bushido_man96

At the same time, if no one ever threw the first punch in kumite, it would be pretty boring..... My dad always said, "don't start it, but finish it." He didn't say nothin' about not hitting first.

Its kind of funny, the way kiai is viewed at times. Some use them to enunciate a point; MMA fighters rarely use them; Olympic style TKDers almost never don't kihap.

I think that many times, students set their goal to earn black belt, and once they do, figure that is it. Its too bad, but that is the way it goes sometimes.

When they ask, ask if they have a gun on them. Most times, they won't. There are a lot of good answers here. Many good explanations. Learning MAs are great for learning to understand body movement and mechanics, which can always come in handy. There are many layers of defense, and unarmed is one of them.

A lifetime of fulfilment can come from taking up Boxing or Wrestling as well. Also, if you look at the original word Kara Te, there is nothing within adding a mental aspect of training, until the addition of the "Do" at the end. In truth, the idea of Do was not always present in the Oriental MAs, and is a more recent addition as the styles came to be used less on the field of battle, and more by civillians. Bujutsu became Budo. It wasn't always so. Hard work, dedication, and integrity are not soley garnered through MA study. Truly, many hard working individuals grow up with these characterisics without ever setting foot inside a dojo.

I think that having an instructor, per se, is not a requirement. Having peers to bounce ideas off of I think is very beneficial. And of course, there is always the school of hard knocks, and although not the recommended, or most efficient, path to take, is a legitimate path none the less. I don't really look at having a group of experienced peers as instructors. It depends on how the group is organized, though. If you work off of each other's experiences, then each time someone different may be the head of the class for the day.

There are some aspects of the Book of Five Rings that still have applications to today's practitioners; mostly mindset. It has also been applied to the business world, as has Sun Tzu's Art of War. I haven't read it in some time; a refresher may be in order.

That is cool. There are some Lego wizards out there.

Those are pretty cool. I had not heard them mentioned before.

Pretty cool. I enjoyed the Donkey Kong games.

I thought it was "the best defense is a good offense..."

8-14-08 Solo workout Squats: 20 (kness don't like this) Push-ups: 20 Side leg raises: 10 each side

Good luck and have fun!

I think that having a good group of peers can help, depending in the level of experience of some of those peers. One may be "old hat" at self-defense/realistic conditions, and may offer enough experience to help improvement. But, would he be considered an instructor? Just prodding for ideas!

I have heard this opinion before, and wonder if perhaps it tends to be a bit misleading to some. It is a plausible way of looking at it.

The main issue I have with this idea is that action is faster than reaction. Therefore, if you are waiting for the first swing, you automatically put yourself behind the 8-ball. Sure, some people are fast, and have good reactions. But it is not possible for everyone to train to be such. That is the main issue I have with this ideal.

Riding on the wave of boyo1991's thread do you need to be at a dojo?, I propose this question: do you need an instructor? Or, do you just need a good group of peers that you can bounce ideas off of in order to get feedback and improve?

I don't think a dojo is necessary. I think it would be hard for anyone to get better, though, without consulting others for advise. I think it is possible to get better on your own, but learning from someone else's experience is easier than garnering it on your own all the time.

This is a very popular mazim in Karate and other MAs. How do you interpret this maxim, and how does it affect your training? I don't interpret it literally. I don't feel that an MAist should wait to be struck before acting. In fact, if a strike is being thrown, then it should be evident that there was likely a level of danger already present to relegate a pre-emptive strike. I wanted to hear what everyone else felt about this ideal in MA training.

What does this maxim mean to you? How do you interpret it? How does this idea affect your training? To me, it means to strike hard, but to not assume that one strike will end the altercation.

Welcome back! What was the trip to Korea like?

Welcome to the Forums!

I don't buy the curse, either. But, it is fun to talk about.

I may check this out. I was an old Knight Rider fan when I was a kid.

Wow! That's high livin'!