I have just read this great post on Ikigaiway and started writing a comment: when it became too long I though it was a good idea to write my own post.

Most striking martial arts, being them bare handed like Karate, Wing Chun or Tae Kwon Do or weapon based like Iai Jitsu, Iai Do and Kobudo, use forms (Kata in Japanese) as a way or classifying various groups of techniques.  Forms are usually increasingly difficult and they can be part of grading.

Forms, in any martial art, is meant to be a way of collecting a number of techniques, arranged in logical sequences, with to 4 main purposes in mind:

1. solo practice, to allow the practitioner to keep training without an opponent;
2. having a kind of comparable scale among different practitioner at similar level;
3. practicing and rehearsing logical sequences of techniques that eventually should be applied to real right
4. collecting techniques that otherwise might be lost in teaching over various generations of students: let’s not forget that until a few decades ago video recording or filming was not as practical and affordable as it is today and a book has lots of limitation is showing dynamic 3D actions.

In the first video shown in Ikigaiway post the young lady moves a lot, she is very acrobatic but most of what she does is not useful, if not dangerous,  in a fight.  The second video is more realistic: question here is: “if you push somebody away with a powerful yoko geri (side kick) what it the probability that his face will be there to be hit with an elbow?”

I am convinced that a form is (supposed to be) a fight against imaginary opponents that the practitioner attacks or defends against.  Somebody practicing a form should always ask herself:

• “what is this (particular technique) for?”
• “would it really work?”
• “what about if a real opponent appeared now in that position?”

If the answer to any of these question doesn’t make too much sense than what you are practicing is not a practical form and, while it can help working out fitness, balance and flexibility, it will not ultimately help your fighting skills.

Posted under styles, theory

I recently answered the following question from Yahoo Answers:

I want to know a good martial arts style for fighting multiple opponents and learn quick takedowns?

just what the question is I want to learn how to defend myself in a situation simmilar to this. Also id like to know ways to defend myself against opponents with weapons. i have no prior exeperience to any marital arts training and im open to all possiblities…

And this was my answer:

While there are martial arts that might be orientated to fight multiple opponents or a single armed opponent (for multiple armed opponents don’t believe what you see in movies…) it is indeed a very difficult and dangerous thing to do. In any case as a beginners as you are you should first learn how to defend against the general thug on the street that might prove to be a difficult task all together.

After a few years, and lots of confidence gained, you might think about extending your training to more difficult situations. Just one extra point: take downs, particularly if followed by grappling are on the opposite side of fighting multiple opponents: think about it, you start grappling one person and his buddies start kicking and punching you while he is holding you… it just cannot work: if you fight several opponents better attack the first one in line, injure him and run as fast as you can.

Posted under street fighting, yahoo_answers

Considering that martial arts are, in essence, methodologies for fighting I always consider paramount to perform a reality check of each application. This is to assess if and when a technique or combination can be useful in a self defence or real fight situation.

Please notice that some styles, like kick boxing, tae kwon do and judo are to be considered martial sports and they follow rules that are designed to allow a sport competition to take place without causing serious injuries to those taking part in it. To some extend certain martial sports train full contact and a professional or a serious amateur of these is pretty safe in a fight as I recently mentioned in a previous post.

Certain styles that are pure martial arts, without sport applications, are meant to be useful for real fights and defending yourself. I am aware of a number of masters and instructors that remain pretty theoretical on the way they teach and assume that things will simply work: these people give a false, very dangerous, illusion to their students that risk to be seriously injured or killed in a real fight. It all good stating that one or the other technique will hurt an opponent, it’s another issue practicing it to ensure it works all the times.

So how do you perform a reality check? Here are some hints:

• Have you tested your punches (or kicks, elbow or knee strikes) for real power?
• The same strike might knock somebody down if applied to the head but just hurt a bit in certain areas of the body: did you consider that?
• Have you considered how bad it could be hitting somebody in the face to find out that he hardly noticed the strike? What would you do then?
• How much power do you think you need in order to knock somebody down or seriously injury them, allowing you to run away?
• How would you react if somebody is charging you like a bull? Do you have a technique that would allow stopping or deflecting his attack?
• Do you practice techniques that work at long, medium and short range? What about if the attacker is grabbing you?
• Striking can be the non ideal solution sometimes. Do you practice techniques to seize the opponent and neutralizing him? Perhaps immobilizing him with a joint lock?
• If you are below average the terms of body weight and size then you should consider training to defeat bigger people. What’s your body size compared to the average population?

I would be interested to hear comments about these issues.

Posted under educational, self defence, street fighting, teaching, theory