username8517

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Martial arts, at their core, are about being able to defend yourself. Having respect for oneself or others does not dictate how skilled or good one is at martial artist or not. Now if you were to say, "I believe a good human being is. . .", that would something I completely agree with.

whole-heartedly agree.

Okay. . . .do you have a question about karate chops? Or are you looking to start a discussion on them?

Nice summation. You are making sense; however I'm talking about a slightly different scenario. I'm not talking about formalities like bowing, which as you point out can merely be polite actions construed as respect by some. I'm talking about respect that's being demanded as a crutch (thanks BM ) as a substitute for reasoning. For example, if someone were to join KF, and make a statement like "I do style ABC and it's the best!". I respond with "I don't think style ABC is that great because of X, Y, and/or Z." And then the original poster replies with "Well as a martial artist you should respect my style and what we do, even if it's different." This is the essence of my issue. Rather than present their side of why I say a technique or theory is flawed is wrong and try to disprove my statement or change my belief as to why it's wrong, they take the "moral high road" by demanding my respect simply based on the fact I'm a martial artist. Exactly my point. Respect is a quality of human being that martial arts can foster and help grow in those that want it to. But the two aren't mutually exclusive. But the concept of respect in martial arts gets diluted by some that they think they must be tied together in an A == B equation

I agree Rick. Being polite and respectful are two entirely different things. But the heart of my post, as BM pointed out, is when respect is demanded as a substitute for logic simply because one is a martial artist.

Everyday (and truth be told, often multiple times a day), when strolling through the various martial arts forums, I inevitably see something posted to the extent of "all martial artists should respect each other simply because they're martial artists." And the more and more I think about, I can't help but think this is nothing more than flawed logic. After all, I cannot think of another hobby or profession that demands respect based merely upon being in the same category. Martial arts though, seems to be the exception, regardless of how you define it. Define martial arts as a sport and you can see that baseball players are required to be respectful of each other, let alone athletes in other sports, merely based on the fact they play, regardless of whether it is in the Major, minors, or the sandlot. Define martial arts as an art form and find that Photographers are not required to give respect to sculpters based on the fact their both artists. Define martial arts as warfare training and you won't find that the US military forces are required to respect the forces of other nations automatically. Regardless of how you define martial arts, I most commonly see the demand for respect between martial artists arise when one party insults another or a question is asked the person apparently can't answer in regards to technique or lineage. And to me, this seems like a way to say "I don't have a valid response so I'll invoke the stance of morality to end this." And the vast majority of the time, this is between practioners of who different styles. So what exactly is respect? Respect is defined (and pardon my generalization) as presentation of honor or esteem other another, showing a sense of worth, or displaying proper courtesty or acceptance of another. Given the cliche, respect is earned not given, why does martial arts seem to be the exception? And where exactly in your training do you learn respect? I, however, feel that respect is not mutually exclusive with martial arts. Rather, respect for other, regardless if they have formal training or not, is the quality of a good human being, not a good martial artist. Respect is something that we as humans have innately. We cannot teach others how the proper way to show respect nor can we force respect to be given unless one desires to give respect. Granted the arguement could be made about beating someone until they give respect, but that respect would be more out of submission and fear of punishment rather than genuine earnest respect. A clear distinction. But yet, respect is often called the cornerstone of martial arts. One website openly states, "The essence of all Oriental Martial Arts is a deep-rooted belief that courtesy is the ultimate of all virtues." The glaring issue with this statement is the word essence, which is defined as the basic, real, or invariable nature of a thing. A poster on another board earlier today even stated that "martial arts USED to be about respect." Rather, martial arts, Oriental and Western, were primarily rooted in the need to defend one's self in combat. This can be verified by studying the history of various martial arts. The need for survival came first and foremost. Other facets such as respect, bushido, and honor were an afterthought. It wasn't until later, after formal training in an art was established that aspects of the cultures found their way into the methodolgy of practice. Simply put, in my personal studies, outside of a few arts created in the growth explosion of martial arts (i.e.--the last two decades), I have yet to find anyone who created a martial art with respect being the forerunner to practical self-defense. Am I saying that these secondary benefits such as respect, fitness, spirituality, honor, and so on cannot lead to the betterment of a person? Absolutely not, but they certainly are not a requirement or applicable to all. Those that choose to foster these portions of our humanity will and those that won't, simply put, won't. That doesn't mean they're any less capable of defending themselves. With that being said, why is the association between high levels of respect and someone being a martial artist tied together? Certainly, someone can be a complete jerk showing no one but themselves respect and still be more than able to protect themselves. So in conclusion, is demanding something nothing more than a preconceived stereotype amongst martial artists a defeatist attitude by those who cannot logically state their side of a debate? Oh, and just to put it out there, I myself will be the first to admit that I don't give everyone the same amount of respect when it comes to martial arts. My criteria for respect is based off a multitude of things, but primarily boil down to how they train. The martial artist the puts in blood, sweat, and tears into their training as well as critically analyzing the information their given every workout will get more respect from me than those who show up once a week and spend more time socializing with other students than actually working out. I will also respect the martial artist who evaluates and tests moves against a resisting opponent to find out what works for them more respect than on the one who simply says, "my instructor says that strike X will kill anyone so it's too dangerous to practice." And finally, if I see slop or flawed logic behind a technique, I'm going to call the person on it and see if they can provide a logical explanation behind said technique.

What Zanshin is trying to say is that when you rely on your school to provide your income you're more at the control of your customers than if you only run a part-time place and have a full time job for financial stability. And I use customers because thats effectively what they become. Your business would rely on keeping a minimum number of "students" in the door each money to not only cover the cost of doing business but for your salary as well. You'll be more at their whim in order to keep your business open versus having a small class that you can teach as you like with more grueling standards and requirements and let your standards for what a school should be weed out those who wouldn't make a good fit. If attendence starts to falter and bills start piling up, what do you do? Do you water down your cirriculum and hope that it will appeal towards a larger base of people? For example, say cost on the space your leasing adds up to $8800 a year; for a 1100 sq. foot facility at $8.00 per sq. foot (which for the record is very cheap, especially if you're located in a big city or located on a heavily traveled road with store front windows). This comes out to roughly $735 a month that you will need just for rent. Then you have monthly utilities such as water, electricity, etc. Let's assume this is approximately $65 a month (once again assuming a lower amount). So to merely operate this facility you're looking at monthly fees of $800. Assuming a $80/month contract fee for student, you're going to keep to retain 10 students a month just to keep the place open. Now factor in a meger salary of $24,000 (or an additional $2,000 per month) and you'll have to retain 35 students to stay above the red. Personally, I'd take the 10 students that I could train the way I want over the 35+ that I would have to coddle. Bad analogies, but seeing how you're corralting them to the arguement, allow me to address them. Aside from the artists (most of whom don't earn financially stable wages to begin with) all the above examples are required to answer to higher powers. Doctors are subjected to a medical review board and certification to say they can practice medicine. Teachers are subjected to state certifications as well. Coaches are often selected based off of knowledge and experience with the associated sport as well as being answerable to school officials or team owners (unless you're talking about private coaches in which case they fall into the same situation we're talking about, just a different title). Athletes are expected to perform to a specified level of play per their contracts and answer to the coaches and owners of the team. And while I'm not religious enough to know, I know celergy members often have to report to a higher authority in their specificed affiliation. Regardless, all of the above examples have a minimum level of standards they have to meet before they can practice/teach/perform professionally in their desired field. Failure to do so prevents one from getting the certification or approval to begin. Even after they begin their career, mistakes, errors, and sub-standard performance can cause termination of their position. Martial arts, though, doesn't really have any certification board that it answers to. Sure there are councils and boards an instructor can voluntarily belong to, but very few (if any at all) have any governing power. In fact, many of them are subject to controversy and speculation, thus limiting or completely diminishing their credibility. This effectively negates any need to answer to a higher authority. Anyone, with any amount of experience can open a training facility provided they can acquire the needed funds to do so. Or worse, people are technically make up their own style at will and doors to the public. Then comes the issues of sub-standard instruction. With martial arts being fairly new in the mainstream public (only in the past 30 years or so), the general public still does not have a solid grasp on what standards for martial arts should be. On top of that, martial arts can be practiced for a multitude of reasons. The person taking it to get in shape and have fun will have different standards and needs for their workout versus someone wanting to train to enter the UFC one day. Much in the same way you don't see a gastroenterologist if you have problems with your knee (requiring an orthopedic doctor). Both are still being under the doctor umbrella but have vastly different areas of knowledge, training, and expertise. However, without proper education on behalf of the end user (the student) - something many don't do before entering martial arts - or common knowledge through society of what is acceptable and where, they might stumble into a place that might not offer what there looking for simply because it's "martial arts" and come out jaded because of it.

By keeping your arms and legs tense your slowing down your attacks and blocks, thus actually losing power on your techniques. Your power should be generated through your hips and transferred to your chudan tsuki. What it will take for you to relax is really going to be dependent on finding what it takes for you. What works for one person will not always work for you. That being said, what I would recommend is running through your katas and basics in a fast, but very lethargic state, virtually no power as if you're not even trying.

Correct. That just sounds wrong. Basically what your saying is that none of the students ever promote unless they go to Joe's Bar on a Friday night, get into an actual fight with a real gang, and end up winning. A little far fetched if you ask me. And what determines the various ranks then--the number of people in the gang?

bushido_man pretty much summed up my thoughts. In a round-about way this is my point. Traveling in twice the distance requires twice the time to reach the target and then it twice as long for the high kick to return to the ground. But the examples of weapons has no correlation to the high kick issue. You're comparing apples to oranges. The difference here is that the staff and escrima are inanimate objects and the energy they deliver will be significantly more than our body. The energy generated for these to travel is generated from our body (hips and arms) and transferred to the weapons in a pushing and pulling manner to create an arcing manner. This is the principle of centrifugal energy. On top of this, weilding a weapon allows for both our feet to remain planted on the ground in order to maintain balance while still attacking our opponents head. However, when executing kicks we are not transferring energy generated into anything else. The energy generated by our body (hips and legs) is not applied into an animate object, which thereby doesn't apply the centrifugal force to our attack. Therefore we have to exert more energy (energy for the attack + energy to maintain balance) to achive lesser of an impact (when compared to weapons) as well as taking half of our stability (our kicking foot) off the ground and shifting balance to the remaining foot, thereby relying solely on that remaining foot to provide balance for our entire body. I agree that a kick to the head can deliver more damage than a punch, however there are more than one factor to consider when throwing a kick to the head, most of which I outlined in my last post--it's these factors that make the high kick impractical in most situations. Also I disagree that a high kick is superior due to the head being a weaker target. You're ignoring the fact that lower kicks are to often directed to knees and groins. The groin is significantly more sensitive than the head. To test this out, have someone smack you in the side of the head with only 1/3 of their power and see how you feel. Now have them do the same thing to your groin and tell me which is more sensitive (i.e.--weaker). And yes, a kick to the groin is no gauranteed fight ender, but neither is a head kick. First off, it's not a lost technique, it's just not executed often due to the impracticallity of it. I will fully agree that it's an effective technique if you manage to connect with it properly and managed to regain your balance properly. As I mentioned, it's not that it's an invalid technique, just not logical in most situations when you think about all the factors involved in what is required in a successful execution in a setting that has countless variables that can affect your outcome. To get an idea of what I'm talking about, think about why you don't punch to the groin (as I illustrated in my last post). Never heard that saying before in relation to martial arts. And the ability to say what is superior or effective can be made about any type of attack or block if you have both logic behind your statement and a reasoning as to why (i.e.--support). That's what fuels debate. This is exactly my point Nightowl. High kicks are not useless, just a high risk maneuver with potentially higher consequences if it fails. However, I will disagree with one thing--high kicks in MMA are not like kicking in the street fight. MMA rings have removed all environmental aspect of what might increases the risk of kicking high, such as debris, slick spots, and changes in elevation of the ground. Even in MMA fights, I have seen fighters throw high kicks and fall on their butt when they miss.

First, your argument is flawed based merely on the examples you use. You are comparing low kicks against people trained to resist pain and keep going versus head kicks against your average joe on the street with a poor guard. Second, most low kicks talked about in self-defense situations are generally aimed at places that are illegal targets in sparring and sporting competitions such as the knees and groin. Big difference in driving a kick into the side of someone's thigh than into their knee. Also, there are many factors that can change the outcome of your kick that are eliminated in a designated training ground as opposed to the street including, but not limited to: slick ground (snowy ground, wet pavement, etc.), lack of changing elevation of said ground (fighting on a incline or decline), and debris on the ground (rocks, needles, lava). Anyone skilled can kick about waist height or below with little to no shift in their body movement and balance. However, kicking above the waist requires the upperbody to move as well to compensate for this shifting balance due to the mechanics of their body doing something it was not originally intended to do. Thus having to constantly shift your balance to kick high risks losing your balance as the foot returns to the ground if one of the above examples proves more troublesome than your mind calculated prior to executing said kick. Futhermore, it's a matter of physics. Kicking high requires the leg to travel further, thereby taking more time and energy to do so. This is not only on the way up, but on the way down too provided you miss. That extra second it takes for the missed high kick to land and for you to adjust yourself back into position can be troublesome against a skilled fighter, regardless of formal training or not. That being said, kicking high can be a nice tool to use every now and then as they can be a fight ender, but so can knee and groin strikes. For most situations "on the street" it's really not logical when you think about all the factors involved--kind of like punching to the groin. Personally I won't say I would never kick to the head in a street fight. In fact, I advocate kicking their head all the time. But only in situations where their head is about your waist height.

If you ask me, Dana was being a little hypocritical about it. Yes the UFC and MMA world doesn't want to come off as portraying a certain image and he was right to boot them for displaying that kind of behavior. However, if he was so concerned with not putting that kind of imagery out there, he would have editted it out of the show. He could have easily had the lead up to it and then when the fight actually starts. Then have him show up and say that he was irate for fighting, disappointed at the stereotype they filled, etc etc and kicked them off then. Heck, during the airing of the season, the fight was something that was highlighted and emphasised on their On the Next Episode of The Ulitmate Fighter... In my opinion Dana White wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted the leave the fight in there for ratings and drama for the show, but then he wanted to come on and say "no no no, that's not what we want here" gzk is correct. If you end up on your back, pulling guard isn't a terrible thing to do. However, rather than trying to sink in an armbar (or any other submission) from he bottom and risk being slammed, you should try and sweep your opponent and reverse positioning. Edit--looks like ps1 beat me to this portion of it

I know, I just think the broad generalizations they throw out are silly

Perhaps I heard the latest episode wrong, but I could have sworn they said that MT was one of the few martial arts that incorporates elbows and knees. So now not only am I unknowing doing KM, but I'm doing MT as well.

Could you please expand more on "how it is just not working"? Obviously your sensei feels you have the technical skill and knowledge to demonstrate and teach to lower ranks, which is why he promoted you to sempai rank. Why do you feel that popularity has anything to do with it? Either the lower ranks are going to listen to you or they're not. There is nothing you can do about it. What you can do is speak to your instructor and let him know any concerns you might have about lower ranks not listening and have him address the issue. But the bottom line is if they're not going to listen, they're only wasting their own time, instead focus on those that choose to listen and learn.

The Krav Maga episode had its ups and downs. A couple things I found "interesting" --apparently I've been doing KM for years now because they said KM was the "only" martial art that utilizing blocking and striking at the same time. And yes they said only. --having kali experience I can say some of the knife drills were flawed. There was very little attempt to get out of the way of the blade. For example, when going full speed against the thrust to the head, even the KM instructor got hit two or three times in the back of the head by the blade. You can see it bump him a few times. --also, I found some of the gun disarms confusing. It doesn't make sense to me to always turn the same direction on a gun disarm regardless of where the gun is placed on your body. I don't believe that if a gun is on your left side that turning to the right would be the best method. I would be inclined to say turning to your left would be. Would have been nice to see them try these out with the "attacker" using an airsoft gun.

Ahh, thank you for the clarification.

Actually Matsubayashi-Ryu was brought the style over to the states in 1960 by Jim Wax. Ueshiro didn't come over until 1962. Link Also, although the article states that Ueshiro branched off, it is my understanding that he was asked to leave by Osensei Nagamine for creating Fukyugata Sandan--but I could be wrong on that part.

Gis are not allowed by UFC rules. Check the link and scroll down to Mandatory Equipment http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=LearnUFC.FactSheet

I think this might be where we're drawing different opinions on the matter. I've have had moderate success with this, although it was in a controlled environment (in class sparring) versus actually getting out and into a real streetfight against drunks. Now I'm not out actively looking for street fights to test these out in, but mere extraplating what success I have had in a controlled setting. Perhaps I am wrong.

Obviously no guard will let you predict the attack thrown. However, it can help limit the possibilities of what attack can come. If your standing with a wide guard and there is an opening down the center to your face, where do you think the attack is going to come? Stand slightly more off at an angle and the shot will probably be a hook or haymaker to your head. And yes, fights do happen very fast, so if you can create an advantage by increasing the odds of knowing where the attack is going to come from and how, aren't you making your odds of success even that much more probable? I don't know about thai matches, but in mma matches, strikes to joints are illegal. You hand is nothing but small bones and joints. And yes timing is an issue and something that has to be worked on. However how many times do you see a flurry of punches thrown versus one or two punches thrown just to keep you at a distance? On top of that, you plant your elbow inbetween two knuckles of your opponent, the pain of their knuckles being split is going to overwhelm their brain and make them forget all about their second punch they were getting ready to throw. Taking the example I have here: For the sake of example say myself and my opponent are both in a left lead. As his left jab comes out I'm going to parry it with my back hand (my right) and use my left that's already out to drive into their biceps while I'm stepping to the outside. First that lets me plant a nice frog on their arm and it allows me zone to the outside where their other hand, if they still manage to throw it, is no longer as much of a threat. Furthermore, once I've guntined an opponent, I'm not just going to stand there and wait for another attack to come my way, I'm following it up with attacks of my own. Admittedly I don't recall ever seeing Rizzo fight but once (maybe twice) and I wasn't thinking about Liddell when I posted.

Ideally, I think they can be used across the board with success if trained properly. Obviously in a steet scenario you're aiming to end it as quickly as possible with no rules so you're free to do anything. However, when you take it into a sporting venue with rules, it restricts what options you have as a counter attack. For example, if I held a low guard in a MMA fight, I can't parry and re-direct a thrown overhand punch into my elbow as I might in a street situation. However, I can see it as a set up for a takedown where I bait my opponent to go high and shoot in as soon as I see that arm start to fly. The problem with this would be the constant repitition of it. Use it too much and your opponents will catch on. And at the upper levels of the sporting venues, you'll often be taped--allowing your opponents to study your tricks--something that can't be done against average joe on the street. Personally, one of my favorite is to have an open guard. Then when the punch comes down the center line, I guntine (scissors) it and bury my knuckles into their bicep. Granted it doesn't cause the arm to shatter in a million pieces and fall off, but it does hurt alot--numbs the arm temporarily and makes them think twice about throwing it again. And as listed on the UFC website, there is no ruling stating that this is an illegal strike. However, how many fighters do you think train this? And I guess that above examples is really why you don't see things like this in the UFC--no one aims to counter attack. Rather when their opponents start attack, most fighters either try and block and aborb the damage or get out of the way (not that there is anything wrong with that), but I think a fighter that trained to counter attack at the time he or she is being attacked would throw a lot of people off guard.

How you have your guard can put you a distinct advantage simply by the example listed above--it lets you dictate the odds of where your opponent is going to strike. Odds are we are all going to attack what we perceive as our opponents openings or weak points. And likewise, our opponents will attack us where they think our openings and weak points are . By knowing ahead of time what your opponents thinks is your openings, it allows you to be one step ahead of them. For example, have a high guard and your opponent sees an opening in your abdomen--you can expect their first attack is going to be a body shot coming your way. Keep a low guard and your opponent sees your head as exposed. Open your guard a little (to about shoulder width) and your opponent will see an opening down the middle. Bring your guard in closer and slightly turn at an angle and your opponent will see an opening on your outside. A smart fighter will feed his or her opponent where they want to be attacked and destroy their opponent when the attack they want comes in.

Quoted as it sums up my thoughts on this whole matter perfectly

I'm the same way. If someone actually tries to start trouble with me (and by starting trouble I mean physically assaulting or threatening me not the macho chest bumping and insults that nothing more than showmanship), I want them to find out how bad of a mistake it was. I looke at it like this--when you're a child and you put your hand on the hot stove you quickly found out for yourself that you should never put your hand on the hot stove to begin with--I aim to be that hot stove