bushido_man96

My dad told me once that he successfully pulled a technique like this off in a fight. He said it was effective, too. No fight left in that guy.

When armor got heavier, then the swords became more of a two-handed style, but they still weren't super heavy blades. Also, the sheild fell out of use, because of the affectiveness of the armor. There were also many half-swording techniques that could be used in close, that were done by putting the off hand on the blade of the sword, making it much like a quarter-staff like usage, but much shorter. It could then be leveraged or used to thrust more accurately.

Well, it is only a scam if it becomes a habit. I think making them pay or not is up to the instructor. I imagine most would not force it, though.

I think that it is a good thing to apply the principle when practicing something, in order to stay focused and undistracted. However, before beginning the practice, I think it is important to analyze everything to see if it will work, what it is for, etc. That way, when you do practice, you have the rational behind it.

I don't think that they really put this show together as well as they could have. They needed to use a control group to compare the different techniques, and they did not do that. They also failed to take a lot of practicality into the show as well. All in all, I was disappointed with the show.

More great information. I like the approach that you are taking here. I especially agree with the idea of increasing the dynamic interactions of training as studetns increase in skill level. Thank you for sharing.

5-15-07 Today was a really fun day! I got to go meet with my dad at nearby gun range, where he does training. We worked on scenarios, where we would approach a car, checking to make sure it was secure, and then moving into a building afterwards. We addressed negotiating hard corners, and we worked on "slicing the pie." I learned a lot, including the fact that I still have a lot to learn. Overall, I feel like it was a very productive activity, and I plan to do more of it.

5-14-07 Chest/triceps: Bench press: I went up in weight here today, woohoo!! 205x7, 215x5, 225x3. I would have pushed for at least one more rep on each set, but I didn't have a spotter, so I erred on the side of caution. Triceps push-down: 90x10, 105x6, 105x8 Overhead triceps extension: 80x10, 90x8, 105x6 Bench dips: 3x10 Abs: Roman chair sit-ups: 2x15 with 22 lb. medicine ball. Side raises: 3x25x25 lbs. Trunk twists: 3x20 with 45 lb. weight. Worked on Combat Hapkido from 3:30 - 4:30. It was more along the lines of CCQ stuff, doing gun-draw and knife defenses. I learned a lot, and it was fun. We worked with rubber band guns, which was very interesting and revealing. I also did 10 minutes of heavy bag work, fairly continuously. I focused on punching, and getting close and doing elbows and hooks. Taught Orientation from 5:30 - 6:00. Traditional Class from 6:00 - 7:00. We did some extra basics today, which wore me out, but was fun in the process. We also got to change up our one-steps a little bit, making them more like a flow drill, by adding attacks to the begining of the steps.

Welcome to KF!

This is an excellent point. The word Samurai simply denotes the warrior class of Japan. It does not denote skill level in war. There were many levels of warrior in Japanese society, just like in any other culture. Not every Samurai was a sword master. Soldier would be a more appropriate English equivalent of the term, I think.

Sadly, there hasn't really been many fantasy movies lately with really good, realistic fight scenes.(If there have been, let me know. I'd love to watch them) And the movies that do have good combat tend to lean towards the eastern arts for style. Think of the number of martial arts movies out there and compare them to the number of fantasy movies out there. Kind of lopsided. If we had as many movies with knights and fencers getting crazy with the fighting, we might see a different view emerge. You make a good point, but the same holds true for weapons combat portrayed in Eastern style movies, with Eastern style weapons. Those combat scenes are just as unrealistic, in my opinion. Wire-work and fancy moves.

That was a perfect response. I agree. I know how hard it is to start over again after getting a black belt, I have done it several times. I think that going back down in rank is one of the best parts of learning a new system. I am going to start in Akido next year and look forward to being a beginner, and learning this wonderful martial art. You can look at it from the Machado standpoint: "Leave your ego at the door."

Again, here, Tae Kyon will rear its head. From reading about Bong Soo Han, it was stated that he had prior training in Tae Kyon, and then Hapkido. Therefore, his brand of Hapkido had the high kicks, and the Daito-ryu descended Hapkido combined.

Begin by walking, and then working up to jogging. Try to do it for 20 to 30 minutes, non-stop. When it feels easy, you can either add more time, or increase your intensity level.

Practice on the wall, holding yourself up. As you get the mechanics down, begin to move your hand away from the wall, only to place it there to spot yourself from time to time. Before you know it, you will be standing away from the wall, and doing it. Then, work up to doing it on the bag, making contact with each kick, and not losing your balance.

I have heard that Hapkido actually derived from Daito Ryu jujitsu. I may be off, but I think I remember reading that.

I recall the arts of Su-bak, and Kwon-bup. I think Tae Kyon came along later, and was never really considered a fighting art, but more the game that has been stated.

Are you sure it was Tae Kyon, or is it the Hwarang-do that you are thinking of?

I think that kicking power is more a product of speed and mass than it is from flexibility. However, flexible muscles will typically be looser and more relaxed, which can help with speed. However, I don't think it is that determinant of a factor when it comes to power output.

Hapkido tends to be mainly stand-up joint locks, takedowns, etc. However, I have heard of Yudo, which was basically the Korean version of Judo. However, when it came into being, and what it exactly conists of, I do not know. I think that most of the grappling styles in existence today are descended from the more sport variations that Jujitsu evolved into, like Judo and BJJ. Also, Sumo was always popular. Many cultures had some form of wrestling as well.

Boy, I would like to see this show! Too bad I will just end up having to read about it. I'll bet the action would be great.

Adonis has a good bunch of suggestions there. I would follow along with that. Best of luck to you!

As did the knights who wanted to live through more than one or two battles. Remember, we're not talking about pesants that had to fight daily to keep bandits at bay, as they did in China and Japan. Both fighters come from a relative "upper class". Yes, very good points indeed. Knights were professional warriors, just like the Samurai were. This is fine, too. However, I am arguing the fact that the desparity between the two is not as large as many would perceive it to be.

The European long sword was used for both slashing and thrusting. What you have to consider is the armor worn at the time would have an affect on what strikes/thrusts you would use. If your opponent was not heavily armored, then slashing would have more uses than it would against a more heavily armoured opponent. In the most recent manual that I have read, there were many moves demostrated that were slashes that would lead into thrusts, and vise versa. It really had a lot to do with situation, and of course, the warrior's preference. Also, thrusting came into vogue as the long sword began to remove itself from the battlefield, due to the onset of gunpowder usage, and the rising popularity of the more thrusting-oriented rapier, which became a "civilian" weapon.

I think that there are a lot of good things that have come out of the exposure to the Oriental culture when studying the Eastern Martial Arts. However, this viewpoint, in my opinion, is not one of them. I think questions are good, even necessary, when it comes studying just about anything. "Because that is the way it is done" or "because that is how I was taught" are not specific enough, or rationalized enough reasons, in my opinion.