bushido_man96

Like tallgeese mentioned, no shot should be considered a "kill" shot, the guaranteed knock out. There really isn't any magic bullett. Sure, we can get lucky at times, but luck is the residue of design, so making sure that you have good strategies and tactics, along with good technique to back them up, your luck will come; or you will make your own luck, depending on how you look at it. You should strike like your technique will take them out, and the strike again. Especially if they are still standing there. Don't assume....but don't go overboard and pummell someone on the ground, either.

I don't think it even has so much to do with overpowering. The Viking had fighting technique; they weren't just madmen out swinging the heaviest piece of steel they could find. Yeah, they were probably brutal, but they were not dumb fighters. That shield would have been a great defender against most of the Samurai weapons, and it would likely have been wielded more than just carried.

Ouch. That couldn't have been enjoyable. Do you have to get to the dentist now?

DWx sets it out nicely. Also, Joe has made some good points, too.

Thanks for the clarification, WNM and Killer. I do think that Karate would be fun to experience at some point.

I enjoyed watching the progression of the forms here. Although I am not a Karate stylist, I still find the interpretations and differences interesting.

I don't think that it would be counterproductive at all. Like Toptomcat said, it will make you better. There is nothing wrong with consolidating some standing skills with some ground skills.

Wrestling is....a Traditional Martial Art. I just wanted to see where this would go. Do you think I am right? Why? Do you think I am wrong? Why?

How so, BB of C?

We do our basics going down the floor and back, and some of the movements are done going backwards. Both of these kinds of movements will show up in the forms and one-steps. Most of our kicking motions are done advancing forward, and TKD does tend to work on doing higher kicks. This is mainly based on ability, though. Forms are usually foward moving, although turns are involved. There aren't a lot of retreating motions in the forms, so I would tend to make most of the applications advancing in manner. In many of our one-steps, moving forward to intercept an attack is one of the primary modes of initial defense. Jam the attack, and attack the center line in many cases. But, we do have some that move backwards, and off the line and backwards or off the line and forwards from attacks. Sparring tends to be a bit different, as it is based on restricted targeting and some level of contact; body displacement in most cases. However, when drilling for sparring, the importance of such strategies as moving off the centerline, cutting an angle and attacking can be utilized; it is the application training of these skills that is necessary to help develop them.

I agree that learning the application in paired drill work is what leads to finding its use in sparring or self-defense application. It may be tougher to apply when sparring, but if you have practiced the application in a more "live" manner, then when those opportunities do open up, one should be ready to apply them. But just practicing good technique, without the integrated pair work of drilling, and then sparring, won't get us there in the most efficient and constructive manner.

Welcome to KF.

That's why I love baseball!!!

Met up with the family and my brothers and their family, and had a nice, big, turkey dinner in which I ate way more than I should of. It rocked!

I concur.

Ok, I'd go with that, too. But, the bottom line is, if you spar in the school, then the instructor should teach drills applicable to the sparring done in the school, as opposed to assuming that the students will get good at it just by doing basics and forms. My topic here is not meant to apply strictly to self-defense, or to sparring, but to be encompassing of both, depending on which your style does. So, as a Caporiea player, I would guess that you likely practice drills that are done in the roda as a focused exercise, to prepare for their use in the roda. Am I close here?

Well, stick and knife are so nice, that they are taught together in many Filipino styles, individually and as a pair. I think that the knife, with its ease of concealment and carrying, edges out the stick, just barely. That, and the knife's double as a tool helps, too. Now, if you can carry a collapsable baton, then you have a good starting ground to argue the stick.

I will, although I think it will be sporadic at best, for now. I need to get my SCA buddies back together. I also hope that some day I can hit an ARMA seminar/workshop.

This is the wisdom that I have always adhered too...as it should be. I just hope that I can do that, eventually... But I am trying! I posted a response to this in the other thread, but it bears repeating, I think. I feel that the goal of MA practice is to learn applicable self-defense; fighting, in other words. I feel that if I don't come away with some aspect of self-defense application in my MA training, then I am not training in a Martial Art.

I tend to view MA practice in the same light that tallgeese does, as a self-defense art. So, groin kicking is a good, vialble target to be practiced on. However, you have to be careful in practice. Like tg mentions, I think it is important that proper gear be worn, and that it not be done all the time. Like he said, it is not a hard skill to learn, but to be aware of it is important. Practice on it is good, but it has to be a monitored, protected practice; after all, we don't want guys ending up with permanent problems because every class calls for a mandatory groin kick. Now, for some specificities....(wow, what a good word.... ) This is where you begin to see some of the developments of Martial Arts practice today. Often times, kumite or sparring, especially in competitions, become a test of skill against skill. In as much as that goes, sometimes good targets are outlawed to increase the skill level involved. For example, Olympic TKD likes to focus on kicks, so you see very little hand usage, and lots of kicks, especially some higher ones. A lot of Karate styles like to call point when one good, solid technique is demonstrated with exacting skill. Kyokushin likes knockdowns and power, and even the MMAs extol skill through the ranges of usage (standing, ground, clinch). But, you will notice that in all of them, even the MMA, that the groin kick is typically outlawed. Reason being, to test skill, and to allow the matches to have some length to them. But, this is different from self-defense, where that one shot may be what you want to get away. Here is where I think that there shouldn't be a division between Martial Art and self-defense. If your Martial Art doesn't teach self-defense applications, then I don't view it as truly being a Martial Art. Although it is true that everyone takes the MAs for different reasons, I think that no matter what, the practitioner should come out of the classes with knowledge of self-defense. If they don't, then I don't think it is a Martial Art. I think that this can go both ways, depending on the person. Everyone will react differently. Some walk right through it, and others will drop like a rock. Still, its worth a try. If it hits, its a hit, and can lead to other hits. Some guys have iron jaws....but I'd be willing to bet that the groin isn't as tough as that...unless they are one of those crazy guys you see on TV late at night pulling a truck with there.....you get my point. I'm sure some will chime in soon. But, I have seen from personal experience, that a groin kick to a female can have similar results as to a male. Its still a pressure point on a female.

Yes, JusticeZero, that is what I was getting at. I guess the question would be, "Do you feel that learning good technique is more important than learning the application of the technique(s) learned?"

I saw most of the episode of Samurai vs. Viking. I didn't care for the setup that much. The weapon analysis and demonstrations were cool, but I don't think they did the applications worth a hoot. This was the line-up: Viking........vs...........Samurai Long Sword.........Naginata............mid range weapons Great Ax.............Katana..............close range weapons Shield.................Kanabo..............special weapons Yumi...................Spear................long range weapons This just totally fuddles me, for several reasons. The main reason is because they both carried a friggin' sword! Why not compare them in sword combat? And why not compare spear to naginata? They only issued the spear with the Viking in its throwing aspect. And although leathal there, it has usage as a polearm. The Samurai also carried a spear. I also think that Vikings used some bow and arrow, so there again, the comparisons aren't consistent. In the end, it looked like they tried to do something like that show that NatGeo did on various MA technique studies (can't remember the name). In the end, they gave the overall victory to the Samurai (which most around here know how I feel about the presumption of the view of Samurai supremacy bias), but I think that in the end, the counts weren't done as accurately as they could have been.

Yeah, this tends to be the kind of setup done for most of the seminars that I have attended for LEO defense stuff. Its a good way to take it, too.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

I fall along these lines here. If he is teaching good, sound, usable self-defense, then I don't see any reason that he can't. Now, whether or not he can really promote as a Shotokan practitioner, I don't know. But, the knowledge that you can gain is what is important; more so than a certificate of rank from an organization.