# One good reason for an angled stance.



## lansao (Aug 8, 2018)

Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2018)

lansao said:


> Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.
> 
> View attachment 21662


Put on some gloves for 5 minutes and you wouldn't need all that math to get there.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 9, 2018)

i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread.  your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding.  your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.  

_It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations.  But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man.  Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
        Ardant Du Picq  1870   French Army 
_
in the same way your starting point is one of physics not of psychology.  on paper your thesis looks sound but in real practice it has been proven through out history that in combat a bladed stance often fails because the attacker can press you into turning away and giving your back.  Du picq documents battle after battle where the statistics show most deaths occured by wounds to the back.
it has been my belief that a more square stance is more psychologically strong even though you do have more exposed area.


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Put on some gloves for 5 minutes and you wouldn't need all that math to get there.


I put them on enough to ask why it works. Not a lot of math here either, basically a triangle's worth of geometry. 

I personally learn best by referencing what I know in one domain (fighting) against others (math, music, surfing) and drawing connections. No substitute for regular sparring with people from different arts but feel it's worth sharing these thoughts here so that others who think similarly can access them.

~30% was really the interesting finding to me anyway. I knew it was narrower, but didn't realize effectively a third of the width.


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread.  your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding.  your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.
> 
> _It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations.  But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man.  Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
> Ardant Du Picq  1870   French Army
> ...



Interesting insights here. Trying to boil down the points so I can address them one at a time:
1.) "engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding"
Couldn't see this as further from the case. I see it as additive to my existing intuition/practiced understanding of the art. My background is in music composition and engineering so I'll often bank off analogies from one to advance my understanding of another.

2.) "...become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man." Du Picq
He's wrong on this point. Real men read books and know basic math. They exist, in reality, I've seen them. There's also irony here in that Du Picq was one of them: "In sum, Ardant du Picq was a talented analyst and, had he lived, would have gained a fine reputation as a military historian."
Ardant du Picq - Wikipedia

3.) "in real practice it *has been proven* through out history that in combat a bladed stance *often fails* because the attacker can press you into turning away"
Can you show me the proof? Curious to read more. Also, can you define "often?"

4.) "square stance is more psychologically strong"
I don't believe this to be true. Others can chime in here but I know that I go into wide-eyed, flared-nostril, wide-grinning, deep-breathing, emotionally detached, angry dog, terminator mode when in a fight. A squared stance won't change that or make me feel different ways about stuff.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 9, 2018)

If I am understanding you, your saying that taking 45d angle away from where you're opponent is facing reduces the available targets he/she can reach?

Or by angled stance do you mean having one shoulder further back than the other?


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveB said:


> If I am understanding you, your saying that taking 45d angle away from where you're opponent is facing reduces the available targets he/she can reach?
> 
> Or by angled stance do you mean having one shoulder further back than the other?


Whole core including shoulders angled at 45d, centerline and feet are perpendicular to that 45d angle. Side note, 45d is a reference point. Just a diagonal between squared off and shoulder in front of shoulder (like a fencer). if you go steeper you get a narrower target but then you might fall into the trap hoshin points out of giving up your back.

The drawing is more of a mathematical proof than a model of the stance. It's showing an areal view of shoulders (on the left the two lines with "8" pointing at them and then lining up a 2d print of 4 gates to visually demonstrate the difference in width.

That said, another good analogy is a simple compass. Imagine you're standing at the center of a large compass on the floor, your opponent is North, and your feet are on the East West line. If you were wearing skis, they'd be pointing North East, and your median plane/centerline (running perpendicular to your shoulders, is pointing North East too. Your shoulder/reciprocal line (straight line from shoulder to shoulder) is pointing North West. The North South line is your central/target line. Attaching a shitty sketch to illustrate.



 

In particular for the Wing Chun folks, aside from narrowing the target, it makes the gates smaller (which is the same thing but within the context of our zone defense tactics).


----------



## DaveB (Aug 9, 2018)

Stance optimisation is really a function of distance. 

The closer you are the more square one should be to enable more even use of your limbs.
Since you are close evasion is theoretically harder than entanglement of the opponent.

The more you increase your distance the more bladed the stance becomes as you make use of distance to defend yourself by lowering your profile and increasing linear mobility (see for example the stance used in WC Pole). Distance reduces the opponents potential to reach your back due to the need to travel.


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Stance optimisation is really a function of distance.
> 
> The closer you are the more square one should be to enable more even use of your limbs.
> Since you are close evasion is theoretically harder than entanglement of the opponent.
> ...


I do believe stance should adapt with range and footwork although I'm not sure I'd say the closer the more square you should be. It depends on whether or not you are "squared off" with your opponent versus cutting in on the outside.

I should also have clarified that the post is not about saying one is better than the other (squared vs angled). Just sharing an interesting new attribute of the angled stance I hadn't realized before (namely the ~30% reduction in width).


----------



## geezer (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Stance optimisation is really a function of distance.
> 
> The closer you are the more square one should be to enable more even use of your limbs.
> Since you are close evasion is theoretically harder than entanglement of the opponent.
> ...



Thanks Dave. I was trying to compose a reply to Lan Sao and you saved me the trouble ...and said it better, too!

Another think to consider is what weapons you are using. Short weapons (elbows, fists, short paired knives, etc.) that bring both hands into play are more easily applied when squared-up with an opponent. Using longer weapons (long-fist, longer ranged kicks, single sticks or blades, etc.) where one side is primarily used for both attack and defense typically favor a bladed position.

For example, in close-range VT work where both hands are equally in play, I use a squared-up position. When fighting with single stick in Escrima, where my weapon is used for both offense and defense, a power-side forward bladed stance works best.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2018)

lansao said:


> I put them on enough to ask why it works. Not a lot of math here either, basically a triangle's worth of geometry.
> 
> I personally learn best by referencing what I know in one domain (fighting) against others (math, music, surfing) and drawing connections. No substitute for regular sparring with people from different arts but feel it's worth sharing these thoughts here so that others who think similarly can access them.
> 
> ~30% was really the interesting finding to me anyway. I knew it was narrower, but didn't realize effectively a third of the width.


That figure sort of assumes both people are stationary though right? Both parties will usually be moving to maximize their angle while minimizing the other guys. In reality it would be more of a variation +/- type of game.

I get you are talking ideally tho.


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

Martial D said:


> That figure sort of assumes both people are stationary though right? Both parties will usually be moving to maximize their angle while minimizing the other guys. In reality it would be more of a variation +/- type of game.
> 
> I get you are talking ideally tho.


Totally, it's a snapshot in time and just showing a single set-point at 45d. Actual angles will totally vary but hopefully within some range that offsets center.


----------



## marques (Aug 9, 2018)

I like the 45 degrees because it is the closest to 0 and 180 degrees at the same time, an arm with elbow at 45 degrees can defend or attack...

Other than that, the actual angle in use depends on each one training and skill and changes every instant according to the situation, intentions... 

All angles are fine. Just one cannot be good at everything at once so we get better at some angles and then we believe there is an universal optimum.


----------



## marques (Aug 9, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Stance optimisation is really a function of distance.
> 
> The closer you are the more square one should be to enable more even use of your limbs.
> Since you are close evasion is theoretically harder than entanglement of the opponent.
> ...


Thanks for this. It complements what I omitted in my post. It took me years to understand this and to overcome the square vs sideways stance dilemma. This is free gold and can save years of ideological conflicts for some.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 9, 2018)

for firearm training this debate has been going on for a really long time;  weaver VS isosceles


----------



## Martial D (Aug 9, 2018)

marques said:


> I like the 45 degrees because it is the closest to 0 and 180 degrees at the same time, an arm with elbow at 45 degrees can defend or attack...
> 
> Other than that, the actual angle in use depends on each one training and skill and changes every instant according to the situation, intentions...
> 
> All angles are fine. Just one cannot be good at everything at once so we get better at some angles and then we believe there is an universal optimum.


So you would stand square to an opponent, or keep them on your outside gate where they can hit you but you can't hit them? I dunno about ALL angles..


----------



## pdg (Aug 9, 2018)

lansao said:


> Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.
> 
> View attachment 21662



Your numbers are slightly off...

If you do the calculation properly you'll see the difference is actually 29.29%.

(Your width becomes the hypotenuse, square that figure, divide by two, the square root of the result is your new apparent frontal width. Because it's effectively a right angle triangle we can skip trig and dive straight in with Pythagorean theory - but I can trig the crap out of it if you like )

But the story doesn't end there.

There is a secondary issue too, a person is not two dimensional.

The physical property of having depth affects the reduction of apparent frontal area - you might be getting as low as a 20% reduction depending on build, and even less if arm position varies.


----------



## pdg (Aug 9, 2018)

Figures to support:

Using your "8".

8 squared = 64

64/2=32

Sqrt32= 5.6568

8-5.6568=2.3432

2.3432/8*100=29.29


----------



## DaveB (Aug 9, 2018)

marques said:


> Thanks for this. It complements what I omitted in my post. It took me years to understand this and to overcome the square vs sideways stance dilemma. This is free gold and can save years of ideological conflicts for some.



What is really interesting for me is the relationship between distance and fighting guard.

When I analyse all these areas of a traditional wing chun fighting pose I see:
Squared shoulders indicating close quarter combat;
A vertically narrow stance that deemphasises grappling;
Narrow foot placement that, counter to the shoulder/chest position, indicates strong emphasis on linear distancing;
The backwards weighting on the stance matches the squared shoulders and hollow chest in emphasising close quarters, but slows down linear entry, suggesting emphasis on receiving attacks and the use of pivoting to gain advantage;
And a staggered hand guard indicating mid-range combat that balances distancing with blocking/entanglement for defence.

In summary the classic wing chun fighting pose is a touch confused between optimisation for mid-range combat and close range combat.

To specialise at mid you would need to move your weight forward or to the center with a slightly wider stance and the 45d angled body discussed above.

To specialise in close the stance should widen to shoulder width and the rear hand move forwards to a similar distance as the lead hand.

Of course this is just my non chunner analysis, more for fun than anything else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2018)

lansao said:


> 4.) "square stance is more psychologically strong".


After position your opponent's back leg, if his leading leg can reach to both of your legs, your base is too narrow. that's one of the square stance weakness.


----------



## dvcochran (Aug 9, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread.  your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding.  your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.
> 
> _It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations.  But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man.  Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
> Ardant Du Picq  1870   French Army
> ...


Well yea but the area of a triangle an be infinite like any other geometric shape. Haha. If you think of rise and run equation and torque then the greater the run the greater the torque. Like @hoshin1600 said, this isn't always true in application. There are too many variables. It may simply be that the 45° stance works better for you build. As long as it works. I would recommend trying other stances just for the sake of proof.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am again going to go back to my concept from your other thread.  your looking at the problem from an engineering perspective and it is limiting your field of understanding.  your missing factors that need to be entered into the equation.
> 
> _It often happens that those who discuss war, taking the weapon for the starting point, assume unhesitatingly that the man called to serve it will always use it as contemplated and orders by the regulations.  But such a being, throwing off his variable nature to become an impassive pawn, is a creature born of the musing of the library, and not a real man.  Man is flesh and blood; he is body and soul. And , strong as the soul often is. It cannot dominate the body to the point where there will not be a revolt in the face of destruction.
> Ardant Du Picq  1870   French Army
> ...


Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO).  I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2018)

lansao said:


> I do believe stance should adapt with range and footwork although I'm not sure I'd say the closer the more square you should be. It depends on whether or not you are "squared off" with your opponent versus cutting in on the outside.
> 
> I should also have clarified that the post is not about saying one is better than the other (squared vs angled). Just sharing an interesting new attribute of the angled stance I hadn't realized before (namely the ~30% reduction in width).


I'd say if grappling is in your skill set, it's more or less true. Nothing absolute, but if I can easily touch him, I want a closer-to-squared stance, to open up more grappling options. It also reduces his options for getting to my blind side to take my back, even partially, which is a risk as distance closes.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> for firearm training this debate has been going on for a really long time;  weaver VS isosceles


No debate for me. I'm cross-dominant (right hand, left eye) so an offset stance is much better for me. Plus, it fits with my MA training, which more often uses an offset stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared ...


What's the advantage to be "fully squared"? In order to apply a "leg lift" throw, to achieve your back to touch on your opponent's chest.

When you are in fully squared stance, you will need to

1. move in your attacking leg,
2. spin in your rooting leg,
3. apply your attacking leg.

When you are in forward and backward stance, you only need to

1. spin in your rooting leg,
2. apply your attacking leg.

You have 1 less move to apply. In MA, this is called "hide your preparation in your previous move."

1,2 is always better than 1,2,3.

I don't see any advantage for the "square stance" in both the striking art and the wrestling art.


----------



## lansao (Aug 9, 2018)

pdg said:


> Your numbers are slightly off...
> 
> If you do the calculation properly you'll see the difference is actually 29.29%.
> 
> ...



This is perfect. Thank you for making these corrections. I was going off of eyeing the grid paper and went out looking for this math after realizing this must be generally solvable.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's the advantage to be "fully squared"? In order to apply a "leg lift" throw, to achieve your back to touch on your opponent's chest.
> 
> When you are in fully squared stance, you will need to
> 
> ...


That's a single, specific situation, and your math ignores that you are actually farther from the same technique on the other side. There's advantages in both squared and angled stances. From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, reach equally with both hands, use cross-reach to protect against a grip, advance with either foot, and protect against sideways forces. There's another set of advantages to an angled stance.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 9, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, ...


You assume someone can execute a throw on both sides. Are you going to wait for your hand grips as well since you are not sure which side that you are going to attack?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 9, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You assume someone can execute a throw on both sides. Are you going to wait for your hand grips as well since you are not sure which side that you are going to attack?


Yeah, I assume they can execute the throw on both sides. Why wouldn't they be able to do that? And I'm not sure what you mean by waiting for the hand grips. I'm never sure which side I'm going to attack until an opening presents, then I use what opening is there. Even if I'm trying to manufacture an opening, I can't be sure it'll be the opening I'm trying to create - I have to react to what opening actually happens.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO).  I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.



To clarify my own stance on this topic (pun fully intended )
I didn't say 100 % squared was better. I personally use a 70/ 30 degree angle but like others have said the angle is in direct proportion to distance.  The further away the more bladed, the closer the more squared.  My point was that using geometry with an engineer eye is only one piece of the puzzle and without factoring in other bits of data your actually creating a confirmation bias.  The OP had a concept and was using geometry to confirm his belief while putting aside other factors, which to my thinking are much more relevant and impactfull.
EDIT .  I was also trying to point out that maybe a 45 angle was not really optimal if you add in other factors, like the fight or flight decision.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2018)

The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets.  Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages.  So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
So I can attack on a 180 degrees.


----------



## pdg (Aug 10, 2018)

lansao said:


> This is perfect. Thank you for making these corrections. I was going off of eyeing the grid paper and went out looking for this math after realizing this must be generally solvable.



No worries 

This is the sort of stuff schoolkids complain about - "when am I _ever_ going to use this, why should I learn it?"



hoshin1600 said:


> The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets.  Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
> People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages.  So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
> So I can attack on a 180 degrees.



That's what I was hinting at - it reduces the centre mass frontal area.

But the head is arguably the primary target - doesn't change that.

It also increases the side area, going all the way to 90° does this more - so a hook punch or round kick toward the body has a bigger target.


----------



## lansao (Aug 10, 2018)

pdg said:


> No worries
> 
> This is the sort of stuff schoolkids complain about - "when am I _ever_ going to use this, why should I learn it?"
> 
> ...



This is great stuff. The scope of the observation is definitely limited.

Good point about the head and radial strikes.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's what I was hinting at - it reduces the centre mass frontal area.
> 
> But the head is arguably the primary target - doesn't change that.
> 
> It also increases the side area, going all the way to 90° does this more - so a hook punch or round kick toward the body has a bigger target.



blading is a good thing to a point but the reason is not so simple as limiting the front exposure.  in sport the rule set often limits strikes to the back of the head and rear of the body. this is why you see extreme blading; using a side stance in TKD.  it works well in that context.
in self defense the number one reason for blading is power generation.  another reason is the limiting of exposed targets  but not in the square inches of surface area.  its about closing off vectors to the internal organs.  so if i stand perfectly square a knife will hit my heart without much trouble  but the evolution of the body developed a rib cage.  by turning slightly i can close off the vulnerable organs and the knife will be hindered by the ribs.

the number one rule for self defense is not to let the assailant take your back.  there is a switch in the brain that triggers the fight or flight response.  in many cases you really dont have much of a conscious decision to make the body seems to do it on its own.  if your bladed to much your instinct will be to turn and run rather then fight.  also you are never able to hold that degree pitch exactly so there is a plus and minus factor.  a 45 degree will often go over, it is at this point that your angled too far and the attacking pressure can turn you to take your back.  this is why i prefer a 30 degree.


----------



## pdg (Aug 10, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> its about closing off vectors to the internal organs. so if i stand perfectly square a knife will hit my heart without much trouble but the evolution of the body developed a rib cage. by turning slightly i can close off the vulnerable organs and the knife will be hindered by the ribs.



That's true if the knife attack is the classic SD drill straight forward stabby stabby type of thing.

I don't know how often that's a real situation, but I'd guess it's low numbers...

I know that's not how I'd handle a knife.


----------



## marques (Aug 10, 2018)

Martial D said:


> So you would stand square to an opponent, or keep them on your outside gate where they can hit you but you can't hit them? I dunno about ALL angles..


I am not sure I understand the question, but will try an answer.

I very often try to approach my opponent from the sides, with a stance more squared than sideways (so I can hit without being hit). But it is always changing, especially in mid range.

I prefer more squared stance in short distance and more sideways one at longer distance.

To me, it looks like grapplers very often prefer a squared stance at any distance.

Sometimes a ‘wrong’ angle is just a move in advance to decept and trap your opponent...

If I say ‘this angle is wrong’, eventually I will find out that someone made it work.


----------



## Marnetmar (Aug 10, 2018)

I think something important to remember is that the reason conventional WC footwork is the way it is is because it assumes you're already hip-to-hip with, stepping through or tripping your opponent. At a longer range it stops making any practical sense. In which case, why not just use boxing footwork at long range?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> To clarify my own stance on this topic (pun fully intended )
> I didn't say 100 % squared was better. I personally use a 70/ 30 degree angle but like others have said the angle is in direct proportion to distance.  The further away the more bladed, the closer the more squared.  My point was that using geometry with an engineer eye is only one piece of the puzzle and without factoring in other bits of data your actually creating a confirmation bias.  The OP had a concept and was using geometry to confirm his belief while putting aside other factors, which to my thinking are much more relevant and impactfull.
> EDIT .  I was also trying to point out that maybe a 45 angle was not really optimal if you add in other factors, like the fight or flight decision.


I think the OP was purposely keeping it to a single factor, particularly to foster this kind of discussion. It kind of leaves the floor open for all kinds of thoughts, rather than folks having to target any specific assertion.

And I agree with you. I teach a 45-ish degree angle as a starting point for a fighting stance, because it matches the most common transition stance we use. But the actual angle varies a lot for me - I suspect I vary it too much, and actually communicate some of my intentions by my stance angle. A good opponent would probably figure that out after a few exchanges. That's all beside the point, though - far away, I'm probably beyond 45 degrees at times, and closer in, I'm heading toward square for a number of reasons.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> The next big flaw I see with the OP concept is the reduction in targets.  Blading only works for firearms at a distance with a projectile that has a single vector.
> People don't dissappear when they turn sideways. People are essentially a round punching bag with appendages.  So we are cylinders with square inches of surface area. That surface area doesn't change when we blade our stance. Also my attacks are not on a single vector. I can hit with hooks and round kicks ect..
> So I can attack on a 180 degrees.


The principle applies somewhat, as straight attacks have fewer targets (or, more accurately, smaller target areas). Round attacks have different targets, and the angle means they are behind the front shoulder line, so are easier to defend. Of course, we start to open opportunities behind the front arm, at the same time, especially to round attacks. If we are talking a left-forward stance, we should also include that the liver becomes less exposed when we angle the stance.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 10, 2018)

Marnetmar said:


> I think something important to remember is that the reason conventional WC footwork is the way it is is because it assumes you're already hip-to-hip with, stepping through or tripping your opponent. At a longer range it stops making any practical sense. In which case, why not just use boxing footwork at long range?




Again, non chunner here, but in terms of footwork at distance I had thought that it was one of the things they wing chun pole form was meant to impart.

Also I don't think boxing really has long ranged footwork in that it doesn't need to deal with weapons that can be launched from greater than one step away. 

The best long range work I've seen is in TKD but put to use best by Thai boxers who adapt it to facilitate entry and escape from hand range.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 10, 2018)

pdg said:


> That's true if the knife attack is the classic SD drill straight forward stabby stabby type of thing.
> 
> I don't know how often that's a real situation, but I'd guess it's low numbers...
> 
> I know that's not how I'd handle a knife.


Stabs are the most common knife attacks. A stab under the front ribs matches the relatively common (so far as such can be said of knife attacks) attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range. From the front, that goes under and perhaps to the heart. From the side, the same height attack has to deal with ribs.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range.


affectionately called the Folsom Prison sewing machine.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 10, 2018)

marques said:


> I am not sure I understand the question, but will try an answer.
> 
> I very often try to approach my opponent from the sides, with a stance more squared than sideways (so I can hit without being hit). But it is always changing, especially in mid range.
> 
> ...


I'm not saying any angle is universally wrong, but some are certainly situationally wrong.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 10, 2018)

the value of any angle would depend on the reference point


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> the value of any angle would depend on the reference point


Agree! It depends on you and your opponent's feet position.

If your opponent's leading leg can reach to both of your legs, either you angle is too big (too close to square stance), or your base is too small.

You don't want to give your opponent a chance by using his leading leg to attack your leading leg and then attack your back leg without having to readjust his back rooting leg.






Also if your opponent can move his back foot for just a "small step", and his back foot can line up with both of your feet, your angle may be too small (too easy for your opponent to reach to your blind side).


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 10, 2018)

If bad guy is weak in the middle...then you should hey diddle diddle just like Sun Tzu "If the enemy leaves a door open, you must rush in"

If bad guy is strong in the middle...or has already occupied the center...Sun Tzu advises "In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack: the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of maneuvers" and "In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory"


----------



## Anarax (Aug 10, 2018)

lansao said:


> Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.
> 
> View attachment 21662


I like incorporating math, physics and kinesiology into MA too. However, I think you should try to illustrate it better to get your point across clearer. Uploading a piece of paper with shapes and angles on it is one thing. Uploading a video(not necessarily of yourself) or posture images would illustrate your points much better.


----------



## lansao (Aug 10, 2018)

Really enjoying this dialogue. Cool to see so many perspectives expressed.


----------



## lansao (Aug 10, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I like incorporating math, physics and kinesiology into MA too. However, I think you should try to illustrate it better to get your point across clearer. Uploading a piece of paper with shapes and angles on it is one thing. Uploading a video(not necessarily of yourself) or posture images would illustrate your points much better.



Totally, I think a mirror will do the trick. Stand squared off in front of a mirror. Pivot off one heel and send the other foot back so that your shoulders are roughly 45d (or whatever d you prefer). Note the difference in width of your reflection. I just had the thought while in front of my notebook and shared it. Measurements came out to ~30% narrower, pdg’s trig aligned well with that estimate too.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 10, 2018)

lansao said:


> 4.) "square stance is more psychologically strong"
> I don't believe this to be true.


 It's not true.  The only difference is that the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance.  I use both through out sparring and the only thing that determines how I stand is my strategy and what type of techniques I may be against.  Based on what I've heard and have seen from Kung Fu Wang.  He'll probably make a person for having their feet in a square stance.  

Even though the square stance may feel safe (probably because both hands can reach the same distance)  A blade stance has numerous advantage but those advantages require training and quite a bit of skill building.  It's definitely not the fastest way to learn how to fight, but if you want a lot of options to choose from then a bladed stance will give you more options than a squared off one.



lansao said:


> Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%


You are making things too complicated.  45º has less to doe about that and more to do about distance and timing.  There are some other benefits of that angle, but they are small in comparison to the distance and time benefits.   

The best way to understand 45º is to put gloves on it and use it during  sparring.  You'll get hit and kicked a bunch of times, but each time you get it correct you'll begin to understand that the math and the triangles over complicates things.  Math isn't a good match way to explain the angles and the benefits because it's not constant and none of it is measurable.  It doesn't take into context the opponent's ability, behavior, and psychology   You can take that math and Kung Fu wang or some of these other guys can do something that forces you to change your angle and all of that would math would just go right out the window.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> There's advantages in both squared and angled stances. From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction, reach equally with both hands, use cross-reach to protect against a grip, advance with either foot, and protect against sideways forces. There's another set of advantages to an angled stance.


Correct.  I think most people have difficulty because they expect that the same options should be available for both and that's just not true.  Some people will say that they have more mobility when squared off.  People make this statement because they think an angled stance should have the same type of mobility.  They fail to understand that Stance A requires Movement A  Stance B requires Movement B.    Stance B cannot us Movement A


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> A blade stance has numerous advantage ...


One advantage of the blade stance is you can do a jump kick right from there that you can't do it from square stance.


----------



## lansao (Aug 10, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> It's not true.  The only difference is that the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance.  I use both through out sparring and the only thing that determines how I stand is my strategy and what type of techniques I may be against.  Based on what I've heard and have seen from Kung Fu Wang.  He'll probably make a person for having their feet in a square stance.
> 
> Even though the square stance may feel safe (probably because both hands can reach the same distance)  A blade stance has numerous advantage but those advantages require training and quite a bit of skill building.  It's definitely not the fastest way to learn how to fight, but if you want a lot of options to choose from then a bladed stance will give you more options than a squared off one.
> 
> ...



This all makes sense. That said, I feel like there’s a theme across responses and I want to add some more background.

Totally appreciate and respect that angles change and adapt throughout a fight, that timing/rhythm is complex and continuous, that feinting/deceiving movements are par for course, the need to maintain calm when hit to avoid panicking or worse overreacting, the adrenaline rush when the buzzer goes off and I have to deal with the problem in front of me. I won’t pretend I’m a seasoned pro fighter, I make a living by other means.

I, personally, do better with an angled stance in my experience. I used to be overly squared until I found my hips, then I really exaggerated it and over shot. I found my balance at ~45d and like it for mobility (my strafing improved dramatically as I was effectively moving forward and backward relative to center), my lead and rear hand positions improved, my kicks were easier to chamber, my deflections felt sharper/smoother (which I didn’t realize until now was because the gates were narrower, hence the post), and it’s just the game I’ve stacked up on. To each their game.

I love sparring, it’s a rush and incredible workout. It’s made me a better fighter and forced me to check my assumptions over and over again. I’ve had fun sparring with other wing chun guys, a few Muay Thai folk, a few boxers, and this one BJJ guy. I’ve been hit plenty, have hit plenty, and take what I can from it every time.

Also want to make it super clear that the original post wasn’t meant to comment on or insult anyone’s style or thinking at all on this. Really just a very small, very singular, easily reproduced observation, with assumptions baked in of perpendicularity to the target line. It had just occurred to me, when asking myself just how much my gates narrowed, that I could draw it out and get a sense.

I think it’s important to rotate between theory (using paper and pencil), practice (drills/abstract movements), and regular performance (getting in there and sparring with diverse backgrounds). To stay in one always is to never benefit from the vantage point of the others, and to be that much more limited in your growth.

Of course, you don’t just sit at a notebook and say “ok, based on these calculations I’m a great fighter, let me tell everyone what they should do.” I’m truly sorry if that’s what this came across as. But you should use the notebook to track progress, stuff you need to fix, visual aids to seat concepts that much further into memory, and totally bank on the kung fu of math to workout problems that are too complicated to work out in your head. 

I’m really proud of this thread and the depth of information everyone shared. I feel like this thread makes for interesting insight for future members who read through it to better understand their own game and why it works.

Blown away by responses from pdg, hoshin, and others. A lot of respect for this community and the wealth of knowledge in it. That’s why I post this kind of ish in the first place.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> the square stance feels safer than a bladed stance.


The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it. By definition, it's not a good combat stance. The reason is simple. You will need one extra step before you can spring forward. Sometime you just don't have the luxury for that extra step.

In wrestling, you cannot hop in like this if you have a square stance. 1 is better than 1,2.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO).  I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.



Both sides have a decent range and it is easier to move 3 dimensionally.

In the streets it is easier to break in to a run either forwards or backwards.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yet, Freddie Roach specifically teaches to avoid a squared stance. In straight grappling, there's an advantage to being fully squared (though there are some advantages to not being fully squared, they are fewer, IMO).  I don't find a similar situation with striking. Having one side partly back seems to have more advantages than disadvantages in striking.



Look up kostya tzu.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Stabs are the most common knife attacks. A stab under the front ribs matches the relatively common (so far as such can be said of knife attacks) attack of thrusting forward and up from relatively close range. From the front, that goes under and perhaps to the heart. From the side, the same height attack has to deal with ribs.



I am not counting on blocking anything with my body. It would be such a small advantage as to be not worth bothering about.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> From a squared stance, you can execute in either direction,


- You are talking about the Judo approach "wait for opportunity".
- I'm talking about the Chinese wrestling approach "create opportunity".

If I want to throw my opponent counter-clockwise, I'll twist him toward the clockwise direction first.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> This all makes sense. That said, I feel like there’s a theme across responses and I want to add some more background.
> 
> Totally appreciate and respect that angles change and adapt throughout a fight, that timing/rhythm is complex and continuous, that feinting/deceiving movements are par for course, the need to maintain calm when hit to avoid panicking or worse overreacting, the adrenaline rush when the buzzer goes off and I have to deal with the problem in front of me. I won’t pretend I’m a seasoned pro fighter, I make a living by other means.
> 
> ...


I’ll just add that brains are not identical. In some ways, they are hardly similar. Some folks need paper/theoretical processing. Some can function without it. I think all benefit from it. I’m probably close to the midpoint in that continuum, and I love exploring thoughts like this. Sometimes I get a great theory that doesn’t work well in application, and that’s good, because I now have something new to learn from. Sometimes I get a great theory that actually is a bit of a game changer, and that’s almost as good as the problematic theory, IMO.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it. By definition, it's not a good combat stance. The reason is simple. You will need one extra step before you can spring forward. Sometime you just don't have the luxury for that extra step.
> 
> In wrestling, you cannot hop in like this if you have a square stance. 1 is better than 1,2.


Why are feet less mobile than in a bladed or angled stance? The only difference should be which direction you are mobile in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

drop bear said:


> I am not counting on blocking anything with my body. It would be such a small advantage as to be not worth bothering about.


I wouldn’t want to, either. I was just responding to the post.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - You are talking about the Judo approach "wait for opportunity".
> - I'm talking about the Chinese wrestling approach "create opportunity".
> 
> If I want to throw my opponent counter-clockwise, I'll twist him toward the clockwise direction first.


That’s not a foreign concept in Judo.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Also want to make it super clear that the original post wasn’t meant to comment on or insult anyone’s style or thinking at all on this. Really just a very small, very singular, easily reproduced observation, with assumptions baked in of perpendicularity to the target line. It had just occurred to me, when asking myself just how much my gates narrowed, that I could draw it out and get a sense.


I don't think anyone was insulted.  But instead of looking at it from the perspective of math.  Try looking at it from a functional perspective.

For example,  You gates become narrow.  What benefit is that to you? How does it help you? Does it open opportunities?  Does it create new limitations?  Does it work for your fighting strategy? How does it help your fighting strategy?  Was there a difference of how you were able to deal with punches in comparison to being more squared?  How does distanced and time change in comparison to being squared off?  What type of techniques are easier or harder to do? How did defense improve? What are the strong and weak points of the the 45º approach?"  Have someone take a picture of you while you are in fighting position.  Use the photo to understand how your opponent sees you.  What openings do you have how does the width of you stance open and close you off to certain attacks.

These type of observations are going to be more meaningful to your development because it puts it into context.  I understand that math and science is often prove things but it has it's limitations when it comes to martial arts. There is quite a bit of behavioral concepts tied into martial arts.  For example, a bladed stance is more intimidating than a squared off stance, but a squared off stance is more deceptive. This is something you can test out.  Simply try to hold someone off and maintain the distance while in a bladed stance.  Record how long it takes for your opponent to attack.  Do the same with the same opponent but use a square stance.   Then ask your opponent.  Why did it take longer to attack while you were in the bladed stance in comparison to being squared off?  

Now if your opponent blasts through your bladed stance with ease, then ask him the same question and you'll learn what you did wrong with in your stance.



lansao said:


> But you should use the notebook to track progress, stuff you need to fix, visual aids to seat concepts that much further into memory, and totally bank on the kung fu of math to workout problems that are too complicated to work out in your head.


You'll get better results with a good training partner who isn't going to knock you out while you are trying to learn.  There is just too many variable that happen in Martial Arts to try to figure it out on a note book.  You will be be better off watching a video of you sparing and trying to use your techniques. That way you can see why you failed.  You can understand what you were thinking of at that time and how it affected the way you did the technique.  Did you bail? or did your follow through?  Many people will say that a martial arts technique doesn't work, but if you watch a video of them sparring they never make an attempt to actually do the technique.  They may be attempting to do it in their mind, but that attempt never makes it to action.   Other times people will say that it doesn't work, and when you go back over the video you can point out how bad timing or using the wrong technique for situation ends up playing a part.  

If you need to workout something out then do it on the mat.  Use a video, watch the video, and then analyze the video.  Take notes from that and leave the math out.  I'm not saying that you can't do the math if that's something you enjoy doing, but if you want some really good results then use what I have recommended.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> This all makes sense. That said, I feel like there’s a theme across responses and I want to add some more background.
> 
> Totally appreciate and respect that angles change and adapt throughout a fight, that timing/rhythm is complex and continuous, that feinting/deceiving movements are par for course, the need to maintain calm when hit to avoid panicking or worse overreacting, the adrenaline rush when the buzzer goes off and I have to deal with the problem in front of me. I won’t pretend I’m a seasoned pro fighter, I make a living by other means.
> 
> ...


Much of what you get is how you respond.  You aren't taking the responses personal and you are keeping an opened mind, and that makes people want to give you more information.  It's definitely nice to share information with people like you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it. By definition, it's not a good combat stance. The reason is simple. You will need one extra step before you can spring forward. Sometime you just don't have the luxury for that extra step.
> 
> In wrestling, you cannot hop in like this if you have a square stance. 1 is better than 1,2.


Completely agree with you, which is why I don't use a squared off stance, unless it's for a quick moment, something that eventually gets me out of that stance and into a better one.   My entire concept is that a person can't retreat beyond the back leg.  I have yet to come across anything that proves this concept incorrect.  If my feet are standing next to each other side by side then I'm have no retreat.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't think anyone was insulted.  But instead of looking at it from the perspective of math.  Try looking at it from a functional perspective.
> 
> For example,  You gates become narrow.  What benefit is that to you? How does it help you? Does it open opportunities?  Does it create new limitations?  Does it work for your fighting strategy? How does it help your fighting strategy?  Was there a difference of how you were able to deal with punches in comparison to being more squared?  How does distanced and time change in comparison to being squared off?  What type of techniques are easier or harder to do? How did defense improve? What are the strong and weak points of the the 45º approach?"  Have someone take a picture of you while you are in fighting position.  Use the photo to understand how your opponent sees you.  What openings do you have how does the width of you stance open and close you off to certain attacks.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback. I’ll add one note about the math. I know it’s got a reputation for being robotic in nature and full of formulas, but it’s just very concise language to me. Like shorthand for note-taking more than anything else.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Why are feet less mobile than in a bladed or angled stance? The only difference should be which direction you are mobile in.


They aren't less mobile.  They are just not the same mobility.  Based on what I have seen from Kung Fu Wangs videos,  a square stance would take away a lot of the mobility that is required for the techniques that he uses.  For example, while it's possible to sweep and do foot hooks from a squared stance, it's more effective from a bladed stance.  By more effective I mean you have more options and variations available.  A practical low back sweep isn't going to flow from a squared off stance.  Foot hooks are extremely limited when in a square stance.  Side kicks, round houses, low kicks and certain punches aren't going to be effective when squared off.  This doesn't mean that the squared off isn't good or doesn't have mobility.  It just doesn't have the same mobility that a bladed stance would have and that's fine because it's not supposed to have the same type of movement.


----------



## marques (Aug 11, 2018)

Martial D said:


> I'm not saying any angle is universally wrong, but some are certainly situationally wrong.


Again, it can be a ‘technical’ trap. Or a mental game: “I am so much better than you that I can do whatever I want” (cross legs, chin up, hands on the back, dance... ‘wrong angles’.

Then, if you respond, it is predictable; if you don’t, it is sort of humiliation..

But if these games end badly... then it is wrong, no doubts.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> but it’s just very concise language to me.


 Martial arts forms are concise.  Martial arts applications are far from concise. Which is why math is done in the context (if all things remain constant, then this formula works).  2+2 will always = 4, right up to the point someone throws another number in there.

This is the reality of martial arts.  Here Thanksgiving = math.    Lucy = the psychology of humans.  The math of kicking a football is AWLAYS correct right up until someone pulls it away.  The danger is that you go in with one set of math formulas that are based on a constant. The moment someone sees you trying to add 2+2, they will throw a different number into your equation. 





Think of it like jumping over a ditch, your brain calculates the distance but if that ditch moves back at the last moment then math becomes a problem.  Here's a similar situation.  This guy's brain is calculating a puddle, so right now his brain is doing the math for "jumping into a puddle"  His friends knew that he would do the math for jumping into the puddle so they added some more numbers to the situation.  The math didn't calculate the behavior of his friends and as a result he got wet. 





It's fine to do the math but just be aware that someone is always throwing some extra elements into a situation when they see that you are trying to "add something up."

Maybe this has made a bigger impact on my childhood than I realize lol


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Martial arts forms are concise.  Martial arts applications are far from concise. Which is why math is done in the context (if all things remain constant, then this formula works).  2+2 will always = 4, right up to the point someone throws another number in there.
> 
> This is the reality of martial arts.  Here Thanksgiving = math.    Lucy = the psychology of humans.  The math of kicking a football is AWLAYS correct right up until someone pulls it away.  The danger is that you go in with one set of math formulas that are based on a constant. The moment someone sees you trying to add 2+2, they will throw a different number into your equation.
> 
> ...



This is a popular perspective of what math is that’s largely taught in grade school. I wouldn’t suggest anyone try to calculate anything in a fight, too much thinking will get you planted.

But I guess the point I’m trying to make is that math runs deeper than arithmetic and has been used to describe and discover truth about natural phenomena for a very long time. For example, I could rewrite your post in maths and reduce it to fewer words. Philosophers do similar exercises and find small units of truth that they can use to check their assumptions against.

We can speak more about it but important that these thoughts not be confused with formulas and arithmetic. At it’s root, math is kung fu.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> For example, I could rewrite your post in maths and reduce it to fewer words.


Well I'm a wordy person by nature, so reducing what I say wouldn't be a difficult task. lol.



lansao said:


> At it’s root, math is kung fu


And this is the error that I didn't want you to make.  Say this is like missing 75% of what kung fu is and why it works.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Well I'm a wordy person by nature, so reducing what I say wouldn't be a difficult task. lol.



Didn’t mean it that way. In general stuff we say translates.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I’ll add one note about the math. I know it’s got a reputation for being robotic in nature and full of formulas, but it’s just very concise language to me. Like shorthand for note-taking more than anything else.


As long as you accept approximations (as you did with your ~30%), math can be an easy way to view a single aspect separately, to focus on it apart from the other variables. This often gives a starting point for exploration or discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> They aren't less mobile.  They are just not the same mobility.



That was my point, really. If I use the same weight distribution both times, the feet have the same mobility, just angled differently, making different moves easier or harder. 



> Based on what I have seen from Kung Fu Wangs videos,  a square stance would take away a lot of the mobility that is required for the techniques that he uses.  For example, while it's possible to sweep and do foot hooks from a squared stance, it's more effective from a bladed stance.  By more effective I mean you have more options and variations available.  A practical low back sweep isn't going to flow from a squared off stance.  Foot hooks are extremely limited when in a square stance.  Side kicks, round houses, low kicks and certain punches aren't going to be effective when squared off.  This doesn't mean that the squared off isn't good or doesn't have mobility.  It just doesn't have the same mobility that a bladed stance would have and that's fine because it's not supposed to have the same type of movement.



Agreed. Of course in most cases the reality is that while grappling we are moving through stAnces, so the advantage or disadvantage is transitory.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> At it’s root, math is kung fu.


I'm going to use my real life experiences do give you an example of some ways that math does don't factor into.  My desire to train and push through has nothing to do with math.  My ability to relax when I need to and tense up when I need to have nothing to do with math.  How I perceive a punch, kick, attack or defense has nothing to do with math.  How I manipulate my opponent (bait, intimidate, mislead) has nothing to do with math.  My timing of my striking and defending has very little to do with math and more to do with biology.  Did I sleep well the night before sparring? Am I in a good mood? Do I feel lazy?  Factors these into your angled stance and that 30% reduction of width in your gates may or may not be of any importance.  It definitely won't have any importance if a person doesn't have any skills to make use of it. By this I don't mean a person can't fight.  Because some BJJ guys will look at the 30% reduction in width and ask you how well did that work out for you when you were on your back lol. 



lansao said:


> Didn’t mean it that way. In general stuff we say translates.


lol.  I knew what you meant.  But I am wordy lol


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> And this is the error that I didn't want you to make. Say this is like missing 75% of what kung fu is and why it works.


Once you get into chaos theory and the like, I’m not sure math doesn’t have the language for that other 75%.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm going to use my real life experiences do give you an example of some ways that math does don't factor into.  My desire to train and push through has nothing to do with math.  My ability to relax when I need to and tense up when I need to have nothing to do with math.  How I perceive a punch, kick, attack or defense has nothing to do with math.  How I manipulate my opponent (bait, intimidate, mislead) has nothing to do with math.  My timing of my striking and defending has very little to do with math and more to do with biology.  Did I sleep well the night before sparring? Am I in a good mood? Do I feel lazy?  Factors these into your angled stance and that 30% reduction of width in your gates may or may not be of any importance.  It definitely won't have any importance if a person doesn't have any skills to make use of it. By this I don't mean a person can't fight.  Because some BJJ guys will look at the 30% reduction in width and ask you how well did that work out for you when you were on your back lol.
> 
> lol.  I knew what you meant.  But I am wordy lol


You’re asking a very brief approximation to accept vague variables unrelated to it. We could actually address those things with math - just a more complex and theoretical branch of math. I’m not sure it would always be useful to do so, but that’s a different question.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 11, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The square stance is not a stance that you can spring from it



Well, I gotta respectfully disagree. I find it is quite omni-directional and easy to mobilize from...just as much as in a lead leg stance. 
Plus, if opponent is keen on leg wrapping or ankle picks...It may be useful to not have that lead leg closer to them.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm going to use my real life experiences do give you an example of some ways that math does don't factor into.  My desire to train and push through has nothing to do with math.  My ability to relax when I need to and tense up when I need to have nothing to do with math.  How I perceive a punch, kick, attack or defense has nothing to do with math.  How I manipulate my opponent (bait, intimidate, mislead) has nothing to do with math.  My timing of my striking and defending has very little to do with math and more to do with biology.  Did I sleep well the night before sparring? Am I in a good mood? Do I feel lazy?  Factors these into your angled stance and that 30% reduction of width in your gates may or may not be of any importance.  It definitely won't have any importance if a person doesn't have any skills to make use of it. By this I don't mean a person can't fight.  Because some BJJ guys will look at the 30% reduction in width and ask you how well did that work out for you when you were on your back lol.
> 
> lol.  I knew what you meant.  But I am wordy lol



We need to hang out some time. Good stuff. I’m out of Austin if you’re ever in town.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That was my point, really. If I use the same weight distribution both times, the feet have the same mobility, just angled differently, making different moves easier or harder.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Of course in most cases the reality is that while grappling we are moving through stAnces, so the advantage or disadvantage is transitory.


I think many in the martial arts world forget that each system is an option and with that option certain opportunities are available while other options aren't.  I would be willing to bet that few have even thought what's options are available from various positions and how that plays into the function of the system that they train.  I guess I blame the teachers of the past for being such a hardass about "This is the way to do it.  Everything else is wrong." or "Don't question, just do."


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> We need to hang out some time. Good stuff. I’m out of Austin if you’re ever in town.


I'm easy going.  To be honest, I don't mind the math of things, so long as I don't have to calculate it lol.   I've been studying the 45º angle as a "magic number" in martial arts for about 3 or 4 years now.  Why 45º? What's so important about 45º? and what happens at 45º.    I have discovered some things that I've put to the test and paid a serious price for it because it.   One of my theories is that biologically our bodies, and animal bodies, are designed based on the best way to protect our organs.  One would have to look at the animals in the world to see the variation of this and the truth of it.   Long story short every animal has angle of weakness and 45º angles is where humans are the most weak.  

Keep in mind the 45º angle is not an exact angle. It's the angle that we try for with the understanding that we won't be exact.  But if we try for 45º then we will be within the ball part of the real "magic number" range.   So far this only seems to apply to striking I would be interested to know if BJJ has a "magic angle" or if they are just a "bend stuff the wrong way" type system.  For example,  how do you tap someone out?  Answer: Bend it the wrong way.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> You’re asking a very brief approximation to accept vague variables unrelated to it. We could actually address those things with math - just a more complex and theoretical branch of math. I’m not sure it would always be useful to do so, but that’s a different question.


I only ask this because  of the "math is kung fu" statement.  There's a lot of vague stuff in kung fu and martial arts in general.   Things are pretty uniformed in forms in and drills, but when things starts moving it's gets vague.  Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water."  If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I only ask this because  of the "math is kung fu" statement.  There's a lot of vague stuff in kung fu and martial arts in general.   Things are pretty uniformed in forms in and drills, but when things starts moving it's gets vague.  Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water."  If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.



You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art. Some things can only be learned and understood by doing.

As for the Lee quote, it's less vague if you're a WC guy. It refers to staying soft until the moment of impact then tensing. Many variations of WC(including the one I learned) teach this as foundational.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

Martial D said:


> You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art. Some things can only be learned and understood by doing.


I'm a very analytical person and it would be so cool if we could have a chart to go with it, we could probably make one if we look at things that could be constant. For example, angle that is resisting force that is coming from one direction.  While that chart would be interesting it wouldn't be of value outside the context of that small observation.

It's like you stated.  "You just can't spreadsheet physical activities, especially not one as nuanced as a martial art."



Martial D said:


> As for the Lee quote, it's less vague if you're a WC guy. It refers to staying soft until the moment of impact then tensing. Many variations of WC(including the one I learned) teach this as foundational.


Thanks. It's was the only one that I could think of that had 500 interpretations of what he meant.  Your explanation is one that has made me feel the most comfortable with.  Many systems teach the same thing as well.  I know for Jow Ga it as be relaxed until impact, which is the same concept that you just stated.   But I've heard some crazy sfuff as well  with that "Be like water" quote.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Taking an angled stance at 45º off the line running perpendicular to central line (straight line connecting your heart to your opponent's) reduces the width of the 6 gates (or 4 depending on lineage) by 31.25%.
> 
> View attachment 21662


Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves?  I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens.  What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you.  Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A.   Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I'm going to use my real life experiences do give you an example of some ways that math does don't factor into.  My desire to train and push through has nothing to do with math.  My ability to relax when I need to and tense up when I need to have nothing to do with math.  How I perceive a punch, kick, attack or defense has nothing to do with math.  How I manipulate my opponent (bait, intimidate, mislead) has nothing to do with math.  My timing of my striking and defending has very little to do with math and more to do with biology.  Did I sleep well the night before sparring? Am I in a good mood? Do I feel lazy?  Factors these into your angled stance and that 30% reduction of width in your gates may or may not be of any importance.  It definitely won't have any importance if a person doesn't have any skills to make use of it. By this I don't mean a person can't fight.  Because some BJJ guys will look at the 30% reduction in width and ask you how well did that work out for you when you were on your back lol.



All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.

It's still an equation though, with variables that can be measured and quantified.



JowGaWolf said:


> Like Bruce Lee stated "Be like water."  If that' snot vague then I don't know what is lol.



Fluid dynamics maybe?

It's all numbers.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves?  I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens.  What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you.  Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A.   Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.



Oh no not at all. This is a very granular assumption. It would be one of many that would be factored into a way more complex model of trying to account for multiple opponents and over a time series. That said, I’m sure there’s some n-dimensional matrix of values that will describe it well enough over a time series.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.
> 
> It's still an equation though, with variables that can be measured and quantified.
> 
> ...



Here’s a good one: if the transitive property (if a=b & b=c then a=c) weren’t true, bridging wouldn’t work. But it does work, because it is true, and it’s an axiom because its unit of truth is so granular it can’t be proven with more math, only by observation. You could say bridging in a way proves the transitive property to be true.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Have you factored in the invent that your opponent moves?  I'm willing to bet that there is another concept that is present when this happens.  What would be the angle if the person saw your intent and moved horizontally to the left or right of you.  Don't think of it in the context of Style A vs Style A.   Look at the question from the context of Style A fighting against Style B, where Style B is any style that is not the same as yours.



The other nice thing is that you can just wrap stuff that you know is complex into functions and take a load off. Like, just make up some function called “F” that takes in the set of all movements from an opponent along a 3D plane and returns for any given member of that set some set of movements that defends against it with some set of criteria defined by a constant variable of style/art. 

The human body ultimately has limited range of motion so we can set the boundaries.

Then you have R and can start to express with it, forget about constructing a solution, just reason about the shapes the variables take when they interact. It’s really beautiful at its core, super expressive.

More important stuff helps with instruction too, like the idea of limits. “I want you to make this exaggerated circular motion first and then imagine the radius of that circle approaching 0 over time.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> All of that is mathematically expressible, it's just not 1+1 level.


Show me.  I would like to see it and I'm not saying that to be a smartass.  If it's possible to do something that I didn't think was possible then I naturally want to see it because it helps to break down any limitations of thinking and perspectives that kept me from seeing what was actually possible.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Oh no not at all. This is a very granular assumption. It would be one of many that would be factored into a way more complex model of trying to account for multiple opponents and over a time series. That said, I’m sure there’s some n-dimensional matrix of values that will describe it well enough over a time series.


I was thinking more along the lines of .. If you come at me with one stance and I move horizontally to the right or left,  What would be your follow up stance that you take as a response to my movement. What angle would your response have in relation to me. Would it be a squared off position or an angled position.  If it's angled then what is the degree of that angle.   I like to keep things simple.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of .. If you come at me with one stance and I move horizontally to the right or left,  What would be your follow up stance that you take as a response to my movement. What angle would your response have in relation to me. Would it be a squared off position or an angled position.  If it's angled then what is the degree of that angle.   I like to keep things simple.


If your opponent side-steps horizontally and you've over committed, you're caught in check (like chess). You'd need to reposition or counter with footwork (t-step etc.) from where you are (the reciprocal line is useful for this in a few cases). So many words though, would be better to demo. I'm on vacation with family this week but will be happy to share a video when I get back.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> Fluid dynamics maybe?


lol. the only thing I know about Fluid dynamics is how much soda fits in a bottle lol. not really but you get the meaning of my limitations on that subject lol.



lansao said:


> Here’s a good one: if the transitive property (if a=b & b=c then a=c) weren’t true, bridging wouldn’t work


 I don't like that one and have been personally punched in the face because I followed that. In my mind (a=b only when b meets criteria 1.  B = c only when b meets criteria 2.  A and C may or may not be the same thing.)

A = a jab
B = a jab
C = a jab.
D = a jab

A = a Jab standing still
B = a Jab while moving forward
C = a Jab while moving backwards.

A,B,C, are all jabs, but they aren't the same thing. Just by adding simple movement, we have changed, the mechanics of the jab. It doesn't follow the same rules as math. 



lansao said:


> But it does work, because it is true, and it’s an axiom because its unit of truth is so granular it can’t be proven with more math, only by observation.


My person experience that there is a lot of stuff looks one way when observing and another way when actually applying it.   All may look like they are the same from the outside, but a person who actually does these things, he or she will tell you that they are very different.  Just because someone is good at jabbing forward doesn't mean they are good at jabbing backwards.  Hitting a baseball looks simple enough, just swing the bat like the pros do right?  Same with running, everyone knows how to run, but in reality running is very technical when you are the one who is doing it vs the one who is observing.  By the way I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to provide some more information that may need to be considered when you are trying to do your math.



lansao said:


> Like, just make up some function called “F” that takes in the set of all movements from an opponent along a 3D plane and returns for any given member of that set some set of movements that defends against it with some set of criteria defined by a constant variable of style/art.


We actually see many students try to do this and it doesn't work.  The If they do A then you do B?  A lot of times they just end up waiting for something that never comes and as a result they get hit with something else.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Show me.  I would like to see it and I'm not saying that to be a smartass.  If it's possible to do something that I didn't think was possible then I naturally want to see it because it helps to break down any limitations of thinking and perspectives that kept me from seeing what was actually possible.


It would start with something along the lines of the image attached (just defining variables based on the nature of the thing being measured). From there you'd iterate until everything that could be reduced is reduced and relationships between variables have been established. Much of what you're seeing here is poorly defined because I'm lazy.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> If your opponent side-steps horizontally and you've over committed, you're caught in check (like chess). You'd need to reposition or counter with footwork (t-step etc.) from where you are (the reciprocal line is useful for this in a few cases). So many words though, would be better to demo. I'm on vacation with family this week but will be happy to share a video when I get back.


Awesome.  I would like to see that, especially because I know we don't train the same system, and it'll give us a chance to analyze the same visual and not the one that goes on in our head.  I don't mean to ask for much, but try to do one as a demo and then try to do one during free sparring.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't like that one and have been personally punched in the face because I followed that. In my mind (a=b only when b meets criteria 1.  B = c only when b meets criteria 2.  A and C may or may not be the same thing.)
> 
> A = a jab
> B = a jab
> ...



No worries, I didn't specify the analogy. Not talking about punching but a wing chun concept called "bridging." Here imagine my left arm (a) has made contact with your right arm (b) (loosely the position of a = the position of b). If my right arm (c) can bridge from my left arm (a) near where its making contact with your right arm (b) to your right arm (b), then my right arm can take my left arm's place (a = c). In other words, if my left arm knows where your right arm is through contact, my right arm knows too and can reference itself to get there. But that's just a simple example with plenty of variance baked in.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> I think many in the martial arts world forget that each system is an option and with that option certain opportunities are available while other options aren't.  I would be willing to bet that few have even thought what's options are available from various positions and how that plays into the function of the system that they train.  I guess I blame the teachers of the past for being such a hardass about "This is the way to do it.  Everything else is wrong." or "Don't question, just do."


Yeah, it bugs me when I hear "that's wrong", when what they mean (or should mean, anyway) is "that's not the way I'm teaching, and won't emphasize the principles you're learning to use right now".


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> It would start with something along the lines of the image attached (just defining variables based on the nature of the thing being measured). From there you'd iterate until everything that could be reduced is reduced and relationships between variables have been established. Much of what you're seeing here is poorly defined because I'm lazy.
> 
> View attachment 21674


lol. yep.  I skimmed about 5 lines and was like "too complicated."  show me the short route.  Get some sleep, eat well, train hard lol.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> lol. the only thing I know about Fluid dynamics is how much soda fits in a bottle lol. not really but you get the meaning of my limitations on that subject lol.


Just don't ask the Hobbit - you don't want to get her started on fluid dynamics.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> We actually see many students try to do this and it doesn't work.  The If they do A then you do B?  A lot of times they just end up waiting for something that never comes and as a result they get hit with something else.



Less about trying to think up the if/then in the moment, too much thought in the moment of execution is a bad idea. Have to have already trained the right small units of abstract movement and hope your training lets you adapt fluidly without being restrained by any specific drill or form ("be like water"). More about appreciating that there exists some definable space/set of responses that fit a defensive criteria. Math as language versus math as calculator.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Awesome.  I would like to see that, especially because I know we don't train the same system, and it'll give us a chance to analyze the same visual and not the one that goes on in our head.  I don't mean to ask for much, but try to do one as a demo and then try to do one during free sparring.


Totally, I figure this is what this forum is all about. Swapping notes/thoughts, sharing examples, embarrassing ourselves, and ultimately coming out the other end with more knowledge.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> A = a Jab standing still
> B = a Jab while moving forward
> C = a Jab while moving backwards.
> 
> A,B,C, are all jabs, but they aren't the same thing. Just by adding simple movement, we have changed, the mechanics of the jab. It doesn't follow the same rules as math



Well, it does follow mathematical rules, but you're not...

A = jab

So
A1 = jab moving forward
A2 = jab moving backwards
A3 = jab moving left
A7 = jab moving 30° forward left
And so on.

Each of those can be weighted depending on what you're doing at the time

Say

B= avoiding by stepping

B1 = avoiding backwards
B2 = avoiding forwards
Etc.



Now, A2 (say weighted as 3) against B1 (say weighted as -3.5) = -0.5

You didn't get jabbed.

Now throw in Q/H (amount of sleep against time since waking) to give a weighting for or against L (relative reaction time based against a baseline) which counterweights your B1 +0.7

You got hit, then stepped back.

Oh, but your opponent's Q/H.L gave him -1.1

You didn't get jabbed.

But he decided the jab was a feint for a side kick, say F.

.......


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Totally, I figure this is what this forum is all about. Swapping notes/thoughts, sharing examples, embarrassing ourselves, and ultimately coming out the other end with more knowledge.


Swapping lies and hiding secrets. You forgot those.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Totally, I figure this is what this forum is all about. Swapping notes/thoughts, sharing examples, embarrassing ourselves, and ultimately coming out the other end with more knowledge.


Side note too, I don't mean to throw around math like it's some kind of smarty pants thing. More than anything, I hope this makes that kind of math more approachable.

I've thought of teaching an integrated approach of music theory, pure math, and Wing Chun in large part because of how much they really do have in common. That I could get kids a little more comfortable with math because they have a complex but relatable enough example in kung fu to help them make connections. Get excited about kung fu because they see how they can improve their musicianship ("slow is fast", "simplicity of movement").

If I could retire from work and do one thing with my time, it would be teaching this integrated approach (preferably to disadvantaged kids who need to be told with confidence that they're not dumb). To extend the value of the martial art across other domains and benefit them through the fascinating and beautiful ways all of these things interweave.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2018)

I need a great big blackboard to quantify a one punch, one kick exchange


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Not talking about punching but a wing chun concept called "bridging."


I can't use bridging because Wing Chun bridging is not the same as Jow Ga kung fu bridging.  The concept is the same but the delivery isn't. In Jow Ga our bridging isn't in such a tight area because it's a circular system, so we have to be able to do bridge work that is away from our center.  As an outsider looking in.  Wing Chun seems to collapse the opponent with the bridge work.  In Jow Ga we tend to open an opponent with ours.



lansao said:


> No worries, I didn't specify the analogy. Not talking about punching but a wing chun concept called "bridging." Here imagine my left arm (a) has made contact with your right arm (b) (loosely the position of a = the position of b). If my right arm (c) can bridge from my left arm (a) near where its making contact with your right arm (b) to your right arm (b), then my right arm can take my left arm's place (a = c). In other words, if my left arm knows where your right arm is through contact, my right arm knows too and can reference itself to get there. But that's just a simple example with plenty of variance baked in.


  Here's how Jow Ga sees that scenario without punching.  If your left arm has made contact then I'm going to use my right arm to main contact and redirect your left arm so I can isolate it.   I will either isolate it by grabbing it or repositioning it.  I DO NOT, NOT EVER need to get my other hand into the bridge. My free hand is for punching, defending, preventing and escaping should an extra hand be required.   This isn't a wrong or right issue.  It is just one that would reduce the ability to follow up with a Jow Ga technique if I took the same approach as you described for Wing Chun.   If you look at Jow Ga forms you will see a lot of one hand bridging. We do have two hand bridging  techniques but each hand takes a hand vs switching bridges.

With Jow Ga the student should be able to attack with the bridging hand without any help from the other hand.  By the way I'm going to review some of my other videos to make sure that I'm not talking crap. lol.  I think there was one incident where I did switch hands like you stated.  I probably picked up some bad habits from all the wing chun people here lol.  (just went back.to review the video. I didn't do the same thing as wing chun."  It was a bridge but not how you described.  In the video I didn't switch my bridge. I used my right and to defend and distract while my left hand secured the bridge.  I thought I was switching but I wasn't 

Jabbing is going to be fairly similar across different systems in terms of use and delivery which is why I picked Jabbing.  Bridging tends to follow system based concepts more so than what jabbing does.  It's the technique with the least variance.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Side note too, I don't mean to throw around math like it's some kind of smarty pants thing. More than anything, I hope this makes that kind of math more approachable.


ha ha ha.  I'll put it this way.  The math that you put is small compared to some of the formulas and equations that have popped up around on Martial Talk.



lansao said:


> I've thought of teaching an integrated approach of music theory, pure math, and Wing Chun in large part because of how much they really do have in common. That I could get kids a little more comfortable with math because they have a complex but relatable enough example in kung fu to help them make connections.


I think this is more applicable to Forms.  Forms tend to be more rigid and the student has to move into certain positions, punches have to be at certain angles, structure has to be certain way.  Martial arts forms are great for concepts and approaches that one can build off of simply because they are constant.  It's a good thing because it provides a solid starting point.  It's a bad thing because some people think that's the only way to do it, and any variation of that technique is wrong or doesn't work.  I've seen variation of Jow Ga techniques in both Korean and Japanese martial arts.  It wasn't how Jow Ga teaches it, but the variation that they used was a working one.



pdg said:


> I need a great big blackboard to quantify a one punch, one kick exchange


ha ha ha..I've written a chapter on just how to make 2 types of fists.  So far the second type of fist is 5 pages long simply on the structure of the fist and I'm not finished yet.  So I've been trying to reduce it and making sure that I only include things that are needed.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Have to have already trained the right small units of abstract movement and hope your training lets you adapt fluidly without being restrained by any specific drill or form ("be like water").


 Problem is most schools teach System A vs System A, so when it's System A vs System B.  Those drills don't calculate.  The abstract is rarely taught, students usually pick up that on their own through exploration.  It seems like an easy thing, but from teaching martial arts, it seems that students make it harder than what it needs to be in terms of making that jump from drill concept to real world application.  Some how it always tends to turn into  "I'm waiting for my opponent to do A so I can do B."  I used to be like that as well but that's before I sat down and really tried to understand what it is that I'm doing outside of what the drill is showing.

But I agree with you with the. bite size movements.  "be like water" lol see another interpretation.  We'll probably get 4 more the end of next week lol.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 11, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> Well, I gotta respectfully disagree. I find it is quite omni-directional and easy to mobilize from...just as much as in a lead leg stance.
> Plus, if opponent is keen on leg wrapping or ankle picks...It may be useful to not have that lead leg closer to them.


By using the bladed stance, you can "cover more distance".


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha..I've written a chapter on just how to make 2 types of fists.  So far the second type of fist is 5 pages long simply on the structure of the fist and I'm not finished yet.  So I've been trying to reduce it and making sure that I only include things that are needed.



But if you want to math a fight or sparring session, you can't leave anything out.

That's what I meant when I said it's not a 1+1 situation.

Assigning a number to something is simple(ish), weighting it with variables and putting that against something else is, well, something else.

It's still doable though.

So, everything can be solved and/or quantified with maths.

Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know enough maths.


(Oh, and BTW, that comment earlier about 2+2 not being 4 because someone adds another number is poor - because 2+2 is just 2+2. If another number is put in it becomes a different equation...)


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> Well, it does follow mathematical rules, but you're not...
> 
> A = jab
> 
> ...


When I read this, it's like saying. 
A = dog
A1 = chihuahua
A2 = pit bull


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> If you come at me with one stance and I move horizontally to the right or left,  What would be your follow up stance that you take as a response to my movement. What angle would your response have in relation to me. Would it be a squared off position or an angled position.  If it's angled then what is the degree of that angle.   I like to keep things simple.


This is why the move toward your opponent's side door (blind side) is a good strategy.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

Another thought! Machine learning could teach us something interesting too. There are ML algorithms that are able to classify video. We could feed ML algorithms footage of every recorded fight and it would be able to run an unsupervised learning algorithm against it to find clusters in time series. Like, there'd be a cluster for lead jabs that look similar. You could provide cleaner training data if two partners wore 3d gyroscopic trackers on their shoulders, elbows, wrists, forehead, chin, hips, knees, and ankles.

This kind of information would also feed well into what's called a Markov chain to tell us what the responses are that have most often led to successful counter. This would be less about trying to calculate movements from paper to action than recording action and feeding it into a computer that could find interesting patterns that we might not think of ourselves. Would also make for good video game/simulator content 

And another thought! Learning Wing Chun for me was never about fighting competitively. It was always about trying to be a better version of myself by reducing fear through understanding and disciplined practice centered on something I was terrified of, physical violence. Math has reduced my fear dramatically through understanding and disciplined practice centered on another thing I was terrified of, intellectual inferiority. That others knew something I didn't and wasn't part of the smart kid's club. That I wouldn't see the world in ways that others could and would lose out on that experience; or that I would be tricked/taken-advantage-of by people who knew it and saw more than I did.

I'm word vomiting a bit but the wife just left for the beach with the 3-yo so I have time to wax poetic.


----------



## pdg (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> When I read this, it's like saying.
> A = dog
> A1 = chihuahua
> A2 = pit bull



Which is pretty accurate.

It's how all living things are categorised, but using words...

So for fauna (flora is slightly different, but sane structure) you have Kingdom : phylum : class : order : family : genus : species : subspecies : variant.

You can use the same structure for any technique, then apply an abbreviation, then assign a personal base number, then weight that number with variables that affect effectiveness...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Another thought! Machine learning could teach us something interesting too. There are ML algorithms that are able to classify video. We could feed ML algorithms footage of every recorded fight and it would be able to run an unsupervised learning algorithm against it to find clusters in time series. Like, there'd be a cluster for lead jabs that look similar. You could provide cleaner training data if two partners wore 3d gyroscopic trackers on their shoulders, elbows, wrists, forehead, chin, hips, knees, and ankles.
> 
> This kind of information would also feed well into what's called a Markov chain to tell us what the responses are that have most often led to successful counter. This would be less about trying to calculate movements from paper to action than recording action and feeding it into a computer that could find interesting patterns that we might not think of ourselves. Would also make for good video game/simulator content
> 
> ...


I can see that spending time together, you and I will blather about many topics, Alan. I suspect, if you were to complete an assessment on motivators (based on Spranger/Allport model), you'd also be a high-Theoretical.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I can see that spending time together, you and I will blather about many topics, Alan. I suspect, if you were to complete an assessment on motivators (based on Spranger/Allport model), you'd also be a high-Theoretical.



Looking forward to it. Haven’t heard of those models before but if it’s helpful I’m an ENFP on the mbti and my strengths are spread across all categories on strengths finder.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Looking forward to it. Haven’t heard of those models before but if it’s helpful I’m an ENFP on the mbti and my strengths are spread across all categories on strengths finder.


If you want, I can send you an assessment link.


----------



## lansao (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> If you want, I can send you an assessment link.


Would love to!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> Would love to!


Sent in PM.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> But if you want to math a fight or sparring session, you can't leave anything out.
> 
> That's what I meant when I said it's not a 1+1 situation.


Oh ok. I misunderstood before.  That's why I was saying that for forms one could show the math because Forms would be constant enough.



pdg said:


> Oh, and BTW, that comment earlier about 2+2 not being 4 because someone adds another number is poor - because 2+2 is just 2+2. If another number is put in it becomes a different equation.


No it's actually an accurate example.  If I see that you are planning a specific attack or defense, then I already know that you are expecting a specific out come.  I can literally show how this plays out through in one of my videos.  In the video.

My plan was 1+2=3.   As long as she threw 1 straight jab I could do 2 things (redirect and counter with a hook) as a response.  I had planned for the exchange to consist of 3 actions that would get me to my target.  She threw in an additional action so instead of 1+2  she gave me a 2+2  She did her 2nd action the same time I did mine and we hit each other in the head at the same time.   I think it took me 3 punches to my face to understand that 2+3= 5  is what I should have used against her.

1+2 = 3 works, but not against her or anyone who decides to throw more than 1 punch.  After that I paid more attention to her.  I could tell when she was going to try something new.  When I picked that up I added another action to the equation because I knew it would mess up her calculation.  Keep in mind that none of this is math.  It's sensory.  I have an theory / concept about patterns that I use when I fight.   Basically if I can identify the pattern then I can exploit that pattern and know how many actions it will take for me to hit my target.

I actually typed it up here (it was long) but when I hit "Post Reply" it showed that i was logged out. Now I'm tired and have no interest in typing all of that out again.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

pdg said:


> Which is pretty accurate.
> 
> It's how all living things are categorised, but using words...
> 
> ...


Yeah but I wouldn't expect the same results from a Chihuahua that I would from a Pit bull. That's like selling a guard dogs and telling the buyer. " Meh.. Chihuahua , Pit bull same thing.  Yes they are both dogs but they definitely are not the same thing.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

lansao said:


> I'm word vomiting a bit but the wife just left for the beach with the 3-yo so I have time to wax poetic.


get it in while you can


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 11, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Oh ok. I misunderstood before.  That's why I was saying that for forms one could show the math because Forms would be constant enough.
> 
> No it's actually an accurate example.  If I see that you are planning a specific attack or defense, then I already know that you are expecting a specific out come.  I can literally show how this plays out through in one of my videos.  In the video.
> 
> ...


I'd argue that 1+2=3 always works. You just can't always count on the 1 or the 2 for that equation. So, if I know that a jab (1) slipped to the outside (2) puts me in position for a punch to the ribs (3), then that's always the equation if those are present. If it becomes jab (1) slipped to the outside (2) and they pivot to keep me inside (-1 because I never made it to the outside), then there's a different answer (2). It changes the equation, but not the effectiveness of the original equation.

That's why every martial art ever teaches responses to something specific (if she does this, this specific way, you have an opening for a single-leg takedown), and then broadens that (or should - some instructors seem to leave this part out) to the principles of knowing when the response is applicable. So, it starts as simple arithmatic, then becomes a differential equation to allow for more variation, and later something from chaos theory to allow for the fact that we'll never really know all the variables.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 11, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue that 1+2=3 always works.


It doesn't always work.  But it always works for the situation that it appropriately fits.  In other words I have to find the pattern first.   If I can find the pattern then  I can make something like 1+2= 3 work.

In your example if you know that the jab will put you in position for a punch to the ribs then you can use that to your advantage.  It's your advantage because you know where the punch is going.  

I don't always have know where you are, sometimes I can know where you are going to be and then prepare for that.   Presenting fake openings does exactly this.  It exploits behavior.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

The main issue of the square stance is you don't have a plan. You don't even know whether you will advance your right leg first, or you will advance your left leg first.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The main issue of the square stance is you don't have a plan. You don't even know whether you will advance your right leg first, or you will advance your left leg first.



But that's the point. That's a strength of that stance. The opponents plan is an unknown and so the horse is ready to move/mobilize in ANY direction. Don't get me wrong, the lead leg stance has its place too...I'm just throwing out some values for the case of the square stance.


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yeah but I wouldn't expect the same results from a Chihuahua that I would from a Pit bull. That's like selling a guard dogs and telling the buyer. " Meh.. Chihuahua , Pit bull same thing.  Yes they are both dogs but they definitely are not the same thing.



I wouldn't expect the same results from a jab going forward and a jab going backwards.

But I see I wasn't accurate enough before...


----------



## pdg (Aug 12, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> Martial arts forms are concise.  Martial arts applications are far from concise. Which is why math is done in the context (if all things remain constant, then this formula works).  2+2 will always = 4, right up to the point someone throws another number in there.
> 
> This is the reality of martial arts.  Here Thanksgiving = math.    Lucy = the psychology of humans.  The math of kicking a football is AWLAYS correct right up until someone pulls it away.  The danger is that you go in with one set of math formulas that are based on a constant. The moment someone sees you trying to add 2+2, they will throw a different number into your equation.



That's the bit I was on about.

It's a bad example because:

2+2 (or say twist hips and extend arm) = 4 (punch)

That's always the case.

Putting someone else in front adds a variable, so it's not 2+2 any longer.

It becomes 2+2.(7h/0.6v)-6q/0.076g+d.J4/9-sqrt4n.I-8

So, 2+2 just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> It doesn't always work.  But it always works for the situation that it appropriately fits.  In other words I have to find the pattern first.   If I can find the pattern then  I can make something like 1+2= 3 work.
> 
> In your example if you know that the jab will put you in position for a punch to the ribs then you can use that to your advantage.  It's your advantage because you know where the punch is going.
> 
> I don't always have know where you are, sometimes I can know where you are going to be and then prepare for that.   Presenting fake openings does exactly this.  It exploits behavior.


Yes, that was my point. 1+2 is the pattern. If that's present, then 3 works. If it's not quite that pattern (1+1.75), then 3 might still work, but there's probably an adjustment that makes it better.

And of course we won't know where they'll be outside of drills. That's why we use drills - they give us a chance to repeat motions to build the feel, and also to learn to recognize the pattern that leads to that motion. And, as you say, feints and fake openings are leveraging that pattern recognition from the other side. If you give a good enough fake to trigger my recognition of the pattern you're faking, then I walk into your trap. You present 7 (but it's really a european 1) +2 and I try to respond with 9 and walk right into your 1. Ow.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, that was my point. 1+2 is the pattern. If that's present, then 3 works. If it's not quite that pattern (1+1.75), then 3 might still work, but there's probably an adjustment that makes it better.
> 
> And of course we won't know where they'll be outside of drills. That's why we use drills - they give us a chance to repeat motions to build the feel, and also to learn to recognize the pattern that leads to that motion. And, as you say, feints and fake openings are leveraging that pattern recognition from the other side. If you give a good enough fake to trigger my recognition of the pattern you're faking, then I walk into your trap. You present 7 (but it's really a european 1) +2 and I try to respond with 9 and walk right into your 1. Ow.


I feel a kung fail video coming up.  All of my greatest hits, that weren't mine. lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> The opponents plan is an unknown and so the horse is ready to move/mobilize in ANY direction.


This kind of thinking is a bit too conservative IMO. It's like the calm lake water, if you don't throw a rock into it, it will stay calm forever.

When your plan is unknown, your plan will depend on your opponent's initial action. In other words, you let your opponent to lead the fight.

The opposite example of the square stance is the "circular dragging". You drag your opponent in circle. This way, you lead the fight and you are not waiting for your opponent to do anything.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This kind of thinking is a bit too conservative IMO. It's like the calm lake water, if you don't throw a rock into it, it will stay calm forever.
> 
> When your plan is unknown, your plan will depend on your opponent's initial action. In other words, you let your opponent to lead the fight.
> 
> The opposite example of the square stance is the "circular dragging". You drag your opponent in circle. This way, you lead the fight and you are not waiting for your opponent to do anything.


I don't see circular dragging as opposite to a squared stance. It's pretty much the opposite of any static stance, as far as "opposite" goes.

And, no, using a reactive strategy is not the same as letting your opponent lead the fight. I can have multiple mini-strategies to work from, each designed to upset the timing of a given observed approach. Which I use is dependent upon what the opponent does, but the point is to disrupt his strategy, rather than just go in with what I want to do, hoping it's a good answer to his approach.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> the point is to disrupt his strategy,...


I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.

It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy. In order to do so, you have to attack first. Your plan is attack, attack, and still attack. During your attacking, you will find your opponent's weakness during his weight shifting.

In the following clip, the old man created that foot sweep opportunity himself. He didn't wait for his opponent to create that chance.


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.
> 
> It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy.



I agree. I don't either. But sometimes don't want to get punched in the face...but it happens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.
> 
> It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy. In order to do so, you have to attack first. Your plan is attack, attack, and still attack. During your attacking, you will find your opponent's weakness during his weight shifting.
> 
> In the following clip, the old man created that foot sweep opportunity himself. He didn't wait for his opponent to create that chance.


Even if you attack, he still gets to choose how he responds. Being the first to attack gives some advantages, but doesn’t dominate the game. 

In that clip, he was still responding to what his opponent did. You always are, unless you are shadow boxing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Even if you attack, he still gets to choose how he responds. Being the first to attack gives some advantages, but doesn’t dominate the game.
> 
> In that clip, he was still responding to what his opponent did. You always are, unless you are shadow boxing.


The advantage of "you attack first" is your opponent's respond can be a much smaller set then if you allow your opponent to attack first.

When your opponent attack first, his first attack can be a kick, a flying side kick, a flying knee, a punch, a superman punch, a single leg shoot, a double legs shoot, ...

If you don't have experience to deal with a flying side kick, when your opponent does that to you, he will lead you into an area that you are not familiar with.






When you kick/sweep at your opponent's leading leg, at that moment, his respond is limited. You want to lead the fight toward the area that you are more familiar with than your opponent does. That will be your advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The advantage of "you attack first" is your opponent's respond can be a much smaller set then if you allow your opponent to attack first.
> 
> When your opponent attack first, his first attack can be a kick, a flying side kick, a flying knee, a punch, a superman punch, a single leg shoot, a double legs shoot, ...
> 
> ...


Yes, but the first attack only happens once per exchange. After that, everything is a response to whatever happens. And every attack also opens up opportunities, so sometimes it's useful to see what they'll give.

I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 12, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".


If you are a wrestler and your opponent is a striker, you don't want him to attack you first.

If you don't give your striker opponent any chance to throw his first punch, you can then turn a stand up game into a ground game during the first contact. That will be your advantage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 12, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a wrestler and your opponent is a striker, you don't want him to attack you first.
> 
> If you don't give your striker opponent any chance to throw his first punch, you can then turn a stand up game into a ground game during the first contact. That will be your advantage.


Or, you might walk right into that first punch by moving in too early. Because, of course, he's thinking exactly the same thing. There aren't any good absolutes.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but the first attack only happens once per exchange. After that, everything is a response to whatever happens. And every attack also opens up opportunities, so sometimes it's useful to see what they'll give.
> 
> I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".




I get where you are coming from but hey that the Aiki in you me thinks, If I am following you right then like I would you don't dive in you maintain your maai until you see what is going to go down ... you may as I would try and "steer " an unknown opponent into giving you something that you could use or just wait move keep aware and wait some more ....

As you say there are no absolutes in any fight and really until you face it you really can't say oh this or that will work, It hypothetical until it "goes down" and hopefully if we are all as MA aware enough maybe we can avoid or reduce the "going down" bit as the best fight is .........the one you never had.


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Or, you might walk right into that first punch by moving in too early. Because, of course, he's thinking exactly the same thing. There aren't any good absolutes.



I’ll also add that your ability to move first is dependent on your opponent not already having done so. You are reacting to their lack of action.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> I’ll also add that your ability to move first is dependent on your opponent not already having done so. You are reacting to their lack of action.




not quite following you there


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> not quite following you there



It’s just an obnoxiously obvious statement. If you’re going to make the first move, you do it knowing your opponent hasn’t made his/hers. You’re reacting to their stasis.

It’s like saying 0 is a number too.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> It’s just an obnoxiously obvious statement. If you’re going to make the first move, you do it knowing your opponent hasn’t made his/hers. You’re reacting to their stasis.
> 
> It’s like saying 0 is a number too.




ok my apologies


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> ok my apologies



No worries, all good. This reminds me of the 5 stages of combat  I studied. Entry, contact, exchange, retreat, and pursuit. Any others have similar breakdowns?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> No worries, all good. This reminds me of the 5 stages of combat  I studied. Entry, contact, exchange, retreat, and pursuit. Any others have similar breakdowns?




That a hard one for my Art as there are conflicting views on that


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> That a hard one for my Art as there are conflicting views on that



You’re saying there are conflicting views? In martial arts? That’s wrong, I completely disagree with that, lol.

Funny the stuff we debate. What are the conflicting views? Always saw it as a simple breakdown to train each stage individually.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

now disabled said:


> I get where you are coming from but hey that the Aiki in you me thinks, If I am following you right then like I would you don't dive in you maintain your maai until you see what is going to go down ... you may as I would try and "steer " an unknown opponent into giving you something that you could use or just wait move keep aware and wait some more ....
> 
> As you say there are no absolutes in any fight and really until you face it you really can't say oh this or that will work, It hypothetical until it "goes down" and hopefully if we are all as MA aware enough maybe we can avoid or reduce the "going down" bit as the best fight is .........the one you never had.


Some confusion in your first sentence, but I think I got the gist of your post. Yes, this is part of my point. By waiting, I'm not necessarily letting them dictate the fight. I can control distance and angles while I wait, allow openings (and false openings) to draw them into the attack I want. Letting them attack first (which most aiki arts focus on) isn't the same as just passively waiting to see what happens.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> I’ll also add that your ability to move first is dependent on your opponent not already having done so. You are reacting to their lack of action.


An interesting philosophical point. If, in a match/contest/fight/sparring session, they initiate attack the first instant the thing starts, you have to deal with that. If they don't, then you can react to their (apparent) inaction by initiating an attack. Both are responses to the situation partly created by your opponent.


----------



## pdg (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> It’s like saying 0 is a number too.



Zero _is_ a number...

But anyway.

Attacking first is fine in some situations, like a match or other organised fight.

But a sustained attack in 'response' to posturing makes you the aggressor.


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> Zero _is_ a number...
> 
> But anyway.
> 
> ...



Yes, it is lol.


----------



## lansao (Aug 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> Zero _is_ a number...
> 
> But anyway.
> 
> ...



Yeah, first strike only makes sense when you’re either entirely sure you’re in danger (break-ins etc) or in a ring. Otherwise you’re picking a fight.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> You’re saying there are conflicting views? In martial arts? That’s wrong, I completely disagree with that, lol.
> 
> Funny the stuff we debate. What are the conflicting views? Always saw it as a simple breakdown to train each stage individually.




I meant there is conflicting views within Aikido far less any more lol


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Some confusion in your first sentence, but I think I got the gist of your post. Yes, this is part of my point. By waiting, I'm not necessarily letting them dictate the fight. I can control distance and angles while I wait, allow openings (and false openings) to draw them into the attack I want. Letting them attack first (which most aiki arts focus on) isn't the same as just passively waiting to see what happens.



sorry for confusion ...that is what I was getting at waiting is not necessarily passive ...


----------



## now disabled (Aug 13, 2018)

To me from an Aikido standpoint it may look like I made the first "attack" but as @gpseymour said contolling the angles and distance etc that in itself can create an opening thereby you go for it and it may look like you attacked first,however from my standpoint I would not have if that makes sense lol


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2018)

lansao said:


> Yeah, first strike only makes sense when you’re either entirely sure you’re in danger (break-ins etc) or in a ring. Otherwise you’re picking a fight.


Not necessary. Your opponent attacks you, you jump back. You then jump back in.

Of course the best situation is when you opponent attacks you, you attack him at the same time. This way, you only need to move in half way.


----------



## pdg (Aug 13, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not necessary. Your opponent attacks you, you jump back. You then jump back in.



That directly contradicts "attack first" though...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 13, 2018)

pdg said:


> That directly contradicts "attack first" though...


When there is a conflict, before you have decided whether you want to fight or not, suddenly your opponent attacks you.

After you have decided that you want to fight, but you are still waiting for your opponent to make his first move, that will be contradiction.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 6, 2018)

I will keep my eye out on a thesis of the mathematical applications of martial arts and which one has the best formula. 

(TBF, that could actually be your university dissertation anyway.)


----------



## drop bear (Sep 6, 2018)

lansao said:


> No worries, all good. This reminds me of the 5 stages of combat  I studied. Entry, contact, exchange, retreat, and pursuit. Any others have similar breakdowns?



Or retreat, pursuit, entry, contact, exchange if you are counter fighting.

Or pursuit exchange, then more exchange untill one of you falls over if you pressure fight.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 6, 2018)

pdg said:


> That directly contradicts "attack first" though...



It is all an attack. Just like playing the silences with a musical instrument.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> if you are counter fighting.


Counter fighting is a bad idea (unfortunately most of the self-defense training uses this approach). You let your opponent to put yourself in defense mode. When your opponent sweeps your leg, no matter you step back, lift your leg, ... you are already one step behind.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Counter fighting is a bad idea (unfortunately most of the self-defense training uses this approach). You let your opponent to put yourself in defense mode. When your opponent sweeps your leg, no matter you step back, lift your leg, ... you are already one step behind.


Not necessarily. Countering can be a very effective fight tactic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2018)

Danny T said:


> Not necessarily. Countering can be a very effective fight tactic.


If your opponent knows how to use a technique to attack, he should also be familiar with the counters that you may use on him. He will then ready to counter your counter.

For example, a head lock will have at least 15 different counters. If you don't know how to counter those 15 counters, you should not apply head lock in the first place.

You may have 100 different ways to attack. But you may only have 20 different ways to counter. If your opponent can put you in counter mode,

- He can lead you into an area that he is more familiar with than you do.
- He has reduced the fighting complexity big time.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent knows how to use a technique to attack, he should also be familiar with the counters that you may use on him. He will then ready to counter your counter.
> 
> For example, a head lock will have at least 15 different counters. If you don't know how to counter those 15 counters, you should not apply head lock in the first place.
> 
> ...


LOL.
And if he knows counters to a counter attack do you seriously think he does not know counters to a primary attack??!!


----------



## drop bear (Sep 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Counter fighting is a bad idea (unfortunately most of the self-defense training uses this approach). You let your opponent to put yourself in defense mode. When your opponent sweeps your leg, no matter you step back, lift your leg, ... you are already one step behind.


Counter fighting  done right puts you one move ahead.  And that is about controlling distance and timing. 

So he has to move in to position and then attack and all you have to do is counter.

Where self defense generally gets it wrong is they start their counter from a dumb place (directly in front inside arms reach)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2018)

drop bear said:


> Counter fighting  done right puts you one move ahead.  And that is about controlling distance and timing.


I don't understand the logic there. If you (general YOU) don't train counter for

- Karate "flying side kick", or
- MT "flying knee",

when your opponent does that to you, he will put you in an area that he is more familiar with than you do. It's better to take your Karate or MT opponent down so he doesn't even have chance to apply those attack on you.

You may have a Walther PPK in your pocket, but if I stab my knife into your heart before you have chance to pull your gun out, your gun will have no threaten to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 8, 2018)

Danny T said:


> LOL.
> And if he knows counters to a counter attack do you seriously think he does not know counters to a primary attack??!!


Waiting for your opponent's attack first is like to give your opponent plenty of time to pull out his gun and shoot you. Why do you even want to give him that opportunity for?

During the Iraq war, US did not wait for Iraq's attack. US attacked first. Why?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 8, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Waiting for your opponent's attack first is like to give your opponent plenty of time to pull out his gun and shoot you. Why do you even want to give him that opportunity for?
> 
> During the Iraq war, US did not wait for Iraq's attack. US attacked first. Why?


As I originally posted on this subject about countering being a bad idea; "Not necessarily. Countering can be a very effective fight tactic" and it can be. That doesn't mean is it will be for all situations. Just as being the first to attack isn't the best idea all the time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Counter fighting is a bad idea (unfortunately most of the self-defense training uses this approach). You let your opponent to put yourself in defense mode. When your opponent sweeps your leg, no matter you step back, lift your leg, ... you are already one step behind.


That's not really what counter-fighting is, by my understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 24, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If your opponent knows how to use a technique to attack, he should also be familiar with the counters that you may use on him. He will then ready to counter your counter.
> 
> For example, a head lock will have at least 15 different counters. If you don't know how to counter those 15 counters, you should not apply head lock in the first place.
> 
> ...


By that logic, any initial attack should always be a win in the chain of counters and counter-counters. That's not how it usually works.


----------

