Getting the Angle

[Phobius]

Got to say I agree with LFJ as well. How crazy it may well sound.

There is nothing sound in the demo being presented by Mazza. Of course this is my own belief and I do not know if Mazza had the right mind but just got side-tracked trying to demonstrate a point for his students. Sometimes demonstration lets you "pass" crazy and stupid moves not because you ever would but because you are focusing so much on trying to demonstrate your point and forcing it too hard.

Now everything in that demo to me seems like he is forcing the "opponent" to take a step back but also in a normal case rotate his hip and shoulders putting his left fist straight to Mazza's head. You can off-balance someone in a demo situation but he does not seem to get that angle correctly since he would then have to force the shoulder upwards to lock it and cause the boxer to not rotate but being forced to continue backwards. I do not see this from happening nor would I think anyone should ever "plan" for that to occur in a fighting scenario. All it takes is for that arm to be moving a bit and you may very well miss and end up getting knocked out.

 

[KPM]

To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb.

---And just where did he do that! His opponent did NOT reface towards him. LJF proposed that as a theoretical and now you are agreeing with him. You aren't looking at this with an open mind or listening to what Juany or I have been saying any more than he has!!!


Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.

---Maybe so. But then that becomes grappling and not Wing Chun and Mazza was teaching a Wing Chun seminar. We don't know...maybe in a later lesson he covered something about transitioning from Wing Chun to grappling. But in this particular clip he is teaching Wing Chun. Because....its...a....demo!

 

[KPM]

Got to say I agree with LFJ as well. How crazy it may well sound.

---Damn! You too Phobius!


Now everything in that demo to me seems like he is forcing the "opponent" to take a step back

----Uh, no. How many times now have I stated that the opponent only was able to take a step back because Mazza was going at "demo speed." At full speed the guy would be tipping over backwards and struck before he ever had a chance to take a step to recover his balance.

but also in a normal case rotate his hip and shoulders putting his left fist straight to Mazza's head.

----Again, he would have been tipping over backwards and in no position to launch an effective strike. He only looks stable and like he could throw that strike because, again, this is demo speed.

You can off-balance someone in a demo situation but he does not seem to get that angle correctly since he would then have to force the shoulder upwards to lock it and cause the boxer to not rotate but being forced to continue backwards.

---Huh? Imagine you are standing with your right leg forward and someone suddenly grabs your right arm and yanks it straight to the rear. That is effectively what Mazza is doing. No "shoulder locking" is required. Now as you are falling backwards from the yank on your arm, how effective and accurate of a blow do you think you could throw? And what if you were taking a solid shot to the liver AS you were tipping over backwards? How would that affect your ability to throw that rear hand?

---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in. Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm. But you can't always get there. So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible while controlling the lead hand. If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand.

---I realize that this kind of angling is something that Wing Chun people outside of TWC don't do. That's why I shared these videos. But honestly, the reactions and flat denial of what I've been trying to explain just surprises me!

 

[Phobius]

---Damn! You too Phobius!

Well it was not intentional. The mind has a will of its own.

----Uh, no. How many times now have I stated that the opponent only was able to take a step back because Mazza was going at "demo speed." At full speed the guy would be tipping over backwards and struck before he ever had a chance to take a step to recover his balance.

You can however not yank an arm that had every intention of going in that direction.

Do not mean to sound confusing but what I mean is, if you relax and just understand that it is ok for you to have your arm move because your body will move with it. Things will take a whole new aspect. A very important thing to learn when doing any kind of tiger play.

---Huh? Imagine you are standing with your right leg forward and someone suddenly grabs your right arm and yanks it straight to the rear. That is effectively what Mazza is doing. No "shoulder locking" is required. Now as you are falling backwards from the yank on your arm, how effective and accurate of a blow do you think you could throw? And what if you were taking a solid shot to the liver AS you were tipping over backwards? How would that affect your ability to throw that rear hand?

We are actually doing training in similar situations more as a drilling not to be fight realistic but to allow us to move with the flow so to say. The key thing is that if you yank my arm, I just let my arm move, charging me up for a rotation perhaps, especially if I am permitted to maintain balance enough to move my feet.

My objections come perhaps not so much from WT however but more from my time in BJJ, Karate and also maybe pieces of MT.

---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in. Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm. But you can't always get there. So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible while controlling the lead hand. If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand.

It was just not how I see it. I just saw it as him being in a good position then yanking that arm to give the opponent an angle at him rather than vice versa.

---I realize that this kind of angling is something that Wing Chun people outside of TWC don't do. That's why I shared these videos. But honestly, the reactions and flat denial of what I've been trying to explain just surprises me!

Angles and footwork is everything for us, and I do WT. At least an open-minded version of it should there exist a traditionalistic WT. One can never know in all these lineage wars.

 

[Nobody Important]

To give it up for a low percentage unbalancing maneuver that refaces your opponent to you is dumb.

---And just where did he do that! His opponent did NOT reface towards him. LJF proposed that as a theoretical and now you are agreeing with him. You aren't looking at this with an open mind or listening to what Juany or I have been saying any more than he has!!!


Much easier to take balance from the back and opponent is way, way more exposed and vulnerable.

---Maybe so. But then that becomes grappling and not Wing Chun and Mazza was teaching a Wing Chun seminar. We don't know...maybe in a later lesson he covered something about transitioning from Wing Chun to grappling. But in this particular clip he is teaching Wing Chun. Because....its...a....demo!

He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't a strategy I would recommend, but to each their own.

Secondly, there is nothing in the Wing Chun rule book that states "taking the back is a grappling only maneuver", lots of unprotected striking targets there, if your Wing Chun only focuses on boxing. A kick to the back of the knee and balance is destroyed. Besides, many branches of Wing Chun have some grappling. Your statement is nothing more than trying to justify why Mazza does what he did, that my friend is myopic. Sticking to and defending your case, in spite of being presented with differing opinions that offer valid alternatives, is exactly what you accuse WSLVT practitioners of. We can't always be right, no one can. You can either accept valid criticism of others or not, but to continue arguing to convince others that what's shown is good application isn't being receptive to how others feel about it and is making you look foolish. No one has outright said anything negative about the lineage or practitioners, one individual has implied it. And your history with this individual makes you see anything but red.

I for one don't agree with the manner in which "control" was supposedly obtained. We aren't always going to agree. Leave it at that, no need for hurt feelings or spite. I have no ill will or malice for any lineage, nor will I blindly defend any lineage, my own included, if I am in disagreement with what is being said.

 

[Juany118]

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.

The only thing I would say is that gezzer said he had a teacher who did something very similar to him and it goes far beyond a cheap "chi trick". Now if it was just one teacher, one MA school of thought I could see your point, but a different teacher from a different school of thought makes it work apparently.

As for tactics we PM'd a while ago and we agreed. Why not take the back you said, I said, if I remember rightly, I would just transition to a take down and/or lock and break a joint.

I just think that tactics and techniques are two different conversations. I am just talking the technique as being very functional and I THINK that is all KPM is talking about as well, though I can't speak for him.

Make sense?

 

[drop bear]

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!

Depends on the boxer. I wouldn't do the sequence that Mazza does. I just don't really think it is safe.

 

[geezer]

Depends on the boxer. I wouldn't do the sequence that Mazza does. I just don't really think it is safe.

...and would Mazza do it at full speed while sparring? People often do stuff demonstrating that doesn't match up perfectly with what happens sparring. At least I do, and sometimes my students call me out on that. Which is to their credit IMO. But then I like it when people think for themselves. Maybe if I were a master or grandmaster I wouldn't.

 

[KPM]

He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't a strategy I would recommend, but to each their own.

--- Watch the whole clip again, not LFJ's truncated version that he made to support his own points. The part we have been discussing was simply the one scenario where Mazza was showing how to get to the body shot. He showed several other scenarios as well. The body shot was just one possibility, and maybe not the best. But the overall concept of getting that angle and moving away form the rear hand was what he was teaching. Its only because people have chosen to "nit pick" that one scenario...the body shot....amongst several possibilities that we have gone so far down this pathway.


Secondly, there is nothing in the Wing Chun rule book that states "taking the back is a grappling only maneuver", lots of unprotected striking targets there, if your Wing Chun only focuses on boxing.

---Sure. One other option among many! Just not the option that Mazza chose to show at the time. What was it you said about "ifs" and "buts"????


Your statement is nothing more than trying to justify why Mazza does what he did, that my friend is myopic.

----No its not. I never said there might not be other or better options. I have simply been trying to explain how what he did was a perfectly viable option and will work. Everyone else has been second guessing what Mazza was doing and trying to say how wrong he was. That, my friend, is nit-picking a demo video.


Sticking to and defending your case, in spite of being presented with differing opinions that offer valid alternatives, is exactly what you accuse WSLVT practitioners of.

----And just where did I say that any alternatives were not valid?? I have simply been pointing that what he was doing in that one example (of several options he showed) is valid and have tried to explain how it works. I've trained something very similar. So I know it can work. But none of you guys seem willing to believe me, or even try to understand what I have been saying. You are all stuck on this idea of the guy pivoting around towards Mazza with a powerful punch. I have explained multiple times that the direction of the force he is using, the angle he is taking, and the distance simply makes this very hard for the opponent to do. I've felt it. But all of you seem to think you know it better than I do simply from watching a video.


You can either accept valid criticism of others or not,

----I have no problem with criticism. But I do have a problem when people simply disregard my responses and not acknowledge my counter-points. When someone just continues to repeat the same assertion over and over despite my having offered an answer that is legitimate......then that becomes an argument and not a technical discussion.

but to continue arguing to convince others that what's shown is good application isn't being receptive to how others feel about it and is making you look foolish.


---From my perspective, the fact that people can't see what I have described so carefully, or choose not to see it....makes them look foolish. Juany knows exactly what I have been describing in that video and agrees with me. Because he has studied TWC. He has seen it and felt it. I know it works. He knows it works. So how is trying to explain to others what they evidently aren't seeing accurately being "foolish"???


No one has outright said anything negative about the lineage or practitioners, one individual has implied it. And your history with this individual makes you see anything but red.

----He did more than imply it. But I'm not sure what your point is with that statement.

I for one don't agree with the manner in which "control" was supposedly obtained.

----That's fine. But to argue that from the position he was in he was at some kind of high risk of that rear hand punch is still failing to understand why he was getting the angle and distance that he had, and why it worked to his advantage. That is a different issue from why he went from being in a better position to moving to the inside of the opponent's arm in order to do the body shot. Again, that was just one option among several that he showed in that short clip.

 

[KPM]

...and would Mazza do it at full speed while sparring? People often do stuff demonstrating that doesn't match up perfectly with what happens sparring. At least I do, and sometimes my students call me out on that. Which is to their credit IMO. But then I like it when people think for themselves. Maybe if I were a master or grandmaster I wouldn't.

Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism! Would it work in hard sparring? That is a big "maybe, maybe not!" But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???

 

[Juany118]

Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism! Would it work in hard sparring? That is a big "maybe, maybe not!" But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???

@ basically everyone nit picking the movement...stop for a moment.

Try and picture what happens if Sifu Keith jammed the opponent at full speed and then followed up with a full speed strike and a full speed gan, instead of what amounts to the stop motion we see.

Now I have, irl, done that. The difference is that when I do he gan I am actually rolling it into a lock which I then use to take down the suspect.

This is why I said I think people are confusing techniques with tactics. I think here that is where the real debate lies.

1. should Sifu Keith have used the disruption to roll into a takedown?
2. should he have rolled to the rear of the opponent and really rocked the opponent from behind?
3. if the above two are better options by what degree, because back in the day getting rabbit punched (which is what Sifu Keith is doing) by someone who suckered me, brought me too my knees.

I think, in the end, 1 and 2 are more certain to be effective and that Sifu Keith, as many a teacher does, is showing the "ideal play by play" to hit a specific target. He is very big on pressure points and hitting "weak points" FYI. I didn't make that seminar but based on those I have attended I could see him having that scenario being about simply getting to the point where you can punch to the kidneys and drop the guy. He can be that "focused", showing how to get to specific weak points so you don't get trapped in an idea of just "roll punch" to the center.

He will actually do something I think many here would disagree with entirely. He will say "there are other ways to get there". Hell in every seminar he says "don't get trapped by dogma, I am just going to show you one way to get there" but he does show that one (or two) ways to get there so you understand the overall principle. His point with seminars like this is to get you outside the drills and start thinking about practical application so you can then later apply it to sparring/real fighting.

 

[drop bear]

Now THAT, finally is a very valid criticism! Would it work in hard sparring? That is a big "maybe, maybe not!" But isn't that true of about 80% of the Wing Chun drills and demos we see???

Which is the difference with boxing and criticism. If something is working. There is a pretty good case that it works.

 

[drop bear]

@ basically everyone nit picking the movement...stop for a moment.

Try and picture what happens if Sifu Keith jammed the opponent at full speed and then followed up with a full speed strike and a full speed gan, instead of what amounts to the stop motion we see.

Now I have, irl, done that. The difference is that when I do he gan I am actually rolling it into a lock which I then use to take down the suspect.

This is why I said I think people are confusing techniques with tactics. I think here that is where the real debate lies.

1. should Sifu Keith have used the disruption to roll into a takedown?
2. should he have rolled to the rear of the opponent and really rocked the opponent from behind?
3. if the above two are better options by what degree, because back in the day getting rabbit punched (which is what Sifu Keith is doing) by someone who suckered me, brought me too my knees.

I think, in the end, 1 and 2 are more certain to be effective and that Sifu Keith, as many a teacher does, is showing the "ideal play by play" to hit a specific target. He is very big on pressure points and hitting "weak points" FYI. I didn't make that seminar but based on those I have attended I could see him having that scenario being about simply getting to the point where you can punch to the kidneys and drop the guy. He can be that "focused", showing how to get to specific weak points so you don't get trapped in an idea of just "roll punch" to the center.

He will actually do something I think many here would disagree with entirely. He will say "there are other ways to get there". Hell in every seminar he says "don't get trapped by dogma, I am just going to show you one way to get there" but he does show that one (or two) ways to get there so you understand the overall principle. His point with seminars like this is to get you outside the drills and start thinking about practical application so you can then later apply it to sparring/real fighting.

Is the opponent allowed to go at full speed as well?

 

[Juany118]

Is the opponent allowed to go at full speed as well?

Absolutely, otherwise similar techniques would not have worked for me arresting resisting suspects. The point is this... IF you "get there" as Sifu Kieth said, you opponent is unbalanced to the point he either has to retreat completely outside of physical contact range to recover or you actually shoved him several steps away. Tbh I have done that, jammed so hard the bad guy stumbled 3-4 steps away, thus recovers, and I have to start from scratch. Usually I just say "screw it" at that point and go for the taser.

If you don't "get there" then you don't do what Sifu Keith demonstrates. That's why I said it is equally important to what he says, because if you "don't get there" then what he shows doesn't apply and you do something else. As the video of Sifu Jerry I posted shows. You don't get to the blind side Sifu Keith is showing because the bad guy adapts, some of the things Sifu Jerry illustrates are options and that's full speed knock out demo there.

 

[Nobody Important]

He moved out of a position of control to a position of lesser control. Instead of moving right he could have went left, assuming total control and left the opponent oblivious to any action he took. It wasn't a strategy I would recommend, but to each their own.

--- Watch the whole clip again, not LFJ's truncated version that he made to support his own points. The part we have been discussing was simply the one scenario where Mazza was showing how to get to the body shot. He showed several other scenarios as well. The body shot was just one possibility, and maybe not the best. But the overall concept of getting that angle and moving away form the rear hand was what he was teaching. Its only because people have chosen to "nit pick" that one scenario...the body shot....amongst several possibilities that we have gone so far down this pathway.


Secondly, there is nothing in the Wing Chun rule book that states "taking the back is a grappling only maneuver", lots of unprotected striking targets there, if your Wing Chun only focuses on boxing.

---Sure. One other option among many! Just not the option that Mazza chose to show at the time. What was it you said about "ifs" and "buts"????


Your statement is nothing more than trying to justify why Mazza does what he did, that my friend is myopic.

----No its not. I never said there might not be other or better options. I have simply been trying to explain how what he did was a perfectly viable option and will work. Everyone else has been second guessing what Mazza was doing and trying to say how wrong he was. That, my friend, is nit-picking a demo video.


Sticking to and defending your case, in spite of being presented with differing opinions that offer valid alternatives, is exactly what you accuse WSLVT practitioners of.

----And just where did I say that any alternatives were not valid?? I have simply been pointing that what he was doing in that one example (of several options he showed) is valid and have tried to explain how it works. I've trained something very similar. So I know it can work. But none of you guys seem willing to believe me, or even try to understand what I have been saying. You are all stuck on this idea of the guy pivoting around towards Mazza with a powerful punch. I have explained multiple times that the direction of the force he is using, the angle he is taking, and the distance simply makes this very hard for the opponent to do. I've felt it. But all of you seem to think you know it better than I do simply from watching a video.


You can either accept valid criticism of others or not,

----I have no problem with criticism. But I do have a problem when people simply disregard my responses and not acknowledge my counter-points. When someone just continues to repeat the same assertion over and over despite my having offered an answer that is legitimate......then that becomes an argument and not a technical discussion.

but to continue arguing to convince others that what's shown is good application isn't being receptive to how others feel about it and is making you look foolish.


---From my perspective, the fact that people can't see what I have described so carefully, or choose not to see it....makes them look foolish. Juany knows exactly what I have been describing in that video and agrees with me. Because he has studied TWC. He has seen it and felt it. I know it works. He knows it works. So how is trying to explain to others what they evidently aren't seeing accurately being "foolish"???


No one has outright said anything negative about the lineage or practitioners, one individual has implied it. And your history with this individual makes you see anything but red.

----He did more than imply it. But I'm not sure what your point is with that statement.

I for one don't agree with the manner in which "control" was supposedly obtained.

----That's fine. But to argue that from the position he was in he was at some kind of high risk of that rear hand punch is still failing to understand why he was getting the angle and distance that he had, and why it worked to his advantage. That is a different issue from why he went from being in a better position to moving to the inside of the opponent's arm in order to do the body shot. Again, that was just one option among several that he showed in that short clip.

I don't want to argue or defend my reasoning, because at this point we seem to be talking past each other. So this is the last I'll say about it.

I've watched the clip and the application in question (and being discussed throughout this thread) I don't feel it is a high percentage one. I've used it, had it used on me and can, from a place of experience say, that in real time it's sketchy at best. Not something I'd chose to do or teach at a seminar. My opinion you're free feel otherwise. It may very well be a common tactic in Cheung's WC, it violates strategic tactic in mine. You and Juany both state that it wasn't the best option so your vehement defense of it is kind of baffling.

At several points in this conversation you've had the opportunity to agree to disagree and move on. This thread is about getting the angle, not getting the angle and partially giving it up. You have to understand that you're just as guilty of if's and but's in this scenario as everyone else through your implications of what Mazza COULD do vs. their what he SHOULD have done. Its all opinion. Some were valid concerns as to the action, acknowledged, just not agreed upon. We don't know if Mazza's technique would have worked or not because the opponent isn't resisting. We don't know if the opponent could have hit him because he doesn't try. Its all speculation. And everyones responses are based on their practical experience. I don't take anyones word for it, prove it is my motto.

So at this point I'll let it go. You can continue to argue a point you believe I don't understand, but you'd be wrong, I do, I simply don't agree to the degree you do, that's all.

If you or Juany take offense to this or my reasoning, I'm sorry, it wasn't my intention. I pointed out something I percieved as an egregious flaw. I would hope that others would do the same for me if I presented something sub-par as if there weren't better options and defended it to my last breath just to make a point..

The fact that you're being met with so much opposition from those that normally agree with what you have to say should give you concern for pause and reflection. It may not change your opinion, but could give you insight as to why they don't agree. Fair enough?

 

[drop bear]

Absolutely, otherwise similar techniques would not have worked for me arresting resisting suspects. The point is this... IF you "get there" as Sifu Kieth said, you opponent is unbalanced to the point he either has to retreat completely outside of physical contact range to recover or you actually shoved him several steps away. Tbh I have done that, jammed so hard the bad guy stumbled 3-4 steps away, thus recovers, and I have to start from scratch. Usually I just say "screw it" at that point and go for the taser.

If you don't "get there" then you don't do what Sifu Keith demonstrates. That's why I said it is equally important to what he says, because if you "don't get there" then what he shows doesn't apply and you do something else. As the video of Sifu Jerry I posted shows. You don't get to the blind side Sifu Keith is showing because the bad guy adapts, some of the things Sifu Jerry illustrates are options and that's full speed knock out demo there.

If you stay on the outside and your oponant re balances you are still in a good position.

If you go inside and keep that right hand up and your oponant re balances you are in a good position.

If you go inside drop your right hand and your opponent re balances you are looking at getting a left hook in the face.

If the oponant stays un balanced it does not effect any of the other positions. But to get this move you are relying on a very tenuous circumstance.

It seems like you have put in a lot of work to unbalance your opponent then create a position to take advantage of that just to lose that position.

What exactly are you gaining. A liver punch?

 

[Juany118]

If you stay on the outside and your oponant re balances you are still in a good position.

If you go inside and keep that right hand up and your oponant re balances you are in a good position.

If you go inside drop your right hand and your opponent re balances you are looking at getting a left hook in the face.

If the oponant stays un balanced it does not effect any of the other positions. But to get this move you are relying on a very tenuous circumstance.

It seems like you have put in a lot of work to unbalance your opponent then create a position to take advantage of that just to lose that position.

What exactly are you gaining. A liver punch?

The point is to think tactically. If you get a solid kidney or liver punch in someone you will drop them, if they aren't a pro fighter and what are the chances of you running into that?

So we have a martial arts Master explaining how one can get, if it works, to a position where you can drop 99.9999...% of people if you know how to hit.

I think sometimes we assume everyone else is like us, breaking this **** down and working it. We are mutants people. When you accept that, then it may make more sense.

 

[LFJ]

Nothing you've written is "constructive." Its just argumentative.

Well, that's unfortunately going to be your perspective as a grudge holder.

I've described potential flaws that you were unable or unwilling to see, and gave my take on alternatives.

That is not constructive because I don't just accept your counterpoints??
It's not being argumentative to simply not agree that your points are valid and accurate.

I agree with LFJ.

---Then you are missing the points I have made.

when someone's "ifs and buts" have been responded to, that should be the end of it.

Not if the responses are invalid.

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?

---Damn! You too Phobius!

What it should tell you is that no one sees your technical response as valid.

When unbiased members and several of my past "forum rivals" agree with me, 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?

Only if you want people to spare your feelings and disregard the invalidity of your response.

---I agree that this is not an optimal position that Mazza is in. Its much better to be on the outside of the opponent's right arm. But you can't always get there.

HE WAS ALREADY THERE but gave it up for what you agree is a much worse position!!

That was the whole point! Why give up much better position at such high risk? It's just not intelligent fighting.

So if you find yourself on the inside because the opponent is throwing a wide punch with the right arm, rather than standing right in front of him, Mazza is showing how to move around to the side to "get the angle" and effectively get as far away from the opponent's rear hand as possible while controlling the lead hand. If he stayed put right in front of the opponent, he would be in even MORE risk of getting hit by that rear hand.

When he had flank upon entry, the guy couldn't punch from the rear.

Then he turned the guy around and stepped back into his power striking range, with his only safety net from a knockout punch being the tenuous hope that he sufficiently off-balances the guy by pulling on his arm.

Not a smart tradeoff, low percentage, high risk...

But at this point, it's clear ego is overpowering sensible thinking and you will only continue to deny the bloody obvious that everyone is pointing out to you, even though you just agreed he gave up much better position.

 

[drop bear]

The point is to think tactically. If you get a solid kidney or liver punch in someone you will drop them, if they aren't a pro fighter and what are the chances of you running into that?

So we have a martial arts Master explaining how one can get, if it works, to a position where you can drop 99.9999...% of people if you know how to hit.

I think sometimes we assume everyone else is like us, breaking this **** down and working it. We are mutants people. When you accept that, then it may make more sense.

So when we accept this Mazza guy can actually pull off what he says he can. Then accept that the liver punch will drop the guy and also accept that the person we are fighting won't be able to take advantage of a gift wrapped shot to my head.

The technique all makes perfect sense.

 

[KPM]

I don't want to argue or defend my reasoning,

----But you are.

You and Juany both state that it wasn't the best option so your vehement defense of it is kind of baffling.

---Why is it baffling that when everyone says "this won't work" and yet Juany and I know it will....that we continue to try and point out how and why it will work? Neither of us have said it was a "high percentage" move. LFJ has asserted over and over again that Mazza is spinning the guy around so he is going to be easily clocked by his rear hand. That simply is not true. So, should we just sit back and let all of you guys believe it is? Why do you all support his hypothetical, which isn't happening in the video. And completely ignore Juany and I when we try to explain the direction of force being applied as well as the distance an angling....which is evident in the video. LJF is convinced that the opponent's rear hand will travel the same distance to reach Mazza's head as Mazza's hand is traveling to do the body shot. That simply isn't true.


At several points in this conversation you've had the opportunity to agree to disagree and move on.

---And I tried. And each time LJF simply reasserted the points I had already answered and had people agreeing with him. Why are you not directing this same speech to LFJ? More than once in this thread I tried to just drop it, and he kept it going.


You have to understand that you're just as guilty of if's and but's in this scenario as everyone else through your implications of what Mazza COULD do vs. their what he SHOULD have done.


----That's BS. Each time I have simply tried to explain what was actually happening in that video clip. The angle. The opponent taking a step back because it was demo speed. The distance from the guy's rear hand, etc. What he SHOULD have done is nit-picking and an example of "ifs and buts" that you objected too earlier on.


We don't know if Mazza's technique would have worked or not because the opponent isn't resisting. We don't know if the opponent could have hit him because he doesn't try. Its all speculation.

---Because its a demo. And you can second guess and nit-pick ANY demo clip in exactly the same way. Will it work at speed in sparring? Maybe not! I've simply been explaining what Mazza was doing and the concepts he was teaching in that particular clip. The angling, the distance, controlling one hand and zoning away from the rear hand, etc. Yet everyone seems to think what I've said ISN'T what Mazza was doing and teaching in that clip.


. I would hope that others would do the same for me if I presented something sub-par as if there weren't better options and defended it to my last breath just to make a point..

---And neither of Juany or I EVER said there might not be better options. We were simply trying to explain what was happening in that particular sequence. And everyone else tried to tell us, "no, that's not what's happening"....which is strange because we've actually trained it and they haven't. Yet you find that "baffling"?

The fact that you're being met with so much opposition from those that normally agree with what you have to say should give you concern for pause and reflection. It may not change your opinion, but could give you insight as to why they don't agree. Fair enough?

---I think you bought into what LJF has been saying too much without actually reading closely and considering what I have been saying. Because you seem to have read a whole lot into what you think I have said that is inaccurate. I've never said there weren't other or better options. I've never said that this was "high percentage." I've simply said that perceptions of what was happening in that video weren't accurate and that it CAN work. Fair enough?