bushido_man96

It's very unfair to class all TKD practitioners based on a couple of video's where inexperienced TKD guys go head to head full contact with MT practitioners and lose. We had a 6 year veteren MT practitioner come into our school who kept making coments about how our methods were wimpy, and he missed his MT school. However when it came time for sparring they matched him with a 4 year brown belt and he got his butt kicked, and I mean really kicked. We're TKD people. LOL You're right. As always, it depends on the person, not the art. The comment I made here was not to say that this is how all TKD people come out against Thai fighters. It was just a reference to show the two styles. No offenses were intended.

Welcome to KF, GANGSTER! Glad to have you. Tell us about your experiences with these two arts, and who well they combine with each other. We would like to hear about your training.

Welcome to the forums, Alex Chung Do! Maybe you could tell us more about this style?

Well, you will probably get most of the help you need from the instructor. What kind of questions do you have? We might be able to point you in the right direction.

When our TKD school does demos, we do basics, then some color belts and some kids do some forms, then the black belts will do some forms. After that, the black belts will demo some sparring, and then the black belts will do some board breaking. That way, aside from the board breaking, the viewers get a general idea of what goes on in class. If we have a mat, the head instructor will sometimes toss me around, too.

I have similar problems to you, Kez. I block well, but don't always attack when I should. Try to go after them, stringing together a combination of techniques. One should get through. As for not wanting to hit someone, you just have to get over that, and it takes time. If you think your control is good, then just go ahead and try to score. When I block, I let them get in close, and then just start throwing the punches and kicks. Try that as well, and see if it works.

I feel that a great warrior is only defined by what he does in his time. I guess what I am saying is that a warrior has to test himself in the heat of battle for life and death. Musashi had this chance. Napolean had this chance. Washington had this chance. They were all great warriors, but they are defined by the times in which they lived, because of the wars. If the wars would not have happened, then what would things have been like? I guess what I am saying is that you can say you are a warrior, but not many will know if you don't have an opportunity to prove it. Maybe this is a little bit of an off-topic rant. Sorry if it sounds that way. It kind of stemmed from the dictionary definition post. But it does relate to the martial artists definition.

These people in football etc that you describe are great athletes, but they are not good sportsmen. We often talk about good sportsmanship. The applies to boxing etc. Some of them are great fighters. Some are great fighters AND good martial artists. Can't argue with that! Parents should be teaching these values right from the get-go. Problem is, the majority don't.The point you make about being a sportsman is a good one. However, they still get to play the sport. Its kind of the same with the topic here.

Actually, the second definition (the only one to mention "force") regards an entirely different use of the word "punch." This is used in such cases as "This vodka has a real punch," and implies potency, having nothing to do with an actual strike. The only definition to apply to this situation is the first, in which case making any contact with the pad using a "thrusting blow . . . with the fist" meets all of the requirements of a "punch." On a less technical side, it would be impossible to fairly set a minimum for how hard a punch needs to be, especially when you consider the differences in size and strength from one person to the next. Requiring contact alone is the only way to set an objective standard. While I personally would be more impressed by your stronger punches, it was a contest of speed and not effectiveness, and his punches were faster. That's the problem with using dictionary definitions to try to set standards for actions such as this. Often times what we preceive to be, and what the actual definition of it is, can be very different. Besides that, check the in the next new dictionary that comes out; it may change.

Try to be more offensive with your techniques. Offense can sometimes pass for aggression, so this may be what he wants you to do. Also, when you attack, make sure to attack with earnest. Commit to your attacks, and even if you are going to get countered on, still try to hit them. It doesn't mean that you have to be mean to anybody, just more determined in your sparring. Try to transfer it to your forms and basics as well.

Ah, thanks for the info, Steve_K. That sheds some light on it!

All righty, this week the Chiefs play the Broncos in Denver. I probably don't need to tell anyone how big a game this is for KC this week, being against a huge arch rival. I won't delve into my true feelings about the Broncos, because I like being a member of this site! Well, this is always a tough game, and it will be even tougher without the starting QB. Green is out of the hospital, but will likely miss the next two weeks. Week 3 is the bye week for the Chiefs, so he gets 3 weeks off. The Chiefs also intend to sign Rod Gardner this week, pending passing a physical. He should be a good addition, helping out the receiving corp as most likely a number 3 guy, bumping Dante Hall to the number 4 spot. And now, my key to winning in Denver:............feed Larry Johnson the ball!!!!!!!! He needs 25 to 30 carries, and about 200 yards of offense to keep the Denver O off the field. Hopefully, Jake Plummer will contribute to the Chiefs as much as he did last week to the other team, making the defense look good! Could be wishful thinking, but I am clinging on for a win in Denver!

TriangleMan makes a good point. Wrestlers are used to working for a pin, so they will probably either consciously or subconsciously be trying to work you towards your back for a pin. At the same time, they will probably view going to their back as an attempt to be pinned, and try to fight it extra hard. However, it will probably be only a matter of time before they break out of this habit, and realize that it is ok to be on your back.

All the talk about the ego and such that makes instructors want to control where one trains makes me glad that MMA have come along to show the benefits of being able to apply the strengths of various styles to make up for the lack of other styles. It makes me wish there was an MMA school to train in around my area.

I agree with you. I kind of feel the same way about those who use running a certain distance as well.

I remember No Retreat, No Surrender! Ivan was his character's name! Wow.

First of all, you should check out a school yourself. You can do all the reading about the style, but the instructor is what you need to know about. Finding out their credentials is a good start. Watching a class is of upmost importance, so that you will know what kind of teacher the instructor is, and what you are getting into. Free intro classes are a good sign. I won't say that black belt children is a bad sign, but watching their technique and how they act is a good idea.

I believe that Funakoshi is probably the person most responsible for interjecting the moral and ethic values into the study of martial arts. In the title of his book Karate-do: My way of Life, the title states that it is his way of life. Others may view it differently. Now, another question is can you view martial arts like other athletic activities? Take football, for instance. It can be used to build physical skills, like the martial arts can, and it teaches things like teamwork. However, there are some terrible people out there that are great football players. I think the same could be said for the martial arts as well. Boxing and wrestling don't teach moral and ethical values as part of their core curriculum. However, we still consider them martial arts. Are they now not martial arts, because we realize this? I am not saying that I think the martial arts should not teach morals and ethics. I think we should do these things, because it is the right thing to do. I will teach them. However, I don't believe that these things should begin with the martial arts.......it is the job of parents to lay down the morals and ethics that we are to grow up with. Now, that being said, it is true that in there purest forms, the martial arts, as they apply to war, were used to defend the practitioner's country in times of war. Saying that they were used to defend what they felt was right for the people of their country, then would lend to the ideas behind what we all learn today in the arts.

Do you think of a backfist as a thrusting technique, or a snapping/swinging technique? I think it snaps more than thrusts, but that is just my interpretation.

Oh, come now, I don't live here! Do I? You think?

That is good advise, but you may want to spend some time in one art to get a good base foundation, and then move on. Welcome to the forums, BTS!

Kind of like a punching bag you can wrestle with.

Yeah. It is like, when you are getting ready to work out, and you want to improve your speed. You tell yourself that you are fast. You punch fast, you step fast, you kick fast, etc. Loren Christensen talks about it in some of his books, and it helps to reinforce postives as opposed to focusing on things you can't do well.

Even Bruce Lee was a little arrogant, and some would have said he was cocky. However, his contributions to the MA world are well known. Most of us would probably say that he is a martial artist as well.

Like the scene in Hard Target with Van Damme, where he kicks the guy off the bike. Ouch!!