Martial_Artist

If you can't fight or don't train to fight, then you are not a martial artist? If the definition of a martial artist is one who studies and practices the crafts and principles of things relating to war, i.e. fighting, then would a person be a martial artist if they didn't? The question is answerable in itself. Effectiveness was not part of this discussion, but you are right. Whether or not an art is effective has no bearing on whether or not it is a martial art. However, whether or not that art teaches fighting with the intent of fighting determines whether or not that art is a martial art. Tai Chi and Aikido. Tai Chi, Big Chi, or Tai Chi Ch'uan, ultimate fist. The names themselves indicate martial application. Ancient folklore held that one's chi was key to obtaining ultimate power. Tai Chi is a development art for harnessing that chi. The way it is taught in most places today has abandoned its original martial application. So modern Tai Chi, taught as another form of Yoga, should not be considered a martial art. Something more like enhanced physical conditioning. Aikido teaches principles very useful in combat and it depends on the method of instruction. Yes it is the peaceful way, and it teaches the use of opponent's energy. If it is not about fighting why then are there opponents? It's not a sport. If it taught as anything else, then it shouldn't be considered a martial art, but assume a more appropiate title. What kind of fighting am I referring to? I wasn't aware there was more than one kind of fighting. Does it matter? In the schoolyard, on the street, in the battlefield? The only exception I make in your examples in the UFC, that doesn't classify there are rules making it more like a sport and less like fighting. Fighting is fighting. You should be training towards acheiving the ability to defend your life. What does it matter if it's at a schoolyard, in a back alley, or behind enemy lines? Your ability doesn't alter, your reactions do, but not your ability. My friend, the martial arts are only about fighting. That's what the name implies, that's what the name means, that's what the martial arts are. It's too easy and closed minded to say something is what it isn't instead of facing the reality behind it and assigning it a more appropiate title. The sad thing is there are too many "martial artists" who know nothing of fighting. There are too many "martial arts" that don't teach the martial arts. There is a great misdeed happening. People are being deluded into believing they are martial artists when they don't have the first clue about fighting or defending themselves. If a man took a course in gardening would you allow that person to parade around as a police officer? No, because he has no clue what law enforcement is. He is a gardener. If someone takes a "martial art" for personal enlightenment and doesn't learn to fight, should you allow that person to call himself a martial artist? No, why not? Because they're not a martial artist. My whole point is the proper use of terminology. Too oftern we find ourselves in an arguement over use of terminology. If we speak of fighting and such we say the martial arts. Yet someone will say not all martial arts are for fighting. Then, I ask, why is it called a martial art. If someone wasn't familiar with the specifics of the art they would assume that art was about fighting. Don't be deluded by the word ART appended to MARTIAL. That word does nothing to water down the meaning of the martial preceeding it. Just because it has the word ART attached to it does not mean it follows the same artistic spirit as painting or pottery. The word ART means skill; the study and practice of a craft and its principles. It, in itself, does not mean a fanciful approach to thinking or watered down method of instruction towards some aesthetic level of thought. Sure it can be used that way, but that's not the application behind MARTIAL ART. Also, effectiveness is the be-all and end-all of martial arts. If you are a martial artist then you train to fight. If you're training to fight ineffectively it may cost you your life. In fighting it is all about what is most effective at any given moment. And if it's about fighting, then it's the martial arts. It doesn't matter fighting who, when, and how. It's all still fighting.

Again, another useless analogy. If you're going to try and use an analogy be sure to save yourself the embarrassment of using a useless and irrelevant one. Global Nuclear Warfare and a simple wide hook are two totally different things. Effectiveness for one does not apply to the other. Now, to answer your post about expending cheap energy read my post just before yours. Blocking to totally viable in such an instance. However, you need to understand that in fighting efficiency is key, in fact, vital. Why do anything else in a fight than that which is most effective? Why place yourself in unnecessary danger and/or expenditure of precious energy? When it's about fighting efficiency is the best option. Especially when the fighting is for your life. And if you don't train to be able to have the ability to defend your life then you're short-changing yourself. Just enact the scenario out in your dojo, or with a friend. There he is, drunk or mad, he comes at you with a wild hook. He pulls his arm back. At that instant make a choice. Let him get close on you or hit him first. Try it. As you see he hand pull back front kick him in the chest (we don't want to injure our friends). See what it does. Use padding if you must, hit him hard. Analyze the results. Now imagine that kick had been beneath the jaw or to his face. That technique is totally unexpected. He will be in so much shock, he ha expected you to back up or assume a defensive or block his attack. Watch what happens when you directly attack instead. Good results. It is beyond me why anyone would want to allow their attacker to move in closer for the sake of performing a block or other fancy technique when it would be perfectly fine to just hit their opponent and not allow him to get close, and achieve the same results. Finally, dropping a nuke on Afganistan and surrounding countries isn't even an effective military option. Here's why: 1. General populace of these nations not enemy. 2. Target: Terrorist Cells, not everyone with a turban. 3. Total nuclear destruction of that area, of any area, would have devestating ecological and environmental consequences affecting the whole globe. 4. It is not usually the business to destroy hundreds of thousands of innocent lives in a fox hunt. 5. It would not end terrorism worldwide. They would just move to countried safe from nuclear attack. Infiltrating modern countries like the US and UK hiding safely from future nuclear attack and continuing their acts of terrorism. Thus, a nuclear offensive against would achieve any desired result. We would give the enemy martyrs to die for, a newfound cause, and better hiding places. A nuclear attack is not the most efficient option. It is far from it. When using analogies please be sure they are relevant.

Hi Jack, Well, this is a competition with rules, a little outside what I normally deal with, but I would like to help and hope I can. If the Kickboxer goes for your legs to force you back, i.e. the famous kick to the back of the thigh, kick him high to the chest or face. Or better, take the thigh hit and at the same time close the distance with a straight punch to the face. Don't retreat, never step back. If you do you've lost. What they will expect is for you to step back and try to move out of the way. Do the opposite and short-circuit their thought process. Be aggressive, but not blind or foolish. Hit hard and decisive. Don't jump in the air. Everytime someone has tried to jump in the air and kick I have simply pressed them back down with a simple front kick. It's too slow of a kick. Focus on quick and direct. The kickboxers (by style) are going to try and intimidate you through aggressive leg strikes and force to back up because of your fear of being hit. Don't give them that advantage. If you have to, take a hit to the thigh and simultaneously strike him high or to the gut. I can't really give you specific techniques because you'd end up programming yourself and if your opponent did something unexpected you'd lose the match. Be relaxed and sharp. Focus and open your mind. That's really it.

If you read my posts I never said blocking was never an option. The question was posed: what is the best punch defense? I gave an answer. In its purest sense a direct assault on an assailant mid-strike in their attack is the best defense. Most effecient (i.e. least amount of movement and wasted energy) and efficacious (i.e. you get the desired results). In all of my posts I have never once stated that any fighter should do anything to limit their train of thought or place boundaries around their thinking. I have said precisely the opposite. Blocking is very usefull and highly effective and in certain situations necessary. In a punch defense a block may be more than a good idea, it may be necessary to avoid injury. However, I gave an answer to the posted question, which dealt with a wild, completely telepathed punch. In that case, it would totally inefficient to waste energy and motion blocking the attack. It would be much faster and efficient to simply attack him before contact. None of my statements put down blocking in general. Just for that particular scenario. Also, all the fights I have been in none have been spectacular as in the movies with sweeps and locks. Just simple hit-hit. I have also only allowed 1 fight ever to go to the ground. Each movement opens the door of opportunity. Many things can follow a well executed block, as you said, but so can they follow a well executed attack. Returning to the posted question. My answer has been given for that scenario. Now, keep in mind, I also do not teach that any one 'technique' is to be used always. Just that the best (i.e. efficient and efficacious) movement should always be used. To answer your question, the name of the art I study is called: The Pure Art. That is its 'name', mostly for reference purpose. Read my other posts and you'll see how I feel about style. This just isn't the forum or thread to discuss it in. I hope this information has helped. My style of words(speaking) tends to offend because of the frankness behind it. It's nothing personal.

You've never had it done before have you? I can tell because you're speaking from conjecture and not fact. If their punch follows through after you deliver your attack it won't be enough of anything to worry about. Even if it does hit your face (and this is really stretching it) it won't even faze you. You might not even notice it. If your technique is executed properly. I did mention a straight front kick to his jaw, or even solar plexus, it will stop them. That is, assuming there is power in your strike. Even with a straight jab, you should have power enough to punch hard enough to stop him. Being in so close, with the punch not the kick, his fist will more than likely follow through, but there won't be any room for it to do any damage. And because you attacked when he did his target will be off and not be going where he'd like it. If you punch him and his punch comes in strong, a hit to the shoulder or arm is worth getting the hit to face. Remember I concede to allow their punch to follow through only for conjecture's sake, but if your technique is executed properly you won't get hit. Kick him as he does that and his fist will never get near you. That fist, unless you don't hit hard enough, is not still going to come. Example. True story. Leaving a billiards hall three men approached and decided to 'bleed me' for no other reason than looking in their direction. Three attempted punches. Three solid kicks. On to the solar plexus, one to the area just below the neck on the chest, and one to the side of the neck. End of fight. One unconscious, one unable to breath well, and one screaming in pain. Nothing exaggerated. I'll take tried and proven over conjecture and analogy any day.

No, see, you didn't understand the post. I never said that they were anything but a way of life for their practitioners. IF combat was the sole purpose behind one's study of the martial arts is self-defense and they never have to use those skills do you consider that a waste of their time? When did preparation become a waste of time? The comment on hundreds of different types of martial arts...the point? "Taking a martial art doesn't make one a martial artist. Punching and kicking doesn't make something a martial art. " ... might I ask you what we call ourselves then? If you take aerobic kick boxing, or TaeBo, would you call yourself a martial artist? No, you wouldn't, because they're not martial arts. They teach punching and kicking as central to what they do, but they're not martial arts. And they know they're not martial arts. At least, after teaching someone how to punch and kick, they don't parade around like a martial art. Not all martial arts should carry the title martial arts. Thus, taking a martial art, that is not a martial art(see definintion in my first post) , does not make one a martial artist. You may ask what we call ourselves. IF you take a martial art, a true martial art, then you are and may be called a martial artist. If not, if what you take is not 'martial art' or your reasons behind taking the martial art are not the martial art, then you have no right to call yourself a martial artist. Someone doesn't call himself a fighter-pilot because he can play an arcade game well. Or one doesn't call themself a policman after watching L.A. Confidential, or any other police movie ever made. A sport martial art is just that a sport martial art. Those that participate are athletes, not truly martial artists. [/b] There are martial arts that lack the ability to enable their practitioners skill in combat. These are not, in essence, in truth, martial arts. They should, but don't, carry a different title.[/b] Again, you comment on multiple styles, or types or martial arts is irrelevant. If these "arts" are taught for a specific purpose not aplicable to actual "fighting" situations then they shouldn't dilute the minds of their practioners or confuse the minds of anyone by calling themselves something they are not. Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs. Calling something a martial art, when it doesn't focus on the martial, doesn't make it a martial art. Whether the art is centuries or weeks old if it is a martial art then you should be able to take and learn to fight. If not, then no matter how hard you try it is not a martial art. Versions of a martial art don't deviate from the core of the martial arts. Every style is a combat style. Not everything claiming to be a martial art is. If you take a 'martial art' and it teaches you physical conditioning and nothing more, great; but it's not a martial art. In closing, I never said the martial arts lacked life-endearing principles, a philosophy of existence. It is this principle that drives the martial arts. Perfection of self, through combative means. The concept and understanding of martial things is necessary to attain the enlightenment sought by so many "martial artists". When the philosophies of zen, et. al, were created life was a martial life. Nothing similiar to the cushioned life we live now. To use the martial arts and claim enlightenment without walking the path is blasphemy. Pure and simple, a deception to self and others. The martial arts are a way of life, but not a class at the Y you take to build self-confidence or lose weight. [ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-08 12:13 ]

Are all martial arts equal? Let me clarify. Do all martial arts prepare someone to fight? I have heard the argument before, not all martial arts are taught for combat. IF this is case then why carry the title, 'MARTIAL ARTS'? Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs. Why not a more appropiate title, or category, like physical conditioning, or maybe self-discipline, or something else along the lines behind its purpose? Why call it a martial art when it's not? Learning to punch and kick and 'kiai' without learning how to fight with them doesn't make it a martial art. Yoga, who considers Yoga a martial art? Tae Bo? Who considers TaeBo a martial art? Are they martial arts? NO. Yoga doesn't teach fighting techniques, so it is not a martial art. TaeBo does, yet it is not a martial art. Again, why call something martial arts when it is not? Truthfully, and I have heard agrument contrary, the martial arts are for combat. Ballet is not for construction work, yoga is not for fighting. If a martial art is not for combat then why call it a MARTIAL ART? Because it has the word ART attached to it? An art, Webster's Dictionary, Geddes & Grosset, 2002, defines an art as this: "...skill, acquired by study and practice; any craft and its principles..." That is in the first line of definition. When did the martial arts become diluted by the appendage of the art to its name? Martial, without any need to refer to a dictionary, refers to things of war. Martial Arts is the skill, study, and practice and things pertaining to war. So not everyone takes a martial art for that reason. Not every martial art stresses that reason. Should they then continue to call themselves martial artists and martial arts? Why give themselves an inaccurate title? TaeBo practitioners do not call themselves martial artists. Why should people who take karate for the same reasons call themselves martial artists? When we refer to martial arts. When we say the word martial art, we are referring to things of study pertaining to combat, war, fighting, violence. There is a philosophy behind it, making it far from senseless, but at its heart it is martial. If you will enter a conversation about martial arts and then claim that not all martial arts are not about 'fighting' then you have entered the wrong discussion. We speak of martial arts. We speak of perfecting our skill in the arts of war. IF we do it for any other reason then we are not martial artists. We assume a different title. Taking a martial art doesn't make one a martial artist. Punching and kicking doesn't make something a martial art. Yes, there is more behind the martial arts than just the fighting, but fighting is its core, its heart. To train in the martial arts and then not be martial artist defeats the purpose. If you are training in the martial arts for any other reason then your title is wrong. Clarity in terminology helps reduce misunderstanding. When we misuse the word martial arts we open the door for argument based on a misunderstanding of meaning. The martial arts are for fighting. It is their sole purpose. If you take martial arts for any other reason then you are not a martial artist and the art, if it teaches martial arts for any other reason, is not a martial art. Teaching someone to punch and kick doesn't make them a martial artist and doesn't make the art a martial art. One does not engage in crochet to learn how to sew sutchers. Calling yourself a martial artist, means you are saying that you take the craft and principles of war and fighting and studying and practicing them, gaining skill in them. If not, then don't call yourself a martial artist. We dilute the purity of the arts when we reduce their purpose to other intended goals. If you want physical conditioning you can get it better with an excellent running, strength training, and aerobic conditioning routine than you will learning katas. If you want self-discipline there is the military (I'll admit this is not a very viable means) or just plain controlling your emotions and desires. Everyone is born with a will. If you want to learn to fight, to defend yourself and others. Then take a martial art and become a martial artist. A martial artist is not a war-freak. I know there will be many who will disagree with this thread. I am not oblivious to the fact. But do remember this: Calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean the dog has five legs. -- Abraham Lincoln. Martial Arts are one thing composed of hundreds of methods of thought. But all those methods of thought are central to the martial arts. The study practice and skill of things pertainng to fighting. If it does something else, then call it something else. But remember when the martial arts are mentioned it is by their nature that they are to be understood. [ This Message was edited by: Martial_Artist on 2002-06-07 12:31 ]

There is only one rule on the street I can think of: RULE: Win. People may call it dishonorable, cheap, or dirty. But this is reality. If you die you cannot call 'foul' and have the ref. restart the match or disqualify your opponent. There is no round two. If your opponent does something to win--like throw dirt in your eyes--that doesn't make him cheap or dirty. It makes him smarter than you. You didn't see it coming, you couldn't defend against it. Streetfighting is, in so many cases but not in all, the closest thing to combat many will ever experience. It is fighting in its purity. It is not pretty. Fighting never is or was intended to be. If anyone thinks fighting is a fun game they have no idea what fighting is. They have never had to defend their life against the real possibility of death. If they did it wouldn't be so much of a game to them. Have to fight against someone who doesn't fight within the same constricts as you and it will open your eyes. Sorry if I have babbled.

Think of it like this: a bullet isn't attached to the body sending it. A fist is. Hit the person to whom the fist belongs and the fist doesn't follow it's original path. The analogy is irrelevant. A bullet is nothing like a fist (or any other part of the human body.) Also, just for fun, if in a gunfight you shoot first (assuming of course you hit your target) odds are the other guy won't have his gun where he wants it and the bullet still coming at you won't even be near you. Direct assault w/o blocking. If the attack is so obvious that you see it coming before it has even left the boundaries of your opponent. Attack him directly. It will stunt, bunt, or effectively recess his movement. Even if his punch was almost complete at best it will brush along you or uselessly hit you. Think about it. A man pulls his arm back to punch, you see it coming, it's slow (because he pulls it back so far) and you kick him under the jaw. The fist he is attempting to throw will no more continue along its original course intended as it would had you sat there and blocked it. The difference: efficiency and efficacy. just a thought. ps. I don't know your instructor, but his advice is quite irrelevant. Gunfighting and fistfighting aren't naturally similiar in very many ways. Comparing a punch to a bullet isn't a very effective method of instruction. Perhaps he didn't want you thinking outside the lines of thought he has drawn for you. Free-thinking can be very threatening to some (note I did say SOME and not ALL--to those who would mis-construe my words) instructors. We wouldn't want anyone looking for a new instructor, would we? just another thought.

Buffing up won't help you much in the power development field. Large, muscular people usually(I say usually and point it out ) don't generate much power than what their muscles instantly afford. Also, it is my experience that size of the person bears little on the amount of power that person generates. In fact, maybe it's my lack of experience, but I have yet to meet a buffed up guy who can hit hard, I mean really hard. Substituting mass will not get your hits any more powerful. The problem ultimately lies in your technique. You may not have speghetti noodle legs when you kick, but you probably don't know how to hit. I can't say; I can't see you kick or punch. But if you say you kick firm then it is most likely lack of experience hitting things. First, it would be good for you to get a heavy bag, 100lbs. canvas(water filled or stuffings is fine) This bag will not easily budge. Now start hitting it. What does the bag do? Gauge its response to your movments. Try hitting it as hard as you can. BE CAREFUL NOT TO DAMAGE YOUR JOINTS. Just hit it as hard as you can, this means as far as you can take it and not powering all the way through it as you could break or damage something. (A common injury among newbies on a heavy bag is an injured wrist from throwing a hard punch on a bag that didn't give.) The way to tell how much power you develop is by the way the bag reacts to your attacks. It is also a good way to tell WHERE your power is going. If you do a sidekick and the bag spins more than moves, then your accuracy(i.e. power-focus) is not tuned. Second, begin scrutinizing your technique. When you kick do you throw the dead weight of your leg at your target and let it hit with the sheer force of your muscle? When you kick it shouldn't feel like you're lifting your leg and moving it to a target. It should just kick and not feel like your moving anything. You must snap through your attacks. A lot of power is to be found in the proper utilization of snap. You can place a lot of mass behind a simple, sharp movement aimed beyond the target in a quick motion. There is more to any attack than just forcefully placing your hand or foot on the target. If you don't make your target 'jump' or 'explode'(note I did put it in quotes so don't take it as literally exploding) then you're not really hitting your target, but forcefully placing your hand or foot on it and there is not much power to be found in doing that. Strength training is important but more so for the overall benefits and uses aside from striking that can be gained from it. Case-in-point: my younger brother, when we were younger, was around 5'1" and less than 100lbs. He was like that all through high school. With a single punch he has knocked out a guy 6'3" 250+lbs. With a 'light' kick he knocked another 6'+ 240+lbs. out cold. I use him because he is small and a perfect example. I'd use myself but I'm the exact opposite. And it might sound as if I don't know what a smaller person is capable of. Work your technique. Test it on the heavy bag. I hate to say but not every instructor teaches how to kick with power. This was, and still is, a major issue within the martial arts. In the 70's certain styles had wars and tests because of the types of kicks(actually attacks and overall style) being taught and where power was to be found. Not every teacher teaches it. Not every teacher knows it. The first thing you need to do is gauge where your power is at before determining where to go with it. After the bag is setup work on putting your hips and body behind each attack. This doesn't mean simply pushing your body towards the target.(That could seriously disrupt your balance) But lies in the timing of certain body positions when each attack is being made. Example on a very well known technique. A simple roundhouse. It is widely taught to twist your hip into the attack. HOWEVER, there is a difference to twisting your hip AS you kick and twisting your hip AT the moment of impact. I'll leave it to you to find out which is better. Add more to that and it's more than just twisting the hip. It's also when do you twist your foundation foot. What do your hands do? Believe it or not your arms and hands play just as vital a role as your legs do in throwing any kick. I can't 'show' you through words, but I hope you get the picture. Build power, like has already been said, through technique. Just make sure your trying to power through proper technique. ps. Don't forget emotion. I'm not talking about anger or determination, but emotion, the fuel of power. Hit with your emotions ringing like a tuning fork. There is where true power is found. After all the physical is said and done place your emotions, ringing true like a tuning fork and BAM! you have it. Hope this helps a bit.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE I am not stating an opinion for either side of the argument. Just a comment. Iron Arahat(I need to know what your name implies?) It would seem to me that what you truly seek is the control of gun manufactre. From what I have read of your informative posts I gather that gun manufactre is the root of evil. [q]Illegal guns start from legal means,...[/q] So wouldn't you say then that it should start at the source first? I don't think the issue lies in banning guns, but in better control of who has the guns. Take guns from law-abiding citizens. You do some good. Guns will still be made and criminals will still gain access to them. Yes, there are too many guns in the hands of unskilled, and unprepared law-abiding citizens. Not everyone should own a gun. There are people who just shouldn't own one. But you shouldn't take away someone's right to. A gun is very deadly. Why a gun would be near a child is beyond my comprehension. Guns kill people because of the people using them. It is irrelevant to state an inanimate object can or can't do anything. This topic has strayed from the original post topic and probably should be moved to something clearer. I think, this is my opinion based on experience, the reasons guns play such a role in death is largely because of the society in which we live. I have lived in a third-world country(the Philippines) for a long time. Children there have a different view of guns than children here. A gun, not legally owned by many but owned by a lot, is looked at not as something a child touches or concerns himself with. Children there do not run around trying to kill themselves in play wars. An acquaintance of mine in a remote town in the Philippines owns a gun and it is kept very accessible; his children have nothing to do with it. There is no curiousity, no wonder as to what it does. The culture is different. This accounts for a great number of the people I know in the Philippines(many of which are Police and Military servicemen.) The factors are many and conjecture can lead to a thousand arguments. But why guns play a major role in death in our society is because that is how our society wants guns to be used. Superman could not be killed by guns and Billy the Kid killed many with a gun. Put the two together and you end up with stupidty. Case in point, my nephew was shot in the head with a BB gun by his friend.(He didn't die, but the BB is still lodged in his head. We are all thankful it wasn't a gun) Why? I can't say exactly but I can give a good guess. Because they had grown up with the false image that guns are like the powers of Superman: FANTASY. When, in fact, they are REALITY. The solution, in my opinion(then again, what do I know, right?) is not to remove the gun. It is to control the gun. I enjoy recreational shooting, but I would hate having to go to a range to do it. We may never be able to ever solve the reason by many gun deaths. I don't see the tools existing in our society. Living so high up in prosperity has given too many of us an invincible mentality. We live comfortably, we enjoy things so many do not. We view ourselves invincible and immortal(two dangerous traits). Because of this we play with fire. We have no fear of getting burned; sadly, more often than not we do get burned. I believe, I do believe this, that if society had a different view on the gun. If society had a different view on itself. If our culture was not so high-strung on itself. Then the discussion over gun control would be unnecessary. We wouldn't need to discuss it, we wouldn't have to. Alas, it is not so. We cannot solve the ails of the world simply by removing the scapegoat. The problem is much more deeply rooted. Cut the weed off, the root will grow again. Kill the root, the weed will never grow. If it is human life we are concerned about saving, then it is the human that we must save. This change, however, I do not see as ever happenning. There are too many 'stupid' people(I make no reference to anyone on this forum) who won't change, who view themselves as above-the-rest, and will continue to kill their brother in a game. Guns do kill people. But only because the person holding it killed first. Oh how wonderful it would be if a person never considered shooting themself to end their life. People have been killing themselves forever. Blame society for placing too many false pretenses that we must live to fulfill for causing the depressing downfall of ego and driving many to take their lives. Crime? We could discuss eternally the reasons behind crime. Again, I don't we can solve everything, or even really help, until great cultural change occurs. We can't save it by killing the sacrificial scapegoat, nor by liberalizing everything. I don't want to seem the pessimist, but I don't honestly see any change occuring. Take guns away, people will still die by guns. Let guns run, people will die. It is the person behind the gun. It is the gun that got into that person's hand. It is much more than all of that. My 2(two) shillings.(Have I spelt that right?)

Agreed, it is not as easy as film portrays it to be, breaking a knee. Also, breaking a board and breaking a knee are two different things. The follow-through on board-breaking is more of a physics concept necessary to push through the remaining boards and not related to actually breaking the board. Example: hold a board arm's length, drop it, and break it with a side kick; you won't do it unless there is a snap, regardless of how much follow-through you apply. Much is related to the knee strike(or any strike for that matter. Why limit yourself?). Follow-through is important in contact, but the snap does the damage. Otherwise, most of the time your follow-through turns into a push and looks impressive when you've moved the bag far or made your partner take a few steps back. To YODA, I have kicked the knee with the intention of injuring it, however, not with the intention of breaking it. I have not found a situation that would justify me breaking a knee.(i.e. I would rather hit something else than try to break a knee) I did injure the knee exactly as I had planned and dislocated his patella. Just a note, not wholly related to the topic, but that can be oddly construed as being related; when did a snap get the rep. as a weak attack? Your jab should be able to knock your opponent out just as well as your cross. The usage of each totally dependent on the situation. If you don't snap in you techniques you don't do much damage. Sure a cross that doesn't snap can knock a person out, but only if that person can't take a hit. At best it knocks them out because of the shock of being hit.(i.e. their brain cannot process what just happened and they black out) Otherwise they take the hit, get a black eye or busted lip and move on. Snap your punch into your opponent and you do damage. Snap you kick and you damage organs. Let me elaborate: Have a partner hold a kicking pad for you. Now, kick it. Follow-through. Did your partner step back a few steps? Good. Now, kick it. Snap into it, put your hip and body weight behind aiming eight inches behind it. SNAP that pad hard. Did your partner jump back? Did he feel the hit on his person rather than an impact to the pad? If not you did it wrong. That is the difference. NOTE:This is not the thread for this, but I do feel it somewhat related to the topic. Further discussion should be brought under a new thread.

I've said it before(not here though). If you can see it coming then hit him first. A straight punch to the face, or a kick. Just straight, nothing more. You won't even have to block. If you don't want to hurt the guy(e.g. he's drunk and doesn't really know what he's doing) then move and walk away. No need to take advantage of a guy who can't even walk(or think) straight. Even if he is trying to beat you up he's drunk so leave him where he his. It's much more frustrating to him to be left hanging than to give him what he wants. Skilled opponent or random hook punch thrown by someone controlled by emotion(i.e. anger), if you want to block you could, but if you see it coming then you should hit him first. Just don't block-then-strike. Block-and-strike. There is no RIGHT or WRONG; there is BETTER and WORSE. Do what is most efficient for you at that moment.

You know what, though. A black belt should be able to do this and should be to do that, but the reality of it is: Most 'black belts' don't. In fact, a really high percentage of black belts don't. If someone can break cement/boards/bricks how often do those things dodge or hit back? *silence* Not very often. Also, just a reminder, most street fighters carry a weapon. AND almost every street fighter I have run across does go to the ground in a fight. They may not call it an arm bar, or reverse naked choke, but they(speaking very generally) are familiar with them. I think the real issue here is knowledge. I don't think half the people here actually know what a street fighter does or what happens in a 'street fight'. If they did there wouldn't be so much conjecture as to what occurs within a 'street fight'. A 'street fight' is a fight to win, not unlike any other fight. If you have trained to fight then you are ready for a 'street fight'. If you have not trained to fight (i.e. trained for conditioning or other purposes) then you are not ready for a 'street fight'. There is nothing 'DIRTY' that goes on in a street fight. Who can call one person's technique dirty? Just because it doesn't conform to your rules and your concepts of what a fight should be doesn't make it dirty. So what if he "FIGHTS DIRTY" who's to say it's dirty? You? You lost. So I guess it really wasn't dirty. I guess it was just better than yours. That's just the way it is. We can either fight to win or fight to lose. Remember it IS called MARTIAL arts for a reason. But, I hate to say it, being a 'black belt' is not all it's cracked up to be. Again, it should be, but sadly it isn't always the case. We can talk COULDA, WOULDA, and SHOULDA's all day long, but it doesn't change the way things are. My two(2) shillings.(Did I spell that right?)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and be very general, but hopefully my point will be seen and not just overlooked. The best weapon we possess is our body. The whole body as a single unit. Not any one part. What good does a brain do without a body trained to follow its commands? Or, similiarly, what good is a well trained fist without a mind to command to it? With this in mind, armed or unarmed, we should be able to make our bodies do whatever is best at any given moment. In fact, after your body is prepared as a weapon then it becomes far more wise and effective to arm it with a weapon. In a battle, without arms you lower your chances of survival. With arms you increase them. So, in reply to the first comment, is the fist the best weapon? I must reply no; it is a good one, but not the best. It is more a part of the whole than the whole itself.

Hiya, a gun defence can actually work. This why people train for them so that, by some degree at least, the fear that will come over them at the crucial moment can be learned to be controlled or even deluded. Not knowing what to do in such a situation would harbor the reaction you mentioned, not the other way around. Each gun situation is unique and very different from another. THe key to survival is keeping a cool head. Those who survive gunfights on the street are those who do not panic. Those who survive gun confrontations on the street are those who do not panic. Just like everything else you can 100% defend yourself from any gun situation, but you can 100% change your ability to handle any gun situation. Just my 2 shilings.(sp?)

There is nothing noteworthy in what these guys do. They fight each other in such a manner(I'm making a conjecture here) because they need to fuel some inferiority complex plaguing them about themselves. You cannot call it serious training to improve skill when you keep track records. Those are bragging rights, nothing more. Seems to me these guys have something to prove to themselves, maybe in primary school or highschool they were laughed at a lot or not very popular, and this is their way to show they're something instead of nothing. Sparring full contact with intended goals of training is much different, mentally, physically, and philosophically that what these guys do.

Good question. I think all of the above can be summed up in NECESSITY. People fight because of necessity. Let me explain. Humans tend to do whatever is most necessary to them(their personal view) at any given moment. Thus it is necessity that governs choice. Whether your reason lies behind fear, defense, stupidity, etc. the reason remains that you fought at that moment because you felt it the most necessary thing to do at that moment. On the other hand, NECESSITY is the same governing factor behind running. Choosing to run vs fight depends on what you view as necessary at that given moment.

Stop eating fried, fatty foods. Eliminate junk food from your diet. Eat more fruits and vegatables. Eat more wheat. Eat less beef and pork. Continue working out. That's the meat and potatoes of it(get the pun?) A change in lifestyle is what is needed. Sure there are supplements that help, but to truly do it you've got to change your eating habits. This, btw, is probably the hardest thing to do. Food, that's not too healthy for you, tasts oh so good. If you want to know some herbs/supplements here they are: Chromium picolinate(the best form is in the picolinate form) Ginseng, herbal tea(decaffinated) Herbal, decaffinated, organic green tea. A B-Complex. Taurine(this doesn't really do anything specific to fat, just helps with neural processing(ie speed of synapse response) Royal Jelly There are more, but before you even consider taking supplements you need to alter your eating habits. If you already are eating healthily then alter your exercise routine. After all that you could start taking supplements to aid, not take over in work, the process. If anyone could add, that'd be great. I can't remember off the top of my head the other herbs that are helpful. I'd have to go look in my cupboard or look them up again. I hope this helps.

Wrist/ ankle weights. You can try Therabands, or surgical tubing. I don't know of any weighted clothing, aside from vests. Want some good resistence work? Build your fluidity? Get in a deep pool and fight as fast as you can. Changes everything you do.

Welcome to the forums. Enjoy.

Welcome. I hope you have fun here. Congradulations on your victories.

Welcome to the site.

I like the Sig P220, .45cal. I don't like anything less. I love the Magnum Research .50 cal Desert Eagle. Welcome to the site.

Hello and welcome to the site. I know it's a little late, but better late than never.