bushido_man96

I think this is how the flashy technique thing gets started. We learn a kick that is "a little flashy," but we can find an application for it. I imagine this kicker, if he looked into it, he could find some applications for each of these kicks that he performs. I also tend to agree with Danielle, in the idea of pushing oneself the way he does can be quite rewarding in the pursuit of the Martial Arts.

Very good observation here. I do agree that kata is good at training those things mentioned above. But, I point out the bold highlight, because I don't think it is the sole possession of kata training. Posture, transition, and breathing are taught more "on the fly" through the concept partner training, and emphasis isn't put as much on what is a "proper" stance, and more so on how functional it is for the given situation.

Wow, you were lucky! You could have ended up getting nailed in the eye. I think I would have had words with that student, and they would have likely been very nasty.

Great video, thank you for sharing that with us, Zoodles. It does a great job of showing how Western Swordsmanship is a precision system, and not the clang and bang system it gets reputed to be in movies. That video shows the footwork and precision involved in the use of the sword. Great stuff.

Sounds good to me!

That's cool. At least you get to watch that. Aside from Olympic Judo and TKD and a bit of boxing, most combat sports for us are on the paid networks like Sky and Eurosports. I remember getting to see some of the Judo last time, but didn't get to see the TKD. I'm not sure if it was on TV or not. But, NBC did a bunch of streaming stuff on the internet, too.

Do you feel the jumping tornado kick is a practical kick, then? I know some that would not feel that way.

I respect his desires, as well. I agree that is a loyal showing, although I don't think its necessary. I don't think it would be wrong to seek out leadership from someone else after losing an instructor in order to continue progressing. Loyalty is good. Blind loyalty, not so much.

I was thumbing through Hee Il Cho's The Complete One and Three Step Sparring, and came across some of his ideas as to the uses of each: Three Step: for building sparring skills. Cho says, One Step: for self-defense. Cho says, Cho mentions that typically, three-step sparring was taught first to beginning students, as he felt it took longer to acquire the ability to defend oneself, and it was best acquired through sparring. I can see the points he is making, and I understand why he makes them (although I don't agree with them all...more on that in another thread). In my experience in two styles of TKD, I have done one-steps as a component of curriculum. In the ATA, we had one-steps up to green belt level, and in the TTA, we have them through all colored belt levels. They do advance in difficulty, and some I even see some good self-defense applications in. Others, not so much. In the TTA, we also have a set of three-step sparring, but they are a bonus component, and not a requirement for any testing yet. I do like what some of the sets offer, and some not so much. I would like to hear from others that do one and/or three step sparring, and hear how you use it for your students. Do you have pre-set one-steps, or do you have random step-sparring practice? Do you advance the concepts of step-sparring, and if so, how do you change it up? What are your feelings towards how Grandmaster Cho views the use of step-sparring, and how is your view similar or different? And most important of all, how do you think we can make the use of step-sparring better?

Personally, I don't think that Kata training has to be the one single tie to making Karate training Karate, but that is just my opinion. One could still have partner Kihon and Kumite, and learn concepts that way. I believe Karate means "empty hand," not "empty hand kata." But, I'm not interested in trying to disect the the three K's from Karate, or taking Kata out of Karate training. I am interested in viewpoints in regards to the two ways of training I described in the opening post.

I think some people get too caught up in the idea of "my Art is older than your art, has been around longer, so it is really traditional, like, the very first traditional traditional Martial Art." A tradition is really any action or custom that is carried out over time and is viewed as or deemed valued by those that carry it out.

I think this tends to be more applicable to Karate than other styles. In Taekwon-Do (or at least in the style I study) we really don't have a concept of bunkai or applications beyond what you refer to as basic strikes / blocks. You learn the movement in the tul and learn the application. A punch is just a punch. What we focus on instead is to learn the principles behind every movement and then try to apply them to whatever we do. We don't take an x-block and translating that action to a strangle, we just go for whatever strangle and then apply the general concepts of leverage etc. learnt through other movements. I'm basically in the same boat as DWx, although I have been researching outside resources for new ways to look at things in the forms.As mentioned earlier, different people learn in different ways. I've also noticed that many of the "Do" philosophies that many traditional styles put forward as a marketing strategy that "the Martial Arts are for everyone" tends to attract people who aren't always natural athletes, and therefore will need to have things elaborated to them more often than natural athletes will.

As far as ranking goes, there are lots of organizations out there that are not style specific, but tend to be more specific about concepts that are taught. You could look into various associations available out there, and see what you can do about joining them for certification purposes, if that is what you want. Best of luck as you strike out on your own!

Solid post!! Agreed. Its easy to teach the techniques. Not so easy to convince a sheep to become a sheepdog in a moment.

1/24/2014 Spent about 45 minutes working through Choong Jang with my instructor. I got through it several times, but still get stuck in parts, so just need to get through the memorization, that way I can really get cracking on it.

Saw an ad for this book recently: http://www.amazon.com/Taekwondo-Black-Belt-Poomsae-Original/dp/1594392641/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390597326&sr=1-9&keywords=richard+chun+tae+kwon+do I have some of Richard Chun's other books, and really liked them, even though I'm not a WTF practitioner. Are there any WTF stylists here that are familiar with both Koryo and Old Koryo, and any applications involved? I look forward to reading up on the history of these two forms, and seeing what kind of applications break down they prepare.

ITF TKD has always placed a value on special techniques or "fancy" techniques. It's the Do for us. Striving to obtain complete mastery over ones body and pushing to do what everyone else can't. It's pushing yourself beyond what you thought you could do and training to be better. For those who find kicking easy, this can mean jumping and spinning kicks. Is it really much different than that jumping maneuver that is done in the kata Unsu (I think)? I don't know that I could complete that jump the way they do it, and at the age of 50, I really don't think I would want to try.

NBC and its affliates has the rights to the Olympics as far as I know right now. I think they would show it. I believe NBC last ran the StrikeForce fights.

The instructor should welcome you back, but whether he keeps you at your previous rank or not would be up to him. If you feel ready to go back, do so, and if you need to find a school that better works with your schedule, then that will only help your training out.

It might be a worthwhile course to attend. Please let us know how you liked it, and what you learned.

You would probably like any of Funakoshi's books: Karate-Do, My Way of Life; Karate-Do Kyohan; Karate-Do Nyuman; and there are plenty of others. Here is a list of them on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Gichin-Funakoshi/e/B000APBQQW/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390596311&sr=1-2-ent Hope that helps!

Bob (sensei8) had a line in a post in the Jeet Kune Do vs Karate thread that pointed out some differences between Kata training and partner based concept training that I thought could make for some interesting discussion: I feel that what I am referring to for a lack of better terminology as "conceptual partner training" sees more value in getting into partner training concepts in regards to attack and defense as opposed to learning the set moves of Kata first, then acheiving technical perfection, then working applications. I do feel that both systems have some merit, and I look forward to hearing from practitioners who do one, the other, or have done both training concepts.

Thank you for elaborating, CredoTe. I'm sure that over time, with the way styles like Karate and TKD have developed, some of those concepts have gone by the wayside, and its really too bad. It has always seemed to me, in my TKD training, that the more traditional styles seem to be concerned with technique, how it is performed, and how to do it properly, a la basic techniques. It has always seemed like technique was drilled, then the concepts for application, if the instructor even does that, whereas styles like JKD have seemed to be more concept based first, learning the concepts and bringing the techniques along at the same time. But, that is just an observation I have made over time and research, and I don't claim it to be a hard and fast rule.

The training regimen might be a lot like Wrestling's, with lots of drilling and conditioning. So if you don't like that approach to training, then you may not like MMA training. But, as the others have mentioned, you will never know until you try!

But what is this core? How do we define it? I think different styles will have a different core; core beliefs, core techniques, core concepts and tactics. Which is it?