What separates a good one-step from a bad one-step?

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm on mobile for now, but there are a couple of yabbits on the one-steps in videos.

I think incorrect distance and timing of one-steps at the beginner level can be okay, so long as it's ironed out in the later belts (i.e. a year or two after starting).

I disagree that it's okay at the beginner level. I can't think of a good reason to allow bad habits at such a fundamental level. I'd rather have them unable to finish the one-step response, but get a correct feed.

I also think some level of timing or distancing is going to be off in an instructional demonstration (and maybe formal test) compared to training. I see this in Muay Thai and BJJ as well. For example, in BJJ, often the uke will have an odd pose, so that the students can actually see the grip that Professor is talking about.

In a paused demo, there will be some issues, because the body has to stop. Distancing shouldn't really be one of them, though. If I demonstrate with incorrect distancing, that's going to affect many other fundamental parts of what I'm demonstrating. So, yeah, we might have to pause to show something, so you end up in an awkward pose and have to put something in a slightly different position to keep balance while I run my mou......er, explain the technique. But I'd want the distancing pretty reasonable, so all the mechanics being shown are proper.

Our Muay Thai drills are typically combinations of 3-5 techniques against an opponent that is defending, but not countering. How are these drills different from one-steps in which the defender does multiple techniques without the attacker countering?

This is one of the places where we have to consider the intent of the one-step. If it's meant to allow the student to practice moving into a technique when their opponent is in a particular position, we might let them practice several at once, rather than having to restart the feed each time. In concept, it's not much different from throwing a combination at the heavy bag. The bag shifts a bit as we move from strike to strike, but it's not fighting back. And I don't know of anyone who'd argue that's not useful practice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The one-steps don't exist in isolation. Sparring is a tool that can help with range and defense.

I will never look down on someone who protects their training partners. The fact that you do makes me scared for your student's safety.

What about that post said anything about not protecting training partners?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which post in this thread did I ever say, "I don't like one step"? I just said, "A good one step is your opponent makes 1 move; you respond with 1 move."

Here are some "one-step" that we trained in my system. We do train one-step. But our opponent can only respond with 1 move. Every one-step train a certain principle/strategy.

1. The leg is longer than the arm.

2. If you don't allow your opponent to put weight on his leading foot, he can't punch you.

3. Pull your opponent's kicking leg to help you to move in.
4. Guide your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm.

5. Borrow your opponent's force and lead him into the emptiness.

I'll point out that it looks in both #2 and #3 that the opponent couldn't reach you. The kick in #3 would maybe have just touched if you hadn't stepped back, but he'd have to really overextend to make any solid contact. It's harder to tell with the punch in #2, given the angle, but it looks like it was passing too far inside (the curve wouldn't reach you). Both of those would create more time to react, less feedback if your timing is off, etc.

Now, that might just be what happened in these because of some specific instruction (like keeping it more open to make it easier to get video). Hard to tell.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with all of this, except point 1. I agree that's definitely helpful, but not needed. You have the option of that, or noticing when your opponent has moved to a weak position of which you know a technique. While it's better to set things up, it's important to always pay attention and see if your opponent gives you any extra openings you can use.

Might be nitpicky, but important.

A lot of my grappling training is oriented toward recognizing a weakness in a position, rather than creating one. Some schools seem to teach NGA entirely that way (I preferred to add resistive sparring and teach how to put people in positions, too). It's a useful skill. I suspect many counter-punchers rely on this, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I was thinking about this. And I don't think it is the main issue.

The problem is with one step. You see the punch then adress that with the appropriate response. Which is an unreasonable expectation at speed.

And why almost nobody can really do random punches the same way.

If the defence was pro active and you were fighting for the angles, distance and timing before the punch was thrown. A punch that falls short probably wouldn't mess you up as much.

(Not saying to fall short. But it is not the mechanism that hinders these drills)

I don't think a one-step has to assume you'll be able to start from zero and execute the response when you see the punch happen. It's a frozen point in time. It's like getting a feed for practicing a single-leg takedown. At that point, you're not practicing what you'd do to make them more likely to commit from that distance, with that angle. If someone shoots a single-leg from an optimal distance and angle (and they're good at it), they're probably going to get it. But we practice countering them from a static start separately from the strategic setup we use to make it less likely they get that optimal distance and angle.

Practicing that static spacing and adding poor distancing for the feed means I'm not really practicing a useful defense against a decent single-leg.

Same all holds true for practicing responses to a punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Bear in mind people coming up with their own defences invites a trip on the crazy train due to the idea that if the person gives you 20 feeds. You need to give 20 different responses to show depth.

Which is the opposite to fighting. If you look at the UFC stat's. There are only about 4 things that work.

True. At the same time, it depends how you want to look at this. If you want me to learn how to analyze things, you need me to experiment with some different stuff. One way of doing this would be to have me come up with a bunch of different responses, then to figure out which ones seem more reliable.

It's not the most efficient path to good fighting, but it serves other purposes, too.

Sometimes we'd spend 30 minutes trying to use a single technique to respond to everything, looking at what would have to happen in the situation to make that technique make any sense. That got students thinking about what really made a given technique "work", making them less likely to force it where it didn't really belong. That's kind of the other side of trying to find as many responses as possible to a given feed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In training, you know that your opponent will step back, and your full powerful punch will miss into the thin air. It will be unwise for you to commit 100% on your punch.

The simple question is if you know that your punch will be blocked, will you still put 100% power into it (even in training)?

You don't have to give full power for a punch to be realistic. I've had students punch at the chest, so they could feel safe actually making contact if their partner failed to counter. It improved both students' learning, and later they were able to give a better (still safe) punch aimed at the head.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1. Lure: give the opponent false impressions, making him feel like he can get you, and leading him to go where you want him to go,

Why do you want to kick your opponent's groin? To lure him to drop his guarding arm so you can punch his face.

"Lure" is MA strategy 101.

 

[marvin8]

Why do you want to kick your opponent's groin? To lure him to drop his guarding arm so you can punch his face.

"Lure" is MA strategy 101.

Agree, luring and action/reaction are essential 101 MA principles. Because if you only tried to punch the opponent's face, he can block you. If you throw a full beat kick to the groin, he may block your kick then, bring his guard up to block your punch to his face.

So, your combination (strategy) is to lure with a half beat groin kick and a full beat punch. This gives you enough reaction time to: as his hands come down, you punch him in the face. Again, the concept of making two punches (or actions) sound like one.

Mike Tyson almost cries explaining this important concept of the "art of fighting."

Hotboxin' with Mike Tyson Clips
Oct 21, 2020

Mike Tyson & Sugar Ray Leonard have a intense emotional talk on hotboxin with Mike Tyson.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Agree, luring and action/reaction are essential 101 MA principles. Because if you only tried to punch the opponent's face, he can block you. If you throw a full beat kick to the groin, he may block your kick then, bring his guard up to block your punch to his face.

So, your combination (strategy) is to lure with a half beat groin kick and a full beat punch. This gives you enough reaction time to: as his hands come down, you punch him in the face. Again, the concept of making two punches (or actions) sound like one.

Mike Tyson almost cries explaining this important concept of the "art of fighting."
Hotboxin' with Mike Tyson Clips
Oct 21, 2020

Mike Tyson & Sugar Ray Leonard have a intense emotional talk on hotboxin with Mike Tyson.

I believe you are talking about much higher-level fighting strategy. The OP's thread may talk about just the beginner level fighting strategy.

A beginner may not understand the meaning of "cheating".

I still remember when I cross trained the Zimen system, I was taught how to cheat.

- Pretend I'm afraid.
- Look down on the ground and afraid to make eyes contact.
- Shake my body like a fish.
- Pee in my pants if I can.
- I suddenly jump in, eat my opponent alive, and make him to feel sorry that his mother ever brought him into this world.

 

[JowGaWolf]

You don't have to give full power for a punch to be realistic.

if they can't stop the slow stuff then there's no way they will be able to stop a full power punch at full speed. Say the punch is 20% speed. If they can't stop that then that's where they should practice. Once they can stop that, then they can opt to train at a faster speed. If the punch is getting in and landing on a resisting sparring partner, then it's a realistic punch. I wish I was so skilled that I can block everything that is 90% power /speed and below. Punches get realistic to me at 25% - 35%. from someone at my skill level. That's about the range where I acknowledge to myself that my opponent can land a strike on me at will. If the person is more skilled than me then that percentage is much lower. For example, 5% of Mike Tyson speed would get me into full defense efforts.

 

[marvin8]

I agree with all of this, except point 1. I agree that's definitely helpful, but not needed. You have the option of that, or noticing when your opponent has moved to a weak position of which you know a technique. While it's better to set things up, it's important to always pay attention and see if your opponent gives you any extra openings you can use.

Might be nitpicky, but important.

A lot of my grappling training is oriented toward recognizing a weakness in a position, rather than creating one. Some schools seem to teach NGA entirely that way (I preferred to add resistive sparring and teach how to put people in positions, too). It's a useful skill. I suspect many counter-punchers rely on this, too.

As mentioned in the timing and action/reaction principles, a possible problem is time. After recognizing a weakness in a position, you need to get into position to attack—before the opponent moves. Creating an opponent's weak position can give you more control and time. A stand up grappling example.

Recognizing a weak position: The angle of attack is always the squared position from feet to shoulders. My partner takes a step, I take a step. Now, you’re free to step and throw. What happens is, when you take your first step, he moves and changes his angle. And now you can’t take step number two and actually attack with a good solid throw.

Creating a weak position: I use foot sweep to make my partner take a reaction step back. As my partner takes a recovery step, I step and pull him into the line of attack using his momentum. This blends and disguises my actions. I take my second step while my partner's foot lands and throw him with Seoi nage.

https://imgur.com/IzmmN07

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A lot of my grappling training is oriented toward recognizing a weakness in a position, rather than creating one.

The problem is if you

1. wait for opportunity, your timing is controlled by your opponent.
2. create opportunity, your timing is controlled by yourself. For example, when to throw a groin kick and force your opponent to drop his arm is controlled by you.

IMO, 1 < 2.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Creating a weak position:

This is the opposite of 1-step.

I do believe that 1-step is for beginners. "creating opportunity" is for more advanced players.

 

[jks9199]

This ^^^

If I could pick one bad habit to fix that I see in many, many karate, TKD, and kenpo schools, it would be the practice of drills where the attacker throws a fully extended punch which comes up 6 inches (or more) short of the defender and then leaves the punch hanging while the defender goes through a sequence of counters. To my mind, the incorrect range is worse than the punch being left extended and worse than the defender getting multiple moves to theLa attacker's one. That incorrect range makes the timing wrong. It makes the angles wrong. It makes the footwork wrong. It alters the techniques that will work. It basically messes up everything.

BTW, just to make sure I wasn't misremembering the prevalence of the problem, I went on YouTube and searched for TKD one-step sparring. I went through the first 8 results and 6 of the 8 had the attacker stepping in with a fully extended punch which came up anywhere from 2 to 8 inches short of the target. Note - all of the demonstrations were by black belts.

I think that one-step drills can have value, but performed this way I think they are worse than useless.

Late to the party... but I think that one-step or similar exercises lost their focus and became mere exercises. They're reflections of the paired kata found in many Japanese arts, or of partner drills and even pad work in boxing.

Done properly, they're solid exercises that allow participants to practice sequence, and, over time, the senior can instruct the junior in the functional applications of the art's techniques and principles. IF you do a partner drill, and your partner simply feeds the punch so that you block, and do 37 things before the attacker responds, all you're doing is shadow dancing. Especially if the attack never even reaches the range to do harm... Move a foot or so closer, so that if you don't move right, you get punched. When you get that down, let your attacker begin doing more than just stand there.

But that's if done properly. Unfortunately, as you say, most often they've become static exercises where the attack if fed, and the response is rote, with no action or reaction or "making it more real" by moving the target, by taking advantage of gaps in the defense or counter...

 

[jks9199]

Some folks assume if it's banned in UFC it's because it doesn't work...

Guns and knives are banned in the UFC because it's a sport... That doesn't mean they don't work.

A little facetious, sure.. but there are reasons why they ban techniques that go way beyond "they don't work." They may be too injurious, or they may tend to cut a fight too short for "bad" reasons. If every fight is 20 second knockout or tap-out... Then there's not a lot of time for advertising, or buying drinks and food at the arena... People won't watch, the arena won't book events, advertisers won't buy time... UFC IS a business, right?

You were asking "what makes a good one-step?" It should be a practical technique, in that it makes sense for the attack, for the range, and demonstrates a solid and reasonable technique or principle.. It should be capable of being practiced at a realistic range and speed -- though it may not start that way until the student has the flow/concept down. Once the basic understanding is reached, it should be able to be "unpacked" into different situations or less ideal feeds or reactions to it.

 

[skribs]

Guns and knives are banned in the UFC because it's a sport... That doesn't mean they don't work.

I didn't claim to be one of those that thought that way. In fact, this is the line I use when I hear that. I'm just saying, there are people that think that way.

 

[drop bear]

Guns and knives are banned in the UFC because it's a sport... That doesn't mean they don't work.

A little facetious, sure.. but there are reasons why they ban techniques that go way beyond "they don't work." They may be too injurious, or they may tend to cut a fight too short for "bad" reasons. If every fight is 20 second knockout or tap-out... Then there's not a lot of time for advertising, or buying drinks and food at the arena... People won't watch, the arena won't book events, advertisers won't buy time... UFC IS a business, right?

You were asking "what makes a good one-step?" It should be a practical technique, in that it makes sense for the attack, for the range, and demonstrates a solid and reasonable technique or principle.. It should be capable of being practiced at a realistic range and speed -- though it may not start that way until the student has the flow/concept down. Once the basic understanding is reached, it should be able to be "unpacked" into different situations or less ideal feeds or reactions to it.

Guns and knives tend to fall in to the classic bullshido category though.

Short courses, no sparring, static drills, evidence from anecdotes appeal to authority for days, top down innovation. No standard.

 

[drop bear]

True. At the same time, it depends how you want to look at this. If you want me to learn how to analyze things, you need me to experiment with some different stuff. One way of doing this would be to have me come up with a bunch of different responses, then to figure out which ones seem more reliable.

It's not the most efficient path to good fighting, but it serves other purposes, too.

Sometimes we'd spend 30 minutes trying to use a single technique to respond to everything, looking at what would have to happen in the situation to make that technique make any sense. That got students thinking about what really made a given technique "work", making them less likely to force it where it didn't really belong. That's kind of the other side of trying to find as many responses as possible to a given feed.

Self defence really should be about efficiency though.

 

[drop bear]

I didn't claim to be one of those that thought that way. In fact, this is the line I use when I hear that. I'm just saying, there are people that think that way.

Ok. It doesn't matter if it works in the UFC or not.

It does need to have the case being made to be supported with evidence.

And the UFC is a really easy device to gather that evidence to support a case.