# Distance



## MJS (Apr 25, 2009)

I came across this blog post by Duncan Stewart, who is a member of the Bujinkan. While this was found on a Bujinkan blog, I feel that it can apply to any art. The topic is on creating distance and avoiding an attack.

So, while reading this, I interpreted it as follows: If someone throws a punch at us, all we really need to do is simply move out of the way. Even if something else is thrown, such as a second punch, we could simply avoid that as well. We could also engage with the person, and do a technique against whatever the attack is.

It states in this paragraph:



> Sensei motioned that it was important to wait for the movement of the opponent and not to attempt to produce something. The feeling is more of dis-engaging or preservation rather than engaging in a battle to the death with your opponent.


 
So, again, I take this as meaning that we should do whatever we can, to avoid physical violence.

Now, after reading this, I find myself split. While we should avoid fighting, constantly moving and avoiding may not be as productive as we hope. I take this as assuming or hoping that the opponent will tire from not being able to hit us, get frustrated and leave. But how long do we want to continue this avoidance? If we want to end this as quickly as possible, this doesnt seem like the quickest way.

On the other hand, we could, as the opponent punches, engage them, and fight back, with a technique. 


As I said, Im split on this, but, I do see the value in both options. IMHO, I think that assessing the situation and picking one of the two options that is best suited at that time, is the best way to go. If we feel that avoiding to the best of our ability is what will work, then so be it. If we feel that fighting back is the best option, then so be it.

My intention was simply to discussion everyones thoughts on this blog post. It was not intended to bash Mr. Stewart, the Bujinkan, the Bujinkan teachers, or say that the idea of avoiding is stupid.

Looking forward to your thoughts!


----------



## kaizasosei (Apr 25, 2009)

Avoiding is great, i think, if one can keep it up.  But i think one must not only avoid, but actually move into the optimal position to strike or carry out counterattack.  Often the counterattack happens a split second after the initial attack maybe even at the same time. 
Without the ability to do damage or the spirit that will startle the opponent into momentary idleness and defensive  posture, avoiding is most likely only going to take you so far, that is long enough to escape completely, use the surroundings or improvised weapons or else, one will eventually go down.  
Technically it is possible to avoid and keep avoiding, but you have to be really quick and good.  If you are against multiple opponents, chances are it is completely impossible to keep avoiding.  Against more opponents, the only way for defence to be realistic is to down  each attacker with hard strikes ideally taking him out with one hit.  Otherwise, there is no way to escape if one gets tangled up or two attacks come simultaneously from difficult angles.

It is the disengaging that is brutal setup.  Disengaging can also be cowardly or it can be insulting, like 'get away from me-don't touch me' however, at best disengaging is a tool used when the opponent believes there is something there to engage in, but suddenly it's not there and then the punishment comes.
There is also a great amount of spiritual dominance and speed required-that is, one must know well enough how to avoid, correct counters and openings as well as delivering powerful intimidating strikes, preferably opaquely undetectable or transparently invisible.. 

With all fighing, it is the opponents' movements and attitude that dictate the movements and spirit of the other, whatever the outcome. 



j


----------



## Guardian (Apr 25, 2009)

There are some ways to look at this.

Avoidance is good, but there might come a time when avoidance is more of a threat then engaging your opponent and taking them out.  Your with your family, avoidance might not be the best move as they could move on them, then you have to engage, so you might as well jump into the frying pan and get it over with.

I'm sorry, avoidance has never been one of my best attributes.  If someone is swinging at me and I've given them no cause, then it's time to teach them a lesson or get my butt kicked pure and simple.


----------



## Thems Fighting Words (Apr 26, 2009)

I'm confused a little. Does this blog actually ask for continued avoidance, without counter engagement, in order to allow one to run? I guess it could work if one were wholly out matched and running was the only option.


----------



## stephen (Apr 26, 2009)

MJS said:


> I came across this blog post by Duncan Stewart, who is a member of the Bujinkan. While this was found on a Bujinkan blog, I feel that it can apply to any art. The topic is on creating distance and avoiding an attack.



I think Duncan's blogs are good, but as most(all?) Bujinkan blogs seem to be - it assumes a bit of familiarity and common understanding. I have a feeling it's like this for most topic/organization specific writings that aren't specifically written for the layman. 

So, I'll try to make some of those things explicit...but these are still just my opinions.



MJS said:


> So, while reading this, I interpreted it as follows: If someone throws a punch at us, all we really need to do is simply move out of the way. Even if something else is thrown, such as a second punch, we could simply avoid that as well.



In the Bujinkan, things like 'moving out of the way' and 'avoiding' carry another key characteristic of moving to a tactically superior position.

So, by way of example, if I were to avoid a punch by jumping back 3 feet this would not be seen as properly avoiding. If I were to move at an angle that caused me to be in a position where I could hit them without them being able to hit me, this would be an example of good getting-out-of-the-way.  



MJS said:


> We could also engage with the person, and do a technique against whatever the attack is.
> 
> It states in this paragraph:
> 
> ...



Hmm...maybe sorta, but while we should avoid violence when we can, rather than looking at it in a 'moral' context it seems that in this case we could look at it from a strategy perspective*:

If we now avoid to a more tactically advantageous position we now have some choices. We could 'counter-attack', but while we may be in a better position we may not be in a dominate position. Also, there's some way where becoming attached to the success of that counter-attack can cause you to be put in a worse position - just as you've previously done to the original attacker. (It also gives you time to further asess the  situation, the attacker, your surroundings, etc... as well as giving him time to 're-evaluate')

If however, you are really in a better position, his next attack will (sorta by definition) be more 'risky' for him, as he'll need to overcome this positional disadvantage. If you've done the first part correctly, this should be easier to avoid and place him in an _even worse_ position when you avoid/take the tactical space the next time. And so on and so on...




MJS said:


> Now, after reading this, I find myself split....
> ..snip...
> IMHO, I think that assessing the situation and picking one of the two options that is best suited at that time, is the best way to go. If we feel that avoiding to the best of our ability is what will work, then so be it. If we feel that fighting back is the best option, then so be it.



Does this help? Can you see how I don't think it's necessarily a one-or-the-other type of choice? 



> My intention was simply to discussion everyones thoughts on this blog post. It was not intended to bash Mr. Stewart, the Bujinkan, the Bujinkan teachers, or say that the idea of avoiding is stupid.
> 
> Looking forward to your thoughts!


Good topic, much better than some of the usual drek going on. This actually has the potential to help people understand our training in a positive way, rather than give a negative impression that a lot of the discussion does.  




* I think we can show that these two perspectives are actually the same, which is one of the fundamental reasons I train in the Bujinkan.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 26, 2009)

stephen said:


> In the Bujinkan, *things like 'moving out of the way' and 'avoiding' carry another key characteristic of moving to a tactically superior position*.
> 
> So, by way of example, *if I were to avoid a punch by jumping back 3 feet this would not be seen as properly avoiding. If I were to move at an angle that caused me to be in a position where I could hit them without them being able to hit me, this would be an example of good getting-out-of-the-way.  *
> 
> ...



Well stated.  

I have similar thoughts.  To me, _avoidance_ is what we are doing prior to the attack in an effort to avoid (duh ) having to engage.  However, once an attack is imminent or has actually been launched, we will switch to _evasion_.  At this point, any attempt to "avoid" the attack is done to gain a better position and to leave the attacker in an unfavorable position.  I personally don't buy into the notion that there is anything morally "superior"  to not neutralizing the threat in the most expedient manner possible.  The longer I allow the incident to continue, the more chances I'm taking.  The attacker might produce a weapon, he may have friends nearby, or he may just get lucky (or I might screw up since I was goofing off "avoiding" him when I should just drop him and move on).


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 26, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Well stated.
> 
> I have similar thoughts. To me, _avoidance_ is what we are doing prior to the attack in an effort to avoid (duh ) having to engage. However, once an attack is imminent or has actually been launched, we will switch to _evasion_. At this point, any attempt to "avoid" the attack is done to gain a better position and to leave the attacker in an unfavorable position. I personally don't buy into the notion that there is anything morally "superior" to not neutralizing the threat in the most expedient manner possible. The longer I allow the incident to continue, the more chances I'm taking. The attacker might produce a weapon, he may have friends nearby, or he may just get lucky (or I might screw up since I was goofing off "avoiding" him when I should just drop him and move on).


 
Exactly.

Avoid situations the provoke a fight (or robbery.. or worse) but once they zero in on you or an innocent third party, then evade, attack, dominate, and stop them. If you decide you want to flee, first put them on the ground so you can flee with some saftey. You see most state laws provide that you have to retreat but *only in complete safety*.

Deaf


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2009)

kaizasosei said:


> Avoiding is great, i think, if one can keep it up. But i think one must not only avoid, but actually move into the optimal position to strike or carry out counterattack. Often the counterattack happens a split second after the initial attack maybe even at the same time.


 
Good points, although I gather from the article that there was no counterattack, just movement.  As I said, this could be misinterpretation on my part.  




> Without the ability to do damage or the spirit that will startle the opponent into momentary idleness and defensive posture, avoiding is most likely only going to take you so far, that is long enough to escape completely, use the surroundings or improvised weapons or else, one will eventually go down.


 
I agree and felt the same way when I read the article.  How long is someone really going to just avoid?




> Technically it is possible to avoid and keep avoiding, but you have to be really quick and good. If you are against multiple opponents, chances are it is completely impossible to keep avoiding. Against more opponents, the only way for defence to be realistic is to down each attacker with hard strikes ideally taking him out with one hit. Otherwise, there is no way to escape if one gets tangled up or two attacks come simultaneously from difficult angles.


 
Against more than 1 person, seeing that the odds are already against me, I'm not going to just avoid.  



> It is the disengaging that is brutal setup. Disengaging can also be cowardly or it can be insulting, like 'get away from me-don't touch me' however, at best disengaging is a tool used when the opponent believes there is something there to engage in, but suddenly it's not there and then the punishment comes.
> There is also a great amount of spiritual dominance and speed required-that is, one must know well enough how to avoid, correct counters and openings as well as delivering powerful intimidating strikes, preferably opaquely undetectable or transparently invisible..
> 
> With all fighing, it is the opponents' movements and attitude that dictate the movements and spirit of the other, whatever the outcome.
> ...


 
In keeping with my interpretation of the link, I'd say that if avoiding wasn't the answer, avoid and then do a counter move.  ie: striking the limb that is coming in.  Of course, again, it seems to me that avoiding is what the focus really was.  That is why I said that I was split.  Sure, avoiding is fine....to a point, but then something else should be done.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2009)

Guardian said:


> There are some ways to look at this.
> 
> Avoidance is good, but there might come a time when avoidance is more of a threat then engaging your opponent and taking them out. Your with your family, avoidance might not be the best move as they could move on them, then you have to engage, so you might as well jump into the frying pan and get it over with.
> 
> I'm sorry, avoidance has never been one of my best attributes. If someone is swinging at me and I've given them no cause, then it's time to teach them a lesson or get my butt kicked pure and simple.


 
Good points and this is why I suggested that we should have an alternative, such as engaging, instead of always avoiding.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2009)

Thems Fighting Words said:


> I'm confused a little. Does this blog actually ask for continued avoidance, without counter engagement, in order to allow one to run? I guess it could work if one were wholly out matched and running was the only option.


 
No need to be confused, as that was the impression that I was getting as well.


----------



## MJS (Apr 26, 2009)

stephen said:


> I think Duncan's blogs are good, but as most(all?) Bujinkan blogs seem to be - it assumes a bit of familiarity and common understanding. I have a feeling it's like this for most topic/organization specific writings that aren't specifically written for the layman.
> 
> So, I'll try to make some of those things explicit...but these are still just my opinions.


 
I think you're right.  I'm not in the Bujinkan, so I may be missing an underlying message that Duncan is getting at, so as I said, my initial post was just my interpretation. 





> In the Bujinkan, things like 'moving out of the way' and 'avoiding' carry another key characteristic of moving to a tactically superior position.
> 
> So, by way of example, if I were to avoid a punch by jumping back 3 feet this would not be seen as properly avoiding. If I were to move at an angle that caused me to be in a position where I could hit them without them being able to hit me, this would be an example of good getting-out-of-the-way.


 
Agree, but as a few have already wondered, myself included, I can't help but to think that upon initial first read of the blog, that he's saying that avoiding is the best option and no need for anything else, as long as you didn't get hit.  Now, avoiding will work if we a) want to avoid and do 1 counter strike, such as I suggested in another post or b) avoid and engage the opponent with many strikes.  





> Hmm...maybe sorta, but while we should avoid violence when we can, rather than looking at it in a 'moral' context it seems that in this case we could look at it from a strategy perspective*:
> 
> If we now avoid to a more tactically advantageous position we now have some choices. We could 'counter-attack', but while we may be in a better position we may not be in a dominate position. Also, there's some way where becoming attached to the success of that counter-attack can cause you to be put in a worse position - just as you've previously done to the original attacker. (It also gives you time to further asess the situation, the attacker, your surroundings, etc... as well as giving him time to 're-evaluate')
> 
> If however, you are really in a better position, his next attack will (sorta by definition) be more 'risky' for him, as he'll need to overcome this positional disadvantage. If you've done the first part correctly, this should be easier to avoid and place him in an _even worse_ position when you avoid/take the tactical space the next time. And so on and so on...


 
Nice analogy! 






> Does this help? Can you see how I don't think it's necessarily a one-or-the-other type of choice?


 
Yes.



> Good topic, much better than some of the usual drek going on. This actually has the potential to help people understand our training in a positive way, rather than give a negative impression that a lot of the discussion does.


 
Thanks and thank you for your contribution.   I was hoping to discuss some Bujinkan aspects and get some feedback from those members, but at the same time, I felt that this subject was broad enough for any art.  I'm glad to see at least 1 Buj member here.  






> * I think we can show that these two perspectives are actually the same, which is one of the fundamental reasons I train in the Bujinkan.


 
I agree.  As I said, I don't train in the X-Kans, but personally, I do find them pretty interesting.  My goal with this was to have a civil discussion, and avoid some of the typical mess that we see.


----------



## stephen (Apr 27, 2009)

MJS said:


> Agree, but as a few have already wondered, myself included, I can't help but to think that upon initial first read of the blog, that he's saying that avoiding is the best option and no need for anything else, as long as you didn't get hit.



I don't want to speak for Duncan, but I'm quite confident that his notion of 'avoidance' includes taking the good tactical space (what, in Bujinkan jargon, is often called the _kukan_)



MJS said:


> Now, avoiding will work if we a) want to avoid and do 1 counter strike, such as I suggested in another post or b) avoid and engage the opponent with many strikes.



The way we train, I think, makes it difficult to distinguish between things like 'now we're avoiding' or 'now we're attacking'. Instead, it's only one strategy - taking the tactical space.


----------



## BLACK LION (Apr 28, 2009)

from a survival standpoint and not that of social, moral or competition.  

I look at it like this.  

A punch, kick, takedown or whatever  is avoidable by merely subtracting yourself from the equation.  These are social actions that do not indicate any intent to maim or kill.... basically, monkey politics to establish some form of pecking order.  

If someone takes a shot at me, they will hit air and I will most likely walk away untouched to finish whatever I was doing.  

If someone pulls a knife or bat or gun then "waiting" goes out the window...   so this all depends on the angle of approach...   from a social standpoint it is spot on... from a survival standpoint one may find flaw


----------



## Zero (Apr 29, 2009)

Have no experince in Bujinkan (something associated with ninjas?) so not sure if I understand the post correctly, I would think if taken literally that (depending on your mindset) avoidance - and total avoidance of conflict or a violent struggle is the optimal solution.  If you can disengage or avoid and exit the area without harm then this must be the premium solution/response.  As Sun Zu said, the ultimate victory attained is one without battle being required.

From my own fighting and training, I have always considered that the ultimate response to an attack/strike is not a block or even deflection but evasion (this makes sense as there is less energy expended, less chance of injury and you spend less time in direct contact with your opponent).  However, I always saw this as an evasion of a strike followed or simultaneous to a counter-strike to end the confrontation or win the point.  

If you were alone in a park with an aggressor, maybe just continually evading would make your point and wear them down - physically or mentally.  But this would not be the correct interpretation or application in your normal street, public transport, bar etc confrontation where you want to end or/and exit things as quickly as posibly.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 29, 2009)

stephen said:


> I don't want to speak for Duncan, but I'm quite confident that his notion of 'avoidance' includes taking the good tactical space (what, in Bujinkan jargon, is often called the _kukan_)
> 
> 
> 
> The way we train, I think, makes it difficult to distinguish between things like 'now we're avoiding' or 'now we're attacking'. Instead, it's only one strategy - taking the tactical space.



I do not want to speak for Duncan either but would assume the same as Stephen has above.


----------



## morph4me (Apr 29, 2009)

It seemed to me that he was talking about evasion to avoid the attack and set up a tactical advantage. If his attacker was smart enough to realize that he was in trouble because fo that evasion and stop his attack, there would be no reason to counter, but if the attck continues, he's in a good tactical position to counter and end the conflict favorably for himself.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 29, 2009)

My take as a Buj student is this:  "Avoidance" doesn't mean always moving never countering... Dunno if anyone remembers Don Roley, but here is a quote from him, that to my mind says exactly what that article does:



> In taijutsu, we try to use the perfect move for the situation given to us. It is not a case of us really choosing what to do, rather it is using what works best without thought. We do not try to impose our wills on what will be done. We should be doing something before we even think about it, and the path we take should be along the path of least resistance. If the other guy is trying to prevent us from slamming down his front door, we should be sneaking around to get in the back.


That, to me at least says the same thing that 



> Sensei motioned that it was important to wait for the movement of the opponent and not to attempt to produce something


says from the referenced blog post, and is of the heart of the matter. Just like where Duncan says 



> In taijutsu training, we see many people after recieving a punch move on to perform an elaborate technique with complicated footwork and hand changes. Why? Nagato sensei stated recently, and this is the reason for this post, that &#8220;after your uke has punched and stopped, you can just move and stop too.&#8221; There is no need for you to do anything more if he doesn&#8217;t do anything more!&#8221;


I believe he means that from a training perspective:  If the danger your uke presents is non existent, there is no reason to continue to try and force a technique to happen.   Of course, Im not speaking for him, that's just how *I* read it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 30, 2009)

MJS said:


> I came across this blog post by Duncan Stewart, who is a member of the Bujinkan. While this was found on a Bujinkan blog, I feel that it can apply to any art. The topic is on creating distance and avoiding an attack.
> 
> So, while reading this, I interpreted it as follows: If someone throws a punch at us, all we really need to do is simply move out of the way. Even if something else is thrown, such as a second punch, we could simply avoid that as well. We could also engage with the person, and do a technique against whatever the attack is.
> 
> ...



'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.' -Mike Tyson


----------



## MJS (May 10, 2009)

stephen said:


> I don't want to speak for Duncan, but I'm quite confident that his notion of 'avoidance' includes taking the good tactical space (what, in Bujinkan jargon, is often called the _kukan_)
> 
> 
> 
> The way we train, I think, makes it difficult to distinguish between things like 'now we're avoiding' or 'now we're attacking'. Instead, it's only one strategy - taking the tactical space.


 
Sorry, I meant to get back to this post sooner.  Another question for you Stephen.  Am I safe to assume by your above post, that what you mean, is along the lines of what Duncan said here, specifically the bold part.


"I remembered a time when I was playing in a band and we were staying in the bar late after it had closed chatting with the management and security. One security member knew that I was teaching budo at the University and asked me to show him something. I declined. He continued to ask and I finally accepted as long as he showed me his style of Kung Fu first. We moved to the dance area and I asked him what attack he would like. He said,  just a punch. I punched and he proceeded to perform a set waza that ended with him on one knee, facing away from me in a praying mantis type of pose. He hadnt touched me at all,* but I saw his foot near mine, so I said  what about this? I then stood on his foot, which twisted his body into the floor in pain.* He got up and looked shocked. He said it was my turn to show something and he threw a punch. I stepped back and stopped. There was a long pause. I said that I dont think I can show him anything else. He looked puzzled. I told him that because he had only thrown one attack that I felt no need to respond further. He said, ok and we sat down again. The security officer produced a waza from desire and therefore gave me something. In this case, it was his foot, and I decided to take it. I gave him nothing to take, and thus we stopped and sat down again as friends. We can also related this to the words of Soke,  _Give and take _or_ give and return._​ 

So, in this case, the tactical space would mean that he avoided the shots, if they in fact were even close enough to make contact, but put himself in a position to reach the other guys foot?


----------



## MJS (May 10, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> My take as a Buj student is this: "Avoidance" doesn't mean always moving never countering... Dunno if anyone remembers Don Roley, but here is a quote from him, that to my mind says exactly what that article does:
> 
> That, to me at least says the same thing that
> 
> ...


 
Hopefully you can help this Non-Bujinkan guy get a better feel to this. 

So, here're my questions:

I think see what Don is talking about.  I like to use the same analogy for Kenpo as well.  I'm not concerned with doing a specific set technique, but instead react to what is coming at me at the moment.  Don't think about it, just react to the punch, kick, etc.  

Now, if we look at what Duncan said...

"In taijutsu training, we see many people after recieving a punch move on to perform an elaborate technique with complicated footwork and hand changes. Why? Nagato sensei stated recently, and this is the reason for this post, that after your uke has punched and stopped, you can just move and stop too. There is no need for you to do anything more if he doesnt do anything more! 

Upon first read, I took this as him saying dont go into any technique, but instead just move.  So if the person punches once, and does nothing else, then you move and do nothing else.  If he punches 2 times, then you move twice, nothing else.  For me, again, as a Non Buj guy reading this, that is the way *I* took it, but it seems that there're meanings that I'm either not understanding or just missing. 

Now, if the article said, "Move and then, depending on what your opponent did, you then, from your more advantageous position, throw a counter, whatever that may be.


----------



## stephen (May 10, 2009)

MJS said:


> So, in this case, the tactical space would mean that he avoided the shots, if they in fact were even close enough to make contact, but put himself in a position to reach the other guys foot?



Sure. I think though, that this might also be a great example of the changing of roles that can happen when one tries to 'put on' or 'use' a technique.

Which segues well into:



			
				MJS said:
			
		

> Upon first read, I took this as him saying dont go into any technique, but instead just move. So if the person punches once, and does nothing else, then you move and do nothing else. If he punches 2 times, then you move twice, nothing else. For me, again, as a Non Buj guy reading this, that is the way *I* took it, but it seems that there're meanings that I'm either not understanding or just missing.
> 
> Now, if the article said, "Move and then, depending on what your opponent did, you then, from your more advantageous position, throw a counter, whatever that may be.



'Move' can mean anything. So there may be a punch, kick, lock, or whatever that is the proper 'movement' in order to take the safe space. 

The thing that I take as important from this is that it's key to not allow yourself to become the attacker, because then you can be pulled into a bad position. 

I think this is also related to how we view sparring vs randori and the relative merits of either in the Bujinkan. 

This, to me, is one of the strengths of the Bujinkan and pretty much the primary reason I train: all of these things are related and form a coherent whole. Training, to me, seems to be holographic in nature, that is the whole is also reflected in each of the parts.


----------



## MJS (May 10, 2009)

stephen said:


> Sure. I think though, that this might also be a great example of the changing of roles that can happen when one tries to 'put on' or 'use' a technique.
> 
> Which segues well into:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the great reply!   Its good discussion like this, that helps Non X-Kan folks, like myself, grasp a better understanding of your art. 

Mike


----------



## Guardian (May 24, 2009)

MJS said:


> Good points and this is why I suggested that we should have an alternative, such as engaging, instead of always avoiding.


 
Amen to that, I was emphasizing your points on that with my own.  The whole avoidance by itself was not realistic in my view.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 30, 2009)

That's what separates a GOOD plan from a BAD plan..........one of you anonymously knows what i'm talking about.....Blah Blah....


----------

