bushido_man96

Have you been able to use your sai in a self-defense situation?

I would just type in "bo kata," and I think you'll come up with LOTS of stuff to watch.

This one is even tough for me at times, and I don't have any physical limitations, really, other than being a touch heavier than I'd like. I just get frustrated at times, because it seems advances don't happen as often.

I don't mind the term "variation" at all. I think that what it boils down to is having an effective concept that can adapt to a myriad of situations: thus, the variations.

8-28-09 Leg press: 250x20x3 Assisted pull-ups: 11, 7, max sets Dead lift: 215x5x3 Lat pull-downs: 108x15x3 Lunges: 3x10 Dumbell rows: 35x10x3 Dumbell curls: 25x10x3 Straight bar curls: 70x10, 65x10x2 8-31-09 Run 1/4 mile Lunges: 20 each leg Squats: 20 (body weight) 1/2 squats: 20 (body weight) Repeated 3 times...workout calls for 4, but legs were dying. Its a start...Stretched legs for 5 minutes. Chest/abs superset Bench press: 205x5 Push-ups: 18, then 7 more to get to 25 Crunches: 50 Reverse crunches: 20 Double crunches: 10 Bench press: 205x5 Push-ups: 20 Crunches: 25 Reverse crunches: 15 Double crunches: 10 Bench press: 205x5 Push-ups: 15 Crunches: 25 Reverse crunches: 15 Double crunches: 20 Bench press: 205x5 Push-ups: 10 Crunches: 25 Reverse crunches: 15 Double crunches: 15 Push-ups: 20, max Stretch arms for 5 minutes. My numbers on the ab exercises went down from what the workout calls for, but I did what I could. Should be sore after this one. Class tonight should be fun.

I ran a school that used a stripe system with colored belt ranks, but we only gave out 3 stripes; one for the required techniques of the rank, one for the form, and one for the one-steps. They were nice, because you could just glance at the students belts, and know what they had down, and what they would need to work on. Only 2 stripes? Sorry, test next time.

I don't quite follow what you mean by "do not turn their back foot all the way. Could you elaborate please?

This is just me speculating, and I could very well be wrong, but my guess is that the early UFCs were the Gracie's way of getting BJJ out into American public view to demonstrate how good it was when used in "full contact, no rules" fighting. When the Gracies arrived in the UFCs, BBJ took off like a rocket in the USA, which is probably what they wanted; to hit the American market. True, they probably don't like the rules changes, but the fact of the matter is that the sport probably wouldn't have had much of a future if they hadn't changed. Even with the rules changes in effect now, I'd be willing to bet that their are better athletes in the game now than were when it first started.

Welcome to KF.

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.