Dodge a punch vs. interrupt a punch

[Kung Fu Wang]

The drill is useful in developing the technique. That is simply practice. But it is not a test.

Will you call the following testing?

- You can throw 20 punches (any kind of punch) at my head, if any one of your 20 punches can land on my head, you win, otherwise I win.

Why 20 punches? If my opponent's 20 punches can't get through, I should have enough time to find opportunity to enter.

When B knows what A is going to do over and over, then B will always be successful.

Is it true that B will always be successful?

- B has to be fast enough.
- B's arm has to move with accuracy.
- B has to have a strong body structure.
- B's arms have to be tough enough. After 200 hard contacts, B's arm can feel pain.
- ...

For the kicking shield test, if B's structure is weak, A's forward momentum may run B down and B won't be able to stop A's forward momentum with single punch (or single kick).

If B can repeat 200 time without making any mistake, B has developed something.

Agree that the best testing is in the boxing ring.

 

[geezer]

A drill type exercise is not a test. When B knows what A is going to do over and over, then B will always be successful.
The drill is useful in developing the technique. That is simply practice. But it is not a test.

Well it's kinda sorta like a quiz then!

'Cause it can test if you've learned the movement, if you can apply it when your training partner applies it with speed and power, varying the timing and so forth. If you pass the quiz, then you can go on to test it in sparring against somebody who isn't your training partner and doesn't move like your classmates who train the same stuff.

I learned to use techniques like this in Wing Chun. "Punch against punch." Your punch works to wedge your opponent's punch aside ....so his punch is deflected and your punch lands ...all in one movement. The old "kuen kuit" or motto to describe this approach is "Da sau jik si siu sau" or attacking hand is defending hand.

We train this kind of drill pretty hard and it works well against straight punches from various angles, both inside and outside gates. But one thing that really bothered me pretty early on about these kind of drills was that they worked so well against intermediate and advanced students, but were less reliable against beginners. Why? because a beginner ...at least one who likes to mix it up ...is far less predictable. He will throw odd punches, looping and curving punches that don't fit the drill so perfectly.

Well, that's OK up to a point. But, you have to understand that using "punch against punch" doesn't work against all kinds of punches. It has it's place, as does slipping, bobbing, weaving, parrying, and so on. The problem is, a lot of students just do the drill in class and think that because it works 99%-100% in the drill that it is going to work the same way in sparring people who fight differently.

IMO this is the old elephant in the room with regards a lot of traditional martial arts training that everybody has been talking about ever since MMA entered the picture. So going back to my first line ...yeah work to pass the quiz, but remember it ain't the final!

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

because a beginner ...at least one who likes to mix it up ...is far less predictable. He will throw odd punches, looping and curving punches that don't fit the drill so perfectly.

To use a "punch against punch", it require arm contact. When you try to interrupt your opponent's punch, if your opponent's arm also rotate the same direction as your arm does, the arm contact will never be established.

When you send out your anti-missile, if your opponent's missile has intelligence to dodge your anti-missile, it will become anti-missile chases surface to surface missile. The outcome cannot be predicted.

 

[Buka]

- ...

For the kicking shield test, if B's structure is weak, A's forward momentum may run B down and B won't be able to stop A's forward momentum with single punch (or single kick).

If the kicking shield test refers to an opponent aggressively rushing straight at me -

I wait....and matador, immediately following him. Now it's me rushing straight at him while he tries to slow and turn. And sometimes on the matador, a little shove to help him along works rather nicely.

At that point he's in the "uh oh" phase. Soon to be in the "toast" phase.

I could intercept, sure, I intercept as well as anyone I know. But sometimes, to me, at least with my skill set repertoire, matador is easier, more efficient, and far, far more fun.

 

[Flying Crane]

Will you call the following testing?

- You can throw 20 punches (any kind of punch) at my head, if any one of your 20 punches can land on my head, you win, otherwise I win.

Why 20 punches? If my opponent's 20 punches can't get through, I should have enough time to find opportunity to enter.



Is it true that B will always be successful?

- B has to be fast enough.
- B's arm has to move with accuracy.
- B has to have a strong body structure.
- B's arms have to be tough enough. After 200 hard contacts, B's arm can feel pain.
- ...

For the kicking shield test, if B's structure is weak, A's forward momentum may run B down and B won't be able to stop A's forward momentum with single punch (or single kick).

If B can repeat 200 time without making any mistake, B has developed something.

Agree that the best testing is in the boxing ring.

What you are describing I would say are controlled drills that can act to build skill. But I would not characterize them as actual tests. Some of what you describe could be closer to a test than others, or at least can become more challenging and carry additional benefit. But I do not believe it is an actual test. I’m simply not convinced that a lot of these things can be truly tested. I think you build skill and you need to make some judgements about whether what you are doing makes sense and is realistic. The only real test is if you use it successfully against a hostile opponent who is not a training partner, someone who is trying to actually hurt you. And when you pass that test, it only means you were successful on that particular day, against that particular person. There is no objective conclusion that XYZ technique will always work against ABC technique, for all people. None of this stuff is that objective.

 

[Flying Crane]

Well it's kinda sorta like a quiz then!

'Cause it can test if you've learned the movement, if you can apply it when your training partner applies it with speed and power, varying the timing and so forth. If you pass the quiz, then you can go on to test it in sparring against somebody who isn't your training partner and doesn't move like your classmates who train the same stuff.

I learned to use techniques like this in Wing Chun. "Punch against punch." Your punch works to wedge your opponent's punch aside ....so his punch is deflected and your punch lands ...all in one movement. The old "kuen kuit" or motto to describe this approach is "Da sau jik si siu sau" or attacking hand is defending hand.

We train this kind of drill pretty hard and it works well against straight punches from various angles, both inside and outside gates. But one thing that really bothered me pretty early on about these kind of drills was that they worked so well against intermediate and advanced students, but were less reliable against beginners. Why? because a beginner ...at least one who likes to mix it up ...is far less predictable. He will throw odd punches, looping and curving punches that don't fit the drill so perfectly.

Well, that's OK up to a point. But, you have to understand that using "punch against punch" doesn't work against all kinds of punches. It has it's place, as does slipping, bobbing, weaving, parrying, and so on. The problem is, a lot of students just do the drill in class and think that because it works 99%-100% in the drill that it is going to work the same way in sparring people who fight differently.

IMO this is the old elephant in the room with regards a lot of traditional martial arts training that everybody has been talking about ever since MMA entered the picture. So going back to my first line ...yeah work to pass the quiz, but remember it ain't the final!

I can agree with that.

 

[dvcochran]

If the kicking shield test refers to an opponent aggressively rushing straight at me -

I wait....and matador, immediately following him. Now it's me rushing straight at him while he tries to slow and turn. And sometimes on the matador, a little shove to help him along works rather nicely.

At that point he's in the "uh oh" phase. Soon to be in the "toast" phase.

I could intercept, sure, I intercept as well as anyone I know. But sometimes, to me, at least with my skill set repertoire, matador is easier, more efficient, and far, far more fun.

Agree. In a unwarranted attack scenario I have seen people sell out to the point you can make them whiff. And I suppose a lot has to do with the type of attack they are throwing and the geometry it requires. In the repeated A/B 200+ drill you would think that would be hard(er) to do.
And yes, making someone whiff will sure put a smile on your face.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

What you are describing I would say are controlled drills that can act to build skill. But I would not characterize them as actual tests.

I'm confused here.

If I ask a

- boxer to throw 20 punches at me, you may say that since a boxer doesn't kick/wrestle, the test is not real.
- wrestler to take me down 20 times, you may say that since a wrestler doesn't punch/kick, the test is also not real.

By using this logic, even the MMA testing is not real because

- no weapon involved.
- no many against 1.
- ...

So where should we draw the line of "realistic test"? You attack me when I'm sleeping?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There is no objective conclusion that XYZ technique will always work against ABC technique, ...

If you

- lay down on the ground, my hip throw will never work on you.
- run faster than me, my punch will never land on you.

You can test it 1,000,000 times and the result will still be the same.

What will this say about "XYZ technique will always work against ABC technique"?

 

[Flying Crane]

I'm confused here.

If I ask a

- boxer to throw 20 punches at me, you may say that since a boxer doesn't kick/wrestle, the test is not real.
- wrestler to take me down 20 times, you may say that since a wrestler doesn't punch/kick, the test is also not real.

By using this logic, even the MMA testing is not real because

- no weapon involved.
- no many against 1.
- ...

So where should we draw the line of "realistic test"? You attack me when I'm sleeping?

I guess I don’t understand why this is so confusing. When it comes to what works in martial arts, there isn’t a whole lot that is purely objective. All the circumstances surrounding a situation will have an effect. How well something “works” really depends on an individual person’s skill with it. The technique never “works” in an objective sense. It only “works” if a person has developed his skill, but this is further tempered by circumstances. A test, in my opinion, implies something akin to an objective truth. I don’t believe martial arts contains many of this, at least when it comes to a person’s ability to use something. Any test that is done automatically contains some level of cooperation. That undermines the very test. It becomes a drill. And as I keep saying, a drill is an effective and valuable exercise, it is important in the training process. But don’t confuse a drill with a test.

Perhaps this is purely semantics, but maybe a better term is “evaluation”. This implies some subjective judgement, based on a person’s performance in the drill. “I’ve watched Billy work through this drill 200 times, and my judgement says that he is figuring out the technique, he is developing some skill that I judge to be genuine and likely useful in a real conflict. That is my evaluation of Billy.” But there is nothing objective about the usefulness of his skill, nor about my evaluation of Billy.

 

[Flying Crane]

If you

- lay down on the ground, my hip throw will never work on you.
- run faster than me, my punch will never land on you.

You can test it 1,000,000 times and the result will still be the same.

What will this say about "XYZ technique will always work against ABC technique"?

My ability to negate your punch by running hinges on an opportunity for me to run, and my ability to run faster than you. That hinges on the circumstances. So the effective use of the technique of running vs. a punch is not objective. Someone else may not be able to run faster than you. Or may not have an opportunity in the conflict, to run. So we cannot say “the technique that works against a punch is to run”. That is only a subjective opinion. It might work, it might not. It is a good idea to keep in mind. But it’s still subjective.

If we drill my running defense against your punch 200 times and I am successful every time, all we know is that Ive had some success with it. That does suggest the usefulness of the technique. But it is far from a guarantee. I may not be able to effectively run away from a different person, or if I am cornered. XYZ technique (running) cannot be “tested” as as the answer to ABC technique (a punch). It can only be evaluated as a reasonable option.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

maybe a better term is “evaluation”.

Agree that evaluation is a better term.

In the past many years, whenever I met someone, I would ask him to throw 20 punches at me. I either used rhino guard to deal with it, or I used double spears (curved jabs) to deal with it. I know it's not a real fight, but it's still fun for me.

I will try to promote my anti-missile strategy (rhino guard and curved jabs). Hope one day someone will use it in the MMA ring.

 

[skribs]

My ability to negate your punch by running hinges on an opportunity for me to run, and my ability to run faster than you. That hinges on the circumstances. .

And on whether you want to run. You may want to stand your ground. You may be in a competition. You may be drunk and want to fight. You may be defending someone else who can't run.

You may also be injured, or up against someone who is faster than you, or they may drive to follow you.

Lots of possibilities.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Here is the theory behind the "curved jab".

- You keep your both arms straight.
- You move your left arm clockwise in front of you.
- You move your right arm counter-clockwise in front of you.

In theory, your double circles should be able to intersect all straight punches that's coming toward your face.

 

[skribs]

Here is the theory behind the "curved jab".

- You keep your both arms straight.
- You move your left arm clockwise in front of you.
- You move your right arm counter-clockwise in front of you.

In theory, your double circles should be able to intersect all straight punches that's coming toward your face.

 

[dvcochran]

Here is the theory behind the "curved jab".

- You keep your both arms straight.
- You move your left arm clockwise in front of you.
- You move your right arm counter-clockwise in front of you.

In theory, your double circles should be able to intersect all straight punches that's coming toward your face.

How do you apply this posture and motion in the split second of an unexpected attack? I think I see the value in the split second After you are aware of the attack but attackers never punch like they are in your video drills. Maybe if they confronted you first and you were already en garde.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How do you apply this posture and motion in the split second of an unexpected attack? I think I see the value in the split second After you are aware of the attack but attackers never punch like they are in your video drills. Maybe if they confronted you first and you were already en garde.

Your

- 1st line of defense should be your kick/sweep.
- 2nd line of defense will be your anti-missile system (curved jab).
- 3rd line of defense will be your dodging and footwork.

The anti-missile system is used when the enemy's missile is already on top of your land (pass the kicking range and enter the punching range).

IMO, when your opponent has already passed the kicking range and enter the punching range, if you have not yet respond to it, may be it's already too late.

You should detect this when your opponent

- steps in, or
- shift weight onto his leading leg.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Your

- 1st line of defense should be your kick/sweep.
- 2nd line of defense will be your anti-missile system (curved jab).
- 3rd line of defense will be your dodging and footwork.

The anti-missile system is used when the enemy's missile is already on top of your land (pass the kicking range and enter the punching range).

IMO, when your opponent has already passed the kicking range and enter the punching range, if you have not yet respond to it, may be it's already too late.

You should detect this when your opponent

- steps in, or
- shift weight onto his leading leg.

That first clip is the concept that I thought my brother. He still has trouble using it with the front kick but he's able to get the round house in with no problem. Most people in my old school had problems with the lead leg front kick. Probably because they were fighting with Power side back instead of Power side forward.


For you last clip, feel like kicking the ribs of the guy in Black. Either with a round house or forward kick

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Most people in my old school had problems with the lead leg front kick.

When you feel comfortable with your jumping front kick, the leading leg front kick will become natural. The jumping front kick is always kick with the leading leg.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

- 3rd line of defense will be your dodging and footwork.

A good backward jump can solve a lot of problems.