Ok, first lets all just calm down a bit. The first part of this post is exactly what I have been asking for the whole thread, a detailed explination of why you think the technique wouldn't work. Thats good, but there is no reason to get upset here. Just a thought, you may want to, in the future, refrain from using an exlimation point! at the end! of each sentence! It tends to give your posts a tone of anger.
Now....
SAVAGE said:
Ok there seems to be some confusion as to what I am trying to say...this is it in a nut shell....a shoot doesnt start with laying on of hands (were trying to hurt not heal...a shoot happens to close the distance so that we can take out the legs...that is the shoot and yes shoots are usually set up but for the sake of this thread lets not set it up and just look at the shoot!
I'm confused now. "Laying on of hands" were your own words. Now they are invalid? I can't seem to follow your thinking in this thread. In this one post you say a shoot doesn't start with contact then you say it is usually setup with contact. Which is it? Are you refering to a shoot as a technique that continues forward, where there is no stopping point, it can continue forward and cover an infinite amount of space? Like a crawling type move?
SAVAGE said:
Right here is a problem....a shoot is not a flying tackle...you would be hard pressed to see a flying anything come from a grappler....it is a low leg charge...it is not a slow motion...it is quick and if you are drawing in a person (drawing futher forward), he is in range to grab your other leg for a single leg takedown...you see a shoot is a double leg takedown...that turns into a single leg takedown when a opponent steps back! What I am saying is that you step your right leg back.....that brings your left leg forward!
I dont recall the article saying anything about a flying technique. I think your trying to apply the article's technique to a different type of attack than it was intended for. There is nothing in the article that makes me think he was talking about any other form of attack than "a lunging/diving attack". In fact, the word "shoot" doesn't even appear in the article at all. We have to be honest about what the article is refrencing. A crawling type "shoot" where you can continue forward and cover an unlimited amount of space is most assuredly not what he is refering to in this article.
Now, the point about leaving your leg exposed is a good one. I wouldn't go so far as to say it "brings your left leg forward", but it could leave it in front of your body and exposed. However the article addresses this, lets look....
Article said:
Now, the difference between this type of footwork and that which I described previously (the "knife" form footwork) is that instead of drawing the left foot back in line with the right foot as described above, the left foot is pulled right back so that it is in much the same position as it would be when I do a pivot, or the stepping in the 'Cham Kiu' form. To use the clock-face model again, the right foot is at the 5 o'clock position while the left foot is now pretty much on the 6 o'clock spot. Against a weapon, such as the pole, this is a safety measure because the "normal" side-step ('Tui Ma') action would leave the front leg open to attack from the longer weapon (against empty hands it's ideal, for trapping, etc., but against a longer weapon, it remains vulnerable, both to attack and balance problems), so by pulling the front leg further back in this exaggerated fashion, it draws it out of the line of fire.
Now, if we apply this same strategy to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.
Ok, so we see that leaving the foot out in front, in the line of fire, is specifically addressed. The key is the first foots movement. If your standing in a fighting posture and your left foot is in front, when you go to move your right foot diagonally backwards, you must move it far enough to the right to be outside of the attackers line of movement, otherwise you do run a great risk of getting single legged. Once that leg is out of the line of attack, the left leg can shoot backwards and it causes your body to pivot or twist with the forward motion of the attacker, alowing you to not only avoid the forward attack, but move to a more advantageous angle or position. Its all about feel as the article mentions "under consideration". Its a yielding type of technique where your initial movement is getting the right foot outsdie range, then twisting the waist, yielding the waist to allow your body to twist with the forward momentum of the attacker. This also allows for you to make contact with the attacker and manipulate their center as they continue their momentum.
SAVAGE said:
So it is taken into account by the shooter!
You misunderstand the phrasing. The article spoke of "ward off". This is not a hit or attack to try and stop or even really hurt the opponent as you implied by quoting the part about the Gracies expecting to be hit. The article is speaking of yielding with the momentum of the attacker and not trying to stop his force. This is why its so important to understand both sides of a debate like this.
SAVAGE said:
Yeah...pulling the left leg in an exaggerated line out of the line of fire leaves the right leg where exactly...all by its lonesome in the front...once again a shoot is a two leg attack! Thsi here wiouldnt prevent a non set up shoot from reaching its target!
You can't read a few lines and take them out of context. See above my explination of moving the right leg first. The article says to move the right leg backwards and what again? To the right. That is saying move the right leg enough that when you drop the left leg back, your not leaving the right leg directly in the line of attack. The only way your right leg stays exposed is if you dont move it to the right enough. In my experiences I like to allready be in contact and as close quarters as possible (clinch) when I do this, but thats just me.
SAVAGE said:
The bold text shows how he is saying that the technique works....no principle....but apply this technique which is used for weapons fighting....sorry I cant see it working...maybe against overweight drunks...but against someone with some skills I doubt it!
Ok, first lets keep the discussion honest. Your taking words to mean things they do not. Lets define the word used here, Strategy: n 1: an elaborate and systematic plan of action. How in the world can you get "technique, no principle" from the use of the word "strategy"? That doesn't even make sense on the surface. He said to apply the same strategy, the same type of movements, the same principles as described against a "lunging/diving" attack. What your trying to imply he is saying is completely false and unsubstantiated.
SAVAGE said:
To learn about philosophy...understand things more...principles (which the article states it is clearly not about)...but not to learn technique if not why would i want to even go to the Dojo I can just learn from every article I read!
- Where does the articel expressly state it is not about principles?
- If you cannot learn something from everything you read you are going to have a tough time in life. You should approach everything from a standpoint of looking for what it can teach you, things will be much easier that way, and you will learn more.
- This is where you misunderstand the intent of writings such as this article and even message boards. It is not meant to teach you application but the teach you a new "strategy" or way o fdoing something. It is up to you to take it, train it, see if it works, and adapt it to your body and fighting. Your approaching these types of articles as static "end all be all" techniques....I dont think even the authors themselves mean for them to be taken that way. Remember this is just one way of dealing with a lunging attack and it was written to people who allready understand yielding, and turning, and the termonology used.
SAVAGE said:
Yes...listen I agree that is what makes this type of writing so dangerous...it CANNOT cover all angles!
- Not "this type of writing"...all writing. Text is static, it can never cover all angles. That must be understood before even reading an article such as this. Otherwise you get nothing from it and its a waste of time to read.
- Before you stated that the shoot was static, had no variables or angles and was effective exactly the same way each time. You stated that as two completely static techniques this one would fail to the shoot. Now, your saying the article just doesn't cover all angles? Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
SAVAGE said:
Right here:
Now, if we apply this same strategy to the rushing/lunging attack under consideration, the outcome is the same: it keeps you out of the reach of the enemy and allows you to outflank his/her position by shifting both backwards and laterally.
That is obviously not saying:"this specific technique done precisely this way will defeat the shoot every time". I dont even understand how you can even think that from that line. :idunno:
SAVAGE said:
thsi is not about Ego...maybe we can reverse the coin and ask why do the wing chun players get deffensive and agressive when someone says ther footwork and defence wont work! This sort of thing doesnt fly!
So you would just ignore the act of answering and simply prefer to reverse the question instead? You dont seem to understand "The Burden of Proof". To simply reverse a question and say it doesn't fly so you dont have to answer it is not honest debate. The fact is your blindly holding to your own biased version of the article even when proof of your misquoting is directly posted. That is why I mentioned ego. It seems you are willing to ignore all proof and fact to simply repeat what you want the aticle to have said, regardless of what it actually did say.
SAVAGE said:
To whom were you refering then?
To you. But you dont seem to be really understanding the posts you read. It seems you are reading everything through a colored view, a viewed based on your own personal biases. You dont give a post chance to even understand what was actually written. Could you point out where in my statement I said you were changing text? I didn't at all. Man, you really ned to slow down and read my posts again, most of this could be avoided as miscommunications.
SAVAGE said:
As for the video...we all know what a shoot is...show us what this side step looks like!
Again, it tends to send a negative tone when you simply reverse all questions and requests for proof on the one asking. Via this medium it is hard to really grasp tone and such, but these types of responses only give the implication that you have no proof or simply cannot answer the asked questions. I'm not saying thats how it is, just that your refusals send that message.
SAVAGE said:
Static or dynamis...variables between equally skilled opponents.....the shoot wins.....I am just saying if the defender/attacker are of equal skill...strength and speed..and whatever else you want to put in as a variable (which doesnt appear in the article as you are so fond of saying)...the shoot will win more times than it fails!
Thats just blind allegience to a technique ignoring all fact and proof. First, we cna make up whatever imaginary reality we want to make everything equal and such, but to say one technique will allways beat another regardless of situations or variables is simply naive. Its unrealistic and only makes me believe you do not have as much fighting experience or understanding as you say you do. I'm normally not one to insist on dropping a discussion, but it seems we are simply on two different places when it comes to the science of fighting. I require a much more realistic "tried and true" method than just simply holding to a belief that a super-duper technique will save me.
SAVAGE said:
As to the rest of your post i think I laid it out in the beggining of this post...as for the unbalanvcing..it is amatter of timing at one point as someone shifts position there body is at a point of less balance...that is when you strike and set them right off...but that is boxing...maybe not in Mighty Wing Chun!
- You spoke of unbalancing without contact...not you must strike them to get them unbalanced. Um...striking is contact.
- I dont study Wing Chun, remember? Maybe you should re-read my posts before posting your own.
- Your attempts to attack me or my "style" are not only weak and elementary but pretty rude and not really debate in my books.
- If this discussion is to continue, lets all try to respect each other and address each other in a polite manner. Lets not stoop to personal attacks and rude behavior, if that happens this thread will be no more, so for the sake of what intelectual discourse is left, lets keep things polite.
SAVAGE said:
I leave this argument now because like me...you are to buull headed to see facts...posting a video wont help because you will only say that the back peddling and stepping to the side is useless...or not how you do it...but yeah good luck with your training and learn how to sprawl...you may just need the back up technique!!
No need to get upset and defensive (or offensive). I would suggest not making huge assumptions about how someone would act in the future, not a wise decision...ever. If you dont want to post video just say so, but dont offer some psuedo insulting reasoning for not needing to provide proof.
We spoke of sprawling earlier in this thread, remember? Sometimes it seems you dont remember what was said from one post to the next. I'm not trying to insult you or anything ,so lets not go there, cool? If you truly through with the discussion then I appreciate your exchange here and wish you luck. If you would like to continue, I'm more than happy to on a polite and respectful level.
7sm
Grappling is a huge part of my training in mantis kung fu and like I said allready, one of our main objectives is unbalancing the opponent and keepign them unbalanced throughout the engagement. You too focused on seperating styles. Its either a grapplers standpoint or a strikers standpoint with you. Thats again what I consider naive. Its not so seperated as you might think...at least with many. 
