My definition of "entering strategy" is to put yourself in a position that your opponent's arms and legs won't give you any trouble. Those 2 clips do not meet the requirement of that definition.
I don't disagree entirely, but not all entering strategies have to completely nullify all four limbs. Often, they get past them with timing, instead.
The more that I train MA, the less that I am willing to take risk.
As with so much else, which is better depends upon the situation. If stopping to kick loses the opening, it may be better to simply get inside that kick before it happens. Or it might be too dangerous to attempt, and kicking first the better choice.
So "entering strategy" can be as simple as to force your opponent to play your game instead of to play his game. This is the opposite of self-defense that you always wait for your opponent to make his first move.
Think about it. How many do you actually step forward to defend vs, standing your ground to defend, or backing up to defend. Now think about how you attack. You attacks are almost always forward unless you are countering or baiting. When you dominate someone in sparring do you move forward or backwards. If you dominate someone with martial arts, which direction do you think you'll move? Forward or backwards.
This is not true and it's a misleading perception of what Martial arts really is. This same statement was around when I was 8 years old and I'm now 46. It's one of the biggest lies I was ever told about martial arts.
I like that one. Any move where I use my leg to lift my opponent's leg for an easy grab like that is better and takes less energy to do then to bend down and grab someone's legs.
Do you not block when you enter? To me, that's a large part of the entering...i don't care how quick my in-step is if I get punched or kicked in the face on my way in.
The 1st principle of the Zimen system is "cruelty".
Block is use when your opponent punches you first. When you attack first, you "guide (or tuck)" your opponent's arm away from your entering path.
But you can still enter on an opponents punch, I actually prefer it. And even if not, I am more likely to enter by placing up a sturdy guard/knocking away their guard as I enter, which is something I have learned from forms.
If my opponent punches, I prefer to move back and then enter again. This way, I will not fall into my opponent's trap and play his game. I prefer to force my opponent to play my game instead.
Movement back and forth is also in a lot of katas. I'm pretty sure I've seen that in kata video that you've posted before.
That's an incorrect characterization of self-defense. Otherwise, you are correct.
Best to avoid being in a fight altogether then.
Philosophically, that's the ideal. In practice, defending often includes going on the attack. Overwhelming force on the counter is the best way to survive an attack.
What is Zimen, John? I'm not familiar with that term.
That's a reasonable distinction - I tend to think of them the same way. When entering, I often "block" what I think is available (which is much the same as what you're saying).
A classic example would be slipping a punch in boxing to enter for a counter.
I often prefer to enter against the strike, which is less expected, and more likely to get me to clinch range.
