What age do you stop sparring?

[ralphmcpherson]

I think that is a good way to think about it, that your ace in the hole may in fact, fail. So many people think they have this secret technique that will trump all others, when in fact it might not. I was exchanging techniques with a kodenkan jujitsu black belt once and his techniques simply didn't work on me. Finally he got frustrated and threw an elbow at my head with a loud scream, and I simply blocked it by raising my arm up. He had that same look of bewilderment and stunned amazement when his death blow failed. It was like a deer in the headlights situation.

I would hope not many people studying martial arts are silly enough to think they have some 'never fail' move, theres just too many variables. Certain strikes though, obviously have a higher percentage success rate, work in more scenarios, cause more damage and can be done without too much telegraphing of what you are about to do. Its probably important to have a few favourite tricks up your sleeve, but nothing will work absolutely everytime obviously.

 

[puunui]

Yep. Its much like Me, and Spinning Backfists. I can put more Power and Speed (mostly Power) into that than any of My other Strikes. ANY OF THEM. And I can make it come out of absolutely nowere. But if I were to use it, I am not reliant on it working. I still practice coming off it and following straight up, and going from there. Because Id rather assume something isnt going to work, than overcommit.

There was a time when I was really into spinning backfist. That and jumping reverse punch. Spinning backfist is a move in Taebaek, the third Kukkiwon yudanja poomsae. I used to do fifty reps of spinning backfist backwards and forwards, sort of like consecutive double kicks, everyday on the heavy bag, as my twisting warm up. I got that from a friend of mine who used to do it in the mirror with his knife hand. I preferred doing it with my backfist on the bag. Haven't done in a long time, maybe I will try next class.

 

[SPX]

I think that is a good way to think about it, that your ace in the hole may in fact, fail. So many people think they have this secret technique that will trump all others, when in fact it might not. I was exchanging techniques with a kodenkan jujitsu black belt once and his techniques simply didn't work on me. Finally he got frustrated and threw an elbow at my head with a loud scream, and I simply blocked it by raising my arm up. He had that same look of bewilderment and stunned amazement when his death blow failed. It was like a deer in the headlights situation.

LOL. Indeed.

If there were super-deadly one-shot techniques that worked with such great reliability then most MMA fights would be over in seconds.

I'm still waiting for a dim mak master in the UFC.

 

[SPX]

I would hope not many people studying martial arts are silly enough to think they have some 'never fail' move, theres just too many variables. Certain strikes though, obviously have a higher percentage success rate, work in more scenarios, cause more damage and can be done without too much telegraphing of what you are about to do. Its probably important to have a few favourite tricks up your sleeve, but nothing will work absolutely everytime obviously.

This is one of the things about karate I've questioned. Traditionally speaking, one of its core principles is "one hit, one kill." No doubt a lot of people will be stopped by a flush punch to the face, but a lot will not.

 

[Cyriacus]

This is one of the things about karate I've questioned. Traditionally speaking, one of its core principles is "one hit, one kill." No doubt a lot of people will be stopped by a flush punch to the face, but a lot will not.

Well, I think thats all talk, honestly. They say that, yet they Spar with Combinations and Continuity. And Yeah, a Power Punch to the Ribs is alot of pain for your average guy, let alone the hindered movement, so they may be right up to a point. But then, again, they dont practice it like that. Ive heard that said, but never 'seen' it Trained that way.

 

[mastercole]

This is one of the things about karate I've questioned. Traditionally speaking, one of its core principles is "one hit, one kill." No doubt a lot of people will be stopped by a flush punch to the face, but a lot will not.

Maybe it came from the Samurai. One cut, one kill. Karateka of old trained religiously on the makiwara. I believe they were looking for that one technique, one kill idea, like that Samurai. I think Samurai also practiced with Boken against a type of makiwara. Also, wasn't their first draw of the sword practiced with a first kill in mind?

 

[Tez3]

Perhaps it's you who isn't understanding what I'm writing this time around, hmm?



Thats pretty passive aggressive of you.



Thats pretty passive aggressive of you. However I'm skeptical that you are indeed 90+ years old to have been around for the beginnings of Vale Tudo. I didn't bring up pankration because you are obviously not old enough to have been around for that. I also didn't mention the open challenges held across europe and the world for that matter between fighting styles such as various martial arts schools and programs in china, or the ninja/samurai in japan, or those battle robots they had on television about fifteen years ago because they weren't directly relevant to MMA today. Vale Tudo involves the same people, or rather the people directly preceeding the people responsible for modern MMA(the Gracies).

And this isn't a lecture, it's a literal comprehension of what you stated in your post since I'm not keen on making the same mistake twice. Let alone twice in a row.



"Linear Knee Strikes

After a discussion prompted by the Silva-Leites bout, the Committee reviewed the issue of linear strikes to the knee joint and agreed that this technique should remain a legal technique. "

From that link you didn't bother to click/read before. The question was never that they were legal or not, the question was whether it should REMAIN legal due to it's potentially dangerous nature. It is the kind of thing that could in an instant cripple the knee joint. In following the same basis for outlawing knees and kicks to the head of a downed opponent would be My guess.

If you are following me around just to attack me again I don't appreciate it. You dropped out of the last thread after attacking me on several posts that were getting increasingly strident, it's not good form to follow me here and try to continue your badgering.

 

[Cyriacus]

Now now, People. Rather than bickering over semantics, may I suggest posting only whats necessary? Dont make this about which of You is attacking who, and which is right or wrong.
I suggest You both separately state Your Points, then go from there. Because it seems to Me that Youre both discussing different things, and faulting each other due to interpreting their comments as being relative to Your Topic, if that makes any sense. Post Your Main Points, without talking about each other, and go from there. You are discussing the Legality of Knee Kicks in MMA. From what I gather, Tez is talking about MMA in the UK, and Ludo is imposing one point which He/She wants addressed. But the point at hand was at first, the EFFECTIVENESS of Knee Kicks. Then it became Knee Kicks in MMA, by some means of sorcery. This shouldnt be a very long conversation. Nor should it be an argument. Raise your points about the topic at hand, be it the Effecitveness of Knee Kicks, or the Legality of Knee Kicks in MMA, and seperate to that, Your opinions of each other.

Could We? Because this current discussion is going nowhere other than leading to slandering each other, regardless of proving each other wrong, or yourselves right. Which does not help the conversation. No offense.

 

[Tez3]

Now now, People. Rather than bickering over semantics, may I suggest posting only whats necessary? Dont make this about which of You is attacking who, and which is right or wrong.
I suggest You both separately state Your Points, then go from there. Because it seems to Me that Youre both discussing different things, and faulting each other due to interpreting their comments as being relative to Your Topic, if that makes any sense. Post Your Main Points, without talking about each other, and go from there. You are discussing the Legality of Knee Kicks in MMA. From what I gather, Tez is talking about MMA in the UK, and Ludo is imposing one point which He/She wants addressed. But the point at hand was at first, the EFFECTIVENESS of Knee Kicks. Then it became Knee Kicks in MMA, by some means of sorcery. This shouldnt be a very long conversation. Nor should it be an argument. Raise your points about the topic at hand, be it the Effecitveness of Knee Kicks, or the Legality of Knee Kicks in MMA, and seperate to that, Your opinions of each other.

Could We? Because this current discussion is going nowhere other than leading to slandering each other, regardless of proving each other wrong, or yourselves right. Which does not help the conversation. No offense.

No probably not and it's libel btw.

Andy and I were having a discussion which we both agreed we enjoyed, however I will not have a poster follow me from thread to thread which is against the rules here, just so he can personally attack me on every thread time and time again. He is now on ignore, and reported so any further discussion on this is pointless.

As I said before we don't do kicks to the knee in MMA here so I have no idea how effective they are in the cage.

 

[Cyriacus]

No probably not and it's libel btw.

Andy and I were having a discussion which we both agreed we enjoyed, however I will not have a poster follow me from thread to thread which is against the rules here, just so he can personally attack me on every thread time and time again. He is now on ignore, and reported so any further discussion on this is pointless.

As I said before we don't do kicks to the knee in MMA here so I have no idea how effective they are in the cage.

And now You have presented Your Point clearly and fulfillingly Past events never needed to seep into the thread.

 

[Tez3]

And now You have presented Your Point clearly and fulfillingly Past events never needed to seep into the thread.

It's against the rules here to trail around carrying on the same argument in different threads. I'm not sure about the 'fulfillingly' bit though! does remind me however that it's lunchtime here so I will leave you to carry on the discussion while I do myself a nice baked potato!

 

[Cyriacus]

It's against the rules here to trail around carrying on the same argument in different threads. I'm not sure about the 'fulfillingly' bit though! does remind me however that it's lunchtime here so I will leave you to carry on the discussion while I do myself a nice baked potato!

Of course it is - I mean that haggling about it in the Thread doesnt make it more or less true.

Now, I am going to ignore Your Potato, and eat a... Drink Water!

 

[dancingalone]

This is one of the things about karate I've questioned. Traditionally speaking, one of its core principles is "one hit, one kill." No doubt a lot of people will be stopped by a flush punch to the face, but a lot will not.

A slight correction. That is one of the core principles behind SHOTOKAN karate. Other styles, particularly the Okinawan ones, do not share the same philosophy, although certainly most of them consider destructive striking power to be an important asset.

 

[Tez3]

A slight correction. That is one of the core principles behind SHOTOKAN karate. Other styles, particularly the Okinawan ones, do not share the same philosophy, although certainly most of them consider destructive striking power to be an important asset.

It's not something I've come across, in Wado we are taught when kicking for example to wait a second or two before putting leg down in case one needs to kick again. Also we use combinations of strikes to make sure your 'target' is down. Relying on one strike seems a bit iffy, good if you can get them down in one but more is better.

 

[SPX]

Well, I think thats all talk, honestly. They say that, yet they Spar with Combinations and Continuity. And Yeah, a Power Punch to the Ribs is alot of pain for your average guy, let alone the hindered movement, so they may be right up to a point. But then, again, they dont practice it like that. Ive heard that said, but never 'seen' it Trained that way.

Yes, that's true, but we do see the concept embodied in karate's stop-point competition format. Whoever gets hit first loses.

Maybe it came from the Samurai. One cut, one kill. Karateka of old trained religiously on the makiwara. I believe they were looking for that one technique, one kill idea, like that Samurai. I think Samurai also practiced with Boken against a type of makiwara. Also, wasn't their first draw of the sword practiced with a first kill in mind?

I'm pretty sure you're on point here. I've heard this explanation before and it's the most sensible one that I've run across. I'm not sure why it is that karate's originator's felt that the concept should carry over from swords to hand and foot strikes, though. Seems like someone made a miscalculation there.

 

[SPX]

. . . by some means of sorcery.

I lol'd.

 

[SPX]

A slight correction. That is one of the core principles behind SHOTOKAN karate. Other styles, particularly the Okinawan ones, do not share the same philosophy, although certainly most of them consider destructive striking power to be an important asset.

Indeed. Thanks for the correction. Admittedly, most of what I know about karate is related to Shotokan. Since most karate tournaments--which welcome all styles--employ a one-strike-to-win format, I assumed that most karate styles have that same core principle.

 

[Tez3]

Indeed. Thanks for the correction. Admittedly, most of what I know about karate is related to Shotokan. Since most karate tournaments--which welcome all styles--employ a one-strike-to-win format, I assumed that most karate styles have that same core principle.

Most karate tournaments that I've been to are points competitions, where points are given for strikes. I've not seen a one strike to win comp, sounds as if it could be intense.

 

[puunui]

Maybe it came from the Samurai. One cut, one kill. Karateka of old trained religiously on the makiwara. I believe they were looking for that one technique, one kill idea, like that Samurai. I think Samurai also practiced with Boken against a type of makiwara. Also, wasn't their first draw of the sword practiced with a first kill in mind?

Judo took to that concept as well, where one clean throw (ippon) wins the match. The karate concept of one strike one kill makes more sense if you have a weapon in your hand, like a samurai would. In fact, weapon training in karate is called kobudo or "old martial way", the inference being that the "new martial way" is empty hands, without weapons.

 

[miguksaram]

I'm still waiting for a dim mak master in the UFC.

Forget...as any good Dim Mak "master" will tell you...."My techniques are too deadly for the ring."