High kicks, high risk

[goshinman]

The problem I have always had with concepts such as "using no way as way", is that when you are searching for "truth" in combat and begin to discover "what works" and doesn't work in a real fight then ultimately it becomes a WAY of fighting. In essense you are using one WAY as a bridge to another more effective WAY. Take Helio Gracie for example. He didn't invent the techniques that are so effective in bjj, but he took the techniques that had always been and made them more efficient. Take your average MMA guy. He probably started out in a traditional martial art much like Chuck Liddell (kempo) or Randy Couture (greco-roman wrestling) but realized that to compete in the sport you need a good mix of the best of the most effective styles, combined with fitness and nutrition. Ultimately he went from one style or system and into another because now he has found a more effective WAY of doing things, BUT, has now come full circle. Style/system is unavoidable because it is an essential part of our nature to systematize things to make order of them. It is what seperates us from animals.

Anyways I never have understood that stuff, guess it's my pesky western mind getting in the way.

[goshinman]

Oh and by the way, it is good to have high kicks in your arsenal

[Sam]

its also a natural oxymoron "using no way as way" is just a contradiction on the face of it - i never think it was meant to be taken literally, just something to think about!

[UseoForce]

Agree on all counts. I think the basic idea is to not limit yourself, i.e. saying "I am a judoka, it is better than all other martial arts, and there is nothing I can learn from other martial arts."

OR, to actually make this relevant:

"High kicks are terrible. They should never be used. They serve no purpose." (I don't mean this)

"Openmindness" might be another good way to describe JKD.

[Sam]

i.e. - whatever happens to work at the time.... dont limit yourself by thinking in a box.

[tkd2000]

I have to agree that high kicks are good to learn if learned correctly. For example I saw a tkd fighter vs a mt fighter and the tkd fighter attacked with punches and low kicks until the mt fighter began to fall back, which than the tkd fighter started to kicking to his head, because his punches managed to get the mt fighter off balance enough that it allowed him to attack. Watching this I think was a good example of how and when kicking to the head may be good. The tkd fighter never kicked high when the mt fighter was close, but rather used punches until he found a way for the fighter to become off balance...i think im beginning to ramble lol

[Muaythaiboxer]

i would have to say that high kicks are a risky move but if you can pull them off and are willing to go to the ground if you mess up go for it.

[tkd2000]

yup ground fighting i think is very important...the key thing that i tried to convey in the tkd vs mt fight was the tkd guy only attacked high as the mt guy staggered backwards...this if the person is caught off guard and off balance, but kicking high will also mean you will be off guard an off balance thus there is a high probablility you will have to eventually go to the ground

[y2_sub]

High kicks worth the risk if you know how to use them , if you are 75% sure that it's going to hurt ur opponent , then why not ??

[BLACCBILLYJACC]

Hmm…where to begin?

If by legitimate you mean a class that gave belts, had several centuries of history, and a paper association with some sort of membership, then, no. If by legitimate you mean a class in where I was instructed effective, meaningful technique and application, then wholeheartedly, yes.

You obviously did not read my posts that well. Rather than sit outside and criticize, I involve myself and analyze. As I said in an earlier post, if something traditional is what you want to do that’s fine. I’m not out to convert people to my way of thinking.

I have nothing to prove to anyone. I’m not advertising. I’m not trying to attract students. I’m not trying to sell books. I’m simply sharing what I believe and what, where I base those beliefs.

And this is where I run into conflict with traditionalists.

What that a majority of traditionalists forget is the very origin of their own arts. Do you believe your art began in fantasy? Or was it not created by another man who walked on two legs, and possessed the ability to think like the majority of men? Because this man began teaching and his teachings begot students, which is the nature of teaching, his philosophy and approach are legitimate because they now come with certification?

Let me ask you, have you ever taken a legitimate martial arts class rather than take an art with a supposed history and claim legitimacy based solely because the art is several centuries old or came with papers from an association? Who gave that association the sole right to authenticity?

Since when did man lose the ability to create? I believe we have progressed in ways far greater than our predecessors. Just look around, the world today is not the world of tomorrow? And you want to tell me that the systems of old are perfect and unalterable?

I respect traditional martial arts. And I have said nothing to the contrary. I may differ in philosophical and practical approach with traditional martial arts, but I respect their existence. Where I have personal conflict is with sport martial arts, because philosophically I cannot agree with a martial art that refuses to be martial. But, that has nothing to do with your statements.

I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I am critical of all the martial arts in the world? I said, more often than not traditional martial arts hinder rather than create. How am I incorrect? I also said that system and style are good for taking the uncultivated and cultivating it into something useful. You take an untrained man and give him a pattern to mimic. Give him a system to follow. Are you trying to tell me that any one system is perfect? Is this, then, why many martial artists cross-train? Why then do many martial artists feel the need to branch out and increase the scope of their vision? Is it because one art does not prepare the body completely? Is it because martial artists who have been in a fight understand the need for a variety of tools, not limited by style?

Why is it, do you think, there is a stigma against blackbelts? Or against martial artists who study traditional styles? Is it because when push comes to shove the majority of martial artists cannot perform their art well enough to demonstrate it in reality? How often have you seen the fight where the karate-kid gets beat up by the street punk? Why, I wonder?

I am critical of many martial arts wherein they limit and constrict the development of the fighter. I am concerned with the fight. I teach fighting. I do not teach where the wind blows and the river flows there is peace. Philosophy is good and necessary to bridle the training, however, I seek and teach what is good to survive and live another day. Whether or not you agree is insignificant to me. As I said before, I’m not looking for students. I’m not out looking to toot my horn. I’m not out trying to sell anything. I’ve been a member of this board for three years, since 2002. And I’m barely a pre-black belt in the ranking system. If I was a loud-mouthed braggard do you not think my post count would be much higher? In fact, I believe this may be the first post I have ever written about the martial art I practice. Only because you asked.

As for my books: If you have truly read my post—several times—you would have seen that two of the three books are for the sole use of my students and I have no intention of having them published. I have a third book that I am intending on publishing for the public. I don’t have a web-site because I’m not out to convert anyone or sell anything. My students find me and I them and life goes on. I’m not really concerned with upturning the martial arts community nor am I out to make a name for myself. Hence, I go by simply Martial Artist and my name is irrelevant.

Two articles I have written can be found on karateforums.com in the articles; posted under martial_artist.

I gave one seminar in 1996 at a community college in Arizona which was followed up two demonstration matches with those involved in the martial arts ‘club’ at that time.

I gave three seminars in the Philippines: Two in Aparri, Cagayan, and one in Sampaloc, Manila, with only one demonstration match in Aparri.

But, all this information is irrelevant. If I had no credentials wherein would the validity of what I say change? A piece of paper or affiliation with a registered association does not validity give. Neither does a belt that holds your pants up. Why is it impossible for someone today to come to the same conclusions as someone centuries ago? Wherein lays the difference? Are you a legitimate martial artist because you have a certificate? Who said? If my punch knocks you out, is that not valid? If I don’t have the same piece of paper certifying my ability as you, do I not still possess ability? But what if I do? Will that change your mind? I’m not going to say, because I do not see how an association or another person can tell you if a martial art is valid or not. Does not the effectiveness of what is being taught ultimately decide and not the paper? I dare say that the majority of martial arts being taught in rented buildings and rooms by teachers with black belts and certifications and the lack of real technique are illegitimate martial arts. Can you prove a McDojo false? There are papers, there is association and licensure. It is held in a building. Many are your traditional martial arts. Why, then are they not considered valid? Perhaps there is a double standard. I don’t care. What I teach is valid. The very fact that I am alive to tell you about it is my legitimacy.

I don’t believe there is anything else I need to say. I have posted sufficiently on this forum that a simple search of posts will reveal a portion of my philosophy and beliefs. As far as this conversation is concerned: we have strayed too far off topic and should return to the original subject out of respect for the one who posted the question.

Respectfully,

MA.

p.s.

SubGrappler,

But I said nothing concerning skill or training. I merely spoke of the foundation. You’re right we may both be built the same but it will ultimately be my ability, my training that wins the fight. However, I can be faster, I can be stronger, and I can be quicker, but I am still a man. And that is the foundation philosophy. As I said it is upon and in conjunction with this that the Pure Art is built. With the understanding that your opponent is just a man, who cannot do anything fantastically beyond you in form--i.e. he does not have six legs or four arms—you can begin to see where style, names, are irrelevant. As I said before, you can be any style you want and when we fight you are still merely throwing hands and feet at me. No different from any other man that has walked the earth. I don’t care what you call the technique, it isn’t magic and it isn’t the force. It’s up to me to be faster, stronger, more efficient and that’s what the Pure Art is. If you throw a punch at me, whatever type of punch it may be, what can I do that is the most effective, most efficient solution? There can be more than one answer depending on the situation. But this really is a topic for another venue. This thread has strayed.

Useoforce,

Beat me to what? I wasn’t aware I was competing with Bruce Lee on anything.

I apologize to the originator of this thread.

Greetings Martial Artist,

You Stated in your first post.. (P.S.) Just to qualify I have 26 years experience..Blah Blah Blah..& so on & so forth. Why'd you feel the need to say that if most of the foundation of what you say & believe is that you don't care so much about what anyone thinks about your system or about any so called founded/traditional system & so forth? Did I miss something? (Before page one of this High Kick Post)