Tempest

Ahh... it depends? Is he still healthy? Young enough to be competitive? Does he have a wrestling background? Is his game super guard focused or more traditional top game? What kind of wrestling? Freestlye or Greco? All of that said, he most likely has a serious advantage in grappling over most of the people at the gym as he likely has AT MINIMUM a decade of experience on many of them.

Ignorance is probably the most common reason. Most people merely do not know any better. They also assume (just as you did) that anything worth doing would be done. You are making very dangerous assumptions and I’ll further explain why. First off, you’re assuming that whoever is teaching whatever is some how qualified, or that they’re even good at what they do if they *are* qualified. A good majority of martial arts schools I've come across have never been in an all out fight in their lives. As such, there’s no testing ground- everything is merely theory. This leads to several dangerous leaps of faith, one being that this guy is teaching you something that’s even applicable. We live in a capitalist society. If someone wants to learn how to defend themselves effectively, they need to partake in a program that’s about 6 months long 2-3x a week with regular sparring sessions at or close to full resistance. This is reality. Many don’t like reality. As such when someone comes around and promises them success in a short time without hard work, many are intentionally obtuse and buy the product. This allows them to live in a fantasy world with others that did the same thing- while simultaneously attempting to avoid reality.... Now I bring this up because we’re talking about fighting. There is a large group of people who do not do martial arts for any martial reasons as it were. Therefore many of these statements would not apply to them Reality is hard work. Self defense is physically demanding. Fighting is the most physically demanding thing most people will ever do. Fighting to preserve life or property, which is what we are talking about when we say self defense as not nearly enough people are signing up for conflict communications classes or buying Marc Macyoung and Rory Millers books, is even more extreme. So what we really mean by self defense is fighting to defend life or property. This is a physically demanding task that cannot be made easier except by getting as used to it as possible. And there is no one here who will claim that striking based styles don't or can't work. But it is a LOT harder to do than it appears. And if you want it to work, it should look more like this: Than this:

But there were rules. For instance it could only be one on one, you couldn't have friends help you out. No weapons were allowed. There were also rules against biting and eye gouging. There is always rules of some sort. No martial art worth studying would include "get my buddies to help me whip this guy". The point of the fights was to show how effective each fighter was. Not to destroy other people. The Gracies never had anyone help their fighter out. It is true that no weapons were allowed except your hands. But it was the same weapons your opponent had. You were equally armed. The rules against biting and eye gouging didn't come along until later. But people rarely did it because even instinctively, they understood Bas Ruttens now famous saying: "Never escalate the level of violence in a fight you are losing." I actually think this is one of the best arts out there. Back up counts. Now, I get it's outside the context of the thread. Understood. But never underestimate the force multiple a buddy or two bring to an encounter. Even the simple fact of divided attention that must occur on the part of the individual wanting to hurt you is a nice leg up. Sure, bringing backup to a fight is a good idea. But don't mistake that for making you a more effective fighter. Now, if you are talking about specific teamwork training that military and police forces use to take on dangerous situations, that's a different thing. But that training, at least in most effective departmental training, is done IN ADDITION TO individual training. Because the truth is, your buddies may not always be there to back you up even if it is literally their job. Especially in small agencies.

But there were rules. For instance it could only be one on one, you couldn't have friends help you out. No weapons were allowed. There were also rules against biting and eye gouging. There is always rules of some sort. No martial art worth studying would include "get my buddies to help me whip this guy". The point of the fights was to show how effective each fighter was. Not to destroy other people. The Gracies never had anyone help their fighter out. It is true that no weapons were allowed except your hands. But it was the same weapons your opponent had. You were equally armed. The rules against biting and eye gouging didn't come along until later. But people rarely did it because even instinctively, they understood Bas Ruttens now famous saying: "Never escalate the level of violence in a fight you are losing."

Dillman was and IS a charlatan. Let me think... some people who were game changers: Well for me, the Gracies obviously. But also Anderson Silva. Ann Maria Demars. Certainly changed American Judo. The Karate Kid... It was fun and made Karate cool to young people which helped fund a generation of martial artists. Mohammed Ali - Changed boxing. Started the idea of a fighter "selling" the fight outside the pro-wrestling circuit.

But wouldn’t keeping leather moist keep it from drying out and cracking? Yes, but I find that a bit of mink oil works better than vaseline, though it isn't as cheap. https://www.amazon.com/Sof-Sole-Preserving-Waterproofing-3-5-Ounce/dp/B003EMABT6 Leather is soft by nature and it "wears out" by drying and cracking. And yes, the padding in gloves tends to go first, but you can still use them for bag gloves or whatever for a long time if you take care of the leather. You can also fix the velcro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOyHzmjU3uw or repad them:

Fairly lengthy process. Took 2 days, couple of hours each day. Trying to get it done before the tournament this weekend.

OOOOK.... this is a debate that is as old as time but is not really limited to just Karate. Flexibility is best improved by CONSISTENT work over time, not by brutal short term solutions. Dynamic stretches work better than static, but static stretches DO help. BUT, you must push yourself a little bit each time. However, with kicking it's about more than flexibility, it's also strength and balance in the supporting leg as well as technique. One good test to see if flexibility is really even the problem: Can you do the splits? If not, which most adult males can't so it's ok, how low can you go? If you can get most of the way down, and are kicking to targets about belt level and below, then flexibility is not the issue. You may need a bit more to help with head kicks, but once again it develops over time.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that? Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them. What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon? Unarmed? Not bloody likely. With some training, sparring and an improvised weapon or bit of cover? Yeah, that could happen. In my experience the key to responding to emergencies is awareness and properly taking advantage of anything you can in the moment. Going against a knife unarmed with little to no warning is a fools errand, but improvising a weapon or bit of cover, if you have the experience of going full contact with people, COULD work. Except for the part where you may get stabbed to death. Unarmed or not. I intend to make it as difficult for the offender as I can. Sure. Everyone INTENDS that. But when things happen, very few actually pull it off. And the ones that do usually have a few things in common. Among them are weaponry and/or the ability to improvise weaponry and defenses out of what was available at the time.

All true in general terms. But in Britain and Europe we have seen a rise in terrorist attacks involving some nutter running around stabbing random people. The original question was, can we train to be prepared for that? Giving people guns is not the answer. That just puts more guns in circulation, and the person planning the attack always has the advantage, because after all, they know what they're going to do. And do we really want lots of panicked civilians opening fire in a crowded street? That would be like doing the terrorist's job for them. What I really don't want to get into is a gun debate. That's happened plenty of times and innocent people still get shot dead. What I'm really interested in is, do we think it's possible for someone who has not gone out armed expecting conflict, to suddenly successfully neutralise an attacker armed with a bladed weapon? Unarmed? Not bloody likely. With some training, sparring and an improvised weapon or bit of cover? Yeah, that could happen. In my experience the key to responding to emergencies is awareness and properly taking advantage of anything you can in the moment. Going against a knife unarmed with little to no warning is a fools errand, but improvising a weapon or bit of cover, if you have the experience of going full contact with people, COULD work. Except for the part where you may get stabbed to death.

Kinda like Master Ken’s kill face? And probably about as useful.

Depends on what your black belt is in. Being a black belt in TSD does not convey any particular skills in Judo or BJJ. It is useful for me to know of your prior experience so when I am teaching you, I can often relate the techniques to something you may be familiar with, BUT the skills are not directly transferable between arts that way.

I don't think strength is important to striking like boxing. Two of the greatest boxers who ever lived - Ali and Mayweather jr were both finesse boxers Ehh... strength in this context is more power to weight ratio. Ali was INCREDIBLY strong for his size. So is Mayweather Jr. Adding strength without adding size at their level is, in fact, an entire subset of the fitness industry; and how we learned about things like muscular cross sectional area being the primary mechanical measurement of power, but neuro-muscular recruitment tends to be the primary driver of performance in strength related tasks. Taken together, they (recruitment and cross-sectional area) are the primary determining factors of musculoskeletal strength. That, combined with the square/cube law is why adding size to add strength for combat sports only works up to a certain point. Being stronger is ALWAYS better but being BIGGER is NOT always better. Finding that sweet spot where you optimize your strength for the amount of weight you are carrying is the key to determining what your weight class should be competitively. Ali said he was not particularly strong/powerful. Ali said a lot of things that were not particularly true. Here he is knocking out foreman. Now, look at his back muscles. Pay careful attention to HOW they move when he throws a shot or even blocks. Also look at the cross sectional area of that muscle as a fraction of his size. Ali was not a particularly BIG heavyweight, but for his size he was stupid strong.

Sorta. Most of these guys walk around even more than that. THey actually have 4 different weights. Walking around weight In camp weight Weigh-in weight In the ring weight. And all 4 are very different numbers. However, it tends to cancel out even so. For example, Conor McGregor fights at 155 in the UFC. In IBJJF he probably competes closer to his "in camp" weight. Likely around 163-167 depending on gi/no-gi. But your "walking around" weight tends to include a lot of water and fat from not dieting and other things that don't really help you be stronger as a fighter. And even at 163 he is a BEAST.

I don't think strength is important to striking like boxing. Two of the greatest boxers who ever lived - Ali and Mayweather jr were both finesse boxers Ehh... strength in this context is more power to weight ratio. Ali was INCREDIBLY strong for his size. So is Mayweather Jr. Adding strength without adding size at their level is, in fact, an entire subset of the fitness industry; and how we learned about things like muscular cross sectional area being the primary mechanical measurement of power, but neuro-muscular recruitment tends to be the primary driver of performance in strength related tasks. Taken together, they (recruitment and cross-sectional area) are the primary determining factors of musculoskeletal strength. That, combined with the square/cube law is why adding size to add strength for combat sports only works up to a certain point. Being stronger is ALWAYS better but being BIGGER is NOT always better. Finding that sweet spot where you optimize your strength for the amount of weight you are carrying is the key to determining what your weight class should be competitively.

What if you're not young? I've been giving a lot of thought to trying this out but have a few ailments that might pose an issue. I have had surgery for a torn ACL that has not healed to 100% yet, Cubital tunnel syndrome (right arm), and a worn out rotator cuff 9told I'll need surgery - left shoulder). These obviously do not stop me from training or fighting but the ground game is a whole different arena in that your arms and legs are actively manipulated and a lot of stress is put on them during training. Is this something you would take up in your 50's or 60's? What about with a few aliments? I'm not unaccustomed to pain nor do I make it a habit of turning away from a challenge but the older I get the longer it takes me to recuperate. I'd hate to join today and need surgery in a month (trying to hold off as long as possible so I don't have a lengthy down time from training). So this is definitely a concern I have. What's you thoughts/advice? So I will tell you the same thing I mentioned to Bob. The days when you could train to win a world title at brown or black belt senior divisions are behind you. That is the realm of professional athletes in their 20's and 30's. That said, if you want to get on the mat, there is no reason you cannot, BUT you must be sane when you train. Here are some REALLY great resources for older people starting grappling: https://www.grapplearts.com/older-grappler-training/ https://www.grapplearts.com/the-aging-grappler/

Realistically I named a bunch of attributes you DON't need but said it helps if you have them. The only thing you NEED is to be able to get on the mats. The more of some attributes you have, the less you need of others. My experience is that the single biggest difference maker is strength. The more strength you possess relative to your size, the better you will do most of the time. But this is true of all fighting arts, if for no other reason than strength relative to size is GREAT injury prevention. Extra muscle mass shields joints and makes moving under load easier. Allows you to train longer and harder with less recovery time. And, when you are new and don't know what you are doing, allows you to do better against other newbies that don't know anything and so you feel better about training and keep showing up. Which is actually the number 1 key to success. Keep showing up and training. You want to know what makes a world champion on the mats? Look at their training schedules and diet. It is as intense and restrictive as any professional athlete. Top level instruction, time on the mats, and the training schedule and diet of a professional athlete. And the last piece of course. The will to win.

https://www.karateforums.com/questions-to-be-a-grappler-vt50883.html I actually answer this question in my reply to this post.

I’ve listened to some of it, but I’ll be completely honest here (surprising, I know.... ). I don’t think it’s the best strategy for fighting from guard. I think it’s great for catch wrestling but counter to Jiu Jitsu. Perhaps... but what I have found is that it works. If I put my opponent in, for example, bottom side control, but they are defending the submission and just kind of stalling me there, if I make them hold my weight and then work slowly towards a better position, my opponent is more likely to give me something trying to get out than if I just sit there.

Hmm. I'm not gonna lie. Lower back issues make it tougher. That said, the point of Jiujitsu is to move your body in a way that is relatively natural until you get good enough that what you consider natural, others would consider quite athletic. Understand that rolling is an activity that can be done with varying intensities. Are you going to be able to what we call "go hard" with the brown and black belt competition teams? No. Those days are gone. BUT can you still spar to SOME degree of intensity? I would say as long as you can get on the mat, and are comfortable communicating with your training partners, and are training with people who are willing to take care of you as a training partner, you should be able to. BUT, please don't ignore your doctors advice. He is a medical professional. More importantly, he is familiar with your body and situation. If you decide to grapple against medical advice, for example, a lot of clubs insurance won't cover you if something DOES happen.

With respect, that's not true. People may do as they've trained, if they've trained to the extent that it's now natural. In our style, we have a very awesomely powerful kick, which I believe our taekwondo brethren call a tornado kick. It's a great show kick. I'm told it even sometimes works in the sanitised environment of competition. But if someone tries to shake me down for my money in a violent encounter, there's no way I'm going to chance spinning and jumping to throw a kick knowing that if any tiny thing goes wrong I'm getting my head kicked in. Fighting in self defence happens in a primitive part of the brain. Higher consciousness barely gets a look in. So to fight as you've trained means your training has to be repetitive enough and simple enough to get right down and embed itself in the monkey part of the brain. Or stressful enough that the mental and physical environment of a real violent encounter is one in which you can think a bit more clearly than most. This is the route we take in Judo and BJJ. A lot of what we do is comparatively complex, but once you have experience doing it against real resistance and in competition, it provides a sort of physical and mental analgesic to the environment that is physical violence. LLEARNER's quote is true in context. If the training is of sufficient quality and quantity to provide what is known as operant conditioning, then yes, people will revert to it. They will, under maximum stress, see a stimulus and react to it before the thinking, reasoning part of the brain has a chance to process further details. The issue is, the vast majority of martial arts training in the US at least, does not contain the elements needed for operant conditioning. I kind of hear what you're saying. In our style, we only spar at about 50% force, and with fairly strict rules. So it's not like a real fight at all. But a trained martial artist trying to punch and kick you repeatedly for 3 minutes is certainly enough to get the adrenaline going, even when you know you won't get really hurt (unless you have a rare accident). And when you know you can hold your own against someone that knows what they're doing, and having been punched and kicked many times (nobody can block or dodge every incoming) you learn that you can still maintain your composure after being walloped. In that respect I agree that certainly training will come into play. That and the physical endurance and balance and all the other myriad benefits of training. But my point was that you won't necessarily do what you've trained to do, if for example you've only ever practiced softly softly against a cooperative training partner that allows you to put on a highly convoluted technique. Of course. Adrenal decay is a real thing. And the sharper the learning curve, the more the decay. If you have never experienced lizard brain heart-rate levels and adrenal stress response before, you will not react well the first time it happens to you. That is why actual training for self defense involves some sportive aspects to it. If you don't have the experience of being so hyped up your brain and body fail to follow your instructions or your training, then the first place you DON'T want to get it is a self defense situation. MUCH better to experience it at a major tournament first. Especially if full speed is an option. Kyokushin, Boxing, Judo, Wrestling, Muay Thai, BJJ... All of those styles have that full speed component, especially in competition.

With respect, that's not true. People may do as they've trained, if they've trained to the extent that it's now natural. In our style, we have a very awesomely powerful kick, which I believe our taekwondo brethren call a tornado kick. It's a great show kick. I'm told it even sometimes works in the sanitised environment of competition. But if someone tries to shake me down for my money in a violent encounter, there's no way I'm going to chance spinning and jumping to throw a kick knowing that if any tiny thing goes wrong I'm getting my head kicked in. Fighting in self defence happens in a primitive part of the brain. Higher consciousness barely gets a look in. So to fight as you've trained means your training has to be repetitive enough and simple enough to get right down and embed itself in the monkey part of the brain. Or stressful enough that the mental and physical environment of a real violent encounter is one in which you can think a bit more clearly than most. This is the route we take in Judo and BJJ. A lot of what we do is comparatively complex, but once you have experience doing it against real resistance and in competition, it provides a sort of physical and mental analgesic to the environment that is physical violence. LLEARNER's quote is true in context. If the training is of sufficient quality and quantity to provide what is known as operant conditioning, then yes, people will revert to it. They will, under maximum stress, see a stimulus and react to it before the thinking, reasoning part of the brain has a chance to process further details. The issue is, the vast majority of martial arts training in the US at least, does not contain the elements needed for operant conditioning.

I'm genuinely interested. How do you kick someone in the head while they are choking you? Very carefully. But how. I'm trying to visualise all the positions in might be in if I were being choked, and what position my assailant might be in while choking me. Then while visualising all those positions, I'm trying to further visualise how I might kick to his head from that position. I find it can't visualise it. It seems impossible. The theme of this thread seems to be along the lines of 'work in a hospital, you get to hurt people'. I would love to be in court the day that the defendant is explaining that it was self defence when he kicked the patient in the head. To kick someone in the head, it's best to be in kicking range. That is usually (granted not always) slightly beyond hand technique range on account of legs being approx 30% longer than arms. If you are out of hand technique range, it's hard to see how it is self defence. I'm genuinely interested in guess in a couple things. 1. How are trial might go when someone is explaining that a kick to the head is self defence or necessary force in the context of restraint of a patient and 2. How on earth you kick someone in the head while they are choking you. So far, the conclusion I'm forming is simply that some people get excited at the prospect of hurting people. So a couple of things: 1. Under US law, a choke is typically considered deadly force, as a result you are authorized to do what is needed to stop the threat. Up to and including deploying your firearm. A kick to the head once someone has attempted a choke, if they are still standing, would be no issue whatsoever. May be a policy violation, but no issue with the law. 2. TKD teaches an, albeit not very good normally, defense against front chokes where you break the opponents posture by attacking a wrist or elbow lock and then deploy a head kick once they are in the bent over position to finish the situation. While I personally don't like it, against an untrained attacker that you caught off guard it could work, and would result in you kicking them in the head as part of a choke defense. South this is the classic, primeval, untrained strangle attempt we're on about it guess? Ie attacker is in front of you with both hands gripping and squeezing your neck? In which case, most martial artists, after just a few weeks, will be familiar with approximately one gazillion ways to break the grip and escape or counter, very few of which would be a kick to the head. I'm glad you clarified the jurisdiction as being US law. Here in Britain, the use of violence is highly frowned upon and while it is permitted in self defence, even if it results in the attacker being killed, it always comes under scrutiny and has to be explained in full to determine if the force was justified or not. Certainly. And depending on the jurisdiction in the US, you will get varying levels of scrutiny, but you asked specifically about the kick to the head thing so... Anyway, it's not that different over here, but the thing about choke holds being lethal force comes from multiple court cases involving law enforcement and their use of them. Recognize that the rules of engagement IN THE FIGHT are not that different for LEO's than they are for civilians. The differences come before and after. Civilians often have a duty to retreat. Although not where I live. And they NEVER have a duty to protect. LEO's DO have a duty to protect. So do certain medical personnel depending on the circumstances. As such, they are given more latitude about moving to engage than a civilian would be. It is also presumed that they have the tools and training to do this safely and effectively. Ask Bushido_Man and Tallgeese to tell you their stories of why this is not always the case some time. The thing we don't want to conflate here is the difference between self defense and justified use of force. A lot of what LLLEARNER does is NOT self defense. He is moving to engage a potential threat and resolve a situation with justified use of force. Self defense is about protecting your own body and preferably escaping the threat as soon as possible. There are a lot of overlapping tools, but the goals are very different.

I'm genuinely interested. How do you kick someone in the head while they are choking you? Very carefully. But how. I'm trying to visualise all the positions in might be in if I were being choked, and what position my assailant might be in while choking me. Then while visualising all those positions, I'm trying to further visualise how I might kick to his head from that position. I find it can't visualise it. It seems impossible. The theme of this thread seems to be along the lines of 'work in a hospital, you get to hurt people'. I would love to be in court the day that the defendant is explaining that it was self defence when he kicked the patient in the head. To kick someone in the head, it's best to be in kicking range. That is usually (granted not always) slightly beyond hand technique range on account of legs being approx 30% longer than arms. If you are out of hand technique range, it's hard to see how it is self defence. I'm genuinely interested in guess in a couple things. 1. How are trial might go when someone is explaining that a kick to the head is self defence or necessary force in the context of restraint of a patient and 2. How on earth you kick someone in the head while they are choking you. So far, the conclusion I'm forming is simply that some people get excited at the prospect of hurting people. So a couple of things: 1. Under US law, a choke is typically considered deadly force, as a result you are authorized to do what is needed to stop the threat. Up to and including deploying your firearm. A kick to the head once someone has attempted a choke, if they are still standing, would be no issue whatsoever. May be a policy violation, but no issue with the law. 2. TKD teaches an, albeit not very good normally, defense against front chokes where you break the opponents posture by attacking a wrist or elbow lock and then deploy a head kick once they are in the bent over position to finish the situation. While I personally don't like it, against an untrained attacker that you caught off guard it could work, and would result in you kicking them in the head as part of a choke defense.

Full contact all the time is silly. But it should go in cycles. So for example, is you are training for a fight or a tournament, the contact level goes up. And every once in a while you raise the level just because. Full contact, or at least some level of it, is the best thing you can do for self defense. I have said this before, but I will reiterate it again: No matter what your style is teaching, if you cannot and have not applied your technique against an intelligently resisting opponent in an adrenalized state, then you cannot really do it. Aliveness is key.