JerryLove

TKD was started somewhere btween 1940 and 1960 (I don't recall when, but I think closer to 60) by Gen. Choi. What do you mean "traditional"?

Yes, I do. Will I try poor explanations over the BBS? No. i might be able to help you locate a qualified teacher if you tell me where you are at.

LOL. Your friend lied.

I disagree and reiterat my previous suggestion. You can put yourself into action without throwing a punch. Marching your feet is a good start... welcoming postures are another.

I tend to like to be upright. It's how I walk, it's how I prefer to manuver. That said, there are certainly some exceptions. I like putting my opponent on the floor. I do not like to leave him there alone, but I don't want to be off my feet either. What can I do? Squat low. Generally I'm low either in transitory (nothing like bringing 4 limbs to bear on their legs to screw them up) or because my opponent is no longer standing. I do also like some low-position arts (such as tjikulung) but find them difficult to really fight in (time to work on that leg-strength some more:) )

Bad reading comprehension skills. You can't see the forest because your view is blocked by the trees? Please quote the message where someone said he was superior to everyone else. You can't. that's cause no one said it. Please try to retort only to things that were actually claimed.

I've never seen an actual KO done completely sans touch. I've seen light-touch ones (can do several), I've seen no-touch effects (can so several). never seen someone drop to the floor without being touched. Maybe it cna be done, and maybe it cannot. I don't know. I'm very dubious about most people who claim they can. (as many of you should be dubious about some of the claims I just made).

You do realize that, even while an undefeated champion, Chuck studied under Bruce? There are corroborated fights. I've watched Linda Lee discuss the rather famous chinatown one. Finally, I wonder how many Dan Inasanto's and Chuck Norris's need to say he was great for you to believe it. That siad, I do think his fame is greater in comparison to his skill than many other noteable artists (Wu, DeThaures, Chen, Vladikov, and a hunderd more I don't know); but I think you are swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction when you say

I think you are right on the money Kensai; a generalization in all fighting with a focus on a range and style you think you can force. For me it's upright grappling and infighting. I'm personally worried about the multiple-attacker game to want to focus on ground work (the most obvious choice 1-on-1).

There is an existing, recent thread on this in this topic: http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5266 I believe there is one in General Martial arts as well.

There's also "combative mindset" drilling you can do. You've find that most things that make you afraid now will make you angry then. It's another good option, but one I recommend you not learn from a post on a BBS

Possability 1: Your life is not in danger. In that case, use of deadly force is not appropriate, why are you using a weapon at all. Possability 2: Your life is in danger. Why are you more worried about the legal reprocussions than being alive in 10 minutes? Not to mention the option he sees you whip out your cane and he draws his firearm... oops, you just lost initiative.

You've never seen a boxer's 1-2 combo drop an opponent early ina match?

If you mean "clips from movies" , they are all copyright. If you mean "clips of martial arts", you shoudl be more specific as to what you are looking for. Length? Content? Art? Quality?

There area a couple things I can think of that you are referring to. Some you don't want to go away. If I'm guessing right, your concerned about that 'freeze up" feeling that can kick in. I recommend moving. An easy oneis to stomp your feet (the way you would if you were sanding somewhere and really cold and moving to try to warm up, or like jogging in place without getting your knees aprticularly up). Hopefully, you know the one I'm talking about Give that a shot and see if it doesn't help you feel active rather than reactive.

Though I disagree that your statement "I am in the reserves" supports your implied claim "I have the appropriate armed skills for self-defence", that's hardly at issue. Of far more interest to me is that I made a statement which in no was was inteded to imply you had or did not have said skills. And yet, your first reactor was to persume that it was a criticism directed directly at you. The tone in every one of your posts on this thread (that I can think of) has been (as I pointed out) one of a bruised ego. I'm not attacking your art, and I have not been. With the exception of the amature-psycology on your use of ego in these conversations, I have not been making direct comments about you either. What I have been doing is attempting to discuss your posts, and your arguments. My god man, look at your last post. The only thing you felt like commenting on was yourself. I am in the millitary. I can draw a firearm. I never claimed that you could not. I make a statement about the porported purpose of any training and where I felt focus should lie if one was looking for "self defense". BTW, how did you make it through basic calling a firearm a "gun"? Or is does the Canadian millitary not have the burr up their butt that the US millitary has about calling a rifle or sidearm a "gun"?

We are getting off the subject TKD comes in three major flavors... ATF, WTF, and ITF. Basically American, South Korean, and North Korean. Despite the origins, IME most schools in America are WTF. What ever founder Gen.Choi (ITF) or pioneers like Joon Rhee (WTF) intended, modern TKD is very focused on the more acrobatic elements of the art. As pert of the push to get it into the Olymiics, TKD in general is very trounament oriented, and the tournaments are very flashy. You actually see [grimace] things like the "statue of libery" kick (a kick when one leg is held straight up and you hop around until youhave a target) coming into favor in many areas. so "no", TKD is not "just" that, but that is a ver prevelent, and very observable piece of the sport of TKD.

Once upon a time. I can do many kicks right now I am very fond of, but they are not "Tae-kwon-Do'ish". After a bout with cancer (a tumor in my lower back) I lost much of the previous flexability.

In a Dojang with 10 pre-black ranks (gups) I ended up purple (6th of 10). Was a long time ago .

Actually, I hold a moderate belt in it, from my very early days

Gymnastics is "kung fu", cooking is "kung fu" and all the Chinese martial arts are "kung fu". There is no 'martial art of Kung Fu", though I now understand your question to be "Were they doing Wushu or a different art". I'd have to watch the video, but I doubt they were doing Chinese Wushu (an art with specific and regulated forms and styles intended for compettion). At least, I doubt they were solely doing Wushu. Commonly, I would expect them to be doing Shalin 5-animal, Hun-gar, and a small host of other styles as well.

Monkeygirl, I don't see where the discussion is uncivil. Hobitbob, I cannot agree regarding the ninjitsu displayed. What was tehe to not see about two armed attackers standing and patiently waiting for the "ninja" to get around to responding? Further, to take Ninjitsu as displayed, as an exercise in history is interesting. To take use of sand at teh bottom of a sword hilt as defence is not. May I recommend to them they try an investment in quick-draw holsters, pepper-spray (works far better than sand) and defense examples against something other than Ronin. Finally, all Wushu is Kung-Fu (though not all Kung-fu is Wushu); so I do not see what distinction you are making.

A Straw Man Argument is a statement you make if you want to more easily attack an opposing position. You intentionally make a silly caricature of that position, or an outright lie regarding it, one that no one would believe, knock down that silly, unrealistic caricature, and then proclaim that the original version of the argument has been demolished. “evolution is a religion because evolutionists worship Darwin”. I'm sorry, I presuemd someone on a discussion board would be familiar with logical fallacies. I'll try to be more clear. Yes, right after you brought him to the table by saying "this is why back in the old ufc ,royce destroyed the traditionalists, because they were using what they thought would work instead of what actually works" the problem here is that you assert that "loosing" equated to some sort of inherent unrealisticness of system. If this is true, then later losses by Royce would prove that what he was doing was unrealistic. Since I don't believe that you hold Royce's art to be unrealisitic, I must wonder how you can reach the conclusion you proported. I don't believe I claimed that you were. Though, I would assert that most people at McDojo's also hold that they train in the techniques they find effective. Also remember, it was not poor schools you attacked, it was arts. You attacked mcdojos, and "traditional" arts, and asserted the superioirity of a small group of arts (yours) over all others. You attacked everyone that ever lost to Royce (calling their arts "unrealistic"). One must winder if, in a UFC, you could beat Royce, or weather some oter person would have to call your practice "unrealistic" by the measure you hold up other styles to. An excellent example of your prejudicial language (another logical fallacy, look it up); You start with a "McDojo rant on a poor school, but then equivocate to "traditionalists", as if there were not children's boxgin, wrestling, or Judo schools. Somewhere in there, there is a valid argument (that many people are deluding themselves by believing they have effective training when they do not). But you full it with so much hype, bluster, misdorected attacks, and ego, that it does not come through. And here I though a great deal of people were aware of that. OTOH, Your average 8-year-old is not shoved into a martial art to evicerate other 8-year-olds. So perhaps "combat ability" is not the sole reason one takes martial arts? In fact, despite being in a combat-oriented school, my first line of defence is my sidearm. My second is a blade. I would say anyone who takes martial arts for "self defence" and has not gotten a CCW permet (if available) and focused on drawing, marksmanship, and knife combat, is wasting their money on self-defence.

I agree with TJS, some systems (and schools within systems) are more effective than others. Of course "effective" will always be subjectively tied to situation. Geometry is more useful at pool than boxing, and weightlifting more usful at boxing than pool. Similarly, BJJ will not serve you well in a WTF competition, not TJD at a wrestling match. "Fighting" is a situation. It's a dynamic and varied situation, but it is one where some arts and schools are better suited than others. While I would not presume to go into the dangerous waters of trying to oder which arts, to say "they are all the same" is foolish.

I don't believe there are any pure BJJ people winning the UFC any longer. I don't believe one has for some time. I will admit I stopped following the fights some time ago... They got too many rules to be great learning tools and are generally not "enjoyable" to watch. I would say that people who rely on any one-or-two things, be it eye attacks or a skill at the guard, are setting themselves up for a fall. I would say that anyone who would say that an eye gouge isn't an "actual functioning technique" is trying to make up for something. I think youhave a funny definition of "traditional"; I think it is a blanket word you use in a derogitory manner. I think you straw-man the basic tennant of a "traditional" art and bash at it. I think if your fight during Karate was using the techniques you learned while in karate than your statement: "I didn't fight the way i trained at all" - Feb 11, 2003 3:21 pm Was a lie. I think a lot of schools teach horribly. I think that the "McDojo" problem is a real one. I don't think it's particularly confined to "traditional" or "non-traditional" arts. I think that boxers (very non-traditional) got killed in early UFCs just as fast as Karate people. I think the UFC taught us many thing. one big thing it taught us was that many, many schools ignored the ground-game far too much and were very vunerable to basic wrestling (under the UFC conditions). I think it's a lesson everyone should learn. I think it did also illustrate the problems with improper training. I did not insult him. Why do you seem so eager to come to his defence. Since you have brought up tone and implication, your tone is one of someone who'se pride is on the line. You post as though you feel you are superior to everone else, and that you have some "magic secret" you feel no one else has caught on to. This is exactly the pright that came before the distruction of the arts and schools you attack. They became so convinced that their way was right, that they lost sight of what they were supposed to be accomplishing in the first place. Over-specialization and pride caused that fall, and it's exactly the road you seem to want to take. And for the record, it was you, not I, that brought Royce's fight history to the floor. Why try to cahnge the focus as soon as your point is called into question?