong, ARNIS ang ginagamit nilang salita. 'Di po ba?"

Size really doesn't play too much a factor in who will the fight. What it does do is change how you approach the fight. Big vs small boils down to who is the better fighter. Speed, strength/power of attacks, endurance, and technique are all going to factor into such a fight. If the big guy is faster, hits harder, knows his techniques, and can stay in the fight longer odds are he'll win. The same goes for the little guy. If he is faster, hits harder, knows how to fight, and can outlast the endurance of his opponent then he'll most likely win. When facing an opponent of unequal stature, whether big or small, what changes is your approach to fighting such a person. Some attacks are better suited for a bigger person, while some should really just be avoided when fighting someone much larger than you. When working with a smaller guy you're going to change how you fight him as compared to a bigger guy. Some attacks work better on a big guy than they do on a smaller framed person. And conversely, some attacks do more damage on a smaller framed person than on a big guy. So your strategy, your fighting-tactic changes with the size of your opponent. Not necessarily the outcome of the fight. Just because your opponent is twice your mass doesn't grant him instant victory. Same for if he is smaller than you it doesn't mean he'll be so much quicker than you either, or that you'll wipe the floor with him easily. So size, as far as physical stature goes, does little to affect the outcome of a fight, than it does to affect the strategy used in a fight. If you can hit hard and fast and understand the economics of fighting you need not fear the big guy, or the small guy. Both are flesh and blood, both bleed and feel pain. P.s. There is no one-single strategy for facing either class of opponent (big or small). Not one thing works in every situation based solely on the mass of the opposition. The big guy you're fighting just might have hands and feet faster than you. He could be more experienced than you; might know his technique more naturally than you. Thinking every fight is on an equal playing field is just bad strategy. Walking into a fight thinking he's bigger so that means he's slower will more often than not get you a bad bruise (if it's training or worse if on the street). It's not good to make a preconceived notion about the quality of your opponent until you have exchanged the first attack. "Never assume anything less about your enemy. Being wrong could mean being dead."

Yeah man, it's funny. Cebuano ka gyud. Dili ko kasabot ug cebuano. gamay lang. Ako rin, ako ay Ilocano taga-Cagayan(North Luzon) Oh well, the only good thing Datu Lapu Lapu is remembered for is killing Magellan, and the rest is soy sauce. MA

Magik, Now that's funny, but very acurate. "Kali" isn't a term widely known in the Philippines. Arnis is though. What I think is funny is the amount of westerners who go down to the Visayan Islands or even travel Luzon and then to Mindanao looking for "Kali" Masters to teach them. It's funny, ask for Kali schools in Manila you won't find many people who know what you're talking about. Even if you mention Arnis or eskrima you'll have a hard time finding anyone who knows about a school. They aren't that popularly advertised. What you do find is a "combat aikido" school in Quiapo, or a Muay Thai school in Cubao. A TKD school in Sampaloc, or a martial arts school in Makati, and a women's self-defense in Makati. (these are all just Metro Manila places) Travel to Cebu or Davao or Cagayan de Oro and you'll have just the same time. Westerners have really made Filipino martial arts identifiable. That is, not too many filipinos even know about them in detail. More westerners know more about filipino martial arts than the filipinos do. Nakakatawa talaga ang ugali ng dayuhan, 'no? Kita nila ang gawa ng pinoy at kinakainggitan nila. Nasa Jakarta ka ngayon, pero taga-pilipinas ka ba? Sabi mo, wala tayong kahulugan sa salitang "kali" sa pinas. MA.

1. I study The Pure Art. 2. I have been studying this for 25 years. 3. I received a spear stab to my left lower abdomen ten years into training. A variety of blood-blisters from shinai. A machete cut to my right shin(19years into training). A broken nose. Spranged fingers. My most serious wound was a sword cut that severed two of my tendons and required surgery. A throwing knife injury to my forearm(15 years into training). Recently, (25 years into training) I don't get injured anymore. No broken bones. No joint injury. A billion bruises from sticks, fists, feet, and shinai. However, in retrospect, none of those injuries seemed severe at the time. I just took them as part of my training and trained harder. I learned much, a whole lot about energy management and control. That's about it. I don't expect many more injuries from training. EDIT: Spelling errors and typos.

Chow Yun Fat will be in one called "Bulletproof Monk" looks to be very good.(2003 release) Brotherhood of the Wolf was lame. DMX is lame, it will ruin the Jet Li movie. The Bourne Identity has some good martial arts in it.(DVD in early 2003) Seagal shouldn't make movies anymore. Jackie Chan has the Tuxedo. Accidental Spy was not one of Chan's better films. Matrix 2 is due out in 2003.

Thai_Kick, I've got to be honest with you. Every single Muay Thai guy I have ever fought has been a panzy. All they do is relentlessly try to kick me in the thigh or barage me with kicks and punches (all of which, BTW, are telepathed). Thai fighting is for the ring. It's a competition style. Sure it works sometimes on the street. But not everyone you fight on the street is trained to fight. Listen, I have been in plenty of fights; not just here in America either. I have fought in the Philippines and other SouthEast Asian countries. I spent a long time living there. Whatever picture you have painted in your mind about Muay Thai it is false. Yes, Muay Thai sometimes works. But then again so can Aikido or even karate against the right opponent. Honestly I have yet to fight a guy on the street who knows a 1/4 of anything about fighting. With them it's all about the rush, the mental attack to freeze you up, and wild, rampant attacks trying to hurt you. None of these guys is trained in what he is doing. I have fought Kali, Arnis guys on the street. What happened? They lost. I have fought guys trying to kill me with knives and sticks, and one guy even tried a pair of nunchaku! They lost. I have also fought men I considered to be of great skill, who were using that skill in the wrong way. I have fought much, almost none of it in vain(without a purpose) What does that mean? Probably nothing, but it does prove one thing: my opinion is different than yours. My opinion is probably better than yours and you should probably just give in to my superior knowledge. C'mon! Listen to what you're saying. Anything you're using in Muay Thai was first a theory before it became a technique. All action was first thought in some form. Theory, theory, theory? Life is built on theories. We have light, power, locomotion all because of theory. Our military mights are founded on theories and then cemented in practice. Theory is not the evil you hate, no, I don't think that it is. I think something else vexes you. Theory is your friend, you just don't see it yet. I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences in your knife fights. I wouldn't necessarily blame yourself. Perhaps your training was lacking. Yes, I am pretty well versed with the Filipino arts (would you like me to speak to you in any of three dialects?) About killing? I think you have greatly underestimated the human spirit, the human will to survive. If you count the people here as not having the ability to kill when called upon then you have made a critical error as a strategist. If that were true, then the wars that have been fought in this world's history never would have happened. The soldiers fighting those wars were not very different from you and I; they were just placed in a position where it was necessary for them to kill. Thus, if someone put me in such a position I would kill. In other situation would I? No, but IF necessary I would. Would you like application to back that up? Or is my theory fine? I was once placed in a situation where I almost killed two men. It was in the Philippines with my wife and son. If they had pursued their course they would be dead. Luckily they did not. Also, someone once tried to shoot my father law. I chased him down with a gun with the intent to shoot him for endangering my wife. I would not have hesitated or faltered as you seem to presume the majority of humans to do. For YOU Thai_Kick the martial arts have been constricted to a number of styles and arts; and you have missed the greater soul of the martial arts. I won't try to lead you to this path, I don't really have the time, nor inclination. (Also this is near impossible through the internet alone--nothing replaces a teacher) You would do better not to so quickly discredit the theories of others. Just because no one has publically proven them, does not disprove them. I do not fight NHB/MMA because that is not why I train. I train in the martial arts to have the ability to defend my family and promote peace among my neighbors(usually through neutralizing the drunk, or domestic disturbance) I am not a "RING FIGHTER" and I never will be. Does that make me any less of a martial artist? I don't think it does. Is my training any less than that of those who train to fight in the ring? No, in fact, my training is better. I have had training that you cannot find in any school. Training that is not for sale or for competition. These things you will never find within the walls of a school. My teacher did his job well. My life has done well to supplement his teachings. I don't think there is anything more to say. I'm sure, though, you'll find something witty to remark about. And I appreciate that you will at least give some thought to what I have written, even if none of it is productive. That's all. I wish you a good and productive life. (Hopefully void of any fighting at all; because that is the best life: The life in which one does not fight at all. That is the life I am striving for.)

I just have something useless to add. With everyone's permission that is. I've read the posts throughout this thread and have come upon something that quite disturbs me. I've read comments along the line of, "I pay money, so I get to set the conditions of my training. I get to choose how I am taught." Sadly, this mentality is poisonous to martial arts progression. The student approaches the master in humility, asking, "Will you please teach me?" The master humbly accepts. The student does not tell the master, "I don't like that way, teach me another way." The master, is the master for a reason, and teaches how he feels fit. No amount of money paid in a dojo gives the student right to demand anything from the master. If the student is unhappy with his instructor, then the student may find another dojo. (This is a common case because of the lack of serious martial arts schools, and the plethora of McDojo's littering the planet) However, if you approach a respectable instructor and make the disrespectful claim that just because you pay money for your lessons that you deserve to be instructed how YOU want to be, and not how the instructor sees fit, then you are not of the right mindsey to be asking the instructor for lessons. I once taught for money, along time ago. I had a student tell me the same thing. I pay money, I want it doen this way. I don't like that way, &c. I returned his money and told him never to return to me again. He doesn't want to be taught martial arts. He wants to pay for a ranking, the ability to say he knows this art, and these techniques. He was not the type of student I accept anymore. Now, perhaps, those who made the comments about the money truly want to learn the martial arts. I can't say. After all, I am just merely reading posts and not talking with them personally. But if you go to a dojo and ask the instructor, or master, for lessons, to be taught. Then you do what he says. You follow the class as HE has arranged it. He is the master, the instructor. Not you. Whatever HE feels is necessary it your duty as a humble student to follow it. Do YOU know more than the instructor? If so, then why have you sought lessons at his hands? If you don't like the way your being taught then leave. Do not be so rude or disrespectful as to say, "I pay money..." Money does not grant you special treatment in the house of the martial arts. As for children teaching, that is anyone below 18, this is all I have to say. I don't recommend it. They can assist the teacher and help the rest of the class, but solo teaching I don't recommend. Now, if the student is exemplary, then he can help the teacher. The student may be able to comprehend the techniques and perform them, but that is not all there is to teaching a technique. There is the experience behind it, the years of use and comprehension that youth, not to any fault of theirs, do not yet possess. This doesn't make the youth incapable of teaching someone how to perform a technique, but it does hinder them in teaching the why, or the reasons behind. Dojo experience vs life exprience is a pretty unfairly balanced comparison. Life experience outweighing dojo experience. A teacher though, is someone that does more than simply convey a technique. He allos conveys a part of his life's history and experience in teaching the techniques. A rich flavor that cannot be artificially added to the teaching. After 18, if the student is exemplary and has years of training, I don't see anything wrong with them assist teaching, or taking over on nights when the instructor can't teach. However, the instructor is going to have years more comprehension on any number of questions that the novice instructor may not be able to answer. The young are bright and should not be so easily ruled out by the criteria most posts have named. But experience can be a much more forceful teacher. To teach from having done, rather than merely having studied is a better platform to proclaim your message. To teach a side kick because you have learned the side kick is not as effective as to teach a side kick because you have used the side kick. In other words, I can spend my whole life learning techniques within a dojo and not have near the comprehension about the life of the techniques as someone who has done the same, but applied each of those techniques when they mattered. That person is going to better understand the heart of the techniques. I may know the moves just as well as he, but he knows the life, the soul of those moves. Something I could not learn without experience. My eyebrow was slightly raised at the ,"I pay money, I get what I want," comments, and thought I should share a bit on that. Teaching isn't a thing to be taken lightly. When you are teaching someone who is a blank slate, you must take care and understand you are forging that person's lasting impression of martial arts. You are shaping how that martial artist will be the rest of his martial arts life. It is a great responsibility. You should ask yourself, "Am I ready to be responisible for how this person turns out as a martial artist?" It is the teacher who molds the student. The quality of the student can only be matched by the quality of the instructor.

Jerrylove, I find your posts reeking of net-trolling. You have offered nothing productive to this discussion, and , instead, have acted arrogantly and self-infatuated. What is it you are trying to prove, and to whom? After visiting your website I have reached a conclusion: if you are that sifu, or one of his students, then your perceptions about fighting have been sorely mistaught. There is nothing more amuzing than finding a webpage where the person being photographed is so narcissistic that he must directly look into the camera and never at his intended target. That, alone, is evidence that the technique being performed is merely for show, and not a demonstration of applicable technique outside the dojo. I do not know the sifu, but he comes across as an arrogant, self-centered louse parading around as a teacher of the martial arts. You, I am afraid, are counted among the many who hold many false ideas about the reality of self-defense fighting. These common misconceptions are accepted as truth, because they are taught by teachers who do not know what they are teaching; and someone new to the martial arts is not going to know how to judge what he is being taught. You would do well to humble yourself and listen to logic and reason over what you have been taught. Because I doubt you tak anything I say seriously (no fault of yours, you do not know me). I have gathered the statistics you requested. LIST OF STATISTICS: (Taken from Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2000) One murder every 33.9 minutes. One violent crime every 22.1 seconds. One forcible rape every 5.8 minutes. One aggravated assault every 34.6 seconds. One robbery every 1.3 minutes. Crime is everywhere. Do we not train in self-defense to defend ourselves against the worst-case scenarios? Weapons used in murder: Total: 100% Firearms: 65.6% Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.5% Other dangerous weapons: 14.0% Hands, feets, body parts: 7.0% Weapons: 93% vs Body: 7% Number of victims by weapon type. Total firearms: 8,493 Knives, etc. : 1,743 Blunt objects: 604 Hands, feets, etc. : 900 Weapons: 10,840 vs Body: 900. Murder is committed 86.5% of the time by strangers. Aggravated assault, weapons used in: Firearms: 18.1% Knives, etc. : 18% Other weapons: 35.8% Body: 28.1 Weapons: 71.9% vs Body: 28.1% There is a higher percentage that you will be attacked by someone with a weapon. Turning your back on this person is foolish. For Rape: (Taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics) Almost 70% of victims were victimized by a person close to them. Not a stranger. Taken from National Statistics: The Rape Victim. 16% of cases involved a total stranger. 57% involved a date. 80% of all victims know the offender. 41% of assaults occur in victim's home. 19% at a friend's home 18% at night on the street. 60% of rapes happen indoors, in an enclosed an restricting area. Taken from Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violent Victimization and Race: Location of violent victimizations. Victims home: 58% Near victims home: 47% Friend or neighbor's home: 38% Taken from The Journal of Physical Education... "A thorough review of the available literature has led us to some surprising conclusions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-rape advice. Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault....Research [tells us] that this is poor advice. According to one study (Zoucha-Jensen and coyne_, women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, such as crying or pleading with the assailant, were raped about 96% of the time. In the same study, women who did nothing to protect themselves were raped 93% of the time" "....[researchers and law enforcement agencies] report a 55% rape completion rate against those who attempted to flee. "Forceful physical resistance was an extrememly successful strategy. The complete rape rate dropped to...14% when the rapist's attempt was met with violent physical force.....Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling (Quinsey and Upfold). Physical resistance...more effective when [the] assault occurs outdoors (Quinsey and Upfold)." "Women are sometimes advised that fighting back will increase their risk of injury. There are two problems with this arguement." "First, research shows that physical resistance does not cause further injury to the resister....In other words, resisters were not injured because they had resisted....After the intitial [attack], forceful resistance did not increase increase the resister's risk of further damage." "Second, this arguement overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotionl and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when the resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a complete rape would have been (Kleck and Sayles). Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as sever as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstratable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether." "Women who used knives or guns in self-defense were raped less than 1% of the time. Defensive use of projectile weapons reduced the rate of injury to statistical insignificance." "...fighting [then] fleeing further increased the chances of avoiding rape (Bart and O'Brien)" "....Current research indicates that vigorous...physical resistance significantly increases the chances that a woman will not be raped...." Taken from U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Vicitimization in 26 American cities. "Research has shown it is safer to defend against violent attack...than to resist with any other means such as...running away." END LIST OF STATISTICS. Your calling me a liar is a strong action. Are you trying to prove how tough you are? First, your lack of ability to see the grand tactical advantage of an ambush, or the unpredicatable, unforeseeable circumstance of random attacks further attests to your true level within the martial arts. You would be a fool to merely suggest that ambushes and surprise attacks are futile, or comfortably predictable. General Sun Tsu's teachings, as any great military mind's, have shown surprise and ambush win battles. If I plan to ambush a night deposit, no level of security patrols will avert that or even foresee it. (Another common misconception) And surprise, unpredicatable, unforeseeable attacks do not magically become predictable and foreseeable because you believe yourself possessed of some magical martial sixth sense. I do not appreciate being called a liar. Of my many faults, lying is not, and never was one of them. I am finished. Your subsequent opinion is meaningless to me. I do not know you, nor do I care to. You have already sufficiently introduced yourself. I cannot, in good sense, listen to anything further you might say. Therefore, I end this useless ramble about running. You have been put in place. I don't think you'll remain there, but it is not of my concern. I could care less, Jerrylove, what your reaction to me is. I have shared the truth to the other members of this forum so that the darkness that clouds your mind will not overtake theirs. What you think of this is insignificant. I have shown to the other members of this forum that running is a bad idea as a FIRST choice action in the majority of situations. But running is a great SECONDARY choice action for these same situations. Where running comes into play as a primary action are minority situations, most of them never likely to happen. Where running is a secondary(fight then flight) option, these are situations many of us have a high chance of getting into. I have nothing further to say to you. You have taken this personally and avoided using logic and fact, letting your personal ego interfere with growth and expansion. I would feel sorry for you, but I don't care to waste my time. p.s. Patrick, I apologize for the nature of my post. However, I would ask that that be put aside in lieu of the level of statistical data I have shared with other members of this forum.

Hehe, This is amuzing. The anecdote...get enough use out of your thesaurus?...about the child abduction is quite irrelevant. For one, I would never attempt to abduct a child. So I couldn't theoretically fully place myself in such a situation. Second, if a child is being abducted, as per the example given, then the assailant is attempting to take the child from the arms of the parents. Where would running come into play? Unless the attacker had already succeeded in kidnaping the child, why would you run? Also, running to catch an assailant, or would-be kidnapper is a completely different application of running than the application under discussion. I believe we are speaking about running when you personally are attacked. And that this running is the best first option in pretty much every situation. It being the general consensus thereof that running is being discussed under a defense option, not necessarily a rescue/hinder attempted kidnapping option. Under that light, the kidnapping situation, running doesn't become a technique, i.e. something that is used, it becomes a vehicle, a means of transportation to a situation in which techniques are to be utilized. Back to running as a defense option under an attack situation, no longer referring to the child-abduction scenario. (Running in that scenario depends on the circumstances governing that scenario. For example, if your child has already been taken from your arms, then it must be determined that running be used to apprehend the assailant. Now, if the assailant is in the act of, then where would running be placed? He is already upon you, attempting to take your child, running to him would accomplish what? You could run away from the assailant, but for how long, or at what risk? Again, these uses of running are not the topic being discussed and can wholly be opened as their own seperate discussion.) Running as a defense option is not the most effecient. I.e. bringing about the most desired result. We can run, when the opportunity presents itself. But, as history has taught us, most street confrontations do not present us with that option. For example, a school fight would offer the opportunity to run. A push-shove macho fight would offer the opportunity to run. A fight between people who know each other and are not out to necessarily kill each other would offer the opportunity to run. An assailant abruptly and violently attacking you would not offer the opportunity to run as a first option. An assailant attacking you with the element of surprise does not offer the opportunity to run first. Violent, sudden attacks are the types of attacks where running is not the best first option. It is best to first procure safety then retreat to a safer distance. for example: a man leaps from the shadows, from behind a car, from behind a door, nonchalantly walks past you only to turn when you pass past line of sight, attacks you with a violent rush. Do you a) take the hit then run. (The hit could be a knife, a stick, an iron rod, his bare fist. AND the attack came unexpected so the hit is unavoidable if the option is to run) b) deflect the attack, incapacitate the attacker, and retreat to safety. c) do nothing and get hit. d) defend and incapacitate the attacker. Call for the authorities. There are other options I could list, but these meager few suffice. The point I am trying to make is that running works sometimes, but not most of the time as a FIRST option. It is an excellent complementary option. However, as for it being the FIRST thing to do I would not recommend it. As for football, the object is not to kill the other team, and therefore comparing it to fighting is quite useless. Breaking a neck, gouging an eye, arm, or other bone are not the rules for football. Also, for football, the object of the game is to run. Again, most street attackers are not wearing complete football uniforms, including the protective gear. About forcing the fight to the ground, I don't believe in letting the fight go to the ground. Nothing I have ever said bore any relevance to "going to the ground." For rape victims, or near-victims. Most of them run AFTER warding off their attacker. Therefore, running was not the FIRST thing they did. As for statistics, running reveals its head as what near-victims did AFTER warding their attacker off, or distracting their attention. Therefore, again, it was the SECOND thing they did, and obviously not the FIRST best option. As for Jade's posts, you haven't read them. In one post he briefly describes his experience. He makes no reference to crowded, "shoulder-to-shoulder" proximity. In the next post he further decides to elaborate on what defines an "unexpected attack" and then proceeds to generally describe, in lay-mans terms, what is an unexpected attack. If you had read his posts, you would see that he is quite clear in those distinctions. For someone who trys to come across as well-educated, you seem to have blatantly revealed a shortcoming in reading comprehension. Jade Lotus didn't lie. You just didn't read his posts well. Calling someone a liar is a very strong insult to many people. Especially when it is more than obvious your understanding of the supposed lie comes from not fully comprehending what was written. You would be wiser in choosing your judgements. In finality, the point being made was not that running is forever and utterly useless. It was, and is, that running as FIRST option is not the best thing to do. As a SECONDARY option running is the quite possibly, aside from staying and contacting local authorities, the best thing to do. About Jade letting some crazed maniac back on the loose, I'm sure he was more preoccupied about the safety of his lady-friend and getting her away quickly. Your 3-6 people surrounding you they attack at will, you have to try and fight them one-by-one, or run for the door, teaches something that rarely happens on the street. 3-6 people encircling you. I suppose that these 3-6 people have already given indication that they desire to fight. And that you know they are going to try and attack you. That defeats the purpose of training for an "unexpected" attack. My example was to test for an "unexpected attack". The 3-5 people are not circling you, but randomly walking around you, as if on the street. Then, randomly, one of them attacks you. You do not know aforehand which of them will(not like your example where you are expecting them all to) and therefore must react to the sudden and "unexpected"attack. Try to run when the first decision has already been made for you and you will be put at the disadvantage. In your example, you know aforehand that they will attack. They are pre-positioned for attack. The first decision has not been made, but the field set. You and your attackers are sitting on the same square. You could act first and run and it could work. That is not training for a sudden and "UNEXPECTED" attack, is it? BTW, I have trained where more than 6 people have surrounded me and attacked. Only after removing several of them was an opportunity to run made available. Unlike the movies, people don't attack one at a time providing an avenue of escape where the others aren't attacking. When ALL of them attack simultaneously there in no avenue of escape, unless you make one, and you won't make one by simply running into them. Even more potent an example, I have been attacked by five people on the street. People I didn't know, people who didn't look like a threat. People who minding their own business until I walked by and they decided they didn't like the way I looked. Being surrounded it was a bit impossible to simply run away, as I was encircled and running away would have meant running through them, which would have put me in a situation I would not want to be in. Instead, the best thing I could have done, was what I did, and that was fighting them off and then leaving. Martial awareness, a nice catch word used by dojos and instructors of self-defense classes to feed their students "pertinent" information, and build self-confidence. Martial awareness is the same as simple environment awareness, or more aptly common sense. There is no trick to it. As humanity and history teach us it is the minority that possess and use common sense, not the majority. Being aware of your surroundings helps in eliminatins those obvious situations where danger could exist. But martial awareness, or common sense, does little to foresee the planned ambush or sudden, instant attack, without provacation or indication. Being aware of one's surroundings is paramount. I'm not saying anything against being aware; what I am saying is that even being aware doesn't prevent 100% of attacks. And it is those attacks to which running is not the best FIRST option. I'm not arguing with you. I am merely clarifying some misunderstandings I see occuring concerning Jade_Lotus' posts. As I would do for anybody's posts. Just view my posting history. Our entire discussion boils down a simple clarification: Where running is to be used. Under what circumstances. In a situation where the attack is anticipated, running could be the best first option. Where the attack is sudden and unexpected, running would not be the best first option. The argument lies in clarfying where running is to be used, and not about running itself. Just the application of running.

JerryLove, Are you for real? Run at an opponent? Every single person that has ever ran at me in a fight, to hurt me or otherwise gain advantage in that fight has never succeeded in that attempt. I have had guys charge me quickly, thinking that running was the best way to close the distance, and eat a fist or a foot and end the fight instantly. Running, as it is being discussed, would only be a viable solution for such outlandish circumstances as you offered (i.e. rifle at 50 feet.) If you were to run at your opponent, the only thing you could actually do worthy of anything effective in combat would be to tackle the guy, or attempt some half-a$$ aerial kick. Which, unless the person being charged at, is blind, will see coming and either avoid or counter you. You know forget anything personal your, or anyone else's posts have brought, let's get technical and talk fight effeciency. Let's not give a hoot who the post comes from, but look at what is being stated. With nothing personal against the person who offered running as a solution, running is not a really good idea. It works, sure; but only in certain circumstances. If we are seeking the best things, the most effecient, not to mention efficacious, then we would have to rule out running for the simple fact that its use only becomes viable under very limited circumstances. (i.e. rifle at 50 feet.) While, at the same time, a vast array of confrontational options are more readily available and better suited to the advantage of the defender. (i.e. your advantage) I know the situation Jade_Lotus is referring to, he has told it to me before. I don't know how you can really make a judgement without knowing what the situation was. The attack happened behind a dark theater. There were no people. The man appeared from a hidden place (i.e. he was lying in wait--ambush) The girl Jade_Lotus was with freaked out and drew Jade's attention away momentarily. No fault to Jade. When a woman freaks out (or even a man) it can disrupt anyone. He turned for a moment to see what was happening to her. (He didn't know if someone else was lying in wait for her and was attacking her, he turned to see; to find out) When he turned back around, the attacker was directly in his face. Jade reacted quickly and floored the attacker. If he were to attempt to turn around and run, he would have had a knife in his back. He neutralized the attacker as best he could and left the scene. The situation, under the circumstances was handled well. The deciding factor: did he survive? was anyone injured? No. He successfully defended himself. About that shoulder-to-shoulder example: that was merely an example. He didn't refer to it as a personal experience. I think he was using that merely to reinforce a point. Back to running, I would only run if there was nothing else I could do to take charge of the situation. Running does too many adverse things to your position as a defender. It can help, when things allow it to, but most of the time, unless it's a school fight, a dumb push-shove macho fight, or a fight instigated between people who know each other in some way, running doesn't. When you are attacked without warning your first option is going to be defend. You can run later, but if the attacker has a knife, or other weapon, turning your back and running could cost your life. I suggest you test this. Gather four to five of your friends and stand all together in a room. At random have one of your five friends attack you. From behind, from the front, from the side, from anywhere. Just have one of them attack you randomly. Let them decide. Tell me if you can run away before his first attack is unleashed, before you have time to register that you're being attacked and who is doing the attacking. This test is a bit inaccurate, because you'll be expecting the attack from one of them, but it adequatele demonstrates my point: running is an option, but only very rarely. Try the test. Get together and walk around each other and then have one of them, or all of them, randomly attack you.

Pretty well put. That's a good way of saying it. Innate ability + type of training + Elements governing the moment