Which strategy is better?

[Kung Fu Wang]

Which strategy is better in your opinion?

1. A throw jab/cross. B uses double comb hair (or crazy monkey) to block it.

https://imgur.com/THpQgzz

2. A throws jab/cross. B uses double hooks to counter it.

https://i.postimg.cc/vZRvVbXC/Double-Spears-For-Defense-and-Of.gif

 

[JowGaWolf]

Which strategy is better in your opinion?

1. A throw jab/cross. B uses double comb hair (or crazy monkey) to block it.

https://imgur.com/THpQgzz

2. A throws jab/cross. B uses double hooks to counter it.

https://i.postimg.cc/vZRvVbXC/Double-Spears-For-Defense-and-Of.gif

I do one when I'm in a bind but prefer 2. I like #2 because I rather control the incoming punches and counter. #1 is important as well as it will keep me from being KOed from the the incoming strikes.

 

[drop bear]

1 for a bunch of reasons.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

1 for a bunch of reasons.

Do you think to use hook to knock down incoming jab can not be done in the ring?

https://i.postimg.cc/VkxQTF2r/my-hook-against-jab.gif

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Do you think to use hook to knock down incoming jab can not be done in the ring?

https://i.postimg.cc/VkxQTF2r/my-hook-against-jab.gif

I doubt its reliability when you don't know what's coming. You have to be faster than the other punch, because it starts before you do.

 

[isshinryuronin]

You have to be faster than the other punch, because it starts before you do.

I would (just to give you a hard time ) say you are 2/3rds correct as you have covered 2 of the 3 elements of speed. You've got how fast your hook is actually moving, and the timing of action (jab) starting before your reaction.

The third consideration is where your reaction starts in spatial relation to the opponent's initial action. In other words, if your guard is in an extended or other favorable position, you may only need to move your hand two inches to intercept the attack, while the attack may have to travel two feet to hit your face.

So, it is possible that even if the opponent's punch starts first and is moving faster thru space than you, if you have less space to travel than him, you can be in position to intercept the attack prior to impact.

For an even clearer example, visualize a race around a wide track. If one guy gets a few seconds head start and can run faster than you to boot, but has to run the outside lane while you get the inside, you may still win the race. It's not how fast you go, or even when you start, but how soon you get there that counts.

If you can be superior in all three elements you will be very tough to beat.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I doubt its reliability when you don't know what's coming. You have to be faster than the other punch, because it starts before you do.

- Your opponent has to step in. You don't.
- You can lean back to increase the distance if needed.
- Your hook punch can be a very small circle with a small arc.

This idea came from the Chinese spear weapon. A small circle can deflect a incoming spear attack. People had used this principle in battle field during the ancient time.

https://i.postimg.cc/526zmDYV/spear-skill-1.gif

 

[drop bear]

Do you think to use hook to knock down incoming jab can not be done in the ring?

https://i.postimg.cc/VkxQTF2r/my-hook-against-jab.gif

Not really like that. No.

At some point he would get wise to it and fake the jab to a left hook.

 

[Argus]

Um... #1 as demonstrated only works if you're both wearing big bulky gloves. Take those gloves off and you'll find a lot more punches slip through or even damage your hands.
Bare handed, you had better use #2 or something similar.

That said, #1 could be modified to work better without gloves, I think. Just not as demonstrated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would (just to give you a hard time ) say you are 2/3rds correct as you have covered 2 of the 3 elements of speed. You've got how fast your hook is actually moving, and the timing of action (jab) starting before your reaction.

The third consideration is where your reaction starts in spatial relation to the opponent's initial action. In other words, if your guard is in an extended or other favorable position, you may only need to move your hand two inches to intercept the attack, while the attack may have to travel two feet to hit your face.

So, it is possible that even if the opponent's punch starts first and is moving faster thru space than you, if you have less space to travel than him, you can be in position to intercept the attack prior to impact.

For an even clearer example, visualize a race around a wide track. If one guy gets a few seconds head start and can run faster than you to boot, but has to run the outside lane while you get the inside, you may still win the race. It's not how fast you go, or even when you start, but how soon you get there that counts.

If you can be superior in all three elements you will be very tough to beat.

In this case, we are the ones on the outside track. I agree if we only need to cover a few inches, the reaction time might be enough. But that's going to require a guard that's pretty much in the line of the punch. And if you have to move your arms in a way that's slower to accelerate (smaller muscles involved, moving the same mass), it becomes more difficult to catch up. And those are among the reasons I doubt the reliability. There are situations where it's a good choice, but I'd argue they are fewer than the situations where the arm shield is a good choice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

- Your opponent has to step in. You don't.
- You can lean back to increase the distance if needed.
- Your hook punch can be a very small circle with a small arc.

This idea came from the Chinese spear weapon. A small circle can deflect a incoming spear attack. People had used this principle in battle field during the ancient time.

https://i.postimg.cc/526zmDYV/spear-skill-1.gif

So, you're assuming a long entry at the begining of the punch, rather than a punch that comes after an entry (meaning they've closed the distance and are already there when this sequence starts). As for the rest, those require circumstances where those are available and a good idea. Which goes back to the reliability.

Spear strikes this is meant to counter are probably coming from further away than jabbing distance, so you've got a bit more room to work with. That something worked well on a battlefield with a weapon doesn't mean it's equally effective with empty hands. Angles and distance are both changed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Um... #1 as demonstrated only works if you're both wearing big bulky gloves. Take those gloves off and you'll find a lot more punches slip through or even damage your hands.
Bare handed, you had better use #2 or something similar.

That said, #1 could be modified to work better without gloves, I think. Just not as demonstrated.

I don't think we can judge it as not being workable without gloves by viewing how it's used with gloves. He's doing what works best for the context (gloves). It works without the puffy gloves, too. You can see it with the much smaller gloves used in MMA.

 

[RavenDarkfellow]

Which strategy is better in your opinion?

1. A throw jab/cross. B uses double comb hair (or crazy monkey) to block it.


2. A throws jab/cross. B uses double hooks to counter it.

For the purposes of my response, I'm gong to assume that both techniques are performed in such a way and circumstance that they would each work exactly as intended.

With that given in mind, I prefer #2, with a caveat: I assume that in order to "make this work" the head is slipping the jab/cross on either side, putting us in position to throw the counter hook.

The reason I prefer that, is because I would always prefer to be attacking over defending, when possible, in order to end the fight on my terms.

This could devolve into a debate about fundamental attack vs. defense, but I hope we can all agree that you don't END a fight by defending-- either you defend so well that the attacker chooses to end the fight, or else you eventually slip up and get hurt. Therefore, while defense is the appropriate (philosophical) "stance" by default, once the fight has begun some form of offense (even if that comes in the form of a brutal "defense") is necessary.

I find it simplest to remember my ABC's:

Always Be Countering
Always Be Contouring
Always Be Combo-ing.

Osu

 

[drop bear]

Um... #1 as demonstrated only works if you're both wearing big bulky gloves. Take those gloves off and you'll find a lot more punches slip through or even damage your hands.
Bare handed, you had better use #2 or something similar.

That said, #1 could be modified to work better without gloves, I think. Just not as demonstrated.

Not that much modified. You set your hands up a bit higher and you move your head more. (There are also pacing and distancing tricks but that is neither here or there in this case)

 

[drop bear]

For the purposes of my response, I'm gong to assume that both techniques are performed in such a way and circumstance that they would each work exactly as intended.

With that given in mind, I prefer #2, with a caveat: I assume that in order to "make this work" the head is slipping the jab/cross on either side, putting us in position to throw the counter hook.

The reason I prefer that, is because I would always prefer to be attacking over defending, when possible, in order to end the fight on my terms.

This could devolve into a debate about fundamental attack vs. defense, but I hope we can all agree that you don't END a fight by defending-- either you defend so well that the attacker chooses to end the fight, or else you eventually slip up and get hurt. Therefore, while defense is the appropriate (philosophical) "stance" by default, once the fight has begun some form of offense (even if that comes in the form of a brutal "defense") is necessary.

I find it simplest to remember my ABC's:

Always Be Countering
Always Be Contouring
Always Be Combo-ing.

Osu

As far attacking vs defending.

If you defend positionally. Cutting angles, good footwork, head movement. You can attack with both hands. Which is what that cover is kind of designed to do.

So you cover, create a positional advantage and then blast with both hands to get a tactical advantage.

Where as say blocking and striking simultaneously while it works against one punch. Gets beaten by covering moving and striking if there are a lot of punches.

Also. Strategically. If say someone hook into my cover. They open that side to a counter with the cover hand because it has a direct inside line now to their head.

Unless they threw that hook with head movement and foot work.

 

[isshinryuronin]

So, it is possible that even if the opponent's punch starts first and is moving faster thru space than you, if you have less space to travel than him, you can be in position to intercept the attack prior to impact.

I doubt the reliability.

So do I. Was just pointing out that there are other aspects to speed that can have a bearing. Having just one speed element superior to the opponent's is no guarantee of success. Two out of three is better.

If you can be superior in all three elements you will be very tough to beat.

If you are well trained mentally and physically and execute with good form, you can gain the maximum advantage. In self-defense, you can never have too much, and should always strive to gain every advantage possible.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

As far attacking vs defending.

If A keeps throwing left hook, right hook, left hook, right hook, ... non- stop on B like a mad man, do you think A needs to worry about his own defense?

 

[drop bear]

If A keeps throwing left hook, right hook, left hook, right hook, ... non- stop on B like a mad man, do you think A needs to worry about his own defense?

Yes.

 

[CB Jones]

If A keeps throwing left hook, right hook, left hook, right hook, ... non- stop on B like a mad man, do you think A needs to worry about his own defense?

Yes unless he likes eating straight right hands in between the left hook and right hook.

 

[RavenDarkfellow]

If you defend positionally. Cutting angles, good footwork, head movement. You can attack with both hands. Which is what that cover is kind of designed to do.

So you cover, create a positional advantage and then blast with both hands to get a tactical advantage.

So to be clear, I also assume a "dynamic environment" any time we're discussing actual combat strategy. I assume both people are always moving, always performing their fundamentals to the best of their ability. So when you say "attack with both hands" I'm thinking, "We're all, always attacking with both hands" unless you mean to literally throw both hands in an attack at the same time, in which case the only effective sort of that I've encountered comes from grabs, eye-pokes, and ear-claps. I don't think that's what you mean though, so then my retort is:

When you examine the fight in real time, the amount of time between any defense and attack (assuming you're doing each rapidly) is very small. Regardless of whether you engage both hands briefly in a defense, or you cover one side while throwing a strike on the other side, you should be always engaged in active defense; but unless you only count a simultaneous action with both hands at the same time as "attack with both hands", then we're always attacking with both hands. So I guess I don't understand what you mean.

Where as say blocking and striking simultaneously while it works against one punch. Gets beaten by covering moving and striking if there are a lot of punches.

Here, it would seem you're answering my above question, but my position is that this does not answer that question. The breakdown goes like this:

We've presented two scenarios. One in which you attack/cover (let's call it A/C) and one where you defend/move/counter (let's call it D/M).

A/C - The attacker throws, as described in the scenario the original poster set up. The defender goes with option #2, as I described it (with slipping the jab-- and I'll assume for this that both fighters are right-handed for simplicity of examining this-- to the attacker's left, covering his face with his right hand, and launching the right-handed hook. Let's say it whiffs, and the attacker continues his combo with the right cross. The defender now slips the cross to the attacker's right side, covering the right side of his own head with his right hand that just whiffed the right hook he threw, and now launching a hook on the left side for the follow-up.

Of course, this situation is a little unrealistic because while you could possibly do that, it's going to be a pretty low percentage of people who could actually pull it off, requiring perfect timing, great speed, and in most cases significantly weakening at least the initial right hook thrown by the defender, if not both hooks. More realistically, this would be easily corrected by slipping the jab/cross in succession, and only throwing the left hook at the end.


D/M - The attacker throws the jab/cross, you cover up, circle to his left side (again, we're assuming right-handed fighters) and assuming you pulled it off perfectly, with impeccable timing so that he's still recovering the right arm from the cross, you now have time to throw one good punch before he resets his footwork, unless that punch *creates* the opportunity to throw another-- in which case, the A/C response does precisely the same thing, but isn't relying on its own success. The A/C response assumes a return to neutral advantage/disadvantage, and that the fight continues. It seems the D/M response is relying on the original attacker being unable to recover, which will not be the case in most scenarios. The resolution to this D/M is that after the defender moves and strikes once, the original attacker steps his back leg across his centre line to reset toward the defender, and you're at what I call "neutral" again, either way.

I have to admit however, in the course of writing this, I can more clearly see the advantage of the D/M response. It does leave you in a superior position if it all goes exactly as intended. The A/C response still seems a safer choice if it fails however, because even if it misses you're already back to neutral. If the D/M response fails, you didn't get the difficult timing exactly right, the attacker resets position before you gain superior position, and now you're back to neutral without having even thrown an attack. In other words, the attacker got free shots at you (which creates risk), and all you did was change position. If you're just stalling for time, or you have some other reason not to be aggressive, D/M would work better.

Also. Strategically. If say someone hook into my cover. They open that side to a counter with the cover hand because it has a direct inside line now to their head.

Unless they threw that hook with head movement and foot work.

Again, in discussing strategy I'm always assuming both combatants are defending themselves the best they can, therefore he *is* moving his head and feet. Every attack creates an opportunity for the counter attack, thus the "always be contouring" and "countering" part of the ABC's.

Where as say blocking and striking simultaneously while it works against one punch. Gets beaten by covering moving and striking if there are a lot of punches.

Punches in bunches is always assumed. Every single moment of attack and strike creates opportunity for counter/attack. As I'm sure you know, unlike in dojo scenarios, real fights almost never have a single strike for responding to in the most ideal way. The strikes come rapidly, usually sloppily, and even if not they still create an opportunity for counter at each one. The jab/cross combo is possibly the safest dual-strike option because it's really difficult to counter a jab with a hook if there's a cross following it up to cut to the inside; but generally, we are essentially *always* attacking and defending at "the same time". Sure, it's not precisely the same time, but as far as a human is capable of perceiving and moving, it basically is "the same time".