Tonight I made the decision to buy an exercise ball on the way home. I also decided to try the 30 minute workout on the included DVD. I made it through 20 minutes of it actually got my heart rate up more than I expected it would. It seemed like the balance involved really will help my core strength.
Oh, and I didn't stop at 20 minutes due to fatigue, or lack of will, or anything like that. My 13-month-old daughter brought me a book she wanted me to read with her. I decided to go with the far more worthwhile option.
Every decision matters.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Fitness
I've had several false starts this year with my fitness goals. I'm hoping my current motivation doesn't wane so easily.
I've set an arbitrary target date of August 3rd for myself. I don't have a measurable result I'm looking for by then. Rather, my idea is to see just how much I can accomplish in that short amount of time. Basically, I'm committing to making
So last night, I didn't eat the skin of the chicken I BBQ'd the night before (the skin is my favorite part!). I stayed clear of the "Ooey Gooey" dessert bars my wife made, and opted for a banana instead. I drank only water. I put in my Hip Hop Abs DVD, intending to do the 30-minute workout, but decided I've had enough of that one for a while. I put on my gi pants, and made up my own routine:
We'll see how this goes!
good
I've set an arbitrary target date of August 3rd for myself. I don't have a measurable result I'm looking for by then. Rather, my idea is to see just how much I can accomplish in that short amount of time. Basically, I'm committing to making
"Every decision counts".
So last night, I didn't eat the skin of the chicken I BBQ'd the night before (the skin is my favorite part!). I stayed clear of the "Ooey Gooey" dessert bars my wife made, and opted for a banana instead. I drank only water. I put in my Hip Hop Abs DVD, intending to do the 30-minute workout, but decided I've had enough of that one for a while. I put on my gi pants, and made up my own routine:
- 2 rounds of the ground mobility cycle (on a heavy bag grappling dummy)
- a set of crunches
- a set of push ups
- another set of crunches
- a set of bench pressing the grappling bag
- repeat from the top
We'll see how this goes!
good
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Rant, Part 2
Another thing that struck me as ridiculous in The Gift of Fear was the following quote from page 307:
"I recently met a middle-aged couple from Florida who had just obtained licenses to carry concealed handguns. the man explained why: "Because if some guy walks into a restaurant and opens fire, like happened at Luby's in Texas, I want to be in a position to save lives."
Of course there are plenty of things he could carry on his belt that would be far more likely to save lives in a restaurant. An injection of adrenaline would treat anaphylactic shock (the potentially lethal allergic reaction to certain foods). Or he could carry a small sharp tube to give emergency tracheotomies to people who are choking to death. When I asked him if he carried one of those, he said "I could never stick something into a person's throat!" but he could send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket.
Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..."
Where do I begin? Since the Luby's massacre was brought up, I'd like to say something about that: Here's a snip from the wiki article:
"During the shooting, [the shooter] approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at [the shooter] in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person."
My observation is that a shot of adrenaline or a sharp tube would not have stopped Ms. Hupp's parents from being murdered before her eyes. If she would have had her handgun (assuming she had been trained in its use), not only her parents, but around 20 other people might still be alive today. But that logic should be obvious to any thinking person - I won't dwell too long on it.
Mr. de Becker seems astonished that the gun owner would be willing to "send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket", but is uncomfortable at the thought of performing a field tracheotomy. There could be many reasons this would be the case, but among them COULD be that the man was not trained in that procedure and feared screwing it up and causing a bigger problem. Conversely, he may have been well trained in defensive tactics and handgun use. Maybe the hands-on, bloody aspect of the procedure would be more traumatic than firing at a murderer from a distance. But I'm speculating wildly - we have no way of knowing. We're not given more information. Certainly one could argue that a greater number of lives could be saved by the handgun than the sharp tube. Here's an idea that would surely satisfy Mr. de Becker: Just carry all 3 items. The handgun, the adrenaline, and the sharp tube. But why stop there? Maybe the guy should keep a portable AED machine in his car.
As icing on the cake, the author throws out this line: "Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..." Excuse me, "far more likely"? I'm sorry, did I read that right? I wish he would have cited the alleged "statistics" and given the source. We all know how studies can be skewed. Maybe they're "far more likely" because they're around each other far more than they're around criminals. I would lay odds that's the case. Maybe the study dealt only with brand new gun owners before they'd received any training. But if we're talking about responsible gun owners who carry to protect themselves and their families, and get proper training, I have a very hard time believing they'd be more likely to shoot each other than a criminal, all else being equal. It's absurd. Talk about "unwarranted fear" (which the author claims is a curse)!!!
I'm glad that's off my chest. You may have noticed I harped on training a good bit. As a relatively new "gun guy", I take the responsibility of proper training very seriously. I look at it as a way of protecting my family not only from the bad guys out there, but from tragic accidents as well.
"I recently met a middle-aged couple from Florida who had just obtained licenses to carry concealed handguns. the man explained why: "Because if some guy walks into a restaurant and opens fire, like happened at Luby's in Texas, I want to be in a position to save lives."
Of course there are plenty of things he could carry on his belt that would be far more likely to save lives in a restaurant. An injection of adrenaline would treat anaphylactic shock (the potentially lethal allergic reaction to certain foods). Or he could carry a small sharp tube to give emergency tracheotomies to people who are choking to death. When I asked him if he carried one of those, he said "I could never stick something into a person's throat!" but he could send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket.
Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..."
Where do I begin? Since the Luby's massacre was brought up, I'd like to say something about that: Here's a snip from the wiki article:
"During the shooting, [the shooter] approached Suzanna Gratia Hupp and her parents. Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day, but had left it in her vehicle due to the laws in force at the time, forbidding citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse, but "a hundred feet away in [her] car", her father charged at [the shooter] in an attempt to subdue him, only to be gunned down; a short time later, her mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law in question by leaving her firearm in her car, rather than keeping it on her person."
My observation is that a shot of adrenaline or a sharp tube would not have stopped Ms. Hupp's parents from being murdered before her eyes. If she would have had her handgun (assuming she had been trained in its use), not only her parents, but around 20 other people might still be alive today. But that logic should be obvious to any thinking person - I won't dwell too long on it.
Mr. de Becker seems astonished that the gun owner would be willing to "send a piece of lead into a person's flesh like a rocket", but is uncomfortable at the thought of performing a field tracheotomy. There could be many reasons this would be the case, but among them COULD be that the man was not trained in that procedure and feared screwing it up and causing a bigger problem. Conversely, he may have been well trained in defensive tactics and handgun use. Maybe the hands-on, bloody aspect of the procedure would be more traumatic than firing at a murderer from a distance. But I'm speculating wildly - we have no way of knowing. We're not given more information. Certainly one could argue that a greater number of lives could be saved by the handgun than the sharp tube. Here's an idea that would surely satisfy Mr. de Becker: Just carry all 3 items. The handgun, the adrenaline, and the sharp tube. But why stop there? Maybe the guy should keep a portable AED machine in his car.
As icing on the cake, the author throws out this line: "Statistically speaking, the the man and his wife are far more likely to shoot each other than to shoot some criminal..." Excuse me, "far more likely"? I'm sorry, did I read that right? I wish he would have cited the alleged "statistics" and given the source. We all know how studies can be skewed. Maybe they're "far more likely" because they're around each other far more than they're around criminals. I would lay odds that's the case. Maybe the study dealt only with brand new gun owners before they'd received any training. But if we're talking about responsible gun owners who carry to protect themselves and their families, and get proper training, I have a very hard time believing they'd be more likely to shoot each other than a criminal, all else being equal. It's absurd. Talk about "unwarranted fear" (which the author claims is a curse)!!!
I'm glad that's off my chest. You may have noticed I harped on training a good bit. As a relatively new "gun guy", I take the responsibility of proper training very seriously. I look at it as a way of protecting my family not only from the bad guys out there, but from tragic accidents as well.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Judo/BJJ Study Group 6/21/09
Last night, Chase and Cody came over to train a bit. We were able to go through Lessons 1-3 of the Gracie Combatives DVDs, and I was pleasantly surprised, given how long it took Chase and me to just go through lesson 1 last time. This was Cody's first experience with these particular DVDs. They both got their own copies of the set, so we can watch the lessons during the week, and spend more time actually doing the stuff when we get together.
Lesson 1 (trap-and-roll escapes/open guard pass) - I felt like the punch block variant of the trap-and-roll went much better this time, for both Chase and me. Cody picked it up extremely quickly.
Lesson 2 (Americana) - This lesson went quickly; there are only two "slices": standard version and neck-hug variation. The neck-hug version was a little weird for us, but there's more coordination involved. I don't think it'll take that long to work out the weirdness.
Lesson 3 (positional control) - speaking of coordination, this lesson took way more than it looked like it was going to when I first watched it. The low and high "swims" went great, but the transitions from one side to the other (in response to bad guy trying to roll you) requires you to do an opposite-side hook, same-side open knee, and opposite side neck-hug, while keeping your knees light on the mat and your hips pressed into him. It was just several things to think about all at once. We probably need to go more slowly until we get the sequence down.
We didn't have time for any rolling this time, but we did do the reflex development drills at the end of each lesson. We practiced having the bad guy feed random "indicators" to good guy, and letting good guy respond with the appropriate technique. I think that part went really well and was very helpful. I think we did a good job being "partners" rather than opponents last night. Bad guys tested the techniques for good guys and helped them remember the particulars of the techniques. There was really a feeling of "mutual benefit" to our practice.
This week, we're all going to watch lessons 4 - 6. Next time we get together we plan to:
- Review lessons 1 - 3
- Practice the "Fight Simulation Drill" for lessons 1 - 3
- Go through lessons 4 - 6 ("Taking the Back", "Rear Naked Choke", and "Leg Hook Takedown"). These next three lessons look really fun!
Judo 6/20/09
We transitioned from our aiki lesson into judo by looking at 4 entries into osotogari (2 on "my side" and 2 on "his side"), and the otoshi and guruma motions in each of them.
We went through a few repetitions of the ground mobility cycle as a review/warmup, then reviewed the hold-down cycle. I was badly in need of a review of that, and definitely need to practice that more at home.
We reviewed escapes next. We played with the bridge-and-roll escape from munegatame and the "step over" escape from katagatame. For the bridge-and-roll, I need to remember to take out the space/slack (hold top guy closely to me). I also need to remember to get my bottom shoulder out from under him while shrimping.
For the step over escape from katagatame, I need to remember to bridge onto him and push his head into the mat. I need to use the "stepping over" motion to get my bottom arm out from under him.
Good, good lesson. I felt the review did me some good.
We went through a few repetitions of the ground mobility cycle as a review/warmup, then reviewed the hold-down cycle. I was badly in need of a review of that, and definitely need to practice that more at home.
We reviewed escapes next. We played with the bridge-and-roll escape from munegatame and the "step over" escape from katagatame. For the bridge-and-roll, I need to remember to take out the space/slack (hold top guy closely to me). I also need to remember to get my bottom shoulder out from under him while shrimping.
For the step over escape from katagatame, I need to remember to bridge onto him and push his head into the mat. I need to use the "stepping over" motion to get my bottom arm out from under him.
Good, good lesson. I felt the review did me some good.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Aikido, 6/20/09
As usual, we started with tegatana this morning. We talked about how the arms are not necessarily pushing - sometimes it's like you just fling them along the path they need to go and your body positions itself accordingly.
Next we did releases 1-8, focusing on 6 and 8. We looked at how 6 and 8 come nicely out of 2 or 4, *IF* I follow uke's force rather than fight against it. We played with Chain #2, and Pat demonstrated how release 6 and 8 are kind of "brackets" around all sorts of neat variations of shihonage.
Lasty, we had a good discussion about one of Pat's recent posts regarding otoshi and guruma, and how they tend to show up in Ju Nana and Owaza. I think I understand what he was saying better after his explanation today.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Rant, Part 1
This post is part 2 of my "micro-review" of Gavin de Becker's The Gift of Fear, but part 1 of the aforementioned "rant". In yesterday's post I promised to address the author's anti-gun views in more detail. This post might be more appropriate for my little gun blog, but I'm putting it here to continue the post from yesterday.
On page 306, we read an account of a home invasion. In it, the criminal locates the home owner's handgun and holds he and his family at gunpoint before finally releasing them. Mr. de Becker writes (emphasis mine):
More examples to come!
On page 306, we read an account of a home invasion. In it, the criminal locates the home owner's handgun and holds he and his family at gunpoint before finally releasing them. Mr. de Becker writes (emphasis mine):
"The intruder not only left, but he left the CD player. He did the family another favor too: he took the gun, which now won't be available to some more dangerous invader in the future (Bill is not replacing it)."
I see a few problems with this statement. Without knowing any details other than those given by the author, I think Bill (the home owner) should have had the gun in a location more accessible to him and less accessible to the criminal. Secondly, how was the theft of Bill's gun doing him a favor? Any time someone breaks into my home and attempts to take my property (or potentially worse), I don't consider it a favor. Additionally, if that gun is subsequently used in a crime and traced back to Bill, I don't think he'll be sending the burglar a "Thank You" card. How is it better to have that gun owned by a criminal (someone who would invade a home and attempt to steal property) than by a law-abiding citizen? And where is the guarantee that this gun will not be sold or given to "some more dangerous invader"? Or that the initial invader may not become more dangerous or emboldened upon acquiring a firearm?
More examples to come!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What-I'm-Reading-Wednesday 6-17-09
Ok, I finally finished reading Gavin de Becker's book, The Gift of Fear. I started it about 6 months ago!
Am I glad I read it? Definitely.
Will I read it again? Probably the first one-third of it.
Reflections? I would break the book down in this way:
Recommended? Yes.
Am I glad I read it? Definitely.
Will I read it again? Probably the first one-third of it.
Reflections? I would break the book down in this way:
Beginning: very helpful - great premise. Middle: very interesting. End: Meh.
The idea that we are already experts in human behaviour, as well as the part our intuition plays in helping us avoid/survive danger was fascinating. I think that's the part of the book that may (as the cover claims) "save your life." The middle of the book covered things like stalking, celebrities, and assassinations. Not so much use to me. Some, just not a ton. This was the part of the book I got bogged down with - and why it took me so long to finish it. The end of the book (last chapter and epilogue) is sort of a recap, which is fine, and it discusses differences between "real fear", anxiety, worry, doubt, etc. I found that somewhat interesting, but not necessarily helpful. I'm not trying to be a hater, I did enjoy the book, and others' mileage may vary greatly. One other thing: I did not care for Mr. de Becker's anti-gun views in a few places in the book. I'll
rant
rant
Recommended? Yes.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Judo 6-14-09
Pat allowed me to do a make-up Judo lesson last night since I had to miss Saturday. I am way more a morning person than an evening person anyway, and hauling my butt out to the dojo after a lazy Sunday afternoon wasn't easy!
We started by learning a new exercise to get us ready for the many falls we would take from hip throws during the lesson. Pat called it "oozing" - one guy gets on hands and knees while the other wraps an arm around him and falls over him in a slow, controlled manner.
We moved on to a new (to me) entry into hip throws. "The middle one" is what we were calling it. It happens not on uke's forward or backward step, but tori causes him to step "around the corner" for this entry. It was kind of like the version of kosotogari we worked on recently.
From this off balance, we worked on ukigoshi, ogoshi, and koshi guruma, or the "not enough butt", "crack of the butt", and "too much butt" hip throws, as Pat called them. Since I was first exposed to them, hip throws have been tough for me. They always cause me to feel like I have a learning disability! It's times like last night I'm very thankful I have a patient teacher. Ukigoshi gives me the most fits, I think, but after several different explanations and analogies, I started to get it a little better. Things for me to remember: 1) clamp uke to me before bending over. 2) ukigoshi makes uke spin on my hip like a propeller, ogoshi rolls him around my hip, across my kidney, and koshi guruma rolls him along the line of my belt. 3) for the floating part of ukigoshi, I need to just try to get his feet up and place them behind me. 4) I need to learn to recognize when the "T" (or "L") is made with our feet - that's the time for whichever hip throw to happen.
Next we did a much-needed review of yellow and green belt escapes. 4 escapes from kesa: Leg entanglement, sit up, uphill, and bridge-n-roll. 4 escapes from mune: Bridge-n-roll, Shrimping (elbow-to-knee), leg entanglement, and spin-out. 2 escapes from katagatame: Uphill (millstone variant), and legs-over. 3 escapes from kamishiho: Bridge-n-roll, spin-out, and double bridge-n-roll.
We took a look at the Trap-and-Roll variants presented in lesson 1 of the Gracie Combatives DVDs, and the principle behind all those variants. My nephew and I were having trouble with the "punch block" variation, so Pat went over some tips for that one that I think will help us. I observed how in these DVDs, the Gracies seem to be developing kata, even though they're not calling them that, particularly with their "Fight Simulation Drills". We talked about how even though those specific attacks may not show up in real life, they demonstrate the underlying principles. Just like kata! Pat wrote a neat post on this concept earlier this year. Read it here.
I was BEAT after the lesson last night, and I'm still feeling it today.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Thursday Thoughts 6-11-09
I was listening to one of my favorite podcasts yesterday: Practical Defense by Alex Haddox. The topic of the episode I was listening to was "Terrorism Survival", and he gave some tips that may increase your odds in the unlikely event you're ever present during a terrorist attack (or any "active shooter" situation). Mr. Haddox stressed that odds are, you and I will not find ourselves in that situation. The statement that follows is probably not original to him, but when I heard it, it summed up why I began training in the martial arts in the first place:
"It's better to have knowledge and not need it, than to need the knowledge and not have it."
My shorthand answer to people who regularly question my motivation for self-defense training has become "Just in case." I could go into statistics, or examples of when I've needed (or very easily could have needed) self-defense skills, and I will if they're interested. But for me, it all boils down to Mr. Haddox's statement above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)