The following guest post may have been submitted by amateur mixed martialist Manny St. Pierre, as a response to the new International Taiji Community Cookbook, with its sales proceeds financing the International Taiji Park in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

The holiday season is upon us again, and the time has come to prepare delicious meals for friends and family. Try my powerhouse recipes, and you’re sure to win any Ultimate Feasting Competition…

The Turkey Whizzer

Step 1: Purchase a frozen turkey from your favorite MMA gear supplier. (If they are sold out, you can buy one at the grocery store, and use a magic marker to write Tapout or Affliction on the side. Trust me, everyone will be impressed.)

Step 2: Remove the plastic wrapping. This is an important step!

Step 3: Cut the frozen turkey into quarters.

Step 4: Microwave each quarter for ten minutes on the medium-low setting.

Step 5: Drizzle with melted butter and salt to taste.

Believe it or not, some people still follow that useless tradition, of spending hours upon hours baking their turkey in a convection oven. When are they going to wake up? It shouldn’t take that long to do it, people. Let go of your fairy tales.

Microwaving your turkey is what we insiders call a “high-percentage cooking technique.” But even the most succulent turkey dinner can be a little boring without side dishes, so why not whip up a batch of…

Proven Mashed Potatoes (serves 6 persons, or 2 Lesnars)

Ingredients:

• 6 large potatoes
• 3/4 cup Slim Jims, finely diced
• One handful of mini marshmallows
• Sour cream
• A pinch of Mrs. Dash seasoning (optional)

Each of these single ingredients has been proven delicious in numerous televised events. Mixing them all together? Two words: culinary masterpiece. It’s a foregone conclusion!

How you combine them is irrelevant–but we recommend a pressure cooker, because everything needs to be tested under pressure.

Of course, no holiday meal is complete without dessert…

Innovative Apple Pie

Some buddies and I were hanging out after class last week, and we had this awesome idea. Why not create a pie with apples inside of it?

At first, none of us could understand why this idea hadn’t been invented yet. It’s so obvious when you think about it! But that is the problem with traditional cooks–they only know how to follow old recipes, and they never start thinking for themselves.

Anyway, this is how you make our apple pie. First, you buy a cherry pie. Then you carefully cut off the top, scrape out the cherry filling, and put some good apple slices in there. Only use the best quality apples, because 90% of them fall to the ground and get bitten by worms and stuff. Put the crust back on, serve and enjoy.

You can use this recipe, but don’t take the credit for inventing it. We did that all by ourselves last week.

Follow these modern recipes, and you’ll never submit to hunger. Happy Thanksgiving!

First reported by KOMO News:

Phoenix Jones is a superhero.

He has a day job but wears a costume underneath his street clothes in case he encounters crime. He carries a “net gun” and has a sidekick named Buster Doe.

But this isn’t the plot from a Hollywood movie. There are no special effects. This is real-life and Phoenix patrols Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood every week- stopping fights, feeding the homeless and helping folks who have run out of gas.

“Everyone on my team either has a military background or a mixed martial arts background, and we’re well aware of what it costs to do what we do.”

Phoenix Jones says he wanted to become a superhero after a few incidents changed his mind about Seattle.

The first involved a friend getting assaulted outside a bar. The friend was left with permanent facial damage.

“And I thought, why didn’t someone help him? There were seventy people outside that bar and no one did anything,” he said.

The second incident was when someone broke into his car and his son was injured by the broken glass. His son had to spend the night in the ER and get stitches. He was later told that several people saw the break-in happen, but didn’t do anything.

Phoenix said, “Teenagers are running down the street, breaking into cars, and no one does anything? Where’s the personal accountability?”

Phoenix Jones Facebook update: “HAD A CRAZY DAY…I WENT TO A POLICE STATION IN MY SUPERSUIT AND ATE LUNCH WITH THE COMMISH OF POLICE. WE TALKED ABOUT CRIME AND HOW PEOPLE LIKE ME COULD HELP AND ENDED WITH HIM ASKING IF HE COULD TRY MY CAPE ON HSAHAHA.”

Phoenix decided he would be different than all of those people who just stood by, not helping.

He began stepping into fights and helping people in need. But soon, he was getting recognized across town as ‘the guy who stops fights.’ He realized he was putting himself in danger.

“They’d recognize me and pick me out. I couldn’t do regular, every-day things anymore. So I started wearing the mask,” he said…

Selected comments from other forums…

chicago expat says:

frakkin’ unbelievable

I especially liked this outcome of their good deeds:
“The ‘costume-wearing complainants’ refused to press charges because they didn’t want to identify themselves to officers, Kappel said.”

So the violent suspect walked, because they want to remain unknown, masked vigilantes. Just like the Ku Klux Klan

seattledowntown says:

When you get saved by some nerd in blue tights driving his godmother’s Kia, you can pretty much hang up your hat and go home. Its pretty much all downhill from there.

messager says:

This would usually disturb me, but these people could be no worse than our present police force. They probably have higher ethical standards.

Mr. Ravenblade says:

Additionally, a lot of the Top Respected Members of the RLSH community that has existed for years without you – both in Seattle and internationally around the world – are not happy at some of your actions, and the claims of affiliation that you have made that have in turn damaged our collective reputations. We have worked hard to earn our reputations, so it is understandable that we are protective of them as they allow us to do greater good in the community and allow greater opportunities for us to make a difference and do good works that actively help the world become a better place.

The fact is you have publicly claimed to be one of us – A member of the Real Life Super Hero Community – means you have taken it on yourself to be bound to the many duties of being a RLSH that you have not been fulfilling. And RLSH is not a title you give yourself, it is a title you Earn and am given by the community you have claimed to be a part of. Technically the real title you have is “HIT” (Hero in training) or even “Super Hero In Training” (No offense intended by the acronym that creates)…

evil twin says:

i guess they werent satisfied with regulating the world of martial arts online. now bullshido is running street patrols too?

Lykos says:

I think it’s nice to at least see some citizens stepping up and trying to do something against the thugs, and from the article it sounds like some of the ways they help are actually pretty practical when you really look at it. Good for them for doing what they can with a little style. Better than the thousands of other people that just walk by and try to ignore crime and injustice.

Regarding Phoenix Jones’ recent citizen’s arrest of skinhead gang members, Blue Rlsh says:

Thats not cool! Is it possible to use diplomacy [instead]?

What do you think?

“Sir, I Demand Satisfaction!”

Turning on any television show based on small claims court a person is bound to hear some variant of that title, many times in a much less polite form. Sitting in a small claims court, or any civil court for that matter, a person is bound to hear some variant of that title phrase. Yet, in many representations of historical duels, those words are commonly found. Conflict seems to underscore our society and the phrase, “I’ll see you in court,” has almost seemed to reach the status of a common greeting. This could give someone cause to wonder that wouldn’t it be simpler and possibly more effective to just have the disputing parties put on gloves and go the proverbial twelve rounds rather than tie up the court with expensive and needless litigation. This lead this writer to the posting of the question, Should dueling (non-firearm) be legalized to replace some civil lawsuits?

A professional martial artist of this author’s acquaintance, Sifu Bill Phillips of NYC’s Patience Tai Chi, replied, “I was hoping we were becoming more civilized than that. I would like to see a world with less fighting, less lawsuits, and more quiet discussions. (I thought lawsuits replaced the duel.)”

Douglas Yarn, Associate Professor of Law at Georgia State University and Executive Director of the Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, observes:

Litigation can be seen as a form of dueling. Both litigation and dueling are methods of resolving disputes. Moreover, the sequence of events in both processes is similar. The filing of a formal complaint to initiate civil action is equivalent to issuing a formal challenge to duel. The responsive pleading is the formal reply of the party receiving the challenge. The courtroom is the dueling ground, the rules of civil procedure governing the trial are the terms of engagement, and the trial is the “combat” analogous to the duel itself. (Given the nature of much modern litigation, it may not be an exaggeration to describe it as a form of trial by combat.) (Yarn 16)

Attorneys are advertising themselves as “The Heavy Hitter” (Isaacs), “The Kentucky Hammer” (Isaacs), or promoting their experience as ring fighters (Winton). Such advertisements make litigation sound like combat and civil court the battleground. This seems closer to a street fight than not or why else would a person want a four time all-American Boxer and former national kickboxing champion (Winton) to represent them.

It can be asked that:

What is the acceptable degree of zealous behavior? This concept can be abused when used to justify the extremely hostile, hyper-competitive adversary behavior commonly caricatured as the “Rambo Litigator.” In this extreme form, the zealous advocate stops at nothing in dogged pursuit of victory for the client. Such a lawyer does not necessarily violate the law and ethical standards but simply seeks to win regardless of the economic and non-economic costs. Additionally, the zealous advocate ignores civility or violates non-obligatory professional norms requiring compromise or concessions or that imply weakness in the client’s cause. (Yarn 2)

Is such behavior in litigation really more civilized than the duels of the 19th century? Compared to such behavior from legal counsel, an unrestrained bar brawl might actually seem preferable. To be honest, one might actually have the better odds of winning in the melee. “As in dueling, the outcome of a trial may not favor the aggrieved party, nor may it reflect the actual facts underlying the dispute” (Yarn 16). Indeed, many hold the famous 1992 McDonalds’ coffee lawsuit as a prime example of the result of a civil lawsuit not reflecting the facts of case, although as with many examples of litigation not all the information was released to the public (” ‘Lectric Law Library”).

Indeed, the United States has become a very litigious society. In 2007, approximately 18 million civil cases were reported by state courts (LaFountain et al 1). Contract and small claims monetary disputes make the majority of these cases (LaFountain et al 1). That this actually represents an increase in civil litigation is subject to debate as different sources report varying claims. Some report an increase (LaFountain et al 1) and others report little change (Jost 1037). Small claims civil cases typically have very small awards, under $1500 in the Commonwealth of Kentucky (“Small Claims Handbook” 2).

Since, “Many states are struggling to clear their civil caseloads, possibly as a result of increased contract filings and tightening resources” (LaFountain et al 1). It might benefit modern society if an alternative method could be found that would take some of these cases out of the overwhelmed courts and settle them in another manner. With adversarial and predatory attorneys twisting civil law towards their own ends, what recourse apart from the courts does a person have?

And just as modern law can be twisted to benefit the unjust, so too could the law during the Viking Age. However, during that time there was a way in Iceland and Norway for a litigant to achieve the justice sought by a faster route than a suit. Anyone could challenge his opponent to a duel called a holmganga. (Matson, “Holmgang Part One”)

That is correct, dueling. The famous Japanese swordsman and philosopher, Miyamoto Musashi stated, “It is by virtue of the sword that both society and oneself are put in order” (52.) Small claims cases are over small amounts of money, and contract disputes run the gamut from serious economic issues, to wording disagreements, to disagreements about whether or not a contract existed in the first place. Therefore, in any case where there is not clear injury to one side, the litigants may be better off by marking out a ring and fighting it out.

Now, this suggestion does not mean that folks should start brawling in the streets with fists, knives, and guns at the slightest perceived insult. Before, the cry of “how barbaric” escapes unbelieving mouths, an understanding of what exactly historical dueling entailed might be in order.

Douglas Yarn shows the most common image of a duel, in the minds of many, in an article about the professional ethical conflicts attorneys face. “Two men, with their backs to each other and observed only by their solemn seconds, walk ten paces, turn, aim, and fire. One or both fall dead or are mortally wounded” (6). Yet, society has become more civilized than the society of previous times when dueling was commonplace, has it not?

“Surprisingly, dueling was a recognized form of extra-judicial dispute resolution sharing some of the same objectives as modern ADR [alternative dispute resolution] – to avoid the courts, contain violence, and promote reconciliation” (Yarn 6). Readers of this tract may very well be asking themselves how the formalized combat of a duel could possibly contain violence.

The answer is simply that duels were never thought of as matters to be undertaken lightly. The 15th Century Fechtmeister (fight master) Hans Talhoffer writes that there are only seven reasons for calling a duel:

Yet, firstly this – Nobody is happy when one of his comrades cuts up his honour [sic] with loud words. He who have at dueling with such a comrade, indeed he is within his rights and may well-fight him if he would. Thus dueling is wantonness ~
Now those aforesaid causes and articles are seven, wherefor [sic] a man has duty to fight:
Thus the first is murder.
The second is treason.
The third is heresy.
The fourth is becoming an urger [sic] of disloyalty to one’s lord.
The fifth is betrayal in strife or otherwise.
The sixth is falsehood.
The seventh is using either a maiden or lady. (Hull 8r)

In modern times, that list would differ, as some of the reasons mentioned by Talhoffer are criminal acts. However, it can be seen that dueling was not a light undertaking, even in the supposedly unenlightened society of the 15th century. The more modern “Code Duello” adopted in the 18th century (“Code Duello”) which does allow for dueling over insult has as its first rule, “The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult” (“Code Duello”). This requirement of apology before proceeding certainly does not sound like the image of dueling mentioned earlier in this writing.

Many people do not realize that dueling is not brawling. In the days of dueling, one could not just pick up weapons at the spur of the moment and go after someone’s blood. Even in Viking times, “Almost all duels were to be fought three to seven days after the challenge” (Matson, “Holmgang Part Two”). In the 19th century, “Dueling traditions discouraged parties from acting in the heat of passion by prohibiting challenges in immediate reaction to a perceived insult and before the offended party had sought advice and politely requested an acceptable explanation or apology, known as an amende honorable” (Yarn 7).

A good example of this difference in modern times actually comes from the actions of a five-year-old child. Now, during one of my son’s Taekwondo classes, an older child (who shall henceforth be known as nameless brat) spent a good portion of that class calling my son, “baby.” For readers unfamiliar with the social mechanics of young boys, them’s fighten’ words, to use the common slang. My son did hold his temper during class and did not let his increasing anger about the name-calling distract him over much. However, when we were leaving class and walking home my son said, “I want to spar nameless brat. I want to punch him and knock him down when we spar.” This was not my child asking permission to fight another child, which would have been assault. This was my child seeking redress for a grievance, since what the other child did legally constitutes harassment, “the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands” (Law.com).

Grown adults may have well brought this issue to litigation. Instead, the five-year-old wanted to join in a formal physical confrontation with rules, limits, safety considerations, and under the watchful eye of trained professionals. Had the sparring match actually happened, it would have been a contest of Olympic Sport Taekwondo. This is a bit different from a street brawl or playground fight.

Some of history’s famous duels, notably the Lincoln-Shields duel, the Dooly-Tait duel, the Jones-Gardner duel, and the Adams-Richards duel were all conflicts that were actually avoided before reaching, or just after reaching the point of combat (Yarn 10-16). How was this done? The conflicts in these duels were arbitrated by the “Seconds” of the dueling parties (Yarn 10-16). The dueling seconds were friends of the disputing parties in a duel. The job of the seconds was to “conciliate by using his personal skills to restrain his principal [the duelist], defuse anger, lower levels of hostility, and reframe perceptions” (Yarn 15).

Many litigants in civil cases would benefit from such oversight that ensures attempts at reconciliation before continuing further. It is this writer’s opinion that, many civil litigation cases to include some types of personal contract disputes, some cases of harassment (personal, non-terroristic, non-sexual, and with no economic damages) could be more effectively settled by the plaintiff and defendant fighting in a formal sport combat than by tying up the legal system. To make this all nice and legal would be litigants should go through Professional Dueling Seconds. These professionals should be trained in martial arts, inter-personal conflict resolution, and legal arbitration.

The job of these professionals would be: primarily, to determine if the dispute is something that could be decided by a duel; secondly, to seek equitable resolution between the disputing parties; lastly, to ensure that the combat is carried out so that neither party has uneven advantage over the other even if it would mean the second fighting in place of one or both of the disputants.

These professionals could be trained with less schooling than is required for a legal degree. While I am not using the term Martial Arts to apply exclusively to Asian martial arts, the Asian martial arts can be looked at as representative in terms of training time. “The community consensus seems to be that a black belt should take about 5 years to earn” (Martial Development). This could be done concurrently with the other training in arbitration, and inter-personal conflict resolution. These new Professional Seconds could be finished with training and entering the workforce with only the expense of a bachelor degree. This should help hold expense down, as these persons would not have costly educational debts to recover from, at least not as costly as a law degree. Lower expense would open this method of dispute resolution to many who feel they would not be able to afford the court costs associated with a legal suit, and fees could be recovered from the losing party.

Going through such professionals would help eliminate unfair advantage between combatants, as would happen with an elderly woman and young construction contractor challenging each other. It would be the job of the second to fight for the disadvantaged party; the other party would have the option of either fighting themselves or also being represented by the second.

Non-lethal forms of combat can be used such as boxing, wrestling, mixed martial arts, fencing, or even arm wrestling. (This writer prefers fencing with wooden sword under the rules of the Traditional Chinese Sword League, but that is because this writer practices Tai chi and Tai Chi swordsmanship.) It is no secret that shows like WWE Raw and UFC fighting consistently score high ratings. Legal dueling could even be made into a public event with paid sponsorship generating an entire industry. Moreover, such a system could keep the court system clear so that other legal actions could be accomplished more swiftly.

Yarn comments that:

On the surface, dueling was a violent, archaic ritual that relied on seemingly irrational social conventions that are almost impossible to imagine today. Under the surface, it was a very rational method of managing disputes in an elite society lacking acceptable alternatives to unrestrained violence. Similarly, litigation appears to be a costly, archaic ritual often relying on seemingly irrational social conventions that may be impossible for some future generation to imagine. (22)

Perhaps, the solution to this dilemma is to bring back the duel but updated for the modern age.

If you don’t know the answer to any of these questions, you are welcome to look it up first, either online or offline. That’s not cheating, folks–it’s research!

1. Which martial art is said to have been transmitted to its founder in a dream?
2. Which martial art was originally taught and/or practiced by criminals?
3. Which martial art was created specifically for theatrical performance?
4. Which martial art was designed to prepare a student’s mind and body for spiritual cultivation?
5. Which martial art attempts to use an attacker’s own strength against them?
6. Which martial art was developed to restore the national and cultural pride of a subjugated population?
7. Which martial art’s practices are camouflaged within the movement of dance?
8. In which martial art were the deadliest and most dangerous techniques intentionally removed, so that the remainder could be safely trained at a higher intensity?
9. Which empty-handed martial art is actually used in modern warfare?
10. Which martial art is never practiced without a weapon in hand?
11. Which martial art draws its principles and techniques from among the best of older arts, while discarding the stale and useless aspects of those same arts?
12. Which martial art famously restored the failing health of its own master(s)?
13. Which martial art is best practiced alone?

Official Contest Rules

Answer as many questions as you wish, either in a comment below, or on your own blog. You may answer the questions in detail, or if you prefer, simply provide the name(s) of the martial art(s). All those who answer five or more questions–correctly or not–will become eligible for a special prize!

On September 17, I will randomly select one eligible entry to win a free copy of the Best Hands for MMA Volume 1 DVD, by Fwape*. Fwape is dedicated to the preservation and dissemination of 52 Blocks (a.k.a. Jailhouse Rock, or “dirty boxing”), “in light of its cultural importance and its potential to steer African-American men to more positive futures.” (Women and non-African-Americans can practice 52 Blocks too–I think?)

All those who can answer ten or more questions, are invited to pose one additional question of their own.

Good luck and have fun!

September 18 Update: The prize has been awarded–but you may still take the quiz.

• The inaugural Crossing The Pond Martial Expo was held last weekend in West Seattle. This seminar brought together five six well-known and highly skilled instructors of martial arts and self-defense from across the United States and United Kingdom.
• Over the weekend, two one-hour workshops were held by instructors Al Peasland, Nicholas Yang, Kris Wilder, Rory Miller, Marc “Animal” MacYoung, and Iain “Tuna Fish Pizza” Abernethy.
• Approximately thirty-five people were in attendance. Among the students, at least one third appeared to be black belts and/or instructors themselves.
• Participants were open-minded, polite, and patient–especially with this author, who hadn’t done any Karate training since elementary school. Egoism, inappropriate competition, and input from self-declared “assistant instructors” was minimal. This is a credit to the affable seminar host, Kris Wilder, and the other teachers as well, who together set the right tone for the event.

Al Peasland on Crossing The Pond

• Each instructor taught from their own background, first introducing concepts and principles, and then a set of simple partner exercises to instill and explore their application. To the extent that the seminar had an overall theme, it was on applying traditional martial arts for real-world self-defense.
• Due to the diverse backgrounds of the attendees, and the limited amount of time available to each instructor, only basic techniques were taught. It was not a time for gathering new material, so much as reviewing old material from new perspectives and with new players.
• Whether by design or coincidence, most of the sections related to, and built upon each other. Still, I think the expo would have benefited from tighter coordination between the instructors, on which problems (e.g. developing power, interpreting kata, dealing with multiple attackers) they would individually or jointly address.
• Under my gold standard for martial arts seminars, each instructor spends a few minutes with each student: not only observing and correcting, but also interacting with them. This is how martial skills are most clearly transmitted, and by this measure the expo was a little disappointing. Sure, I was choked by Al, and Kris punched me a few times at my request, but I didn’t get twisted up by Nicholas, and Rory never hit me with a folding chair. Maybe next time.
• Under my platinum standard for martial arts seminars, the lectures and demonstrations are professionally filmed, and students have the option of buying the DVD afterwards, either for review or as a memento. A nice compromise would be to make some video clips available online, either on YouTube or a private website.

Iain Abernathy on Crossing The Pond

From my notes, here are a few of the central lessons taught by each instructor.

Iain Abernethy

1. Karate is not an art for fighting a single opponent (in the manner of a contest or a duel). It is an art for defending yourself against ruffians.
2. For self-defense, forget about inflicting pain and go for the knockout. If you are holding an opponent’s head, don’t grasp it so tightly that you support their skull and brain (thus preventing a knockout).
3. Stances are not meant to be held during an altercation. Move in and out of them as appropriate.

Kris Wilder

1. If a stranger threatens you, it is safe to assume they have fighting experience or some other hidden advantage, and they expect to win. Do not ignore the basis of their assumption.
2. Never enter a fair fight if you have any choice in the matter. If you can’t escape, then cheat early and often.
3. Spiraling force is more effective than linear force, and punching the body is less effective than punching the mind.

Nicholas Yang

1. Physical conditioning is extremely important. Learning techniques is a waste of time if you aren’t conditioned to apply them well.
2. A fight is like a dance: one person leads and another person follows. It is advantageous to lead.
3. In the real world, nobody ever leaves their limb hanging out after an attempt to strike. Make use of the time and the space created when they draw back.

Al Peasland

1. A fight is like a discussion. Someone else may start the conversation, but you should quickly turn it into a monologue.
2. There are two ways to deal with a threat. First, to appear even more dangerous yourself, such that they don’t want to take the risk of bothering you. Second, to immediately take a submissive pose, such that they become relaxed. Their relaxation will create an opportunity for surprise attack.
3. It is important to have a variety of working tools in your toolbox. It is also important to have one or two favorites, such as a rear naked choke, that you can apply successfully without thinking.

Rory Miller and Marc MacYoung

1. If a train is coming at you, there is no benefit in backing up. You have to actually step off the tracks.
2. Every violent assault is conducted according to a set of rules. It is a mistake to pretend there are no rules. The first goal is to identify the rules, and to know which are immutable, and which can be rewritten or broken.
3. The ideal movement does not just avoid damage, or inflict damage, or improve your position for follow-up action. It does all of these things simultaneously.

I am pleased to note that many of the expo teaching topics have already been discussed on this blog. Others will be reviewed in the near future.
In My Dojo, Cheaters And Failures Are Welcome
Defend Yourself the Taoist Way
Why Wing Chun Punches Never Miss
If Street Fights Were More Like Final Fight…
Xingyi And The Myth of The Defensive Martial Art
The Unwritten Rules of Mixed Martial Arts
9 Famous Artists’ Quotations on Martial Arts
I Challenge Kimbo Slice to a Fair Fight
Are You Fit Enough to Fight?
How to Discover The Purpose of Your Kata
Martial Arts of Addition and Subtraction
Movement, Martial Arts, and Man-in-the-Middle Attacks

Crossing The Pond Martial Expo 2010 will be repeated this weekend in Coventry, England. To register, visit their website. Whether you can make this one or not, I would be interested in hearing about the best and worst aspects of seminars that you have attended in the past.

After Springfield’s men become obsessed with Ultimate Fighting Ultimate Punching events, Marge steps into the Octagon Septagon to battle the sport’s charismatic founder.

Years before The Ultimate Fighter and pay-per-view MMA specials, talk-show host Jerry Springer pioneered “reality” fighting entertainment.

While Jerry Springer’s talk show environment is obviously somewhat contrived, his guests’ fighting technique is in other respects spontaneous and natural. So how do the lessons taught in the average martial arts dojo compare to combat performances on Jerry Springer?

Dojo Fantasy: There are no rules in a real fight.
Jerry Springer Reality: Violence is a form of communication.
Analysis: Most animals naturally distinguish between fighting and killing. The purpose of fighting is not to maim or kill the opponent, but to establish a social hierarchy. Understanding this distinction is crucial for successful self-defense.

Jerry’s guests know they are playing a game: they pull their punches, and sometimes even smile and laugh during one of their pre-arranged scuffles. This is not to say such grudge matches are completely safe; however, failing to honor the unspoken rules of limited engagement can result in severe punishment, from the other principals, the crowd of observers, and society at large.

Dojo Fantasy: A fight consists of a series of offensive and defensive techniques, executed in turn.
Jerry Springer Reality: Everybody attacks, all at once.
Analysis: The best defense is to attack the opponent’s potential, whereas the worst defense is to resist the opponent’s attack. In this respect, Jerry’s brawlers show more intelligence than the average dojo strategist.

You rarely see guests attempt to block a punch or kick. Instead, they tend to stand far enough away that blows cannot reach them, while waiting for an opportune time to rush in for a clinch. While inside, they manhandle each other for a few seconds, waiting for the bodyguards break it up. Finally, they repeat the entire sequence again, and then go to commercial break.

Dojo Fantasy: A fight starts and ends with two participants.
Jerry Springer Reality: If you stand (or lay) still for even one moment, you will be surrounded, and you will be finished.
Analysis: Despite the constant guests’ constant squabbling, serious injuries appear to be rare. This must be in part due to the show’s large and ever-present security team.

After the producers encourage and facilitate each fight, the security team is expected to allow it, and then stop to it before it gets too ugly. And at this task, they are remarkably effective. Two or three security guards surround each of the freak show fighters, and pull them apart.

The take-away lesson is that you should never walk down the street without a team of security guards. If you can’t hire a bodyguard service, do the next best thing, and never allow yourself to be surrounded by hostile strangers.

My Final Thought

When a fight breaks out on stage, Jerry Springer can always be found standing safely in the audience section. Jerry has mastered the classic rule of self-preservation: ninety percent of success is not showing up.

After Karate expert Lyoto Machida’s recent win in UFC 98, fans immediately started talking about a comeback for traditional martial arts. Prior to Machida’s victory, the couch potato consensus had written off traditional training methods as superstitious and ineffective. How quickly perceptions change.

Two short weeks later, Brazilian featherweight Jose Aldo won a truly stunning victory against Cub Swanson in WEC 41. Total match time: 5 seconds. Winning technique: crane kick.

Yes, the same technique that “Karate Kid” Daniel LaRusso used to win the fictional All-Valley Karate Tournament. (Jose Aldo connected with his knee rather than his foot, but a careful watching reveals that he did extend his leg to perform the kick.)

Maybe Mister Miyagi was right: against a well-timed crane kick, no can defense? Personally though, I’d rather put my money on Robbie Lawler’s wing chun boxing.

Jose Aldo vs. Cub Swanson, WEC 41

What is the most natural method for safely evading a knife thrust, while simultaneously positioning oneself for an effortless disarm and throw? How does one naturally reverse a guillotine choke? People who know the answer to these questions don’t need an instructor or a class; for the rest of us, more detailed guidance is appropriate.

With that said, I am a strong advocate of “natural breathing” for martial applications, in contrast to the more exotic approaches advanced in some dojos.

While it may be true that one’s strikes are more powerful during an exhale, and least powerful during the inhale, this fact is subordinate to a higher truth. If your movement and breathing are strongly linked, then your opponent(s) can more easily control them both. Despite your best intentions, this coordination can quickly become a self-imposed suffocation, of the muscles and the brain.

I’ll illustrate with a short story from my own training. When I met my first Taiji instructor–whom we shall call James–I already had years of experience in Wing Chun, Aikido and other martial arts. With this experience, I had developed the habit of breathing out to meet an unavoidable incoming strike.

One day, James and I were working on a close-quarters sticking exercise, and he noticed this subconscious habit to his great amusement. When I started to breathe in, he laughed and hit me. So I let the air out, waited a second or two, and tried to breathe in again. James laughed again, and hit me again. After a few more rounds of fun, I got his point. Until I was willing to abandon this habit, I literally could not breathe without his permission.

Although this was only a training exercise, similar constraints are present in a real fight. We do not always have the luxury of choice when timing our attack and defense.

If we attempt to match the rhythm of our breathing with the unpredictable pace of our opponent’s movement, the most likely results are hyperventilation and auto-asphyxiation. Neither of these is conducive to power, sensitivity, or relaxation.

Since I cannot predict in advance when the opponent will drop their guard, or how many times I will need to punch them in response, I don’t even attempt to coordinate my breathing with the attack. By the same principle, I am very careful about creating defensive space through exhalation, recognizing that a poorly timed breath may be my last.

It seems that the only safe time to exhale decisively with a strike, is after the opponent is already knocked out. Be advised however that that referees frown upon such behavior.