Tempest

I definitely took that to mean that he has made wooden versions of those weapons. Here is a link to some cool examples for comparison: http://www.woodenswords.com/Award_Rudis_with_Engraving_s/1836.htm Nowadays, the standard in WMA/HEMA is synthetics and steel, but for a long time we used wood as it was available and no one was making what we needed out of steel yet and a lot of people learned to make some interesting things out of wood. I... do not like wooden weapons for anything but pell work, but they do have their place in that, and more importantly have a place in the history of WMA as a whole. Also, what is meant by "steel is expensive" is that the specific training weapons we need to be able to practice at the highest levels, are VERY pricey compared to either synthetic or wooden versions. Worth it, but VERY pricey. Another link for you with an example: http://castillearmory.com/all-products/mark-v-feder/ That is the feder that I use and it is on the inexpensive end.

Errmkay, This is a tricky one, because there are always different viewpoints, but I want you to think about something for a moment. Most legitimate black-belts spend at least as much time, effort, and energy getting that belt as it takes to get a college degree. Now, if someone has a degree in say, nursing, but they have never worked in nursing or treated a patient before, then are they a nurse? Should I listen to them about matters of health and ongoing care or should I seek the opinion of someone with more experience? Training is good. Quality training is excellent. But there is no substitute for experience when the consequences are real.

Another post with lots to think about. But not as much as your other one. This just simply comes from NOT sparring with strikes in play often enough. Even simulated strikes tend to correct these bad habits quite quickly. And you have people in MMA who are just about as dangerous off their back as they are anywhere else. Far too many people want to competition roll ALL THE BLOODY TIME, and never want to do things like positional sparring and simulated striking, and other things that complete the art, so they tend not to be able to deal with these things. That being said, if you are an active competitor, your training needs to be focused on the environment you are competing in. 12-15 Min sub-only comps with no holds barred, are going to be VERY different from IBJJF rules, are going to be different from a Judo tournament, from an MMA fight, etc... Having a good guard is, in my opinion, about more than making it tough to pass. A GOOD guard, by definition for me, is a DANGEROUS guard. It's not just that it's tough to pass, but that even BEING there is dangerous for the guy on top due to sweep/submission attacks coming quickly and smoothly. The guard being tough to pass is just the first stage of this. You have to have a tough guard to pass BEFORE you can develop any of these other options.

Ok... There is a lot to unpack here, but lets take a look at 1 or 2 ways this so called "disparaging" is done, and conversely the praising of the more flexible. First of all, there tends to be, among those who practice Judo and Jiu-Jiitsu, a certain appreciation for the aesthetic of winning from an apparently negative position.This is more likely to be the case if you are flexible as opposed to strong, because if you are bigger/stronger than your opponents, then you will likely, not always, but likely be in the apparently positive position. This explains a great deal of the phenomena from an observer perspective, but still we are short of an explanation from the perspective of a player. Now, some percentage of this can be explained by ego, but that doesn't account for all of it, especially not among higher level players. One thing that tends to develop as we gain experience is an appreciation for control and an understanding of ways to overcome resistance. You know when you've been caught as opposed to being forced in to a position. This leads, naturally IMO, to an appreciation. of flexibility over strength as an attribute. Consider also, the fact that strength is fundamentally limited by body weight, where as flexibility can be applied to counter a much higher degree of body weight and strength. Additionally, flexibility, within reason, does a great deal to prevent injuries as well, where as strength training, in my experience, at least with the heavy weights, tends to CAUSE injuries. Overall, in my opinion, while strength is a GREAT attribute to have, flexibility will lengthen your life as a grappler and increase your enjoyment of the art by giving you more elegant tools to deal with bigger, stronger people, and reducing injuries. As such, flexibility is an attribute more to be appreciated than strength among experienced grapplers.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting. I will take your word for it as I have never actually taken the art. I did watch and participate in a demonstration of Ki by an Aikido teacher when I was a teenager. I was impressed with this at the time. However I was more into striking arts and never entertained it again. Having said that I really have nothing to put forth on the subject if you are saying that it is not practiced like Judo. So... I'll take your word for it until someone else chimes in with a different experience. Yeah, we had an Aikido school renting out part of our Judo dojo for a bit. It's really interesting to watch, but when you get someone from that school that is supposed to be a black belt, on average they can't grapple with even a yellow or orange belt, so you can see the difference. And it's not from lack of time. It takes every bit as long to earn a black belt in Aikido, at least according to their curriculum, as it does in Judo. They just don't really train alive, so they don't have any actual skills they can really apply against anyone who knows what they are doing. And I agree with you about sharp blades. They are dangerous. But so are real firearms. Are you suggesting that people can learn to shoot without time on the range with actual ammo? Same thing applies. It isn't needed to SPAR with live steel. Although some paired drilling and light resistance with very experienced partners is ok, but students should handle and be able to cut with live steel very early in training. Sparring with speed, power, resistance and contact is reserved for blunt steel and polymer training implements. That's what they are for. Wood works too, but requires more safety gear and is not as realistic so, I avoid it for anything but pell work. The difference between the blade and the marker is one of movement and defense. Sparring with blunts and protective gear still FEELS like a fight, and there are some fight-like consequences for messing up. Bruises, pain, mess up badly enough and you could break something. Those potential consequences are what train the subconscious, the mushin no shin for you Japanese sword swingers, to understand the threat and adapt to it at speed. The marker just doesn't do that. There is still too much disconnect between the consequence and the action. You can TELL someone their guard is weak a hundred times, but if you spar with them and HIT them 2-3 times in the same place, they will learn much faster.

Actually, I am with Alan here. Although Aikido IS learned the same way Judo is at first, the reason it gets such a bad rap is that in most schools they never progress to the idea of an intelligently resisting opponent. Opting instead for ever increasing complexity of movement, like a dance class. Looks pretty, is not fighting.

Yeah it kinda does, but then, if you have this understanding, the restrictions on the types of movement allowable with this sort of training sort of invalidate it from the beginning anyway. Except that a "Free for all" is a good chunk of the point of sparring. Some knowledge of targeting is needed, but being able to deliver force to target when they are actively and intelligently resisting is better. The thing is, this knowledge needs to be more than just intellectual in nature and incorporate more than just a theoretical understanding of "If I were to get stabbed here it would suck." A few bumps and bruises are a small price to pay for this more visceral knowledge in my opinion. You say that you have trained the way I suggest with blunts, and even sharps. I would make the argument that your understanding of what is required to make a given strike effective would not be high enough to benefit from the marker without the training that I suggest. With it, there is no need for such things. As I stated previously, fighting is an inherently dangerous activity, and not one that can be learned from theory. It requires practice. And as much realistic practice as possible is best.

It's held for almost 25 years against everything that folks could throw at it. The truth is that there are not that many martial arts that teach the elements of aliveness in training. When you ask why, you get told nonsensical answers about tradition and the toughness of the masters in "real fighting", but it still doesn't change the fact that without aliveness, THEY, and their students, can't fight. It is painful to contemplate that reality, but without that element of aliveness, it doesn't matter what the techniques are, it only matters that the fighters in question lack the delivery system to make them work against an intelligently resisting opponent. And if you have the elements of aliveness in your training, then there should be no problem with you going in to competitions and seeing where you fall out. Or your students, if your age is a factor. I have a lot more respect for guys that get in there and lose, than I do for people who never compete at all. I'm for aliveness; I'm not for assuming that others don't.It is however sensible to train safely, by wearing protective gear if possible. I like to use an idea for knife fight sparring with red magic markers while wearing a white T-shirt. It is alot more realistic and safer this way, as it shows what touched with the marker point instead of a steel knife point. My techniques have been criticized for being too reality based. There are those that teach gun virtual based self defense; good luck with that one; as reality based is alot different than the popular fantasyland version. Cool idea, except that knives don't work that way. Knives are dangerous, but they aren't cyanide coated light-sabers. If you want to train with weapons, it does take a bit of understanding of the real thing. Get a sharp and practice "test cutting" on a good cutting medium so you understand what real sharp blades do. Also helpful is to study crime reports and historical combat reports so you can understand what types of wounds are "disabling". Then, get a blunt simulator and spar with contact. You will need some safety gear to avoid broken bones and damage at this point. See, the thing with the markers is that 1. It doesn't show how much MORE damage a stab can do than a cut, and 2. It makes it seem like lots of shallow cuts that would turn that t-shirt in to a paint canvas are much more effective than they are. It's close, but still not REALLY aliveness because it doesn't allow for realistic movement under pressure. The issue is, to clarify, for instance, that a cut that wouldn't cut through the denim on my jeans will make a white t-shirt look like a paint canvas with a marker. Still, it's better than just paired drills. Just, not good enough. Especially when you are talking about training with deadly force in mind. Want to train with firearms? Cool. Get some firearms and some simu-nitions. Train with firearms. Simulators are good to start out with, but you need to walk as close to the line of reality in your training as is feasible. Because one day, it might be real. And even if it's not, it might be real for one of your students. You can't just stop at level 1 and say, that's good enough, I will start teaching now and telling people I can teach them to defend themselves in these circumstances. Well, you can if you want, but it doesn't make it so. For example, the guys that I trust in the area of firearms expertise have 25+years experience carrying guns professionally, but the reason I trust them is that their main concern is STILL how much more there is to learn and trying to get every good training opportunity they can. Don't stop learning. None of us knows it all. But ALWAYS work towards aliveness as an ideal, and remember that while safety is important, it should not come at the cost of adrenal stress and realistic movement under stress. Fighting is an inherently dangerous activity that isn't for everyone.

It's held for almost 25 years against everything that folks could throw at it. The truth is that there are not that many martial arts that teach the elements of aliveness in training. When you ask why, you get told nonsensical answers about tradition and the toughness of the masters in "real fighting", but it still doesn't change the fact that without aliveness, THEY, and their students, can't fight. It is painful to contemplate that reality, but without that element of aliveness, it doesn't matter what the techniques are, it only matters that the fighters in question lack the delivery system to make them work against an intelligently resisting opponent. And if you have the elements of aliveness in your training, then there should be no problem with you going in to competitions and seeing where you fall out. Or your students, if your age is a factor. I have a lot more respect for guys that get in there and lose, than I do for people who never compete at all.

I do know a bit. I grew up with my dad. He served with the 1st Marines from 70-74 in several exotic Asian locales. I don't think that you can necessarily change a civilians mindset about training, BUT, I think that part of the purpose of MA training, just like part of the purpose of EMT, or LE, or any other training that should prepare you to handle adrenal charged emergencies with some degree of a clear head and proper direction, is to EVENTUALLY change you in to more than just a bystander when violence happens. That is why I harp so much on aliveness, active resistance, and other points that make training as real as possible. When something happens, and odds are that it will at least once in your life if you live in an urban area like I do, then part of the role of a MA is to do more than just stand there with a slack-eyed and silly look on their face. That is something that I can expect of my students BECAUSE we train in an alive manner with active resistance. This is NOT something that someone who trains with only cooperative partners and dead patterns can expect of their students. Odds are their students will fail, and then they will berate them for "Not training hard enough", when doing the wrong thing as hard as you want to will not produce the correct result.

Agreed. Appreciate the comments. As I have stated the art is effective. If fault is to be found, it is usually in the instruction (thus training methods as Tempest pointed out) or as you pointed out "look in the mirror". Love that! But it's so true. To thy own self be true. How many people now days actually find fault or weakness within themselves and own up to it? It's way to easy to find a patsy or scapegoat to blame short comings on. Lost the fight? Blame it on the art. Lost at a tournament? blame it on the instructor. Blame it on anything except yourself. Look in the mirror! Sensei8 I think you just discovered the answer to every winy teenagers problems. You're a GENIUS. Wouldn't it be just grand if everyone had just a smidge of integrity to own up to their own short comings? What an innovative, fresh and novel Idea. "Let no man's ghost return and say his training let him down." I believe that saying is pretty popular in USMC training circles. We as instructors have a responsibility to our students to do everything we can to prepare them for the situations that they are likely to face. But even MORE of a responsibility to prepare them for situations that we TELL them we are preparing them for. If I tell my students that I am teaching them self defense, then there are certain things that have to be included in that. If I tell them I am preparing them for a Judo tournament, there are certain things that have to be included in that. We can tell ourselves whatever we want to about a students preparation, about their training, about whatever... but if they fail, and we could have done something to help prevent it, and didn't, either from foolish, stubborn pride or from ignorance or for whatever reason, then that students failure SHOULD haunt us and likely will. At least it will me.

Dag nabbit Matsu, you are making me think. And work. Now I have to go through this point by point to sort what I agree with from what I don't. I am gonna stop you right there bro. No they wouldn't. That is what attracted people TO those arts in the first place. That sort of thing leaving is one reason the students left. People tend to understand nonsense, even if they can't articulate WHY it's nonsense. Of COURSE they expect this type of training. Fighting is an inherently dangerous activity. If someone is not closing to contact and thinks they can fight, they are deluding themselves and their students. This is good stuff here. Totally agree on this point. Yes, technically the art of the gun is the most effective way to fight for an individual. For groups it is the art of the nuke. That said, what we are talking about is training methodologies that don't help students in the conflicts that actually happen to them. If the art promotes training methods that aren't helping, it is at least partially to blame. This is more good stuff. Still in agreement here. Other than judging by the pedigree of the art, how the $$$$ is a new student supposed to judge those things? That is why performance in actual fights is so important. Maybe this is true if one student loses, but many others prevail with similar preparation. But, if most students from a given system fail in a given endeavor, the issue is not with the students any more. This is not actually true of many, if not most, martial arts. In fact the only one I KNOW for a documented fact that it is true of is Japanese Jujitsu and possibly German Ringen. No it isn't. The important part is what it can help a student walk away from tomorrow. Not what someone 150 years ago walked away from then. Still in agreement with this. I here this a lot, yet still the all of the U.S. special operations forces are training in BJJ, or some variation of it, for their close quarters training. Somewhat modified to their needs, yes, but still the same idea. The Brits are fans of Judo. With respect, NO ONE I am aware of is currently using Karate. Did you watch UFC 1? Royce is not using anything that is "highly trained", and he never has to "absorb punishment", because his opponents are clueless about how a fight changes when your opponent decides to control you and not hit you. He destroys people because they are clueless. The issue I have with this is that part of the training is not just to teach the techniques but also to instill certain attributes in people. Like comfort in uncomfortable situations, like being able to deal with speed, aggression, and INTELLIGENT, ACTIVE resistance. All of the pieces of victory. If you are not giving your students these elements, you are doing them a disservice. This is true, but misleading as you go on to clarify in your next statements. If you had a young adult with no training right now, and they couldn't train with you, where are you going to send them? I agree with all of your points at the end, except for your side bar. Outside of moving to Kentucky, where can I find these so called "Old School" dojos I have heard so much about? I have been to several Karate and TKD schools and have yet to see one.

In our organization the curriculum is the same, it's just the rate at which it is broken up and delivered that is different. There is a difference, in grappling and sword work at least, between the techniques that you know well enough to demonstrate and maybe even teach and the one's that you will trust to use in full contact sparring against an opponent of your level or higher. The body mechanics that you absorb and that fit you best as a 7 year old will NOT work for your 10 year old self, and again for your 15 year old self and again at 21 likely. However, if you are 20 when you start, and keep your self in good shape and training, the mechanics that "fit" at 20, can be refined for the rest of your life and then added to.

The difference, as I too played soccer at about that age, is one of complexity, at least with grappling arts. A large part of your learning is ingraining complex movement patterns in to your bodies musculature. Think of it more like dance. You can enroll a kid in tumbling/dance as a 5 year old, but it is nothing like them applying for the high school dance/cheer squad and again that is nothing like a professional ballet company. There are levels to this stuff, not just the same thing done but better, but actually using different body mechanics based on where you are in your physical development at that time. You gain some big advantages starting as a child, but you actually gain just as many, if not more, playing a whole bunch of sports and becoming a great athlete and taking up MA a little older, say 14-15.

I won't take them younger than 6. 7 is actually my preferred starting age. To address another point you made about someone who starts at 5 having a decade of training by the time they are 15, yes, and no. There is a reason why you cannot be a black belt in Judo until you are 16 period, 17 is more common but 16 if you have medaled in national competition. You don't get 10 years of training between 5 and 15, you get at most 2-3 years repeated 5 times. There are various reasons for that, ranging from the students abilities to the way kids classes have to be taught most of the time. The number 1 reason for this is physiological development. A seven year old's body is so different from a five year old and a 10 year old and a twelve year old and on and on that there is no consistency to what techniques they can do well and very little in the way of neuro-muscular retention. That is, children often are not able to remember what they were able to do previously under adrenal stress and then build on it. They have to often be re-shown the same move again and again. Once puberty starts, even that goes out the window. Now, that being said, if a kid is a competitor who trains hard and doesn't STOP training at any point, then starting as a kid can give them a HUGE advantage in pure experience and number of reps, but the skills and techniques they have as adults will look nothing like what they started with as a kid, not just in quality, but also in type and body mechanics. It's this constantly having to relearn basic body mechanics as their minds and bodies develop that causes children to need to relearn everything they have done before as adults and can even put them behind others who started as adults if they take a significant time off from training.

MMA is a concept. It is also a codified rule-set. The idea behind the rule-set being to avoid forbidding as many martially valid techniques as possible and still have a valid sport that the public can watch. The early UFC's, and before them the Gracie Challenges, had few if any real rules, as has already been stated. What's interesting is the fact that, other than the quality of what is being done, the rules that have been added have not significantly affected "what works" in the cage. The idea here is put up or shut up. If you want to make a claim about how effective a martial art is for it's intended purpose, which for most of them is either fighting, self defense, or warfare, then put your money where your mouth is and fight. The truth is, MMA gives every martial art a roughly even chance as long as it is based on martially valid principles. The top athletes rise to the top, but just about anybody can compete at the lower levels, with the caveat that whatever you have been doing will be put to a much more extreme test than most people ever face, so you will need to be ready for that. If you think compliant training is going to get you ready for a fight on it's own, be prepared for a rude awakening when you step in to a real encounter. I have seen everything from simple punches, complex ground combinations, and even jump, spinning roundhouse kicks off the side of the fence, ALL work in the cage, but they all had one thing in common. The people practicing them trained in an alive manner consistently against intelligently resisting opponents. That's it. That's the super secret sauce right there. Link to article on aliveness: http://mattthornton.org/its-aliveness-still/

The problem with the idea of "traditional martial arts" is that: 1. There is no such thing. Not really. Judo and BJJ have as old a lineage in Dr. Kano as just about any of the so called "traditional" martial arts, and wrestling and boxing are FAR older. 2. Most of the things that characterize traditional martial arts are silly customs from a culture that, in America anyway, we barely understand and are likely using incorrectly anyway. 3. The claims of combat effectiveness of these arts are VERY disputable, not because of the techniques, but because of the training methodologies. There is VERY strong evidence that different training methodologies were in play during the time when these arts, or more accurately, the ancestors of these arts, were used for fighting. The dispute is not one of lineage and tradition, it is one of fighting effectiveness. Many traditional martial artists believe, really believe, the demonstrably silly idea that they can repeat a technique over and over again against a compliant opponent reacting in a programmed way and that somehow makes them more effective in a fight than someone that repeats a technique and then does it against resistance because the technique is supposedly more "deadly". Allow me to dispel a myth of fighting for everyone here. You CANNOT know what your opponents reaction to any given technique will be. If you punch someone in the groin, they might double over, or they MIGHT smile and kick your teeth in. You don't know until you have done it against an adrenaline driven, intelligently resisting opponent, what your move will do. And even then, it is no guarantee for the next time. Because you don't know what your move will do, and you don't know what your opponent will do, drilling a specific attack/response sequence over and over is only good for instilling THAT particular sequence in to muscle memory, that's it. It doesn't give you all of the other things required to become an effective fighter. The problem becomes when the TMA practitioners start making ridiculous claims like because they practice eye gouges it makes them more effective in "real fights". The issue is, because they don't actually gouge anybodies eye's out, when it comes right down to it, they can't actually DO that.

You know, Matsu, depending on what part of Kentucky you are in, Allan Manganello is not too far from you, over in Louiseville, you could do a LOT worse for groundfighting. I wouldn't worry too much about the idea that sport fighters are not effective in the street. I hear that a lot. And yet, when it comes time to go hands on with violent people, time and again its the wrestlers, Judo, and BJJ guys along with an assist from some of the boxers and Muay Thai guys on a given squad of violence professionals that have to carry the load. Most of the time I would rather have a former college linebacker than most martial artists backing my play when I go in to a difficult place and deal with difficult people. Violence is, as Matsu said, a mindset and if someone is not willing to train and compete in an alive manner, I have no confidence that they are going to magically manifest that mindset once they are pumped full of adrenaline they aren't used to and dealing with real, full speed attacks they aren't used to.

Forgive my cynicism but this looks fake. There is absolutely no power in any of the strikes. The female fighter has decent ground game but he's appalling. He can neither strike or grapple. Not to take anything away from the female fighter. She looked sharp but the whole thing looked more like a demonstration than a fight. Is it just me? No, it's not just you. That guy didn't try to do anything and neither side tried to hit the other with any force. The guys ground game was horrid, and hers was at least acceptable, although it's hard to say since she wasn't facing an resistance.

Sorry I didn't read the small print.Just put 1on1 male vs female MMA; it looked good enough 99% Not really. If you put a purple/brown belt female up against a white belt male about her size, which means he didn't cut and she probably did, in an amateur setting with a school that is all about promoting female martial artists, you get a result like this. It may have even been a demo for the school with a pre-set outcome. Take the BEST 145lb female in the world right now. Inarguably that is Cyborg right now. Put her up against ANYONE on the UFC roster with a record at 145, she gets destroyed. Not beaten. Not "well it was a good fight". DESTROYED. Loses in the first round most likely. And if it is a ground and pound, the UFC would be out of business within the week from the fan blowback.

Do I think she is too young to dance with a blunt sword? No. People do tumbling and dance at her age all the time. A "sword", and I am 99% sure that it was a blunt on stage during her performance, is just a weirdly shaped baton in this case. Calling that a "Display of swordsmanship" is the same as calling the story of Beowulf "Great history", it is a story, and it is great, but calling it history isn't quite right. She did a display, and there was a sword, but calling it swordsmanship is a bit much. That being said, if she demonstrated test cutting with a sharp and another person holding the cutting medium, as long as she demonstrated proper maturity, demeanor, and weapons handling etiquette, it would be fine with me.

Yeah, but David had a ranged weapon. I don't think they are gonna let you bring a gun, bow, sling, or crossbow in to the ring/cage with you. If David had been forced to fight hand-to-hand, he would have been killed in short order. Think Oberyn Martell and the Mountain from GOT, if you have ever seen that show. Oberyn was way better and absolutely destroyed the Mountain, until he wasn't and got killed. Truly, thinking size and strength are irrelevant in a 1on1 fight against a trained fighter with similar experience is not a good path to victory. One can try to prepare for it, but realize that most of the time, if I am enough taller than my opponent that I can post a hand on their head and stop them from reaching me, enough stronger that when they try to take me down I just lift them off their base, and with enough extra endurance that their best shots feel like love taps from my GF, then my opponent is not likely to win.

OK, so I think the confusion here comes from the misunderstanding about what a professional MMA fight is. The thing to understand is that ANYONE on the UFC roster, male or female, is going to wreck the vast majority of non-professional martial artists out there. And a good chunk of the folks who may be pro's, but aren't really full contact fighters. Any of them. But you are talking about a dominance contest between professional athletes of comparable training and "Weighing in" at the same weight. So there are a couple of factors that are in play here. 1. Men can cut more weight than women. So if they both clear the scale at 145, he is walking in to the octagon/ring about 10 lb's or more heavier than her. 2. Men's muscles and bones can take and recover from more repeated stress injuries than women's. Has to do with bone densities and muscular shape, but it is true. Means he can do more reps in the same amount of time than she can. 3. In general, men have more white muscle fiber than women. This is not a universal, but at the some weight it is consistent enough to count as one for our purposes. This means he will be more explosive than her. 4. Height to weight ratio's will typically favor men, so he will have reach on her, and not a little bit, a LOT of reach. I could go on in to things like VO/2 max, and cardiac outputs. Neural reflex development. Whatever you want to list. EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY favors men. Women cannot, on average and at the highest levels, hope to win a straight up, 1v1, FIGHT with a male that is the same weight, training and experience as them. It sucks that this is the reality of violence, but it IS and pretending otherwise would be a worse circus than those underage girls fighting adults in MMA they have in some places.

Ok, see, for this to be a thing, you would have to accept the idea that, somehow, through some miracle, Jennifer Maia would be some kind of match for someone like Demetrious Johnson. Think that through for a moment.... I'll wait. . . . Done? Ok, so let's look at something outside the championship world. Well, mostly. Cristine "Cyborg" Justino is being held as the second coming of Rousey to Women's MMA. She is THE 145lb woman to beat. Want to know what happens if she competes with the guys? She gets DESTROYED by an unranked fighter such as Brian Ortega. Loses in the first round. It would be laughable. There is simply no comparison in the level of competition among the professional fighters. What's more, the fighters know this. Anyone who has ever trained or competed knows this. Martial arts are a great skill to have. It gives you a HUGE advantage over someone with more physical gifts who does not have that skill, BUT, it will not make you a super human. If someone else has a similar skill level and a LOT more going on physically, the odds are not in your favor. MMA is a legitimate sport, despite what it's critics like to claim. Legitimate combat sports with weight classes do not pit men and women against each other because at the same weight among professional athletes men are simply bringing MUCH more to the table physically. It's not fair, but it is reality.

Know the material. Don't just pretend to know it or polish it out for the test. Practice over the whole time in grade. Make sure your Uke knows the material as well. Maybe not as well as you, but teaching them will help with your understanding and if they know the material it can help the test go smoother. Don't try to pass, try to excel. Do as well as you can. Whether you pass or not is up to the instructor, but whether you give it your all is up to you. Know the examiner if possible. In my style this is a non-issue as you are not likely to get an exam from someone you don't know, but it is possible. Know what they look for, know what will get you an auto-fail from them. These are the things that helped me on my exams through Shodan.