Yuku free message boards

i used the word "appropriate" precisely to infer situational variation. I usually find that's how the word is used - "we'll review the facts and take appropriate action" is very different than "we'll review the facts and then kill the guy no matter what we find." I was the one who said boxers, wrestlers and tourney guys all have appropriate guard for their situational needs.

here's a synopsis of this debate: I assumed some schools didn't train basic kicks with a guard because they focus on point sparring which has its own considerations. It was then suggested the reason they train without guard is for added speed. I said (over the course of clarification), that's cool for sparring, but I'd recommend a guard for 'general martial arts' training. I stated clearly I'm ONLY talking about practical martial arts training and I omitted a few kicks which are taught universally without a guard. I conceded that many of the basic kicks can be done faster without a guard (since I mainly have experience training with a guard, and not enough experience of both ways to judge fairly). But I feel both guarded and unguarded kicks can be fast and effective ENOUGH and I think kicking with a guard has numerous benefits so it should be standard training for 'general martial arts.' In a fight, what should have the priority of muscular memory and internalization - guard or no guard? Which is easier to do when not internalized - drop your guard or keep your guard? (because that might be more practical as the secondary training). I don't mind if they're both taught and internalized well, but I'm concerned about teaching unguarded over guarded. I'd rather have the option of not guarding than relying on not having to guard. If someone shoots for my legs I'd love to KO with a knee, but I'm not going to train mainly that way and ignore sprawling. I'm going to mainly train sprawling, and train the knee and guillotine, etc in addition. I'm going to train the way that is most flexible to the largest amount of situations as a priority.

I've read and agreed with a lot of what people have said here in response to my thoughts. in about every message I've gleaned something of merit and logic and have conceded to several points. No one is obliged to agree with me, but I feel in response I've gotten a lot of "you said this: '(opposite of whatever I actually said)'." And it's likely just my awkward wording or something, but it's gotten a little silly that my main counter debate per post is quoting myself previously against someone's paraphrasing of me or my supposed message. that's why my posts have been so long, because I've had to include all my posts that came before it, lol.

and no I'm not hating on sport MA. I respect it just fine. i say football "game" and basketball "game" and there's plenty of games I love playing - game is not a derogatory term, but a word used to describe a competition with a set of rules. like you (I think?), I'm saying games have different considerations, and different appropriate techniques. and I'm only complaining about some schools that tell their students they are learning practical self-defense (in addition to sport), but almost only train in a point sparring way. The techniques could still be of use in a fight and end a fight, but are less flexible and "sure-fire" in a fight than a sufficient amount of broad 'no-hold-barred' training - and I'm worried about internalization of instinct and muscular memory when those things are needed for defense. The only MA thing I regret is ending a fight without proper control shortly after I began training - it was a kick to the knee and I didn't end up needing a guard because the other potential assailant decided not to attack (well, not in any competent fashion) - but my guard didn't inhibit my kick and provided that safety just in case. My higher kicks with a guard were equally effective.

I'm a pacifist who'd rather flirt with ladies than roll around on the floor with a guy, but agreed to one MMA-style mixup once with someone who begged for a long time. A TKD black belt in phenomenal shape who was pretty confident that he was a good fighter (mind you I'm a seriously crappy fighter) but he came from a school that only trained point sparring (yet mistook it for comprehensive self-defense as well). He kicked me with a great roundhouse right off the bat, and had i not stepped in at an angle and yielded with a guard to absorb it I'd be knocked down without breath. Then the most peculiar thing happened. He landed an amazing hit on me and then just stopped, guard still down, almost like he was resetting -- and I had just entered punching range with my hands still ready (guard). I just threw out a right jab repeatedly - the first ten he didn't block, like he didn't even understand what was happening (he, a black belt thinking he learned practical fighting, had NEVER been punched in the face). Then he finally blocked but instead of angling out to kicking range, grabbing me, or kneeing or something, he just kept backing straight up so I kept riding him in a line, seriously like 50 feet into a wall. He threw a desperate kick which I caught and swept out his standing leg (he dropped his guard again for the kick so wasn't able to grab me and counter or reverse when I caught his leg). I didn't follow with ground and pound (my non-striking groundwork is pathetically non-existent) because I realized he just had his eyes opened.

I admit that first kick may have stopped some untrained guys with my skinny frame in a fight. But not big tank brawler dudes, who'd close to the face with sloppier but more dangerous stuff than a light machinegun jab. I'm worried about the internalization of that point sparring rhythm and defense for students who are hoping to be both good sparrers AND good at combat BUT are virtually only being taught in the point style, despite their school's mission statement. I'm not AS critical of the failing of his school in allowing him to believe he had become a competent "street-fighter" as I am sincerely worried about those in his situation. You can be damn sure the main school I attended let me know how much I sucked at fighting (seriously the youngest and worst student) and were happy to prove it by beating my ass everyday - but only because they cared about me and wanted me to only face dangerous situations with general know-how rather than a false confidence and mistaken perception.
Like I said, I'm really only calling out schools that say they teach TWO things, but actually only teach the ONE thing to a level of solid effectiveness.

It would be hypocritical of me to say fights are uber-situational and that you should always USE a guard for every kick. That's contradictory. This debate was originally about how to train for general martial arts. Not everyone is going to be effected by muscular memory the same way, but enough students are that I think teachers should give them the internalization they feel is most immediately appropriate in a general martial arts context. For me personally I've found having a guard gives me extra protection and interception options without inhibiting effective attacks.