High kicks, high risk

[UseoForce]

I'll go back to my old motto: If it works for you, use it.

I can kick you in the head, with some force too, but I am certainly not going to use that as my primary attack strategy.I not THAT good at them.

My instructor, on the other hand, is an excellent high kicker, and can kick faster than I can punch. Who am I to tell him that he should not use those high kicks? Of course, that doesn't mean that just because he's good at high kicks that he must use that in self-defense.

There is no "high kicks are good" or "high kicks are bad." There is only what works in a given situation, i.e. the UFC situation given by one of the other posters. There is no reason not to have high kicks in your arsenal, so if you need them, they're there. High kicks will porbably never be my strength, but I will continue to train them in case I ever need them. Like a spare tire on your car, you may never use it, but if you need it, you need to know how to change a flat.

[Martial_Artist]

Master Jules,

None. Quite simply because technique proceeds style and system. It is not necessary to possess a style/system to properly throw an effective and powerful punch. Neither is it necessary to develop technique from style/system.

Styles and systems are good to cultivate an uncultivated mind and body into something useful, but too often they limit potential and hinder development. You find yourself asking questions, what technique can I use from what style to address what problem, rather than simply addressing the problem.

I read, participate, and understand a vast majority of martial arts. I constantly immerse myself in the accumulation of knowledge. I read philosophy and apply wisdom. But, I do not any way base what I call the Pure Art on anything from another martial art. This does not mean that what I may do to address a certain problem does not resemble the technique of a system or style. More often than not a punch is a punch and kick is a kick; give what name you will to them. Though, it has been my experience that there are more prudent ways of execution and application than others.

Perhaps, you ask what is it I teach? Simply, I teach fighting governed by philosophy. I teach from empty-hand to AR-15 and a vast majority of what's in between. I did not teach for sport, and currently I don't teach at all(except for my sons). Maybe someday I'll teach again, but for now, no.

That is the Pure Art. If I could, I would simply call it the martial arts, but such a term is too vague for reference. So, the next best thing is the Pure Art.

MA

[Shorinryu Sensei]

OK...after rereading (several times actually) your answer to my question, and your answer to Master Jules question, let me ask you this Martial Artist. Have you ever taken a legitimate martial arts class...ever? Other than sit outside and be critical of all the martial arts in the world, have you ever actually taken classes and studied any of them?

You stated earlier that you've written several books, articles and given seminars...what are the titles of the books and articles, and who published them for us to order and read? Is there a website we can look at for your system?

I think these are legitimate questions to ask.

[Master Jules]

I think these are legitimate questions to ask.

Id have to say the same.....If you have written books, articles, etc.....(and Im not saying you havent).....Id like to know where they can be found, because Im always looking forward to reading anything concerning martial arts or fighting theories in general.

[Sam]

I'd like to say why styles limit people - they simply form a basis for logical reasoning based on a set of rules.... and any intelligent human being cna think outside the style..... i would say styles are limitless, its only the practitioners who limit them.

[UseoForce]

M_A said:

This does not mean that what I may do to address a certain problem does not resemble the technique of a system or style. More often than not a punch is a punch and kick is a kick; give what name you will to them. Though, it has been my experience that there are more prudent ways of execution and application than others.

sounds like JKD, sry, Bruce Lee beat you to it!

[SubGrappler]

We both have two legs, two arms, a head, a torso, etc. If we both are physically capable of the same physics then all I am fighting is another human of the same form as I. Your style then becomes redundant. Because you can still only hit me with your body which is not unlike mine. What can you do? Punch me? Kick me? It's not as if you have four arms and six legs. The name applied to the technique doesn't change the fact that it is still a hand attached to an arm attached to a torso attached to a living, breathing, feeling human. There is only so many ways a body can move.MA

You're right, but at the same time your philosophy is flawed.

Brett Favre and I both have a head, two arms, and two legs. He can throw a football over 60 mph that dislocates his recievers fingers when they catch the ball. That doesnt mean that I can do the same.

Martial arts and fighting are the same as any other sport you care to compare it to. For instance, they're not running any new patterns in football yet teams are still scoring off the pass play- no one's throwing new pitches in baseball, yet batters are still striking out. Its all about setups, and how often you're willing to practice your techniques.

I know what a jab is, what a cross, left hook, and uppercut are- but Im still going to be knocked to the ground if I standup with a competent level boxer.

[Kajukenbopr]

high kicks can be fun against a slower opponent, but if you're the slow one, you might get trashed.

take for example, if someone got ahold of your foot or knee- he could either use it as leverage to get you to the floor or try to hurt your leg. Also, if they take too much time, the attacker will move in and at close range, high kicks dont really work....

[Martial_Artist]

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.

[UseoForce]

Of course you weren't competing. Poor choice of words. I was referring to the creation of a boundless "anti-style" (no better word) designed specifically for realistic fighting. Most of the things that you say that I agree with are straight from JKD, but I assume you know that from reading the Tao of JKD.

The part I don't understand is when you say "a punch is a punch and a kick is a kick." So what? What am I supposed to get from that? If you are saying (so to speak) "A jab by any other name stings as much" then yes, I agree with that too. But then, that's not exactly an original idea either.