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

[skribs]

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.

The problem is when people assume it's the only device.

 

[Earl Weiss]

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

I agree wholeheartedly. Look at the techniques that can take out some of the most highly conditioned humans and stop a fight. The eye poke, the groin shot...

 

[jks9199]

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.

MMA is not really a good place to assess the general effectives of techniques -- it's a very constrained situation. You don't compete in street clothes, opponents are reasonably equal in size and often in experience, you're prepared and you know you're going to be fighting, it's one-on-one... There's a whole litany of issues in equating MMA competition with real world applications.

That's not to say it has no value -- but that value shouldn't be overstated either. Just like sparring, just like one-step or partner drills... We can't really do full-on application because, if the techniques are really effective, you run out of playmates really quick if you go all out.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

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.

All of this could be said about hand to hand. All depends on what style you're looking at.

 

[marvin8]

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.

I agree wholeheartedly. Look at the techniques that can take out some of the most highly conditioned humans and stop a fight. The eye poke, the groin shot...

Instead of techniques, look at the skills (e.g., feint, timing, distance control, positioning, etc.) effectively used in the UFC.

In street vs UFC fights, are the skills the same or different? If different, what are those different skills? Once we identify the skills, we can drill them in step sparring along with a variety of techniques.

 

[drop bear]

The problem is when people assume it's the only device.

The problem is when people show no alternative. And instead jump in to this mystery world of opinion and anecdotes.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In street vs UFC fights, are the skills the same or different?

I will say that in street fights, your skill may work better than in UFC.

For example, when your opponent punches at your face, in

- UFC, you may only have 20% chance that you can kick his belly at that moment.
- street fights, you may have 70% chance that you can kick his belly at that moment.

In street fights, your opponent's defense can be weaker than those that you deal with in UFC. In other words, you may not need that much set up (fake move) in street fights.

 

[skribs]

The problem is when people show no alternative. And instead jump in to this mystery world of opinion and anecdotes.

No. The problem is that you don't accept any alternative.

 

[isshinryuronin]

In street fights, your opponent's defense can be weaker than those that you deal with in UFC. In other words, you may not need that much set up (fake move) in street fights.

Keep it as simple as possible - a good rule. In most street fights shock and awe are usually more effective than fancy feints and combinations. Physical skills and a fierce heart rather than high level tactics. Of course, basic tactics should be employed, but must be matched to the opponent's skill level and mentality to be most effective.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In most street fights shock and awe are usually more effective than fancy feints and combinations.

Speed and power are required to achieve "street fights shock". Both can only be developed through MA training.

 

[marvin8]

In street fights, your opponent's defense can be weaker than those that you deal with in UFC. In other words, you may not need that much set up (fake move) in street fights.

Speed and power are required to achieve "street fights shock". Both can only be developed through MA training.

Keep it as simple as possible - a good rule. In most street fights shock and awe are usually more effective than fancy feints and combinations. Physical skills and a fierce heart rather than high level tactics. Of course, basic tactics should be employed, but must be matched to the opponent's skill level and mentality to be most effective.

I am trying to make it simple, but not vague. So, that one can include important skills in their step sparring. Physical power or strength is an attribute. "You want your technical ability to stand alone, not relying on being faster or physically stronger than your opponent."

Excerpts from "Attributes, Techniques, and Skills:"

One thing I think is essential in training is understanding what each part of your practice is for. What is the goal? Being vague here doesn’t help...

Attributes are intrinsic elements of the practitioner. They might include speed, aerobic endurance, physical strength, flexibility, ability to generate martial power (fajiang or atifa), ability to take a hit/body conditioning, fundamental mechanics, use of peripheral vision, and so on....

Techniques are exactly that. Specific martial applications. For example a kote gaeshi, or seio nage. This category would also include things like tenshin, interactive blocks and strikes, ukemi, throws, kansetsu or shime waza, or how to resist, absorb, or apply specific pressures...

Skills are the means by which attributes are used to apply techniques. These are things like understanding timing, controlling space, and taking and maintaining the opponent’s balance, hitting with power on target on a resisting opponent while moving. Things like being aggressive (in intent, not emotionally), controlling fear, zanshin, ability to observe, and so on are also skills.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Keep it as simple as possible ...

This is why 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.

I think most of 1-step is too complicate. If your opponent punches you, you want to knock/take him down in your 1st move. You don't want to attack him 5 times while he is still standing.

This 1-step is simple.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

Since you quoted me, I’ll respond in a couple of points. Firstly, it’s not always necessary to move into position after recognizing an opening. Moat of the “entry” moves in NGA are continuations from an opponent’s move, meaning they are used when the opponent’s move puts you in position. A simplistic example would be someone going in for a basic hip throw without breaking your structure enough - you can counter without needing a “beat” to set it up, because your setup overlaps their attempt. That’s the point of this approach. Note: it’s less accessible, so less reliable. It works well when it’s available, but works best with a solid foundation that includes the ability to physically manipulate the opponent into position.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

You’re being binary again. It’s a false dichotomy. You can learn to take advantage of openings given, and to create openings.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is the opposite of 1-step.

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

I don’t think it’s necessary that a one-step doesn’t include manipulating them to create an opening. Or, more likely, an option once the opening has been created.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

You’re being binary again. It’s a false dichotomy. You can learn to take advantage of openings given, and to create openings.

You either punch your opponent, or your opponent punches you. It's binary.

 

[marvin8]

Since you quoted me, I’ll respond in a couple of points. Firstly, it’s not always necessary to move into position after recognizing an opening. Moat of the “entry” moves in NGA are continuations from an opponent’s move, meaning they are used when the opponent’s move puts you in position. A simplistic example would be someone going in for a basic hip throw without breaking your structure enough - you can counter without needing a “beat” to set it up, because your setup overlaps their attempt. That’s the point of this approach. Note: it’s less accessible, so less reliable. It works well when it’s available, but works best with a solid foundation that includes the ability to physically manipulate the opponent into position.

I agree with both you and Monkey Turned Wolf, that there may be exceptions to the rule. Apologies if it was taken another way. It was not not meant to be a direct argument, even though I quoted you. It was another example of the action/reaction principle and the possible physics behind it.

“We going to go over movement, body positioning and fighting for position. There’s a third area of judo that never gets discussed that I am aware of. We grip and we attack. But, the one thing the Japanese are really good at is fighting for position. It’s something that a lot of the rest of the world don’t do that often. Because they focus so much on the gripping and the throwing aspect, that they actually forget to battle for position. If you ever trained in Japan for extended periods of time, you will know that your physicality, your strength and your ability to break them down in the first couple minutes is going to go away after a while. Then what you’re going to have to do is, start playing the position game. You’re going to have to learn how to play defense, turn the corner and all that kind of stuff. We’re going to talk about that today just so you guys have a leg up [on the competition].

With Uchi mata, you can take two steps and a full turn [while the opponent stands still]. A great throw, it’s been done in competition. It has been done and it can be done. The problem is it requires one of the things that is not fundamentally sound technique, because it requires speed. You have to be so much faster than your partner in order to accomplish that throw. That’s when you run into trouble. Because if I am slower, it no longer works. You want to make sure the techniques you’re learning today, give you a solid foundation… You don’t want to use your strength and your speed to enter the throw. You want to be able to enter technically and use your speed and strength to throw… This is not next level stuff guys! I’m explaining fundamentals [simple physics]. This is basic stuff.”

​

 

[a.v]

Good one step can be determined by the demonstration of an appropriate understanding of the following, relative to experience and/or grade:
- Timing
- Distance
- Use of range and positioning techniques for intent
- Use of different weapons i.e.: knuckles, mid-knuckles, outer forearm, elbow, heel, etc.
- Application of techniques and acting on expected outcome

One step is a good foundational learning tool to introduce the concepts of range, distance, anatomy, strikes and locks before moving to street defense.
It is imperative that, prior to moving on to street defense, the individual demonstrates their proficiency in reacting without being given time to think.

I encourage the use of street defense as an exercise to develop understanding of placement of self, placement of technique, manipulation of joints, effectivity, intent and the aforementioned qualities.

 

[marvin8]

This is why 1 is better than 1,2 and 1,2 is better than 1,2,3.

I think most of 1-step is too complicate. If your opponent punches you, you want to knock/take him down in your 1st move. You don't want to attack him 5 times while he is still standing.

This 1-step is simple.

This foot sweep, in a MMA fight, uses the five skills mentioned and seen in the two MMA step drills and judo clip. In BJ Penn vs Lyoto Machida, Machida...

1. controls distance with push/pull footwork, then circles left luring Penn to turn and follow (control) 2. hand fights and listens for Penn to weight the back foot 3. neutralizes incoming force by attacking with foot sweep:

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You either punch your opponent, or your opponent punches you. It's binary.

Aside from the fact that this isn't the situation in question, that's also patently untrue. Grappling can happen that prevents punching. An attempted punch can be blocked, slipped, or otherwise avoided. Distance can be maintained that prevents any punch at all for that beat. There are a lot of options besides the two you present as the only ones.