Focus, Anticipation, and Chess...

[pete]

I've been reading a few very insightful threads scattered through several of our forums, all with some relation to obtaining an advantage when "squaring off" with an opponent.

In one thread, I've read a discussion on focus and awareness. Personally I feel that awareness far outweighs focus, in that your focus can be manipulated by a skilled opponent. Focusing on the shoulders, hips, neck, or eyes of the opponent can distract you from what is not being revealed, and probably more importantly, you may be transmitting more information to your opponent than you realize. This type of laser focus can also impede spontaneity, and feeds linear logic (he does this, i do that, which makes him do the next thing, ...)

Awareness, on the other hand, is more dynamic. You're gaining knowledge about your opponent, while revealing little about yourself. You actually become more relaxed and confident that you can react to your opponent's actions, allow them to commit themselves into a prone position, and capitalize on your advantage. Awareness is based on spontaneity, and is based in more circular logic without the linear dependencies.

Other threads have dealt with the proverbial Chess game... feigning, luring, conditioning...ultimately, to try to make your opponent do something you want them to do so you can make a premeditated counter attack. My belief is that this approach, again gives too much information to your opponent, which could be used against you. This also leads to anticipation, which may commit you to an intent prematurely. Leading or controlling an opponent is good strategy, but only after they have committed themselves first. This becomes spontaneous.

I read a good analogy of this in the writings of TT Liang, where he observed the dog chasing squirrels through Central Park, never catching them even with advantages of speed and power. After the squirrel got away, the dog would look up the tree and bark (talk about remaining in the present tense)... this is in contrast to the cat who spots a mouse, corners it, and waits for the mouse to make the first move. The cat always catches the mouse, because it knows from that first move where the mouse is going, and will arrive there first.

I'd like to hear other views on this, and training tools used to develop these skills in various arts...

pete.

 

[Kenpo Mama]

In one thread, I've read a discussion on focus and awareness. Personally I feel that awareness far outweighs focus, in that your focus can be manipulated by a skilled opponent.

Hey there Pete,

I too have discussed focus in another thread, perhaps this is one of the ones you are alluding to. My feelings are that this "focus" is in essence raw pure awareness "zen" consciousness so to speak.

I really like your reference to TT Liang, where he observed the dog chasing squirrels through Central Park, now to take this to the next level, i feel i must employ the use of a squirrel and a cat (who will be the victor?).

Your Kenpo Mama :asian:

 

[7starmantis]

Good post, I like the reference by TT Liang about the cat.



I can't speak for others, but when I speak of focus I'm not referring to the focusing of the eyes on a certain object or movement. See, in my training we do not rely on the eyes to tell us where your opponent is but rather on "feeling" by contact. There are several points of contact, hands, forearms, elbow, shoulder, chest, waist, thigh, knee, shin, foot, etc. My eyes can most definitely fool me or deceive me, but by being in contact with my opponent, I know instinctively where he/she is. In this case, the focus I'm speaking of is more a state of listening to your body. Focused on your energy and your opponent’s energy if you will. Focused on where your center is and where your opponent’s is and where it’s going. Knowing this allows you to know not only where your opponent is, but where he/she is going.



That being said, I agree with your post, I just felt like clarifying what I mean when I say focus. So I guess to me, focus is basically awareness. They go hand in hand in some instances.




7sm

 

[rompida]

Other threads have dealt with the proverbial Chess game... feigning, luring, conditioning...ultimately, to try to make your opponent do something you want them to do so you can make a premeditated counter attack. My belief is that this approach, again gives too much information to your opponent, which could be used against you. This also leads to anticipation, which may commit you to an intent prematurely. Leading or controlling an opponent is good strategy, but only after they have committed themselves first. This becomes spontaneous.


pete.

I disagree with this part of the statement. Feigning and luring when done correctly, are not premeditated in the sense that I think you are getting at. I would feel like they are more "conditioned" responses to a fight that train you to set the opponent up for something more devestating. We condition these setups so that when we sense our body in a given situation or position, we automatically react, which is much different then premeditating. As far as giving too much to your opponent, maybe...... but then again, that is considering that the fight lasts that long, which is unlikely. Most true fights are over in seconds, and the person doesn't have time to "feel out" the opponent.

my 2 cents

 

[bluenosekenpo]

I read a good analogy of this in the writings of TT Liang, where he observed the dog chasing squirrels through Central Park, never catching them even with advantages of speed and power. After the squirrel got away, the dog would look up the tree and bark (talk about remaining in the present tense)... this is in contrast to the cat who spots a mouse, corners it, and waits for the mouse to make the first move. The cat always catches the mouse, because it knows from that first move where the mouse is going, and will arrive there first.

I'd like to hear other views on this, and training tools used to develop these skills in various arts...
pete.

hi pete, going to have to disagree with you on this one. Liiangs' analogy (with profound respect to the man) of the dog and the squirrel is an oversimplification. i've had two of four dogs that could catch and kill any animal they desired, among which there were squirrels,rats,mice,snakes,cats,and sheep (that was a really bad situation). comparing a dog to a cat is comparing apples to oranges, would a cat attack and kill a sheep? probably not. you can't really make a valid comparison. i am not familiar with his writings but would suggest that the meaning of the paragraph is out of context to his original intention.

I've been reading a few very insightful threads scattered through several of our forums, all with some relation to obtaining an advantage when "squaring off" with an opponent.

In one thread, I've read a discussion on focus and awareness. Personally I feel that awareness far outweighs focus, in that your focus can be manipulated by a skilled opponent. Focusing on the shoulders, hips, neck, or eyes of the opponent can distract you from what is not being revealed, and probably more importantly, you may be transmitting more information to your opponent than you realize. This type of laser focus can also impede spontaneity, and feeds linear logic (he does this, i do that, which makes him do the next thing, ...)

Awareness, on the other hand, is more dynamic. You're gaining knowledge about your opponent, while revealing little about yourself. You actually become more relaxed and confident that you can react to your opponent's actions, allow them to commit themselves into a prone position, and capitalize on your advantage. Awareness is based on spontaneity, and is based in more circular logic without the linear dependencies.pete.

i don't recall that anyone advocating putting blinders on and focusing completely on the head and shoulders triangle of an adversary. what about his friends? your friends? is there a way to escape?

focus is part of situational awareness! they aren't seperate attributes. s/a is a real concept. fighter pilots and race car drivers have it. it's the ability to instantly accept or reject, collate, analyze and act on information from many sources. some people have a more refined s/a than others but we all have it at some level. simply put, s/a is knowing where you are and will be in relation to everything else over a given period of time. as far as circular or linear logic? catchwords, how to say this delicately, bollocks. if anything, s/a is spherical with an infinite number of probes and receptres.sorry if i piss anyone off. not my intention, your belief system is yours, believe what you must. regards. :asian:

 

[pete]

In this case, the focus I'm speaking of is more a state of listening to your body. Focused on your energy and your opponent’s energy if you will. Focused on where your center is and where your opponent’s is and where it’s going. - 7starmantis

we are on the same page with this one. my reference to "focus" was more a nod to another thread where it was used in the context of targeting one's attention on a particular part of the opponents anatomy, be it hips, shoulders, or neck. i'd also add awareness to the 3rd center, the one that exists between you and your opponent when engaged.

I disagree with this part of the statement. Feigning and luring when done correctly, are not premeditated... -rompida

In feigning you are proactively trying cause your opponent to do something you'd be prepared for... so even if the feign is spontaneous, your counter would be premeditated. Not saying that it cannot be effective, just find that it can be manipulated and capitalized on by a skilled adversary.

as far as circular or linear logic? catchwords, how to say this delicately, bollocks. if anything, s/a is spherical with an infinite number of probes and receptres.sorry if i piss anyone off. not my intention... bluenosekenpo

no harm, no foul... ain't nothing said to piss anyone off...so,

why is linear vs circular "bollocks" (huh?), yet you continue to describe s/a as "spherical"? my point is the idea of setting up your opponent like dominoes, where each action on your part will cause a predictable reaction that could be anticipated is "linear" and will fold like a cheap suit!

by the way, the essence of the TT Liang is not lost in context. The reference is made to 13th century Tai Chi Classics, which states 'If your opponent does not move, you do not move. At his slightest stir, you are already there'... the Art of War calls this 'dispatching troops later but arriving first'... sure some dogs are adept hunters, and some cats haven't read the Art of War. such is life.

i do like what you say about situational awareness, and references to race car drivers and fighter pilots... do you have any specialized exercises or drills to develop these skills as a martial artist?

thanks,
pete

 

[bluenosekenpo]

why is linear vs circular "bollocks" (huh?), yet you continue to describe s/a as "spherical"? my point is the idea of setting up your opponent like dominoes, where each action on your part will cause a predictable reaction that could be anticipated is "linear" and will fold like a cheap suit!

by the way, the essence of the TT Liang is not lost in context. The reference is made to 13th century Tai Chi Classics, which states 'If your opponent does not move, you do not move. At his slightest stir, you are already there'... the Art of War calls this 'dispatching troops later but arriving first'... sure some dogs are adept hunters, and some cats haven't read the Art of War. such is life.

i do like what you say about situational awareness, and references to race car drivers and fighter pilots... do you have any specialized exercises or drills to develop these skills as a martial artist?

thanks,
pete

i had an operation on monday so have been pretty wired with tylenol3's so i'm feeling a bit more coherent today and will give this another try. i believe that in a high volatile, tense situation, like a fight the variables are too numerous to label as linear or circular, can you even apply logic to an illogical situation?

i believe that your(i mean my) thinking should be multi-dimensional, not one dimensional(neither circular ,which by definition is destined to end up where you began or linear which does not allow for broadening of scope). You should absorb all stimulus(including focus,not transfixation) and thereby proact instead of react. i absolutely agree that it would be pretty naive to line your adversaries up like domonoes and expect your super skills will make it work. none of the ma doers or thinkers have ever advocated that.
i think we're in agreement there.

i also understand what you meant by getting there firstest with the mostest, that's a concept as old as civilization. again total agreement,outside of the historical reference, 4 words stop..hit..straight..blast..
:CTF:

being a dog person, you just rubbed my hackles the wrong way by using that analogy, again too many variables for it to be valid, think about it, the physiology between a dog and cat would ensure that the cat is going to get the rodent, that's just nature, i'm just taking it more literally than was intended. my problem

now the really interesting thing you made me think about, how do you develope s/a? hmmm, smells like a new thread to me. i'll post something tomorrow. back to bed for me. regards, :asian:

 

[Flatlander]

Then again, one must endeavor to find a strategy that suits the opponent;

my point is the idea of setting up your opponent like dominoes, where each action on your part will cause a predictable reaction that could be anticipated is "linear" and will fold like a cheap suit!

I would not attempt this type of strategy vs someone who has trained in your art, as they would likely have trained some of the same combinations and "leads" that you have. For example, I train Modern Arnis. If I were to employ a "bait and reverse" type technique on someone who has trained a similar strategy, and they catch me, the gig is up! But, however, were I to need to defend myself vs some untrained hooligan, the technique may become a valid strategy, particularly if we're dealing with edged weapons or other blunt objects.

Of course, its all really just farts in the breeze anyway. As has been alluded to previously, the fight won't last long enough for anyone to really concern themselves with any of this. Everyone will react, and someone will lose.
No problem with training some of this stuff though. Builds attributes.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Hi Pete. As you know, I always learn something from you when we spar. It's difficult being the squirrel, however!


Your reference to the third center is intriguing. Although I don't have your fighting skills yet, I do find that there are times I'm "in the ozone" during a match. I can hear our instructor (I think all martial artists are attuned to knowing their sifu's voice and can hear it above all others in a crowd) and am aware that there are other people watching, but there is a sixth sense, if you will, that is engaged. I don't know if that's due to having fought everyone who is eligible to spar in our small dojo or if it's just something that "happens."

7starmantis prefers being in contact with his opponents and thus knowing where they are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you (Pete) alluding to knowing where your opponent is by entering 'the zone' or more of a zen state, if you will? Assuming that the contention voiced by a number of the participants in this thread that a fight is over quickly is true, is there time to come into enough contact to utilize that information in one's strategy? The same goes for the third center. Or, is it all conditioning (or, as one of my instructors used to say, technique, technique, technique)?

Thoughts?:idunno:

 

[7starmantis]

Assuming that the contention voiced by a number of the participants in this thread that a fight is over quickly is true, is there time to come into enough contact to utilize that information in one's strategy? The same goes for the third center. Or, is it all conditioning (or, as one of my instructors used to say, technique, technique, technique)?

I agree that most fights end very quickly in fact thats what I'm aiming for if I ever get in one. As soon as the first instant appears that I know the fight is happeneing, I'm closing the gap. I fight in extremely close quarters. The ability to know where your opponent is with your contact of him can't be something that has to be processed through your brain consciously, if it is then your right, there is not enough time. I fight so close that if you do go to throw a punch, I'll feel your movement before you even throw the punch. That is the goal of "feel by contact".

In my own opinion, technique without "feel" is void. Technique is good, but what if your opponent moves in a way that your techniques does not allow for? You must be able to read that movement and quickly and effectivly to something else. This "feel" I'm talking about also allows for you to yield and move yourself out of the way. Its hard to explain but if someone throws a punch at me out of the blue, I'm aiming to duck it or dodge it and then instantly move in close enough to not only trap their elbow or shoulder and continue its movement around their body, but feel if they try and use that arm again for an attack, while I'm delivering my own attacks.

7sm

 

[kenpo tiger]

I agree that most fights end very quickly in fact thats what I'm aiming for if I ever get in one. As soon as the first instant appears that I know the fight is happeneing, I'm closing the gap. I fight in extremely close quarters. The ability to know where your opponent is with your contact of him can't be something that has to be processed through your brain consciously, if it is then your right, there is not enough time. I fight so close that if you do go to throw a punch, I'll feel your movement before you even throw the punch. That is the goal of "feel by contact".

7sm

Thank you for the clarification.
I am short (and a woman) and thus also try to fight in close (in fact, I prefer it.) It's not always feasible against a male opponent who is 6 feet tall with very long legs, as many of the men I spar are. I find in those situations I will attempt to utilize my taekwondo skills and try to keep my opponent far enough away so I don't get clocked in the head. Works some of the time because most of the men in my school aren't kickers. Element of surprise is most important for someone like me, I think.

 

[pete]

7starmantis prefers being in contact with his opponents and thus knowing where they are.

yeah, i'd agree with that, when possible and practical. sometimes, i feel that the contact is not directly physical but following the opponent's intent.

(if) a fight is over quickly is true, is there time to come into enough contact to utilize that information in one's strategy?

just the point... i'd rely less on strategy, and more on spontaneity.

 

[Flatlander]

Its interesting that either way you go, (strategy or spontenaeity), there is an element of faith thats involved with each.

You develop your strategy and have faith that your predicted pattern will play out.

You rely on spontenaeity, and have faith in your ability to react appropriately.

Just an observation....