bushido_man96

I've got a friend that has a Total Gym, and I always thought that you could really do MA specific movements with it. I may have to get one someday.

I didn't know about this rule against uppercuts, etc., that it has to be straight forward. If you do use another punch, is it simply no point awarded, or do you receive a warning that you can lose a point for an illegal strike? I didn't, either. That would count me out, because I like to cram, and then hook and uppercut. In ITF scoring, do you guys spar continuously, or do you break for point?

If a fight in the stands ruined Boxing coverage, then I imagine that the fiasco where the Cuban competitor kicked the ref in the head will end it for TKD, too. If it manages to even remain in the games.

I can see where that would flow well. If you end up giving your back for that instance, then its best to try to do something with it.

Yes he was. He was so fast and powerful, even though he was usually shorter than many of the heavyweights he fought. I would have loved to see how far he could have gone had he not had that incident that pretty much ended his career after the Buster Douglas fight.

I agree, tallgeese. Many of the students at our TKD school like to use pretty much a back stance as their fighting stance, so they are really side on. I like to use a stance that is a bit more squared. My heels aren't on a line when I spar. I am not as squared up as a Boxer is, but still more than most of the TKDers that I know.

Yes, I suppose it is.

Kudos, tallgeese and MMA_Jim. Working in the county jail, I have found that hands-on is where you need to specialize. One's opportunity to strike is pretty limited, until the use of force escalates. Being able to control and manipulate an inmate is what you need to know. Now, not every LEO is going to end up in guard, but it can happen, and training for that eventuality is important.

Right or wrong, in what sense? From a fight sport stand point, I am not sure that I follow you here.

This is a key point in training for anyone. One can even learn from a beginner, whether it is how to defend against technique that isn't as sharp and may be unorthodox, or working with a different body type. Finding what it is you can learn may be different from what it is you are trying to work on, though. Recognize it, and try to learn from it.

Welcome to the Forums!

That is quite a deal. It is important to know what you are able to teach and are not, and make no illusions about what you don't know.

We don't teach the tenets so much in class. However, everyone is expected to use common sense and to be courteous to others, in and out of the school.

Very nice. Those are some good points to consider. This is a good point to consider as well. Perhaps it is good that I have been blessed with the baby-face!

Nice explanations, joesteph. Your X position could be a block, if it stops the attack dead. In actuallity, it may be more of a cover, during which the attack is blocked or parried, depending on what happens to it. I would call the other a check, too. Good post.

The thing is, it tends to take a strategy away from those who don't tend to kick as much. I think that punching should be as much of the strategy as kicking, otherwise, it will become more and more like Olympic style TKD sparring.

I'm not sure, but there may be more weight classes now than there were then, too. So, he probably would have been in a class closer to his weight.

Kyokushin, right now, does not allow face punching in their tournaments.

Thank you, Zanshin. I would like to make a point about something you mentioned earlier: You misunderstand my intentions here. I never stated that I would not want to spend years or my lifetime mastering a style. If that were the case, I would not have stuck out TKD for 14 years. What I do mean, is that I think a system should be able to transmit an ability to reasonably defend oneself within an efficient time span. Two different things.

I thought that there were some good points made in there about the delivery systems. Some things in life are fairly consistent, especially when it comes to body mechanics.

That is an interesting article. It seems like it seeks to denounce ground fighting, much as the ground fighting stylists like the Gracies used to denounce stand-up styles through their challenge matches. However, it does end by talking about any art can be the best, depending on the instruction and practitioners. I think that standing and ground fighting both have their place in defense. Some said that it is "better to have, and not need, than to need, and not have."

Would it actually be better to change partners every time, or would it be better to work with a particular partner for a number of times, in a sense "figuring out" his fighting personal style, and then move on to a different partner, who will have a new personal style, and sparring with him for a number times, etc.? I wonder if changing partners every time is something that only a seasoned fighter would profit by, as those of us who are of lower belt ranks/not seasoned need more background, more experience, before getting hit with something different each time. I think that either the seasoned or the inexperienced fighter can benefit from training with different partners every time. It won't necessarily work the same the first time you really have to use it, so learning to adapt early on is the key to success.

If thats the case, then which is more advantageous to have? Increased level of strength, or the abilit to kick someone in the head? I'd rather have some increased strength.

The overall coverage of the Olympics, in my opinion, needed some work over here. We only had one channel devoted to it, and they pretty much picked the stories they wanted to follow. Phelps got a ton of attention, as did the gymnastics team. Track and field got its usual following, too. Everything else was pretty much filler.

It is. I ordered two titles from him yesterday, in fact. Dynamic Aikido and Total Aikido, I believe.