bushido_man96

I agree. What you should concern yourself with is 1) is it effective, and 2) do you enjoy it. Those are the only things that should concern you, really.

I don't know yet; I still haven't opened them! On one of them, the cover has the picture of Benicio Del Toro, from the movie The Hunted. I am very interested in the Philipino Arts, so I can't wait to get to that article.

This is the politics of the Martial Arts world. It really depends. I say, do what you feel is right. Sit down and talk to the instructor about it, and see what he has to say. Is there a reason for the split? Is there bad blood somewhere? Discuss these things with him, and see what you can work out. I can see why you would want to stay within a system that is already somewhat established, and may be accredited. Perhaps, after you get your black belt, you can rejoin your instructor, if that is what both parties are willing to do.

I was cleaning up my basement, and organizing some newly accquired book shelf space, when I stumbled on some Black Belt Magazines that I had, and they still had the plastic on them! They were from 2003, and I don't know why I hadn't read them. Crazy, though. It was finding a nice surprise! Now, I have reading material for the next few weeks at work!

Things I finished up this Memorial Day Weekend (and week): The bookcase in my son's room. Hanging the crown molding in my daughter's room. Hanging up a coat hanger. Hanging up a key hanger. Hanging up a decorative shelf in our living room. Thanks go out to my dad and his power tools (mainly, the compound miter saw )! Now, onto more projects!

Beautiful. On the money.

I wish I could get muscle to just "appear" like that!

Yep, it is just a different tool. I think that when it comes down to self-defense, you will be more likely to find yourself starting in a stance more like the walking stance, and then transitioning into other stances as you move from technique to technique.

Cool, thanks.

A karate dojo is not a democracy. Students don't have a vote (basically). They are students, you are the instructor/sensei. It's no different than public school really, except that the student can quit if they don't like it. In a public school, you take a variety of classes that cover many different spectrums. The variety is already there, and there is often times opportunities to take classes that do hold your interest. It is true that you are the instructor. However, the instructor has responsibilities, just as the student does. If a student can better himself by taking a class elsewhere in a field that I don't cover, like ground fighting, then I would not hold them back from doing it just because I want him to be focused on my stuff. I don't see it as catering. I see it as branching out and exploring, making oneself a better Martial Artist. Keeping an open mind. I submitted an article that talked about this subject. You can find it here, if you would like to read it: http://www.karateforums.com/martial-arts-monogamy-vt27324-40.html

Yeah, as far as his cardio goes, that would have some backing, in my opinion. Many Olympic TKDers train extensively anaerobically; running sprints, hill running, plyometrics, and lots of kicking drills, focused on the quick bursts. This will help cardio some, but not as extensively as running distances will. I have to admit, he has transfered his Olympic game quite well, from what I can see. Thanks for sharing those; they are fun to watch.

My wife kind of gets that way with me when she sees me on the computer. I try to explain that it isn't much different than everyone else sitting around and watching TV. The problem I do notice with being on the computer, is that I zone into it, and everything else fades away... ....ok, I am back now! That could be what your parents see as well. Just try to relate to them in that sense.

That is a very good point, Heidi, and I couldn't agree with you more. When I was in the 8th grade, I tried out for wrestling. Long story short, I hated, wasn't good at it, and wanted to quit. However, my dad wouldn't let me quit, and we had a long talk about how "you've got to keep plugging away." To this day, I thank my dad for that talk, and for making me follow though.

IMO, absolutely NOT! Bouncing puts you into a definite rhythm that an experienced fighter wil luse against you. I've used this myself, and if you tiem your attack to move forward when your opponent is just starting his upward "bounce"...he can't move his body away from you until he comes down from that bounce and is able to push awy from the ground with his feet. It takes practice and training, but very possible. Fighting is all about using your strengths against your opponents weakness's and openings. I tend to ride the fence a bit on the bouncing issue. I don't see it as too detrimental. You won't expend so much energy from it as to wear you out, as long as you are in shape, in my opinion. What I like to do, is stay "springy." It is more like bouncing without leaving the floor. You just kind of bounce with your knees and ankles, creating just a little bit of motion, instead of actually coming off of the floor. There have been many successful fighters who bounce. There have been many successful fighters who don't bounce. It is just about what works for you.

I have also learned that the back stance required more weight on the back leg than the front, but also that the front foot points forward (Youn Wha Ryu TKD). This other school that I was trying out also taught the forward pointing foot, but taught a 50/50 weight distribution (ATA TKD). It is interesting the little differences that can arise in even the same type of MA. Ed It is funny that you mention the ATA back stance. When I was in the ATA, we learned it as a 70/30% distribution. I have seen 60/40 as well. I think it really must have more to do with individual instructor preference than style preference.

Congratulations, ps1!

Variety helps. If you get in a rut, they may get bored. Also, check for facial expressions. If they roll their eyes a lot, it may be a clue. However, just because they are bored, doesn't mean that what you are teaching is not of value. Teach the right things, that will benefit them in self-defense, and add in some other things to pick up the pace a bit. If they truly enjoy the martial arts, it should not be a problem.

Good luck to you!

YoungMan, what style of TKD do you study, out of curiosity? I practice the Ch'ang On forms at this point, and have done ATA in the past. As far as the walking stance is concerned, it may not teach stability and balance, but it does promote mobility, which is a very important aspect of TKD sparring (especially Olympic style).

That's really curious, I've never come across anybody sparring in a back stance. But if the leading foot is facing your opponent, is it really a back stance? A back stance, as I am familiar with it, is not named in relation to which way the front foot points, but to the leg on which most of the bodyweight is distributed...the back leg.

I agree that it boils down to respect and trust. However, shouldn't the instructor respect the student's wishes as well?

Wow! That dude is huge! There is quite a noticible transition from the first video to the second. In the first video, he was very Olympic-style; lots of round kicks, and bouncing, and the hands dangling down at his sides, and the clinching. In Olympic TKD, the fighters will clinch, and then attempt to kick their way out, jockeying for a position to kick and counter-kick. If he did this under strict Muay Thai rules, he would have gotten elbows and knees until the cows came home. His hand strikes were lousy, but it was good to see him work the low round kick. That won the fight for him. In the second video, you can tell that he had worked on his hands, both for striking and keeping them up to guard. However, you can see them drop throughout the fight, and he has to conciously bring them back up to his ears. He did show improvement though. He is tough as well.

At this point, you are splitting hairs, and negating the points of your own arguement as to internal/external/hard/soft. However, I don't think your statement holds to be true. The thrust would liken to the hard, external straight strikes of TKD, Karate, etc. The cuts would liken to the soft, linear strikes of the Kung Fu, Aikido types. Also, I would like to say that I don't view a slash, or cut, as a "soft" style of strike. Perhaps a parry would be, but I don't think a slash would be.

Just to make it more annoying, there are two forms of rugby - Rugby League and Rugby Union. It's almost akin to the many forms of Karate or Kung Fu!

I can teach it to you...then you can use it...that is, if you survive the training!