kmguy8 said:
yeah, I have felt that way and taught that way in the past, but this type of thinking changed for me... I approach a grappler different from a striker... i fight an opponent with a longer reach differently than if my jab as the advantage... same for the girl.. not one solution exists to every attack.. and different approaches have more merit than others based on the circumstrances... the case of the small girl (to me) obviously requires a different approach than my personal preference... hypothetical: would you concede the point were it a question of whether she should take him to the ground and grapple... size matters... it just does
I can understand your point, but in a street situation I'm not going to know if the guy is a grappler or boxer, or what. Even judging reach is pretty hard to do in a full speed high adrenaline situation. I do agree 100% that not one solution works for every attack, but that
doesn't mean that what works for one person will
not work for another. If the 14 year old girl can evade, why can't we? Its about effeciency of movement. I think you are taking my "evasive action" as somethig much more complex than I'm intending. There are situations where you get caught and the kick is coming too quick to evade or anything, that is when you would "root" turn into it and enjoy all those days of conditioning you have had, but in theory that would only be becasue you messed up and were not able to evade. When I say "evasive action" it could be as simple as moving in, closing the gap, etc. What I'm against is simply taking the kick full force. Thats silly in my opinion. You use the term "absorb" that may be something other than what I'm thinking, and may involve yielding with the force, moving in, etc. In which case we would really agree. I'm just saying its much better to redirect, yield, evade the kick rather than take it. Takin the kick simply because you can leave much room for error. I'm not willing to allow that error to even have a chance to exist. Thats my philosophy on it.
As to the grappling...thats kind of a different situation since we are talking about her taking action to set up that situation. I agree size does matter, its just not a determining factor alone. I think in keeping with our original scenario we would have to make the hypothetical be that she is allready being taken to the ground, should she stay and grapple or attempt to get away. By the way, getting away can and should involve nasty aggressive attacks as well.
kmguy8 said:
yeah, I think most good martial artists feel this way and most systems eventually train the students to respond this way, however, one of my other principles is that your weight should move in the direction of your strike... combo kicks and punchs (at the same time) can not have the same force... if it is a distraction or trick move then ok.. but I would be cautious about a simotanious punch kick move... I've done them... and to me they never had the power I liked... we might agree to disagree on this FINE point
We may have to "agree to disagree" and thats cool, but let me explain just a bit more. In some cases the attack is a distraction or trick move, in some cases it is to get the opponent to react in order to set up a much more devistating attack, and in some cases it is to make contact and do damage with both. I understand what your saying about the force and body weight and it is a very valid point, but in the mantis system we train heavily on exploiting the smallest of mistakes such as overcommitting. We also train to unbalance our oppoenent even from a situation where they are attacking. That being the case, we tend to not put our whole body or force into a punch or kick, we usually "root" or sink downward when doin this in order to keep our center of balance low. We also build power from the waist and so we dont practice to push our weight in the direction of the punch. Against a skilled mantis fighting moving your weight like that could get your balance "stolen" and get you hurt. So one could question whether or not a mantis fighter has weaker punches and kicks, but we really tend to fight in a way that makes the opponent force or weight run into our attacks so we are using both our own force plus the force of the attacker....makes for some pretty powerful attacks. In fact, an attacker that moves their weight in the direction of their punch really helps make our return attack more powerful.
Ok, sounds weak so let me give an example to explain:
The attacker does as you suggest and performs a right straight or cross punch moving his weight in the direction of the punch. Our goal (as a mantis fighter) would be to evade the punch by either actually moving the body (bobbing and weaving if you will), redirecting the punch with contact, or yielding the body so the punch fully extends. At this point the mantis fighter having made slight contact with the arm that is punching, at the exact moment of the punch reaching its farthest, the mantis fighter tightens into a grab and just pulls just a bit past where the punch should have ended. This send the attacker forward since his weight was also moving in that direction and the hand of the mantis fighter which grabbed and pulled then is flying forward as a straight punch into the face of the stumbling attacker. This makes the mantis fighters punch have the power he was able to create plus the power of the attackers weight coming towards the punch. This is a very static explination of one of our basic techniqus (Ou Lou Choy). Apply this principles to full speed combat and its becomes very usefull.
OK, all of that to say that the power of a simultaneous punch and kick may not only be measured by the actual punch and kick, plus the amount of force needed is only enough to hurt the opponent or make them move into a more damaging situation. I dont need to explode to head of the attacker with my punch, just crush his windpipe. Get my drift? We may just disagree on methods here, but remember the target of the punch and kick can make a difference as well.
kmguy8 said:
well.. vs. a low shin kick (knee strike) KM teaches a step away move, a leg switch (then kick), an abzorb (the one I favor) in the discussion here), and traditional leg lifting response (classic thai style)... again, in the street where as you so aptly mention things should not last too long I prefer to absorb... seems like it offers the fastest response time, minimal movment and least chance for serious injury and off-balancing to me... personal preference... I understand and respect the others... just think they fall down the list of "most effective choice" a bit.. we'll have to agree to a difference of opinion here too....
Again we may be havig a misunderstanding of the term "absorb". I am very much for a movement that lessens the impact of the kick while giving you an adventageous positioning, I'm just not for taking the kick hoping I'm tougher than the other guy. I see what your saying and I agree, you need the quickest response time, but I'm not saying go into a one legged pose to avoid the kick, just use body mechanics to avoid taking the full force. We use a knee raise block (Thai style) quite a bit, we also put weight on that front foot and turn into the kick (shin to shin) but usually only in a situation where it was too fast for me to evade. One great evading technique we use is turnin the body with the direction of the kick, closeing the gap even further, and applying a great attack be it elbow or whatever. This offers you great response time, aggressive attacks, lessened impact of the kick, and effecientcy of movement. But we can disagree
Thats the beauty of different styles. I wish were closer though, it would be interesting to train together a bit. :asian: I'm always up for learning new things!
kmguy8 said:
hmmm.. see your point.. did not mean it as a major point, merely a concept... like striking a defensive pose before anyone swings... makes thier approach more sophisticated.. and I like people to attack me inthe least cautious way possible.... if I evade thier kick and "then" it is on.. I gave away some of my advantage... if I were able to stay in place, properly abzorb the kick, and punch them with a good right cross to follow up with more strikes.. that pause and 2nd phase of combat never exists and I am safer as a result... that's my approach.. although I respect other ones it is the one I choose
Oh deffinitely! No no no, I wasn't clear enough. I by no means support any type of technique that creates a pause or gives away anything before hand. My training is completely hidden until the guy lays his hands on me, at that instant I'm planning on showing every single thing I've learned and trained in
In fact, one of our fighting principels is to be so overwhelmingly violent and aggressive you actually steal their aggression or violence. This really plays into effect if there are multiple attackers. You may veyr well take away their desire to fight wit hthe very first guy and regardless of whether the encounter continues you may just have given yourself an advantage.
Ok, I'm getting off topic, I love discussig this stuff!
I'm not implying a 2 phased plan at all. The evasive action would be immediate and should include aggressive offensive action. You can evade and attack at the same time, again something we really train on in the mantis system. We do alot at the same time. It would be a mistake to evade in a way that does not put you in either an advantageous position or attacking position. Again, by the term "evade" I simply mean moving in, moving out, moving with the kick, yielding the body, ducking, etc. The should be done with an aggressive attack as well.
kmguy8 said:
secondly, in regards to it being the reason the block was invented so why not use it approach... it is used in ring fighting and came to us...on the street I have yet to see this attack (groin yes, but not round kick to knee) and it seems that the reply is to prevent cumulative (in very rare instances vs. an aware attacker can you take out a knee) damage to the leg to set up other attacks and limit the opponents manuverability in the ring over the course of the fight... so in the street why make it fancy?
Thats a very good point. It normally is used over a period of time to "wear down" the opponent, so why worry about it in the street. Well, you have a great point, but my fighting methodology involves not setting myself in danger. I'm in danger in the fight, but why expose myself to the posibility (however slight it may be) of more danger from taking a kick? Plus...to me, the kicker has to expose himself on some level to kick, why not immediately take advantage of that? I must say though that we fight so very close that we have contact at all times, so a roundhouse kick would be able to be "felt" before its really a danger. However, from a closing the gap situation, I want to evade and move into an atack and in close to the attacker, I can't effectively do that if I'm taking a hit or kick.
don get me wrong, I'm not for fancy at all, not by any means. I think its just the difference in our "styles" of fighting. Two ways to reach the same goal eh? I guess we do just disagree...thats cool.
kmguy8 said:
hmmm seems I replied to this above and perhaps we do not disagree so much about this.. other than the actual dmage a low shin kick can do.... oh well, perhaps they affect you more than I (not a superiority comment just a possibility) in which case I'd say go with what works for you (were you my student I'd say the same thing to you, fyi)...
Yes, I think we do agree more than it seems. However, I'm not saying that a low shin kick is so amazingly devistating...just that its uneccesary to take the contact. I would attempt to attack even before his kick is effective. Even a "stop kick" with my own foot. Like you said, every situation is different, but these are just some of my own fighting methods. The shin kicks dont really hurt, but why take it if I dont have to? I attempt to do only whats neccesary. Everything that is neccesary, but only that.
kmguy8 said:
see... that's the rub.. I think you have a higher percentage cahnce of being injured evading or properly blocking rather than launching your own offense immediatly...on the street you nor anyone else will stop saying" dude, nice kick.. give me a minute" shin to shin has never taken anyone down other than a novice...
You very well could. However, I am talking about "launching your own offense immediately" just also incorporating an evasive type technique. I'm not saying shin to shin will take anyone down, in fact I dontww rely on attacks that "take someone down", I dont wait that long. If I punched an attacker in the throat, I wouldn't wait for him to grab his neck and fall down, I'll continue on, break and arm or two and send him to the ground. Before the throat becomes a conscious problem I've allready moved beyond 5 or 6 more attacks.
Bottom line it all comes down to the actual circumstances of the situation, there are a million different scenarios. If the "evade" causes you more damage its a bad choice, however the possibilities of what you can do with an evade are almost limitless. I guess I'm getting pretty technical or "picky" but I'm just not for the idea of simply taking the kick to further your advantage, I think there are more effective even faster ways of doing so without having to take an attack. Again, diferences of methods I guess.
kmguy8 said:
having been in battle... no
taking risks is part of life and combat.. it is about taking the smart odds and being aggessive has hell once it goes live...
taking no risks is not possible in combat....
I agree, but I'm a very defensive type of fighter...until the time comes to be agressive. So I'm very much against introducing higher odds of getting hurt - especially when its unneccesary. "Taking the smart odds", to me means not introducing further chance of injury, ie taking a kick or hit. I'm in line with the "Agressive as hell" just not with the introducing higher odds of becoming injured or "loosing" by taking a hit or kick. Even if the kick doesn't do much damage, by evading I cna do much more damage than just standing there, takin the kick and trying to attack myself. Plus, if they are really skilled, I might have just offered a great opportunity for them to continue attacking, we change kicks into knees all the time after contact is made.
kmguy8 said:
there is always a chance to get hurt or lose
armor around the shin... now I've heard EVERYTHING lol
i repeat "taking the smart odds"
until that last htpothetical i thought you made sense..... the last is a little silly, do'nt you think?
Silly? Yeah probably, impossible? No. I had a student who was in a fight with a thug who watched too many movies, took some flat metal and basically duct taped it to his shin under his pants. He made a sort of sock with the metal and kept it hidden. While this has porbably only happened once in the histoy of the world it was something completely un-expected. I'm all for being non-assuming. I'm reading a book called "Deep Survival" its awesome and deals with how basic almost unconscious assumptions often times lead to death in survival situations. In my day (when I was a kid, all of 15-19 years ago) it was hiding small baseball bats up the sleeve.
I'm not saying this is the norm, but to ignore the possiblity that it could occure is not smart and is making a huge assumption that veyr well could get you hurt or killed. If we are to talk about hiding weapons, knifes and guns come into play as well. We must be completely un-assuming, to take a hit based on the idea that you can take it...is in my opinion an assumption that ust simply offers into the equation more risk than I'm willing to introduce myself neddlessly. Again, just different methodologies.
kmguy8 said:
ok so in summation
shin kicks to legs real danger is losing balance for the secondary attack that is coming...amybe taking the knee but really buckling thier stance for the incoming punches... i say ignore the kick step into it shin to shin chances are they will NOT see tha coming and you ate super stable in this situation and strike them...
Again, your having to rely on chance. I like to take a more tactical appraoch. They may not see your move coming, but will they see a heel kick from me to their shin coming? Will they see coming form me a yield, moving in closer to them and applying an elbow strike to the face while their kick hangs in the air? Its not about what they will see coming, but what you can do to stop the engagement. This is a prime example of two differing methods, I chose a moving from the kick while attacking, you choose a moving into the kick while attacking....which works? Both. Which is more effective and safer? I guess thats yet to be determined.
kmguy8 said:
if a student does as you recommend then they are evading or blocking then striking as the atackers punches are coming (since that is the timing in which they will be more than likely moving)... i see this as an unneeded danger brought about by a martial misconception about the efficacy of low leg kicks real danger....
No, not at all. Your thinking of evading and then attacking as two seperate and thus timely things. They take place at the same time, just like your shin to shin contact and punch happen together. Also, you misunderstand my reasoning for not taking the kick. Its not because of the devestating affects of low shin kicks, but done in order to deceive the attacker, make him vulnerable and place me in a more advantageous position or directly into an attack.
kmguy8 said:
next time your sparring try it my way... that was my first step to coming around to my way of thinking.. fyi, improved my sport fighting by about 100% due to increased focus on offense.. i teach it by saying that a right cross (with approriate hip and foot twist which positions the knee) is th eblock for a low shin (even rib height since the left arm in chin position brings the elbow over the floaters) kick... simple and effective... fyi, i ussually teach them to fight this way after teaching them to do as you recommend... your way teaches the fundementals of timing and angles... but it is not the most street effective way, IMHO
I have done it that way and continue to do it that way, I just prefer a different course of action if it can effectively be done. Also, our focus on offense is pretty heavy, more than most systems I've studied. The lines between defense and offense tend to blur.
I really nejoy this conversation....I love this!
7sm
