A punch should be followed by a pull

[JowGaWolf]

A: Why does these 2 TMA guys all fight like kickboxer?
B: Because they both use 16 oz boxing gloves.

Do you think you can train your TMA fighting style with 16 oz boxing gloves that won't allow you to grab/pull?

I do pull and press with 16 Oz gloves but not necessarily followed after a punch. It just depends on what options and dangers I'm alerted to or aware of.

I try to flow where my opponent allows me to versus trying to force something through. Attack the openings vs always trying to punch through the defenses.

 

[Mitlov]

The reason you throw your cross is because you don't trust that you can win the fight with just a jab. Or at least you don't want to try doing that. Which is fair, most of the time you won't win a fight with just a jab. But if you trust your jab enough for the entire fight, the cross is unnecessary. (I can actually see multiple reasons to throw the cross-you enjoy it more, you want to end the fight quicker, etc., but that's why this is the second issue not the first )

Whatever happened to using the jab to set up the cross, ie, make an opening? It's not a matter of trusting one or the other. They both serve a purpose, work in conjunction with each other, and you're not going to prevail with one technique alone, no matter how good it is.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Whatever happened to using the jab to set up the cross, ie, make an opening? It's not a matter of trusting one or the other. They both serve a purpose, work in conjunction with each other, and you're not going to prevail with one technique alone, no matter how good it is.

I agree. You combine the two together, because you know you won't win the fight with just one. So: you don't trust the jab to win you the fight on it's own. That's not an issue with the jab, or with your ability to throw it, but it doesn't change that most people are more confident that their jab-cross will be effective, then that either punch on it's own will be effective.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I agree. You combine the two together, because you know you won't win the fight with just one. So: you don't trust the jab to win you the fight on it's own. That's not an issue with the jab, or with your ability to throw it, but it doesn't change that most people are more confident that their jab-cross will be effective, then that either punch on it's own will be effective.

I think people are reading too much into me saying that it's about confidence. Not being fully confident in one aspect of a fight is not a bad thing. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and you should know what those are, and fight around your strengths. The only issue is if you are more confident in something than you should be.

 

[skribs]

So you're more confident in combining them, then you are with either on their own.

I don't even know how to respond to this. Here's some fragmented thoughts as I try to unravel the chaotic storm this question unleashed on my mind.

1. If I were playing chess, I would be more confident using my rooks, bishops, and knights, instead of relying only on my rooks.
2. I train to use both together, so of course I would be more confident in the way I trained.
3. Some of what we train is how to use both together, techniques and combinations that would not make sense without both present. The way we sweep puts us into position to strike, the way we grab makes certain kicks more effective.

You seem to be separating striking from grappling, which is a huge false dichotomy.

 

[skribs]

I agree. You combine the two together, because you know you won't win the fight with just one. So: you don't trust the jab to win you the fight on it's own. That's not an issue with the jab, or with your ability to throw it, but it doesn't change that most people are more confident that their jab-cross will be effective, then that either punch on it's own will be effective.

I think people are reading too much into me saying that it's about confidence. Not being fully confident in one aspect of a fight is not a bad thing. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and you should know what those are, and fight around your strengths. The only issue is if you are more confident in something than you should be.

At this point I've lost sight of what your point is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If anything, the comparison would be using a jab to set up a cross is because you don't trust your jab enough. I'm guessing that's what you meant though.

But there's two issues IMO with that statement. First is that a jab/cross combo is a bit different than striking/grappling, since those are entirely different spheres. If you throw a cross, you can easily throw another jab. If you pull someone in, you'd have to reestablish punching range.

The second issue is that in a sense, you're right. The reason you throw your cross is because you don't trust that you can win the fight with just a jab. Or at least you don't want to try doing that. Which is fair, most of the time you won't win a fight with just a jab. But if you trust your jab enough for the entire fight, the cross is unnecessary. (I can actually see multiple reasons to throw the cross-you enjoy it more, you want to end the fight quicker, etc., but that's why this is the second issue not the first )

I guess one difference is I don’t actually see them as separate spheres. They’re part of the same body of knowledge to me, as different in their way as ground and standing grappling, or throws and locks.

But yeah, I get your point. I think we have a semantic difference over “trust”. I trust it to do what I expect, but not to finish that situation. I’m thinking about the former, you’re thinking about the latter.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I think we have a semantic difference over “trust”.

If you can knock your opponent down with your 1st jab, that will be great. If your opponent has blocked 3 jabs of yours, you decide to use your jab to set up your cross. When you do that, you don't have "trust" in your jab right at that moment. When your opponent blocks your jab, you change your jab into a pulling. You then pull your opponent into your cross.

 

[skribs]

If you can knock your opponent down with your 1st jab, that will be great. If your opponent has blocked 3 jabs of yours, you decide to use your jab to set up your cross. When you do that, you don't have "trust" in your jab right at that moment.

I disagree. If I have a hammer, and I need to cut something, it's not that I don't trust my hammer. It's just not the right tool. Now, if I have a hammer that absolutely sucks at driving nails, or if I have a hammer that I think is likely to break, then it's a hammer I wouldn't trust.

Am I being pedantic? No. Because there's a difference in how you approach it:

• If you don't trust your hammer, you throw it away and buy a new one.
• If your hammer is not the right tool, you put it away, and you bring it out when it is right.

If your jab isn't being successful, then you bring another punch that's appropriate to the situation. Against a different fighter, or once your opponent is looking for the leg kick, you bring the jab back. That's not a lack of trust or confidence in your jab, it's that the jab isn't the best tool for the situation.

If your jab isn't successful ever, then you need to either train your jab, or adopt a style where the jab is unnecessary. That is when I don't have trust or confidence in my jab.

 

[drop bear]

I have, and I have. If you can't, that's a flaw in your approach to the technique, and not in the technique itself.

I can do it if I am fighting a noob. So obviously you are fighting noobs.

Anecdotes everyone has them

 

[skribs]

I can do it if I am fighting a noob. So obviously you are fighting noobs.

Anecdotes everyone has them

Oh, not this again.

 

[Martial D]

This is completely false. Most of our strikes in our TKD defense training set you up in the perfect position to execute a throw.

Of course. Because tkd is known for its effective punches and throws.

 

[Martial D]

I can do it if I am fighting a noob. So obviously you are fighting noobs.

Anecdotes everyone has them

Noobs..or nobody.

 

[wab25]

I think we are misunderstanding what kempodisciple is meaning. (and I may be here as well... so correct me if I get this wrong) When I read his comments about having confidence in a technique or trust in one technique over the other, I think about it this way. The bad/opponent/other guy... is going to give you one free shot, before he attacks you. Most strikers would probably throw a cross, maybe a hook. If you can kick, maybe its a round house to the head. The idea is that this is the technique you have most confidence in or the most trust in. Its not that the others are bad, or don't work or you can't apply it... its the I have one free shot to land... which technique is my go to? Not many strikers (except maybe Bruce Lee) would go with a jab as their free shot. A wrestler might suplex the guy for his free shot.

In karate, we had a contest. They put a wave master punching target in the middle of the floor. You and your opponent got into a fighting stance on opposite sides. Sensei would call start, and the first one to hit the punching target would win the point. Sensei's instruction was to "punch the target first." Everyone was using a right reverse cross. So, I went out for my turn, I was yellow belt (white, yellow) my opponent was sandan. I measured my distance for the reverse punch, set my feet so that I could easily reach the target with my right reverse punch. Sensei called start, I threw the left jab hard enough to knock the target out of the way so I could see the surprised look on the sandans face. My left was only 8 inches from the target when I started, while my right in chamber, was about 2 feet further back and required much more hip rotation. Sensei then specified which punch to use.

 

[skribs]

Of course. Because tkd is known for its effective punches and throws.

Just because a lot of schools have a watered-down curriculum, doesn't mean that TKD doesn't have those things in it for those who learn from the right Master.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Just because a lot of schools have a watered-down curriculum, doesn't mean that TKD doesn't have those things in it for those who learn from the right Master.

A: My TKD instructor doesn't teach throw.
B: My TKD teacher does. You will need to learn from the right master.
A:

You can replace TKD with boxing too.

I will lose confidence in my "hip throw" with this kind of opponent too.

 

[pdg]

I will lose confidence in my "hip throw" with this kind of opponent too.

But you could easily gain confidence in your 'stamp on his face' technique.

 

[skribs]

A: My TKD instructor doesn't teach throw.
B: My TKD teacher does. You will need to learn from the right master.
A:

You can replace TKD with boxing too.

I will lose confidence in my "hip throw" with this kind of opponent too.

Sorry, I'm just sick of people assuming that because I take Taekwondo, that I can't do anything but kick.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Sorry, I'm just sick of people assuming that because I take Taekwondo, that I can't do anything but kick.

You learn

- boxing for punch,
- TKD for kick,
- Judo for throw,
- BJJ for ground skill,

with good reason.

We all know that a rich wife may not know how to cook.

 

[drop bear]

Oh, not this again.

If we are going to critique a technique knowing if it works or not is important.

I catch punches out of thin air all the time. (But it is in the kids class)

I can't catch punches out of thin air. (But it is against k1 champions.)

We don't know. So we really can't decide if what you say is relevant. For me I just assume the worst and think you spar against duds. But you may not. You may have some punch catching skill.