DWx

Great article. DWx I agree with what your saying however I think its fair that rounds should be shortened for women. The article made a convincing point about women having a lower VO2 max than their male equivalents. MMA is a spectator sport its not interesting when people are lying on the floor knackered. That was one of the main reasons we have time limits in the first place along with TV problems. Maybe from a femminist point of view there should be the same number of rounds but from a purely physical point of view men and women are different.You wouldn't expect a woman to run sub 10 in the 100m. Its not condeming them. Its just their base ability nobody can outrun physics. Initially I thought that too. But the article did say it only justified rounds of 4.36 based on % performance gap. Half a minute isn't a lot of difference when the rounds are 5 minutes anyway. Perhaps you'd see a slightly altered strategy for women so that they'd last that extra 30 secs, maybe a more technical game than all out power? Reducing the time requirements would be like telling a female marathon runner they only had to 20 miles instead of the 26 miles or that because they couldn't run as fast as men the 100m is now a 90m race. Maybe the pace of the fight won't be the same but don't underestimate a female fighter's ability to complete it.

I largely agree with the article. Even as a female myself who is quite willing to spar guys in training, at elite level I don't think they should be in the ring together. They should definitely be allowed to fight but the differences between men and women are so great its hardly fair to fight each other. It'd be like allowing one competitor to use performance enhancers and disallowing the other. I don't agree on shortening the rounds for women or having drastically different rules either. Let women fight on the same terms as men even though they are only fighting other women.

(Sorry for the slow response... new job, house move etc..) Not sure if you've seen the applications? In both illustrations, the defender has applied an upward palm under a punch, such that the punching arm ends up very close to the attackers' shoulder height. Now, given the extended punching arm is a fixed length, its reach described a circle around our shoulders, and it reaches furthest forwards when extended at shoulder height. So, if that upward palm has lifted a punch from some lower height up to shoulder height, it's actually ensuring the fist is free and angled with maximum chance of reaching the defender. There's absolutely nothing in the illustrations to suggest any way in which the punch has obstructed or deflected the attack from it's target (around the defender's sternum): rather it's encouraged the punch in its reach. It doesn't even leave the upward-blocking arm well positioned for follow up defense or attack, nor for a grasp or unbalancing technique. That's why it's ostensibly a remarkably useless application. Ok, like I said I don't have the 15 volume book (yet ) so I'll go with the pictures in the condensed version... I totally agree that shoulder height would mean the maximum punching range. However the attack isn't being blocked or moved to the shoulder height, shown in the photos is where the attacker is directing their arm to and the point on the arm where the block makes contact. Kind of like a snapshot of the exact moment you connect. The idea is you smack it upward because it was already directed to shoulder height. Likewise with a downward block you'd smack it downwards to deflect. I think the distinction needs to be made between impact and non-impacting blocks. As you agreed this block does feel like a strike. That's because the upward block is an impact block, not a soft/parry type of block. The photos show a static image of the moment of impact not where the technique finishes nor what the attacker looks like after a successful block. In practice your hand travels slightly further than the photos show as you strike the arm. And because it is an impact block and striking action, it is possible to smack the hand upwards. The attacker is putting all of their energy into moving their fist horizontally (parallel to the floor), you make impact moving along the vertical axis, conservation of energy and momentum means their arm has to move upwards if you're creating enough impact. The possible counter to this is to place the opposite hand on the back of the arm to "hold" the arm down, as in say Po Eun moves 10 and 28. Now you've applied the downward vertical force to counter act the upward block. I personally prefer sideways blocks too and I can't argue with the deflection percentages. However the upward blocks do open up opportunities for some nice counter attacks by to the body and under the arm. And you never know there might be a situation where upwards is the only way you can go. IMO be best to have a least one I could use in my repertoire.

haha funny you should say that.. I've always wondered if any of you guys had ever attempted armbar-ing a pole or something and seeing if you could bent it. Think it was Rickson Gracie that armbarred a crash test dummy on Fight Science...

Good luck

Great advice so far. Don't look at the height compared to everyone else but look at it compared to your weight class. Usually the heavier categories will have taller people but having said that its not always the case. Being smaller can be an advantage anyway. Smaller people tend to be faster and don't telegraph as much as the taller fighters.

No disrespect meant but sounds like he had thick shins and a thick skull

Maybe writing a letter in is the way to go. Sounds frustrating to say the least. Least you're standing by your principles and it seems to be brushing off too. How does rank affect your ability to run things anyway? Our org's current leader doesn't even have a 9th gup... he was brought in partly because he had no rank and so supposedly wasn't going to get tied up in petty rank politics.

I'm not so sure about what pure kickboxers do but the ones we see coming to open TKD tournaments and just looking at videos of WAKO fights and similar stuff show a preference for side on. Maybe "half facing", between side and full facing would be a better description. That's not to say there aren't fighters who choose full facing; v. occasionally you get TKD fighters who prefer full facing. People will switch depending on the situation anyway; I know I can be anywhere between full and totally side on. Overall though I would guess that strategies are fairly similar, that's why we have no problem competing in kickboxing events and they have no problems competing in ours. (And by "kickboxers" I don't really mean the Muay Thai kickboxers, that's probably slightly different). There's also the difference between weight categories and contact level. At least in TKD lighter people will more likely to be side on compared to the heavy weights and in higher contact levels more people choose to go full facing than in the lighter levels. So what I'm trying to say is it'll depend on the fighter and situation as to whether they use this front leg jab, rear leg power strategy. Again I don't know exactly what kickboxers like to do as never trained in it myself, but the option is definitely there to spin. Being side on doesn't take the rear leg out of the equation for normal (non-spin) kicks. Whilst the rear leg does means powerful back kick it also means very powerful roundhouse. Get that going well and its like swinging a sledgehammer into someone's ribs or stomach. Very easy to do rear leg front kick / front pushing kicks too. Rear leg axe is great because you can hide it behind the hands. The only ones I would say aren't so good are the rear leg side kick and hook kicks. Just too slow to get the hip over and round. As you said, the step-in/skip-in can add a lot of power to the front leg by getting that mass moving. Most people at our tournaments break lead leg side kick this way, by stepping or skipping in. But you don't have to step in for a good kick. You can still get enough power from the speed element to do some damage. Especially useful if your opponent is running in, you catch them by just picking up your front leg and shooting the kick out. Its a more advanced technique but we train to break boards by just using the front leg on its own with no mass just speed.

This artists makes a painting in under a minute

Common stance in kickboxing and TKD. Fight side on to minimise the targets presented and to make it easier to use lead leg side/hook/roundhouse kicks. But doesn't is make it slower to use the back leg? Do they use it seldom, or is there some stradegy for that? Thanks! You usually have your power leg back, just like you often keep your power hand back when boxing. Its is slower but you can throw more of the mass and hip into it. The front leg is a jab and when you want to land a more powerful shot you use the back leg. IMO in this set up also makes the reverse kicks (like backkick, spinning heel etc.) more accessible than a forward facing stance as they have to travel the same distance as you would to throw the normal kicks (roundhouse, front kick off of rear leg).

Congrats! Think something like this speaks for its self to show that this is an awesome community

Common stance in kickboxing and TKD. Fight side on to minimise the targets presented and to make it easier to use lead leg side/hook/roundhouse kicks.

Congrats!

Good Luck

Interesting you advise your students to go for the body shot in tournaments (with good reasons). We go the opposite way and advise the head shot instead. Admittedly we have different tournament set up and rules to Karate but we train the majority of the punches to go for the face. The head shot is a more visual target; all corner refs will see it whereas with a body shot usually only 2 referees will score it. The guard usually covers the body too as kicks tend to be more favoured (and people will use them to close the distance) so the head is easier to score a punch on. Plus you can use your punching arm to cover your own head from getting hit. We do wear 10oz gloves so the contact can and is a lot heavier.

Congrats

I agree with all that's been said already, especially think you should ask her what ps1 said. I do understand where your mom's coming from though, its only natural that she wants to protect you from anything untoward and with BJJ obviously its going to seem like there could be given the close contact. There's not much you can do apart from explain to her and maybe show her what's been said here. Luckily my mom was never like this with me, she preferred the "throw me to the wolves" style of parenting... There's a nice little article here (and the responses) that you might want to show your mom: http://www.karateforums.com/women-and-the-martial-arts-vt33669.html Think there are a number of past discussions on women in the martial arts, a search should bring them up.

We do (TKD) in non-sport sparring. But it does get used in competition too. In competition you're not supposed to but if someone catches it with their foot or shin "by accident"...

I had a nice little experience with a 14 year old blackbelt tonight at training that goes some way to showing that kids can be good blackbelts. I'm 5' 9, 210 lb-ish, used to heavy contact and can take a hit. Was sparring this kid who barely reaches my shoulder level and must only weigh 6 stone. He's entering a tournament this weekend so I was told to put the pressure on him and up the contact a little. Basically sparring him like an adult and not letting up on the attack/counter attack. For starters he was taking what I was throwing at him and it wasn't light... I know some adults that wouldn't put up with what he was soaking up. And he was giving as good as he got, this 14 year old landed the sweetest side kick right in my stomach and knocked the wind right out of me. Hurt like hell and had me bent double. So goes to show that some kids can handle themselves under adults if need be. Besides if you're going to exclude kids from having a blackbelt based on size or because they can't handle the 6ft 250lb attacker, you're going to have to exclude a lot of smaller women and men too. Not to mention in that case maybe we should have an upper age limit on a blackbelt if we're going to have a lower one based on those reasons... start getting arthritis, a dodgy hip, whatever and your ability to defend yourself against an adult starts to go down.

That's what my dad used to say too. If anything its the knowledge that I could take it to them if I needed to and not get in trouble was what kept the bullies away. Just being able to walk around with the "come on and try me" attitude stops the one's who prey on the weak in the first place. Obviously bit young for kids myself but if I have any I think this is what I'll be telling them.

Congrats to him. Must be awesome to train with him.

I think control and technique comes before power and speed. No point in hitting hard and fast if you're just wildly swinging, anyone can do that. Once you have the control and technique you should work on getting the power and speed up. As other's have said I let the less experienced person set the pace. Although as JiuJitsuNation mentioned, you have to push and be pushed sometimes. If I think I can get a little more out of my partner, I'll push it slightly out of their comfort zone and up the contact a little. Definitely the latter. If you ever see anyone go from point sparring straight into heavy continuous style sparring they have problems. See the same with our kids where when they're younger they can only tap their opponent for techniques, soon as they start sparring the teens and adults you have to spend months getting them to start actually aiming for you instead of thin air.

I don't think this is true, because not every style has forms as part of the training. Nor do I think that just because forms are part of some MA training, that it isn't necessarily the most important part. You can't train reaction, timing, or distance with forms training. These are all important attributes when it comes to self-defense. Well said. Kata is only part of the picture.

I agree. In a previous style I studied, a child could earn a black belt, demonstrating all the same techniques as an adult. Then they were called a Junior black belt. If the requirements are the same, the rank should be the same. Afterall, we don't call them junior green belts or junior blue belts. Just black belts are labeled in this way. Either they are a black belt or they are not. Don't give them some superfluous title just to keep milking money out of them until they turn 16, get their own car and stop coming. Very well said, my thoughts on this exactly. The only exception I would give for the term was if the candidate had taken an exam with reduced requirements but even then I would want a decent reason as to why they weren't allowed to take the full test. Its just another belt anyway, you don't need "emotional maturity" to get your brown belt so why suddenly impose this requirement at blackbelt? Besides you can get some pretty mature under 18s or under 16s or whatever your junior age is.