AndrewGreen

When Tae Kwon Do was young it often was called Korean Karate, which it was. Tae Kwon Do started off as a Shotokan karate off shoot, it has developed away from that now though. There are many reasons the instructor might use "Karate" Maybe its just Marketing, he feels the name karate will draw more students in. Or it could be "his" TKD is more karateish then TKDish, he doesn't do Olympic style which is usually what is meant by Tae Kwon Do. or maybe he just doesn't see a difference...

Why do you say he got ripped? Because there is no paper? Who cares? Paper doesn't mean anything. If the skills where good, he had fun and didn't get lied too about what he was getting where is the problem?

Don't know what is going on in Montreal, but it has got to be worse here. For the last month. Very cold, very high windchill, very unhappy winnipegers...

Don't let them slam you

What is your source for this? and which bare knuckle fighters? Broughtons rules? LPR?

Yes... and you seem to be saying that as well... A microwave is less effective then a toaster for making toast, it serves a different purpose.

Long story, and best not discussed here.

The shin kick may be most associated with muay thai, but it is not unique to them, and never was. So? Kicking with the instep is done for safety, it hurts less. In point sparring that is what is used as well. You don't have to be a genious to figure out kickink with the shin hurts more. Elbows and knees have always been a part of other arts, this can be seen in documents dating back further then Muay Thai, did Muay Thai steal knees from the Okinawans? or was it the Chinese... Japanese... Indonesians? Greeks? Europeans? Does that mean you took them from another art? or just that that is a good way to kick and will turn up when you study kicking to any level? And Muay Thai has developed those to a high level and brought them into the spotlight, but they are not unique to Muay Thai, never where.

Yes and no. Do you really think that martial arts "should" be cryptic? Why not just skip that nonsense and get right to something useful? If not, then how can you say karate is effective, if it has a poor teaching method? Which really is the issue, the teaching/training methods associated with different arts as they will dictate technique. Also we have available to us far more information on everything relevant to the martial arts then those Okinwans did 100 years ago, we should be able to do better then they did. My 286 is just as effective as your pentium 4... If I replace the motherboard, the hard drive, add more ram, upgrade the videocard, etc. Initally it had all that stuff, but it got simplified for mass consumption. Even if that is true, why bother? Why get a downgraded computer that you could reupgrade when you could get a state of the art one right away?

Ok, you got TV listed in your bio, lets go for that. You want to watch your favorite kung fu movie, what is effective. 1) A 13 inch B&W 2) A 19 inch color 3) A 60" big screen 4) All of the above All are effective, some better then others. Some cost more then others. But all will get the job done. Most people won't want to put out for a state of the art $20000 home theater system, they'll end up up somewhere lower down the line. That doesn't mean they can't watch the movie, but put up against the state of the art one they will seem less effective.

So, ball of the foot, shin & toes... And where did they steal it from? There is nothing "new", everything has been worked out, forgoten, borrowed, traded and relearned. Shin kicks have been around a lot longer then Muay Thai has. Sure, to some extent. If it wasn't for Royce Gracie very few would be using the guard, that doesn't mean it wasn't used elsewhere by other people. I've seen medieval european texts depicting fighting from the guard... Yes, and Muay Thai borrowed heavily from other systems as well, thats how arts evolve...

A horse drawn carrige is effective, a Model T more so, a porshe 911 even more so. A reliant and a Corvette can both get you where you're going. But put them against each other and the corvette will win. Does that mean reliants are "bad"? No, not everyone is willing to put out the cost for a corvette. Not everyone is willing to train full contact, let a stranger mount them, and pummel for a double underhook.

I see at as more of a difference in attitude then anything else. A tradtitional style follows traditions, doesn't matter how old it is. It is more concerned with following the traditions and preserving then changing and evolving. A traditional style has a syllybus defined by tradition, as oppose to one defined by what the coach/athlete feels is most effective. Not sure about the traditional/modern distinction though. Which is boxing? Wrestling? Both have been around a very long time, but neither are "bound" by tradition. I would consider both "traditional", but in a different sense then something like XXX-ryu karate/jujitsu/kenjitsu/whatever...

In isshin ryu: Lots, Somewhere around 25 I think. Best not think about such things, its just depressing...

Thats just not true. Kicking with the instep is generally used in point based sport arts. It extends the reach, is safer and will score the point. The instep is also padded, which protects not only the opponent, but the instep as well. The ball of the foot, the tips of the toes, the heel and the shin are all used in other styles as well. Kicking also changes when shoes are worn, something thai fighters don't do. Savate fighters on the other hand know all about shoes and kicking.

In part I think you are "sort of" correct. Different styles serve different purposes. If someone studies an art which is for a specific purpose it should be clear to them that other arts and methods are less suited for that purpose. Studying towards the goal of fighting against other fighters in a minimal/no rules environment is one goal. Many arts are poorly suited to that goal, in fact most traditional styles are. That doesn't mean they are no good, just not good for that goal. AT the same time if your goal is to be a martial arts movie star and "real" fighting art is not a good choice. There are also personal limits as to how far each person is willing to go. No face contact, no grappling and minimal bumps and bruises may be the conditions neccessary for someone to train. Not everyone is willing to do those things. They deserve an option as well. There are lines I won't cross, same for most people. Now the "problem" is that full contact fighters, Mixed martial artists, etc. come out and say this art is not as good for fighting full contact (real fights ARE full contact) very often they are right. Thats not what that "art" does. Grapplers come out and say this art can't fight on the ground, they can't thats not what they do. Problem is everyone wants to be "the big bad" and they are not. If you're training is not full contact, a full contact fighter will beat you. If you don't train all ranges, someone who does will beat you. I don't think that makes arts that don't "bad", it just makes them not as good for that purpose. But not everyone is willing to do those things, and they shouldn't have to. But I do think that they should admit that they don't and we could all get along much better. But some of those that don't still want to claim to have the "best" stuff. So naturally they get annoyed when they get told they don't, and those that tell them they do get annoyed as well because they do those things. They put in the work, do the conditioning, get the bruises and pay in blood and sweat. Then they get these others who don't tell them how they are better, or "just as good" despite not doing the "dirty work". Now yes I've stepped on a lot of toes, and yes I've made some pretty big generalizations. There are some "traditional" schools which do train hard and fight hard, but that is no longer the norm. Just like we think keypad and not rotary dial when we picture a phone. Some have the dial, but most don't. Cross the lines, you'll feel better. The lines need to be crossed. If we all just dance around being PC about everything we might as well admit that Tae Bo can be as effective in the UFC, if used by the right person in the right way. It can't, anyone who says so is full of it. Nothing wrong with tae bo though, thats just not what it does...

Nah, thats just Politically correct nonsense that hopes to not offend anyone. Not all "styles" ( I don't like that word though) are equal, some are good, some are really good, and some are just bad. Of course the good and the bad ones will differ depending on what you want to do with it. Olympic style TKD is really lousy for MMA, BJJ is really lousy for Olympic TKD. If the goal is "real" fighting ability the same will hold true

Ok, what is really meant is "The training methods usually associated with karate are inferior to other available methods." I see that as an important distinction which tends to keep things a little more civil and productive. Its not really the "style" as much as it is the "traditional" mindset and methods that are critisized. These things are generally associated with certain arts Karate, TKD, etc. As a result the "name" becomes the target rather then the "methods" and "attitude" which are what is really being critisized.

LOL, the reason all the "traditionalist" got beat back when they entered, was because they where one dimensional. Yes, Mixed martial arts is not about a set of drills or hitting pads. It is about developing into the best possible fighter you can using the best methods available. Right... so? Any MMA fighter knows the foul techniques, and they would be able to position themselves to use them. again: So? You are thinking competition format only, in training there are not rounds. And are you saying you fight without gloves, with no rounds (ever), and no rules? OK, I'm curious, how do you punch so that you don't extend your arm? Where did the overextending come from...? Any fighter that overextended would suffer for it. Right... that makes perfect sense... Grand Champion of which Mixed martial arts competition? Or was it point karate? I suspect it is, in which case your story is completely irrelevant. I have to ask, have you ever trained with a MMA fighter? How many events have you watched?

Yes There are hundreds, if not thousands...

Yes, that has been said over and over again, and always proved wrong... Karate full contact IS done, even bare knuckle. Kickboxing proved that it could be done, that what kickboxing was, full contact karate. Something many thought would result in all sorts of nasty things. Then the UFC came along, No Holds Barred! Bare knuckle! No one got killed. Those that claim that going full out is to dangerous seem most often to be those that have never done it. Give it a try, its not that dangerous. The truth is that most techniques which are "too dangerous" are also "ineffective" against a fully resisting opponent. Some things obviously are too dangerous, eye gouges, groin grabbing, throat strikes, etc. But I would bet that the "sport" guy that spars would be far more capable of actually doing such things if they where allowed then the traditional guy who doesn't spar.

Without seeing what is going on its hard to say. If all else fails pull guard, if he's bigger you'll likely end up there anyway. If you can, go back in such a way that allows you to use his momentum to follow up with a sweep. If he is just driving forward you can try to move, get around and take the back, back up and snap him down into a front headlock / choke. It really depends on how he is taking you down. There are quiet a few other "basic" throws and sweeps that can be done from the knees as well, it just depends...

One steps are quit useless beyond introducing basic technique. Take another activity, let's say football. Now apply the same teaching method. We create a bunch of plays, map out what everyone does, when they do it, and how they do it. Then rehearse. Never actually playing the game, or even watching others play and learning from them, afterall they are missing out on the "art". Are we now ready to play against another team? Or do we create drills which isolate specific skills to develop them then work them, against each other, not planned out, (who what when and how for everyone) just isolating a specific element and then actually play the game for practice.

I'm assuming you mean mixed martial arts, and on that I say yes. Far more so then any "traditional" stylist in my opinion.

How fast you loose weight depends on a lot of things. How you train, diet, how often you train, genetics, etc. Karate schools are not all the same, some are almost opposites.