They all should have prepared better for the test TBH. Inflicting pain on purpose or through bad technique is not a great idea.

Most of the "pain" for the dad is from keeping his watch and his ring on. Fairly unprofessional overall.

Good job to manoeuver through all the psychological obstacles, but meh training IMHO. That said it is better to have a good person as trainer, than an exceptionally able bad guy.

Also martial arts dont make you a slave, they make you a servant and you get to choose who or what to serve.

Breaking the board is the important bit, but how you break it is even more important. Learning how to punch correctly takes time, effort, concentration, discipline etc, you learn about yourself and about life's challenges in a natural way. It's not something that can be forced fed into you in this contrived manner, because the pain of persistent effort and burden of continual concentration in your mind is much greater than any temporary physical pain. Truly challenging yourself is much harder than any task someone else can set for you.

Otherwise, what is the lesson here? Life is hard, so don't prepare, and then use brute force to make up for it later? Life and martial arts are both about applying the most elegant and effective solution that fit the problem, not about brute forcing your way through things.

So really, the instructor has failed at training both the mind and body here. If he wants the child to believe in himself that he can punch, then teaching the right technique will give the child that confidence in much better way. The child would have never doubted his ability to punch well in the first place, as he overcame life's challenge long before it even was a challenge.

That's utter bullshit.

Every martial art I ever studied as a kid (aikido, tae kwon do, karate) taught us from Day 1 that you only use it in self-defense--specifically once someone else throws a punch or kick at you. It was drilled into us that we could seriously hurt someone and that fighting was a last resort when we couldn't get away. My nephews are doing karate now and their instruction is exactly the same.

I was in several fights before I started taking martial arts and never got into one again afterwards--never felt the need to. I didn't have to prove myself to anyone because my hard training in the martial arts gave me a sense of self-worth that didn't depend on others' opinions of me. Honestly, all kids should have proper (fuck McDojos) martial arts training . It teaches them discipline, respect, and perseverance.

I think if martial arts are taught correctly then walking away is always the first response.

Video games do tend to reduce empathy, but so does any other violent training. Putting your kid into martial arts increases the likelihood they'll get into fights over just walking away, because... kids.

Anything with Donnie Yen makes me hard as a rock, he is a god of martial arts. Want.

I don't disagree that the concept of if you hit someone they can / could hit back. I do think that a professional athlete hitting an assumedly not very physical person is way out of line. Ideally neither hits and if they do they are both guilty of assault. Another thought in this area is that people trained in martial arts usually don't use them unless it's a last resort.

When I first watched TNG, back in my youth, I didn't really think Riker was all that amazing. I mean, how can you compete with Picard, Data, Worf, etc? But when I rewatched the remastered release of the show recently, I realized . . . Riker is the biggest boss in the Star Trek universe, bar none. (And yes, that includes Kirk. I went there!)

I mean, of course he gets all the ladies, but he also plays the trombone, fights Klingons, eats Klingon food, arouses Klingon ladies, is a crack shot with a phaser, is an excellent tactician that thinks outside the box, knows several martial arts, is a master poker player, good at chess, and has a beard that makes Chuck Norris pale in comparison. (I FREAKING WENT THERE!)

Riker is glorious, and I am completely serious when I say that.
(See? No sarcasm tag.)

Funny, that felt like the most real aspect of the scene to me. I've obviously never been in a fight like this, but I've certainly felt like this during some of my martial arts gradings.

It doesn't take long to get very tired (especially against more than one opponent), but each time someone attacks, you summon up the energy for one more round until you put them down.... repeat (literally) ad nauseam.

That last drop at 2:28 seemed completely unnecessary though (dude's already on the ground, just walk up and kick him!)

As for the scene itself, it's very cool. My only question is that if it really is one take (and I'm not saying it isn't), it seems like an odd choice to have so many points (0:38, 1:38, 2:18) that feel like they're there for the express purpose of an invisible cut.

Well it's different. As a martial artist you're trained to do things a certain way.

But in Jackie's movies he's not doing martial arts in the traditional sense. It's more a peformance dance using martial arts moves. IT's a tightly scripted 'dance'.

He's also talented in that he understands film. He does things that on set seem non-sensical but LOOK good on film.

*backup=[...snipped...] from http://boingboing.net/2014/11/14/amazing-martial-arts-performan.html ...

That self defense class I took? Where I learned some skills that are available to me to this day?

They didn't teach them to men. The class I was in was women only (except for the martial arts instructors, a mixed bag gender-wise.) But they consciously did not offer those same skills to men.

Precisely because of your advice here.Which is why they don't teach those self defense skills to men.

A little guy pushing his erect penis into my ass on a sunny day is not a physical threat to me. Hell, I could have just pushed him and sat on him, and the fight is over.

Crushing someone's genitals is not something you do unless it is NECESSARY.

It is not "either/or." It is appropriate response to the threat. It was inappropriate in that situation to physically assault that man.

Turnabout IS fair play. He did not hurt me physically. He hurt me psychically.

The appropriate response is a psychic blow back.

And if every girl was taught to stand their ground (take that, Florida!!!) with their voice, this shit would end.

I'm just going to go through this point for point.

There is no gulf between the result, there is no gulf for the family of the victim. It doesn't matter if he's dead, there is no going back from that.

Argument from consequences. As sad as the result is, that isn't on the police.

If you have ever been choked you would know that you can't help yourself but resist. Your body spasm, it's trying to get air and you'll do everything you can to survive. What this tactic does is insure that a person will fight back so you can keep harming that person.

That is simply untrue, and I can tell you that from experience (10 years of martial arts and been in a few fights in my time). If you're getting choked, you stop resisting, because you've already lost and you're just making it worse.

The police are absolutely in the wrong, this man is not a danger to anyone, even himself. They either talk him down, or use non lethal means to bring him under control. If they can't do that they leave him be, and if they need to follow him until they get backup. There is no reason to immediately attack him, it just makes this worse.

Again, we have no idea why the police are arresting this guy, because the video doesn't provide any context.

So no it is not unreasonable to call it murder at all. It is by definition a Murder because it is the Unlawful Killing of a Human Being.

Two problems with that:
1: Unlawful. It wasn't unlawful, they were arresting him which they have a legal right to do.
2: You're deliberately leaving out a crucial part of the definition: with malice aforethought. Again, are you saying the cops deliberatly set out to kill him?

They may have the legal right under this Nations laws to murder people with impunity but the laws are wrong.

The use of deadly force by police is governed by laws, and any use of said force results in an investigation. In fact, deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others." ( Tennessee v. Garner)

I completely agree that there have been cases of unjustified killing by police where they have escaped sanction (Diallo is the one that springs to mind), but to say that they can "murder people with impunity" is hyperbole and nonsense.

What you are doing is defending them using their Laws. Why would anyone ever accept that? If I could make the laws for myself I would and then I would never be guilty.

Because it's not "their laws". The police enforce the law, they don't make it. The laws are made by elected representatives.

There are huge problems with the justice system in the US (see john Olivers video on prisons for a start) and part of that is the police, but what you're doing is not helping.

It's akin to arguing that we should take action on climate change (a very real problem), because if we don't fairies will go extinct.

*quality martial arts instruction there....

Holy crap, that was some 80's martial-arts flick final showdown stuff right there