bushido_man96

Aren't graphite weapons mainly for show?

1-3-08 Jog with the dog. Stretched a bit.

I think that teaching the pre-emptive strike, and how to determine when one should pre-empt, is vital to self-defense instruction. I feel this way, because automatically determining that you will not throw the first punch puts you on the defensive, and behind the 8-ball to start with. Action is faster than reaction; so why take that chance?

Well, I think that one would use an analysis to come up with a strategy or a tactic. However, one would usually train his tactics before going into the fight. So, you could make a case for it in that way.

I guess so but that's a really weird reason to do it. Isn't it? I was curious here, too. In my experience, the knot always pointed the same direction. As for criss-crossing in the back, I have done it both ways. My current school does; in the ATA, it didn't.

We can also see from the most recent Gracie/Hughes match, with the evolution of the MMA athlete since the UFC's inception, that the balanced fighter, who can strike well, and manage a ground game, proved to be too much for Gracie's superior ground game.

My question is, does the research cross the board? Can it be proved to effect everyone the same way? I am not trying to sound like I am shooting the idea down, but I will admit that I am one of the skeptical ones that doesn't really buy into them. The problem I have here is two-fold: 1. There is no indication that the blow that knocked her out, and eventually caused her death, was the only blow that she took during that round. 2. Seeing as the blow came in the third round, it surely wasn't the only blow that she received to the head. Therefore, I would more readily conclude that her death was as a result of multiple blows to the head.

Welcome!

At the risk of sounding silly, which one is that??

Good. He can have mine...

Happy New Year everyone, although a bit late.

Falcons, Colts, Ravens, Eagles.

Hey, me too. That holiday pay rocks on the check, though! I did get to wrestle on New Years night, though!

I agree. I think that practicing in uniform, at least occasionally, is something that should be addressed.

You should progress as your instructor sees fit. Whoever it is, you should be able to trust in when he sees that you are ready to progress. If you come to class and work hard every day that you are there, then you will not disappoint yourself, or anyone else. Welcome to the Forums, and welcome to the Martial Arts!

If I did that, I'd have some terrible gas during comps. I'd have to throw out an extra kihap to cover up a fart! LMAO !!! Oh man, you're killing me here !!! It would probably end up being on the kick right in front of them, when I am kicking high.... ...but in the sparring ring, it might be to my advantage...

12-31-08 Went running again this morning. This time, it was outside, and I took the dog with me. He had a good time, but I think he was wishing I was a bit swifter. I wasn't able to do a whole mile, but did what I could. When I stopped and walked a bit, I would then do shorter running burst, but at a higher speed. Either way, I'll get better.

It depends. I don't really concentrate on whether my hand is open or closed so much, as I make sure I position the arm so that the shield isn't smacking me in the face.

Well, I'm relatively sure that the WTF doesn't think that every participant is going to be Olympic caliber. So, the idea is to saturate the coffers, sort out for the talent, and then snatch it up. I think that is probably what they try to do. Its up to individual schools and clubs to decide whether or not Olympic sparring is the focus.

This is a tought situation to put to people. I don't think people want to be dishonest, but for the most part, they want to be nice. As mentioned earlier, they may fear some kind of retribution, or worry about not being looked at as a nice person, or just upsetting the status quo. Now, when you do have the person that will hold nothing back, and be completely honest, then they may be looked at as a jerk or something like that. Of course, I may be wrong.

So, if I practice the "haymaker," and spend hours mastering it, then will it "become" an MA technique? If so, then why wouldn't it be ok for the "street fighter" to call it an MA technique?

My question is, how much actual scientific evidence is out there to support that these are actually "killing" techniques?

I'm of the opinion that most here are, that size and strength is not something that can be overlooked, or downplayed. Technique is very important, as well. Now, if we look at the techniques that actually go into most of the kinds of fights that many of us will ever be in (excluding competitons), much of the technique that we will see is fairly simple technique. We all stress the idea of "keep it simple, stupid" when it comes down to smack time; someone with no formal training is most likely going to do simple stuff. Their technique may not be exact, but the increase in size and strength can greatly play to their advantage, and may be enough to overcome their lack of technique. In the end, along with learning Martial Arts technique, it is also important to supplement MA technical training with strength training and conditioning.

I think you should look into including "strategy" and "tactics." I'm not sure what category you would put them under, though; perhaps mental. Each is a big part of the Martial Arts, as one's approach to strategies and tactics will determine when/how/why certain techniques are employed.

Yes, congrats, ShoriKid. Good picking!