bushido_man96

Nice breakdown. Its great that you have such a positive attitude toward improving. Excellent stuff.

I think that there are some practitioners out there that can compete in both point and full-contact fighting. I also think that these practitioners tailor their training so that the strategies and tactics that they use are good for both. There are some strategies and techniques that can be good for both. But, I've seen some point fighters that like to use a lot of repeat kicking in point fights, and I have not ever seen kicks like that work well in full-contact. So, someone training for both probably won't use that kind of technique. Now, referencing a medium-contact, continuous fight. I think that this kind of fight is like a bridge between the two extremes. A good fighter in this category can probably work his strategies into either, because he'll be aclimated to some levels of contact, and will also be used to going without stopping. I think that fighting is about timing, and speed, both to an extent. But, I think other things, like a fighter's toughness, is something that is more apparent in full-contact, rather than point.

Whether the Gracies like the rules now or not, I think that the UFC has gotten better for it, and its popularity is a direct result of those changes.

Good luck in your testing. You might try an axe kick on some bricks or tiles. Good power, and it looks good, too.

I like these. I have spent some time on countering joint locks, but most of it has been in rollouts, or on a few where you can grab you hand, much like this guy did, and reverse the motion. I just haven't done that with the wrist lock, but I will show it to my DT partner on Monday. This is something that I haven't seen yet, to this extent, in Combat Hapkido, but I think it may become something that my DT partner and I might begin spending time on. On a side note, the only thing I saw that I didn't like was how the teacher always ended up between his opponent's legs when taking them down. A good grappler might be able to wrap him up, and take him down, and turn the tables. Otherwise, I liked the counter ideas.

I like the blindfolded drill. Very creative. I also find the telegraphing defenses interesting, and using telegraphed attacks to set up others.

In Hapkido, we do more of it than we do in TKD. Whether from a wrist grab, or a shoulder grab, or a nelson or bear hug. We usually respond with strikes first, trying to break the hold down a bit, and then procede with a manipulation to get free, and then a finish.

Good luck, tg. Keep us posted.

If you train with weights on your wrists and ankles, you have to make sure to work technique, as opposed to speed. Working too fast can damage the joints with the added weight. As for the vest, I'm not sure. You could work with it on, shadowboxing or doing forms, and I'm sure it would augment the training in some way. Don't worry about building mass and slowing down; building strength and muscle is good for the body.

What I meant was that perhaps these techniques open avenues for new applications of judo. I'm not suggesting judokas should sprawl and go for an anaconda choke like a BJJ player might; maybe there is a new way to pin or throw for ippon from there, or a new setup for an old throw? If there isn't now, surely they would evolve? I think that the deal is, they Judo players to stand up and throw, not shoot and take down. So, they are eliminating the desire to do that by instating these rules.

I would guess because Judo doesn't want to be like BJJ or Wrestling. I imagine they want to focus on throwing, and not sprawling to defend a single leg takedown. The powers that be probably feel that if you want to do stuff like that, then you should do it in a BJJ or other Submission Grappling venue.

This is a good point. Self-exploration is a good way to learn, as long as it is nutured in a structured way. Laying out some basic movement concepts and strategies, and then saying, "ok, now lets defend against the straight punch" and letting them explore their techniques, and see what works well, and what doesn't, can be a great way to learn. Then, you bring everyone back together, see what was explored, and then work options that the instructor perhaps has already lined out. See who is close and who has come up with something else.

This brings up another good point, and by using "levels" like 1 through 10, in all likelyhood, might cause more harm than good to the person protecting themselves. Say a case of this type ends up in court, and you have in some way alluded to "levels" like this in technique. You end up being grilled about "why you didn't drop it a level, when you knew that less 'zip' on a technique would have been sufficient." In my mind, this is akin to the arguements in uses of firearms, like, "why didn't you just shoot him in the the leg?" The reason, is because you don't train to do that; you train to shoot for center mass. Now, I'm not saying that every technique should be done to kill, not at all. But, by claiming that you can control the level of intensity of your techniques like that, you can set yourself up for problems in a courtroom crossfire. One that my DT partner likes to rehearse is this: Defense attorney: "How hard did you hit him, officer?" My partner's response: "As hard as I could." Def. attorney: "Why did you hit him so hard?" Partner: "So I wouldn't have to hit him again." For what its worth...

Very nicely done. Love the scene set-ups.

I've been considering my side kicks a lot when doing them in class lately, so I thought I'd bring this back up. When doing the back leg side kick in combinations, this is the version that I have been trying to work with. It comes out well in one of the combinations we do, which is a reverse punch in a front stance, followed by a back leg side kick, which is then set down in a sitting stance, and followed by a spinning side kick. The arcing motion is still uncomfortable to me, so I do this more, ah, direct motion to get my kick out. I feel more balanced that way. We also do what is called a "cross-over" side kick in basics, to work on the side kick technique solo. This page, originally posted by joesteph, is a pretty good indication of what we do: http://www.tangsoodoworld.com/reference/reference_techniques_side_kick.htm The only difference is that in our school, we cross the back foot in front of the front foot in the stepping motion. This requires us to focus more on getting the chamber up into the proper position, knee up, heel down, like a chamber for a front kick you would throw in the direction the front of the body faces. However, when I kick out, instead of "snapping" the kick, I really concentrate on hip rotation, kind of "corkscrewing" the hips to thrust the leg out there, for power. Its feeling pretty good, too.

Hmmm, hard to tell. I think that most MAists will claim that "if they have to kill, then they would, to defend their life or loved ones," but I am of the opinion that one can never really know until faced with such a scenario. It is something to very seriously consider. I can't say that I really abide by such a credo. I just don't think about it like that. I do feel that it is important to understand a use of force continuum, which is similar to this credo, but I think is open to more interpretation. With my experiences in my workplace, I do tend to think about the legality of actions when things start running through my head. At times, my DT partner and I will discuss use of force, and articulation of said usage; the two go hand in hand, both for LEOs and for civilians. So, I don't know if I would say that I fear getting into trouble, but that I consider the legality of what my actions might result in, and thus be prepared to face such consequences. I hope that answers your questions, Joe.

8-27-09 Morning: Bike with dog, 1 mile. Stretch legs 10 minutes. TKD class: 6:00 - 7:30. Basics, then stretch for 5 to 10 minutes. Form, one-steps, and then some sparring. I feel like I am beginning to move around better in sparring, and see things opening up more.

I'm not sure that I would get to shaken up over this, but then again, I am not a Judoka, either, so I don't know how most of them would feel about it. In the end, its a decision that keeps the uniqueness of Judo competition different from that of other competitions. Much how TKD will likely never allow face punching in the Olympics, to keep it from becoming more like Karate or Kickboxing. I don't have a problem with it, I guess, especially if they want to see more throwing and less single and double leg takedowns. Where the practitioners lose out, however, is when the schools discard useful techniques to focus on what is used in competition, and therefore the techniques don't get explored anymore. Much like face punching in TKD. Yeah, we might do it in forms and one-steps, but it isn't the same as doing it in sparring. So, if the school is competition-focused, the students aren't likely to see it. Take it for what its worth.

This is the feeling that I have experienced in my years of TKD. From the ATA, to the TTA that I am now a member of, the forms have always been basically belt curriculum, with established one-steps filling in the rest of the test material. Now, I'm not exactly sure why TKD forms have gone this route, but it may go back to the idea that Funakoshi didn't show bunkai applications to Choi, who then didn't see any reason that he couldn't design his own forms, to focus on different physical aspects. When H.U. Lee created the ATA, he still used the Chang On patterns, until he began designing his own forms. The ATA forms were designed to work on techniques that were established for the respective ranks. Each form became more technically demanding, adding jumping and turning kicks, etc, as layed out by the rank requirements. But, no "applications" are taught. That is my take on the TKD idea behind the use of forms as curriculum.

Pearlman actually addresses this idea in the article. He states: He goes on to talk about changing emphasis from "valuing more" to "valuing better": I think that this could be a very viable option as an approach to forms training, even at higher ranks, when there is more time between promotions, where one that has done many forms, can take the time to really delve into one form. It would be interesting to see something like this progress from the beginning. Quotes reference: "The Case For Less", Black Belt Magazine, Sept. 2009, pp. 74 by Steven Pearlman.

With attention to the bold-faced section, is this the way that it should be, though? And are there more benefits to doing it this way, than the other way around? Also, now that it really isn't necessary to worry about the secret dessemination of techniques, do we cling to forms just because it has been done this way for so long?

This is pretty much a forms-based question, but I welcome any and all comments, forms-related training or not. Be warned, though, that it is a rather forms-related questioning. The title for this post comes from the title of an article in the September, 2009 issue of Black Belt Magazine. In this article, he uses the idea of Michael Johnson, and his being so good at running, and working so hard at it, and delving so deep into something so common as running, that Johnson was able to make it something people sit up and take notice of, when he does it. The author, Steven Pearlman, then relates the idea to training in a single kata. I really found this article rather interesting, and when Pearlman used Michael Johnson and his running as the comparison for studying a kata, I really think he hit on a good idea. It is said that Funakoshi was made to practice Tekki (Nahanchi?) for 7 years, before learning a different kata. This doesn't happen much today, because katas seem to be the curriculum for belt tests; each belt has a kata(s) that must be learned. I think his idea of working one kata, from the ground up, is a great way to explore how one can really dig into what one kata would have to offer. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think that having a "kata-based curriculum" has in a way reduced how much one kata can be explored? Are all the katas a necessary evil? I look forward to your comments.

8-26-09 Morning: bike with dog, 1 mile. Bench press: 205x5x5 Crunches: 4x25 Push-ups: 2x20 Sit-ups: 20, 15, no foot bracing. Dumbell military press: 30x15x3, very tough Dips: 9, 6, max sets.

Kata/bunkai have a reciprocating relationship in many "traditional" styles. The practitioners learn the forms, then learn the applications of the moves in the forms, and build from there. But my question is, which came first? The bunkai, or the kata? I think it is kind of a "the chicken or the egg" arguement. In looking back, I think it is generally agreed that katas were developed as a way of transferring the techniques of a system to the next generation. Katas have been referred to as "textbooks" or "encyclopedias" of the systems. With this point of view in mind, it makes me think that applications and the like were probably there first, and took precedence as the core of what was learned. Then, some clever individuals figured out how to represent their movements and methods by placing them into forms, and then proceded to pass them on. As this has taken place, it appears that learning the katas has taken precedence over learning the applications; not that the kata is more important, but it is viewed as what must be learned and mastered first, before the applications can be applied. Anyways, as misinformed as I might be, that is my take on the subject. I look forward to everyone's thoughts on this.

Congrats!