# Power and Control



## DaveB (Jul 5, 2017)

Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.

I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control. 

What do you think?


----------



## Headhunter (Jul 5, 2017)

No control is the most important thing if you don't teach control they're going to be injuring there training partners and also learning control in class is also learning control outside a class. So if your ever in a situation you can control yourself and only use necessary force


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jul 5, 2017)

You can punch with full power on your opponent's shoulder (or next to your his face). You don't need to control your power.

One day I control my power and pull my punch back. My opponent didn't. His full power punch landed on my face. That was the last day I ever control my punch. Point sparring can build up bad habit.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

Not sure what the difference is.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No control is the most important thing if you don't teach control they're going to be injuring there training partners and also learning control in class is also learning control outside a class. So if your ever in a situation you can control yourself and only use necessary force



Yeah those guys with one speed at sparring. Always fun.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 5, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?









I suggest that you them all from the get go, and don't think that one can be powerful without being able to express force at higher velocities.  The exception would be if you were talking about strength.  There is a good amount of data now to suggest that stronger people make better adaptations to power training.  So, focusing on strength early before mixing in high velocity movements would be a logical decision.  However, martial arts training alone is really not going to do that much to improve strength unless one is coming from a very de-trained state, so working on the ability to express force at high velocities is important, and it should be started early on, as it is a product of years of training.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 5, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?




I think control is a result of good technique. 

If you learn good technique...you will develop control...through good technique, you can maximize power....so it all goes together hand in hand.


----------



## jobo (Jul 5, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?


what do you mean by control/ ?
all the,atributes you mention come from control of your nervous system, if you hadn't got that you will never have power or speed. You need to build up the motor skills so you have control of your body, then you can add control of power or speed to that. Just learning to move your arm with speed and or power is not use at all if the basic motor skills aren't there. You will just be someone waving his arm around very quickly and powerfully with no application. A bit like most school yard / bar fights

or take up crossfit


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2017)

jobo said:


> what do you mean by control/ ?
> all the,atributes you mention come from control of your nervous system, if you hadn't got that you will never have power or speed. You need to build up the motor skills so you have control of your body, then you can add control of power or speed to that. Just learning to move your arm with speed and or power is not use at all if the basic motor skills aren't there. You will just be someone waving his arm around very quickly and powerfully with no application. A bit like most school yard / bar fights
> 
> or take up crossfit



You know there is a crossfit self defense right?


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.

For any given batch of first time students there are always one or two who are too timid to make contact and the rest just don't know how to use their bodies correctly to generate real power beyond whatever arm strength they have.

To my mind power flows from correct use of the body, ie technique. Speed is from continuous repetition of correct technique.  Therefore spend the initial training period developing their kinetic chains. Express this through pad work or if they must do partner work let them use heavy boxing gloves. 

The idea is to first give the student something that needs to be controlled, both in terms of physical power and psychological aggression, rather than inhibiting these areas from before they are developed.

I agree that control of ones form is good technique, but not control of ones power within that form. That would mean good technique was less powerful than we may need. 

Most of us learn control of our controllable nervous system in our first 2 years of life so clearly karate training is a level above that.  

Sorry if I missed anyone.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You know there is a crossfit self defense right?


I do


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.
> 
> For any given batch of first time students there are always one or two who are too timid to make contact and the rest just don't know how to use their bodies correctly to generate real power beyond whatever arm strength they have.
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying.  My line of thinking is this:

If you teach someone a right cross and I tell them to focus on power chances are in trying to generate more and more power they will develop bad habits.  They will start loading up, over-extending, pushing target after impact instead of punching through, make it more of an overhand or hooking it.

Whereas, if you teach them a right cross and have them focus on the technique and throwing it right....they power, speed, and control all develops together naturally.

So in the beginning the thing to control and focus on is the technique itself and by doing that everything else (power and speed) should naturally develop.  Focusing on Power or Speed is what often times creates bad habits.

Kinda like hitting a baseball....Bat speed and swing power is useless if I never make contact with the ball.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.
> 
> For any given batch of first time students there are always one or two who are too timid to make contact and the rest just don't know how to use their bodies correctly to generate real power beyond whatever arm strength they have.
> 
> ...


but your view,seems dependent on people,arriving at the,school with very low physical,fitness. Rather than some one who has at least average power speed and,co ordination.

I agree that is not uncommon, in which case I agree, that fitness training to get them up to a,reasonable level is probably more important to their,development than learning countless low speed techniques'. Ivecrun this view before that MA is failing,a lot of its,students by not prioritising fitness and just teaching skills, which it believes will make up for,fitness deficits'.to get a frosty reception, from,a few that,seem almost,anti fitness.

but then there are other that,already have power and,speed, that need to,skills to apply them, so techneque / control training is what they need most.
I think each belt level should have,a minimum fitness level with it, which if you can,achieve means you can't progress


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.
> 
> For any given batch of first time students there are always one or two who are too timid to make contact and the rest just don't know how to use their bodies correctly to generate real power beyond whatever arm strength they have.
> 
> ...


Okay, two things I want to address on this one.

First, as CB said, control is part of putting that power to use. You don't teach someone a kick by having them kick the snot out of the heavy bag in the first lesson. You have them work slower and softer first, to make sure they are going to get the most out of the kick. If you train them for maximal power from the beginning, they'll develop bad habits that will rob power and probably lead to some injuries (theirs and others').

Secondly, no single approach works for everyone. You referred to those students who are too timid. You still work for control and good form with them, but have to focus on delivery and intent (not really the same as power, but related). You don't change the whole approach to fix a problem some students have when they come in the door.


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.
> 
> For any given batch of first time students there are always one or two who are too timid to make contact and the rest just don't know how to use their bodies correctly to generate real power beyond whatever arm strength they have.
> 
> ...



Speed and accuracy are inversely related.  In other words, the faster you try to go, the less accurate you will be in your movements.  This relationship always exists, no matter how well trained.  However, the slope the line _can_ and _does_ change as someone becomes more well trained.  So, for example, a really skilled martial artist will be able to place a strike at high velocity far more accurately than an untrained or moderately trained person will be able to do.  However, even for that well trained person, if they were to examine their own accuracy at their top speed versus lower speeds, they would find that they are more accurate when they move slower. 

Long story short, one needs to do both.  Slow work to develop precision and accuracy is a must.  Plus, movement patterns can be learned correctly in a way that is harder to do if you start off doing everything rapidly.  At the same time in one's development, it is important to work on those same movements at speed (safely by the way), so that you develop the ability to perform with greater precision at higher velocities. 

Then, one needs to consider what motor learning people refer to as Environmental Regulatory Conditions.  Specifically, when someone is trying to prevent you from performing the movement.  In martial arts we typically refer to that as sparring or training against a resisting opponent.  If one ever hopes to be able to execute their skills _reliably_ against another person, this step is crucial.  

This is a motor learning/control issue, and it is going to take a ton of reps to get there.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Speed and accuracy are inversely related.  In other words, the faster you try to go, the less accurate you will be in your movements.  This relationship always exists, no matter how well trained.  However, the slope the line _can_ and _does_ change as someone becomes more well trained.  So, for example, a really skilled martial artist will be able to place a strike at high velocity far more accurately than an untrained or moderately trained person will be able to do.  However, even for that well trained person, if they were to examine their own accuracy at their top speed versus lower speeds, they would find that they are more accurate when they move slower.
> 
> Long story short, one needs to do both.  Slow work to develop precision and accuracy is a must.  Plus, movement patterns can be learned correctly in a way that is harder to do if you start off doing everything rapidly.  At the same time in one's development, it is important to work on those same movements at speed (safely by the way), so that you develop the ability to perform with greater precision at higher velocities.
> 
> ...


im not accepting of your claim fact that accuracy of a punch declines with  speed to any meaningful extent, accuracy falls of a lot through tiredness. The issue is how accurate do you need to be
a few mm makes no difference as long as you hit your target. If you cant punch a stationary target the size of a head at full speed, then you have significant co ordination problems


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> im not accepting of your claim fact that accuracy of a punch declines with  speed to any meaningful extent, accuracy falls of a lot through tiredness.



Well, then you are wrong.  There have been data supporting this since the 1950's. Here are just a few examples of the hundreds of research studies that have been published on the subject.  It is a well understood phenomenon that has been reported in a variety of settings ranging from sport, occupational, and clinical and in persons ranging from elite athletes, normal healthy, and with varying types of disease.


Belkin, D. S., & Eliot, J. F. (1997). _Motor skill acquisition and the speed accuracy tradeoff in a field based task_. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47, 144-152.

Englehorn, R. (1997). _Speed and accuracy in the learning of a complex motor skill_. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1011-1017.

Heitz, RP, JD. Schall (2013) _Neural Mechanisms of Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff_. Neuron. 2013 Nov 8

Ho, T. S Brown, L can Maanen, BU Forstmann, EJ Wagenmakers, JT Serences (2012) _The optimality of sensory processing during the speed-accuracy tradeoff_.  J Neurosci. Jun 6; 32(23): 7992–8003.

Lawther, J. D. (1972). _Speed and accuracy_. In J. D. Lawther (Ed.), Sport psychology. (pp. 147-167). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Liu CC, T Watanabe (2012) _Accounting for speed-accuracy tradeoff in perceptual learning_.  Vision Res. May 15; 61: 107–114

Southard, D. (1989). _Changes in limb striking pattern:  Effects of speed and accuracy_. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 348-356.
The curve can be flattened out to a large extent with training (think of a major league pitcher who can place a 95 mph fastball with pinpoint accuracy), but it still exists.  Fatigue can certainly impact things as well.


----------



## jobo (Jul 6, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> Well, then you are wrong.  There have been data supporting this since the 1950's. Here are just a few examples of the hundreds of research studies that have been published on the subject.  It is a well understood phenomenon that has been reported in a variety of settings ranging from sport, occupational, and clinical and in persons ranging from elite athletes, normal healthy, and with varying types of disease.
> 
> 
> Belkin, D. S., & Eliot, J. F. (1997). _Motor skill acquisition and the speed accuracy tradeoff in a field based task_. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47, 144-152.
> ...


I said there was no real world difference to a fast punch that's a few mm of target, when the target is,as big as a head.

if you have some research that's says you can't land a punch at full speed on someone head then post it up.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

Reading your responses, I'm wondering if we are all using the same definition of control?

What does control mean to you?


----------



## Charlemagne (Jul 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I said there was no real world difference to a fast punch that's a few mm of target, when the target is,as big as a head.



What I responded to was: "_im not accepting of your claim fact that accuracy of a punch declines with speed to any meaningful extent_"

And it does.  Your acceptance of it or lack thereof does not matter one bit.  

That does not mean that one should not train at the beginning stages of skill acquisition at high velocity.  In fact, they definitely should.  But, they need to know that they will suffer accuracy when doing so.  However, that will improve over the long term.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Reading your responses, I'm wondering if we are all using the same definition of control?
> 
> What does control mean to you?



Ability to accurately punch or kick to a specific spot


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?


In Kung Fu Control is always top of the list.  Think of like a car.  What comes first in a car?  You can have all of the power you want in a car, but it'll be totally useless if you can't control it.


----------



## Buka (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?



I believe the proper progression should be technique, application of technique, then power/speed (which go hand in hand in my opinion)

Without proper technique (mechanics) your punch or kick will never meet it's potential no matter how strong or fast you are, or _are trying to be_. And without technique, the power and speed you are trying to build will become habitually ineffective. Constant repetition of a movement, done again and again, will cement that movement in your muscle memory. Do it wrong, or flawed - big problems. Big. HUGE.

And - if you are training in an art where sparing is part of the process, you damn well better have technique and control. Or you're going to get yourself killed against more skilled partners. Fighters will have only so much patience with a rookie who swings for the fences.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can punch with full power on your opponent's shoulder (or next to your his face). You don't need to control your power.
> 
> One day I control my power and pull my punch back. My opponent didn't. His full power punch landed on my face. That was the last day I ever control my punch. Point sparring can build up bad habit.


Control is not the same as "pulling punches"   Your' situations sounds more like "pulling a punch" so a punch doesn't land with full power.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> So the reason behind my disregard for control in early training is that I feel first we have to have something to control.


The thing that you are controlling is the technique.  That's the first thing you control.  It is common to see people lose the structure of the technique when trying to punch too hard or move too fast.  The technique becomes sloppy and flawed because the student hasn't learned how to control the technique.


----------



## Buka (Jul 6, 2017)

To me, and to those I've trained with - control is different than accuracy. Control is how hard one hits, purposely. I can spar you all day, hit your face a lot, and not break the skin or really bruise you. It's just taking advantage of openings or set ups. It will show you where you're susceptible to getting hit, in this case, the face, or parts of it.

Or.... 
(hey, it's your call)


----------



## DaveB (Jul 6, 2017)

I believe I did clarify that power IMO comes from technique, so I'm not trying to suggest bad form would be encouraged though I would be less concerned with it if the student was successfully maximising power output.

It's a bit like the tkd idea that red belt comes before black as a warning because at that stage you have a technically proficient fighter but one who lacks the control/restraint of a black belt. 

Aggression is as vital part of a person's arsenal as the fist or foot. Yet we encourage peaceful zen minds and calculating sparring tactics from day one. More often than not aggression is discouraged. 

I feel this is mostly a karate problem as we karsteka often have very fixed ideas about mindset and the ideal of the controlled karsteka.


----------



## Buka (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I believe I did clarify that power IMO comes from technique, so I'm not trying to suggest bad form would be encouraged though I would be less concerned with it if the student was successfully maximising power output.
> 
> It's a bit like the tkd idea that red belt comes before black as a warning because at that stage you have a technically proficient fighter but one who lacks the control/restraint of a black belt.
> 
> ...




Couple of thoughts, Dave...I don't think a student _can_ maximize power output with bad form.

As for aggression being discouraged, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but maybe I am. When you say " as we  karsteka often have very fixed ideas about mindset and the ideal of the controlled karsteka." are you talking about instructor's, or the school's policies, regarding sparring and nobody actually hitting each other too much, if at all?

If so, I agree. And I see it as a problem. Perhaps even the death of Karate schools in our country in the coming decades.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 6, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I believe I did clarify that power IMO comes from technique, so I'm not trying to suggest bad form would be encouraged though I would be less concerned with it if the student was successfully maximising power output.
> 
> It's a bit like the tkd idea that red belt comes before black as a warning because at that stage you have a technically proficient fighter but one who lacks the control/restraint of a black belt.
> 
> ...



The only problem I could see occurring is the focus on power in the beginning can result in short cuts and bad form.  Learning control and increasing speed and power as your body can control it minimizes the bad habits that you have to correct.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 7, 2017)

Buka said:


> Couple of thoughts, Dave...I don't think a student _can_ maximize power output with bad form.
> 
> As for aggression being discouraged, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but maybe I am. When you say " as we  karsteka often have very fixed ideas about mindset and the ideal of the controlled karsteka." are you talking about instructor's, or the school's policies, regarding sparring and nobody actually hitting each other too much, if at all?
> 
> If so, I agree. And I see it as a problem. Perhaps even the death of Karate schools in our country in the coming decades.



I'm talking about zanshin, Mushin, kime and control. All useful concepts but sometimes we get too cerebral. Effective martial arts requires the ability to turn on aggression without being blinded by it. But I have yet to see the turning on part being actively encouraged, only the control.


----------



## Buka (Jul 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'm talking about zanshin, Mushin, kime and control. All useful concepts but sometimes we get too cerebral. Effective martial arts requires the ability to turn on aggression without being blinded by it. But I have yet to see the turning on part being actively encouraged, only the control.



I hope you're wrong, about the aggression not being actively encouraged, at least in striking Arts. Done properly by the right trainer, and harnessed, it is a valuable fighting component.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jul 7, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ability to accurately punch or kick to a specific spot



I agree and would add that one can and should learn to place the spot where they want it to be.  Then about 1/4 inch from the intended target when sparring with a practice opponent, or 1/2 to 1 inch inside a real opponent is always a choice.  To me that is not quite the same as pulling a punch (or kick).  There is full force at the point intended, whether or not it is just before the practice opponent, or inside a real opponent.  That is what we were taught when I studied TKD.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'm talking about zanshin, Mushin, kime and control. All useful concepts but sometimes we get too cerebral. Effective martial arts requires the ability to turn on aggression without being blinded by it. But I have yet to see the turning on part being actively encouraged, only the control.


I'm not sure how anyone can teach either fighting or self-defense without talking about proper use of aggression.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 7, 2017)

Buka said:


> I hope you're wrong, about the aggression not being actively encouraged, at least in striking Arts. Done properly by the right trainer, and harnessed, it is a valuable fighting component.





gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure how anyone can teach either fighting or self-defense without talking about proper use of aggression.



Precisely.

The trouble is talking about it is the limit for some groups.

New question. 

If not through de-emphasising control how do you cultivate aggression in martial arts training?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Effective martial arts requires the ability to turn on aggression without being blinded by it. But I have yet to see the turning on part being actively encouraged, only the control.


The reason you see this is because people think aggression = anger, and that's when the martial arts get all zen and peaceful of mind.  Even outside of martial arts, people view aggression as an anger issue.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Precisely.
> 
> The trouble is talking about it is the limit for some groups.
> 
> ...


Control and aggression are not opposites. Controlled aggression is much more useful than uncontrolled aggression. I cultivate it by talking about the mindset (if they try to hurt me, that arm is mine - they get it back when it's not a threat any more), actually telling them when they need to be more aggressive (this guy tried to hurt you - don't play nice), and having them sometimes practice delivering with barely-controlled aggression (when it's safe-ish).


----------



## DaveB (Jul 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Control and aggression are not opposites. Controlled aggression is much more useful than uncontrolled aggression. I cultivate it by talking about the mindset (if they try to hurt me, that arm is mine - they get it back when it's not a threat any more), actually telling them when they need to be more aggressive (this guy tried to hurt you - don't play nice), and having them sometimes practice delivering with barely !controlled aggression (when it's safe-ish).



But that is de-emphasising control. Precisely what I've been talking about.

After all the advocacy for control in this discussion I note the overall quiet when asked about specifics of actually developing aggression. 

I think though we fight in an optimised state when used together, control and aggression are, if not opposites, certainly opposing forces.

I reiterate, I've never dismissed the need for control, just it's place in early training. 

I question the value of telling people who can't yet hit to their full potential nor understand the pants soiling mind squellching effects of adrenalin in real combat that the first thing they need to learn is technical control.

And while emotional control is an answer to the problem of combat stresses and adrenalin, I think learning to summon, temper and turn off aggression goes much further towards teaching emotional control than keeping good form.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> After all the advocacy for control in this discussion I note the overall quiet when asked about specifics of actually developing aggression.


Here's your answer to developing aggression.  The first step is to remove emotion from triggering aggression.  Students need to understand this.

When you brutally step on an ant or a roach you are displaying aggression without anger.   When you shoot an animal you are expressing aggression without anger.  In terms of self defense when people shoot another person (sometimes killing that person) they are often displaying aggression without anger.  In the context of martial arts students must understand that aggression and anger are not the same thing.  When they punch, kick, and spar against one another, it should be done without the emotion of anger or fear.   When this happens there is only "pure unfiltered aggression left."  This type of aggression is important because it's not controlled by fear or emotions.  It is controlled by purpose and focus which in turn is controlled by the person.   

Now to your specific question on how to actually develop aggression.  I encourage students to attack with maximum force in forms.  In sparring I encourage students to spar without the emotions of fear, anger, and doubt dictating their aggression.  If I see a student do something out of anger then I immediately stop that student, lecture the student, and correct the  student's behavior.  I even let them know that they can hit their opponent hard if they want to.  They just can do it out anger or fear.  Then I remind them that they will get what they give.  By doing this students learn to be aggressive without emotions blinding them to the task at hand.  Not sure if anyone noticed but when I spar I tend to smile and laugh a lot, even if I'm the one getting a beating.  Even when I up my level of aggression, I'm still enjoying the sparring without anger driving my aggression.  I think it would be the same for me if I was in a real fight.  Thinking back on the fights that I had in my youth, I think the only fight that I lost was the fight where my anger controlled my aggression.  With the other fights, I didn't have any anger, I was more focused on not being beaten up than on feeling any type of emotion.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Controlled aggression is much more useful than uncontrolled aggression.


I think this as well.  I rather fight someone with uncontrolled aggression than fight someone who was in controlled of their aggression.  People who have uncontrolled aggression are often using emotion based aggression.  For example, someone may be aggressive towards me because they are angry at me.  A person like this is easy to defeat because I would only need to change their emotion from anger to something else.  In the case of a street fight,  a person can be aggressive towards me out of anger.  If I change that anger into fear then the aggression will stop.  If a person is aggressive out of fear then that fear can be changed into a feeling of safety and the aggression will stop.   If someone comes in without emotions tied to aggression then I'm in trouble, because that person is willingly driving at aggression.

I think of uncontrolled aggression as something similar to rabies.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I question the value of telling people who can't yet hit to their full potential nor understand the pants soiling mind squellching effects of adrenalin in real combat that the first thing they need to learn is technical control.


What happens if you jab a heavy bag as hard as you can with a poorly aligned fist?  If you fail to maintain the proper alignment of your wrist (control the technique), then it will result in injury of the wrist.  Learning to control the punching technique and not allowing intense levels of aggression to break that technique is vital.  
Example of people not controlling the technique





Here's a good example of a guy who does not control the technique of kicking. But he has aggression





Kung Fu wang there's a leg sweep at 1:10 that you'll like.  It's not the best one lol.. but you can see that the other guy didn't like it.


----------



## CB Jones (Jul 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I question the value of telling people who can't yet hit to their full potential nor understand the pants soiling mind squellching effects of adrenalin in real combat that the first thing they need to learn is technical control.



And I question the value of telling someone to focus on power when they don't yet have the ability to generate power or apply the technique properly.

Chances are in the beginning they are just going to learn to improperly load up and/or overextend/rotate.


----------



## marques (Jul 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?


Power without control is dangerous. In many ways.
But other approaches are equally valid.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2017)

DaveB said:


> But that is de-emphasising control. Precisely what I've been talking about.
> 
> After all the advocacy for control in this discussion I note the overall quiet when asked about specifics of actually developing aggression.
> 
> ...


Then you and I are defining "control" differently. I can be very aggressive and still exercise control.

Control is necessary for training, even if they can't exercise it properly under adrenal load. A student with poor control will hit partners when they don't mean to (I've seen it happen quite a bit), hit partners harder than they mean to (also something I've seen a lot), and do worse things with grappling and locks (I've had a shoulder partially dislocated by one).


----------



## DaveB (Jul 9, 2017)

A lot of the responses seem only to consider half my position so I will re-clarify.

When I say control, I am talking about exercising conscious choice over levels of power and precision. When I saw power I am talking about the application of ballistic technique. Power flows from technique. So clearly i am not advocating poor technique.

As a brief aside, I have always considered technique and power to function as a feedback loop when trained practically.

Sloppy technique as comes from trying to make more power without concern for form gets you hit so you tighten up, you improve you go faster your form slips you get hit and so on...

And lastly this whole proposition relates only to early training.

Of course lack of control let's partner's get hurt, so limit partner work in early training. Instead focus on developing fitness, technique (ie power and balance) and aggression. Hit focus pads and heavy bags and when you do introduce partner work stick them in 24 ounce gloves armour and full face plates.

I see in my view a greater respect for the importance of control in that it is something to be attained through dedicated work, after first cultivating the weapon to be tempered by it.


----------



## Buka (Jul 9, 2017)

DaveB said:


> A lot of the responses seem only to consider half my position so I will re-clarify.
> 
> When I say control, I am talking about exercising conscious choice over levels of power and precision. When I saw power I am talking about the application of ballistic technique. Power flows from technique. So clearly i am not advocating poor technique.
> 
> ...



To me, control is a lot more than hitting with a technique that doesn't hurt the target. Control is putting as much power and depth as you want. When I say "depth" what I mean is - I can throw a straight right hand that lightly bounces off your cheek or I can throw it so it lands a little deeper into your face structure. Or a little deeper still. It's not really a "pulling" of the punch, it's a matter of mechanics. And, yes, if you happen to be moving in that might affect the overall depth of the strike, but hey, that happens. That's why it's called a fight.

And I do not think it is limited to "early training", just the opposite, it is in _all_ training, _especially_ long term training. I've been striking a long time. My ability to punch has increased in how hard, soft, short or long I want that punch to affect your face or body. It doesn't get there by magic, or by just doing it for a long time, it gets there by a constant study of yourself, your body, your mechanics, your timing and the ability to hit a moving target that is trying to hit you at the same time, or trying to kill you.

Then there's the choice of weapon. If I'm hitting you with a left hook, let's say a medium power one, and it gets in clean, it's going to hurt and probably interfere with whatever technique you were either throwing at the time or planning to throw. If I hit you with a maximum power dope slap, really lay one on you, it's going to sound like a gong going off inside your head. It won't do as much damage to the face structurally, but it will to the inside of your head, at the very least, temporarily. You would be better off taking the hook punch. To me, this falls under the heading of "control" as well.

I'll get to the aggression thing later.  Such a fun thread.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 9, 2017)

Buka I'm in total agreement. What you call depth is part of what I was referring to when i mentioned precision.

In referring to early training I was just talking about the idea of de-emphasising control as a means of developing power and aggression. That to me should be the first part of training so that the student develops something that needs controlling.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 10, 2017)

Ive got a good example of controlled aggression from the other night at the dojo...

There's a 3rd dan who I love to spar with (I'm a 3rd kyu).  We hit each other hard, and fast.  But it's never blind rage hitting.

He literally had me cornered, and turned it up a notch.  Having nowhere to go, being unable to block everything, and refusing to give up and go into the fetal position, I started swinging.  Not blind rage swinging, but very aggressively and accurately punching.  Punching hard enough to back him up.  Once I got enough distance between us, I used a front push kick to back him up more and I continued punching.  

The instructor kept a close eye on it and didn't say anything until after the exchange...

Instructor: why were you swinging like that?
Me: I was cornered with nowhere to go, so I had to punch my way out.
Instructor:  in that situation, do that every time.  But most importantly, don't get cornered.

Controlled aggression.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 11, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Ive got a good example of controlled aggression from the other night at the dojo...
> 
> There's a 3rd dan who I love to spar with (I'm a 3rd kyu).  We hit each other hard, and fast.  But it's never blind rage hitting.
> 
> ...


Well done. 

What I would ask though is was it controlled aggression or was it play acted aggression?
The difference being that (sorry to disagree Jowga) real aggression is emotionally driven. 

We're you consciously swinging with limited power or were you consciously controlling the urge to swing?

While both are valuable skills, it's the real aggression that will serve you when your in the corner due to a broken nose and your head is swimming and your afraid for your life. In that situation ones mind and emotions are too damaged to construct something artificial.

Emotions are a driving force in the human mind. If we let them take over our conscious mind we are in trouble but we can harness their pushing power to get is through difficult situations.

 It's not for everyone. Mushin (no mind - the classic serene emotionless engine of death in samurai movies) is a valid way to go on the other end of the spectrum, but I think it's an unrealistic ideal for some, at least without very specific training.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 11, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Well done.
> 
> What I would ask though is was it controlled aggression or was it play acted aggression?
> The difference being that (sorry to disagree Jowga) real aggression is emotionally driven.
> ...



I was consciously controlling the urge to hit as hard as I could.  And the urge to not break our rules of sparring.

I think aggression is something people are born with.  Some can get it through life experiences or learn it, but learning to actually turn it on and use it takes a very long time.  I think a few people won't ever truly learn it, but those would have to be very rare; fight or flight is ingrained in our DNA after all.  

Very, very few people make it through 10 years of wrestling without aggression.  Of the rare exceptions that do, I can't see any of those people having any success.  I wasn't the greatest wrestler back in my day, but I was definitely effective.  More that anything, wrestling taught me to keep going, no matter how tough it gets.  The only successful "passive" wrestlers I've ever seen were so skilled that they easily countered just about anything and always seemed like they were at least 2 moves ahead of their opponent.  But that's probably more of a passive aggression - making their opponents feel like they were in control when they really weren't.  

I don't view mu shin as some sort of fairytale calm and serene/peaceful state of mind.  I view it as "being in the zone."  Everything else is blocked out, and you're not consciously "trying" to do anything; you're just doing what comes naturally.  You're letting instincts and muscle memory to take over rather than forcing anything.  Maybe I'm off or have an inaccurate understanding of it.

Our organization has some prearranged sparring and "self defenses" that we drill quite often.  They're not taught as anything that would definitely happen in a real confrontation; they're taught as principals of movement, possible target and corresponding weapon selection, etc.  My view of mu shin makes these work for me - when I consciously think about what I'm doing, I mess them up; I get ahead of myself and/or my partner or flat out freeze from overthinking.  When I don't think about it, it easily flows the way it should.  There's certainly intent and aggression (so long as my partner can handle it) when I'm practicing them.  But not thinking about what I'm supposed to do is only possible after I've practiced them to the point where that's possible.

Mu shin to be doesn't mean be nice.  It simply means don't consciously think "block now" "hit here" etc.; it means trusting your instincts/muscle memory and letting it take over without thinking about exactly what you should do.  Easier said than done  Its hardest for me to do when my partner can't or isn't willing to go at a serious pace/intensity.

Maybe some Asian culture guru will claim I'm totally off with my view of mu shin and say I'm doing some other principle.  Makes no difference to me.


----------



## jobo (Jul 12, 2017)

DaveB said:


> A lot of the responses seem only to consider half my position so I will re-clarify.
> 
> When I say control, I am talking about exercising conscious choice over levels of power and precision. When I saw power I am talking about the application of ballistic technique. Power flows from technique. So clearly i am not advocating poor technique.
> 
> ...


your points are interesting and a few months ago I would have agreed with out reservation, but I'm slowly coming round to a different view as it applies to my self.

I have power, bundles of it, the correct techneque only has a modest effect on how hard I punch or kick, some times giving a bit more some times messing up my natural flow.

some of my class mates have much better techneque than me, but they have very little power, the applied techneque doesn't make enough of a difference to over come the fact they aren't very strong, most would benefit greatly from strength building programme to give their techneque a good boost. But if they wanted that sort of thing they would be down at the gym pumping iron.

instead they are here doing kata with great precision , short of making them  do six months hard training I don't see how just punching a few focus mits is going to make any difference.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 13, 2017)

jobo said:


> your points are interesting and a few months ago I would have agreed with out reservation, but I'm slowly coming round to a different view as it applies to my self.
> 
> I have power, bundles of it, the correct techneque only has a modest effect on how hard I punch or kick, some times giving a bit more some times messing up my natural flow.
> 
> ...


Basically practice should make more efficient use of what they have. Also most martial art classes include a degree of fitness and strength training. I advocate their being a lot of that in early training.

I used to have the same issue in that I could hit way harder without the rigid technique of my karate school. That changed when karate stopped being something I had to consciously try to do.


----------



## Buka (Jul 13, 2017)

On the aggression thing -

In self defense, there's going to be aggression. At the very least on one side. In competitive fighting there's going to be aggression, as fighting itself is aggressive by nature. Some display it outwardly more than others. Some focus it, unleash it, use it for all it's worth.

Sometimes, having too much aggression can tire a fighter.

In dojo sparring, there's some fighters who are more aggressive than other fighters. This is a good thing, it teaches students to deal with aggression.


----------



## JP3 (Jul 13, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Then you and I are defining "control" differently. I can be very aggressive and still exercise control.
> 
> Control is necessary for training, even if they can't exercise it properly under adrenal load. A student with poor control will hit partners when they don't mean to (I've seen it happen quite a bit), hit partners harder than they mean to (also something I've seen a lot), and do worse things with grappling and locks (I've had a shoulder partially dislocated by one).


I'll second that. I tore a Rhomboid muscle, the one that's under the shoulder-blade, one time rolling in what was "supposed" to be a gentle, slow warm-up roll... and the kid got overexcited when I was just rolling along to see what he wanted to do, what he would do,a nd he ended up behind me and as I started to work through the problem so he could learn what the guy was going to do to attempt escape, he just hit his nitro/turbo button and hauled my arm up and out. While it was behind me.  That both stung, and left a mark, both int he bruising from the torn muscle and on my psyche. It took a bit to trust young beginners again and allow them to get me into compromising positions.

Still hurts, thinking about that one.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 13, 2017)

JP3 said:


> I'll second that. I tore a Rhomboid muscle, the one that's under the shoulder-blade, one time rolling in what was "supposed" to be a gentle, slow warm-up roll... and the kid got overexcited when I was just rolling along to see what he wanted to do, what he would do,a nd he ended up behind me and as I started to work through the problem so he could learn what the guy was going to do to attempt escape, he just hit his nitro/turbo button and hauled my arm up and out. While it was behind me.  That both stung, and left a mark, both int he bruising from the torn muscle and on my psyche. It took a bit to trust young beginners again and allow them to get me into compromising positions.
> 
> Still hurts, thinking about that one.


Good point, I have to admit I was only really considering my method from a percussive karate perspective. 

Probably no use in grappling, but then grappling folk always argue that their stuff is proven because they can train it safely at max intensity so they don't have the same concerns. 

Again though, for strikers, just don't let them hit anybody without lots of padding until this stage has passed.


----------



## jobo (Jul 13, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Basically practice should make more efficient use of what they have. Also most martial art classes include a degree of fitness and strength training. I advocate their being a lot of that in early training.
> 
> I used to have the same issue in that I could hit way harder without the rigid technique of my karate school. That changed when karate stopped being something I had to consciously try to do.


im not disagreeing, I've been banging the same drum, but its more if its commercial viable.

MAseems to attract a lot of not very fit people who because they aren't very fit want to learn an art to defend them selves.
if they wanted to get fit they would do something better like weight training or  or,cycling, but as they don't, it seems that putting the effort in to getting a good standard of fitness is to much effort.

how are these people going to react if you tell them that instead of teaching the unfit to fight, you are going to make them sweat and ache for 6months u till they are fit.
go to the school down the road who promises to. Teach them to defend themselves with non of this strengh training nonsense , that's what.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 13, 2017)

DaveB said:


> A lot of the responses seem only to consider half my position so I will re-clarify.
> 
> When I say control, I am talking about exercising conscious choice over levels of power and precision. When I saw power I am talking about the application of ballistic technique. Power flows from technique. So clearly i am not advocating poor technique.
> 
> ...



Who do these untempered weapons spar with?

If they get me with their uncontrolled power I will beat the crap out of them.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 13, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Who do these untempered weapons spar with?
> 
> If they get me with their uncontrolled power I will beat the crap out of them.


Sigh


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Well done.
> 
> What I would ask though is was it controlled aggression or was it play acted aggression?
> The difference being that (sorry to disagree Jowga) real aggression is emotionally driven.
> ...


Aggression need not be driven by emotion, though it can be. Anger and fear often foster aggression, but aggression can simply be turned on. Being able to turn it on is part of the control.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Aggression need not be driven by emotion, though it can be. Anger and fear often foster aggression, but aggression can simply be turned on. Being able to turn it on is part of the control.


I agree, but if not turned on with an emotional core it could lack the foundation to weather injury or shock.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I agree, but if not turned on with an emotional core it could lack the foundation to weather injury or shock.


I don't know about that. I've often continued momentarily through injuries in sports (until there was a good point to stop and get someone else on), without anger or fear being necessary. The emotion may be necessary for dealing with larger injuries, but we don't really want people continuing past those during training. I don't want most people breaking out significant amounts of anger or fear during training (or competition) - that's how people get hurt. There are some people - few, by proportion - whose anger is a useful and manageable component, even in relatively friendly competition.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 14, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't know about that. I've often continued momentarily through injuries in sports (until there was a good point to stop and get someone else on), without anger or fear being necessary. The emotion may be necessary for dealing with larger injuries, but we don't really want people continuing past those during training. I don't want most people breaking out significant amounts of anger or fear during training (or competition) - that's how people get hurt. There are some people - few, by proportion - whose anger is a useful and manageable component, even in relatively friendly competition.


I suggest you can also muster genuine aggression from pure determination. And the ability to fight through shock is more about self defence than the ring.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 14, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I suggest you can also muster genuine aggression from pure determination. And the ability to fight through shock is more about self defence than the ring.


I don't disagree with the idea of mustering genuine aggression from determination. To me, determination isn't really an emotion. That's probably just semantics, though, so if you were including determination in your prior comments, then we're probably more in agreement than I thought.


----------



## KabutoKouji (Jul 19, 2017)

Personally, while I very much like the style of say kicks in a TKD pattern, for me the holding it out to show you had 'control' definitely did develop bad habits for me. where it has taken a long time to constantly force myself to 'snap back' straight away at any sort of instinctual level.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jul 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Some karate schools/styles have a strong focus on control from the very start of the karate journey.
> 
> I think that this is putting the cart before the horse and that the first year or so of training should be geared towards maximising power. After power speed, after speed, control.
> 
> What do you think?



No, control should come first. The first thing you should work on is control and proper technique. Once you develop good technique then you can start working on speed while making sure to maintain good technique. After that the power will come.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 25, 2017)

PhotonGuy said:


> No, control should come first. The first thing you should work on is control and proper technique. Once you develop good technique then you can start working on speed while making sure to maintain good technique. After that the power will come.



As I've said, power as I learned was a result of applying technique. So in advocating power development first I am also advocating technique 1st.

In my experience the first major obstacle in martial arts training is making your body move efficiently as one (power). Once that happens you need to be able to sustain it through movement and combinations of techniques (+balance).
Then you can worry about speed.

I still don't get what you are controlling before these steps have been taken? I suppose placement of your techniques, but what's the point if they lack strength or speed?


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> As I've said, power as I learned was a result of applying technique. So in advocating power development first I am also advocating technique 1st.
> 
> In my experience the first major obstacle in martial arts training is making your body move efficiently as one (power). Once that happens you need to be able to sustain it through movement and combinations of techniques (+balance).
> Then you can worry about speed.
> ...


What's the point in speed and power if you can't hit your target(s)?  Knowing how to shoot an M16 won't make me lethal if I can't hit what I'm shooting at.

Proper form first, target practice second, then add speed, power, and target practice.  Being able to get your foot up to your opponent's head and kick it is all about technique and control.  Not control in the sense that you can keep your foot there and do squirrelly stuff, but being able to do it.  Once you can (not full mastery, but a basic level of proficiency) then you start adding speed and power.

I think you're a lot closer to what everyone who's disagreeing with you than people realize.

I look at basic control as throwing a technique and being able to consistently hit a target.  I don't mean a pin point target, but a consistent general area.  Without a basic degree of consistency, you're just flailing away.  Control can also be keeping your hands up when punching and kicking, not over swinging and falling over, and other stuff like that.  There is a lot of crossover in control and proper technique.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2017)

Also little detalils like not spiking people during take downs. Kicking dudes in the nuts and just basically being that guy nobody wants to train with.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 25, 2017)

Charlemagne said:


> What I responded to was: "_im not accepting of your claim fact that accuracy of a punch declines with speed to any meaningful extent_"
> 
> And it does.  Your acceptance of it or lack thereof does not matter one bit.
> 
> That does not mean that one should not train at the beginning stages of skill acquisition at high velocity.  In fact, they definitely should.  But, they need to know that they will suffer accuracy when doing so.  However, that will improve over the long term.


Dangle a string from the ceiling. Reach out and touch it with your index finger 10 times. 10/10 times you will touch the string.

Now, same thing, same movement, but at full speed. If you land 3/10 you are pretty accurate.

Your premise seems self evident to me. I think some people just enjoy arguing.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 25, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> What's the point in speed and power if you can't hit your target(s)?  Knowing how to shoot an M16 won't make me lethal if I can't hit what I'm shooting at.
> 
> Proper form first, target practice second, then add speed, power, and target practice.  Being able to get your foot up to your opponent's head and kick it is all about technique and control.  Not control in the sense that you can keep your foot there and do squirrelly stuff, but being able to do it.  Once you can (not full mastery, but a basic level of proficiency) then you start adding speed and power.
> 
> ...



I'd question whether or not one needs training at all to make that level of accuracy. People who've no training can usually find the face quite easily (just ask my wife, she never misses).

And the usual training methods like focus pad work and partner drills incorporate general targeting skills anyway.

Control for me is more about being able to vary impact with precision. The technique based stuff and balance I lump under technique.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> As I've said, power as I learned was a result of applying technique. So in advocating power development first I am also advocating technique 1st.
> 
> In my experience the first major obstacle in martial arts training is making your body move efficiently as one (power). Once that happens you need to be able to sustain it through movement and combinations of techniques (+balance).
> Then you can worry about speed.
> ...


In my training, proper technique centers around generation of power. It isn't just an abstract movement of "technique" to which power can be added or removed.  It is proper movement and body engagement to deliver a powerful strike efficiently.  That is proper technique.

So if you are not delivering with power, you have poor technique.

If you deliberately pull back your power, then you undermine the development of your own technique.  By doing so, you interfere with the development of the proper body engagement necessary for powerful, and therefore proper, technique.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> In my training, proper technique centers around generation of power. It isn't just an abstract movement of "technique" to which power can be added or removed.  It is proper movement and body engagement to deliver a powerful strike efficiently.  That is proper technique.
> 
> So if you are not delivering with power, you have poor technique.
> 
> If you deliberately pull back your power, then you undermine the development of your own technique.  By doing so, you interfere with the development of the proper body engagement necessary for powerful, and therefore proper, technique.


Agreed. Technique IS power. With good technique you can generate a lot of power without using a lot of muscle.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 25, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'd question whether or not one needs training at all to make that level of accuracy. People who've no training can usually find the face quite easily (just ask my wife, she never misses).
> 
> And the usual training methods like focus pad work and partner drills incorporate general targeting skills anyway.
> 
> Control for me is more about being able to vary impact with precision. The technique based stuff and balance I lump under technique.



Yeah. I had issues where I was kicking guys heads off. I could get up there and nail the kick. But when I landed it was end of the round, go grab an ice pack. Especially if I set them up off a right hand

It makes it hard to train with volume if you can't kick with precision. If you cant train with volume. You can't gain the necessary skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I had issues where I was kicking guys heads off. I could get up there and nail the kick. But when I landed it was end of the round, go grab an ice pack. Especially if I set them up off a right hand
> 
> It makes it hard to train with volume if you can't kick with precision. If you cant train with volume. You can't gain the necessary skills.


I think I'm even more inclined that way, DB, because my primary focus in most of my training has been locks and throws. Locks require restraint from the very first time - they are done on a person from first experience, whereas strikes usually start on a practice target of some sort. But the principle is the same. If I threw without control on a regular basis, I'd have the same problem you had with those head kicks (I problem I'm unlikely to have - my head kicks aren't very powerful).


----------



## DaveB (Jul 26, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. I had issues where I was kicking guys heads off. I could get up there and nail the kick. But when I landed it was end of the round, go grab an ice pack. Especially if I set them up off a right hand
> 
> It makes it hard to train with volume if you can't kick with precision. If you cant train with volume. You can't gain the necessary skills.



Totally, but as I said I'm quite fine with either no partner work or pads only or fully armoured partner work until the comtrol phase is reached.

I'm not anti control, I'm anti control at the beginning of ones training. After 6 months to a year when one has turned their body into a weapon (perhaps not quite the immortal iron fist yet) then they can learn to control it, then comes the refinement of skills through partner training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Totally, but as I said I'm quite fine with either no partner work or pads only or fully armoured partner work until the comtrol phase is reached.
> 
> I'm not anti control, I'm anti control at the beginning of ones training. After 6 months to a year when one has turned their body into a weapon (perhaps not quite the immortal iron fist yet) then they can learn to control it, then comes the refinement of skills through partner training.


I disagree with this approach entirely, Dave, but I'm not entirely certain I'm doing so for good reason. Part of it definitely goes to my grappling bias - there's no way to do that effectively without a partner, and no amount of armoring helps much against an uncontrolled partner. Part of my disagreement also comes from having dealt with people who didn't learn control early. It seems to take them an inordinate amount of time to learn it, once the habit of uncontrolled striking sets in. But that might be people who wouldn't have had good control, regardless of the order of approach.

So, while I disagree vehemently, there might be a valid point in there I'm just biased against.


----------



## Buka (Jul 26, 2017)

Fortunately, there's more than one way to skin a cat. And, fortunately, I've skinned a lot of cats.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 26, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Totally, but as I said I'm quite fine with either no partner work or pads only or fully armoured partner work until the comtrol phase is reached.
> 
> I'm not anti control, I'm anti control at the beginning of ones training. After 6 months to a year when one has turned their body into a weapon (perhaps not quite the immortal iron fist yet) then they can learn to control it, then comes the refinement of skills through partner training.



6 months before you spar? You would grow old and die before you had any usable skill.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> 6 months before you spar? You would grow old and die before you had any usable skill.


I'm in the camp that says sparring too early just ingrained bad habits and slows overall progress.

Also I posted this in the karate forum because I think of it in terms of karate rhetoric. So since we are already going for a long term training plan a few months isn't going to make any difference. 

Also I completely concede that this is not a suitable strategy for grappling. Different method needs different training.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'm in the camp that says sparring too early just ingrained bad habits and slows overall progress.
> 
> Also I posted this in the karate forum because I think of it in terms of karate rhetoric. So since we are already going for a long term training plan a few months isn't going to make any difference.
> 
> Also I completely concede that this is not a suitable strategy for grappling. Different method needs different training.


I teach an art where striking is not the primary weapon, and I wouldn't want my students to go 6 months without sparring. I think that's definitely too long to spend NOT working with a partner on strikes. We start partner striking about 2-1 weeks in (again, striking isn't our primary weapon, otherwise, this would probably be the 2nd class), with a basic strikes/blocks drill that gets them used to facing a punch. That's part of the progression to sparring. They should be able to do light, controlled (there's that word again) sparring within a month of that (sooner, for a striking art).

I don't think it's fair to the student to assume they will be around for 5 years. Many things can change their plans, and if the purpose of the training is for them to be able to use it against a person (whether for self-defense or competition, or both), they should start building that ability early.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jul 27, 2017)

I think everyone is using a different perspective of what sparring is.  There are different levels of sparring and not all sparring is about winning or taking hard shots.
From what I see in the conversations it's clear to see that sparring can be done early or later based on the type of sparring.

For me I want people to be comfortable with attacks coming in, starting with punching.  Student seem to be less intimidated when they are put into this environment as soon as possible. I say this because I finally figured out why some of the students in my school are afraid to spar.  They are afraid to spar because they spent 6 months watching other students punch and kick the mess out of pads during drills, and they have put in their minds that's what they will get in sparring. They mentally make sparring to be worse than it really is especially for beginners.  I rather get students sparring before they start building their misconceptions on what sparring is and more important what fighting is.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I teach an art where striking is not the primary weapon, and I wouldn't want my students to go 6 months without sparring. I think that's definitely too long to spend NOT working with a partner on strikes. We start partner striking about 2-1 weeks in (again, striking isn't our primary weapon, otherwise, this would probably be the 2nd class), with a basic strikes/blocks drill that gets them used to facing a punch. That's part of the progression to sparring. They should be able to do light, controlled (there's that word again) sparring within a month of that (sooner, for a striking art).
> 
> I don't think it's fair to the student to assume they will be around for 5 years. Many things can change their plans, and if the purpose of the training is for them to be able to use it against a person (whether for self-defense or competition, or both), they should start building that ability early.


Well again, there are different types of sparring, as well as partner work with striking that might not be classified as sparring, so certainly there can be that interactive training experience without it being simply sloppy freesparring.  

As far as expecting a student to be around for five years, well I say yes and no.  When a person enrolls in a college bachelors degree program, it is expected to take at least four years.  If life circumstances interfere with that process and take you elsewhere before you finish, then you don't get a degree.  That's life, fair or not.

It's something of an apples-to-oranges comparison, I know, but there is some legitimate comparison there.

I am of the opinion however, that even if you train for one or two or three years, you should still take away something useful that you have learned.  If you did not train long enough to get into certain aspects of training, well that doesn't really matter. You have learned what you have learned, and you can and should take ownership of that, take it with you even after you walk out of that dojo for the last time.

In contrast, if you don't finish your degree, you typically don't any credit for it in the workforce.  If a job requires a BS in physics, you won't get the job if all you can say on your resume is that you had two semesters of physics at the local university, and then dropped out before completing your degree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well again, there are different types of sparring, as well as partner work with striking that might not be classified as sparring, so certainly there can be that interactive training experience without it being simply sloppy freesparring.


Yes - I was reacting more to the post that after 6 months a person could start into partner training. I start partner training ASAP, with an eye towards limited sparring starting shortly thereafter, if possible.



> As far as expecting a student to be around for five years, well I say yes and no.  When a person enrolls in a college bachelors degree program, it is expected to take at least four years.  If life circumstances interfere with that process and take you elsewhere before you finish, then you don't get a degree.  That's life, fair or not.


Yes, but you don't plan a single course around that 4-year progression and leave out the basics until several months later. You consolidate knowledge into chunks, so people can learn that information and potentially change majors, etc.



> It's something of an apples-to-oranges comparison, I know, but there is some legitimate comparison there.
> 
> I am of the opinion however, that even if you train for one or two or three years, you should still take away something useful that you have learned.  If you did not train long enough to get into certain aspects of training, well that doesn't really matter. You have learned what you have learned, and you can and should take ownership of that, take it with you even after you walk out of that dojo for the last time.


I'm not saying fit everything into a short timeframe - but you don't delay basics just because you have several years. If someone is coming to learn to fight/defend, they should get some real usable stuff fairly early. If it's a striking art and they don't work with a partner for 6 months, they haven't likely gotten anything useful in that first half-year. That's way too long. 



> In contrast, if you don't finish your degree, you typically don't any credit for it in the workforce.  If a job requires a BS in physics, you won't get the job if all you can say on your resume is that you had two semesters of physics at the local university, and then dropped out before completing your degree.


It's not about credit - it's about learning. If you walk away from college after a semester, you walk away with the real information (just basics, usually) that was covered in those classes. The equivalent to the statement made earlier would be to say the student will be there at least 4 years, so we can wait a while before we get into anything directly related to their major. Most students get classes in their major straight away. They may change majors later (like changing arts), but they already got some basics from that first one.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes - I was reacting more to the post that after 6 months a person could start into partner training. I start partner training ASAP, with an eye towards limited sparring starting shortly thereafter, if possible.
> 
> 
> Yes, but you don't plan a single course around that 4-year progression and leave out the basics until several months later. You consolidate knowledge into chunks, so people can learn that information and potentially change majors, etc.
> ...


I guess my point was that a teacher could be taking a long view of what he feels it takes to learn and really understand the method in a realistic and useable and solid manner.  He may assess that it takes at least four or five years to reach that level of solid and reliable skill, with an appropriate depth of understanding, and his approach to teaching can be built around that assessment of what it takes.  As such, he may be unwilling to alter the progression that he believes in.  If a student doesn't stick around to accomplish that training, that does not automatically mean that the teachers approach to training is wrong.  And neither is that contrary to my earlier comment that however long you train in a school, even if only for a year or two, you should still have learned something meaningful and valuable that you can take with you.

Of course I agree with you that fundamentals shouldn't be delayed for no good reason. Fundamentals should start immediately, everything is built on that.  And within the fundamentals there is also a progression. Some fundamentals will be introduced later, after some others are already in place.  The whole process is a progression.

But in the main, I agree that there does not need to be a long delay before students work interactively and hands-on.  Just exactly what that means will differ from school to school, there is a lot of room to interpret what that means, but application is very important in the progression of skills and knowledge and understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I guess my point was that a teacher could be taking a long view of what he feels it takes to learn and really understand the method in a realistic and useable and solid manner.  He may assess that it takes at least four or five years to reach that level of solid and reliable skill, with an appropriate depth of understanding, and his approach to teaching can be built around that assessment of what it takes.  As such, he may be unwilling to alter the progression that he believes in.  If a student doesn't stick around to accomplish that training, that does not automatically mean that the teachers approach to training is wrong.  And neither is that contrary to my earlier comment that however long you train in a school, even if only for a year or two, you should still have learned something meaningful and valuable that you can take with you.
> 
> Of course I agree with you that fundamentals shouldn't be delayed for no good reason. Fundamentals should start immediately, everything is built on that.  And within the fundamentals there is also a progression. Some fundamentals will be introduced later, after some others are already in place.  The whole process is a progression.
> 
> But in the main, I agree that there does not need to be a long delay before students work interactively and hands-on.  Just exactly what that means will differ from school to school, there is a lot of room to interpret what that means, but application is very important in the progression of skills and knowledge and understanding.


I tend to take a moderately hard line on this, but there's room for other views. My view is that if a student leaves, they should leave with something useful - my aim is to start that process the first class, so far as it is possible. Of course, I know some instructors who purposely look for students who have specific plans to study for a longer period of time. If that is the situation, then a different approach can be taken. There are things that can be taught differently, for the purpose of deeper understanding in the long run.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> I'm in the camp that says sparring too early just ingrained bad habits and slows overall progress.
> 
> Also I posted this in the karate forum because I think of it in terms of karate rhetoric. So since we are already going for a long term training plan a few months isn't going to make any difference.
> 
> Also I completely concede that this is not a suitable strategy for grappling. Different method needs different training.


ebay
I can bet our local kyokushin club doesn't wait 6 months to spar either. 

I can't see how sparring holds you back.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I tend to take a moderately hard line on this, but there's room for other views. My view is that if a student leaves, they should leave with something useful - my aim is to start that process the first class, so far as it is possible. Of course, I know some instructors who purposely look for students who have specific plans to study for a longer period of time. If that is the situation, then a different approach can be taken. There are things that can be taught differently, for the purpose of deeper understanding in the long run.



You don't feel that fitness, strength, determination and the skill/instinct to hit with your maximum potential would be useful things to leave a class with?

See if we are worrying about people who leave early we have to ask what theý gain from a few months of receiving low intensity attacks and gentle play fighting.
Perhaps it's different from a grappling perspective, but I think a solid ability to turn up ones aggression and express that through max efficiency striking will do far more for you if that short training is all you have.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I tend to take a moderately hard line on this, but there's room for other views. My view is that if a student leaves, they should leave with something useful - my aim is to start that process the first class, so far as it is possible. Of course, I know some instructors who purposely look for students who have specific plans to study for a longer period of time. If that is the situation, then a different approach can be taken. There are things that can be taught differently, for the purpose of deeper understanding in the long run.


I would say that a lot of it depends on how the system itself is built.

I am not in disagreement regarding the need for useful skills in a reasonably short period of time.  There is no need to artificially delay that, or drag out the time and process it requires.  I also believe that a lot of people tend to over-complicate this stuff.

However, I believe that ones effectiveness can take on a couple of different forms.  First, one can be effective through strength and athleticism, and with a shallow understanding of the technique and it's principles.  This is pretty quick and easy to learn.

Or, one can be more effective (potentially much much more effective) through a deeper understanding of the principles and the technique, which leads to less reliance on strength and athleticism.  This takes longer, possibly much longer, to develop.

A teacher can teach to the first level and then progress to the second, but doing so can create problems and bad habits that need to be unlearned in order to reach the second.  This can take longer to reach the second level, in the long run.

Or a teacher can teach directly to the second level and bypass the first.  It reduces the chances of bad habits forming but will take somewhat longer before some level of useful skills are developed.  However, I feel it will take less time to actually reach level two.

I can definitely understand why a teacher would decide to only teach to the second, and not spend time on the first.  That is his choice, in how he approaches the transmission of his method.  But yes, it does require a bigger commitment on the part of the student, and isn't for someone who hopes to come in for a short time and take away some useful ideas or quick technique varieties before moving on to something else.


----------



## Martial D (Jul 27, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I would say that a lot of it depends on how the system itself is built.
> 
> I am not in disagreement regarding the need for useful skills in a reasonably short period of time.  There is no need to artificially delay that, or drag out the time and process it requires.  I also believe that a lot of people tend to over-complicate this stuff.
> 
> ...


How exactly does someone teach 'strength and athleticism'?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> ebay
> I can bet our local kyokushin club doesn't wait 6 months to spar either.
> 
> I can't see how sparring holds you back.


Okay, I'm lost. What does eBay have to do with it, DB?

EDIT: Typo


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 27, 2017)

DaveB said:


> You don't feel that fitness, strength, determination and the skill/instinct to hit with your maximum potential would be useful things to leave a class with?
> 
> See if we are worrying about people who leave early we have to ask what theý gain from a few months of receiving low intensity attacks and gentle play fighting.
> Perhaps it's different from a grappling perspective, but I think a solid ability to turn up ones aggression and express that through max efficiency striking will do far more for you if that short training is all you have.



If they come in looking for self-defense, my best bet of them leaving with something useful in that area is to give them some practical techniques and a chance to practice them. My classes won't change their fitness levels greatly unless they stick around - twice a week (most students, at best) at the intensity level beginners usually put forth simply won't have much of an effect. And their ability to hit won't matter much if they can't hit a person trying to hit them back. Low-intensity sparring, mixed with some power work on the bag, will have a lot more influence on their effectiveness than a bit more time on the bag (without the sparring). As for the instinct (habituated reaction, but I know what you mean) to hit, that's not likely to be developed by hitting a bag. They are more likely to develop it by practicing hitting a person. Our brains perform best if the performance is closer to the practice scenario.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If they come in looking for self-defense, my best bet of them leaving with something useful in that area is to give them some practical techniques and a chance to practice them. My classes won't change their fitness levels greatly unless they stick around - twice a week (most students, at best) at the intensity level beginners usually put forth simply won't have much of an effect. And their ability to hit won't matter much if they can't hit a person trying to hit them back. Low-intensity sparring, mixed with some power work on the bag, will have a lot more influence on their effectiveness than a bit more time on the bag (without the sparring). As for the instinct (habituated reaction, but I know what you mean) to hit, that's not likely to be developed by hitting a bag. They are more likely to develop it by practicing hitting a person. Our brains perform best if the performance is closer to the practice scenario.



All true, but I think that there are ways to develop those things without sparring, and if sparring is a must, armour up or spar only with teacher/seniors.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> All true, but I think that there are ways to develop those things without sparring, and if sparring is a must, armour up or spar only with teacher/seniors.


We can just disagree on that. I don't think there's a way to develop that without working with a partner (with striking, that includes sparring) in short order. Leaving out the sparring lengthens the process, IMO. I'm not saying it can't be done - just that it takes longer and more effort to get there. Armoring up isn't a solution - I don't want students developing bad control habits I'll have to apply emergency fixes to as their power builds up. As for working with instructors, that's not a fix, either - the instructor should be leaving openings for them to work with, and can't really do that if they don't have the control to spar lightly and limitedly. And how many instructors will you need if this is going to span the first few months for every student. I can get students ready to spar much more quickly than that with a little bit of control focus.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> We can just disagree on that. I don't think there's a way to develop that without working with a partner (with striking, that includes sparring) in short order. Leaving out the sparring lengthens the process, IMO. I'm not saying it can't be done - just that it takes longer and more effort to get there. Armoring up isn't a solution - I don't want students developing bad control habits I'll have to apply emergency fixes to as their power builds up. As for working with instructors, that's not a fix, either - the instructor should be leaving openings for them to work with, and can't really do that if they don't have the control to spar lightly and limitedly. And how many instructors will you need if this is going to span the first few months for every student. I can get students ready to spar much more quickly than that with a little bit of control focus.


But under my paradigm teaching control wouldn't be an emergency fix, it would be an integral training phase that covered all the lessons one needs to learn about the importance of control and how to exploit those who lack it. The ice to cool the fire of phase 1 and the first step on the path of technical refinement.

The advantage in this method is that they have seen and been the wild brawler and they learn how to overcome him but also how to match him. When to use that tactic and when to hold back from it.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> ebay
> I can bet our local kyokushin club doesn't wait 6 months to spar either.
> 
> I can't see how sparring holds you back.


A lot of Kyokushin schools will have you free-spar your first night.  Bare knuckle.  And with black belts.  And while those black belts may not 100% all out on you, they won't take it too easy on you.

Many don't come back for a second class.  No idea why


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> A lot of Kyokushin schools will have you free-spar your first night.  Bare knuckle.  And with black belts.  And while those black belts may not 100% all out on you, they won't take it too easy on you.
> 
> Many don't come back for a second class.  No idea why


That might be too far in the opposite direction - unless the point is to weed out those who would leave. It would certainly work in weeding me out if I was a beginner.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That might be too far in the opposite direction - unless the point is to weed out those who would leave. It would certainly work in weeding me out if I was a beginner.


Tadashi Nakamura wrote about this in his autobiography (he came from Kyokushin).  He said he wondered how many potentially great students he lost because of it.  Seido Juku (his current organization) doesn't start full free sparring until 4th kyu.  I think it's a bit too long, but I haven't seen what he's seen, been where he's been, etc.  There are a lot of sparring drill done right from the get-go - 1 step, prearranged, etc., so it's definitely not as if Seido students don't spar until then, it's just free-sparring is done at at point where he feels the students have a solid base.  Seeing students come through the ranks, it benefits a lot of students,  it I think it holds some back too.  Like everything, there's trade offs.

My original organization was Kyokushin in pretty much every way but the name.  I free-sparred bare knuckle my first actual class (I had a private intro lesson first).  One of the people I sparred with that night was my sensei.  He was testing for 4th dan the next day and was going pretty hard.  I had a straight line of bruises down my sternum when I got changed in the locker room.  My sensei said "please don't take that personally.  You did really well tonight.  Far better than most people in their first class."

Most would've said (or did say) "F this, I'm out."  All I thought was "I really have to get better."  I never said I was the smartest guy out there   I'm glad I stuck around.  We did drift away from that as I came through the ranks, moving towards using protective gear.  We still had "bare knuckle Friday" though.  We just had to close the blinds and keep it quiet to his teacher at the time.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That might be too far in the opposite direction - unless the point is to weed out those who would leave. It would certainly work in weeding me out if I was a beginner.



I know I'm quoting the same post twice...

Weeding people out was a welcomed side effect, not really the purpose.  We trained like that all the time back then.  It wasn't like we went harder on newbies or backed off after they "proved themselves."  The mentality was "this is how we do things, and we're not going to change because newbies can't handle it.  If it's not for them, no hard feelings."  There's good and bad in that rationale.


----------



## DaveB (Jul 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> A lot of Kyokushin schools will have you free-spar your first night.  Bare knuckle.  And with black belts.  And while those black belts may not 100% all out on you, they won't take it too easy on you.
> 
> Many don't come back for a second class.  No idea why


Macho b.s.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

DaveB said:


> Macho b.s.


From the outside looking in, sure.

Or as I said in my previous post - they always spar bare knuckle.  And it's routine to spar with everyone there that night.  Sure, there's a few idiots who like to use newbies as punching bags, but most don't.  The mentality is the don't put forth any false pretenses - if you like it, stick around; if not, we understand.

A lot of Kyokushin schools have wiser up and use protective gear for lower ranks, and use less and less as the student progresses.  There's no shortage of the "Kyokushin purists" who refuse to change though.

To each their own.  At least they're not pretending to be something they're not.  Prospective students know what they're getting into.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I know I'm quoting the same post twice...
> 
> Weeding people out was a welcomed side effect, not really the purpose.  We trained like that all the time back then.  It wasn't like we went harder on newbies or backed off after they "proved themselves."  The mentality was "this is how we do things, and we're not going to change because newbies can't handle it.  If it's not for them, no hard feelings."  There's good and bad in that rationale.


If that's the training from day 1, then you need that weeding. I wouldn't have lasted, so weeding me out day 1 would have been a good thing. (For me, it wouldn't have been so much the bruising, as the frustration of being asked to defend myself against someone that much better, and taking a beating for not having been trained first.)


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If that's the training from day 1, then you need that weeding. I wouldn't have lasted, so weeding me out day 1 would have been a good thing. (For me, it wouldn't have been so much the bruising, as the frustration of being asked to defend myself against someone that much better, and taking a beating for not having been trained first.)



Martial arts and the frustration of someone being better pretty much go hand in hand.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If that's the training from day 1, then you need that weeding. I wouldn't have lasted, so weeding me out day 1 would have been a good thing. (For me, it wouldn't have been so much the bruising, as the frustration of being asked to defend myself against someone that much better, and taking a beating for not having been trained first.)


I had a different view of the world at 18 years old (and I recovered significantly quicker)...

I thought taking a beating meant I had a lot of catching up to do.  Especially when they weren't going as hard as I saw them go with each other.

I thought the more beatings in the dojo = far less beatings on the streets.

I thought if they were that good, and I worked just as hard, if not harder, I'd be just as good, if not better by the time I reached their rank.

I had that never give up and keep going forward mentality from wrestling, from which I was only a few months removed.

Bare knuckle sparring with my girlfriend at the time was interesting.  She only lasted about 3 months.  

Ah, to be young and crazy.  To be able to get pounded on and laugh to your training friends in the locker room afterwards and say "did you see what sensei hit me with today?"  That's not an exaggeration; we said that regularly.  I honestly don't regret a second of it.  It builds character.  

And the training wasn't THAT harsh.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Martial arts and the frustration of someone being better pretty much go hand in hand.


Oh, I'm more than okay with someone being better. But I'm not okay with getting bruised up because I haven't been trained in something. That'd be like walking into a Judo class, being paired up with a brown belt who steps in and gives a full leg sweep, and the new student gets banged up because he doesn't know how to take the fall or prevent the throw. It would feel too much like punishment for not learning something I've not been offered.

Now, frustrate me by simply being better than me (with some fairness to whatever exposure I've had), and I'm ready to learn to get past that frustration.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 28, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I had a different view of the world at 18 years old (and I recovered significantly quicker)...
> 
> I thought taking a beating meant I had a lot of catching up to do.  Especially when they weren't going as hard as I saw them go with each other.
> 
> ...


And I'm not sure any of that is wrong, JR. I just know myself well enough to know that I'd bristle at that approach, and not in any useful way.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I'm more than okay with someone being better. But I'm not okay with getting bruised up because I haven't been trained in something. That'd be like walking into a Judo class, being paired up with a brown belt who steps in and gives a full leg sweep, and the new student gets banged up because he doesn't know how to take the fall or prevent the throw. It would feel too much like punishment for not learning something I've not been offered.
> 
> Now, frustrate me by simply being better than me (with some fairness to whatever exposure I've had), and I'm ready to learn to get past that frustration.



Exept you are being punched in the body and legs in this particular instance.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And I'm not sure any of that is wrong, JR. I just know myself well enough to know that I'd bristle at that approach, and not in any useful way.


I returned to karate when I was 38 (I was 25 when I left).  There was a local Kyokushin dojo that I was interested in joining when I was looking around.  By all accounts it was a good dojo.  Then I came to my senses and I had the been there, done that mentality towards bare knuckle.  I know I wouldn't have lasted more than a year or two.

It was a great thing for me to do when I was 18-25. Now, not so much.  I wanted something I could do for the long haul.  I found exactly that in my current dojo.  It's not a perfect dojo for everyone, but it's the perfect place for me.

As an added bonus, I would've had to look for a new dojo after a year if I joined that Kyokushin dojo.  The CI and his wife (co-owners) had to close it because they were relocated by their full-time employer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Exept you are being punched in the body and legs in this particular instance.


??


----------



## drop bear (Jul 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> ??



You can eat some hefty shots bare knuckle to the body. And KK gets points for being staunch. It is kind of a requirement.

Do don't so much get points for strikes. You get points for strikes that make people flinch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 29, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You can eat some hefty shots bare knuckle to the body. And KK gets points for being staunch. It is kind of a requirement.
> 
> Do don't so much get points for strikes. You get points for strikes that make people flinch.


Yes, and hard throws are pretty rough, too. In either case, I don't see much value (from my POV) in dealing that kind of punishment to a student before they are trained to deal with it.


----------

