# You always attack first



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 3, 2017)

Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".

I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".

If my opponent attacks first, I'll jump back to remain distance, I then jump back in and attack. IMO, this strategy can make fight simple.

What's your opinion on this approach?


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 3, 2017)

I train to be aggressive (I attack first), Defensive (my opponent attacks, I only guard and evade), and Countering (my opponent attacks, I counter)
I don't train in the mindset of "If you do A then I'll do B."  My approach to kung fu is that I should be able to do kung fu from any position.  My opponent's attack may cause me to defend, or evade in such a way that I'm not able to do B, this isn't a problem for me because I should be able to do a kung fu technique based on the position that my body is in.  While it won't be technique B, it will be a kung fu technique that fits the attack, defense, and position that my body finds itself in.

If my opponent attacks me, I may jump back or move forward.  I don't know until it happens, unless I'm baiting a specific attack with the intent of doing a specific counter.

I also don't specifically train to attack when my opponent is in his guard, because it's not always a safe bet.  I've seen professional fighters attack while a person is in their guard only to be countered and knocked out.  I do however, train "where my opponent isn't" and "disabling my opponents guard."


----------



## drop bear (Apr 3, 2017)

You kind of need both. 

Who is only doing one or the other?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 3, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> I also don't specifically train to attack when my opponent is in his guard, ...





drop bear said:


> You kind of need both.
> 
> Who is only doing one or the other?


I don't expect my opponent will drop his guard for me. I have to bait him to open his guard. For example, a groin kick, or fake back fist.

I don't like to train that my opponent always comes toward me. I like to train I always come toward my opponent. This way, I will always train my "entering strategy - close distance with footwork" and never assume that my opponent will close that distance for me.

IMO, Your opponent runs toward you, you raise your fist, your opponent's face will run into your fist is just not a realistic training.


----------



## KangTsai (Apr 4, 2017)

My preferred way to use defense is to prolong or break combos. One off shots, I've found no real difficulty managing against so far. Combos are when my reaction actually kicks in.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...


First of all, I just look for the law in his program, and exploit that. However, good attacks, are hard to react to. That is why they are good attacks, Bad attacks, are something to look for. If you are aware that you can break someone's arm, if they come at you with out stretched arms, you kind of hope they try it.


----------



## gerardbu07059 (Apr 4, 2017)

Attacking first may not be the most prudent approach since you have not had time to understand the strength and weaknesses of your opponent. Every one has a preference of moves offensive and defensive you need to understand so that your strategy  can be effective 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Balrog (Apr 4, 2017)

There are three "games" to play:  offense, defense and trap.  You need to be good at all of them.  One will become your favorite, but don't train it to the exclusion of the others.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...



since you asked for peoples opinions,   as usual , we would have to first clarify the context. sport, street fight or assault defense.
your concept will only apply to 2 out of the three. and even then it is mostly only going to be applicable to sport.
so for a martial sport sure have fun. for the other two situations...well... they way you are thinking about it, its not something i would waste time on.


----------



## Martial_Kumite (Apr 4, 2017)

Bacicly, It depends on the person's owns abilities and what they can actually do effectively. I am not that aggressive when I attack, so I am mostly a defensive fighter. This does not mean that I focus completely on being defensive, but I adjust accordingly to my opponent.


----------



## wingerjim (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...


I think both are needed, but for me I know there is very much more likelihood that I will be on the defense first. Martial Arts trains me to avoid confrontation until I cannot avoid it, thus the reason I believe I will be attached vs being the attacker.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...


My opinion is that if you do that on the street then you might end up on the wrong side of a prosecutor.

Actions have consequences.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> My opinion is that if you do that on the street then you might end up on the wrong side of a prosecutor.
> 
> Actions have consequences.


 key is being able to articulate that you felt threatened and you perceived you were about to be attacked and took appropriate measures.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> since you asked for peoples opinions,   as usual , we would have to first clarify the context. sport, street fight or assault defense.
> your concept will only apply to 2 out of the three. and even then it is mostly only going to be applicable to sport.
> so for a martial sport sure have fun. for the other two situations...well... they way you are thinking about it, its not something i would waste time on.


why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence



You can attack preemptively in the US as well.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> key is being able to articulate that you felt threatened and you perceived you were about to be attacked and took appropriate measures.


Yeah, sometimes that works, sometimes i doesn't.  Better be certain of your situation, and certain that you can articulate better than the other guy, and any witnesses will agree with you.

A passerby witness might just tell the police, "that guy threw the first punch, he attacked that other guy!" Because that witness didn't see all the buildup.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself if you need to.  But you do need to be mindful of the actions you take in doing so.

Winning in court will still cost you a mint in legal fees, and you won't get to recover those fees just because the prosecution lost.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence


It really depends on the circumstances.  The law may see you as the aggressor and may chose to prosecute you.  Self defense can be messy, when it comes to the legal side of it.

The story that the other guy tells may be just as compelling as your own.  Maybe even more so, if he comes out the worse for it after a fight.  So it's just something you need to be very careful about.

You may feel that you were defending yourself from an imminent attack.  The other guy may claim that he had no intention of fighting, you were just having some strong words.  Now then, who hit first, who escalated the situation into a physical assault?  You did.  You might be prosecuted.  I'm not saying it's a guarantee.  But you might.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> It really depends on the circumstances.  The law may see you as the aggressor and may chose to prosecute you.  Self defense can be messy, when it comes to the legal side of it.
> 
> The story that the other guy tells may be just as compelling as your own.  Maybe even more so, if he comes out the worse for it after a fight.  So it's just something you need to be very careful about.
> 
> You may feel that you were defending yourself from an imminent attack.  The other guy may claim that he had no intention of fighting, you were just having some strong words.  Now then, who hit first, who escalated the situation into a physical assault?  You did.  You might be prosecuted.  I'm not saying it's a guarantee.  But you might.



You never worry about what the other guys story is!

You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat.  You do not wait for the other to strike first.

That is playing with fire.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> You never worry about what the other guys story is!
> 
> You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat.  You do not wait for the other to strike first.
> 
> That is playing with fire.


I hope it works out fo you.

I actually hope you never need to find out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> You never worry about what the other guys story is!
> 
> You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat.  You do not wait for the other to strike first.
> 
> That is playing with fire.



I hope you actually realize that real life is far more subtle and contains a whole lot more gray area than that.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Apr 4, 2017)

When it comes to goin to jail, a little karate is better than big time karate.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

As far as the OP and the abstraction of all of this as a strategy, sure it can be a good one.  So if that is all someone wants to talk about, the strategy in the abstract, then have at it, that's fine.

But nothing happens in an abstract vacuum.  Context is very important.

In a competion fight, aggression and a first-strike mentality can be very effective.  It can have a place in self defense as well, particularly if you are set upon by a group of assailants.  But again, context matters.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I hope you actually realize that real life is far more subtle and contains a whole lot more gray area than that.



Oh I realize that.

But I also realize....

You protect yourself first and foremost.

 If you are honest and truly defending against a reasonable threat you should have no problem.  There is nothing that says you have to wait for the attack for it to be self defense.


It's like that old myth of waiting for them to shoot before you shoot....no....you perceive the attack is imminent and you are in danger....you now can take appropriate actions.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Oh I realize that.
> 
> But I also realize....
> 
> ...


If you can convince a jury that your perception of a threat was reasonable, meaning that any reasonable person would also perceive the same threat under the same circumstances, then you will be ok.  Of course the legal defense fees will still be yours to pay.  That can cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially if you get convicted and then need to go through the appellate process.  And the sleepless nights for months and even years at a time.  These problems don't tend to go away quickly, even when you prevail.  But this depends on circumstances, of course.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> If you can convince a jury that your perception of a threat was reasonable, meaning that any reasonable person would also perceive the same threat under the same circumstances, then you will be ok.  Of course the legal defense fees will still be yours to pay.  That can cost tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially if you get convicted and then need to go through the appellate process.  And the sleepless nights for months and even years at a time.  These problems don't tend to go away quickly, even when you prevail.  But this depends on circumstances, of course.



Your safety is more important.

When you are endangered...you address the threat.  That is 1st priority.

Worry about the other once you are safe.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Your safety is more important.
> 
> When you are endangered...you address the threat.  That is 1st priority.
> 
> Worry about the other once you are safe.


I really hope for your sake that you never need to test your theory.  The decision could go either way and it will be expensive, regardless.

Best of luck to you with it.


----------



## Buka (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...



I like that approach. And tactically, it fits my personality. I am a patient man in real life, I have a very slow burning fuse, I'm good at verbally de-escalating situations. And I do not take bait at all. The only difference from what you said, for, me, is if my opponent attacks first - I'm flying straight into him. It has been my experience that when a person attacks, the very last thing that know how to deal with is their perceived target attacking them with much speed and vigor.

Sparring/training - I wait, trying to lull or trying to counter, then charge with total commitment. Competing - same thing. One of my greatest enjoyments in life is closing distance.

Rolling - I suck, I just keep moving.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> since you asked for peoples opinions,   as usual , we would have to first clarify the context. sport, street fight or assault defense.
> your concept will only apply to 2 out of the three. and even then it is mostly only going to be applicable to sport.
> so for a martial sport sure have fun. for the other two situations...well... they way you are thinking about it, its not something i would waste time on.



Ha. That.
Exactly what I was talking about.

Where is @gpseymour?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I really hope for your sake that you never need to test your theory.  The decision could go either way and it will be expensive, regardless.
> 
> Best of luck to you with it.



The risk runs both ways.

I really hope you catch that first shot and not get your guts stomped out.

Anyway. if say someone slings a punch at me and I move back out of range and put my hands up. And then he puts his hands up and moves towards me.

I would certainly consider giving him a face punch in self defence should he come in range. which would be a forward agressive entry.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2017)

Many years ago, I got into a fight in the Shenyang northern train station in China. A soldier cut in line to buy train ticket. I asked him to get back to the end of the line. He refused. I took him down on the hard concrete floor. When I did that, I intentionally drop my body weight on top of his body and used him as a soft landing pillow.

3 Chinese policemen came and asked what had just happened. I told them, "We got into argument. Our bodies tangled, we both lose balance, and fell. His head hit on the ground. It was a pure accident." Those Chinese cops let me go. That soldier got his train ticket. I had my MA tested. Some justice was served. We all live happy ever after.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, I got into a fight in the Shenyang northern train station in China. A soldier cut in line to buy train ticket. I asked him to get back to the end of the line. He refused. I took him down on the hard concrete floor. When I did that, I intentionally drop my body weight on top of his body and used him as a soft landing pillow. 3 Chinese policemen came and asked what had just happened. I told them, "We got into argument. Our bodies tangled and we both lose balance and fell. His head hit on the ground. It was a pure accident." Those Chinese cops let me go. That soldier got his train ticket. I had my MA tested. We all live happy ever after.


Good thing it happened in China.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

I suplexed a guy who threatened to hit me about four times. After inviting me out into a back ally for a "talk". I thought enough was enough I am not waiting for that.  He was suprised I acted all aggressively. His argument actually was which we were having from his back with my forearm in his throat was that he only said he wanted to hit me. Not he was going to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Good thing it happened in China.


Not sure about that. When I was in

- Taiwan, I was anti-Taiwan independence.
- China, I was anti-communist.
- US, I am anti-... .

There are no safe place for me on earth.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> It really depends on the circumstances.  The law may see you as the aggressor and may chose to prosecute you.  Self defense can be messy, when it comes to the legal side of it.
> 
> The story that the other guy tells may be just as compelling as your own.  Maybe even more so, if he comes out the worse for it after a fight.  So it's just something you need to be very careful about.
> 
> You may feel that you were defending yourself from an imminent attack.  The other guy may claim that he had no intention of fighting, you were just having some strong words.  Now then, who hit first, who escalated the situation into a physical assault?  You did.  You might be prosecuted.  I'm not saying it's a guarantee.  But you might.


yes I've had the court case, wounding with a weapon, was my charge, in thos case I was about to be attacked by three guys outside a pub and so I pre emtively hit them with my pool cue several times. I was aquited eventually, but even in the nightmare I was better off facing justice than being stomped on so I didn't really have a choice


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes I've had the court case, wounding with a weapon, was my charge, in thos case I was about to be attacked by three guys outside a pub and so I pre emtively hit them with my pool cue several times. I was aquited eventually, but even in the nightmare I was better off facing justice than being stomped on so I didn't really have a choice


I'm glad it worked out for you. It doesn't always.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm glad it worked out for you. It doesn't always.


but what else could I do. If I had waited for an attack, it would have been tp late to defend myself

it all got rather silly, they worked for the local gangster as "security" so they were out to get me, I had to get the local hells angels involved to have a quite word.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> but what else could I do. If I had waited for an attack, it would have been tp late to defend myself
> 
> it all got rather silly, they worked for the local gangster as "security" so they were out to get me, I had to get the local hells angels involved to have a quite word.


Well, I never said you should just let yourself be stomped on.  I can't speak for other nations, but in the US you do have the right to defend yourself.  But, in the US, if you throw the first strike or make the first move to turn the situation physical, that then creates a situation where your actions may come under scrutiny.

If throwing the first shot is your fundamental strategy, then you may find yourself in a tough legal/criminal situation.  It can be an effective strategy in a fight, but it can also land you in trouble, including behind bars.

Beware, and make sure you can justify your actions.  In these discussions it is my impression that some people do not always do that.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2017)

I don't always attack first I assess the situation. As always I assume the worse. 
Preemptive strikes may be legal but they are more tricky to plead your case even when stand your ground is legal. 

Saying I want to punch you is a slippery slope for preemptive strikes and stand your ground. Someone approaching you and getting close to your face saying it while their finger touches your head a better case. 

A lot really depends on the situation at hand. 
On the most part, I wouldn't preemptive strike.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2017)

drop bear said:


> I suplexed a guy who threatened to hit me about four times. After inviting me out into a back ally for a "talk". I thought enough was enough I am not waiting for that.  He was suprised I acted all aggressively. His argument actually was which we were having from his back with my forearm in his throat was that he only said he wanted to hit me. Not he was going to.


Um, why didn't you just walk away? 
Personally I would have pressed charges but that's just me.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, I got into a fight in the Shenyang northern train station in China. A soldier cut in line to buy train ticket. I asked him to get back to the end of the line. He refused. I took him down on the hard concrete floor. When I did that, I intentionally drop my body weight on top of his body and used him as a soft landing pillow.
> 
> 3 Chinese policemen came and asked what had just happened. I told them, "We got into argument. Our bodies tangled, we both lose balance, and fell. His head hit on the ground. It was a pure accident." Those Chinese cops let me go. That soldier got his train ticket. I had my MA tested. Some justice was served. We all live happy ever after.


Good thing he wasn't killed, could have been a lot worse trying to explain that to the police


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well, I never said you should just let yourself be stomped on.  I can't speak for other nations, but in the US you do have the right to defend yourself.  But, in the US, if you throw the first strike or make the first move to turn the situation physical, that then creates a situation where your actions may come under scrutiny.
> 
> If throwing the first shot is your fundamental strategy, then you may find yourself in a tough legal/criminal situation.  It can be an effective strategy in a fight, but it can also land you in trouble, including behind bars.
> 
> Beware, and make sure you can justify your actions.  In these discussions it is my impression that some people do not always do that.


I take on board what your saying, but you don't have time to consider the finer legal points, but my instructer has been drilling us to fight from the hands up surrender position, so it looks clear on CCTV who is the attacker, so even if you strike first you have back up


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Good thing he wasn't killed, could have been a lot worse trying to explain that to the police


That's the advantage of the throwing art. You can let the earth to do the punch for you. After you have thrown your opponent on the ground, if you still remain standing, that may not look good on you. If you pretend you lose balance and fall down with your opponent, you can fool a lot of witness's eyes.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> I take on board what your saying, but you don't have time to consider the finer legal points, but my instructed has been drilling us to fight from the hands up surrender position, so it looks clear on CCTV who is the attacker, so even if you strike first you have back up


Ok, but that's a pretty easy situation to manipulate.   Meaning, one could try to set it up to look like a surrender position as you describe, when their intention all along is assault.  Law enforcement isn't stupid, they can see through these smoke screens.  That's why they will scrutinize the actions.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Apr 4, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many years ago, I got into a fight in the Shenyang northern train station in China. A soldier cut in line to buy train ticket. I asked him to get back to the end of the line. He refused. I took him down on the hard concrete floor. When I did that, I intentionally drop my body weight on top of his body and used him as a soft landing pillow.
> 
> 3 Chinese policemen came and asked what had just happened. I told them, "We got into argument. Our bodies tangled, we both lose balance, and fell. His head hit on the ground. It was a pure accident." Those Chinese cops let me go. That soldier got his train ticket. I had my MA tested. Some justice was served. We all live happy ever after.


Good thing for me tickets don't rank up high on my list of things to fight about.  I didn't see any gains  The soldier still got his ticket and didn't go to the back of the line and time was wasted going to the ground and talking to the police. No one was arrested.  If you didn't have the fight then everything would have worked out the same, but faster in both of you getting a ticket for the train.


----------



## jobo (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, but that's a pretty easy situation to manipulate.   Meaning, one could try to set it up to look like a surrender position as you describe, when their intention all along is assault.  Law enforcement isn't stupid, they can see through these smoke screens.  That's why they will scrutinize the actions.


well thats rather the point, one you lull the other guy into range and two you look like the agreived party, it matters not what the police think, but rather on what they can prove


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Good thing for me tickets don't rank up high on my list of things to fight about.  I didn't see any gains  The soldier still got his ticket and didn't go to the back of the line and time was wasted going to the ground and talking to the police. No one was arrested.  If you didn't have the fight then everything would have worked out the same, but faster in both of you getting a ticket for the train.


When my girl friend and I traveled in China, 

- she liked to ask why people smoke.
- I liked to ask why people don't stay in line. 

Both of us thought we did something good for the human being.


----------



## Flying Crane (Apr 4, 2017)

jobo said:


> well thats rather the point, one you lull the other guy into range and two you look like the agreived party, it matters not what the police think, but rather on what they can prove


Ok then, good luck.  Eventually that won't work out so well for you.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 4, 2017)

The advantage that you attack first are:

- You will have less change to fall into your opponent's trap (set up). 
- You force your opponent to fight your way and not his way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 4, 2017)

Too much thinking.  Just fight or don't fight, then be done.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 4, 2017)

this is how you do pre emptive strikes,


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Um, why didn't you just walk away?
> Personally I would have pressed charges but that's just me.



No where to go. I was inside a pub at the time.  That means security cameras and other people if a fight goes pear shaped.

Walking away means leaving that pub so I am on my own in some dark alley.  With no witnesses. Which is a rookie error.

I did call the cops.  They rolled up 45 minutes later.

No charges as far as I know.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, but that's a pretty easy situation to manipulate.   Meaning, one could try to set it up to look like a surrender position as you describe, when their intention all along is assault.  Law enforcement isn't stupid, they can see through these smoke screens.  That's why they will scrutinize the actions.



Not in my experience.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 4, 2017)

JowGaWolf said:


> Good thing for me tickets don't rank up high on my list of things to fight about.  I didn't see any gains  The soldier still got his ticket and didn't go to the back of the line and time was wasted going to the ground and talking to the police. No one was arrested.  If you didn't have the fight then everything would have worked out the same, but faster in both of you getting a ticket for the train.



If you don't follow the rules then the terrorists win.

Do you want the terrorists to win?

I used to guard a taxi rank at 3am. Line cutting was a major offence.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 5, 2017)

Legalities aside, action is always, always, ALWAYS _*Faster*_ than reaction!! He who makes the first move usually has the better chance of making the last move as well.

Take Care Everyone,
Osu!


----------



## jobo (Apr 5, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Legalities aside, action is always, always, ALWAYS _*Faster*_ than reaction!!
> 
> Take Care Everyone,
> Osu!


only by a tenth of a second or so


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2017)

US attacked Iraq first. US didn't wait for Iraq to attack and then counter. Whatever US did is always 100% correct in logic.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 5, 2017)

If I get caught in a "predator vs prey" situation, such as a street mugging with no warning, I had better have done at least some work on blending and accepting energy (rolling/turning with a strike), or else you don't get the opportunity to shift into a "duel, monkey dominance dance" situation.  That's what I think.

Of course it's tactically better to be offensive, to limit options and to force the other guy to react to what you are doing... but it is not real-world realistic to always train that way, imo...


----------



## drop bear (Apr 5, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> US attacked Iraq first. US didn't wait for Iraq to attack and then counter. Whatever US did is always 100% correct in logic.



And I believe the term used was preemptive self defense.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 5, 2017)

drop bear said:


> And I believe the term used was preemptive self defense.


I have always loved those terms such as:

- preemptive self defense.
- help someone to go to heaven.
- help someone to end his misery life.
- help someone to be with his passed parents.
- help someone to reconstruct his ugly face.
- help someone to get ride of his useless body part.
- ...


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 5, 2017)

I know a firearm instructor that uses "looking for business"


----------



## talktalk (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...



There's no who first to attack or defend and only way to eliminate as soon as possible .

There are rules in your combat. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> only by a tenth of a second or so



Two things I have to say to that are:

1). A tenth of a second is _still_ faster than a reaction

2). When it comes to a preemptive attack that tenth of a second is all you need. Especially if you are good at deception and have a good question to engage his brain before your preemptive strike.

Take Care and Have A Great Day,
Osu!


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Two things I have to say to that are:
> 
> 1). A tenth of a second is _still_ faster than a reaction
> 
> ...


I tenth of a sec,is the top end of human reaction time. Pre emtive strikinng isn't the easiest Decision to make. Fine if someone is walking at you with aggresion , as soon as they get in range ,pop em. But if somepne is shouting the odds from a distance or even more so if its  an ambush attack where they have asked you for direction, there is a very good chance you have just punched them for being lost


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I tenth of a sec,is the top end of human reaction time. Pre emtive strikinng isn't the easiest Decision to make.



Preemptive striking isn't the easiest decision to make for someone who either; _has not trained for line ups and preemptive striking, lacks extensive actual fighting experience, does not understand what adrenaline is for and how it can help them with the right mindset and training, or all of these reasons or any combination of the aforementioned reasons_.



jobo said:


> Fine if someone is walking at you with aggresion , as soon as they get in range ,pop em.



That's right.



jobo said:


> But if somepne is shouting the odds from a distance



Preemptive striking is not only near impossible from a distance but, even more so, unnecessary and possibly unwarranted. Preemptive striking is only applicable in close face-to-face range.



jobo said:


> or even more so if its  an ambush attack where they have asked you for direction, there is a very good chance you have just punched them for being lost



To me it's not that simple. I wouldn't preempt a person for _just asking_ me for directions. What are the circumstances surrounding this scenario? Is it during lunchtime in the middle of the day downtown where everyone is out and about? Or is it 5 a.m. when it's still dark out while your are on your way to your car to leave for work? Is this person by himself? Is he dressed in a suspicious manner such as all black clothing with a black hoodie or jacket? Is his hood pulled over his face to where you can see his face or barely see it? Can you survey the area and determine whether or not there is another person nearby where it's possible for you to be ambushed?

I would never preempt someone for just asking me for directions nor would I advise anyone else to do so. What I would advise is that people learn how to be aware and *coded up*, survey the situation and make a decision based on the circumstances of the situation.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...



It depends on what kind of a fighter you are or most, are. Counter-Fighters wait/let you  go first in order for them to try to knock you out. It also depends on where you are and the laws.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Preemptive striking isn't the easiest decision to make for someone who either; _has not trained for line ups and preemptive striking, lacks extensive actual fighting experience, does not understand what adrenaline is for and how it can help them with the right mindset and training, or all of these reasons or any combination of the aforementioned reasons_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


premtptive means before they hit you, whilst striking at distance is somewhat challenging, closing the distance and hitting them is quite acceptable, if perhaps unwise,if they have made their intent to harm you plain. But what if they are 8ft away to far to hit you, close enough to lunge. What to do then ???

it may have escaped your notice but people out after dark in hoodies get lost too, some times they have their friend with them.
in fact I'm not uncommly lost at night whilst wearing a hoodie


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Counter-Fighters wait/let you  go first in order for them to try to knock you out.


The problem about a counter fighter is he may fall into his opponent's set up.

For example, When your opponent

1. kicks at your groin, if you drop your guard, you may expose your face for his punch.
2. throws a back fist at you, if you block it, his groin kick may come right after.
3. sweeps your leading leg, you may raise your leg, or put more weight on that leg. In either case, his punch will come toward your face.
4. uses a flying side kick at your leading leg knee joint from a 45 degree downward angle, it can put you in defense mode right at that moment. That will be his advantage.
5. circles around you, if you turn with him, you are fighting the way that he wants you to fight.
6. ...

In all chess games, whoever makes the 1st move will have advantage.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

The problem with counter fighting is when you wake up afterwards and realize you failed to duck, dodge, slip, or counter.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The problem with counter fighting is when you wake up afterwards and realize you failed to duck, dodge, slip, or counter.


Agree! The counter fighter assumes that

- his opponent's attack is always real. What if his opponent's attack is fake?
- he can be faster than his opponent. What if his opponent is faster than him.
- ...

To avoid a problem is better than to let the problem to happen and then try to fix it. IMO, the counter fighter lets a problem to happen. To avoid the problem is don't give your opponent the space and time to generate his powerful and fast punch in the first place.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem about a counter fighter is he may fall into his opponent's set up.
> 
> For example, When your opponent
> 
> ...


the advantage of counter fighting on the street is that your opponent very likely untrained and will over reach go off balance or present you with a leg to grab, chances are that he is also drunk

you are certain he actually means you harm and not just showing off to his friends girl friend and so havent got his blood on your shirt for no reason

it puts you in a much stronger position legally
and you havent just punched some who was lost and looking for directions


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem about a counter fighter is he may fall into his opponent's set up.
> 
> For example, When your opponent
> 
> ...


 

A.  What you just listed (1-5), are NOT counters and in general, not what a Counter-Fighter does.

B.  There are no ultimate techniques, everything has a counter

Counter-Fighters can also strike first, but in general they let their opponents go first to exploit the opening(s) created by attacking.

I think you are confusing a Counter with that of a Return. If you defend a strike and then follow up with a strike...therefore 2 moves.... then this is a Return....not a Counter.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The problem with counter fighting is when you wake up afterwards and realize you failed to duck, dodge, slip, or counter.



No, that's the problem of you, your art(s) and your coaching.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The counter fighter assumes that
> 
> - his opponent's attack is always real. What if his opponent's attack is fake?
> - he can be faster than his opponent. What if his opponent is faster than him.
> ...



This is a good explanation as to why Floyd Mayweather can make $180,000,000 for 1 fight ...while  some local Boxer being homeless and making $500 a fight if he's lucky enough that some other fighter dropped out of the undercard. But it doesn't mean that Counter-Fighting is inferior....as Mayweather is exactly, that.....he's mostly a Counter-Fighter.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

Love pretty boy's shoulder roll defense.

My son's school uses that method a lot.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> This is a good explanation as to why Floyd Mayweather can make $180,000,000 for 1 fight ...while  some local Boxer being homeless and making $500 a fight if he's lucky enough that some other fighter dropped out of the undercardboxers who are. But it doesn't mean that Counter-Fighting is inferior....as Mayweather is exactly, that.....he's mostly a Counter-Fighter.


 boxers who are so good they seldom get hit are usually good looking, rich still clever. The trick seems to be to retire before you are slow enough to hit


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> boxers who are so good they seldom get hit are usually good looking, rich still clever. The trick seems to be to retire before you are slow enough to hit



That wasn't the main point.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> premtptive means before they hit you, whilst striking at distance is somewhat challenging, closing the distance and hitting them is quite acceptable, if perhaps unwise



Well I already made it clear that trying to preempt someone outside of face-to-face range is not only near impossible but *UNNECESSARY*. If a person is not in attacking range then he is may not be an immediate threat which means one should not feel that he *has to* or* want to* preemptively strike someone. This is what I was saying in my last post.



jobo said:


> But what if they are 8ft away to far to hit you, close enough to lunge. What to do then ???



What to do then? I already expressed what NOT to do and that is preemptively attack that person since 8ft is NOT _face-to-face_ range. If that person menacingly closes that distance in a threatening manner then you have to survey the situation and make a decision. Preemption being a possible decision.



jobo said:


> it may have escaped your notice but people out after dark in hoodies get lost too, some times they have their friend with them.
> in fact I'm not uncommly lost at night whilst wearing a hoodie



It may have escaped _your notice_ but people dressed in a suspicious manner and approach others in the dark away from the rest of society are usually up to no good. Too many people have ended up in the hospital or (worse still) the morgue for having the forgiving and lax mindset that you have espoused in your post. No matter what anyone else says or feel about it I will NEVER adopt that kind of mindset and absolutely no one can convince me otherwise. In a self protection situation where I really feel that my life is on the line I'd much rather be_ tried by 12 _instead of _carried by 6_.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The counter fighter assumes that
> 
> - he can be faster than his opponent. *What if his opponent is faster than him*.



EXACTLY! I couldn't agree more. Add to that the fact that action is _*ALWAYS FASTER*_ than reaction and you have a recipe for disaster for the _so called_ counter fighter. I'm not one to try and convince others or get people to change their minds. To each his own. All I can say is I know better than to adopt the romantic idea of being a counter fighter in a situation on the pavement arena where I stand to lose more than just _"a fight"_.

This may come off as arrogant, condescending or even stand offish (though this is not my intention), but I can read some of these posts in this thread and can tell that some people posting here do not know what a life or death situation outside of the training hall is really, really like. I can tell when I am reading the posts of a person who doesn't have that brutal, raw, _"it's your life or mine"_ type of experience but have, instead,  romantic ideas about _defeating_ someone on the streets using his _Martial Arts skills_. Believe me I can tell. Just like any NFL Football fan can tell that another person who says Jay Cutler is a much better QB than Tom Brady or they think it looks like Greenbay will play Dallas IN THE SUPERBOWL doesn't know NFL Football. You just know.

Take Care everyone and have a great day,
OSU!


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> That wasn't the main point.


I know i though id just throw brain damage. In again.
but the point is its suits him as he is notablly faster/ more mobile than most of his opponents'. Why chase them round when he can wait for them to commit to throw a punch , dodge and get off his own shot.

in the wider discussion. The same is true, its fine fighting counter punch if your faster than the other guy. It's a suicide mission if its the other way round


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Well I already made it clear that trying to preempt someone outside of face-to-face range is not only near impossible but *UNNECESSARY*. If a person is not in attacking range then he is may not be an immediate threat which means one should not feel that he *has to* or* want to* preemptively strike someone. This is what I was saying in my last post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you just appear to be making up hard and fast rules as you go along. face to face range means he has already head butted you, if that's his intent.
I have long arms and legs, I'm in range generaly before they are


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I know i though id just throw brain damage. In again.
> but the point is its suits him as he is notablly faster/ more mobile than most of his opponents'. Why chase them round when he can wait for them to commit to throw a punch , dodge and get off his own shot.
> 
> in the wider discussion. The same is true, its fine fighting counter punch if your faster than the other guy. It's a suicide mission if its the other way round



In general, you're still going to lose vs. faster fighters, regardless of whether you go first or not.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Well I already made it clear that trying to preempt someone outside of face-to-face range is not only near impossible but *UNNECESSARY*. If a person is not in attacking range then he is may not be an immediate threat which means one should not feel that he *has to* or* want to* preemptively strike someone. This is what I was saying in my last post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Can you describe how a Counter-Fighter, fight? Thanks.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> the advantage of counter fighting on the street is that your opponent very likely untrained and will over reach go off balance or present you with a leg to grab, chances are that he is also drunk
> 
> you are certain he actually means you harm and not just showing off to his friends girl friend and so havent got his blood on your shirt for no reason
> 
> ...



He should have asked for directions from across the street.

Counter fighters don't fight nose to nose. They use space and movement to create the opportunities to see punches coming and react. If the space isnt there you are decidedly unsafe.

So how do you counterpunch at conversational range?


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> He should have asked for directions from across the street.
> 
> Counter fighters don't fight nose to nose. They use space and movement to create the opportunities to see punches coming and react. If the space isnt there you are decidedly unsafe.
> 
> So how do you counterpunch at conversational range?





drop bear said:


> He should have asked for directions from across the street.
> 
> Counter fighters don't fight nose to nose. They use space and movement to create the opportunities to see punches coming and react. If the space isnt there you are decidedly unsafe.
> 
> So how do you counterpunch at conversational range?


in much the same way he punched you ?


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> In general, you're still going to lose vs. faster fighters, regardless of whether you go first or not.


there are plenty who rely on talking ng a punch to give one and boxers reply on points not knock outs


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> in much the same way he punched you ?



Sorry whut now?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

Ok. here we go. Some striking second some striking first and bad guys moving out of range while still being a threat.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Sorry whut now?


your question was, how do you counter punch someone who is close up. He punched you you punch him, if you can get you arm up to block his punch that's better


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are plenty who rely on talking ng a punch to give one and boxers reply on points not knock outs



This would be a return and not a counter.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> your question was, how do you counter punch someone who is close up. He punched you you punch him,



This is a "return", not a "counter".



> if you can get you arm up to block his punch that's better



This would also be a "return".


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> This is a "return", not a "counter".
> 
> 
> 
> This would also be a "return".



Just because you use certain terms and definitions, does not mean everyone else is required to use them.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Just because you use certain terms and definitions, does not mean everyone else is required to use them.



Somewhat true, but in this case...the "return" has a separate definition than a "counter" when talking about Counter-Fighting....and very, very much so, when you want to argue between "going first" and "counter-fighting". The terminology makes a huge difference. A lot of people don't really know what a Counter-Fighter is.

There are still grey areas, but in general, if you block and then punch back...that's a "return", not a counter.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> This would be a return and not a counter.


I think your making your own definitions' up now


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> your question was, how do you counter punch someone who is close up. He punched you you punch him, if you can get you arm up to block his punch that's better



You let him punch you?


----------



## Buka (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> In general, you're still going to lose vs. faster fighters, regardless of whether you go first or not.



I disagree. 

Or I seriously got screwed in life. I was faster than anyone you've likely seen. So, I should have beat just about anybody. Alas, I did not. I lost to better fighters, not faster ones.

As to the whole "ask you for directions" thing. I like to fight in the kitchen. Up close. When somebody walks into my kitchen, like when asking directions, it's kind of like pizza delivery.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Somewhat true, but in this case...the "return" has a separate definition than a "counter" when talking about Counter-Fighting....and very, very much so, when you want to argue between "going first" and "counter-fighting". The terminology makes a huge difference. A lot of people don't really know what a Counter-Fighter is.
> 
> There are still grey areas, but in general, if you block and then punch back...that's a "return", not a counter.



The terminology means little.

And using your definition Floyd mayweather would be considered a return puncher not a counter puncher.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You let him punch you?





drop bear said:


> You let him punch you?


no i let him try, that's what counter fighting is. He has to go first. I'm pretty  certain id block it, if not the closer he is the harder it is to throw a power full punch


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Buka said:


> I disagree.
> 
> Or I seriously got screwed in life. I was faster than anyone you've likely seen. So, I should have beat just about anybody. Alas, I did not. I lost to better fighters, not faster ones.



Obviously, I'm meant that if all things were equal other than they being faster, they'd still beat you due to their speed advantage.



> As to the whole "ask you for directions" thing. I like to fight in the kitchen. Up close. When somebody walks into my kitchen, like when asking directions, it's kind of like pizza delivery.



???


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> This may come off as arrogant, condescending or even stand offish (though this is not my intention), but I can read some of these posts in this thread and can tell that some people posting here do not know what a life or death situation outside of the training hall is really, really like. I can tell when I am reading the posts of a person who doesn't have that brutal, raw, _"it's your life or mine"_ type of experience but have, instead, romantic ideas about _defeating_ someone on the streets using his _Martial Arts skills_. Believe me I can tell. Just like any NFL Football fan can tell that another person who says Jay Cutler is a much better QB than Tom Brady or they think it looks like Greenbay will play Dallas IN THE SUPERBOWL doesn't know NFL Football. You just know.


LOL.   Dude, if you're about to say something that you know is arrogant and condescending, you should own it.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> The terminology means little.
> 
> And using your definition Floyd mayweather would be considered a return puncher not a counter puncher.



That's the gray area I was talking about, because Floyd does both. But his taking single pot shots with lots of footwork and evading, is very indicative of counter-fighting.

Many actually labels him a Defensive Fighter which is what his Crab Defense is more known for.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I think your making your own definitions' up now



Describe to me what a counter is then. Let's see how long as you google and search on YouTube b/c I know you're online right now


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> That's the gray area I was talking about, because Floyd does both. But his taking single pot shots with lots of footwork and evading, is very indicative of counter-fighting.
> 
> Many actually labels him a Defensive Fighter which is what his Crab Defense is more known for.



Ok but most define a counter as a strike thrown in response to a strike.

you are arguing semantics for no reason.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but most define a counter as a strike thrown in response to a strike.
> 
> you are arguing semantics for no reason.



I just told you the reason why it's important, especially when the OP is suggesting that "going first" is alwyas better. I'm saying it's not necessarily so.

And most to maybe all (since I didn't read all the posts), aren't saying this at all.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> the advantage of counter fighting on the street is that your opponent very likely untrained and will over reach go off balance or present you with a leg to grab, chances are that he is also drunk.


If your opponent is "untrained", there are many things that you can do. If your opponent is as good as you are (or better), that will be different.


----------



## Buka (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Obviously, I'm meant that if all things were equal other than they being faster, they'd still beat you due to their speed advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> ???



I agree, all other things being equal.

As to the question marks, I was referring to some posts above, about somebody feigning asking for directions so they can get close to you to do something to you physically. In that circumstance, they've just put themselves in exactly the place I would like them to be.
It's like pizza delivery, it comes to me, I don't have to go get it.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but most define a counter as a strike thrown in response to a strike.
> 
> you are arguing semantics for no reason.



But can you describe/explain to me what a counter is (while I wait for Jobo to finish searching YouTube) ?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> If you defend a strike and then follow up with a strike...therefore 2 moves.... then this is a Return....not a Counter.


My definition of "counter" are:

When your opponent steps in, and punches at your head, you

- kick his chest, it's almost like he runs into your kick.
- block his punch and punch back at the same. it's almost like he runs into your punch.
- sweep his leg when he just put weight on his leading leg.
- shoot at his leading leg and take him down.
- borrow his force, pull his punching arm in, spin your body, horse back kick his legs, and take him down.
- move yourself out of his striking path and lead him into the emptiness (fall off the cliff, or fall into the traffic). 
- ...


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My definition of "counter" are:
> 
> When your opponent steps in, and punches at your head, you
> 
> ...



Glad to see you changed it from what you wrote in post #67, which were mostly (if not all), "returns".


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Describe to me what a counter is then. Let's see how long as you google and search on YouTube b/c I know you're online right now


I'm not doing googling just to prove what I already know, if someone calls me a££££ I counter by say he is a %%%% ,if my neibour sues me, i counter sue. its what one does in response to anothers action in a similar vain


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I'm not doing googling just to prove what I already know, if someone calls me a££££ I counter by say he is a %%%% , its what one does in response to anothers action



You don't know what a "counter" as a opposed to a "return" is, do you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> Pre emtive strikinng isn't the easiest Decision to make.


To protect yourself, you can run, play defense, and test your 

- footwork,
- dodging skill,
- blocking skill,
- ...

But if someone attacks your family member, you should attack that person that

- His own mother won't be able to recognize him.
- He will regret that his mother ever brought him into this world.
- He won't be able to take care of himself for the rest of his life.
- He will need to pick up his missing teeth on the ground for hours.
- He will need to reconstruct his ugly face.
- ...

You can then hide yourself in the Amazon jungle, and live happy ever after with a beautiful Amazon girl.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> You don't know what a "counter" as a opposed to a "return" is, do you?


if I borrow my brother in laws drill I return it when asked. If he wont give me my hedge trimmer back I counter by keeping his drill


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> if I borrow my brother in laws drill I return it when asked. If he wont give me my hedge trimmer back I counter by keeping his drill



you're trying too hard now.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> you're trying too hard now.


your not trying at all. Your making up random defintion and then requiring others to prove you wrong, when simply opening a dictionary would do the job


----------



## Buka (Apr 6, 2017)

Anyone who fights knows what a counter puncher is. And when you go up against a skilled one, it makes for a very long day.

I don't use the terminology "returns". I have no idea what that is. (at least by that name)


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> In general, you're still going to lose vs. faster fighters, regardless of whether you go first or not.


Have to disagree with you on this. If you attack first, you can force your opponent to play your game and not his. For example, if your opponent is a boxer, you start with an "arm drag" and circle around him. This way your opponent may not have chance to throw his punch before you can take him down.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 6, 2017)

Buka said:


> Anyone who fights knows what a counter puncher is. And when you go up against a skilled one, it makes for a very long day.
> 
> I don't use the terminology "returns". I have no idea what that is. (at least by that name)



Apparently, everyone is required to use his terminology if discussing counter fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Glad to see you changed it from what you wrote in post #67, which were mostly (if not all), "returns".


So your definition of:

counter - A attacks, B responds (resist, escape).
return - A attacks, B attacks back.

Your definition of 

- "counter" is my definition of "respond (resist, or escape)".
- "return" is my definition of "counter".

For example, when A sweeps B's leg. B 

- bends his leg and let A's sweeping leg to pass under, that's my "escape" and that's your "counter".
- turns his shin bone into A's sweep, that's my "resist" and that's your "counter".


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> no i let him try, that's what counter fighting is. He has to go first. I'm pretty  certain id block it, if not the closer he is the harder it is to throw a power full punch



No that really isn't what counter fighting is. Dont rely on your super fighting skills. You may not have them.

And you have ever heard of an uppercut. Or an elbow?

If you are giving the other guy a positional advantage then you give him the speed advantage.
Eg. Like the first part of this vid.





Munted guy still gets the first shot in inside range. 





Because he is set up wrong he doesn't even have time to think before the shot comes in. If you do not act then they can take any position they want. Giving them the strike first advantage.

Come on guys this is basics.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

Buka said:


> Anyone who fights knows what a counter puncher is. And when you go up against a skilled one, it makes for a very long day.
> 
> I don't use the terminology "returns". I have no idea what that is. (at least by that name)



Ok.  Lets suggest a counter punch takes 1 beat.  And a return takes 2 beats.  

So a slip counter jab is a counter. 
A block and punch is a return.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No that really isn't what counter fighting is. Dont rely on your super fighting skills. You may not have them.
> 
> And you have ever heard of an uppercut. Or an elbow?
> 
> ...


so counter fighting, ie fighting with counter attacks isn't letting your opponent throw a punch or what ever and then hitting him

I see this making up defintions to support your point of view is catching on round here


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> you just appear to be making up hard and fast rules as you go along.



It may appear so to you, but I'm not making up any rules as I go along. I have clear set game plans and decisions for different situations and scenarios that I have and do train for and have already experienced.



jobo said:


> face to face range means he has already head butted you, if that's his intent.



No, he will not head butt me at all. Maybe he will head butt you, but for me as soon as I realize he is trying to close the gap and I have reason to believe that he has ill intent then I will be the one to preempt. I have been on both sides of the preempt fence almost my whole life and since I have trained as realistically as possible I know why I was successful when I was on one side of the preempt fence and why I got my *** handed to me when I was on the other side of the preempt fence.




jobo said:


> I have long arms and legs, I'm in range generaly before they are



A person's height and reach matter not to me. My mindset is solid and unwavering and that mindset is that you better not come into my zone because my mind has made a predetermined decision to eliminate you for doing so and I will be the one to preempt and not the one preempted. It's one thing to say such a thing and have a mindset of wanting to do so, but unless you have trained extensively on how to do this while controlling how you react to the adrenaline dump and/or have dealt with this numerous times in real scraps then it means nothing.

OSU!


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Can you describe how a Counter-Fighter, fight? Thanks.



No offense but I'm not going to waste my time playing _that_ game. In a real actual situation outside of the training hall I will not play the defensive or countering game. I will hit first, hit fast, hit hard, hit last and take my chances in court rather than playing around with romantic ideas about the _Martial Artist subduing the bad guys_ and have my wife and kids attending my funeral.

I said it before and I will say it once more; *I KNOW BETTER*.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> LOL.   Dude, if you're about to say something that you know is arrogant and condescending, you should own it.



LOL. Well I really don't want to be perceived in such a way. But maybe prefacing my post with that disclaimer actual makes it to where I come off as arrogant and/or condescending anyway.  Oh well, so be it. But I stand on what I said. I can tell by a person's words if they've been through the same experiences as myself or not. I know when I am reading the words of a realist or a romantic when it comes to this subject.

Take Care and Have A Good Evening,
Osu!


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> LOL. Well I really don't want to be perceived in such a way. But maybe prefacing my post with that disclaimer actual makes it to where I come off as arrogant and/or condescending anyway.  Oh well, so be it. But I stand on what I said. I can tell by a person's words if they've been through the same experiences as myself or not. I know when I am reading the words of a realist or a romantic when it comes to this subject.
> 
> Take Care and Have A Good Evening,
> Osu!


I don't know about realist or romantic, but I'm pretty sure the disclaimer isn't what made it condescending.  It was just a clue that you knew it was when you posted it.

Don't worry, though.  Everyone here is arrogant from time to time.  It's part and parcel of having a strong opinion and a perspective.

For what it's worth,I think there  are a few valid positions, some at odds with your own, which are also very realistic and based on experience.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> It may appear so to you, but I'm not making up any rules as I go along. I have clear set game plans and decisions for different situations and scenarios that I have and do train for and have already experienced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


can't help thinking you are over egging this! The scenario if you remember is you are walking to your car after dark and a young man in a hoody say " excuse me mate can'you direct me to the train station" as he approaches' you set a distance and as soon as he encroaches beyond that point, you eliminate him. Some one on another called me a phyco, but jeez you take the biscuit


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> I will hit first, hit fast, hit hard, hit last and take my chances in court ...


I like your attitude. Old saying said, "To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself."

In many scary movies that a good guy thought he had killed the bad guy (or monster). He would sit down, turn his back on that dead guy (or monster). The bad guy (or monster) then got up and attacked him again. If in those movies, the good guy always cut the bad guy (or monster)'s head off, the ending would be different. If those guys/girls in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Hill Has Eyes" carried fire arm, the ending would also be different.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 6, 2017)

Steve said:


> I don't know about realist or romantic, but I'm pretty sure the disclaimer isn't what made it condescending.  It was just a clue that you knew it was when you posted it.



I was told in the past that I came across as being arrogant while having this same discussion with some Martial Arts friends and associates, hence the disclaimer. But disclaimer or no disclaimer it probably wouldn't make a difference how my words will be perceived by others especially on an internet forum.



Steve said:


> Don't worry, though.  Everyone here is arrogant from time to time.  It's part and parcel of having a strong opinion and a perspective.



Okay, that actually makes me feel a little better. 



Steve said:


> For what it's worth,I think there  are a few valid positions, some at odds with your own, which are also very realistic and *based on experience*.



_"Based on experience"_ being the key ingredient and you can always tell when another person knows what he's talking about or not.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like your attitude. Old saying said, "To be kind to your enemy is to be cruel to yourself."



Thanks Kung Fu Wang. I like your attitude as well. I have been reading your posts in this thread and you seem to be one of very few people who actually Get It! I know what it's like to be on both sides of the attack first fence and I have vowed to never be on one side of it again. 



Kung Fu Wang said:


> In many scary movies that a good guy thought he had killed the bad guy (or monster). He would sit down, turn his back on that dead guy (or monster). The bad guy (or monster) then got up and attacked him again. If in those movies, the good guy always cut the bad guy (or monster)'s head off, the ending would be different. If those guys/girls in "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "Hill Has Eyes" carried fire arm, the ending would also be different.



LMAO!! I swear you must be inside my head or something. I feel the exact same way. I watch the movies where the female whacks the serial killer _ONE TIME_ with a blunt object and gingerly walks away because he's laying motionless on the floor. Screw that! Bash him in his head a good 10 x to make sure he _remains_ motionless!

I'm not a savage and I actually hate violence with a passion but if my life or the lives of my family are on the line you better believe I can turn the switch on and go into that dark place very easily and, like you, I would rather attack first, attack hard, attack fast and keep on attacking until (just like in the movies) he/they lay motionless on the ground. I'll take my chances in court.

@jobo  I see little to no benefit or positive production in continuing to go back and forth with you. You have your mindset and I have mine and I am happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that with absolutely no hard feelings on my part.

Take Care Everyone and Have A Good Night,
Osu!


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

may be its a culture thing, it's not like I live in a peaceful place. The city I live in has one of the highest crime rates in Europe, well western Europe anyway. But I dont have the same morbid fear of being attacked as many on here do.

When I was in Denver, on a conference , we all had to meet in reception to travel a mile across town to a bar, so we could travel in convey and five of the party were armed for our protection, going back they all traveled together in armed convoy , I left later with an Irish lad and we happily wandered our way drunk and unarmed across down town denver with out a problem

when I was in LA for a conference, they went mad at me for going shopping in Hollywood on my own. I didn't tell them that the day before I'd been wandering around east LA on my own
got chatting to some cribs or bloods ??, all the colours on, seemed like nice lads, one of them gave me a flick knife to take home, as they had heard it it was rough in manchester


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> may be its a culture thing,


It's not the culture. In US, everybody have gun. It's too dangerous to fight in US. In other country, fist fight is very common. One day when I was in Vancouver, Canada, I saw 2 fist fights in one single day.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's not the culture. In US, everybody have gun. It's too dangerous to fight in US. In other country, fist fight is very common. One day when I was in Vancouver, Canada, I saw 2 fist fights in one single day.


try a night out in Manchester, two fights is just the first pub
guns are common in a lot of countries, its just in the states they have a culture of using them a lot


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> so counter fighting, ie fighting with counter attacks isn't letting your opponent throw a punch or what ever and then hitting him
> 
> I see this making up defintions to support your point of view is catching on round here



Letting your opponent dictate the time and place in which he throws is basically the opposite of counter punching.

It is called getting bashed.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Letting your opponent dictate the time and place in which he throws is basically the opposite of counter punching.
> 
> It is called getting bashed.


well the place is where we are stood at the time, I cant really insist we move to someplace else with out being obvious.

counter punching by defintion requires your opponent to go first. If he doesn't attack, they you can't by defintion counter attack


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> well the place is where we are stood at the time, I cant really insist we move to someplace else with out being obvious.
> 
> counter punching by defintion requires your opponent to go first. If he doesn't attack, they you can't by defintion counter attack



No good counter punching relies on you to go first.  Then he reacts with a punch and then you counter. 

You have tried to sell this idea that you can just safely counter punch from anywhere. And you can't.


----------



## jobo (Apr 6, 2017)

drop bear said:


> No good counter punching relies on you to go first.  Then he reacts with a punch and then you counter.
> 
> You have tried to sell this idea that you can just safely counter punch from anywhere. And you can't.


I've no idea what that last post was intended to convey.
but no matter what you say , you cant counter attack unless your opponent first attacks you. If you wants to run with this concept, you are going to have to find another name for it. Opens dictionary, browses, here we are, its called pre emtive attack


----------



## Steve (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've no idea what that last post was intended to convey.
> but no matter what you say , you cant counter attack unless your opponent first attacks you. If you wants to run with this concept, you are going to have to find another name for it. Opens dictionary, browses, here we are, its called pre emtive attack


I think the word you're looking for is feint.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 6, 2017)

jobo said:


> I've no idea what that last post was intended to convey.
> but no matter what you say , you cant counter attack unless your opponent first attacks you. If you wants to run with this concept, you are going to have to find another name for it. Opens dictionary, browses, here we are, its called pre emtive attack



I realize you have no idea what I am trying to convey. 

That is the problem.


----------



## JP3 (Apr 8, 2017)

How about this as a concept.  It is personally what I ascribe to.

Guy approaching, but I can not yet tell if abad guy, good guy or just a guy, yet out of both our ranges (lot of squish in this I know, range being what it is with various weapons etc.), but this is a philosophical discussion so roll with it for a few sentences so I can get it out before objections fly).

If I can identify the combative range/distance/mai ai, before the unknown gets close to that range I engage him vocally by challenge to determine intention, i.e. "What's up mate?" or "How are you?" or "Can I help you?" depending on where and who and whatever. If they don't react to my statement and continue the approach, I adjust posture to change to aligning on potential  threat(s). The next vocal challenge is direct, "No closer," or whatever. They continue to close after the direct warning and I initiate and do not wait for them to choose the engagement distance and time.

Of course, the above assumes that I note the approach, but that is part of the training is it not.  Contrary to the whack 'em in the head with blunt object and just stop and walk away while they recover, if I have to engage a guy and he goes down, I keep him down and wait for the cops -- or, as has happened, he goes down and I leave his oncoming mates at top speed.

I tend to agree with the crowd of folks above who really don't want to wait for the other to actually swing first. Or stab first. Or shoot first. Your odds of getting messed up are just way too high and I like my skin without additional holes, marks or bruises. Definitely like my wife & daughter's that way, too.  

This being said, you Must stop when the threat is ended. Period.  I know more than one guy who did go explain it in court, and to a one, they agree that it was a bad decision at the time.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> The scenario if you remember is you are walking to your car after dark and a young man in a hoody say " excuse me mate can'you direct me to the train station" as he approaches' you set a distance and as soon as he encroaches beyond that point, you eliminate him.


If you are alone, in the dark, and a young male in a hoody approaches, using classic distraction technique, and then encroaches into your personal space, how much more information than that do you need to know you need to do something? Do you wait until he pulls a knife or swings a punch?  He isn't getting within sucker punch distance to give you a jelly baby, better to eliminate the threat before he can execute his plan.

_"There is no legitimate reason for a person you do not know to get closer than five feet from you on the street unless you are in the middle of a large crown or sitting on public transportation.  Trust your intuition.". Lawrence A. Kane and Kris Wilder - The Little Black Book of Violence_


----------



## jobo (Apr 8, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you are alone, in the dark, and a young male in a hoody approaches, using classic distraction technique, and then encroaches into your personal space, how much more information than that do you need to know you need to do something? Do you wait until he pulls a knife or swings a punch?  He isn't getting within sucker punch distance to give you a jelly baby, better to eliminate the threat before he can execute his plan.
> 
> _"There is no legitimate reason for a person you do not know to get closer than five feet from you on the street unless you are in the middle of a large crown or sitting on public transportation.  Trust your intuition.". Lawrence A. Kane and Kris Wilder - The Little Black Book of Violence_


well if that's your RULE, that fine, I'm no idea where you live, but if I was to punch e very young man in a hoodie who came with in five foot of me round here in the dark or otherwise, I would be a) punching 20 people a day b) quite likely in jail
I've just past three separate such young men on my way back from the chip shop.
admittedly only one spoke to me. He asked if he could stroke my dog, if it was you he would be on his way to hospital now


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> He asked if he could stroke my dog, if it was you he would be on his way to hospital now


If that was me I'd want to know where the hell I got a dog from 

On a serious note though, asking to stroke your dog is not a classic distraction/deception technqiue used by criminals, in the way asking for the time or directions is.  It's a guide, not a hard and fast rule, which is where the 'trust your instincts' but comes in.  You are likely to meet people walking home from the chip shop, but people don't generally hang around car parks at night (which was the scenario being discussed) to ask for directions and then encroach into your personal space while doing so.


----------



## jobo (Apr 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> well if that's your RULE, that fine, I'm no idea where you live, but if I was to punch e very young man in a hoodie who came with in five foot of me round here in the dark or otherwise, I would be a) punching 20 people a day b) quite likely in jail
> I've just past three separate such young men on my way back from the chip shop.
> admittedly only one spoke to me. He asked if he could stroke my dog, if it was you he would be on his way to hospital now


 its easy to jump to the wrong conclusion
i was lost in a very rough area, well know nationally for gun crime and gang wars, so pulled over to check my a to z. The doors opened and three huge gangster types jump in. Some what perplexed I said" what are you playing at. " your the taxi artn you "" i said no, but if you show me how to get out of this place il drop you off in town. They gave me a tenner for fare


----------



## jobo (Apr 8, 2017)

JP3 said:


> How about this as a concept.  It is personally what I ascribe to.
> 
> Guy approaching, but I can not yet tell if abad guy, good guy or just a guy, yet out of both our ranges (lot of squish in this I know, range being what it is with various weapons etc.), but this is a philosophical discussion so roll with it for a few sentences so I can get it out before objections fly).
> 
> ...


I just wander around do my own thing, don't stick my nose in other people business and people don't just randomly attack me in the street. If someone asks me for a light or the time or directions or a pound for a cup of tea, I generaly oblige, no one sucker punches me or pulls a knife on me or other wise causes me harm. Maybe they are considering it, but I pass the not to be messed with test.and no one is going to sucker punch me if I've got my eye on them

that doesn't mean im recklass, if I'm walking round in a five grand watch, flashing a wallet full of money or other wise giving the impression I'm worth robbing then maybe someone would knock me on the head. I with drew a large sum in cash, and the bank lady asked me if I was safe walking round with that amount on me, I asked do a look look like I've got twenty grand on me? She admitted I didn't, dressed in an old pair of jeans and hoodie. If id been wearing my business suit id have been scared to death


----------



## drop bear (Apr 8, 2017)

Actually a mate of mine won big at the pokies.

And walking home they didn't ask anything. Just snuck up behind him and bashed him. 

Admittedly he was almost bashed by carnies once.  So he may just be a trouble magnet.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 9, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> If you are alone, in the dark, and a young male in a hoody approaches, using classic distraction technique, and then encroaches into your personal space, how much more information than that do you need to know you need to do something? Do you wait until he pulls a knife or swings a punch?  He isn't getting within sucker punch distance to give you a jelly baby, better to eliminate the threat before he can execute his plan.
> 
> _"There is no legitimate reason for a person you do not know to get closer than five feet from you on the street unless you are in the middle of a large crown or sitting on public transportation.  Trust your intuition.". Lawrence A. Kane and Kris Wilder - The Little Black Book of Violence_



Paul_D, this entire post is excellent and insightful from the word _"If" _to the word _"Violence"_. I can tell that you definitely Get It. I wasn't able to explain my position as thoroughly as you have even though this is exactly what I was trying to convey in my participation here. But even if I had explained myself as well as you have I don't think it would have made any difference. If a person really wants to invest in foolhardy ideas he's going to do so no matter what anyone else says.

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## jobo (Apr 9, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> Paul_D, this entire post is excellent and insightful from the word _"If" _to the word _"Violence"_. I can tell that you definitely Get It. I wasn't able to explain my position as thoroughly as you have even though this is exactly what I was trying to convey in my participation here. But even if I had explained myself as well as you have I don't think it would have made any difference. If a person really wants to invest in foolhardy ideas he's going to do so no matter what anyone else says.
> 
> Take Care,
> Osu!


I suspect you mean me? Maybe we have different life experience's , no one has has randomly attacked me in me in the street since 1975 , and to be honest that wasn't all that random, I was gobbing off at the guy. All the conflict and occasional fights , had since then I have either provoked or started as some one has provoked me
ergo if I dont rise to the provocation of others and wind people up, I don't get get in fights . I don't find many people physically intimidating, but a lot of people find me so. I'm quite capable of putting up a robust defence if someone takes a swing at. Generaly speaking I'm not scared of people as I'm the one who knocks


----------



## Knapf (Apr 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What's your opinion on this approach?


My opinion is.....Buk Sing Choy Lee Fat has good footwork for closing the distance if you want to attack  from afar. Maybe you might want to check it out . It might be good for you if you aim to improve your offensive skills.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> No offense but I'm not going to waste my time playing _that_ game. In a real actual situation outside of the training hall I will not play the defensive or countering game. I will hit first, hit fast, hit hard, hit last and take my chances in court rather than playing around with romantic ideas about the _Martial Artist subduing the bad guys_ and have my wife and kids attending my funeral.
> 
> I said it before and I will say it once more; *I KNOW BETTER*.
> 
> ...



That's fine, but I'm not afraid. And I'm also a counter-fighter, which makes it even better to not go first. Do you now what a counter-fighter is?

And how do you know when such a "real situation" takes place? 90% of the time, it's starts with a lot of cussing and yelling.....and 90% of this 90%, nothing physical happens and people just go home when all the major cuss words have been used more than 5x each. Doesn't sound like you've been in a lot of street beefs.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> So your definition of:
> 
> counter - A attacks, B responds (resist, escape).
> return - A attacks, B attacks back.



Nope, this is not it.

A "return" is when you block or get hit by an attack, and then you hit back. This is usually, TWO moves....the block and the return hit.

A "COUNTER", is when you get attacked 1st, but you launch your own attack immediately to interrupt their attack, causing damage.  So you're countering their attack with your own attack.  This is ONE move.

In general, the Counter-Fighter is looking for the opening created by the attacker, and exploiting it.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Apparently, everyone is required to use his terminology if discussing counter fighting.



Apparently, if you can't articulate nor argue your sets of terminology vs. mine...and what Pro Coaches use (because I just didn't make it up); then it's probably a good idea if you want to resemble someone of such knowledge.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Nope, this is not it.
> 
> A "return" is when you block or get hit by an attack, and then you hit back. This is usually, TWO moves....the block and the return hit.
> 
> A "COUNTER", is when you get attacked 1st, but you launch your own attack immediately to interrupt their attack, causing damage.  So you're countering their attack with your own attack.  This is ONE move.


To you maybe, but not to everyone else.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have to disagree with you on this. If you attack first, you can force your opponent to play your game and not his. For example, if your opponent is a boxer, you start with an "arm drag" and circle around him. This way your opponent may not have chance to throw his punch before you can take him down.



I don't think this is a good example. What "good Boxer" is going to let you grab his arm like this? If you grab someone's 1 arm, their other one is going to punch you in the head.

In my street fighting days (as a minor), I used to punch people first most of the time. Sure it works. I was untrained and so were they. Most of us had "street boxing", which was just sloppy boxing. But I'm well trained now. If I just wanted to KO the hell out of people in the street over every confrontation (little or big) by throwing the first punch, it would be sooooooo damn easy. But I'll go to jail and lose everything that I own, my job, etc. sooner or later.

I guess what I'm referring to mostly, is fighting/sparring vs. other trained fighters. Being a Counter-Fighter doesn't solve everything, I get my *** beat by plenty of non Counter-Fighters. Counter-Fighters don't always not go first....we usually just don't. But there are also mixtures. Like Mayweather, he's a Defensive, Counter-Fighter....IMO.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ok.  Lets suggest a counter punch takes 1 beat.  And a return takes 2 beats.
> 
> So a slip counter jab is a counter.
> A block and punch is a return.



I'm glad someone knows. These are the terms that most pro coaching uses.

Otherwise there's no reason to have the term, "return"....if that's what many people here thinks....that a "return" is the same as a "counter".


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> To you maybe, but not to everyone else.



Hey, I thought I was on your ignore list  

Don't forget, training to counter-fight on ice, sand and water. Very tactically important.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Nope, this is not it.
> 
> A "return" is when you block or get hit by an attack, and then you hit back. This is usually, TWO moves....the block and the return hit.
> 
> ...


You are not considering "resist" and "escape" here. By your definition, what will you call:

- You sweep me, I bend my leg at knee joint to let your sweep leg to pass under.
- You sweep me, I turn my shin bone into your sweep to see who has strong shin bone.
- You shoot at my leading leg, I step back and remain distance.
- You try to under hook my arm. I rotate my arm the same direction as you do so your arm just hook into the thin air.
- You punch/kick at me, I dodge.
- You push/pull me. I resist.
- ...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> If you grab someone's 1 arm, their other one is going to punch you in the head.


When you drag your opponent's leading arm, you want to make sure that his back arm won't be able to reach you. In order to do so, you have to move toward your opponent's "side door (blind side)".

When your back foot line up with your opponent's both feet, his back arm can't reach you.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are not considering "resist" and "escape" here. By your definition, what will you call:
> 
> - You sweep me, I bend my leg at knee joint to let your sweep leg to pass under.
> - You sweep me, I turn my shin bone into your sweep to see who has strong shin bone.
> ...




What you posted don't seem to be returns nor counters, they're just defenses. You can say "resist", "avoid"...."dodge", "slip", "weave", etc... if you want. I'm just saying that a "return" is not the same as a "counter".

The main problem with these 2 terms is that people thinks that a counter is block and hit back = 2 moves. It's not, because that's a "return".

Otherwise, there's no reason to have this terminology of a "return" if it's interchangeable with "counter". But it makes way more sense that these 2 are different since I provided 2 distinct descriptions.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When you drag your opponent's leading arm, you want to make sure that his back arm won't be able to reach you. In order to do so, you have to move toward your opponent's "side door (blind side)".
> 
> When your back foot line up with your opponent's both feet, his back arm can't reach you.




The video that you posted, looks like the arm dragger is pulling the guy back into range to get hit with his rear punch. Most people will get hit by jabs when they move in like that for a Boxer's lead arm. This is similar to a Boxing tech of slapping/parrying hard, 1 of someone's high guard hand down to create an opening to punch him...but rarely works, since equally skilled opponents would resist.

Not saying that this can't work, but it seems to work only in grappling-only bouts where nobody's getting punched.


----------



## Buka (Apr 27, 2017)

Terms vary with coaches, clubs, countries, sports etc. But the particular term isn't really important - the action is.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Buka said:


> Terms vary with coaches, clubs, countries, sports etc. But the particular term isn't really important - the action is.



Can you site which pro coaching gyms confuses the terms "return" vs. "counter", especially in Boxing?


----------



## Buka (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Can you site which pro coaching gyms confuses the terms "return" vs. "counter", especially in Boxing?



I don't know, I haven't been in a pro boxing gym in 15 years.

But, I don't think the word "confuses" fits in this discussion, it's not a matter of people confusing anything with anything else. It's just terminology. As for pro boxing gyms, I've been in many. And in those gyms, not all trainers use the exact same terms. But there was never any confusion, because it's all in context with what's being done at that time. And people weren't there for words and terms, they were there for training and prep.

I've been in and around boxing since I was a kid, trained with a lot of folks. I'm completely familiar with the term "return", have used it myself, but don't really any more. At a certain level, returns and counters kind got lumped together. Counters are also sometimes called "intercepts", and outside of the boxing gym, some of us use the term "time framing" to encompass all of it.

In 79 I had dinner with Tommy Hearns. I think he was 22 and 0 at the time. For three hours we talked boxing and fighting in general. It was a lot of fun. In that conversation I don't think either of us used "return', we just spoke it as counter. I trained many times with Ray Leonard, sometimes we'd use the term "return" but most times we wouldn't.

So, maybe it's a generation thing. Years ago we would describe you as a popcorn, no disrespect intended, it was just used in a descriptive sense, but that's not used much any more. Look, bro, I know you want it to be THE terminology used by everyone, but it ain't.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Oh I realize that.
> 
> But I also realize....
> 
> ...


I think the issue is that there are relatively few scenarios where it is actually clear that an attack is imminent, before the attack is present.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Buka said:


> I like that approach. And tactically, it fits my personality. I am a patient man in real life, I have a very slow burning fuse, I'm good at verbally de-escalating situations. And I do not take bait at all. The only difference from what you said, for, me, is if my opponent attacks first - I'm flying straight into him. It has been my experience that when a person attacks, the very last thing that know how to deal with is their perceived target attacking them with much speed and vigor.
> 
> Sparring/training - I wait, trying to lull or trying to counter, then charge with total commitment. Competing - same thing. One of my greatest enjoyments in life is closing distance.
> 
> Rolling - I suck, I just keep moving.


Agreed, on all points. And I keep getting worse on that last point. Or other people are getting better. Maybe both.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Ha. That.
> Exactly what I was talking about.
> 
> Where is @gpseymour?


Eh? What?? How did I miss this??


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

oaktree said:


> I don't always attack first I assess the situation. As always I assume the worse.
> Preemptive strikes may be legal but they are more tricky to plead your case even when stand your ground is legal.
> 
> Saying I want to punch you is a slippery slope for preemptive strikes and stand your ground. Someone approaching you and getting close to your face saying it while their finger touches your head a better case.
> ...


I agree with this on the whole. When we practice defensive scenarios, I rarely strike pre-emptively (because there are only a few scenarios where that would be justified/justifiable). But when someone makes it clear they are going to attack, but doesn't do so immediately, it's my turn.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The advantage that you attack first are:
> 
> - You will have less change to fall into your opponent's trap (set up).
> - You force your opponent to fight your way and not his way.


I'm not sure either of those are proven to follow from your starting point. Someone could taunt you into attacking, so they get to be the "defender" (and many defenses are easier from there, including a legal defense), and just because you attack, you don't necessarily get to change how they fight (again, if they are anticipating your attack).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> this is how you do pre emptive strikes,


This is one of those areas where there are arguments on both sides. Using this deceptive counter-strike is effective at getting ahead in your defense. It also makes it look like you cold-cocked a guy for no observable reason (on a security camera). Those two points have to be weighed.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

jobo said:


> only by a tenth of a second or so


Where are you getting that number from, Jobo?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have always loved those terms such as:
> 
> - preemptive self defense.
> - help someone to go to heaven.
> ...


You forgot, "put them down for a nap".


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The problem about a counter fighter is he may fall into his opponent's set up.
> 
> For example, When your opponent
> 
> ...


Chess is a turn-based game. Fights are not. Yes a counter-fighter "may" fall into his opponent's set up. Likewise, his opponent may fall into his. It comes down to the better fighter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! The counter fighter assumes that
> 
> - his opponent's attack is always real. What if his opponent's attack is fake?
> - he can be faster than his opponent. What if his opponent is faster than him.
> ...


Those are strawmen. A good counter-fighter does not always assume every attack is real. If he does, he's not a good counter-fighter. He also doesn't depend upon being faster. All he needs is to create the right opening.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It also makes it look like you cold-cocked a guy for no observable reason (on a security camera).


Which is why you have to familiarise yourself with your local laws, and ensure that the necessary key phrases are used in your statement to the Police.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I just told you the reason why it's important, especially when the OP is suggesting that "going first" is alwyas better. I'm saying it's not necessarily so.
> 
> And most to maybe all (since I didn't read all the posts), aren't saying this at all.


Everyone I've trained with for any length of time defined a "counter punch" as any punch that starts after the other guy's punch.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> You don't know what a "counter" as a opposed to a "return" is, do you?


You're asserting that everyone must use those terms the same way you do. I've never used the term "return" in the way you imply. We've always had a different usage.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Apparently, if you can't articulate nor argue your sets of terminology vs. mine...and what Pro Coaches use (because I just didn't make it up); then it's probably a good idea if you want to resemble someone of such knowledge.


You're assuming "Pro Coaches" use a terminology that is universal to martial arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 27, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> Which is why you have to familiarise yourself with your local laws, and ensure that the necessary key phrases are used in your statement to the Police.


Those can help, but security footage is still there. Statements don't erase video.

I'm not saying those tactics shouldn't be used. It's just a contradiction in objectives that's inherent in self-defense considerations.


----------



## Psilent Knight (Apr 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> when someone *makes it clear *they are going to attack, but doesn't do so immediately, it's my turn.



*THIS!! *This sums up my mindset almost perfectly!! 

I have seen where some of the posters in this thread brought up legal issues for preemptively attacking a _would be _attacker. As I expressed already I'd rather take my chances in court than to have my wife and kids having to bury me or take care of me for the rest of my life due to a permanent and irreversible condition I sustained from some lowlife that I failed to preempt.

To me my life and the lives of my loved ones are more important to me than laws that cannot and will not protect me (or my loved ones).

Take Care,
Osu!


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 27, 2017)

Buka said:


> I don't know, I haven't been in a pro boxing gym in 15 years.
> 
> But, I don't think the word "confuses" fits in this discussion, it's not a matter of people confusing anything with anything else. It's just terminology. As for pro boxing gyms, I've been in many. And in those gyms, not all trainers use the exact same terms. But there was never any confusion, because it's all in context with what's being done at that time. And people weren't there for words and terms, they were there for training and prep.
> 
> ...



Cool story bro, but are you sure you still remember stuff  that happened in '79, at your age though? I didn't claim that all gyms and coaches uses this exact terminology, because in an all or nothing argument, it would just take 1 to prove me wrong. Tell me what's false about how I described a Return vs a Counter?


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu (Apr 27, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".
> 
> I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".
> 
> ...



I agree entirely with your philosophy, but my personal approach is slightly different. If the opponent attacks first, I prefer to close the gap between us as soon as possible. Rather than jumping back, I usually respond with an attack of my own (90% of the time I'll use a low kick or slide step to close the distance really fast while the opponent is in mid-advance). Once a bridge forms and the gap is closed, I try to stick to the opponent as much as possible. I'll use one hand for defense and the other for striking simultaneously (or else I'll grab hold of the opponent with one hand while attacking with the other). This is just a setup for my takedown. My ultimate goal is to get the opponent on the ground as quickly as possible. I use the dirty little cheap tricks like legsweeps, because they're just so much easier for me personally. Then once they're on the ground I just go into ground-n-pound mode. I'm not too big on wrestling locks and submissions, but if a chokehold presents itself, I'll take it. I'm just more of a dirty fighter I guess (meaning I will kick them while they're down). My approach is very direct and simple, but it's more effective for me personally. As for my philosophy behind this approach, the opponent is only the aggressor, meaning that he is not actually attacking me. On the contrary, he is only moving in to accept my attack. So I agree with that mentality. It makes perfect sense.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Everyone I've trained with for any length of time defined a "counter punch" as any punch that starts after the other guy's punch.



By the way a good counter punch starts before they punch. 

Punches are a hell of a lot easier to counter if you have forced them to throw the punch you want.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2017)

Mou Meng Gung Fu said:


> If the opponent attacks first, I prefer to close the gap between us as soon as possible.


I like to give my opponent at least a chance to back up himself. Some one made the following statement and I like it very much.

If my opponent attack the

- 1st time, I'll back up.
- 2nd time, I'll still back up.
- 3rd time, I'll back up again.
- 4th time, I'll jump back in and eat him alive.

After all, I'm a peace loving person.


----------



## Buka (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Cool story bro, but are you sure you still remember stuff  that happened in '79, at your age though? I didn't claim that all gyms and coaches uses this exact terminology, because in an all or nothing argument, it would just take 1 to prove me wrong. Tell me what's false about how I described a Return vs a Counter?



Oh, heck, there's a ton of stuff I don't remember any more, no argument there. And there's nothing false about what you said, not a thing, it's just a matter of terms used. Again, a lot of it might be generational, but as I thought about this today, a lot of it might be colloquial, too, also might be native to particular areas of the country. In New England, where I cut my teeth, there's all sorts of odd terminology, not used anywhere else in the country (as far as I know) but that's still twenty million people using those terms. Many of them fighters.

We sure do talk funny where I'm from. For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain) But nobody I work with now, ever heard that term, not once. Just had that conversation last week.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

Buka said:


> Oh, heck, there's a ton of stuff I don't remember any more, no argument there. And there's nothing false about what you said, not a thing, it's just a matter of terms used. Again, a lot of it might be generational, but as I thought about this today, a lot of it might be colloquial, too, also might be native to particular areas of the country. In New England, where I cut my teeth, there's all sorts of odd terminology, not used anywhere else in the country (as far as I know) but that's still twenty million people using those terms. Many of them fighters.
> 
> We sure do talk funny where I'm from. For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain) But nobody I work with now, ever heard that term, not once. Just had that conversation last week.


 stark bollock naked is an expression of complete nakedness. Never heard bollocky use in the uk, but that's not to say it isnt


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

Psilent Knight said:


> *THIS!! *This sums up my mindset almost perfectly!!
> 
> I have seen where some of the posters in this thread brought up legal issues for preemptively attacking a _would be _attacker. As I expressed already I'd rather take my chances in court than to have my wife and kids having to bury me or take care of me for the rest of my life due to a permanent and irreversible condition I sustained from some lowlife that I failed to preempt.
> 
> ...


In fact, those laws (in most places) respect your right to defend yourself when it is clear (or at reasonable to perceive) that an attack is imminent. I think you and I are close to the same point on this one. I won't preemptively attack someone who looks sketchy, enters my space, and appears to be using a distraction tactic (for that, I'd definitely "code up"). But once I'm reasonably sure there's an actual attack coming, that, as my nephew likes to say, is an entirely different evening.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Cool story bro, but are you sure you still remember stuff  that happened in '79, at your age though? I didn't claim that all gyms and coaches uses this exact terminology, because in an all or nothing argument, it would just take 1 to prove me wrong. Tell me what's false about how I described a Return vs a Counter?


I don't think anyone is saying it's false. Just that it's not everyone's usage, so to say others are wrong because they don't use the terms the way you do is not helping the discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

drop bear said:


> By the way a good counter punch starts before they punch.
> 
> Punches are a hell of a lot easier to counter if you have forced them to throw the punch you want.


Okay, I could have been clearer. "Counter" (in my usage) simply refers to a punch that starts after the other  person begins a commitment. The "counter-punch" can start before the other punch, but not before their commitment/movement. If it starts before their movement, it's preemptive, not a counter. The counter-punch can also start simultaneous with or slightly behind the timing of their punch. There's a grey space there, rather than a hard line, where it stops being a "counter" and just turns into the next response (what, I gather, is being called a "return" by some). My vague cut-off point on a counter-punch is when the attack stops, reverses, or moves to a next attack. At that point, you're no longer countering that attack, because it is over. Up to that point, including right after blocking the punch if you are blending with it, it's still a "counter". The same goes for counters to grappling techniques.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to give my opponent at least a chance to back up himself. Some one made the following statement and I like it very much.
> 
> If my opponent attack the
> 
> ...


I don't have an interest in giving them that much control of the space. I may back up that much, if it suits what I want to do with the situation (perhaps getting me nearer an exit, moving them away from a weapon, getting me out of an enclosed space, etc.), but I'm more likely to close quickly to control them rather than giving way that long.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is one of those areas where there are arguments on both sides. Using this deceptive counter-strike is effective at getting ahead in your defense. It also makes it look like you cold-cocked a guy for no observable reason (on a security camera). Those two points have to be weighed.


i feel like this thread is going all over the place as usual.  but to respond to gerry,
one of the problems with Lee Morison is that he was a bouncer.  this is different than a casual civilian.  he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.
my video was in response to the specific post by the OP.  however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging.   these are based on the same lethal force standards.  the assailant must have  intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury.  if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage. 
while Morrison is showing a tactic, he is not giving the context i would like. his context tends to be from a bouncer view point but his tactics are still sound, they just need to be given with a more civilian assault type of context.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2017)

Buka said:


> For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain)



Nope, never heard 'bollocky' here, just as jobo has already posted.



hoshin1600 said:


> . he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.




 They may know more legal techniques than non door staff but they certainly can't use any techniques here that aren't 'reasonable' which is what is allowable in law.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i feel like this thread is going all over the place as usual.  but to respond to gerry,
> one of the problems with Lee Morison is that he was a bouncer.  this is different than a casual civilian.  he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.
> my video was in response to the specific post by the OP.  however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging.   these are based on the same lethal force standards.  the assailant must have  intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury.  if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage.
> while Morrison is showing a tactic, he is not giving the context i would like. his context tends to be from a bouncer view point but his tactics are still sound, they just need to be given with a more civilian assault type of context.


Well stated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Nope, never heard 'bollocky' here, just as jobo has already posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think his point was that they have a different viewpoint. A bouncer who has someone who is being belligerent and won't leave has a different set of obligations and requirements than I do in that same situation at the same bar.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to give my opponent at least a chance to back up himself. Some one made the following statement and I like it very much.
> 
> If my opponent attack the
> 
> ...




See, this is managing and taking more risk(s) based on your level of training & experience, which I agree with. Yes you could get the crap beaten out of you or end up a paraplegic or even die....if you don't strike first with a Mortal Kombat intent....but you can also go to prison, lose your job and all of your assets w/ your wife & kids ending up living in a van, on welfare... for accidentally killing someone....especially if their lawyer finds out that you're a well trained, chopsocky guy.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging.   these are based on the same lethal force standards.  the assailant must have  intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury.  if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage.  .



Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?

1)  If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line  for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death?  Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.

2)  If you're being setup for a mugging....say someone walks up to you and asks for the time or a cigarette.....then he's already within range to suckerpunch you into a KO that may kill you . You can't just attack him, can you?  And would you just turn and walk away briskly? Or tell him to "stand back"?

The problem with many SD people is that there are lots of dramatization going on with the Bad Guy scenarios, who are acting all big & bad right from go. But usually, it starts with an accidental bump or a parking space dispute....and then it goes on from there. And from a Bouncer's perspective, like you said, way more extreme.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?





FriedRice said:


> 2) If you're being setup for a mugging....say someone walks up to you and asks for the time or a cigarette.....then he's already within range to suckerpunch you into a KO that may kill you . You can't just attack him, can you? And would you just turn and walk away briskly? Or tell him to "stand back"?



i am thinking you misunderstood or did not read the entire post.  what i said was to initiate the attack (preempt) then i would want my three requirements to do so, AND be in fear .....  if these are not there then you should be trying to de escalate and disengage.   your scenario has no impact on the decision making process.  i dont understand your point.  are you suggestion we all walk around punching people out cold everytime they ask what time it is?  perhaps you are saying we cant turn and walk away....this is true but what that tells me is that you dont have a varied strategy for disengagment. you should have more options in your tool box then turning your back on the guy and walking away.  also in your "asking the time" scenario this is a common tactic for criminals but it relies on ambush. under those situations you do not have a preemtive attack.  you do have counter ambush, but thats a different subject.




FriedRice said:


> 1) If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death? Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.



as for this scenario as well as your first, your fishing .....
i could have just as easily died in a car accident on my way to the theater or had a mass shooting while i was inside.  either i misunderstand your point or you failed to make any point that is pertinent to the conversation.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> They may know more legal techniques than non door staff but they certainly can't use any techniques here that aren't 'reasonable' which is what is allowable in law.



this..


gpseymour said:


> I think his point was that they have a different viewpoint. A bouncer who has someone who is being belligerent and won't leave has a different set of obligations and requirements than I do in that same situation at the same bar.



things may be different in the UK i dont know but from what i know, a bouncer is working on behalf of the owner and has the right to forcibly remove people from the premises.  a casual civilian does not have that.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> things may be different in the UK i dont know but from what i know, a bouncer is working on behalf of the owner and has the right to forcibly remove people from the premises. a casual civilian does not have that.



A proprietor has the right to refuse entry but there is *no right* to forcibly remove here. The law of trespass is a civil law unless criminal damage is involved. If a patron is causing fights then the security staff can treat if as they would if it were a fight on the street and use reasonable force to restrain and usually hold until the police arrive. If they merely want to throw the patron out then they have to use minimum physical means, there are ways such as guiding by the elbow towards the door, because if they injure the person they are liable to be sued. usually police and door staff work together quite well.
Here door staff ( as do security staff in all areas and close protection personnel) have to be licensed. https://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/licensing/sia_get_licensed.pdf


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?
> 
> 1)  If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line  for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death?  Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.
> 
> ...


its you that's being over dramatic, I wouldn't queue for 2 hours for anything, and I mean anything, if it was the last boat out in the zombie apocalypse, id give it 20 minutes and then take my chance. Drunks are easy meat, by the time they think they can fight anyone they can't fight at all. The chances of him hitting me are extremely low, the chance of a hit resulting in death are extremely small, about the same as a piano landing on you at the bus stop , ok not quite that low, but very low


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> A proprietor has the right to refuse entry but there is *no right* to forcibly remove here. The law of trespass is a civil law unless criminal damage is involved. If a patron is causing fights then the security staff can treat if as they would if it were a fight on the street and use reasonable force to restrain and usually hold until the police arrive. If they merely want to throw the patron out then they have to use minimum physical means, there are ways such as guiding by the elbow towards the door, because if they injure the person they are liable to be sued. usually police and door staff work together quite well.
> Here door staff ( as do security staff in all areas and close protection personnel) have to be licensed. https://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/licensing/sia_get_licensed.pdf


you picked me up on that the other day, but you are incorrect, there is indeed a right to use reasonable force to remove trespassers'in the uk. There is also a criminal offence of of refusing to leave a licienced premises when asked


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

jobo said:


> its you that's being over dramatic, I wouldn't queue for 2 hours for anything, and I mean anything, if it was the last boat out in the zombie apocalypse, id give it 20 minutes and then take my chance.



Some people do, are you saying they don't exist? This was just an example of being in public somewhere, sheesh.. You're so cool, you sneak in through the back door   or hole in the fence with your pack of cigarettes under the sleeve of your white t-shirt, right?  



> Drunks are easy meat, by the time they think they can fight anyone they can't fight at all. The chances of him hitting me are extremely low,



Good job in agreeing with me that attacking first isn't always the best choice.



> the chance of a hit resulting in death are extremely small, about the same as a piano landing on you at the bus stop , ok not quite that low, but very low



Maybe you don't have much to lose should you get sued, etc. and maybe what's also in question would be your knock out power + precision.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i am thinking you misunderstood or did not read the entire post.  what i said was to initiate the attack (preempt) then i would want my three requirements to do so, AND be in fear .....  if these are not there then you should be trying to de escalate and disengage.   your scenario has no impact on the decision making process.  i dont understand your point.  are you suggestion we all walk around punching people out cold everytime they ask what time it is?  perhaps you are saying we cant turn and walk away....this is true but what that tells me is that you dont have a varied strategy for disengagment. you should have more options in your tool box then turning your back on the guy and walking away.  also in your "asking the time" scenario this is a common tactic for criminals but it relies on ambush. under those situations you do not have a preemtive attack.  you do have counter ambush, but thats a different subject.
> 
> as for this scenario as well as your first, your fishing .....
> i could have just as easily died in a car accident on my way to the theater or had a mass shooting while i was inside.  either i misunderstand your point or you failed to make any point that is pertinent to the conversation.



You misunderstood everything I said, pretty much.

I was saying, when would you detect any or all of these "fear" qualifications of yours, before you strike ....when some stranger of the street has just gotten up close to you, within arm's length already....by, ie. asking for a cigarette.... and therefore, can sucker-punch you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 28, 2017)

The following match happened just 2 years ago.

I met a WC instructor. We discussed the WC Bong Shou (pic b). I told him that I didn't agree with exposing elbow to opponent. He disagreed. He asked me to punch him. I did.

- I delivered a right jab to his face.
- He used right WC Bong Shou (pic 1) to block my right punch (this is called "wrong Bong", a wrong move in WC).
- My right punch easily slide down to his wrist (because that 45 degree downward angle).
- My left hand pushed his right elbow joint up (I tried to apply an arm lock on him).
- He changed his WC Bong Shou into WC Tang Shou (pic a) by dropping his right elbow down.
- I used my left hand to take over my right wrist control (as shown in the following clip).
- I then used my right hand to grab on his left arm on the wrist.
- I pushed his left arm against his own right arm and also against his body.
- He could not move and could not break away my double arms control.
- I let go my hands. Nobody got hurt. We both lived happy ever after.

If I let him to throw that first punch, I don't think the outcome could be the same. Can I achieve "double arms control" while my opponent's fists are flying? I don't think I can. Can I achieve this while my opponent is "on guard"? I think I have good chance to achieve that.


----------



## jobo (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Some people do, are you saying they don't exist? This was just an example of being in public somewhere, sheesh.. You're so cool, you sneak in through the back door   or hole in the fence with your pack of cigarettes under the sleeve of your white t-shirt, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well more or less, I tend to get priority service where ever I go, its my chi that does it, your point was that you or me might get punched by the drunk and die, that's not really a concern to me as its extremely unlikely to happen.
I do agree with your point that you just cant go round punching idiots, drunks. There are too many in the world, you will never stop fighting if you start. I find my death stare works quite well at backing them up a bit


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> you could get the crap beaten out of you or end up a paraplegic or even die....


If you (general YOU) apply 100% defense (no offense) along with footwork, you are still beaten up by your opponent, your defense skill and footwork will need more training.

A friend of mine told people in public that if anybody could take him down while he plays 100% defense, he would give that person a black belt. In the past 35 years, nobody had ever received black belt from him through that way yet.

I had tried to play 100% defense in one match. Within 15 minutes, my opponent's hands could not touch my body except my arms.

When you play 100% defense, you are not taken any risk. Your defense skill should be almost double.


----------



## Paul_D (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Hey, I thought I was on your ignore list


You are, but your posts are both figuratively and literally like car crashes.  Sometimes morbid curiosity gets the better of me and I can help but peek.


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu (Apr 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> A bouncer who has someone who is being belligerent and won't leave has a different set of obligations and requirements than I do in that same situation at the same bar.



Most of my guys at work are 300+ pounds. I'm the smallest bouncer I know, weighing in at only 140 to 150 pounds. But I'm not as tactical as most of my guys are, with their expensive weaponry and state-of-the-art technology. A lot of my guys wear tact-suits and carry firearms. Few of them have as much MA experience as I do, nor do most of them really need it like I do when we're at work. Back in the old days, I didn't have to pick a fight with belligerent giants at the dance bar or nightclub. I was taught to just walk away, or run if I have to. But now that I'm involved in bouncing and security, I can't walk away. It's my job now to protect other people and keep the peace. Therefore, sometimes I have no choice but to deal with angry giants who are twice my size. It really does require a different set of obligations, especially for me personally since I'm not permitted to carry a firearm (besides being an officer, I'm also a convict). My whole body had to become a weapon, and the most powerful weapon I use now is my brain. But most people who act tough and get all belligerent, I've found that 50% of the time if you just stand your ground and don't get scared, they will back down naturally. Nobody really wants to get hurt, especially by a trained professional who is legally permitted to use force. Even if they feel like I can't win, they won't do anything because I can get them arrested. Nobody wants that. But yeah, it definitely is a different perspective.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> You misunderstood everything I said, pretty much.
> 
> I was saying, when would you detect any or all of these "fear" qualifications of yours, before you strike ....when some stranger of the street has just gotten up close to you, within arm's length already....by, ie. asking for a cigarette.... and therefore, can sucker-punch you?


i believe i understand fully.  so let me rephrase what you said.
_if someone on the street walks up to me and asks for the time or a cigarette,  i will not have the fear qualifications and therefore he will be close enough to do me physical harm. _
yes ? is that correct??

let me say that i dont like the term fear qualifications.  that can be misconstrued as they are fear based, which they are not.  they are a "use of force policy".  there are three situational factors plus a legal factor that "i am in fear of death or serious body injury". 

if i am correct in interpreting your position then i will state again that you have not established either a counter point or a logical argument to my post.  you will have to make a logical argument as to how a scenario of someone asking for the time invalidates a Use of Force Policy. 

not all situations warrant a peemptive attack.  lets logically go through this.   in your scenario of a "time check"  the person steps into your space. he politely asks for the time. at that exact moment he has only one of the three requirements - OPPORTUNITY-.  however he is in my space, this is where i said i need to have a better disengage tool box.  i need to recover my space.  how you do that is up to your tools.  if he again steps into my space (remember there has been no verbal confontation yet at this point) then i need to use some verbal judo to indicate that he needs to step back, if he repeats into my space again then i have to use aggressive verbal commands (stating he needs to keep back or we are going to have a problem) as well as regaining my space again. 
in this situation the use of force requirements have not been met,, therefore i do not strike.  if after the verbal warning he persists then he has shown -INTENT-
if he is bigger than me or some other factor,(meaning he is not in a wheel chair, hes not 3 feet tall and he is not 7 years old, he has - ABILITY-  to do me harm.... its GO time.

if at any point he pulls a knife and asks for my wallet then all three factors are fulfilled.

again not all situations warrant a preemptive strike.  but that does not invalidate the use of force procedure.  in fact it reinforces it.
the alternate response would be to go around punching every person who asks you for the time.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i believe i understand fully.  so let me rephrase what you said.
> _if someone on the street walks up to me and asks for the time or a cigarette,  i will not have the fear qualifications and therefore he will be close enough to do me physical harm. _
> yes ? is that correct??
> 
> ...




I like what you're saying here, very thorough, thank you. Let's continue at this point where you said: 

"OPPORTUNITY-.  however he is in my space, this is where i said i need to have a better disengage tool box.  i need to recover my space.  how you do that is up to your tools.  if he again steps into my space (remember there has been no verbal confontation yet at this point) then i need to use some verbal judo to indicate that he needs to step back,"

Let's say he's your size with the same reach. Now based on what you consider to be "your minimum space" (of safety)...... and he was standing square in front of you and reaches out towards your face.... can he touch your face with his wrist?  How about his palm? Fingers?


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

Paul_D said:


> You are, but your posts are both figuratively and literally like car crashes.  Sometimes morbid curiosity gets the better of me and I can help but peek.



What you can't argue against, scares and intrigues you simultaneously, huh?


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you (general YOU) apply 100% defense (no offense) along with footwork, you are still beaten up by your opponent, your defense skill and footwork will need more training.
> 
> A friend of mine told people in public that if anybody could take him down while he plays 100% defense, he would give that person a black belt. In the past 35 years, nobody had ever received black belt from him through that way yet.
> 
> ...



It depends on who you go up against.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 28, 2017)

Mou Meng Gung Fu said:


> But most people who act tough and get all belligerent, I've found that 50% of the time if you just stand your ground and don't get scared, they will back down naturally. Nobody really wants to get hurt,



I would say its more than 50%.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The following match happened just 2 years ago.
> 
> I met a WC instructor. We discussed the WC Bong Shou (pic b). I told him that I didn't agree with exposing elbow to opponent. He disagreed. He asked me to punch him. I did.
> 
> ...




Interesting stuff, thanks. I actually like this Wing Chun, elbow up block "B".  It's similar in Boxing, but the elbow goes even higher and the body shoulder rolls and then down...sometimes call the "deep shoulder roll". But mainly to block the power straight and not the jab....and especially the overhand right. Mayweather uses this often.

I'm still not convinced that your technique is of the "more effective"  realm. I'm sure it can work though. Unfortunately I don't have Kung-Fu people to train and try this on me, so I can't know for sure. I've sparred a decent amount with Shaolin Wushu and Wing Chunners...I can't recall that any of them tried to grab my arms or even used the sticky hands techs.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I like what you're saying here, very thorough, thank you. Let's continue at this point where you said:
> 
> "OPPORTUNITY-.  however he is in my space, this is where i said i need to have a better disengage tool box.  i need to recover my space.  how you do that is up to your tools.  if he again steps into my space (remember there has been no verbal confontation yet at this point) then i need to use some verbal judo to indicate that he needs to step back,"
> 
> Let's say he's your size with the same reach. Now based on what you consider to be "your minimum space" (of safety)...... and he was standing square in front of you and reaches out towards your face.... can he touch your face with his wrist?  How about his palm? Fingers?



no he should not be able to touch me even with his fingers extended. 
the key concept would be looking for attack cues.  i would be checking his feet and stance.  he may not be able to touch me by just extending his hand but with a short step he would very easily reach me.  so i need to be aware of his feet and stance.  i must say however that for myself i would have begun my defense long before this point along the time line.   my normal reaction to someone trying to engage me for the time or a cigarette is to say no sorry and continue walking, i would not have even stopped.  every situation is different but rule number one is do not engage in the "interview" attempt.
as interesting as all this is, it is not related to the OP original post.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 28, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> no he should not be able to touch me even with his fingers extended.
> the key concept would be looking for attack cues.  i would be checking his feet and stance.  he may not be able to touch me by just extending his hand but with a short step he would very easily reach me.  so i need to be aware of his feet and stance.  i must say however that for myself i would have begun my defense long before this point along the time line.   my normal reaction to someone trying to engage me for the time or a cigarette is to say no sorry and continue walking, i would not have even stopped.  every situation is different but rule number one is do not engage in the "interview" attempt.
> as interesting as all this is, it is not related to the OP original post.




I think it does relate to the OP's OP. I also forgot to mention that you were stationary, ie. waiting for the train or something. But if they ask for the time, you tell them and they try to start a conversation, etc. See, my point is that this is tricky and what you consider your safe space, is already well within reach for a suckerpunch. So now, the question is he at KO'ing someone and how good are you from reacting and/or taking a shot.

Because normal people would not just punch someone who comes up and asks for the time. You'd go to jail and get sued, where the legal fees alone should be 10x the amount of cash in your wallet.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I like what you're saying here, very thorough, thank you. Let's continue at this point where you said:
> 
> "OPPORTUNITY-.  however he is in my space, this is where i said i need to have a better disengage tool box.  i need to recover my space.  how you do that is up to your tools.  if he again steps into my space (remember there has been no verbal confontation yet at this point) then i need to use some verbal judo to indicate that he needs to step back,"
> 
> Let's say he's your size with the same reach. Now based on what you consider to be "your minimum space" (of safety)...... and he was standing square in front of you and reaches out towards your face.... can he touch your face with his wrist?  How about his palm? Fingers?


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> my point is that this is tricky and what you consider your safe space, is already well within reach for a suckerpunch.


ok ..so what?   your not actually making a point.  for the sake of argument lets say the guy can touch me, so what.  i can touch him too.


FriedRice said:


> So now, the question is he at KO'ing someone and how good are you from reacting and/or taking a shot.


can you re phrase this. the grammar is off so i dont know what your trying to say.
none of this has anything to do with my decision process on whether i should hit someone first before they hit me.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Because normal people would not just punch someone who comes up and asks for the time. You'd go to jail and get sued, where the legal fees alone should be 10x the amount of cash in your wallet.


 your repeating what i already said.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 28, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I've sparred a decent amount with Shaolin Wushu and Wing Chunners...I can't recall that any of them tried to grab my arms or even used the sticky hands techs.


In CMA, when you punch, you should not come back with empty hand. IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is in

- boxing, a punch is just a punch.
- CMA, a punch is a punch followed by a pull.

So boxing punch is like a spear.






CMA punch is like a spear with a hook on it.


----------



## Mou Meng Gung Fu (Apr 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, when you punch, you should not come back with empty hand. IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is in
> 
> - boxing, a punch is just a punch.
> - CMA, a punch is a punch followed by a pull.
> ...



Very good tea... Thank you. 

This is a great analogy, do you mind if I use it in my classes? I agree 100% with what you're saying. I often practice using punches and kicks just as a minor strategy to open the opponent's guard (or else form a bridge at least), from which to grab. That grabbing/sticking notion is the real major strategy in my system. We don't just grab with our hands either. We will hook our legs around the opponent's legs and grab them with our feet too. So the analogy of the hooked spear makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, when you punch, you should not come back with empty hand. IMO, the major difference between boxing and CMA is in
> 
> - boxing, a punch is just a punch.
> - CMA, a punch is a punch followed by a pull.
> ...





Therefore, this is 1 Boxing move and 2 CMA moves.

(on a side note, I bet you're a very good teacher....very thorough and descriptive).


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> your repeating what i already said.



I'm not. And I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just somewhat. Main disagreement is that they're already too close and within striking range. You've allowed this. You're waiting for the bus. Are you going to just abandon your wait and walk away?


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


>



That's a good video, and it proves my point.

You can get suckerpunched in every single one of those distances, displayed in this video. You've allowed a potential attacker into range. The OP was that it's always best to attack first. But you really can't when someone who's inside your striking range, is merely asking for directions = a strong argument for Counter-Fighting and/or Defensive Counter-Fighting (ie. Maywayther).


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> ok ..so what?   your not actually making a point.  for the sake of argument lets say the guy can touch me, so what.  i can touch him too.



Well you didn't understand context of the OP then....which was, to always strike first.



> can you re phrase this. the grammar is off so i dont know what your trying to say.
> none of this has anything to do with my decision process on whether i should hit someone first before they hit me.



I meant that....you've let him into striking range already, which means that as soon as you're answering his question by saying, ie. "I don't have any ciga..."....(POW) sucker-punch....


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Apr 29, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I'm not. And I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just somewhat. Main disagreement is that they're already too close and within striking range. You've allowed this. You're waiting for the bus. Are you going to just abandon your wait and walk away?


I'm confused what your point is. You seem to be plainly saying that there'd be little justification for preemptive strikes in a situation like this, AND that the danger at this point is imminent.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Apr 29, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I'm not. And I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just somewhat. Main disagreement is that they're already too close and within striking range. You've allowed this. You're waiting for the bus. Are you going to just abandon your wait and walk away?


i agree with your observation. the person is close to you.  but the situation your alluding to is called an ambush.  that is what a sucker punch or a surprise attack is called.  its an ambush, and has very little to do, in fact almost nothing to do with what i was talking about.  i was presenting a decision process that i would instantly make if i wanted to hit someone first.  BEFORE  they hit me.


FriedRice said:


> The OP was that it's always best to attack first


that may have been the OP's opinion but that is not what i was proposing.
we are going around in circles on this, and i just dont have the time to continue.  if you can elaborate on a point of discussion that you feel is important , i will respond but otherwise im moving on.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i agree with your observation. the person is close to you.  but the situation your alluding to is called an ambush.  that is what a sucker punch or a surprise attack is called.  its an ambush, and has very little to do, in fact almost nothing to do with what i was talking about.  i was presenting a decision process that i would instantly make if i wanted to hit someone first.  BEFORE  they hit me.



Then this sounds more like a sports fight or some mutually agreed upon combat in the streets.



> that may have been the OP's opinion but that is not what i was proposing.
> we are going around in circles on this, and i just dont have the time to continue.  if you can elaborate on a point of discussion that you feel is important , i will respond but otherwise im moving on.



My main  point was, you shouldn't always attack first and attacking first isn't necessarily the best style of fighting....because many people are excellent Counter-Fighters.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 29, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> because many people are excellent Counter-Fighters.



Disagree.

Few people are good counter-fighters.

Maybe many *trained* fighters are excellent counter-fighters....but the majority of the public are not trained and can be overwhelmed easily.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 29, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Few people are good counter-fighters.


The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".

What went wrong in the following clip? IMO, the Taiji guy waited too long, allowed his opponent to generate speed and power, and run him down.






If you attack first while your opponent is still "on guard", you can have more "momentum" than your opponent has. If you let your opponent to have enough space to generate speed and power, it will be to your dis-advantage.

If you are a wrestler, If you can achieve "clinch" ASAP, and turn a striking game into a grappling game, that will be toward your favor. The sooner you can do that, the less chance that you have to deal with your opponent's punches, kicks, knees, elbows.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree.
> 
> Few people are good counter-fighters.
> 
> Maybe many *trained* fighters are excellent counter-fighters....but the majority of the public are not trained and can be overwhelmed easily.



I was referring to trained fighters.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 29, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I was referring to trained fighters.



Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.



that's pretty obvious though.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".



I don't think that the problem with the Tai Chi guy losing like that was due to him being a Counter-Fighter, but more because he was a Tai Chi guy. What the hell were they thinking putting him in there like that?

Not as bad as this one though, because this was a little kid.


----------



## Knapf (Apr 30, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I don't think that the problem with the Tai Chi guy losing like that was due to him being a Counter-Fighter, but more because he was a Tai Chi guy.


Tai Chi's doctrine and theory is always about counter fighting only.



> What the hell were they thinking putting him in there like that?


They were thinking that they wanted to see Tai Chi's weaknesses?


----------



## drop bear (Apr 30, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.



Yes and no.

If you stand toe to toe you are also in a greater risk of having your fight ended quickly as well. You have to be really careful with that overwhelm them approach.

The issue there is if the have a decent chin and can weather a few shots.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1414046728683561


----------



## drop bear (Apr 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".
> 
> What went wrong in the following clip? IMO, the Taiji guy waited too long, allowed his opponent to generate speed and power, and run him down.
> 
> ...


Yeah but.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but.




As I recall, this fight was started by a straight up, internet beef.... where they were keyboard warrior'ing all over the place about which styles are better, but both sides ending up having the balls to back up their mouths and put their reputations on the line. Before this fight, I think there were 2 other fights  and the kid that won, you can clearly see the animosity. Good stuff. I give both camps props to actually backing up their mouths.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 30, 2017)

Personally as a guy who does taijiquan I would use a baseball bat on someone's knee and then explain how that was in the taijiquan sword form.


----------



## FriedRice (Apr 30, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Personally as a guy who does taijiquan I would use a baseball bat on someone's knee and then explain how that was in the taijiquan sword form.



Yea, you're that guy who carries around that baseball bat all the time, and especially to a gunfight right?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2017)

I have tried to find this clip for some time. This is a good example that

left/right hooks > jab/cross.

You can clearly see that when the short guy used right jab, the tall guy used left hook. That left hook not only can stop his opponent's jab, it also can hit on his opponent's head at the same time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 30, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but.


To use hook (or hay-maker) to counter a jab is one of my favor techniques.


----------



## oaktree (Apr 30, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Yea, you're that guy who carries around that baseball bat all the time, and especially to a gunfight right?


Ya the guy who also carries a gun and knife.
But you know us taijiquan guys don't fight Fair would shake hands before the match and bring you close to stab. Or possibly hit you with a car we will call it using peng.


----------



## CB Jones (Apr 30, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have tried to find this clip for some time. This is a good example that
> 
> left/right hooks > jab/cross.
> 
> You can clearly see that when the short guy used right jab, the tall guy used left hook. That left hook not only can stop his opponent's jab, it also can hit on his opponent's head at the same time.



It's more like an example of a more skilled fighter with a reach and height advantage fighting a lesser skilled fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 30, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> As I recall, this fight was started by a straight up, internet beef.... where they were keyboard warrior'ing all over the place about which styles are better, but both sides ending up having the balls to back up their mouths and put their reputations on the line. Before this fight, I think there were 2 other fights  and the kid that won, you can clearly see the animosity. Good stuff. I give both camps props to actually backing up their mouths.



Animosity is not putting your hand behind your back.  The boxer was phoning that one in. 

Which happens to me a lot.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 30, 2017)

CB Jones said:


> It's more like an example of a more skilled fighter with a reach and height advantage fighting a lesser skilled fighter.



Yeah but what situation would you find that? 

Certainly not a trained fighter in a street altercation.


----------



## FriedRice (May 1, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Animosity is not putting your hand behind your back.  The boxer was phoning that one in.
> 
> Which happens to me a lot.



I meant the fight before this one.....it's in another video. That guy was still enraged, and this was after he beat  his internet rival up.

There was  also lots of internet beef between this WC Master vs. this tall Boxer (according to the Boxer), but they kept it chilled in person. I think the hand behind the back was some showboating to subtly rub it in.


----------



## FriedRice (May 1, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Ya the guy who also carries a gun and knife.
> But you know us taijiquan guys don't fight Fair would shake hands before the match and bring you close to stab. Or possibly hit you with a car we will call it using peng.



Ooh scary, that's why I carry a 9mm with hollow points.


----------



## FriedRice (May 1, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I have tried to find this clip for some time. This is a good example that
> 
> left/right hooks > jab/cross.
> 
> You can clearly see that when the short guy used right jab, the tall guy used left hook. That left hook not only can stop his opponent's jab, it also can hit on his opponent's head at the same time.




There's no exact formula for this. The WC guy was just outclassed. Not only was the Boxer a better fighter, he also had an enormous reach advantage.

If anything, this video disproves your notion of going first being the best idea. Because the Boxer countered the hell out of the WC guy. This was some serious counter-fighting here.

As a little guy, counter-fighting is usually the best bet vs. someone with this much reach advantage.

Now if you're the little guy and still want to go first, you'd have to be a good pressure fighter, a la Mike Tyson. But that Peek-A-Boo style, ain't easy at all. And Wing Chun seems to go banzai, straight in, stiff like a board and at a constant level = not good.


----------



## oaktree (May 1, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> Ooh scary, that's why I carry a 9mm with hollow points.


Is this where we take out the ruler and measure.... because you are Asian...right just saying


----------



## FriedRice (May 1, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Is this where we take out the ruler and measure.... because you are Asian...right just saying



I'm not gay and don't resort to snitching to admis like you, but thanks though.


----------



## oaktree (May 1, 2017)

FriedRice said:


> I'm not gay and don't resort to snitching to admis like you, but thanks though.


Since when does measuring one's height make you gay? Also for the 3rd time i didn't report you to mods, your comment and opinions would have to make me actually care and acknowledge it's worth for me to do so.


----------



## FriedRice (May 1, 2017)

oaktree said:


> Since when does measuring one's height make you gay? Also for the 3rd time i didn't report you to mods, your comment and opinions would have to make me actually care and acknowledge it's worth for me to do so.



Surrreeeee.


----------

