STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE

[Flying Crane]

But thats why we discuss these things in terms of principles. You adapt a principle to your situation.

How can there not be time to try to make distance? A boxer in a match is facing a toughened opponent alert to potential blows and is hindered by rules amd safety padding.

Translate the strategy to self defence and bare knuckles on untrained faces take a multi round strategy into an instant victory, as evidenced by the video above.

Besides, this was one example of one strategy, even if it did not hold up it wouldnt invalidate the argument.

Strategy and principles are not the same thing. Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques. Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.

On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance. But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap. When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that. You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.

In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly. You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps. You need to drop him right now. So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.

 

[DaveB]

Strategy and principles are not the same thing. Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques. Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.

On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance. But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap. When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that. You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.

In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly. You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps. You need to drop him right now. So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.

Direct and aggressive is one way, not the only way. Even with that, direct how? Aggressive with what?

One of the best ways to maximise power is to hit the opponent as they move forward. A simple way to get them to walk into your punch is to move away so that they chase.
Simple effective and maximises your safety.

I feel you are fixating on the fact that I've picked a boxers strategy as an example and missing the real point being made. Yes, in a boxing ring you can employ more sophisticated tactics, but I didn't mention such things because they aren't required in the context of self defence.

Just because you can make something more complicated doesn't mean the simplified version "needs" to be more complicated to work; as evidenced by the video.

Strategies are indeed a type of principle, in that a principle is a rule that one adapts to the situation.
Sun Tzu's art of war would not be much use to business leaders if strategies weren't adaptable ideas.

The power generation you mention comes under the bracket of Mechanical principles. The setups and traps you mentioned are Tactical principles and together with the Strategic principles these 3 areas define the totality of any given fighting system (at least that's the theory I work from).

That being said,

 

[Flying Crane]

Direct and aggressive is one way, not the only way. Even with that, direct how? Aggressive with what?

One of the best ways to maximise power is to hit the opponent as they move forward. A simple way to get them to walk into your punch is to move away so that they chase.
Simple effective and maximises your safety.

I feel you are fixating on the fact that I've picked a boxers strategy as an example and missing the real point being made. Yes, in a boxing ring you can employ more sophisticated tactics, but I didn't mention such things because they aren't required in the context of self defence.

Just because you can make something more complicated doesn't mean the simplified version "needs" to be more complicated to work; as evidenced by the video.

Strategies are indeed a type of principle, in that a principle is a rule that one adapts to the situation.
Sun Tzu's art of war would not be much use to business leaders if strategies weren't adaptable ideas.

The power generation you mention comes under the bracket of Mechanical principles. The setups and traps you mentioned are Tactical principles and together with the Strategic principles these 3 areas define the totality of any given fighting system (at least that's the theory I work from).

That being said,

Well, you were asking about other people's systems, if I recall correctly. So I'm just telling you like i see it.

I never said it's the only way. But it is the way that makes the most sense to me.

 

[DaveB]

Well, you were asking about other people's systems, if I recall correctly. So I'm just telling you like i see it.

I never said it's the only way. But it is the way that makes the most sense to me.

No worries.

As I said before I am curious about your style, both in strategy and training. It would be great if you could elaborate.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think that though it may not have been expressed, strategies are usually still decipherable from elements such as forms and core mechanics.

As I mentioned, I've never encountered a teacher who didn't hybridise his training at least a little. No two classes are the same even within a big style like Shotokan, hence the whole guest instructor thing.

Surely if it were the training that made the style, and every class trains differently, then each class is it's own style and commonalities between aikido groups or wing chun branches are irrelevant?

There are differences within a style, true enough. There are some things that are fairly common within a style, and may differentiate it from other styles. In this, I'm speaking of where two styles are similar in approach (strategy, overall techniques, etc.), but have an easily identifiable difference in how they train.

It's not all styles that differentiate this way, but some surely do.

 

[DaveB]

There are differences within a style, true enough. There are some things that are fairly common within a style, and may differentiate it from other styles. In this, I'm speaking of where two styles are similar in approach (strategy, overall techniques, etc.), but have an easily identifiable difference in how they train.

It's not all styles that differentiate this way, but some surely do.

Can you give an example?

 

[drop bear]

Pre-fight.

Can your fighting philosophy be reimagined to offer you guidance on managing the environment/positioning or even the verbal exchanges that lead to conflict?

I mentioned the aiki redirection of aggression used to difuse a conversation example. Another might be to build on the Ali strategy, looking to move to a more spacious or uncluttered area/ increasing the space between you/ responding to verbal aggression with calm non-aggression interspersed with warnings about consequences either violent or legal (evade and jab)...

You could take that last one further and wait for a sign of hesitation or wavering resolve to launch an all out pre-emptive assault.

Basically converting your ring strategy to real world self defence.

There are elements you can build off.

Cage craft is a science of controlling the environment you fight in. And you have to be aware of where you are at all times. You also have to be aware enough of your surroundings to listen to your corner and then apply their instructions.
Cutting off the Cage in MMA
The training itself is never done in a vacuume. Sparring you have to watch out for other guys. going off the mat or even hitting things like the fridge.
There is a lot of tactics applied in MMA and that helps you plan an approach and adapt to different situations under stress.

As far as verbal exchages. You get trained in that because you are expected to meet the guy you fight. We as a school don't engage in pre fight duchebaggery. So a level of mental control is essential.

 

[drop bear]

Strategy and principles are not the same thing. Principles are the engine that drive and power your techniques. Strategy/tactics is how you approach a confrontation, how you create opportunity to apply your techniques.

On some level, yes you always need to pay attention to distance. But, in a competition such as a boxing match, you have time to develop more sophisticated strategies, things like fakes and setups to lure an opponent into a trap. When a fight is scheduled to go a certain number of rounds or minutes, you can employ a lot more sophisticated strategy like that. You are facing an opponent who is also trained, you both know the terms of the confrontation, and you both approach the fight with some level of caution.

In a fight, you are looking to end it very quickly. You are not there willingly ( unless you are the instigator, and then you are a predator and an a-hole) you don't know your opponents level of training or experience, and You don't have time to set traps. You need to drop him right now. So you need to be very direct and very aggressive.

Why do you think guys in a ring fight wait and watch and test?

I mean they dont want a fight to go longer than it needs to either.

 

[JP3]

So anyway, cats out the bag, so perhaps a rephrase will help.

How does your fighting art fight? How does it win?

My art? Well, I am personally coming to the point of view that aikido takes a really long time to get good enough at if by itself, it's probably best to have come to aikido after reaching proficiency in at least one other art, preferably two -- a grappling art and a striking art, so that you can really take advantage of both types of opportunities. The two types are: 1) things you can roll with, go with, expand/contract just a bit, or extend/shorten slightly, to gain advantage; and 2) Things you can blow up or blow through.

My personal skill set has at least passing competence with grappling and striking both, and my wind is still pretty good, so -- barring getting pre-empted by Geoff Thompson or some such -- I'm most likely to stay loose, conservative and a bit on the extended range side if possible, and get in a tight clinched position if not, and just hand out until I find out what the other guy is good at. Then, I'm going to do the thing that he's not good at, i.e. attack his weakness. If he's got to stand up to fight long range at me with strikes, I'm either going to come in tight, leg-kick the bejeezus out of his favorite support leg and throw him when the opp presents.... like that.

Of course, it'd be my luck that the guy was already a BJJ black belt and was just reacting witht he thing he's been most-recently training, such as boxing or savate or whatever and then wouldn't that be just a wonderful tactical move, eh!

 

[DaveB]

My art? Well, I am personally coming to the point of view that aikido takes a really long time to get good enough at if by itself, it's probably best to have come to aikido after reaching proficiency in at least one other art, preferably two -- a grappling art and a striking art, so that you can really take advantage of both types of opportunities. The two types are: 1) things you can roll with, go with, expand/contract just a bit, or extend/shorten slightly, to gain advantage; and 2) Things you can blow up or blow through.

My personal skill set has at least passing competence with grappling and striking both, and my wind is still pretty good, so -- barring getting pre-empted by Geoff Thompson or some such -- I'm most likely to stay loose, conservative and a bit on the extended range side if possible, and get in a tight clinched position if not, and just hand out until I find out what the other guy is good at. Then, I'm going to do the thing that he's not good at, i.e. attack his weakness. If he's got to stand up to fight long range at me with strikes, I'm either going to come in tight, leg-kick the bejeezus out of his favorite support leg and throw him when the opp presents.... like that.

Of course, it'd be my luck that the guy was already a BJJ black belt and was just reacting witht he thing he's been most-recently training, such as boxing or savate or whatever and then wouldn't that be just a wonderful tactical move, eh!

The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.

Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position?

That would allow you to take the fight to the opponent and try to end things as quickly as possible, minimising their opportunities to do the same to you.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.

Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position?

That would allow you to take the fight to the opponent and try to end things as quickly as possible, minimising their opportunities to do the same to you.

One of my early instructors was a police officer, and his approach (which seemed to work well for him) was to assume what they do first (their go-to) was what they were best at. So, if they wanted to box, he'd grapple. If they wanted to grapple, he boxed.

 

[Flying Crane]

No worries.

As I said before I am curious about your style, both in strategy and training. It would be great if you could elaborate.

Our training methods are difficult to describe without being able to show, but we use a full-body rotation as a mechanism for generating power. To develop this, we practice a lot of rotating back and forth, both by itself and with technique, to learn that body connection. You could say that the movement is exaggerated, as we feel that helps engrain that full-body connection, helps you understand it and make it automatic. Once you understand it, then the exaggeration can be dropped during actual use and application, while still getting the power from that full body connection.

In use, there is a philosophy of all or none. If it is worth fighting over, then you fight with the intent to utterly destroy. If it isn't worth destroying, then perhaps it isn't worth fighting over. That is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of fighting, that it is not a game.

I also realize that is an ideal that is not always practical in modern society. So, for what it's worth.

At any rate, this makes for a very aggressive system of all out attack, with very powerful techniques. It isn't terribly complicated. I personally feel that a lot of people make all this stuff more complicated than it needs to be.

Without showing it, I don't think i can describe it much better than that.

 

[JP3]

The only problem I see with that strategy is that by the time you work out what he's not good at, the thing he is good at may have laid you out already.

Might it not be more direct to pick something that you are good at and focus on getting it out from any position?

It's been a long, long time since I ran across anyone like that in the first example, save for getting caught by surprise (pre-emptive).

And, the latter technique simply does not exist.

 

[DaveB]

One of my early instructors was a police officer, and his approach (which seemed to work well for him) was to assume what they do first (their go-to) was what they were best at. So, if they wanted to box, he'd grapple. If they wanted to grapple, he boxed.

I get that for the ring but I can't see it for self defence.

 

[DaveB]

Our training methods are difficult to describe without being able to show, but we use a full-body rotation as a mechanism for generating power. To develop this, we practice a lot of rotating back and forth, both by itself and with technique, to learn that body connection. You could say that the movement is exaggerated, as we feel that helps engrain that full-body connection, helps you understand it and make it automatic. Once you understand it, then the exaggeration can be dropped during actual use and application, while still getting the power from that full body connection.

In use, there is a philosophy of all or none. If it is worth fighting over, then you fight with the intent to utterly destroy. If it isn't worth destroying, then perhaps it isn't worth fighting over. That is an acknowledgement of the seriousness of fighting, that it is not a game.

I also realize that is an ideal that is not always practical in modern society. So, for what it's worth.

At any rate, this makes for a very aggressive system of all out attack, with very powerful techniques. It isn't terribly complicated. I personally feel that a lot of people make all this stuff more complicated than it needs to be.

Without showing it, I don't think i can describe it much better than that.

Thanks for the effort, I will try and look it up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I get that for the ring but I can't see it for self defence.

He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.

 

[drop bear]

He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.

Doesn't really make sense though. If someone tries to punch you you generally want to deal with that punch. if they grab you you want to deal with the grab.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Doesn't really make sense though. If someone tries to punch you you generally want to deal with that punch. if they grab you you want to deal with the grab.

Yes, you deal with the punch. Grappling doesn't ignore punches - it just doesn't respond to them with punches.

I've found reasonable success following his strategy, even with partners within the same art. If they come in ready to spar/strike, I want to confound that, and I find attacking their structure with grappling is the quickest way. If they want to grapple, I'd like to keep them away, and strikes are the best way (generically, paired with my movement) to keep them at a distance.

Of course, if I know them and know where their strengths are compared to mine, that can change the equation. One of my partners was also training in Shotokan. If he wanted to grapple, I grappled, because I wasn't going to win a striking contest with him. If one of the purple belts came at me wanting to grapple, I'd grapple, because I knew I had the upper hand there, and they were less likely to slip in a throw/takedown on me than to slip in a punch.

 

[DaveB]

He wasn't in the ring. He was talking about dealing with someone as a LEO.

I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I suppose if your talking about a first response to a first attack rather than circling and feeling them out ring style it makes sense.

That's pretty much it. People tend (not always, but a decent general rule) to lead with their most confident attack. People who are strong at striking and weak at grappling will tend to come in striking. Someone who is confident in both could lead with either, so there's not much to lose in that case, assuming you're reasonably equally confident in both, yourself.