bushido_man96

Yes. Often seen from two different perspectives. One is a skilled fighter who, lacking takedowns, pulls an opponent on top of them in order to initiate a ground game, albeit from their back. The second is what I had initially mentioned- people with limited ground experience (often striking or something else) who learn grappling so as to avoid it. Pulling guard seems to kill the idea of avoiding the ground, but often done because they see high level guys do it, so they assume that it must be a good idea or the guard is a good place from which to fight. Ah, I gotcha now. As one of those stand-up guys that has limited experience in ground fighting (although not from lack of trying), I would much rather be in the mount than try to pull a guard. If I'm going to take someone down, I'd rather end up in the dominant position than in the guard.

Welcome to KF!

Congrats!

Yeah, I agree, I think the Rubic's cube is a bit of a reach. I think it could teach perseverance, for sure, but I wouldn't want it taking up class time.

I'm with MatsuShinshii on this one. It sounds to me like you are trying to suggest to your coach/instructor where you should be training level-wise, and your instructor is telling you otherwise, but it sounds like you are not listening. So it sounds to me like he is going to give you what you want, whether you truly realize what it is you are getting. A more traditional-style instructor might view this as being somewhat disrespectful. That could be how this coach is viewing it. Just food for thought on your approach here. I don't think the coach is setting you up for failure. I think he is putting you where you think you want to be. Either way, after all is said and done, you'll know the answer. Please keep us posted.

Perseverance is the key. That's one of those "aha!" moments that Sensei8 talks about. May many more come your way!

Ok, I'm a bit slow keeping up here, so here's a quick update. We've had two more meets now, one in Great Bend, and one in Ellis, a small town in my jurisdiction here. Kenneth placed 3rd at both, and at the tourney in Ellis, he started to put some things together it seems. At Great Bend, I told him he needed to start going faster, and not working in slow-motion, and it seems to have clicked a little bit for him. At Ellis, he wet 2-2, and I saw some improvement, so that's good. Kendall is doing well, considering the size discrepancies he is running into in his competition. He went 2-1 in Great Bend, and the match he lost was to a kid who was really pretty good, although he was a lighter weight. At Ellis, Kendall went 2-2 and got 4th place due to the funny way things work out with Ws and Ls in a round-robin format. But, he had some good matches against competition he will face the rest of the season and at districts, so its what he needed. We go to Norton this weekend, and I'm sure Kendall will see much of the same competition he did last week. So, we'll see how much he's improved. Kenneth, I'm not sure what competition we'll see for him there yet.

I'm not much of a grappler, but I am familiar with some of it. When you say "pulling guard," does that mean you are forsaking any other position and attempting to pull someone into your guard, onto your back, as opposed to any other kind of takedown attempt?

Now we’re starting on the same page... So, TJ, since you started this up, I'm assuming you have an answer to your own question. As an instructor/trainer, what do you consider to be the basics of BJJ? Say its my first class, what should I expect to learn? And what do I expect to learn that first month to 6 weeks, as per the basics?

Congrats!

Different styles and different schools are going to have different basics. This is just human. Ultimately, I don't think it's important to have unification at the onset. With martial arts, it's the whole journey that matters, and in the end, you'll find some sense of unification, as it seems that's when the collection of principles merge. Not everything fits in a nice little box. It's a big world out there, and sometimes you'll have to expect some grey area. I see what both of you are saying here. However, I do tend to agree with what TJ is getting at. In TKD, I classify basic kicks as front kicks, side kicks, and round kicks. Everything else I can build off these three kicks. In my limited BJJ experience, I would tend to believe that there are some BJJ basics out there that most instructors would agree on.

Thank you everyone!

I honestly think that is a part of the test. Its easy at times to say something like "when I go to my MA class, I can leave the rest of the world behind for that hour or hour and a half, and it is such a great release for me." I'm sure many of us have said this and felt this way at some point. But, on the other side of the coin, how many of us have actually stated that the Martial Arts are a part of who we are, part of our lifestyle, and we couldn't change it if we tried? Well, if that's the case, then we take our Martial Arts with us along with every other aspect of our lives, including the stress, the pressure, and the distractions. I think in the end, we have to decide to overcome.

Ok, this is coming from the TKD guy, but I'll chime in. I do think that the old adage of "the basics are important" is at times a cop-out, and I feel like I fall victim to that in my classes at times. Our TKD classes start with "basics" every class. To run down a really boring list of floor drills we do: Sitting stances and punches (in 1s, 2s, and 3s). Then break. Stepping an punching down the floor, then down block/reverse punch back the other way (done in front stance). Then break. Knife hand strikes in back stance, stepping forwards and then backwards. Middle blocks, done like knife hand strikes. Then high blocks in front stance, down the floor and back. Then break. Double knife hand blocks in back stance, stepping forwards and then backwards down the floor. Then upset knife hand strikes in front stance (lead hand going down, reverse hand going back). Finish with double forearm blocks in front stance, down and back. Then break. Now kicks. Front stance, stretch kicks down the floor, then front snap kicks going back. Then outside crescent kicks done on each leg. Break. Sitting stance, advancing side kicks. Two times down and back. Break. Fighting stance, jump front snap kicks, down and back. Break. Combinations. Fighting stance to reverse punch in front stance, back leg front kick, continuously down the floor. Then back and break. Same setup follows with reverse punch followed by back leg round kick, down and back and then break. Then reverse punch, back leg round kick, hop side kick down and back, break. Final combination is reverse punch, back leg side kick, spin side kick, down and back. After all that's done, the class bows, and the low ranks start their forms work, and this is done in groups by rank. At any rate, I'm sure that was riveting reading brought by the non-grappler of this crew, but its to make a point. We do this in every class, because they basics are important. However, we don't spend much time working on more "advanced" techniques in the class. Like what? Like 360 degree round kicks, or jump spin side kick, or twisting kicks, etc. Now, I'm sure to most grapplers these techniques would appear to be pretty pointless, but never-the-less, they are techniques that many younger and skilled practitioners like to learn to do, and some of the techniques are useful in sparring as counters and finishers in combinations. Aside from that, there are other factors I experience in the class, too. Our one-steps, for instance. I've always viewed (some) of them as a good starting point in learning self-defense, but its important to advance from the one-step model into a more interactive model for learning good self-defense. Yet we don't do that, either. High rank one-steps start like low rank one-steps. I don't think that should be the case. If you want your students to get better, the instructor has to move things along.

I do enjoy Kane and Wilder books as well. I have several of them.

Well, KC managed to lay yet ANOTHER home playoff egg. Just unbelievable. I was so very disgusted that day. My pick for the Super Bowl is Saints vs Patriots, with the Saints edging out the Pats in the greatest Super Bowl of all time!

Thank you all! I really appreciate it. Bob, I've hit the big 4-0!

Perhaps so. Though that's an awful lot of terrible behavior you're proposing to engage in considering the sheer number of folks that harm each other on a regular basis. But leaving that aside, who are we to say that they didn't have cause? All of the fighting I have done in my life, and I can tell you my opponents thought they had cause plenty of times. I didn't agree, and perhaps society wouldn't either, but that is irrelevant to them at that moment. What is relevant is what sort of behavior YOU are willing to engage in on a regular basis. Or me for that matter. I know myself well enough to know that while I could live with harming another person if it happened, I would have to be provoked far beyond what is necessary to get me to engage physically with someone, in order to be willing to gouge an eye or certain other tactics. I need a scalable response, and most of those things are not. Keeping it playful, or sporting as the english would say, enables me to choose the level response based on the level of threat. As the old saying goes, if your only tool is a hammer... I agree with you. The level of aggression is equal to the level of response. "The level of aggression is equal to the level of response" sounds good on paper but not possible in reality.If a person throws a stone at me, then should I throw a stone back? If someone throws a stone at me, then that person has chosen to do harm to me, my response is to stop that person's intent from continuing, being open to use whatever force to make it possible, being a gentleman or not will have nothing to do with the methods I choose to use, that could include not to be violent or aggressive. So this is where an in-depth understanding of levels of force is very useful. Level of force is related to a combination of intent and likely outcome, not necessarily choice of weapons. For example, the standard used by most legal systems in developed western countries is I.M.O.P. Standing for Intent, Means, Opportunity, and Preclusion To take your example of someone throwing stones: Are they throwing stones to hit and harm you? or is it just some kids messing around. Those require 2 VERY different responses. Also Means, Are these actual stones that CAN harm you? Or are they just tennis balls that leave a bruise at the most. Different responses. Opportunity. Are you within range of these stones? And, Can you get OUT of range easily and safely? Different responses. Finally Preclusion. Are they throwing stones at you because you are somewhere you are not supposed to be? Are you breaking in to their house? Are you standing on the clearly marked stone throwing range? Different responses. Even the simplest example, when you add the complexity of the real world to it, becomes undeniably complex and requires more than a simple attack/response drill. Tempest, these are very good points. Use-of-force does apply to the civilian circles, and its important for instructors to teach their students how to assess situations to respond appropriately. Shameless plug here: Force Continuum for the Civilian Martial Artist.

Congratulations to all! Job very well done!

This last week was a pleasant bonus for the Chiefs. They only dressed 32 players, and the rookie got the start at QB. I think things look promising moving forward.

Musashi was a duelist. When he fought, he was always fighting to the death. So for him, yes, it was a good thing. Today, I think this strategy still holds value, but we have to keep it in context. When it comes to self-defense, one shouldn't dally around. Yes, come in hard, and finish it quickly. A former friend of mine was quite fond using a line of questioning when it comes to using force: "How hard did you hit my client?" "I hit him as hard as I could." "Why did you hit him so hard?" "So I didn't have to hit him again." It makes sense to me, and I use this thought process myself.

1/3/2018 MA Training TKD Class: 6:00 - 7:00 pm. Basics, stretch, forms (Choong Jang, I have it down now), one-steps (blue and brown belt), sparring. Had several matches tonight, against some blue belts, then a brown belt, and a 2nd degree. I defended much better tonight. I need to work on movement, though.

The problem with point sparring is that it doesn't really matter what it looks like, it just matters if you get the point. Now, standing in a side-on stance and using lead leg kicks to keep an opponent at bay and using backfists as strikes is a sound strategy. Bill "Supefoot" Wallace made good use of that strategy for years. Just because you find a few people who look sloppy doing it doesn't make it a bad strategy, or a legitimate way of defending oneself, either. This side-on stance can be somewhat limiting, though, making it difficult to strike with the rear hand, and making the only really viable back leg options to be spinning kicks, which can be great counters or combo pieces. The back stance approach can allow the fighter to have lots of offensive options available to them, more easily employing back leg kicks and reverse strikes. However, the tradeoff is that their body positions leaves more targets available to strike in the point system, therefore requiring good defensive capabilities, too.

Starting your own club, Danielle, is a great idea because you've got everything required in making it a great success!! Your Student Body will be very fortunate in having you as their instructor!! I hope so... though it probably won't go over well at my current club or with my instructor Best of luck in this endeavor, and please keep us posted. I don't think I've done a good job with my resolutions, so I'm not sure this year. For one, I'd like to stay a bit more regular at class, at least once per week, and more if I can swing it. That's it for now.

Considerations of being a gentleman only come into play in a sportive competition, not in self-defense. I'm not sure the gentleman you are dealing with is seeing the difference. But, different strokes for different folks. Who knows, maybe after several years of experience, he'll come around to seeing your way of thinking.