Martial Arts for Old Guys

Paleocon wrote:

The problem with Tai Chi or any system that relies on the acceptance of supernatural mumbo jumbo like "chi" or "energy flows" is that acceptance of any of that crazy irrationality results in a shaky foundation at best and a completely unfounded sense of confidence as a default. If you want to learn balance and work on your core strength, you're better off with Pilates or working with a physical therapist. Leave the drunken swallow tail fist crap to the hippies.

When you divorce martial arts from the whole Eastern magical mystical mumbo jumbo (and most good martial artists I know do), the inescapable conclusion is that the serious martial artist is indistinguishable from a serious athlete. I suspect that the mumbo jumbo is largely marketing meant to make it appear that you can be an athlete without doing the work. And in that sense, martial arts appears to be the ONLY athletic pursuit where that line of thinking is generally regarded as gospel truth.

In basketball, you can have an encyclopedic knowledge of the mechanics of a jump shot. You can wrap it up in mystical mumbo jumbo about the nature of chi running up from your toes. You can even give out different colored belts for the successful completion of memorized drills involving the tossing of jump shots. But if you get stuffed every time you get anywhere near the basket, you suck.

The primary difference between practical martial arts and stuff like Tai Chi is that the practical ones are required to prove their efficacy. Tai Boxing has rather efficient laboratory for adjudicating the difference between sh1t and shinola. MMA and BJJ do as well. The UFC has enjoyed tremendous popularity largely because it, in part, answers the age old demand to "prove it". Tai Chi not only isn't inclined to do so, it assiduously avoids such demands for evidence for efficacy. And if that is the case, where is the proof it is any more efficacious than Pilates, Yoga, or ballroom dancing?

Eh? When was any mystic mumbo jumbo noted? The majority of teachers don't even go into the whole "chi" energy.

It is about focusing your body and mind. Harnessing the potential energy of your body. Potential energy such as a rock at the top of an incline not potential as in making your heart explode by looking at your and screaming "KEEEYAH!".

Tai Chi is about balance, proper thought, body awareness, and focus. There is nothing mystical about any of that.

Look up your local community college. Go to a Tai Chi class. There is roughly a half percent chance your instructor is going to be an aged asian man espousing the POWAR OF SUPAR SAIYAN!

It is efficacious in preparing someone for MA because it has some qualities that those others lack.

When you practice Tai Chi you are unconsciously learning proper breathing technique. When to inhale and exhale. This is vital to striking and endurance and allows you to focus your energy.

As to focus it teaches you to concentrate while at the same time letting go. This is a vital component of sparring or fighting. You don't look at someone's eyes you look at their center of gravity and just take the rest in. There's a million ways to describe it. What does a tennis player do before they whack the sh*t out of a forehand? They mentally and physically prepare and at the point of their highest preparedness and focus they strike. Focus is a part of all physical endeavor and there is nothing magic about it.

I'd also like to point out I never suggested that Tai Chi was a form of combat. It's a safe, healthy, effective method of preparing oneself to learn a combat art.

It's all a matter of perspective. One person's art is another person's science.

~Taos

P.S. What is a hippie? Someone whose opinions differ from yours? Sort of an out of date term donchathink?

When a tennis player wants to learn to play tennis, he goes to a tennis coach, not a Tai Chi "master".

If you want to learn martial arts, learn martial arts.

If someone wants to be a good tennis player that requires more than someone telling you how to hit the ball.

You need to have a diet and exercise regimen that is in harmony with the body type and muscle memory used in tennis.

Martial Arts training can be very rough on the body depending on the type of style you learn, your teacher's methods, and your physical conditioning.

I don't see the need to be condescending towards me for suggesting a conservative approach to someone who is older and has never trained in MA.

I stand by my assertion that Tai Chi is an effective, safe, and healthy way to start your training in the martial arts.

~Taos

Whatever you do, pick an instructor and technique that plans to train the muscle between your ears as well.

TheArtOfScience wrote:

If someone wants to be a good tennis player that requires more than someone telling you how to hit the ball.

You need to have a diet and exercise regimen that is in harmony with the body type and muscle memory used in tennis.

Martial Arts training can be very rough on the body depending on the type of style you learn, your teacher's methods, and your physical conditioning.

All of which a good tennis coach will teach you much more effectively than a Tai Chi "master".

I don't see the need to be condescending towards me for suggesting a conservative approach to someone who is older and has never trained in MA.

I stand by my assertion that Tai Chi is an effective, safe, and healthy way to start your training in the martial arts.

~Taos

I don't see a reason why someone should take any more of a conservative approach toward martial arts as they would toward basketball or long distance running. If your instructor is at all competent, he's not going to steer you toward injury any more than any other professional coach would.

That, however, brings up another very important point. That being that pretty much anyone seems to be able to open a martial arts school irrespective of dubious qualifications. And the whole "ancient acquired wisdom" crap just makes them less accountable to the sort of modern governance you have with, say, tennis or boxing coaches.

Can I do Tai Chi just because I think it's fun and relaxing?

Edwin wrote:

Can I do Tai Chi just because I think it's fun and relaxing?

Yup. You can also do ballroom dancing, pilates, or floor gymnastics if you like. It's a free country.

I guess I'm in the minority. I'm not wanting to take a MA to learn how to kick the crap out of someone. I'm actually a semi-pacifist. I'm just wanting to take it to have fun, learn some interesting techniques and develop my physical balance, control, reflexes, etc. So yeah, I could take ballroom dancing, pilates, yoga, gymnastics, or whatever. I just happen to find MA far more interesting. I guess I'm more interested in the A and less in the M aspect of things.

Kehama wrote:

I guess I'm in the minority. I'm not wanting to take a MA to learn how to kick the crap out of someone. I'm actually a semi-pacifist. I'm just wanting to take it to have fun, learn some interesting techniques and develop my physical balance, control, reflexes, etc. So yeah, I could take ballroom dancing, pilates, yoga, gymnastics, or whatever. I just happen to find MA far more interesting. I guess I'm more interested in the A and less in the M aspect of things.

Then Wu Shu is probably the art for you! If you want to learn to do really, truly, cool-ass acrobatic shinizit, Wu Shu is the only way to go. It won't help you much in a fight, but you'll be super surprised at what you'll be able to get your body to do.

Taos: it's a tremendous oversimplification to say that unlike Tai Chi, other martial arts throw the beginners to wolves, so to speak. All arts have curriculums of basics (techniques, exercises, drills) that a beginner adherent will go through to get up to speed.

Equally, Tai Chi does not posses a monopoly on teaching focus (although I prefer term "awareness"), proper breathing and posture etc*. I don't want to sound as harshly as Paleocon does, but if you assert that these things are vital to striking and sparring -- why not learn them in a context of a martial art that actually MAKES you spar with opponents and hit things? It is true that in Tai Chi in its origins had combative disciplines as well, but those aren't being thaught these days even in Mainland China itself. If you remove the combat elements, you're left with gymnastics and aerobics, essentially.

For the sake of comparison: does Taebo teach you how to throw kicks and puches? Does it help to improve balance? Is it benefitial for your VO2MAX, aerobic performance, flexibility, and overall well-being? Absolutely! But is it a martial art though?

Besides all that, the only other argument you're making that I can discern is that Tai Chi is a good low-impact way to sort of ease into MA training. To this, I again return to my first point. Any modern MA you could point at offers a progression path for a beginner. The biggest factors are the attitude of the instructors and the willingess of an aspirant to work hard.

Which to me is one of the two pillars of any self-respecting martial art, really -- the tenet of self-improvement and character cultivation through hard work and studies. The second pillar is that a martial art is more than a collection of techniques and development of athletism. It's also about cultivation of warrior spirit. In truth, I absolutely do not like the word "warrior", because we don't train to be warriors -- but we aspire to be "fighters" -- in the broadest context of the word. Not bashing other people's heads in, but learing to rise to life's challenges. You may never have to confront anyone in a real fight in your entire life. You may never make a career in a ring, on a battlefield, in a security detail, or on a big screen. But cultivating this spirit will bring benefits every day. Indeed this is what the lifetime practitioners of MAs name as their biggest reward and fulfillment from the studies.

*@ shihonage: Just like Aikido does not hold a monopoly on teaching awareness and spontaenity of response.

Paleocon wrote:

Then Wu Shu is probably the art for you! If you want to learn to do really, truly, cool-ass acrobatic shinizit, Wu Shu is the only way to go. It won't help you much in a fight, but you'll be super surprised at what you'll be able to get your body to do.

Or any Capoeira studio, most Olympic TKD dojangs, most NASKA-affiliated Karate dojos etc. These actually might be easier to find nearby than a Wu Shu school. Many schools place additional stress now on the "cool" and sports element of the studies, and teach acrobatic thumbling, weapons choreography etc. These things are tremendously fulfilling and fun to learn too. You're likely to see a younger crowd there, however.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Then Wu Shu is probably the art for you! If you want to learn to do really, truly, cool-ass acrobatic shinizit, Wu Shu is the only way to go. It won't help you much in a fight, but you'll be super surprised at what you'll be able to get your body to do.

Or any Capoeira studio, most Olympic TKD dojangs, most NASKA-affiliated Karate dojos etc. These actually might be easier to find nearby than a Wu Shu school. Many schools place additional stress now on the "cool" and sports element of the studies, and teach acrobatic thumbling, weapons choreography etc. These things are tremendously fulfilling and fun to learn too. You're likely to see a younger crowd there, however.

All true. Especially the part about the younger crowd, unfortunately. It appears to be a thin line between Wushu/Capoeira and Parkour/skateboarding.

*scratches head*

I think you just like being contrary paleocon. I'm not going to keep making the same point over and over.

Your examples are over-simplified and not entirely relevant.

The approach an individual should take when learning a new undertaking a new physical endeavor varies greatly. Depending on one's physical conditioning, experience, and attitude the same approach will not work for everyone.

There were many suggestions here telling the topic creator to jump into muay thai or BJJ or Aikido. That might well work for someone who wants to immediately start punching and kicking.

There is, however, an alternate approach that is more holistic. Starting with the basics of balance, body awareness, and focus.

When I do something I like to do it methodically and thoroughly. I like to make sure I have a good foundation instead of leap-frogging and trying to catch-up. This often lends itself to bad habits that, once learned, are very difficult to unlearn.

If someone is not used to lowering their center of gravity and breathing from the diaphragm then that is something that is important in the martial arts. It is not something that is gone over in great detail at most dojos, especially McDojos. A semester's worth of Tai Chi will help with that. Sure there would be benefit from yoga and pilates as well. It just seems that Tai Chi does a very good job as addressing the fundamentals of the physical and mental approach one should take towards combat.

You keep inserting this "mystical" nonsense into your arguments when nobody here is professing it. You're arguing that point with yourself.

At any rate this is belabouring the point. I never said that Tai Chi was the best or only way to approach learning the MA. It is simply an alternative that I think is beneficial.

You seem to know the "correct" way to go about it though so I will bow out to your obviously humble and non-partial opinion.

Osaki ni sh*tsurei shimasu.

~Taos

EDIT to 800lb Gorilla: I totally understand where you are coming from. I have repeatedly noted that for those who are out-of-shape or have had very little experience in sports or MA that Tai Chi is a low-impact, healthy way of getting your body on the right path. Your odds of injuring yourself due to poor conditioning or inexperience are far less in Tai Chi than in, say, Muay Thai or Tae Kwon Do.

If you really are so far out of conditioning that you can not participate in a beginning TKD class, I submit that a far more direct method of gaining that conditioning than Tai Chi would be an exercise bike.

Paleocon wrote:

If you really are so far out of conditioning that you can not participate in a beginning TKD class, I submit that a far more direct method of gaining that conditioning than Tai Chi would be an exercise bike.

Or walking to the kitchen.

I *am* responding late; I'm on business travel with limited access.

Your use of the phrase "best fighters I've seen" points otherwise. Either that, or you have a remarkable ability to be present during spontaneous real-life attacks that happen to a specific set of people you know

You're speaking mostly from the same experience yourself, unless you are a policeman or the like. However, full contact *can* be a decent evaluator, especially the kind that has the least limitations. I was trying to get away from the idea that all competition training is hampered by arbitrary rules and the like. Regardless, I've trained with people who have a lot of real-world experience, and I've seen a few fights, and I feel confident that I can make the call when I see people in controlled situations as to how experienced they are. I'm sure you could make similar judgements; after a while, that's a skill that is useful.

The overall point that I was making was that there are many schools that don't balance between hard and soft in actual training. I think that's necessary and lamentably is not often found.

[/quote]
Daito Ryu and its child arts are all based around creating openings for centered Karate-like strikes to vulnerable points. I do believe it is invaluable for an average Aikido practitioner to get a dose of outside experience, however unlike you, I believe in augmentation of the core skill, instead of trying to develop two separate sets of core skills.
[/quote]

You seem to be making make the argument that jujitsu incorporates hard techniques, and that Aikido has inherited some aspect of that. It does indeed, and I listed it as one of the styles that has more of a practical balance than others, in my opinion. However, I know that all Aikido styles have eliminated motion because it's too dangerous, or aggressive. There are a few lineages that will allow aggressive strikes as lures, but none that I've seen are willing to mix it up in the manner of a stand-up jujitsu style, or a Karate style. There's a gradient of hard motion in all these styles, with most Aikido being at the softer end overall - but not lacking entirely in hard motion, especially in finishing strikes, in some of the lineages. (In others even that's forbidden.)

They blend. A strike that was dodged can continue into a lock, a failed lock can shift into a strike. Often they're meant to, as linked failsafes, limiting possible range of opponent response. Such are principles of continuous motion, backed by base footwork coordinating power transfer to advantageous points. You can strike someone with your whole body, channeling your weight into say, your shoulder. A fusion of principles of the core art is much more beneficial to overall effectiveness, rather than developing it as two separate skillsets - "Aikido skill" and "striking skill".

I used the terms commonly used to distinguish between arts that concentrate on striking with power, and arts that concentrate on redirection, locking and grappling. the basis for my comment is that most arts have entries into disused motion that would allow it's practitioners access to an entirely different range of motion, but which have fallen into disuse for one reason or another. This is represented in some Aikido styles by the extremely stylized striking motions used as entries into various motions, for example, and in some Kung Fu styles by motion that is often described as "traditional but meaningless" or the like. But the fact remains that just as Jujitsu was a *part* of a classical training curriculum, and Kung Fu comprised both grappling and striking components, the *specialization* of the modern arts have caused areas outside the focus to erode and waste away.

I feel that when you say you need to work on "core skills" rather than learning both percussive and redirectional motion, you reflect this bias; you see everything through the filter of the circular redirection of momentum. That works for you, and it's good, but it does speak to what I'm talking about. Karate is not *primarily* circular, although it evolves into that and even has it's own locking and grappling systems. Shotokan is about rooting and power generation underlying technique. Jujitsu or Aikido is a great complement to that, and sword or other weapons work (with archery and horsemanship) round out the curriculum. But they don't all come from the same principles. Instead, they use their own paths to arrive at similar points - the use of both hard and soft, offensive and defensive motion blended together.

But if you believe that as an Aikidoka you have the striking power generation of a Karateka, you're wrong. That's where the student needs to be able to adapt to different approaches, different styles and the like, in order to enhance their own training and abilities. There's a world of difference between the use of hard power in a countering strike, and the ability to conduct a portion of the fight that way, and understand the related tactics, footwork, balance and techniques that can be expected of a hard stylist. The opposite applies too - even a skilled Karateka won't have access to most Aikido motion, or the related tactics, footwork, balance and techniques.

It's hard to find modern arts that have not specialized one part or another of their original curriculum out of the current teachings. How many jujitsu or Aikido schools *require* students to train in karate and sword arts simultaneously? That would be a monstrous commitment of time, but it would reflect a much larger spectrum of experience and technique for the student to work with. That is part of the set of arts that would have been learned together back when this stuff was save-your-butt live motion.

We don't need that now and we have by default specialized. The history of Aikido is actually a good example of this specialization in action.

That's why I resent the typecasting of arts being "soft or hard", as it is a binary, simplistic model. When you're hit with concrete, a pool stick mangles your ribcage, or your shoulder gets popped, there's nothing soft about it. Cutting motion is at core of Aikido, channeled with proper power and leverage, through a weapon or emptyhand, and it can manifest as a strike, interception, or a throw, or all at once to varying degree.

Blatant misunderstanding of "soft" notwithstanding, it turns out you advocate the use of "hard" power with "soft" - which was exactly my point in the first place. I appreciate you were not trying to be dismissive, but you're certainly trying hard to show that I'm wrong, while making the same point that I did - don't ignore the soft *or* the hard, don't get wrapped up in one approach over the other.

Bear in mind that "hard" and "soft" are also a standard abbreviation for the yin and yang concepts. It's not a modern gloss on styles, it's something that goes deeply into the Chinese arts, and thus it underlies the Japanese as well. Put that way, my point is that it's a bad idea to become too specialized in the yin or the yang of styles, yet that's common these days from what I've seen. But don't dismiss my argument because I used a set of common terms we all are familiar with.

Does that help clarify what I'm trying to say?

How did the tables break on this page ?

Robear wrote:

You're speaking mostly from the same experience yourself, unless you are a policeman or the like.

I'm not a policemen or a tough guy, but I've had a fair share of fights in Russia and a couple here. I've had multiple black eyes, been kicked in the balls, punched in the breather, hook punched, sucker punched, tackled, mounted and punched, and finally, attacked by a gang. I have an idea of reality mechanics, and I also see that Aikido suits perfectly to deal with attacks from most people who aren't competitive athletes (i.e. 99% or so of the population), in conditions that aren't the ring.

I also know two policemen who regularly use Aikido restrain techniques at their job, and one former Russian amateur boxer, who used to get into a lot of fights (of which his face bears witness), is now 44, caught on to Aikido really fast, and swears by its street effectiveness.

At this point, after having studied Aikido for a few years, I've only dealt with a punching attack from a hobo, which was entirely effortless, so I'm afraid the filmed evidence of my defeating a chopper-full of ninjas is still pending

I was trying to get away from the idea that all competition training is hampered by arbitrary rules and the like.

I was being very precise in my examples, and this summary is rather dismissive. You may deny those factors but they're still there.

All I can add at this point is that my experiences with real-life attacks were very different from my experiences of sparring with a Judoka, a boxer and a Wing Chun practitioner in ring-like environments, for many, if not all, of the reasons I outlined in detail in previous posts.

I feel that when you say you need to work on "core skills" rather than learning both percussive and redirectional motion, you reflect this bias; you see everything through the filter of the circular redirection of momentum.

That's also the kind of typecasting I am talking about. Not to imply that that's _you_, but circular motion is a view of Aikido common for someone who went to a dojo for a year or two and watched some Youtube videos.

I'm sorry. It is impractical to count on being able to just "use someone's momentum in a circular motion". These are the common words coming from the mouths of Aikido neophytes, and they're, sadly, infectious, as they appeal to easygoing hippies everywhere.

Aikido is cutting. Circular motion is a visual byproduct of some Aikido scenarios, where the practitioner may not be TRYING to be circular at all. They may be triangular, they may be in form of direct entry, a slightly curved line, or other forms. But it starts with cutting.

To make a gross oversimplification of an example - if you come to a carousel in a playground, and push it, the carousel will start rotating. Your motion, however, was a straight line.

It's hard to find modern arts that have not specialized one part or another of their original curriculum out of the current teachings. How many jujitsu or Aikido schools *require* students to train in karate and sword arts simultaneously? That would be a monstrous commitment of time, but it would reflect a much larger spectrum of experience and technique for the student to work with. That is part of the set of arts that would have been learned together back when this stuff was save-your-butt live motion.

We don't need that now and we have by default specialized. The history of Aikido is actually a good example of this specialization in action.

The martial goal of Aikido is to teach the practitioner to generate a save-your-butt-live-motion.

As I said earlier, outside experience is invaluable for an Aikido practitioner. I would even say, mandatory. Still, it should serve best to be integrated into the art, to fill out the gaps that are implied but not taught, until at least high levels, in most dojos.

No, an Aikidoka will never punch as strong as Karateka (even though many practice a subset of sword and stick arts). I've visited a Goju Ryu Karate school, I've seen how they punch. That is not the point. The point is to be familiar with the mechanics enough to make the rest of the art's game work. I've seen TKD throws and locks, too. They're not as refined as Aikido, but they're there to close what otherwise would be obvious gaps.

======

It seems that you're talking more about the practitioners, while I am talking more about how I see the art. Yes, the modern teaching methods of Aikido encourage seeking some homework outside, if one wants to deal with more than a hobo or a drunkard in a bar (and one can understand if many people settle for just that). But that homework is merely an extension and augmentation of existing Aikido principles. It fits in there perfectly, be it through shortening Aikido interceptions or inserting strikes into the existing openings.

===

In the end, I think, you and I will always disagree on how we see the "dichotomy", and these large posts take a lot of my time, so while I came back to this thread to address your late reply, I'm bowing out for good now. Others may or may not look at this exchange and make up their own minds.

Paleocon wrote:

where is the proof it is any more efficacious than Pilates, Yoga, or ballroom dancing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrYlN...

Thanks for your thoughts Shihonage, I think we both expressed our positions pretty clearly.

I started Taekwondo at age 63, got my black belt at age 68, and made second dan at age 69. Spent my 69th year also attending Iaido classes. Now, at 70, I just got certified as a personal trainer and have begun tai chi classes.
If I had it to do over, I think I would start with tai chi, move on to kungfu, and maybe follow up with Taekwondo, because tai chi provides a foundation for everything else.

The best martial artists in all my Taekwondo classes were in their 30's. Great time to start; just don't ever stop. Stay in great shape to be able to enjoy a long life.

Joanmarie wins the thread.

I would pick up a few books on the focus of each martial art you are considering. Read them and figure out what would fit you best personally . For a book I would recommend Angry White Pajamas by Robert Twigger.

"Angry White Pajamas" describes a unique instance of Aikido-based training aimed at Tokyo Riot Police, condensed to make them reach black belt in 1 year. The training forced on everyone is mercilessly intense, to the point of human right violations. The instructors are rude, ego-driven and break people's arms "to make a point". The students are expected to carry on with visible injuries until they pass out on the mat.

I'd keep that book very far away from someone who actually wants to get a fair idea about either Aikido, or what they'll encounter in an actual Aikido school.

The book's cover is actually oddly representative of its level of Aikido authenticity. It depicts a Tae Kwon Do flying kick.

Is it a good read overall?

A couple of old friends of mine used to take yoshikai (I've gotta be misspelling that) karate and they always tried to get me to join up as well. I sat in and observed a few classes but never participated. The instructors were a bit too hardcore for my tastes. I guess the big sign over the door that said "The more you bleed in here, the less you bleed on the streets." should've tipped me off. They would whack bruises onto people with canes to get them to hold certain forms properly. While having them do situps and leglifts the instructors would walk across the abdomens of the students giving a good stomp here and there. Oh, and at the end of every class they would have full-contact sparring in which, over 3 classes, I saw my friend get his jaw broken which had to be wired shut, another guy had his arms dislocated and some girl had her leg broken.
Places like that are what I'm trying to avoid. My friends thought it was great because they started to feel like badasses after taking these classes, and one of them started acting like a complete jerk because of it. But for me, I just wanted to enjoy myself and have fun while learning an art. Maybe if I was planning on going out into the dark alleys of my streets and playing Batman I'd be more into it, but the closest I get to fights is with angry people on a phone.

Kehama wrote:

A couple of old friends of mine used to take yoshikai (I've gotta be misspelling that) karate and they always tried to get me to join up as well. I sat in and observed a few classes but never participated. The instructors were a bit too hardcore for my tastes. I guess the big sign over the door that said "The more you bleed in here, the less you bleed on the streets." should've tipped me off. They would whack bruises onto people with canes to get them to hold certain forms properly. While having them do situps and leglifts the instructors would walk across the abdomens of the students giving a good stomp here and there. Oh, and at the end of every class they would have full-contact sparring in which, over 3 classes, I saw my friend get his jaw broken which had to be wired shut, another guy had his arms dislocated and some girl had her leg broken.
Places like that are what I'm trying to avoid. My friends thought it was great because they started to feel like badasses after taking these classes, and one of them started acting like a complete jerk because of it. But for me, I just wanted to enjoy myself and have fun while learning an art. Maybe if I was planning on going out into the dark alleys of my streets and playing Batman I'd be more into it, but the closest I get to fights is with angry people on a phone.

I actually find this sort of "training" extremely counterproductive.

If you're really looking to get good at fighting, possibly the most detrimental thing to do is to rush someone into full speed sparring as quickly as possible. Sure, the will learn to take hits and may actually learn to return them, but without a foundation of conditioning and understanding, they also pick up a whole lot of baggage.

It's generally my experience that schools like that have one or two superstar bullies, a bunch of beaten down beginners (that cycle in and out in 2-3 month terms), and a scad of really mediocre fighters with serious chips on their shoulders. I've seen this in practically every martial art form as well. In grappling classes, when the "superstars" can be bothered to work out with anyone but themselves, they ALWAYS get you to tap out. You learn nothing and neither do they.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Is it a good read overall?

If you're looking to read about some guy's "xtreme" experience in Japan, with a degree of humor, then yes. If you want to learn anything about martial arts, no.

I read the book for the story of a man searching for a martial art while he studied in Japan. He was a teacher and his friends take the standard Aikido classes while he self-admittedly throws himself into the insane Tokyo Riot Police class. A great entertaining book.

Resurrecting a pretty old thread...

I've been reading with much interest. Thanks to everyone who's provided input in this thread so far. I've always wanted to get involved in a martial art, but something (usually lack of time, motivation, and/or $) always conspired to prevent that from happening. Now at 42, after just landing a new job that has me sitting on my ass for most of the day, i've determined I'm going to pursue something while also getting a personal trainer to get my ass generally back in gear. All things considered I'm actually in decent shape, having played basketball, baseball, and tennis growing up and into my adult life in addition to far-too-occasional stints at the gym, but the abovementioned job and getting sick far too often this year have really done a number on my fitness (relative to what I've been accustomed to).

More later... gotta start the long commute home.

Jow wrote:

Resurrecting a pretty old thread...

I've been reading with much interest. Thanks to everyone who's provided input in this thread so far. I've always wanted to get involved in a martial art, but something (usually lack of time, motivation, and/or $) always conspired to prevent that from happening. Now at 42, after just landing a new job that has me sitting on my ass for most of the day, i've determined I'm going to pursue something while also getting a personal trainer to get my ass generally back in gear. All things considered I'm actually in decent shape, having played basketball, baseball, and tennis growing up and into my adult life in addition to far-too-occasional stints at the gym, but the abovementioned job and getting sick far too often this year have really done a number on my fitness (relative to what I've been accustomed to).

More later... gotta start the long commute home.

I have to admit, I kind of want to get into Kung Fu. I'm not really an "older guy", but I'm certainly not as fit as I was a few years back. This desire, however, mostly stems from Kung Fu Panda and that makes me feel silly about it.