# 埋伏 Ambush



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 11, 2015)

In CMA, there is a style that's called "埋伏 (Mai Fu) - Ambush". It emphasizes on "using a fake move to set up a real move". This principle is used in all categories such as kick, punch, lock, and throw.

1 kick - use round house kick to set up a side kick.
2. punch - use hook punch to set up a back fist.
3. lock - use shoulder lock to set up an elbow lock.
4. throw - use hip throw to set up an inner hook.
- ...

Let's share your opinion on this principle.


----------



## LibbyW (Apr 11, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, there is a style that's called "埋伏 (Mai Fu) - Ambush". It emphasizes on "using a fake move to set up a real move". This principle is used in all categories such as kick, punch, lock, and throw.
> 
> 1 kick - use round house kick to set up a side kick.
> 2. punch - use hook punch to set up a back fist.
> ...



Sounds good to me 
I've always been a fan of set ups, especially when they come off well.
L


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 11, 2015)

Having this kind of preconceived attack does not allow one to respond to the opponent's movements. In the case of a hook punch to set up a back fist, what happens when the opponent blocks the hook? Will the mind respond fast enough if it's still thinking about a back fist.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 11, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> Having this kind of preconceived attack does not allow one to respond to the opponent's movements. In the case of a hook punch to set up a back fist, what happens when the opponent blocks the hook? Will the mind respond fast enough if it's still thinking about a back fist.


When you throw a right hook punch (or hay-maker), your opponent can

- *dodge* under your hook punch (his arm and your arm does not make contact), you can then smash your right elbow side way at his face. If he use his left hand to block your elbow strike, you can use your left hand to remove his left hand, and change your right hook punch into a right back fist and hit on top of his head.
- *block* your right hook punch (his arm and your arm make contact), you can slide your right punching arm along his left blocking arm, and get him an under hook under his left shoulder.
- *step back* and remain distance, nothing has happened and it goes back to before you throw your hook punch.
- *kick* *back* at you, you can ...
- ...

Since when you throw your hook punch, you have already predict that your opponent will dodge, block, step back, kick back, or ..., you are always one step ahead your opponent's respond. That's the beauty to train combo (use a fake move to set up a real move). Of course, your fake move can also be a real move if your opponent fails to dodge it, block it, or ...

Your initial fake move (or real move if your opponent fails to respond it on time) is the root of a tree. Your tree starts to branch out depends on how your opponent may respond.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 12, 2015)

Too many options=too many thoughts. I am only interested in the result not how to get there. A good fight is one in which one's opponent is disabled with as little thought as to "how" or "why" he ended up that way. I'll think about it later. Maybe over a beer with our fallen hero.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 12, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> Too many options=too many thoughts. I am only interested in the result not how to get there. A good fight is one in which one's opponent is disabled with as little thought as to "how" or "why" he ended up that way. I'll think about it later. Maybe over a beer with our fallen hero.


So you do not practice any, just fight? What result are you interested in? 
If your hero doesn't think about what is to be done or practice much he/she will be felled


----------



## Argus (Apr 12, 2015)

Danny T said:


> So you do not practice any, just fight? What result are you interested in?
> If your hero doesn't think about what is to be done or practice much he/she will be felled



Perhaps he was referring to a mindset whereby, in the moment, you're not thinking about what techniques to do, but rather just responding intuitively with what you've ingrained through training.

In WC, for example, I find I have better results when I simply focus on "chasing center," and not think about doing or setting up this or that technique. "This" or "that" might come about, but intuitively as a trained response rather than a conscious decision. After all, the latter is likely to be a step behind when put under pressure.

That was my initial impression 23rdwave's post, at any rate, but I may be mistaken. Perhaps he can clear it up for us.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 12, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> I am only interested in the result not how to get there.



How to get there - take a girl out for movie, have a nice dinner, walk on the beach, watch the sunset, hold her hand, kiss her,  ...
result - marry to that girl.

You just can't marry to a girl without going through the "dating process".

How to get there = entering strategy
result = finish strategy

You have to enter safely before you can finish your opponent. It's better to lead your opponent into an area that you are more familiar with than he does than to let your opponent to lead you into an area that he is more familiar than you. For example, if your opponent is a

- striker, you don't want to box with him for 15 rounds, you want to take him down ASAP.
- grappler, you don't want to wrestle with him for 15 rounds, you want to knock him down ASAP.

If you can

- force your opponent's leading arm to jam his back arm, he won't be able to punch you.
- jam you leg into your opponent's leading leg, he won't be able to kick you.

Both are part of your "entering strategy - set up".

Here is an example that one uses

- round house kick to set up side kick,
- side kick to set up double under hooks,
- double under hooks to set up knee strike,
- knee strike to set up outer hook take down.

Within 15 seconds, he used this combo twice in a roll. It proves that he had this combo as his "plan" and not just random techniques.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 12, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How to get there - take a girl out for movie, have a nice dinner, walk on the beach, watch the sunset, hold her hand, kiss her, ...
> result - marry to that girl.
> 
> You just can't marry to a girl without going through the "dating process".



To be honest, I find that objectionable. A girl isn't a commodity, someone you can take a certain numbers of 'steps' then marry her. Your analogy is inappropriate and reduces girls to what sounds like unthinking lower life forms. If that's how  you think you find your soul mate then I'm sorry for you. I'm not sure you martial arts sounds any sounder.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 12, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> Too many options=too many thoughts. I am only interested in the result not how to get there. A good fight is one in which one's opponent is disabled with as little thought as to "how" or "why" he ended up that way. I'll think about it later. Maybe over a beer with our fallen hero.





Argus said:


> Perhaps he was referring to a mindset whereby, in the moment, you're not thinking about what techniques to do, but rather just responding intuitively with what you've ingrained through training.
> 
> In WC, for example, I find I have better results when I simply focus on "chasing center," and not think about doing or setting up this or that technique. "This" or "that" might come about, but intuitively as a trained response rather than a conscious decision. After all, the latter is likely to be a step behind when put under pressure.
> 
> That was my initial impression 23rdwave's post, at any rate, but I may be mistaken. Perhaps he can clear it up for us.


How does one get to that point of simply doing? By going through all of the options, thought processes, by working the options to being able to be in the moment. Also there is absolutely one's ability of thinking and setting up the opponent/s. "Smart fighters" called that because of how intelligently they fight. That is because they think, adjust, and when possible will set up the opponent.
Often in our wc we, through proper position, control, and timing, set a trap and allow the opponents to trap themselves.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 13, 2015)

I don't want to have any intent. It's like basketball. If one practices a crossover dribble 10,000 times and then says to oneself, "I'm going break this dude's ankles on this play," what happens when the defender doesn't bite on the first move? Now one has to rethink the movement instead of blowing by the defender and getting an easy look at the basket. If one has practiced the moves enough they become instinctive and do not need to be planned. Just play the game.


----------



## Argus (Apr 13, 2015)

Danny T said:


> How does one get to that point of simply doing? By going through all of the options, thought processes, by working the options to being able to be in the moment.



Absolutely. And that definitely requires forethought and structured practice. This is the only real problem that I have with 23rdwave's comment, though -- as he stated "I am only interested in the result not how to get there," which seems absurd if you intend to actually train in any kind of productive manner. But I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt that perhaps he wasn't referring to the method to train/get there.



Danny T said:


> Also there is absolutely one's ability of thinking and setting up the opponent/s. "Smart fighters" called that because of how intelligently they fight. That is because they think, adjust, and when possible will set up the opponent.
> Often in our wc we, through proper position, control, and timing, set a trap and allow the opponents to trap themselves.



Again, I don't disagree. But I do think that people can have too many preconceptions about what they or their opponent will do. And, I've come across a few individuals that seemed to be really fond of combinations that they seemed to want to pull out of their pocket, as if trying to get away with some "trick" and without any regard to what the other person happens to be doing. Basically, trying to make a technique or string of techniques work regardless of whether it's suited to the moment.

As with anything, I wholly agree that it's never black and white; there's a time, place, and context for everything. Which is what I think you were arguing to begin with!


----------



## Argus (Apr 13, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How to get there - take a girl out for movie, have a nice dinner, walk on the beach, watch the sunset, hold her hand, kiss her,  ...
> result - marry to that girl.
> 
> You just can't marry to a girl without going through the "dating process".



The problem with such a plan is that, while a logical series of actions, the chances of them succeeding in that order, per your timing, and without the need to heavily adapt to her actions / reactions is basically nil. Any particular girl might require a lot more, or a lot less than what you listed, in varying order, or timing, and with different prerequisites. In fact, you might try the same set of actions with a particular girl and fail once, but, if you had the ability to rewind time and try again, succeed the next. Not because of what you did, but because of how, why, or when you did it; in short, the context and intent behind an action can be more important than the action itself, and can ensure that the (correct) action is being taken at the right time, and in the right way.

You can't be so sure that this will lead to that will lead to that and give you that. Of course, it's good to be proactive in the sense that you have some idea where you're going and what the next best course of action is likely to be, but you have to be constantly listening, sensing, and adapting; going not just where you want to go when you want to go, but accommodating the other person and working with their actions and intent.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 13, 2015)

Argus said:


> Absolutely. And that definitely requires forethought and structured practice. This is the only real problem that I have with 23rdwave's comment, though -- as he stated "I am only interested in the result not how to get there," which seems absurd if you intend to actually train in any kind of productive manner. But I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt that perhaps he wasn't referring to the method to train/get there.


It's the training that allows for one to be in the moment and respond to the opponent's movements rather than following a script. Fighting is not Shakespeare it's improv. Think Monty Python not the RSC.


----------



## Argus (Apr 13, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> It's the training that allows for one to be in the moment and respond to the opponent's movements rather than following a script. Fighting is Shakespeare it's improv. Think Monty Python not the RSC.



I was recognizing and agreeing with that point... Glad to see you were as well!

In essence, it's not about writing a script that one expects to follow to get the end result, but rather exploring the actions one might take in the moment and where they might be likely to lead you or your opponent.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 13, 2015)

Argus said:


> I was recognizing and agreeing with that point... Glad to see you were as well!


And I agree with your reply to Danny T.


----------



## Jenna (Apr 13, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> It's the training that allows for one to be in the moment and respond to the opponent's movements rather than following a script. Fighting is not Shakespeare it's improv. Think Monty Python not the RSC.


was Monty python improvised?? Jx


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 13, 2015)

In the USA we have Second City and the Groundlings which are improv groups but I thought they may be unfamiliar to a wider audience since they work in the theater not television. Although much of MP is scripted they are a comedy troupe and can improvise when the mood strikes. The Royal Shakespeare Company always work from a script.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> In the USA we have Second City and the Groundlings which are improv groups but I thought theyBTW. y be unfamiliar to a wider audience since they work in the theater not television. Although much of MP is scripted they are a comedy troupe and can improvise when the mood strikes. The Royal Shakespeare Company always work from a script.


I'm not that sure you know who Monty Python were if you think they are a 'comedy troupe'. The RSA have been known to put improvised works on btw


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 13, 2015)

The television programmes were called Monty Python's Flying Circus and were scripted as well as directed by the cast who are writers and actors. They went on to make films but all have their own careers as well. They aren't a 'troupe' at all, they have all apart from Graham Chapman who sadly died, been in serious mainstream plays, films and television dramas, a couple have directed films, all write serious literature, one writes music, another makes travel films.


----------



## LibbyW (Apr 13, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> The television programmes were called Monty Python's Flying Circus and were scripted as well as directed by the cast who are writers and actors. They went on to make films but all have their own careers as well. They aren't a 'troupe' at all, they have all apart from Graham Chapman who sadly died, been in serious mainstream plays, films and television dramas, a couple have directed films, all write serious literature, one writes music, another makes travel films.



Terry Gilliam is one of my favorite directors 
L


----------



## RTKDCMB (Apr 14, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> Think Monty Python not the RSC


Maybe more like Who's line is it anyway.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 14, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not that sure you know who Monty Python were if you think they are a 'comedy troupe'. The RSA have been known to put improvised works on btw


I have every Flying Circus episode, Holy Grail, Life of Brian, The Rutles, and most of Terry Gilliam's films on dvd. They were not a tv cast like Saturday Night Live or a breeding ground for comedians like Second City and Groundlings. They stayed together while enjoying successful careers on their own with films like Brazil, A Fish Called Wanda and Personal Services. Spamalot!

Wikipedia calls them a group not a troupe so I guess you win. 
Monty Python - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> I have every Flying Circus episode, Holy Grail, Life of Brian, The Rutles, and most of Terry Gilliam's films on dvd. They were not a tv cast like Saturday Night Live or a breeding ground for comedians like Second City and Groundlings. They stayed together while enjoying successful careers on their own with films like Brazil, A Fish Called Wanda and Personal Services. Spamalot!
> 
> Wikipedia calls them a group not a troupe so I guess you win.
> Monty Python - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia




They haven't stayed together at all, they reunited once for a charity show that's it. They have very wide ranging careers but they haven't 'performed' together since the last film they did, many decades ago there than that one charity show. I watched them when they were first on television, they are my contemporaries, they wrote and performed Flying Circus as a group of young actors who wanted to do something different in the spirit of the Edinburgh Fringe rather than the comedians of the day. They have done far more than make films, have a good look.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 14, 2015)

I know all about the Pythons. I posted the wiki page as well as my bona fides. Have a nice day if that's possible. Your profile pic is fitting. 

Wasn't this originally an ambush thread?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> I know all about the Pythons. I posted the wiki page as well as my bona fides. Have a nice day if that's possible. Your profile pic is fitting.
> 
> Wasn't this originally an ambush thread?




Ah I see, it's a case of who 'wins' isn't it with you, you bring up an analogy to prove your point and are upset because the analogy is proved false. Then you go back to saying it's off topic when you yourself brought it off topic. personal insults are below you and not allowed on here btw. You do not know all about the pythons, a Wiki page can be hugely inaccurate by it's very nature. In another analogy this time to do with martial arts, you will find that reading on Wikipedia and watching something on video doesn't make you an expert on either Monty Python or martial arts.
BFI Screenonline The Roots of Monty Python

I suppose you don't want to know about the plays the RSC put on that are improvised? They don't just do Shakespeare despite their name.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 14, 2015)

I grew up on the Pythons as I have already mentioned and I didn't provide the wiki page for me. That was for you.

What is the difference between a comedy group and and a troupe? You seem to be the only one who knows. When are you going to educate the rest of us?

I haven't seen the RSC since my school days 30 years ago but Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even if they are now improvising Pinter.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> I grew up on the Pythons as I have already mentioned and I didn't provide the wiki page for me. That was for you.
> 
> What is the difference between a comedy group and and a troupe? You seem to be the only one who knows. When are you going to educate the rest of us?
> 
> I haven't seen the RSC since my school days 30 years ago but Shakespeare is still Shakespeare even if they are now improvising Pinter.




LOL, Really?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 14, 2015)

This article explains why you shouldn't use Wikipedia for research or for citing as a reputable, knowledgeable resource, this includes martial arts and just about everything else.
Should university students use Wikipedia Education The Guardian


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 15, 2015)

Category British comedy troupes - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## LibbyW (Apr 15, 2015)

Getting a little silly and WAAAAAAY off topic now guys
L


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2015)

We did this a bit with how to be deceptive.

 But to fight in a manner that is naturally progressive to you is also predictable. So it is important to break up the continuity of what you do and how you do it. And  to do this you can insert pre trained combinations that are a bit left field. Like fakes and so on.

Wrestling you notice this more because it has more progression. But it is just as true for striking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 15, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Wrestling you notice this more because it has more progression. But it is just as true for striking.


This is so true. In

- wrestling, when you try to throw your opponent forward and if he resists, you can borrow his resistance and throw him backward.






- striking, when you right punch 45 degree downward at your opponent's belly, if he tries to drop down his right arm to block it, his face will be exposed to your next punch. If you punch at his face and he tries to block it again, his groin will be exposed for your kick. If he tries to block your kick, his face will be exposed again. this kind of set up (strike low and strike high, strike high and strike low, ...) is commonly used in the praying mantis system. It can be seen at 0.04 in the following clip.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Apr 15, 2015)

[MODERATOR]
Folks, in case you missed it, this is the General Martial Arts forums of MartialTalk. The topic is "Ambush". Not Comedy. Not Monty Python.
If you'd like to discuss those other topics, please do so. In a different thread and in the appropriate forum.
Thanks.
[/MODERATOR]


----------



## drop bear (Apr 15, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is so true. In
> 
> - wrestling, when you try to throw your opponent forward and if he resists, you can borrow his resistance and throw him backward.
> 
> ...


Yes.
Quality fighters don't just achieve knockouts or submissions out of thin air. A quality opponent just wont let them. There are steps that get you there.

(there is a really good mike Tyson video of him explaining ko punches)

Now because there are steps that take you do these ko,s there is a little warning that it is coming and can be defended early. 

To have a comprehensive game you are not just walking towards this finish. But also countering his attempts to stop you. It becomes this deeply layered chess match of attack defence and counter attack.

If your opponent is a Muppet you don't need to ambush or fake or apply these deep gamey methods. It is when your basics are being foiled that these come in to play.


----------



## qianfeng (Apr 15, 2015)

[/QUOTE]- striking, when you right punch 45 degree downward at your opponent's belly, if he tries to drop down his right arm to block it, his face will be exposed to your next punch. If you punch at his face and he tries to block it again, his groin will be exposed for your kick. If he tries to block your kick, his face will be exposed again. this kind of set up (strike low and strike high, strike high and strike low, ...) is commonly used in the praying mantis system. It can be seen at 0.04 in the following clip.





[/QUOTE]

How is this guy so fast!!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 15, 2015)

drop bear said:


> here are steps that take you do these ko.


If your opponent is as good as you, your 1st attack will always fail. You have 2 arms and 2 legs. Your opponent also has 2 arms and 2 legs. How to hit your opponent without being hit by your opponent will need some "ambush plan".


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

Dirty Dog said:


> [MODERATOR]
> Folks, in case you missed it, this is the General Martial Arts forums of MartialTalk. The topic is "Ambush". Not Comedy. Not Monty Python.
> If you'd like to discuss those other topics, please do so. In a different thread and in the appropriate forum.
> Thanks.
> [/MODERATOR]




To be honest though when you bring something up as an analogy it does have to be correct otherwise you do end up with the above conversation. If I said that you should emulate Fred Bloggs  to win a fight because he punches like a fish and kicks like a cat, there would be a discussion afterwards.  If you insist you are correct even after being shown you aren't by someone who actually knows Fred Bloggs it gets silly.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 16, 2015)

My analogy that fighting is improvised not scripted is spot on.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> My analogy that fighting is improvised not scripted is spot on.




Just you picked the wrong subject to use as your analogy. Not all fighting is improvised, good MMA fighters have their moves planned out a couple of moves ahead. They know that if they do _b_ technique, their opponent's head will go _so _which means they can then do_ c _technique which their opponent will do _d   _to get out off meaning they can do _e_ and win. Other fighters such as boxers and karateka will also do this, they set up their moves. It is possible because my instructor doe it, in so called street fights to set up moves like this, it takes experience of course but can be done so for every rule there are always exceptions, nothing is written in stone.


----------



## 23rdwave (Apr 16, 2015)

A fight is unpredictable because fighters are unpredictable. When the opponent does something unexpected or unusual one must adapt to the circumstances and respond to the change in attack or defense not continue with step 2 of a prearranged combination. 

I'm not talking about sport fighting but the one where the only bell that gets rung is between the ears.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> A fight is unpredictable because fighters are unpredictable. When the opponent does something unexpected or unusual one must adapt to the circumstances and respond to the change in attack or defense not continue with step 2 of a prearranged combination.
> 
> *I'm not talking about sport fighting but the one where the only bell that gets rung is between the ears*.




How many fights like that have you had? My instructor has had plenty, bare knuckle 'traveller' fights, fights that have been started when he's been on the doors, fights when civvies decide to start on squaddies etc. Before I retired I had a few people starting fights for various reasons. I don't think you understand that you don't do 'pre arranged combinations' but that you are aware of what you are doing, ie if you do a certain move they will respond in a given way ( they can't avoid it because of the nature of the move you did) so then you can do the move that will finish the altercation. It's not prearranged but is the result of a lot of training and being able to keep your head. fights aren't as unpredictable as you'd imagine, it's one reason awareness is so important.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Apr 16, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> if you do a certain move they will respond in a given way ( they can't avoid it because of the nature of the move you did) so then you can do the move that will finish the altercation.



I think a better way of putting it might be to say that by doing a given move, you can _constrain_ your opponent's options. There is always more than one way an opponent can react, but if you are skilled enough you can limit him to fewer and worse options.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think a better way of putting it might be to say that by doing a given move, you can _constrain_ your opponent's options. There is always more than one way an opponent can react, but if you are skilled enough you can limit him to fewer and worse options.




Yes, certainly. It's knowing more than just _how_ to do a technique but also what it does and how it can make your opponent/attacker react. A very simple example is kneeing them in the stomach, how they fold up rather than stand up and move away, as I said a very simple example before I get jumped on lol. It may well apply even more to grappling than stand up but I believe you can control what goes on far more than people realise, it isn't all flailing around by both sides hoping for a lucky punch. It isn't as random as that.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Yes, certainly. It's knowing more than just _how_ to do a technique but also what it does and how it can make your opponent/attacker react. A very simple example is kneeing them in the stomach, how they fold up rather than stand up and move away, as I said a very simple example before I get jumped on lol. It may well apply even more to grappling than stand up but I believe you can control what goes on far more than people realise, it isn't all flailing around by both sides hoping for a lucky punch. It isn't as random as that.


This is very true.  It's why we have submission chains or combinations in striking. 

It's also the basis of the push/pull reaction and many others.


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> A fight is unpredictable because fighters are unpredictable. When the opponent does something unexpected or unusual one must adapt to the circumstances and respond to the change in attack or defense not continue with step 2 of a prearranged combination.
> 
> I'm not talking about sport fighting but the one where the only bell that gets rung is between the ears.


 This is ALSO true.  Every time I've been injured in class, it's been sparring with a white belt.  Why?  Because they don't react predictably.  

In MMA matches, guys like Machida or Silva have unorthodox styles, and as a result, they have a lot of success.  You can't find a training partner who can replicate what they do in the cage.  They are unpredictable, and as a result, the combinations other fighters practice and refine become less useful.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

23rdwave said:


> A fight is unpredictable.


If you respond to your opponent's attack, when he

- punches at you, you block his punch,
- kicks at you, you block his kick,

you are playing his game, of course the fight is "unpredictable". This is why it's important that you attack your opponent first, put him in defense mode, and execute your "plan - set up".

A 3 steps set up is shown In the following clip.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

Steve said:


> Every time I've been injured in class, it's been sparring with a white belt.  Why?  Because they don't react predictably.



When you apply "pulling" on a

- white belt, 99.9% of the time he will resist, try to prove that he is stronger than you, and you can't pull him. You can then borrow his resistance (his body is going backward), add your pushing, and take him down "backward".






- black belt, he may borrow your pulling, add his pushing, and try to take you down first. When that happen, you can borrow his pushing (his body is going forward) and increase your pulling and take him down "forward".






When you start to pull your opponent around, since whether he may either resist or yield, you will have your next move waiting for him, you can predict what may happen more than he can, that will be your advantage.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

Steve said:


> In MMA matches, guys like Machida or Silva have unorthodox styles, and as a result, they have a lot of success.  You can't find a training partner who can replicate what they do in the cage.  They are unpredictable, and as a result, the combinations other fighters practice and refine become less useful.


In order to be unpredictable, when your opponent attacks, you will need to reverse your defense mode back into offense mode right at that moment. It then depends on who has better skill after that point.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is why it's important that you attack your opponent first, put him in defense mode, and execute your "plan - set up".



For that I'd check on the law where you are, attacking first can mean you are considered the aggressor and if it comes to explaining to the police you could be batting on a sticky wicket. Of course have you considered not fighting at all?

If your attacker doesn't know you he won't know whether you are being predictable or not will he? It's perhaps not predictability you need to worry about but effectiveness.

In the UK 'pulling' someone has a very different meaning roflmao.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> attacking first can mean you are considered the aggressor ...


Not if your opponent attacks you first, you jump back, remain the same distance, you then attack.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Not if your opponent attacks you first, you jump back, remain the same distance, you then attack.




What? Attack me and I'm not jumping back and forward like a demented flea, you're having some!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> What? Attack me and I'm not jumping back and forward like a demented flea, you're having some!


That "backward jumping" can give your some extra time to think

- Whether you want to commit on that fight or not.
- How far you want to get yourself into that fight.
- Do you want to hide yourself for the rest of your life in the Amazon jungle?
- Do you have enough money in the bank to support your family while you are hidden.
- ...

An old saying said, "When you fight, you have to see something red (blood)". If you think that you don't hate your opponent that much and you don't want to draw blood out of his body, your "backward jumping" can also give you extra time to cool down and walk away.

When someone attacks you and you counter right back at that moment, you may hurt your opponent more than you really want to. Some Karate guy once said,

If you attack me the

- 1st time, I'll move back.
- 2nd time, I'll move back again.
- 3rd time, I'll still move back again.
- 4th time, I'll attack back and eat you alive.

Compare to his approach, my approach is not "conservative enough".


----------



## Steve (Apr 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you attack me the
> 
> - 1st time, I'll move back.
> - 2nd time, I'll move back again.
> ...


Doesn't this seem like a very predictable response?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 16, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> That "backward jumping" can give your some extra time to think
> 
> - Whether you want to commit on that fight or not.
> - How far you want to get yourself into that fight.
> ...


Seeing red and hating your opponent is one of the best ways to lose a fight. I really don't see any of your ideas about jumping back working quite frankly.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2015)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I think a better way of putting it might be to say that by doing a given move, you can _constrain_ your opponent's options. There is always more than one way an opponent can react, but if you are skilled enough you can limit him to fewer and worse options.



Or he is doing a whole bunch of freely deeky low percentage stuff trying to be unpredictable.

But personally I don't believe tricking is that effective.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 16, 2015)

Steve said:


> Doesn't this seem like a very predictable response?



If you looked at it like an attack and reply. Then sort of. Obviously if I am not doing damage then I generally need to leave that striking zone. Or I get countered.

So we set up this thing where I fire off a combo move back. Then you fire.

But there are ways to break that dynamic. Like extending the combination. Fake backing off and coming straight back in or going back attacking.

So. I can throw a punch combo. Retreat change levels double leg. If I catch them thinking that it is their turn to punch. I can just about make them do back flips.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

Steve said:


> Doesn't this seem like a very predictable response?



When someone attacks you (assume no weapon involved), you can treat it as a chance to polish your "defense" skill. You don't need to fight back right at that moment. If your opponent attacks you and you move back, he may think that you are afraid of him. When you attack him back, that will surprise him big time. If your opponent attacks you 3 times, all fail, and still want to attack you the 4th time, he will deserve a "big surprise" from you.

In CMA, before you stab your dagger into your opponent's chest, you should use your dagger handle to strike on his chest first. You should at least give your opponent a warning before you kill him. If you have spent some training time and develop some combat skill, it still doesn't give you the right to hurt people whenever you want to.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 16, 2015)

drop bear said:


> if I am not doing damage then I generally need to leave that striking zone.


I like that approach too. Your "entering strategy" may not work every time. But as long as you can make it to work just once in every 10 tries, that will be all you need to "finish" that fight.


----------



## moonhill99 (Apr 17, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is so true. In
> 
> - wrestling, when you try to throw your opponent forward and if he resists, you can borrow his resistance and throw him backward.



Not on some one taking Judo. They get training to do throws,take downs and fighting on the ground and training how to counter it too.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> In CMA, there is a style that's called "埋伏 (Mai Fu) - Ambush". It emphasizes on "using a fake move to set up a real move". This principle is used in all categories such as kick, punch, lock, and throw.
> 
> 1 kick - use round house kick to set up a side kick.
> 2. punch - use hook punch to set up a back fist.
> ...




I looked up Ambush and there is no such word. Do you mean counters, traps and parries?

The redirect and counter assault?

Like in Okinawan Karate?

A counter or trap with a strike and technique with a finish move not a submission


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 17, 2015)

moonhill99 said:


> I looked up Ambush and there is no such word. Do you mean counters, traps and parries?
> 
> The redirect and counter assault?



An *ambush* is a long-established military tactic, in which combatants take advantage of concealment and the element of surprise to attack unsuspecting enemy combatants from concealed positions, such as among dense underbrush or behind hilltops. Ambushes have been used consistently throughout history, from ancientto modern warfare.

Ambush - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia







This style came from *梁山*Liang Sang, Shang Tong province, China.


----------



## qianfeng (Apr 17, 2015)

Correct me if im wrong but isnt mai fu quan one of the gazillion long fist styles in northern China?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone attacks you (assume no weapon involved), you can treat it as a chance to polish your "defense" skill.




When someone was attacking me I treated it as an attack on me and behaved appropriately, I did not look upon it as an opportunity to do anything other than do something I trained for and was looking to get out of.

What you are talking about when you say 'ambush' is not what you are talking about. You cannot ambush someone who is attacking you, you could wait behind a bush and attack him first, that would be an ambush. You've even posted that yourself but ambushing a person attacking you? No, not really, you mean something else.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2015)

moonhill99 said:


> Not on some one taking Judo. They get training to do throws,take downs and fighting on the ground and training how to counter it too.



The principal still works. You just have to be better at doing it than the guy defending it.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> When someone was attacking me I treated it as an attack on me and behaved appropriately, I did not look upon it as an opportunity to do anything other than do something I trained for and was looking to get out of.
> 
> What you are talking about when you say 'ambush' is not what you are talking about. You cannot ambush someone who is attacking you, you could wait behind a bush and attack him first, that would be an ambush. You've even posted that yourself but ambushing a person attacking you? No, not really, you mean something else.



Well given he has explained the concept behind the word we could just call it ambush as he is trying to discuss it and save a thee page conversation on what everybody thinks an ambush is.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Well given he has explained the concept behind the word we could just call it ambush as he is trying to discuss it and save a thee page conversation on what everybody thinks an ambush is.




However the concept of ambush has nothing to do with what he is explain her thinks we could do when attacked, leaping backwards to have a think about whether to emigrate or not in no way constitutes an ambush does it?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2015)

"The art of skilled fighting is the continuing process of target collecting easily effortlessly unconsciously doing the right thing at the right time for the right effect - mindless violence." Gary Turner

Gary is a world champion kick boxer, fights MMA, is a hypno-therapist among many other things. Knows what he is talking about.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 17, 2015)

qianfeng said:


> Correct me if im wrong but isnt mai fu quan one of the gazillion long fist styles in northern China?


It's one branch of the long fist system.

"Who created the Embush (Mai Fu) system cannot be traced. This system use a fake move to set up a real move, the real move utilizes the fake move to set up ..."


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "Who created the *Embush* (Mai Fu) system cannot be traced.



Is this a typo or what it's actually called?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 17, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Is this a typo or what it's actually called?


It's a typo.

Here is another example that you use "hip throw" to set up "inner hook".


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 17, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's a typo.




Ok, no worries.


----------



## drop bear (Apr 17, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> However the concept of ambush has nothing to do with what he is explain her thinks we could do when attacked, leaping backwards to have a think about whether to emigrate or not in no way constitutes an ambush does it?



Like this.






Ambush.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2015)

drop bear said:


> Like this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yep that's an ambush, quite cool. However, when face to face with your attacker, hitting him first then jumping backwards to contemplate life and the universe is not an ambush which is what was suggested if you have another read. I'm not sure why you have to think about emigrating, looking after your family etc but that was what was suggested.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> Yep that's an ambush, quite cool. However, when face to face with your attacker, hitting him first then jumping backwards to contemplate life and the universe is not an ambush which is what was suggested if you have another read. I'm not sure why you have to think about emigrating, looking after your family etc but that was what was suggested.


- Pretend you don't want to fight, move back and retreat (at 0.39 and 0.51),
- when your opponent chases you, you suddenly turn around and attack him (at 0.43 and 0.55),

that's "ambush".


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - Pretend you don't want to fight, move back and retreat (at 0.39 and 0.51),
> - when your opponent chases you, you suddenly turn around and attack him (at 0.43 and 0.55),
> 
> that's "ambush".




It's feinting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 18, 2015)

Tez3 said:


> It's feinting.


When I translated "*埋伏 (Mai Fu)"* into English, I got "ambush"

http://cn.bing.com/dict/埋伏


----------



## Danny T (Apr 18, 2015)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This system use a fake move to set up a real move, the real move utilizes the fake move to set up ..."


This would then be a fake or a feint.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 18, 2015)

IMO, "虚招 (Xu Zhao) - fake move" is only partial commitment when apply a real move. It looks exactly like the real move. Since you don't commit yourself fully, it's easy to change whenever needed. Also if you miss it, it won't affect your own balance.


----------

