Clubs in my area

Can anyone point me in the right direction for clubs in the Bath - Bristol
area which specialise in Self-defence and avoids classic styles and sport
based martial arts.

I have tried the above mentioned and have learned much but I'm now after a
club based on a mixture of many arts that gets strait down to business and
does not include forms, kata's and set routines.
I would also like a club who doesn't pad up for sparing (which I belive to
be detrimental to control) and does pad work with beginners as well as the
more established members.

Please mail me if you any helpful advise.

Kieron Butler.................... zyxbutler@yahoo.co.uk

P.S. I hope I have not offended anyone with my views and club
requirements. I only wish to progress myself and keep true & honest to my
personal goals.

Woody wrote:

>Can anyone point me in the right direction for clubs in the Bath - Bristol
>area which specialise in Self-defence and avoids classic styles and sport
>based martial arts.
>
>I have tried the above mentioned and have learned much but I'm now after a
>club based on a mixture of many arts that gets strait down to business and
>does not include forms, kata's and set routines.
>I would also like a club who doesn't pad up for sparing (which I belive to
>be detrimental to control) and does pad work with beginners as well as the
>more established members.
>

I've never heard of a USFA or SCA Fencing establishment that doesn't
"pad up" or practice routines. Best of luck.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

That perticulat ad was for Martial Arts in general, not Fencing.
I want to start fencing as well as other arts.
Sorry for any confusion.


I've never heard of a USFA or SCA Fencing establishment that doesn't
"pad up" or practice routines. Best of luck.

--
Amy and Joseph Kormann

Woody wrote:

>Can anyone point me in the right direction for clubs in the Bath - Bristol
>area which specialise in Self-defence and avoids classic styles and sport
>based martial arts.
>
>I have tried the above mentioned and have learned much but I'm now after a
>club based on a mixture of many arts that gets strait down to business and
>does not include forms, kata's and set routines.
>I would also like a club who doesn't pad up for sparing (which I belive to
>be detrimental to control) and does pad work with beginners as well as the
>more established members.

In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:45 -0000
Woody <md007g3675@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I would also like a club who doesn't pad up for sparing (which I belive to
> be detrimental to control) and does pad work with beginners as well as the

I've heard this before.

I've also heard "it makes you more likely to take risks you wouldn't
otherwise take".

But very seldom do such people also note "it does, however, allow you to
commit".

The people I've seen fight with swords who don't wear protective gear
seem to be slow and don't commit. They call this "control", but is that
useful? Seems to me that a lot of it is "mustn't hurt the opponent"
rather than "mustn't hurt myself". and they seem to have a hesitant
manner, with their movements clearly different to those who atack with
full commitment, different towards the end of the attack.

"When under stress, you do what you have always done", if you learn to
pull blows or aim at non-sensitive targets or aim to miss, then what
will you do under stress?

I haven't seen anyone who doesn't like protective gear practice without
it while their opponent has it. Why not?

Zebee

Who mentioned swords? I meant sparring and applications etc.
Anyway, each to his or her own.
It also must reflect the individual, otherwise it becomes a "Set way" as
opposed to an "Individual way"


Kieron Butler.................... zyxbutler@yahoo.co.uk
"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbvhg7i.spc.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:19:45 -0000
> Woody <md007g3675@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I would also like a club who doesn't pad up for sparing (which I belive
to
> > be detrimental to control) and does pad work with beginners as well as
the
>
> I've heard this before.
>
> I've also heard "it makes you more likely to take risks you wouldn't
> otherwise take".
>
> But very seldom do such people also note "it does, however, allow you to
> commit".
>
> The people I've seen fight with swords who don't wear protective gear
> seem to be slow and don't commit. They call this "control", but is that
> useful? Seems to me that a lot of it is "mustn't hurt the opponent"
> rather than "mustn't hurt myself". and they seem to have a hesitant
> manner, with their movements clearly different to those who atack with
> full commitment, different towards the end of the attack.
>
> "When under stress, you do what you have always done", if you learn to
> pull blows or aim at non-sensitive targets or aim to miss, then what
> will you do under stress?
>
> I haven't seen anyone who doesn't like protective gear practice without
> it while their opponent has it. Why not?
>
> Zebee

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 5 Jan 2004 02:18:23 -0000
Woody <md007g3675@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Who mentioned swords? I meant sparring and applications etc.
> Anyway, each to his or her own.
> It also must reflect the individual, otherwise it becomes a "Set way" as
> opposed to an "Individual way"

as I'm reading it in rec.sport.fencing which you crossposted to,
presumably you are.

But the same thing goes for unarmed - if you are not training to commit,
you must be training to pull... If the only control you learn is to not
hit hard, is it useful?

Zebee

In article <9Q3Kb.788$K41.678@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"Woody" <md007g3675@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> Who mentioned swords? I meant sparring and applications etc.
> Anyway, each to his or her own.
> It also must reflect the individual, otherwise it becomes a "Set way" as
> opposed to an "Individual way"


You know, if you aren't talking about swords, maybe you shouldn't post
your query to a fencing newsgroup.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbvhjob.t6k.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au
>
> But the same thing goes for unarmed - if you are not training to
> commit, you must be training to pull... If the only control you
> learn is to not hit hard, is it useful?

I'd challenge that statement, Zebee, based on my own experience. Many
years ago, when I was studying Tae Kwon Do, my first four years at it
were in a school in which all sparring was "no contact" (well, sometimes
there was a little bit of contact, by accident). All techniques were
executed at full power, not pulled at all -- they were simply focused
immediately before the surface of the target, rather than behind it. In
order to score, the blow had to be perceived by the judges as having
been executed with disabling force and at a distance such that it could
have been focused behind the target if the fighter had intended to.
This method, which is different from that of modern "sport" TKD, does
*not* teach one to pull one's blows.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:58:07 GMT
Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:slrnbvhjob.t6k.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au
>>
>> But the same thing goes for unarmed - if you are not training to
>> commit, you must be training to pull... If the only control you
>> learn is to not hit hard, is it useful?
>
> I'd challenge that statement, Zebee, based on my own experience. Many
> years ago, when I was studying Tae Kwon Do, my first four years at it
> were in a school in which all sparring was "no contact" (well, sometimes
> there was a little bit of contact, by accident). All techniques were
> executed at full power, not pulled at all -- they were simply focused
> immediately before the surface of the target, rather than behind it. In

So you therefore know that you can vary the focus and hit in the right
place otherwise?

how easy was it to do that when you had to, that is how easy when facing
what you'd trained with - another person?

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbvhtka.u63.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au
> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 05 Jan 2004 04:58:07 GMT
> Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:slrnbvhjob.t6k.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au
>>>
>>> But the same thing goes for unarmed - if you are not training to
>>> commit, you must be training to pull... If the only control you
>>> learn is to not hit hard, is it useful?
>>
>> I'd challenge that statement, Zebee, based on my own experience.
>> Many years ago, when I was studying Tae Kwon Do, my first four years
>> at it were in a school in which all sparring was "no contact" (well,
>> sometimes there was a little bit of contact, by accident). All
>> techniques were executed at full power, not pulled at all -- they
>> were simply focused immediately before the surface of the target,
>> rather than behind it. In
>
> So you therefore know that you can vary the focus and hit in the right
> place otherwise?

Yes -- though I myself am sadly out of training for that now. But the
nature of focus is putting the energy where you want it. I'm not
claiming that mistakes don't get made, but you are no more likely to
focus too far out than too far in. The physical technique -- punch,
kick, strike -- is not executed any differently depending on whether you
intend to make contact or not, so you are not training your muscles to
pull your punches.

> how easy was it to do that when you had to, that is how easy when
> facing what you'd trained with - another person?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Outside of practice, I only lifted a
foot against another man once in my life, and it was effective enough.
I misjudged the focus point a few times in practice, and was on the
receiving end of such an error a few times, and I can assure you a
quarter-inch of difference, even less, can make quite a jolt. Heh,
that's when I switched from glasses to contact lenses.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:19:31 GMT
Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
> nature of focus is putting the energy where you want it. I'm not
> claiming that mistakes don't get made, but you are no more likely to
> focus too far out than too far in. The physical technique -- punch,
> kick, strike -- is not executed any differently depending on whether you
> intend to make contact or not, so you are not training your muscles to
> pull your punches.

Makes more sense than the 'stop before you hit' or 'aim elsewhere'
methods.

>
>> how easy was it to do that when you had to, that is how easy when
>> facing what you'd trained with - another person?
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking. Outside of practice, I only lifted a

If you spent all your time making sure your focus was *not* at the
hurting level, then how easy is it to hurt someone?

hitting a bag isn't the same, as that's always trained as "hit the bag".
is the "focus not to hit" enough of a conditioning that it's hard to
break, hard to "focus to hit" instead?

Zebee

"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrnbvi38d.v3j.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au
>
> If you spent all your time making sure your focus was *not* at the
> hurting level, then how easy is it to hurt someone?

It's not a question of a "hurting level", it's a question of placement.
Let me clarify that the purpose of focus is not specifically to avoid
injury; it's the mechanism whereby the greatest impact of the blow is
developed. It just so happens that this mechanism involves making the
technique "stop" at a specific point in space, at which point all
muscles are briefly locked, so as to hit that point with what is
essentially your whole body, concentrated into a tiny impact space. If
there's something in that space, it's going to get walloped.

> hitting a bag isn't the same, as that's always trained as "hit the
> bag". is the "focus not to hit" enough of a conditioning that it's
> hard to break, hard to "focus to hit" instead?

I think in most people there will always be a psychological barrier
between "not meaning to hit" and "meaning to hit" -- thank goodness.
But I'm not talking about that. I'm only trying to address the question
of whether this method of training impedes the development of effective
fighting technique. Since I myself have very limited experience in real
fighting, it's hard for me to speak with authority. My teacher, Master
Duk Sung Son, a former military man, taught this method and thought it
effective. He's the best authority I can cite.

The last time I checked, sport TKD is conducted as a contact sport with
body armor and head protection. However, blows in the sport form are
not executed with the kind of power that Mr. Son would consider
essential, and the techniques permitted are severely restricted to
minimize injury. So I'd say that is less realistic than Mr. Son's
method.

--

Dirk Goldgar

(to reply via e-mail, remove NOSPAM from address)

On 1/5/04 7:08 AM, in article slrnbvi38d.v3j.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au,
"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> wrote:

> In rec.sport.fencing on Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:19:31 GMT
> Dirk Goldgar <dgoldgar@NOalumni.SPAMprinceton.edu> wrote:
>> nature of focus is putting the energy where you want it. I'm not
>> claiming that mistakes don't get made, but you are no more likely to
>> focus too far out than too far in. The physical technique -- punch,
>> kick, strike -- is not executed any differently depending on whether you
>> intend to make contact or not, so you are not training your muscles to
>> pull your punches.
>
> Makes more sense than the 'stop before you hit' or 'aim elsewhere'
> methods.
>
>>
>>> how easy was it to do that when you had to, that is how easy when
>>> facing what you'd trained with - another person?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're asking. Outside of practice, I only lifted a
>
> If you spent all your time making sure your focus was *not* at the
> hurting level, then how easy is it to hurt someone?
>
> hitting a bag isn't the same, as that's always trained as "hit the bag".
> is the "focus not to hit" enough of a conditioning that it's hard to
> break, hard to "focus to hit" instead?
>
> Zebee

Having done it, I don't believe that changing how hard I hit
something/someone, with or without pads is particularly difficult. The
challenging part for me is seeing and reacting to the same openings within a
fight, that I might notice in a lower stress training environment.

A main point of the training is to get that part of the equation to be
automatic. Pads/no pads just offer different advantages/disadvantages to
working on that... Probably value to be had by doing some of both.