Getting the Angle
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
It looks like he is being off balanced into a left hand strike though. Not away from it.
And just where did he do that????
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Already explained. Positioning, distance, angle....that has been the whole point of the discussion recently! And.....again.....the distance that punch from the opponent's left hand would have to travel is pretty large because of all that. Mazza has plenty of time to do that short strike to the liver and still have his right hand ready to defend. I don't understand why everyone feels the need to nit-pick this so much. Post any demo video like this that...when played at slow motion....doesn't also look like there are all kinds of openings and gaps that you could "what if" all day long!
No one is so FAST that they'd be able to land a body shot then race back up to defend high against a punch that launched at the same time as their body shot. You're just not thinking realistically.
The opponent's punch also doesn't have to be a "large swing", and he doesn't have to pivot.
His stance is actually being pulled by Mazza 90 degrees to reface him. He just needs to go with it.
A straight left could come right across that angle with added momentum of his shoulders being pulled around as well. And Mazza being committed low has no defense to his upper right. Very risky.
The distance is actually no different than Mazza's punch.
Mazza is not only stepping away, but also pulling the guy around with/to him.
He's also not stepping out of range of the left punch, but into power striking range for the opponent.
To think there is "plenty of time" to go low then high in the time it takes to throw one direct punch is just not being realistic.
We are talking about the principles and tactics being demonstrated.
This has been an entirely technical discussion. Nothing but.
Don't think disagreement on this technique is an attack on the lineage. That's a silly excuse.
"You're only nitpicking because you have something against my lineage".
No. I think it's been made very clear, technically, why some of us aren't feeling this technique.
I'm doing so in this very comment.
The technique is putting oneself at great risk while relying entirely on the opponent being sufficiently off-balanced so as to be unable to attack.
The problem is, many guys are better on their feet than you might think, and there's no guarantee your technique is going to unbalance them. You're just pulling on their arm.
Personally, if I'm going to off-balance someone, I'll make sure I'm in a safe position to where I can protect myself in case they don't lose their balance as well as I intended.
In this technique, the risk of knockout from a left punch is extremely high, since he's pulling the punch into himself while punching low and relying on the hope that the guy is too off-balance to hit him.
Not worth the risk for a body shot, I'd say.
So, my question would be, why do you want to get there (body shot on the inside) when you had the guy perfectly flanked and could safely attack his face while keeping him turned away and off-balanced already?
What's the point of giving up flank by pulling the guy around to face you, just to give him a body shot on the inside and risk trading it for a knockout punch to the face?
It just boggles my mind that one would give up such an advantageous position to do something so risky.
Ok. Yeah. Let's look at his slow motion. Note how many times he is standing right in front of the opponent and the guy's rear hand is literally 4 inches from his face and he has no positive control of it....hasn't affected the guy's balance....hasn't stepped away from the rear hand in any fashion. "Very risky!" to quote LFJ. Why do you not make the same criticism of his video as you do of Mazza's????
Yeah. No one criticizes a boxer for that kind of stuff. But certainly want to criticize a Wing Chun guy that doesn't stand directly in front of the opponent.
I don't even think we are looking at the same video anymore! I've answered every one of your points already. Some multiple times. If you think the distance that Mazza's punch has to travel to land that liver shot is the same that his opponent's rear hand would have to travel to reach Mazza's head, well, that seems like evidence to me that you aren't even trying to be reasonable. All you want to do is argue.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
You can criticize him if you want. We neither have to be a carbon copy of lomachenko or Mazza.
Plenty of people criticize boxers. That is how they get better.
A whole boxing forum criticising the guy.
How good is Vasyl Lomachenko?
That is what a technical discussion is.
I don't know that we ever were!
We went from video, to gif, to still images, and you still answer with very unrealistic ideas that don't match what's happening, or acknowledge the obvious risks.
They're both rear hands. It's about the same distance if the opponent cuts straight across the 90 degree line he's being pulled into (see image), and the counter is accelerated by Mazza pulling it around.
Plus, Mazza is stepping backward into the opponent's power range as he punches, while pulling the opponent toward him. Most likely event is that they land simultaneously. Opponent might get hurt, but Mazza gets knocked out.
Unless... the opponent's balance is so disrupted that he can't punch, but counting on that as your only safety net is foolish.
Right?
Some here have an aversion to constructive criticism.
I think ego gets in the way a lot of the time.
After years of dedication to a traditional art, no one wants to acknowledge potential flaws and fix them.
Traditional arts are unfailing, and sifus infallible.
Hence, any criticism is deemed "lineage bashing", because if one technique is criticised, the whole lineage is being insulted, they feel.
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
I have mostly stayed out of this discussion so as to not offend anyone, but ........
I agree with LFJ.
This may be a hard pill for some to swallow, and I'm sure everyone knows by now that LFJ & I don't play very well together. That being said, I agree with all points he's made (aside from a few insinuated lineage put downs).
I understand what Redmond & Mazza are attempting to do, and IMO there are safer and more controlling ways to achieve it, I've hinted at this since the first video.
In the quoted portion LFJ lays it out plainly & simply. Now, am I going to relentlessly attack or defend Redmond or Mazza's decisions to do what they did? No, I'll disagree and move on because I know that at times we are all susceptible to a glass of freshly downed Kool Aid, especially when we are thirsty and there is nothing else to drink, and Kool Aid messes with our judgement.
It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
Not really, if the lack of balance is maintained in that direction the opponent has to initially reach across his body to try and do the left hand strike. Then with the gan, trust me you may want to do a left hand strike and you are moving in that direction now BUT, again if done right, you are not in control of your bodies movement so the strike is going to be completely uncontrolled where as the person applying the gan on you is in complete control of himself. When you roll that gan in such a situation it's actually similar to what some grappling arts do to roll the arm into an armbar takedown, which is actually what I would instinctively do in such a situation, Sifu Keith simply uses it to open a path for a strike.
I agree with LFJ.
---Then you are missing the points I have made. The primary one being that Mazza is NOT spinning the guy around towards him. He is breaking his balance directly to the rear. That's why the guy had to take a step. Otherwise he would have just spun into or towards Mazza. But he didn't. He stepped straight back. This is subtle and something that has to be felt to be appreciated. But for some reason you guys don't want to see that or take mine and Juany's word for it.
I understand what Redmond & Mazza are attempting to do
---If that were true, then you wouldn't be agreeing with LFJ!
, and IMO there are safer and more controlling ways to achieve it, I've hinted at this since the first video.
---That may well be so. But that doesn't mean what is being shown doesn't work, which is what LFJ has been saying, and evidently you agree with.
In the quoted portion LFJ lays it out plainly & simply.
---And I have layed out plainly and simply why what he has said is not entirely accurate. And I have actually trained what is happening the those videos and LFJ has not.
It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.
----True. But when someone's "ifs and buts" have been responded to, that should be the end of it. But LFJ continues to speak ill of what is going on in those videos. And others seem willing to pile on. When I have to repeat the same technical response to the same technical critiques multiple times, what does that tell you? If someone makes a technical criticism of something I presented and I give a technical response, shouldn't that just be the end of it? It becomes an argument when the person making that critique feels the need to keep repeating it and expanding despite what has been said in answer to the initial criticism. And that's what LFJ is good at! And it seems others this time around chose to jump on the bandwagon!
---Then you are missing the points I have made. The primary one being that Mazza is NOT spinning the guy around towards him. He is breaking his balance directly to the rear. That's why the guy had to take a step. Otherwise he would have just spun into or towards Mazza. But he didn't. He stepped straight back. This is subtle and something that has to be felt to be appreciated. But for some reason you guys don't want to see that or take mine and Juany's word for it.
I understand what Redmond & Mazza are attempting to do
---If that were true, then you wouldn't be agreeing with LFJ!
, and IMO there are safer and more controlling ways to achieve it, I've hinted at this since the first video.
---That may well be so. But that doesn't mean what is being shown doesn't work, which is what LFJ has been saying, and evidently you agree with.
In the quoted portion LFJ lays it out plainly & simply.
---And I have layed out plainly and simply why what he has said is not entirely accurate. And I have actually trained what is happening the those videos and LFJ has not.
It all comes down to if' s and but' s, and at the end of the day doesn't really matter unless your whole day is based around "winning" an online argument.
----True. But when someone's "ifs and buts" have been responded to, that should be the end of it. But LFJ continues to speak ill of what is going on in those videos. And others seem willing to pile on. When I have to repeat the same technical response to the same technical critiques multiple times, what does that tell you? If someone makes a technical criticism of something I presented and I give a technical response, shouldn't that just be the end of it? It becomes an argument when the person making that critique feels the need to keep repeating it and expanding despite what has been said in answer to the initial criticism. And that's what LFJ is good at! And it seems others this time around chose to jump on the bandwagon!
You missed my point! My point was that the very thing you guys are criticizing Mazza of, is something that is even worse and done regularly by many high level boxers!
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
I'm not taking anyone's word, your's, Juany' s or LFJ. Mazza' s technique is low, low percentage and inefficient. He had flank, and could have easily slid to his left to take his opponents back. Taking the back is prime real estate in boxing or wrestling. To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb. Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.
Now I'm not saying it couldn't work, I'm saying why even bother doing it, it doesn't make sense unless your trying to see if you can manipulate balance from an exposed angle. Even lifting his right hand up to strike the face would have been better. Mazza gave up prime position to hit his opponent in the liver & possibly get punched in the face, because to pull that move off it has to be absolutely perfect? If he would have just taken the back he could have done much, much more, and no I don't subscribe to the "He could easily defend himself from a blow to the head after he strikes crap" it's unrealistic.
To think that by using that left guan sau on anything but a fully locked arm is going to significantly disrupt an opponents balance is wishful thinking. Linking a move like that into an arm bar or throw generally requires isolation of the shoulder as well. It stabilizes and helps maintain control and opponents balance, Mazza does not do this.
If for some reason the back could not be taken and he had to return to the position he stated from, instead of doing guan sau, I personally, would have used a left sided leg sweep or instead of using a right palm to liver, I would have clotheslined him. Way less chance of of opponent countering, because when his *** hits the ground, I know for certain I took his balance.
Now you can carry on all you like, but in my opinion your defending flawed strategy. You simply don't give up prime position to to carry out what essentially boils down to a weak "Chi Trick". Just simply agree to disagree and move on. I'm not here to reinforce or dispel your, or anyone else's beliefs, I call it like I see and understand it. When I'm wrong I admit it, others need to do the same.
