Getting the Angle

[geezer]

One last thing. I get a good vibe from Phil's videos, as well as from his posts a long time back, on "that other forum". I don't get the same positive feelings from William Cheung's stuff.

Oh well, I know some great people teaching good stuff who, like me, learned from Leung Ting. And yet he has also put some crap material out there and gives off a bad vibe to many people. I guess it's kinda the same thing.

Heck even GM Yip was no saint and taught some people crap. Yet we owe him so much.

 

[geezer]

Ironically, the inverse of the above seems to apply to the great WSL. He was a renowned fighter and beloved instructor. Great vibes there. Yet today many of his students behave like arrogant jerks! Law of opposites? Go figure!

 

[LFJ]

When they start neither is close enough to land a strike. Phil is stepping in, getting the angle, and immobilizing the opponent's lead arm all in one beat. His opponent has to reface Phil before he can launch any kind of attack, because...Phil has the angle!

Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.

In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;

"I step in. I attack. He turns, and I step off."

He is moving before the opponent does and forcing him to react. If the opponent then tried to follow Phil's center and counter-punch he is already a beat behind because Phil is angling off to the blindside, which is the most difficult area for an opponent to "re-face." That's the whole point!

He didn't angle off to the blindside until the guy tried to turn.

The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.

Nothing is stopping the guy from cutting into Phil's timing with a direct counterstrike, either from the rear hand, or if he sees the attempt to grab the lead hand coming, by recycling the lead into a strike before he's able to grab it.

I do this all the time to WC guys who try to "seek the bridge" but end up grasping at air while getting punched in the face. Too much of the "sticky hand" game doesn't work when someone doesn't want you to touch their arms.

 

[geezer]

...The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack. Nothing is stopping the guy from cutting into Phil's timing with a direct counterstrike, either from the rear hand, or if he sees the attempt to grab the lead hand coming, by recycling the lead into a strike before he's able to grab it.

I see your point and concur.

I do this all the time to WC guys who try to "seek the bridge" but end up grasping at air while getting punched in the face. Too much of the "sticky hand" game doesn't work when someone doesn't want you to touch their arms.

Now this comment seems to reinforce my point in post #42

 

[KPM]

Dang you to heck, Keith. Now I have to wipe the coffee off my desk.

---

Basically, I do like the concept of off-lining, like what Phil demonstrates. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to counter the movement as demonstrated by 1. letting the man-sau flex with the attack so that you are not turned aside, and 2. simultaneously counterpunching with the rear hand.

----Sure. Anything can be countered! But #1 is difficult because the Pak is aimed as close to the elbow as you can get it, and the force is directed back into the opponent. Not so simple to just fold at the elbow to avoid it. And again, the whole point of "getting the angle is to make your #2 difficult. Phil is moving to the opponent's outside and away from that rear hand. The opponent has to re-face in order to throw any kind of effective strike from his rear hand.

Yes, if Phil is the attacker, he will be a beat ahead, and you have to adjust to match his movement. That puts you a bit behind. But if you respond offensively with forward intent, striking at your attacker's center, you can recover and take over the offense.

---But again, the point is that Phil has moved off-line. The opponent's "forward intent" will be off-target unless he re-faces. And the step to the blindside with the Pak close to the elbow makes re-facing difficult.

Or, like the guy in the demo, you can stiffen up, be turned aside, and end up a sitting duck.

---You can second guess ANY demo! Unless it is sparring footage, the partner is going to be allowing things to happen to some extent. That does not change the validity or effectiveness of what Phil is doing.

 

[LFJ]

Now this comment seems to reinforce my point in post #42

It's just an observation that WC guys too often try to gain arm control that only happens in class.
The easiest way to beat that is to not give them your arms like their training partners would.

When their hands come to nothing their whole strategy falls through and they are thrown off their game.

Just things to look out for.

Don't ever expect you are going to be able to control someone by their lead arm and base your strategy on that expectation. The arm may not be there when you go for it!

 

[LFJ]

Phil is moving to the opponent's outside and away from that rear hand. The opponent has to re-face in order to throw any kind of effective strike from his rear hand.

Not with Phil's initial attack that can be directly intercepted.

---But again, the point is that Phil has moved off-line. The opponent's "forward intent" will be off-target unless he re-faces. And the step to the blindside with the Pak close to the elbow makes re-facing difficult.

Not until after the guy already turns for no reason and Phil steps off.

 

[KPM]

Not really. Phil is coming straight on and doesn't step off until the guy turns.

In fact, he says as much right at the beginning;

"I step in. I attack. He turns, and I step off."

----No he isn't. There is more than one step there. Because you can't see his feet you missed it. His initial step isn't "straight on", it is also towards the outside. Then when the opponent reacts and turns to try and track him Phil takes another bigger step to the outside. So even though he says "I step in" the "stepping in" is not straight. It is still angling off to the outside a bit. Then the "step off" is even more of an angle because you allow the rear foot to readjust. If the guy kept trying to "re-face" Phil would just "step off" or use that angling step again. Its just like a boxer throwing continuous jabs against the heavy bag while circling around it to the outside with footwork.

He didn't angle off to the blindside until the guy tried to turn.

---He was angling off with the first step, and really took the blindside when the guy tried to re-face.

The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.

---Not true. With that initial step Phil was no longer directly in front of him. That is WHY the guy "turned" to begin with!

 

[LFJ]

His initial step isn't "straight on", it is also towards the outside. Then when the opponent reacts and turns to try and track him Phil takes another bigger step to the outside.

The initial step isn't any significant deviation to the side, and not enough to require a large step or turn from the opponent.

He's still practically right in front of the guy.

The guy's step is unnecessarily exaggerated. He doesn't need to take such a large step and turn to "track" Phil who hasn't gone off line but a hair.

The whole point is nothing requires the guy to turn and not intercept immediately with a direct attack.

---Not true. With that initial step Phil was no longer directly in front of him. That is WHY the guy "turned" to begin with!

Sorry, I can't agree. That is still practically right in front of him and he can intercept immediately without stepping and turning like that.

Why the guy turned to begin with is because Phil told him to.

 

[KPM]

Up to your old tricks again? I'm not going to argue with you. You choose not to see what is happening in that video. That's fine. Its seems it always the same with you. Not going to argue about it.

 

[geezer]

Three basic principles from DTE MMA/Escrima that also inform my personal VT:

1. Get an angle.

2. Have forward intent

3. Diamondpoint (= pinpoint transition from technique to technique or in WC terms, minimum movement, maximum efficiency).

In WC/VT, these three are not sequential, but simultaneous and synergistic. By contrast, the student being demonstrated on in the video doesn't apply any of them, much less all three at once.

So rather than respond to Phil's angling by adjusting, he turns further away from center. Rather than press fluidly forward and taking the offense, he flinches, stiffening and pulling back, making it easier to turn him. And there is no diamondpoint, lin siu dai dar, or offensive response, etc. to counter. --and that's OK. It's a demo. It's showing an idea, and that can be done best if the student responds awkwardly. Still, it is good to remember that this is not the ideal response. Perhaps not even a likely response, if your opponent isn't playing along.

 

[Callen]

Ironically, the inverse of the above seems to apply to the great WSL. He was a renowned fighter and beloved instructor. Great vibes there. Yet today many of his students behave like arrogant jerks! Law of opposites? Go figure!

Unfortunately, there are many arrogant jerks in all lineages. Style has nothing to do with egotism, only the individual can be to blame.

 

[KPM]

Unfortunately, there are many arrogant jerks in all lineages. Style has nothing to do with egotism, only the individual can be to blame.

While this is indeed true, some lineages seem to have more than there fair share!

 

[drop bear]

The initial step isn't any significant deviation to the side, and not enough to require a large step or turn from the opponent.

He's still practically right in front of the guy.

The guy's step is unnecessarily exaggerated. He doesn't need to take such a large step and turn to "track" Phil who hasn't gone off line but a hair.

All it has to be is a fist width to the side. Then their counter shot hits air.

 

[KPM]

In WC/VT, these three are not sequential, but simultaneous and synergistic. By contrast, the student being demonstrated on in the video doesn't apply any of them, much less all three at once.

---But why would he? First you guys talked simply about "forward intent" and just counter-attacking Phil straight-away. Until I pointed out that Phil's very first step took him off the line. Now you are expecting that his opponent should be applying your concept above?

So rather than respond to Phil's angling by adjusting, he turns further away from center.

---His reaction is pretty typical. There is nothing "awkward" about it. He is doing exactly what you could expect from an opponent in a sparring match. You expect a demo of a basic concept and technique to be different? Just watch the video that Drop Bear shared. It features a high level boxer doing pretty much what Phil is showing in the OP video. He is facing other high level boxers and they don't do any better at "re-facing" than Phil's partner in that video did.

 

[KPM]

All it has to be is a fist width to the side. Then their counter shot hits air.

Exactly! And all someone has to do is watch the video and Phil's left leg. Each time he is stepping to the outside just enough to get off of the line....not straight in. And once he is to the outside of the partner's lead arm, there is no way he is going to get hit by the guy's rear hand without him turning to re-face.

 

[drop bear]

Ok another important element for just fighting in general when they are in an opposite stance is controling the angle off the bat or foot fighting.

This is basically what OP,s video hinges on. And what people seem to be missing as part of this discussion.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ok another important element for just fighting in general when they are in an opposite stance is controling the angle off the bat or foot fighting.

This is basically what OP,s video hinges on. And what people seem to be missing as part of this discussion.

Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.

 

[geezer]

Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.

Phil's got the footwork right. But the video focuses on the hands. IMO Hands become more important as you close range, especially when you can pak/trap the elbow or upper arm. Then it's easier to disrupt the stance and turn your opponent.

 

[KPM]

Exactly, easiest way to achieve the goal. Just simply step. Personally I think Mr. Redmond made it a little too complicated, this video breaks it down in simplest form. Hands are not the important part.

Hands are the important part in keeping the opponent from being able to "re-face" and bring the rear hand into play. The criticism has essentially been "well, the guy would just follow him and punch him!". Its that lead Pak that contacts the opponent's lead arm from the outside that makes it much harder from him to re-face.