ShoriKid

For good training, with plenty of opportunities to get in a work out, say 4-5 days a week, couple of work outs a day, it's not bad. I can't afford it, but life and local economies dictate what can be aforded. An MMA/BJJ gym of about any calibur can run well over $100 a month right now if for no other reason than they are the hot thing. In my area, $100 a month would be pushing it because of the local economy. A new gym has opened that emphasis grappling with some stand up, it's located near the federal prision and they charge $70 or 80 a month for 2 nights a week. His target students are the guards/employees, and they have a higher than average pay level for this area. In any other case he couldn't charge those rates and expect people to pay them here with pay levels/unemployment being what they are.

If you're trying to maintain your skills, don't look past that. Shadow boxing, when done right, using your full range of techniques will develope speed, good head movement, foot work and the ability to feint and draw an opponent. Lift weights, do poloymetrics and hit the heavy bag to build your explosive power and ability to hit with good impact. Footwork and timing to learn to drop your weight into a technique. Hit that heavy bag more. Weight training, makawari and plent of ab conditioning, oh, and hit that heavy bag more. More shadow boxing to work on foot work and feinting. Heavy bag work again with good visualization. Keep it simple. Develope attributes and maintain the core skills that you already have. Focus on keeping what you have and refining them, not worry about trying to create something new. Quit thinking so much about conflicts of what you're doing. Just train.

Why train weapons when I'm training with karate? Why work on ground fighting when I'm training karate? Why look at boxing when I'm training karate? Perhaps because most of your first generation masters did. Or it could be this. Never bring a knife to a gun fight. Never bring nothing to a knife fight. I train weapons for the same reason I train karate. Because I want all of the advantages I can have in a fight. If I'm unarmed in the fight and the other person isn't, I'm at a disadvantage. Why would I do that? Why not fix things before they become a problem.

I've always worked both sides equally. Seems the natural thing to do. I'm a lefty who fights out of an orthidox stance most of the time. I train both shadow boxing and on the bag and make sure that attackers come into drills leading with either hand. I value the dexterity and speed of the left lead compaired to the power I would have going southpaw. Doesn't mean I don't switch up to southpaw to give a different set of angles when I want to while sparring. Flexibility and adaptability are important so you can flow naturally to the next movement. All of this has come in handy after breaking/severaly injuring my left hand.

Depends on what you want out of a mouth piece. A single is plenty of protection if it's properly fitted. Shock Doctor puts out some good ones that you can self mold. A dental fitted one will fit better. If you go in to get one, make sure you tell them what sport it is for. The construction/build will be different by the sport. There are a couple of mouth piece companies that make products for martial artists/boxers/kick boxers from dental molds. A double can be self fitted, or dental fitted. Again, dental fittings are better. But, they cost. I have a self molded single mouth piece from Shock Doctor. It is the same type that I used sparring with a pro boxer/kick boxer and the guys he was preping for amature fights. You can talk around them and cheat and breath through your mouth if you get winded. You can also unclinch your jaw and take a bad shot if you aren't paying attention. A double, mine is dental fitted, locks your jaw into place and makes me feel bullet proof when I'm sparring. Clinching your jaw on it is natural. However, you might have trouble breathing around one, and you sure can't talk around a double mouth piece. If your cardio isn't up, or your instructing, they are a pain to take in and out or will cut short your rounds.

B.J. Penn vs. Diego Sanchez =Penn Frank Mir vs. Cheick Kongo =Mir Kenny Florian vs. Clay Guida =Florian Jon Fitch vs. Mike Pierce =Fitch Paul Buentello vs. Stefan Struve = Struve Alan Belcher vs. Wilson Gouveia = Belcher Shane Nelson vs. Matt Wiman = Wiman Johny Hendricks vs. Ricardo Funch = Hendricks Rousimar Palhares vs. Lucio Linhares = Palhares Damarques Johnson vs. Edgar Garcia =Edgar Garcia Kevin Burns vs. T.J. Grant= Burns

Richard Z Whatever you are training for does not dictate what you need to prepair against. No matter what tactic the practioner wants to employ, they need to be ready to face sitations that do not fall into their dictates. Just because a Wing Chung man trains to engage at close punching range doesn't mean he will be to do so. Or that because he trains for such an encounter he can made do with poor kicking defenses trained against ineffectual kicks. Just as the Wing Chung man looks to close the range to punch, the TKD/MT fighter will use their training to keep the distance expanded so they can kick as they want to. Training against people who know how to properly employ a tactic is how you learn to defend against it. Applying the tactics and precepts of your art to those attacks/tactics can't really be done if you don't understand what your facing. Like tonydee, I sat and watched an Aikido class talk about kick defenses and then show some really poor kicks and how to stop them. I've heard a lot about defending against being taken to the ground and then watched the example take downs that wouldn't make it on a low end highschool wrestling team or even a football field. Last time I saw anything in print TKD, since kicking is our example, was the most widely practiced martial art in the country. I believe in the world. So it has the widest chance of being something your going to face someone with training for. The US Army and Marine Corp both teach front and round kicks as part of basic training and the more advanced programs they teach and train throughout the time one is in the service. So good kick defense, is wholely within the realm of meathods on may well encounter. Past a nice cowboy haymaker and a tackle, if your playing the percentages, everything is a low return waste of time. If your an instructor that wants to teach a method to your students, theory is fine until you decide to actually teach that something. Then you had better understand not only the defense, but the attack well enough to make sure the defense works against someone who is competent. Improving your training by better understanding the things you can or may face, so that your training is up to par is responsible. Staying within only what you have been doing is stiffling and leave you stagnant if you don't look outside your own sphere of ability and training. Boxers don't ask TKD how to punch or defend against them, or vice versa. But, if your a boxer, you ask the TKD/MT man how to defense kicks, the wrestler how to defend the take down. You don't assume you know how and teach bad methods on the assumption it's not important enough to bother. In the realm of complete defense and fighting, you have to bother with those other things enough to be competent. You don't have to use so much time that your an expert. But, you need to know how to deal with them.

I'm a smaller man, 160-170lbs when trimmed up. Not tiny, but below average in height and slightly in weight. I train hard in my technique to tweek all of the power I can out of them. But, I'm aware of the advantages of physical training for strength. It is the reason Hojo Undo exists. Just because someone has size and strength advantages doesn't mean they will have inferior skill. Not telling students that strength and size matters, saying it is not important, is a great dis-service to one's students. It's the same as teaching that single techniques are all you ever need to win a fight.

The quality and abilities of a person training will always be expressed through their techniques and training. At times the individual will over ride the style. It comes through hard practice and lots of time and careful training. I agree that perceptual speed is more important than most other attributes. Without it you won't be pulling the trigger on beautifully polished techniques full of physical speed and power. I would say this is true. However, the greater your advantage in perceptual speed, the more you can lose in mechanical speed and still function at a high level. Positional awareness, maia(I think that's the spelling), is what I see here. If you can control the distance, you can control the fight. A great martial artist can communicate how to master this skill to others as well. Sharp weapons are good weapons. Weapons that are familar you can use best. But, when you need a knife and all you have is a hammer, you've got trouble. A great martial artist will have certain techniques that they have broken down, rebuilt and mastered. The true greats aren't specialist though. They are familar with a wide range of techniques and can apply them properly. They will still have favorites that they are best with. But their real gift is to be able to break down a technique, even one they aren't a master of, and see it's strengths and weaknesses and then improve on them. Amen. Too many martial artist are stuck with the idea that strength training means being muscle bound and slow. No. People who train for serious combat know that strength is something you need to survive. Strong muscles trained properly give explosive power and speed. Yes, speed. Great martial artists understand that they have to develope their bodies to support the rest of their training. I don't think you can really do this. You can learn enough to deal wiith the generalities of over-arching styles. Great martial artist though should be able to "read" what their opponent is going have as a basic tactic/strategy. They should be able to teach this skill to others. I think a great martial artist needs to be able to convey his skills to others. Not that they have to be teachers. But, they should be able to break down what they are doing and can do enough to communicate what they do and why. That requires they fully understand and analize what they are doing. The analitical mind, the willingness to take a hard look at what they are doing and why it works or doesn't is what makes a great martial artist.

Congrats folks. All well deserved.

Burn Notice Supenatural Man vs. Wild Sons of Anarchy Castle Anything with R. Lee Ermy

Preasure points are like adding a little racing fuel to your sports car. A little can boost preformance. Too much and you flame out and burn down. Over relying on preasure point work gets you into trouble. A little mixed in with what your doing and it can't hurt what your doing. Most of the ones that work well are where nerves cross or ride over bone, where muscles end/cross. A lot of them set where you will be hitting in a lot of the close in techniques. So, if you miss a point, the technique still works. If you happen to hit it, the effect is magnified. My favorites are at the midline of the thigh, the mid-neck along the carotid(we call it the golden triangle because of three tightly packed points) and the base of the skull where it joins the neck(Chinese medical point GB 20). Each have good reasons to work, aren't hard to hit in most situations, and have great payoff even if you don't hit the point correctly. When it comes to defensive techniques, I like the belt and suspenders approach. Where one thing is good, backing it up is even better. A thigh kick aimed at the mid point of teh thigh hits a GB point. If it isn't right on the money or that nerve is more burried, fine, I still break the attackers balance. I think why some of preasure point proponents go for the "no touch" and energy manipulation things is the "Wow" factor. It gets people's attention and makes what they have to teach seem even more impressive. Brings in more people than "kick hard here, if it hits, he's in trouble, if not, he's still hurt." Not dishonest persay, but it's like showing the 720 aerial kick instead of how to put a lot into the front kick.

Last line listed was the most bothersome to me. So, becaue the government has decided to deamonize an object, blaming it for crime(which is saddly typical), they now have expanded the search powers of the police? This isn't just not carrying something in public, this is allowing the police more lee way in coming into your home to look for things. Even if they never left your house. Its possesion too, not just carry, if I'm reading this right. What would be wrong with an iado practitioner carrying a live blade to practice in a locked case, or having them stored at a dojo?

I you have a partner to work with at times, mitt work. As you lead into combinations, or finish them, the mitt holder puts out a straight punch or a hook that you have to slip/bob and weave to avoid. Other than that, go with what everyone else is saying. Shadow boxing is excellent if you don't have any gear or a partner. A double ended bag is about the best equipment you can get for timing, evasion, hand-eye coordination.

For someone new to training, telling the difference can be very difficult. And it's a real danger that someone can dress up an ad'hoc mixture of arts is there. Having someone you trust, who has experience, help you check out a school is ideal. If not, checking it out yourself, doing your research becomes more vital than ever.

Randy Couture vs. Brandon Vera=Couture Michael Bisping vs. Denis Kang=Kang Mike Swick vs. Dan Hardy=Swick Aaron Riley vs. Ross Pearson=Riley Paul Taylor vs. John Hathaway=Taylor Matt Riddle vs. Nick Osipczak=Riddle Alexander Gustafsson vs. Jared Hamman=Hamman Paul Kelly vs. Dennis Siver=Siver Terry Etim vs. Shannon Gugerty=Gugerty James Wilks vs. Matt Brown= Brown Andre Winner vs. Roli Delgado=Delgado

The biggest advantage a good MMA gym has over cross training on your own is that they know how to intergrate skills. They have a structure for "mixing" the the arts. Most people cross training don't have that advantage. They train in one art, and another and have to figure out how to intergrate them together. That takes a lot of work, and a much better understanding of at least one of the arts. Then you can look at how to add things in from that view point. That is where the strength of that good base comes in at. For a lot of people that's a much better plan than trying to just hit a school here and another there and trying to figure both out, and how they work together as they go.

Never said how you fight and what you teach wouldn't be influenced and shaped by what you were taught and what you trained. Just pointing out that what Lee was doing and saying wasn't that revolutionary. He just did it during a perior, say between 1950 and 1970 when people weren't talking about doing it. The ones who'd always cross trained and sought out different teachers/forms to complete their training were doing so quietly because they didn't think it was that big a deal. Others were stuck in a "one style to rule them all" mind set. I know a very highly ranked man within Matsubyashi Ryu that thinks you should train one style, perhaps after dabbling a few places when you. Sow those wild oats and get down to the real training in one style sort of mind set. He's from that generation that was fiercely loyal to a single teacher and single style. That's what Lee grew up with too. He was vocal in what he did in breaking away from that linear approach to training. You can spot his training and stylistic influences from the movements he used and taught. You can spot my training and stylistic influences from the movements I use. Our training make up a sort of finger print, reflecting the impressions and imprints others have made on us as fighters.

Tactics and surprise are seperate factors and while they can help elevate, or depress your own fighting ability, they don't change the techniques you bring and the engine you are powering them with. Physically superior opponents, with strength or speed, have an advantage that you have to over come with skill. And that advantage of skill has to be exponetially greater than the physical advantage of the opponent. BB of C What happens to the 130 pounder once the 220 pounder has aquire some skill? Not the same level, but beyond rank amature? The task becomes progressively harder, and your 130 pounder will lose long before the 220 pounder is at the same level of skill. That is the point, to beat a strength gap you have to have overwhelming skill. Not the same level of skill, but much higher the more weight you give up. JusticeZero More apparent, but strength has a lot of advantages in stand up fighting, primarily in power. One shot knockout power, naturally heavy hands, is just as deadly as a powerful hit from techniques. Striking arts still use weight classes for a reason. We're not getting into 'tactical considerations', strength, or physical advantage at least, is the issue. I'd also strongly argue that you very much apply 'tactics' to a ring bound fight, and you had better be applying leverage against the opponent's mind. Taking them out of their comfort zone is just that. RichardZ I think your missing the point I was trying to make. It can be a hard thing to explain at times in person, let alone over the internet. Keeping M=muscle, S=Skill, F=Fighting ability You have two fighters. Fighter A(FA) has M-2, S-2 so M(2)+S=F is 2(2)+2=6 Figther B(FB) has M-3, S-2 so M(2)+S=F is 3(2)+2=8 Now lets change them a bit. FA has M-2, S-3, so F=7 FB has M-4, S-1, so F=9 To change it again FA has M-2, S-5(for this say really skilled now), so F=9 FB has M-5(fo this say really strong), S-2, so F=12 I am not saying that skill cannot over come strength. I never have. I've seen plenty of examples of when it did. I've also seen plenty of examples when it didn't as well. Musclar strength is an advantage. One that is difficult to over come. I get very frustrated when people who should know better continue to perpetuate the myth that skill always over comes strength. That with a few well drilled techniques you can easily dispatch anyone, no matter their size in a fight. I'm sorry, but it just isn't that easy. You have to realistically look at what your techniques can accomplish under stress and in less than optimal circumstances. Part of that means facing attackers who are bigger, faster, stronger than you are and have enough skill to use those attributes. Surprise may be nice, and it may matter in the opening gambit. But, if you don't end the confrontation right then, or gain a very, very signifigant advantage you're in the mix. And once your in, your facing those superior attributes. training students to believe otherwise does them a great disservice.[/b]

As much as any other time. While technique over comes strength, every pound of muscle you give up requires a greater gap of skill than you otherwise need. Some techniques require a close matching physically to have good chances of working. Others work better against people who hold a physical edge. They work even better when that gap isn't there though. A newly minted black belt asked me after training one night how important strength was in a fight. I told him that for ever pound of muscle he gave up in a fight, he had to have an exponential amount of skill to over come that. If you make it like a mathmatical equation, for ever 1M(muscle) you give up you need 2S(skill) to over come that. So, M=muscle, S=Skill, F=Fighting ability, then M(2)+S=F. Not precise, but it carries the point. To use an MMA example, Brock Lesnar has 4 MMA fights. He's about 290+/- pounds at fight time. Randy Coulture is 220lbs and has about 26 fights professionally. Both are highly decorated as amature wrestlers. Randy has far more skill in submissions, submission defense, striking and clinch work. A massive reach and power advantage carried Brock to victory over Randy despite the skill difference. Same with Frank Mir. He had every advantage in skill he could have had other than wrestling. Mir lost in large part due to the size/strength difference. Without that advantage, Mir's superior grappling/submission base should have won the fight, if not made it much more competitive. To me that points to the importance of training attributes along with your techniques.

Transending style and not fighitng, or trying to, with wrote forms is what the writings of early karate founders expected out of their training. Lee wasn't pushing for anything new. He just let go of the overly developed concern for adhearing, strictly, to tradition.

KarateGeorge, sounds like your school runs things like we're trying to. Most of our students are moving out of the beginner's stages. Even as beginners, the sterotypical, stiff armed grab, where the attacker's elbow is locked straight is gone. They get grabbed with a nice, bent arm, the same sort that allows you to have a nice strong push/pull. It gets rougher, and a follow up attack is coming as you reach intermediate level. Some schools will advocate starting rough and push/pulling right away. I'm of the opinion that that sort of training leads to sloppier technique that requires more work to clean up than to start slowly in the beginning. Staged learning is the best way for any technique that has good application.

samwisekoi Best guess? Same way you can tell karate schools apart. Watch the partner work. If every thing is real easy, the attacker seems to be coming in soft and doing very stiff, wrote attacks, I'd say whimpy. If the attackers are coming in quick and hard at the upper belts. They are getting twisted up and making faces a dog might make if you hit him with a buick? Good school. That's just opinion. Others may be able to give more specifics.

Read reports of the fight, looked at the compubox type stats for the fighters etc. Outside of leg kicks, Rua held no real advantage in striking over Machida. If the leg kicks weren't buckling his legs and stealing his mobility, they aren't doing much. Machida did land more knees/kicks to the body and defended the take down attempts. Most of the commentary I've seen gave rounds 4 & 5 to Rua, with 1 & 2 going to Machida, 3 being very close or even split. If your upset with the judging, blame the California State Athletic Commision. The UFC doesn't get to pick the judges, the CSAC does. Dana doesn't get a say in who judges, or how they score. As a promoter, who's job it is to hype up fights, I don't see a thing wrong with him coming out and saying they will rematch. It's what fight fans want and are willing to pay for. As to rules reverting back to the early days, yes, you are pretty close to alone. Doing that would lose the sports commision sanctioning in almost every state/country it's in right now. It goes off the air, promotions collapse and fighters don't get paid. Fighters don't get paid, they get other jobs and the talent you see on DVDs and the internet drops drastically. Fight gyms that are high caliber go under from lack of money without the students/fighters there to support them. Other than that, slightly hyped , prediction, with the skill level and athletic ability of the people fighting now, open weights would lead to what was happening in earlier UFCs. Bigger fighters winning most all the time. For a while, about 200lbs + became the norm. With the skill gap gone, size matters a lot. See BJ Penn vs. GSP for a very good example. Tournament format on the same night wouldn't work either. Most fighters, again do to higher skill level, couldn't get through more than one, perhaps two fights with few enough injuries to continue. In the end though, what we'll get is a rematch from two very good fighters who will come out trying even harder to win than before. I can't say that disappoints me at all.

Took an Aikido course for credit at EKU. The instructor taught the State Police at the academy that was attached to the university. Sticking around to work with his black belts was worth missing lunch.