KarateEd

I think you missed my point, Ironsifu. I believe that mastery isn't really based on what those around you can do, but that it is criteria based. For example, a fictitious Bob enters a local shooting contest. He shoots a tight group at 200 yards. In fact he sets a tournament record. Everyone considers him a master at that distance with that type of firearm because of his shooting skills. However, Bob moves onto the next highest level of competition. Now there are several people there capable of shooting just as tight a group as Bob did back at the local competition. Does Bob no longer have mastery of his skill because he is in the company of others that posses equal capability? I would say he still does, because he is able to shoot a group (i.e. meet the criteria) that is considered to be the mark of a master. Mastery is often based off a predetermined set of objectives or goals, that, while being tweaked and adjusted over time to compensate for a general increase in skill among all competitors/practitioners, do not constantly change. Comparing one's abilities to another person's means that the measuring stick for mastery is constantly moving, not always for the better, based on what the majority of people can or can not do.

Given the 80/20 split I would have to go with 80% fit & 20% skilled. However, I would think that the training required to be highly skilled (like 80%) would result in more than 20% fitness. Outside of the 80/20 constraint, I would prefer to be highly skilled because I think, that in the pursuit of that skill level, I will increase my fitness level also.

Interesting read, I think your progression pretty much hits the mark. However, I wouldn't define mastery by comparing one's technique to those around him. I think that mastery can be achieved without having to do something better than 99% of the populace. For example, if I developed a special technique that was terribly effective and used it to defeat many opponents then it could be argued that I have mastery of that skill simply because I was the only one to know it. But, if I teach it to others, it becomes popular, and many people learn to use it as effectively as I, have I now lost my "mastery" because more than 1% of the people around me now know how to use my special technique?

That's cool!

Welcome, belatedly, to KF!

Yes, it was a World Tang Soo Do Association school.

The first school I attended (Tang Soo Do) operated out of a church. Classes were held in the fellowship hall. The instructor had the dojang certified and called the school "Tri-Star Tang Soo Do." He was influenced by his religion when it came to naming his school.

I have a tendency to switch sides regularly when sparring, but I am probably most comfortable, and, thus, initiate most attacks in a southpaw stance.

Congratulations, beast!

I have learned both the Palgue and Chon-ji forms with my current school, so I thought I would address the quote that DWX posted. Since bunkai has never been emphasized at either the TSD school I used to attend or at my current TKD-based school, sometimes the movements do seem rather arbitrary. Also, I agree that kicking in these forms is confined mostly to side kicks, so the lack of variety is a valid point. However, the difficulty level does increase as new forms are learned. I disagree here. If you are watching a white belt go through his forms, yeah, that might be boring, but it isn't designed to be exciting to watch. it is designed to develop the balance, coordination, stances, etc. of a new student. I find that the higher level forms, when performed properly, are fun to watch. This strikes me as opinion more than fact. I guess the writer associates kicking with TKD and therefore wants to see more kicking in the forms. They can be technically challenging if the students performing them are held to a high standard so that sloppy movements, stances, etc. are not accepted. Are not the "roots of TKD" influenced by Japanese martial arts? As for being boring, once again, if performed properly, they can be exciting to watch.

Our school recommends learning to use firearms, but their use is not required to gain any rank. I learned to use firearms on my own. I shoot both pistols and long guns. However, I try to shoot pistols with some regularity since they are my choice for SD, long guns, just whenever I have the time.

When I was younger (and training in TSD) I used a pine dowel/curtain rod for training with the bow. It really wasn't that good because it was too large in diameter, but it was homemade and, thus, cheap. For nunchaku I like wooden (oak) ones connected with string. I work some Vaseline into the strings at the point where it enters the wooden section. This seems to decrease the wear of the strings. I don't have any experience with graphite weapons.

Originally the SD class was going to be in January, but it looks like it has been pushed back to Spring. I'll be sure to let everyone know how it went once we have the class. Hopefully, I will be able to get some pictures and can post them here.

I got an MP3 player recently so I have started downloading music more than I used to. I get my songs from Amazon. If I want a whole album I will still buy a CD. Plus, some of the music I want I can't find on Amazon, so I buy the CD. However, I don't buy a lot of CD's anymore.

At my school, we have only a white stripe for each dan rank on our belts, though they are optional (at least one guy doesn't wear any dan stripes at all). As for uniforms, all color belts wear white, BBs wear black, unless one is an official teacher, in which case he wears a white top with black pants.

I believe it is bigger than instinct. It encompasses "application," "improvisation," "reflexes," "insight," and "unpredictability," maybe more. You might want read the book before you do much work on the mental section. It is a little book, about 110 pages long, and you can purchase it online, new or used, for under $15.

Force = mass x acceleration Therefore, if two combatants can accelerate a punch or kick equally, the more massive person will generate more force. However, some difference in mass can be compensated for by increased acceleration. For example, Primo Carnera was a giant of a boxer back in the 1920s-30s and defeated many opponents due to his size alone, but he was rather slow in the ring. He was whipped by Max Baer, a smaller but quicker man, getting knocked down 12 times or so in a match in 1934. Of course, both these guys were heavyweights. As tori says, MA training should allow us to exploit the errors made by untrained and unskilled opponents, minimizing the advantage of size. However, I don't think an opponent's size and/or strength should be dismissed because it does give him an advantage (see above formula), but it shouldn't capture our minds either. Of course, to avoid it "capturing our minds" we need to, like tori says, train with bigger, stronger opponents regularly. Being rushed and driven to the ground is perhaps what I think about most when I consider being attacked by a larger, untrained person.

Under the "mental" section I think it would be a good idea to include Takuan Soho's book The Unfettered Mind and his idea of having a state of "no mind" during combat.

Welcome to KF!

I think the perception among people, as a whole, is that western fighting styles are much newer in comparison to those originating in the ancient East and, therefore, do not have the same revered traditions. I think the long, rich history of China heavily influences this idea among the general population. As we know, many martial arts are modern interpretations of old systems, if not completely new inventions themselves, and have no more tradition than boxing, wrestling, etc. Therefore, I would argue that Western arts can have as much tradition (and be subject to this same traditional/non-traditional debate) as Eastern arts.

In 2009 I want to train regularly, not this spotty training that seems to have become the norm.

David Eddings has a few good series. The Belgariad followed by The Malloreon are fun, easy reading with a decent sized cast of characters that makes for some interesting subplots. Both series consist of five books. He wrote another unrelated three-book series called The Elenium, but I didn't care for it as much.

This is a difficult question to answer because I think each person looks at different characteristics when determining what is "traditional." Perhaps the greatest determinant of what is considered "traditional" are the customs utilized in the training hall. I think the perception is that a traditional school will be more heavy on discipline, emphasize particular rituals (i.e. bowing when entering and leaving the dojang, saying "yes sir" and "no sir," etc.), and have slower progress through the ranks. I think that people often connect the above mentioned things with "the old ways" and, conversely, associate modern MA's with a more self-serving attitude and generally having a disregard for how things "used to be done." Of course, how did things "used to be done" and when, exactly, were they done?

Picking just one is hard, but if I have too then I would say that I enjoy the challenge the most. I find that many of the other benefits are a consequence of the challenge itself, whether they be physical benefits, such as increased speed, or mental benefits, such as increased personal confidence.

Welcome to KF, Kuma!