AndrewGreen

Yes and not really. It is a demonstration of body mechanics, not really a "functional" technique. It can be used for demos, as a training aid, etc. And it can improve your punching mechanics, but it is not something you're really going to use against a person.

But restricitve sparring with specific goals can be used to develop that technique.

Can it work... Sure why not Is it a "good" way to do things, nope. With enough of a skill difference all sorts of strange things become possible. That doesn't mean it is an "effective art".

Depends on what you mean by "spar" I'd say you should be sparring in some form every class, right from the first one. That doesn't mean NHB type rules, just restricted to certain aspects of the full picture.

G95, Why? What possible value does a dirty, smelly rotting belt have? Apart from collecting germs that is? Belts need to be washed, you wear them, they get dirty and they soak up sweat. They don't need washed as often as the uniform, but they do need washed. Maybe not in the machine, but still washed. As for touching the floor.... Again why? Belts don't stay done up as well as they should, they are going to come off from time to time. By the end of class its common for many of the belts to be balled up in the corner in the kids classes. And wouldn't that make groung work tricky?

The one that gets the job done Quit thinking so much about "proper" stance, if the "proper" stance is anything but the most effiecent and natural one for what you are doing you're definition of "proper" gas been skewed. Naming them just causes problems, especially when they are named in another language.

Depends on what you did, how you did it, how well you did it and you size, strength, natural fighting ability and the allignment of the planets....

Depends on the school. Most do a bow, beyond that it can vary a lot.

The ability to break things is not neccessary for powerful strikes. It is a demonstration trick, not a useful skill. Boxers don't break (except noses..)things, that doesn't mean they can't hit hard.

Those belts are disguisting, buy a new one. Would you go to work with a tie that worn?

No, they don't bounce right back if you do it right. They hit hard, and can be controlled. Probably the first thing I do when teaching nunchaku is to get them hitting the bag without hitting themself, its not that hard. The biggest drawback is that they can be stripped from you if your opponent times it right. They are also hard to deflect strikes with and if your opponent times it right he can close inbetween your strikes. To use them requires very good footwork, body movement and timing. Like any weapon they are usable, if you know the tactics and have the ability to execute them. I find they are better as a defensive weapon, avoid and strike the hand as your opponent attacks then follow up. In close they are used like a short stick as well as for grappling techniques. They are not one of the best wepon vs weapon weapons, but they are usable. There strength would have been as a self-defence weapon, they are easily carried and can do a lot of damage. But they lack in control in some ways, in that changing angles mid strike is trick and the recovery time after a strike is long, they are also hard to defend with.

Wash it.

The date is different for different areas. In Okinawa it was really early 20th century, In China I believe it was more 1800's, but I admit that Chinese martial arts history is something I lack knowledge in. Chinese martial arts are a different animal because many are not based on fighting as much as they are performance or spiritual aspects. Acting like an animal is not the way to learn to fight. That doesn't mean don't do it, just if your goal is fighting thats not the way to go. Many of these styles have origins in buhdist temples, you will have a hard time convincing me that a group of buhdist monks where interested in effectiveness over spirituality in there martial arts.

Read it for historical value, thats all. It is oudated, we have far more and far better information available to us now. Would you want your MD to base his treatments for you of the medicine section? The hand to hand sections are the same.

Nope, your backwards, we have this modern idea that there should be different "styles". Before that, there was no such idea. Bruce said nothing new. And you're right there is no point in arguing which is the best style, unless you have different styles. But if there weren't different styles we could argue about more relevant things. How do other sports evolve? They seem to manage, and there are no distinct "styles" . Imagine if boxers where divided by style. We could have Ali-ryu, Dempsey-ryu, mendoza-ryu, Sullivan-ryu, Tyson-ryu, Broughton-ryu, etc. What would boxing look like now? But that doesn't exist, boxers create there own style and boxing continues to evolve. Did Ali "loose the art" when he did things his own way? Am I more of a artist if I spend my life copying Picasso's painting, or if I create my own original works?

Yes, but techniques alone are useless. The ability to apply them against another person who is fighting back is what is important. So my answer is yes in the sense that it is the best of two mistakes Not sure I understand the question... Do you mean one "version" of a technique? Then I'd say no, because it will be slightly different for different people. And the techniques that are used will be different. I predict Tank winning by triangle or flying arm bar in UFC 41... Not going to happen, those techniques don't suit Tank. If it could, what fun would that be? How could you try and find a better way if it had already been found 50 years ago?

Foam ones aren't that bad, so long as they aren't the ball bearing ones. Go with ones that have a rope and a solid core. There not perfect, but they will get you doing it so that you don't hurt yourself as much with the real ones when you switch.

Not neccessarily. We find that shorter weapons can get inside the range of longer ones making them useless. Weapon speed is very important as well, and a 2 ft stick is faster then a 6 ft hardwood one. Footwork is probably the most important element when facing a weapon of a different length, either backing of and hitting or closing the distance and trapping the larger one.

Instead of thinking about different "styles" try to think about different training methods. The whole idea of having different "styles" automatically rules out any of them as being the best. As soon as you stop trying to throw that kick the most effective way, and start trying to throw it the "correct" way what you do has become stylized and begins a moving away from being effective. The best "style" for you cannot be turned into a style, it only suits one person and is constantly evolving.

Kids class, more girls then boys, adult class, very few...

Same as most weapons, hit something with it, everytime you say "OWW!" you made a mistake, once you can do it without saying "Oww!" you've got the basic idea of hitting down. Hold it near the end, but leave a little space, it should be straight (like a solid stick) when you swing it.

Get a heavy bag and beat on it. Then get someone with a stick to beat on you. The beat on them back once you got the hang of not getting beat on so much...

Yes, everyday. Weapons are lightly padded PVC or rattan, continuous sparring.

Similar in that both are done alone going through the motions. If you understand both then no, they don't look the same

The two look similar, but are two entirely different things. Kata is not done the way you would fight. Movements are exagerated and posture is upright. Everything is prearranged and designed by someone else. Kata are more about health. The joints go through a fuller range of motion and the posture is more "correct" Shadow boxing is done the way you would fight. Weight is kept light, the hands kept high and the chin tucked. There is no pattern, how you move and throw strikes is how you would move and throw strikes in sparring.