My New Stance Habit

[drop bear]

Of course they do, I never said they didn't.

Well then we have come up with a self defense situation where you throw jabs and combinations. You throw them against an untrained assailant.

Because of course it works.

Surprised you had to ask to be honest.

 

[drop bear]

When I see and hear stuff like this, it makes me think that the person hasn't learned how to connect the power of their punches. I can deliver power in my punches with lead or rear hand.

You are a big guy. You don't think that factors in somewhat?

 

[JowGaWolf]

You are a big guy. You don't think that factors in somewhat?

I don't think it's an issue, because a powerful punch to him would still be a powerful punch to him, regardless of what is powerful to me. For example, I don't think any of us describes our strong punches as "just a pump."

I'm willing to bet that if we could see the OP jab, we would also see the disconnect in how the power for that lead hand is being generated.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If you can coordinate your jab with your front foot landing, your jab can be a knock down punch.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You can ask a mod to move your thread to the relevant secion of the forum if you have misposted.

I believe the OP is interested in "fighting" and not in "self-defense". There are many different reasons to train MA besides "self-defense". There are

- fighting,
- sport,
- fun,
- performance,
- health,
- self-cultivation,
- inner peace,
- ...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't have much interest in self defence.

The term "self-defense" seems to assume that you are the only good guy on earth. All others are bad guys and try to attack you. IMO, that's not a healthy way to live your life.

When your opponent attacks you, you jump back to obtain distance, you then jump back in and attack your opponent. If this doesn't fit into "self-defense" definition then I don't have much interest in "self-defense" either.

I don't like "If you do ..., I'll do ...". I prefer "If I do ... and you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, I like to play offense and let my opponent to play defense.

 

[Paul_D]

I believe the OP is interested in "fighting" and not in "self-defense". There are many different reasons to train MA besides "self-defense". There are

- fighting,
- sport,
- fun,
- performance,
- health,
- self-cultivation,
- inner peace,
- ...

Yes, I am aware of that, thank you. My question was generated due to the fact that the thread was posted in the self defence section of the forum.

 

[drop bear]

Yes, I am aware of that, thank you. My question was generated due to the fact that the thread was posted in the self defence section of the forum.

Yeah but I answered your question.

Jabs and combinations are a pretty common self defence move. So regardless whether he has an intrest in self defence or not. That he is endevoring to punch effectively is moving him towards a self defence proficiency.

The advantage of the squared up stance is you can move quickly. which in the street is a factor as you may need to cover more distance than you are used to in the dojo. as there is quite a lot more space in the street to play with.

Squared up allows you to cross step and punch. forwards or backwards.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So regardless whether he has an intrest in self defence or not.

If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.

 

[KangTsai]

If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.

I was not aware at all that this was posted in self-defense. Oops, here I was wandering where these comments came from.

THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POSTED IN GENERAL MARTIAL ARTS, SORRY

 

[JowGaWolf]

If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default. The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.

I would say that fighting is a subset of self-defense. Fighting is just one component. For the most part when people say fighting they only think fist and not weapons, such as knives and other objects that may be available.

Punching a bad or learning how to just punch harder or kick harder is not the same as fighting. It could be sports related or just a something a person wants to do, but being able to to punch and kick doesn't = know how to fight.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would say that fighting is a subset of self-defense. Fighting is just one component. For the most part when people say fighting they only think fist and not weapons, such as knives and other objects that may be available.

In

- self-defense, you are the good guy.
- fighting, you can be the bad guy.

When I was young, one midnight someone knocked on my window. It was one of my neighbor. He told me that his young brother was beaten up badly and he needed help to get even. After he had gathered about 10 guys, we walked about 1/2 mile and our enemy (also about 10 guys) were there. I still remember I outrun a motorcycle chasing (one guy on the back seat had a samara sword in his hand) that night. I didn't know I could run that fast. Since then running became an important part of my MA training.

That was not self-defense. It was a get even "fight". There were many against many, and weapon were involved too.

 

[JowGaWolf]

self-defense, you are the good guy

Not true. Self-defense does not determine who is good or who is bad. A person does not need to wait to be attacked in order to use self-defense.

That was not self-defense. It was a get even "fight". There were many against many, and weapon were involved too.

The moment you start defending yourself is the exact moment it becomes self-defense. Having a "get even" fight does not matter.

If you went there to fight and in the process you had to defend yourself, then it's self-defense. The only way that it wouldn't be self-defense is if you went there to take a beating. With that said you, you have to distinguish between the legal definition of self-defense and the non-legal definition of self-defense, because even if you are defending yourself, you can still go to jail, if your actions do not fit the legal definition. For example, A person can break into my home and I would be well within my rights to shoot him, stab him, or punch him in his face as he is coming in. But if I do these things as he tries to escape then I would be the one at risk for going to jail. In my mind and in a perfect world, I could be rightfully defending myself to take this guy out so he doesn't come back or do the same to someone else. But depending on when and how I decided to take him out, I could be legally in the wrong.

Being legally in the wrong doesn't make me a bad guy. It just makes me legally in the wrong.

 

[Paul_D]

Yeah but I answered your question.

.

No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.

Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you. The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.

 

[Paul_D]

If you are interested in fighting, you are interested in self-defense by default.

Only if you are a young male and the sort of violence you are most likely to be a victim of is a drunken bar fight/street brawl/road rage.

The other way around may not be true. IMO, self-defense is a subset of fighting.

Getting into a fight in the street is illegal, self defence is not. Agreeing to go outside in the car park and settle an argument spilt beer, a girlfriend, etc is NOT self. Clearly you are unfamailer with the nature of non consensual criminal violence, otherwise you would not be making this statement. Criminals do not stand six feet away in a fighting stands with their hands up in a guard. If you are mugged, beaten , raped, it will not look light a sporting contest between two trained martial artists, and the skills needed to be successful at fighting are NOT the same as the skills needed to dal with non consensual criminal violence.

You need to read case studies with muggers and other criminals and learn how they go about committing their crimes (aka The Rituals of Violence). Then tell me how many of them are trained fighters/martial artist who and square off with their victims and trade blows (i.e. "fight" them).

Even if you are dealing with some idiot that wants to fight you (rather than a criminal) you don't do it by squaring off against them and exchanging blows, as this introduces the possibilities that you can lose.

 

[drop bear]

7

No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.

Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you. The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.

Fighting skills are pretty much universal.

I am not sure what non method of fighting you think is better for street violence. Where you assume they are using some non method of fighting. But I would suggest you pick a method of self defence that works.

All those stances and hands up and stuff you do is not designed to make you look martial arty. Or be confined to some sort of dojo specific circumstance.

They are designed to give you the best possible mobility,defence and ability to attack you can.

So that when you are attacked regardless as to whether it is consentual or non consentual. Or a mugging or a brawl. You have a position you can fall back to that allows you to utilize the tools you have developed.

 

[MaxRob]

Stance varies with me in accordance with situational forces and it is infinitely variable , an attack is variable and very situational , ones defense needs to be situationally equated to counter that attack.

 

[drop bear]

No you didn't because you are confusing men brawling in the street with self defence.

Criminals do not square off with you and trade jabs for the right to mug/rape/kill you. The skills required to be successful in a fight (be it in the dojo, competition or street) are not the same as the skills needed to deal with non consensual criminal violence.

 

[JowGaWolf]

More like "Help a Bruh Out" fail.

 

[Paul_D]

They are designed to give you the best possible mobility, defence and ability to attack you can.

Where you assume they are using some non method of fighting.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the nature of criminal violence. Criminals do not give you the opportunity to use your footwork or jabs. They ask you the time/for directions. As you are distracted they sucker punched you or put a knife to your throat.

"Non fighting" enough for you?

Fighting skills are pretty much universal.

Again, fighting and self defence are not the same, yes a good punch is always a good punch, but the skills needed to be successful at fighting are not the same skills needed to be successful at self defence In fact some of the skills needed to be successful at fighting are the exact opposite of the skills needed to be successful at self defence. Again, listen to the martial map podcast which explains it better than I have the time or patience to do.