When the old man enter, his left leading leg had touched his opponent's right leading leg twice, once outside and once inside. He could step in his left leading leg directly to where he wanted to step in. The reason that he built the "leg bridge" twice because he wanted to make sure that his opponent's right leading leg won't give him any trouble during his entering.
That's a static demonstration. That double-touch actually gives an opponent time to shift and prevent the technique. Look at a Judo competition where they use a hip throw, and you'll see a full commitment of body weight into the throw, rather than a slow testing.
I agree as well, I usually give a range of around 10 degrees for them to work in (for example for the kim yeurn ma stance in Wing Chun I tell them toes point in 5 to 15 degrees.) I like being more specific than not, but I think that comes from my Sifu who by trade was an engineer, so for me as I learn it always has been very specific (15 degrees, on the dot, if it's off by a little it's off by a lot.)
Indeed, when I practice the kata, I know exactly where I should be pointed. I like to think that's because the kata were designed especially for me, though. The guy who made them is very fond of me.
I've seen the same in some folks in the aiki arts. For self-defense, we typically train from a static, neutral stance (shizentai). This transmits very little information to the attacker, and is the one position that is closest to how we're likely to be standing in an unpredicted attack. It sucks for sparring, though, and some people fail to make the connection that sparring is not the same as the start of an attack.
-Although I don't do TWC, my school also heavily emphasizes fighting on the "blind side" rather than in front of the person like a lot of other WC schools do.
When the old man used his leading left leg to touch on the outside of his opponent's leading right leg, the old man want his opponent to do 2 things, either move right leading foot
Agree! All MA systems use this strategy.
The practice of starting with hands down is to simulate a time when we don't see it coming, and must react from that point. It's a "worst case" of where our hands could be. In some NGA schools, all simulations start from this point. I mix it up more, with some simulations starting here, some starting with their "fence" of choice, some starting from their "fighting stance" of choice.Yeah there is a big difference between thinking "hope this doesn't going to become a fight. better safe than sorry."
hands are always in front even if just "talking like an italian" or casually folded.
"I think this going to become a fight but try to talk him down"
and "oh crap it's on!"
Again, that's one set of options. Not all arts take that approach, and no approach is without drawbacks. For my throws, I'm more likely to enter with a fast hand strike than a slow leading leg attack. Most of my throws don't attack the leg, so the position of his body is more important than the leg (I can read what I need from his body).
This is why the OP asked me "why would you want to move in a circle?"
Perhaps.
We are talking about the same thing here.
Well stated. Continuing a circle once you actually engage is doing to yourself what I would do if I can attach to you. Circles are not the friend of stability, unless you are the center.Well it's same thing yes, different methodology. I tend to describe things badly just with words (I need to demonstrate most often) I sometimes use this diagram from fencing, the "masters wheel" to describe what I am speaking about.
Essentially, simply by changing the angle, you can move into position in a straight line, this way you can still use some forward momentum to strike and defend. You may circle indeed but that is before you enter something just outside combat range once you are almost close enough to strike the circle stops, otherwise you risk your balance/structure if they force the engagement.
