# TMA principles: striking defense techniques



## CobraUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

Very broad question here, hoping this one is possible to answer. I'll try to convey my question with as much clarity as possible.

My question is in regards to traditional martial arts defensive techniques, particularly with striking.
Before I continue, I'd watched some instructional videos of Wing Chun to get a visual feel of the art. I like it - I actually think it's kinda cool, in any case anyone wondered lol 
In the video, the Sifu was explaining how in Wing Chun they use sort of a grid system: an imaginary line that starts from head to the bottom of the groin, and another that starts from left to right, and both lines intersect at the very center of gravity (roughly close to the mid-section). So what is visualized then is a grid that is used for reference to defend against multiple angles of attack (i.e. defense against a left/right hook, a straight punch, a kick from any angle, etc.).
What the Sifu was explaining was that, in Wing Chun, they don't particularly attempt to read specific attacks to determine which defensive technique to apply because that would mean that either they'd have to read the aggressor's mind or they'd be too slow to defend against the attack and would get (for example) punched in the face because not everyone has Superman reflexes lol.
So he continued with explaining that, in Wing Chun, they treat attacks that come from the same place (such as the left/right arm) and from the same angle (left, right or center) exactly the same.
Is this principle and technique something that is taught in most, if not all, martial arts systems?
Or, if this doesn't sound like something that is taught in your respective system; that would also be great to know!

Reason i'm asking this, is because I know that there is not one martial art system that is the "end-all/be-all" and would like to know if there are different approaches in this specific area of defense, or if this is pretty much all martial arts systems' approach. Basically to get an idea of how different or how alike TMA systems are.
For the record, I think this is a great way to approach an attack!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jul 19, 2012)

The principle is common, but exactly how it is represented will differ. I for one prefer a cube with an X in it, with Me in the middle of the X, to a Grid.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2012)

CobraUSA said:


> Very broad question here, hoping this one is possible to answer. I'll try to convey my question with as much clarity as possible.
> 
> My question is in regards to traditional martial arts defensive techniques, particularly with striking.
> Before I continue, I'd watched some instructional videos of Wing Chun to get a visual feel of the art. I like it - I actually think it's kinda cool, in any case anyone wondered lol
> ...




Yeah, you really can't generalize to that degree... it'd be like saying you found a great recipe for a cake, are all cakes made in this way? Certainly a lot of cakes will have similar ingrediants, and follow similar processes, but an ice-cream cake, a cheesecake, and a spongecake are wildly different... but they're all cakes. Martial arts (even a single grouping of them) are like that. That said, the idea being given there is basically quadrants of attack (upper inside, upper outside, lower inside, lower outside), which is pretty standard in terms of a way of explaining things to students. It's in no way exclusive to traditional martial arts (as opposed to non-traditional ones), nor is it necessarily part of any of them. It's really just a way of explaining a range of principles that exist within the art, rather than one for the art itself.


----------



## CobraUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, you really can't generalize to that degree... it'd be like saying you found a great recipe for a cake, are all cakes made in this way? Certainly a lot of cakes will have similar ingrediants, and follow similar processes, but an ice-cream cake, a cheesecake, and a spongecake are wildly different... but they're all cakes. Martial arts (even a single grouping of them) are like that. That said, the idea being given there is basically quadrants of attack (upper inside, upper outside, lower inside, lower outside), which is pretty standard in terms of a way of explaining things to students. It's in no way exclusive to traditional martial arts (as opposed to non-traditional ones), nor is it necessarily part of any of them. It's really just a way of explaining a range of principles that exist within the art, rather than one for the art itself.



Chris, thank you for your reply. In follow-up to your answer, i'd like to ask another question in reference to advancement. If perhaps one doesn't quite understand, or it takes them longer to learn, some basic principles taught at beginner's level in your school; are they typically able, or allowed, to advance up in grade/belt level to learn further technique and advancement in the concepts & principles?


----------



## Chris Parker (Jul 19, 2012)

Well, the thing to remember is that each school will have it's own criteria for rank advancement... but in my schools, I'd like to think that if a student wasn't "getting it", I'd be doing what I could to help them understand. But really, promoting someone for advancement in a martial art without them actually advancing in understanding/skill/knowledge doesn't make a lot of sense... Of course, I'd also point out that that is far from my only criteria when I grade my students.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 19, 2012)

CobraUSA said:


> Very broad question here, hoping this one is possible to answer. I'll try to convey my question with as much clarity as possible.
> 
> My question is in regards to traditional martial arts defensive techniques, particularly with striking.
> Before I continue, I'd watched some instructional videos of Wing Chun to get a visual feel of the art. I like it - I actually think it's kinda cool, in any case anyone wondered lol
> ...



One of the things that plague Wing Chun is people trying to over complicate things.
You get people making up fancy terms like " the mother line" , " the original centre line , "the upper gate" , "the lower gate " the bloody backyard gate , it's never ending.

The bottom line is you keep your hands on the centreline , your guard is your reference point.
Strikes are going to come in either side of your guard , under the level of your guard , above the level of your guard, or they might attempt to come straight down the centre of your guard.
Anything lower than the waist and the legs will deal with it.

With strikes coming down the centerline either hand may deal with the threat , intercepting on the outside or inside of the opponents wrist.
Strikes that are off centre will be intercepted by the limb on that side because it is the closest and most efficient.

At close range the eyes are pretty much useless , by the time your eyes have registered movement the strike is already well on it's way.
At the type of range we train at the guard functions like a wedge shaped barrier , fast and direct strikes from the opponent will make contact somewhere along that wedge shape.

Because of the sensitivity developed in chi sau training we will be able to select the correct response based on where the contact is on the forearm and the type of pressure that is felt.

So you don't worry about grid lines and quadrants or any of that garbage , there is only one line you worry about and that is the centerline , and make sure your hands are on it.
Then it will be the position of the incoming strike in relation to your guard that dictates what deflection you will perform.


----------



## CobraUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, the thing to remember is that each school will have it's own criteria for rank advancement... but in my schools, I'd like to think that if a student wasn't "getting it", I'd be doing what I could to help them understand. But really, promoting someone for advancement in a martial art without them actually advancing in understanding/skill/knowledge doesn't make a lot of sense... Of course, I'd also point out that that is far from my only criteria when I grade my students.



Great, I had a feeling that would be the response I would get; but I never would've _really_ known unless I asked! I can only hope that the school that I end up at will be just the same! That's the school i'd definitely put my time and energy into!
Thanks for the answers!


----------



## CobraUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> One of the things that plague Wing Chun is people trying to over complicate things.
> You get people making up fancy terms like " the mother line" , " the original centre line , "the upper gate" , "the lower gate " the bloody backyard gate , it's never ending.
> 
> The bottom line is you keep your hands on the centreline , your guard is your reference point.
> ...



Good to know and very informative!


----------



## Blindside (Jul 19, 2012)

Hi Cobra,
Coming from the Filipino Martial Arts perspective, which are typically weapon bases systems, that sort of sectoring is commonplace.  You can deal with a whole variety of attacks coming in from a quadrant with the same or similar defense, say an inward roof or umbrella block.  I find it a useful teaching aid.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Jan 22, 2013)

It is quite common I believe. There are a very large number of strikes but only a few different angles that they can attack you with. For example a back fist, a reverse knife hand and a knife hand strike all come from the side and can be blocked the same way.

There is a saying I heard about 25 years ago that went something like:
For a beginner in the martial arts a punch is just a punch.
For a novice in the martial arts a punch is not just a punch.
For a expert in the martial arts a punch is just a punch.


----------



## Uncle (Jan 23, 2013)

mook jong man said:


> One of the things that plague Wing Chun is people trying to over complicate things.
> You get people making up fancy terms like " the mother line" , " the original centre line , "the upper gate" , "the lower gate " the bloody backyard gate , it's never ending.
> 
> The bottom line is you keep your hands on the centreline , your guard is your reference point.
> ...



Theres a lot of good in this post. I wouldn't throw out the gate system entirely though. It's a conceptual, and referential system to help beginners understand levels and ranges and why hands defend one area and legs another (generally). As you advance, even though it's still conceptually used its talked about less because you understand it more. I don't need to say and understand that, "quan sao defends the upper gate and lower gate," as much as I need to practice it. I already understand it.
It's kind of like the idea of how a choke can put someone out. At the beginning you need to explain to a beginner that each blood choke cuts off the blood to the brain, then how the mechanics of that work for each choke. But eventually as the students progress you no longer need to mention how it works. They know. You no longer need to mention the mechanics of how each different choke cuts off the blood supply. They know.  It's almost so obvious at that point as to be unworthy of mention. What they need at that point is practice.


----------

