You always attack first

[Buka]

Cool story bro, but are you sure you still remember stuff that happened in '79, at your age though? I didn't claim that all gyms and coaches uses this exact terminology, because in an all or nothing argument, it would just take 1 to prove me wrong. Tell me what's false about how I described a Return vs a Counter?

Oh, heck, there's a ton of stuff I don't remember any more, no argument there. And there's nothing false about what you said, not a thing, it's just a matter of terms used. Again, a lot of it might be generational, but as I thought about this today, a lot of it might be colloquial, too, also might be native to particular areas of the country. In New England, where I cut my teeth, there's all sorts of odd terminology, not used anywhere else in the country (as far as I know) but that's still twenty million people using those terms. Many of them fighters.

We sure do talk funny where I'm from. For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain) But nobody I work with now, ever heard that term, not once. Just had that conversation last week.

 

[jobo]

Oh, heck, there's a ton of stuff I don't remember any more, no argument there. And there's nothing false about what you said, not a thing, it's just a matter of terms used. Again, a lot of it might be generational, but as I thought about this today, a lot of it might be colloquial, too, also might be native to particular areas of the country. In New England, where I cut my teeth, there's all sorts of odd terminology, not used anywhere else in the country (as far as I know) but that's still twenty million people using those terms. Many of them fighters.

We sure do talk funny where I'm from. For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain) But nobody I work with now, ever heard that term, not once. Just had that conversation last week.

stark bollock naked is an expression of complete nakedness. Never heard bollocky use in the uk, but that's not to say it isnt

 

[Gerry Seymour]

THIS!! This sums up my mindset almost perfectly!!

I have seen where some of the posters in this thread brought up legal issues for preemptively attacking a would be attacker. As I expressed already I'd rather take my chances in court than to have my wife and kids having to bury me or take care of me for the rest of my life due to a permanent and irreversible condition I sustained from some lowlife that I failed to preempt.

To me my life and the lives of my loved ones are more important to me than laws that cannot and will not protect me (or my loved ones).

Take Care,
Osu!

In fact, those laws (in most places) respect your right to defend yourself when it is clear (or at reasonable to perceive) that an attack is imminent. I think you and I are close to the same point on this one. I won't preemptively attack someone who looks sketchy, enters my space, and appears to be using a distraction tactic (for that, I'd definitely "code up"). But once I'm reasonably sure there's an actual attack coming, that, as my nephew likes to say, is an entirely different evening.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Cool story bro, but are you sure you still remember stuff that happened in '79, at your age though? I didn't claim that all gyms and coaches uses this exact terminology, because in an all or nothing argument, it would just take 1 to prove me wrong. Tell me what's false about how I described a Return vs a Counter?

I don't think anyone is saying it's false. Just that it's not everyone's usage, so to say others are wrong because they don't use the terms the way you do is not helping the discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

By the way a good counter punch starts before they punch.

Punches are a hell of a lot easier to counter if you have forced them to throw the punch you want.

Okay, I could have been clearer. "Counter" (in my usage) simply refers to a punch that starts after the other person begins a commitment. The "counter-punch" can start before the other punch, but not before their commitment/movement. If it starts before their movement, it's preemptive, not a counter. The counter-punch can also start simultaneous with or slightly behind the timing of their punch. There's a grey space there, rather than a hard line, where it stops being a "counter" and just turns into the next response (what, I gather, is being called a "return" by some). My vague cut-off point on a counter-punch is when the attack stops, reverses, or moves to a next attack. At that point, you're no longer countering that attack, because it is over. Up to that point, including right after blocking the punch if you are blending with it, it's still a "counter". The same goes for counters to grappling techniques.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like to give my opponent at least a chance to back up himself. Some one made the following statement and I like it very much.

If my opponent attack the

- 1st time, I'll back up.
- 2nd time, I'll still back up.
- 3rd time, I'll back up again.
- 4th time, I'll jump back in and eat him alive.

After all, I'm a peace loving person.

I don't have an interest in giving them that much control of the space. I may back up that much, if it suits what I want to do with the situation (perhaps getting me nearer an exit, moving them away from a weapon, getting me out of an enclosed space, etc.), but I'm more likely to close quickly to control them rather than giving way that long.

 

[hoshin1600]

This is one of those areas where there are arguments on both sides. Using this deceptive counter-strike is effective at getting ahead in your defense. It also makes it look like you cold-cocked a guy for no observable reason (on a security camera). Those two points have to be weighed.

i feel like this thread is going all over the place as usual. but to respond to gerry,
one of the problems with Lee Morison is that he was a bouncer. this is different than a casual civilian. he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.
my video was in response to the specific post by the OP. however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging. these are based on the same lethal force standards. the assailant must have intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage.
while Morrison is showing a tactic, he is not giving the context i would like. his context tends to be from a bouncer view point but his tactics are still sound, they just need to be given with a more civilian assault type of context.

 

[Tez3]

For instance, the word "bollocky" which means "naked" is common in New England. (and maybe Great Britain)

Nope, never heard 'bollocky' here, just as jobo has already posted.

. he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.

They may know more legal techniques than non door staff but they certainly can't use any techniques here that aren't 'reasonable' which is what is allowable in law.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i feel like this thread is going all over the place as usual. but to respond to gerry,
one of the problems with Lee Morison is that he was a bouncer. this is different than a casual civilian. he teaches a lot of things that only a bouncer can get away with.
my video was in response to the specific post by the OP. however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging. these are based on the same lethal force standards. the assailant must have intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage.
while Morrison is showing a tactic, he is not giving the context i would like. his context tends to be from a bouncer view point but his tactics are still sound, they just need to be given with a more civilian assault type of context.

Well stated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Nope, never heard 'bollocky' here, just as jobo has already posted.




They may know more legal techniques than non door staff but they certainly can't use any techniques here that aren't 'reasonable' which is what is allowable in law.

I think his point was that they have a different viewpoint. A bouncer who has someone who is being belligerent and won't leave has a different set of obligations and requirements than I do in that same situation at the same bar.

 

[FriedRice]

I like to give my opponent at least a chance to back up himself. Some one made the following statement and I like it very much.

If my opponent attack the

- 1st time, I'll back up.
- 2nd time, I'll still back up.
- 3rd time, I'll back up again.
- 4th time, I'll jump back in and eat him alive.

After all, I'm a peace loving person.

See, this is managing and taking more risk(s) based on your level of training & experience, which I agree with. Yes you could get the crap beaten out of you or end up a paraplegic or even die....if you don't strike first with a Mortal Kombat intent....but you can also go to prison, lose your job and all of your assets w/ your wife & kids ending up living in a van, on welfare... for accidentally killing someone....especially if their lawyer finds out that you're a well trained, chopsocky guy.

 

[FriedRice]

however in general i teach, to use a pre- emptive strike (or engage in any combative behavior) one should have predetermined requirements that need to be met before engaging. these are based on the same lethal force standards. the assailant must have intent, ability and opportunity and you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury. if you dont have these factors then you should not be doing anything but de-escalation and dis-engage. .

Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?

1) If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death? Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.

2) If you're being setup for a mugging....say someone walks up to you and asks for the time or a cigarette.....then he's already within range to suckerpunch you into a KO that may kill you . You can't just attack him, can you? And would you just turn and walk away briskly? Or tell him to "stand back"?

The problem with many SD people is that there are lots of dramatization going on with the Bad Guy scenarios, who are acting all big & bad right from go. But usually, it starts with an accidental bump or a parking space dispute....and then it goes on from there. And from a Bouncer's perspective, like you said, way more extreme.

 

[hoshin1600]

Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?

2) If you're being setup for a mugging....say someone walks up to you and asks for the time or a cigarette.....then he's already within range to suckerpunch you into a KO that may kill you . You can't just attack him, can you? And would you just turn and walk away briskly? Or tell him to "stand back"?

i am thinking you misunderstood or did not read the entire post. what i said was to initiate the attack (preempt) then i would want my three requirements to do so, AND be in fear ..... if these are not there then you should be trying to de escalate and disengage. your scenario has no impact on the decision making process. i dont understand your point. are you suggestion we all walk around punching people out cold everytime they ask what time it is? perhaps you are saying we cant turn and walk away....this is true but what that tells me is that you dont have a varied strategy for disengagment. you should have more options in your tool box then turning your back on the guy and walking away. also in your "asking the time" scenario this is a common tactic for criminals but it relies on ambush. under those situations you do not have a preemtive attack. you do have counter ambush, but thats a different subject.

1) If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death? Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.

as for this scenario as well as your first, your fishing .....
i could have just as easily died in a car accident on my way to the theater or had a mass shooting while i was inside. either i misunderstand your point or you failed to make any point that is pertinent to the conversation.

 

[hoshin1600]

They may know more legal techniques than non door staff but they certainly can't use any techniques here that aren't 'reasonable' which is what is allowable in law.

this..

I think his point was that they have a different viewpoint. A bouncer who has someone who is being belligerent and won't leave has a different set of obligations and requirements than I do in that same situation at the same bar.

things may be different in the UK i dont know but from what i know, a bouncer is working on behalf of the owner and has the right to forcibly remove people from the premises. a casual civilian does not have that.

 

[Tez3]

things may be different in the UK i dont know but from what i know, a bouncer is working on behalf of the owner and has the right to forcibly remove people from the premises. a casual civilian does not have that.

A proprietor has the right to refuse entry but there is no right to forcibly remove here. The law of trespass is a civil law unless criminal damage is involved. If a patron is causing fights then the security staff can treat if as they would if it were a fight on the street and use reasonable force to restrain and usually hold until the police arrive. If they merely want to throw the patron out then they have to use minimum physical means, there are ways such as guiding by the elbow towards the door, because if they injure the person they are liable to be sued. usually police and door staff work together quite well.
Here door staff ( as do security staff in all areas and close protection personnel) have to be licensed. https://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/licensing/sia_get_licensed.pdf

 

[jobo]

Here are the problems to what you're saying though...and when would you strike first?

1) If some drunk gets up in your face while you & your wife have been waiting in line for the past 2 hours to buy tickets to the new Star Wars movie.....would you disengage and drop all of your plans immediately, head for the car and go home? Or would you stay within arm's length and deal with his BS that could lead to this serious bodily injury or death? Because it can take just 1 punch to KO you, and on the way down, your head cracks open on the cement and you die. I have at least 5 real videos of this happening. And technically, if he's in your face already, then he's already a potential death threat.

2) If you're being setup for a mugging....say someone walks up to you and asks for the time or a cigarette.....then he's already within range to suckerpunch you into a KO that may kill you . You can't just attack him, can you? And would you just turn and walk away briskly? Or tell him to "stand back"?

The problem with many SD people is that there are lots of dramatization going on with the Bad Guy scenarios, who are acting all big & bad right from go. But usually, it starts with an accidental bump or a parking space dispute....and then it goes on from there. And from a Bouncer's perspective, like you said, way more extreme.

its you that's being over dramatic, I wouldn't queue for 2 hours for anything, and I mean anything, if it was the last boat out in the zombie apocalypse, id give it 20 minutes and then take my chance. Drunks are easy meat, by the time they think they can fight anyone they can't fight at all. The chances of him hitting me are extremely low, the chance of a hit resulting in death are extremely small, about the same as a piano landing on you at the bus stop , ok not quite that low, but very low

 

[jobo]

A proprietor has the right to refuse entry but there is no right to forcibly remove here. The law of trespass is a civil law unless criminal damage is involved. If a patron is causing fights then the security staff can treat if as they would if it were a fight on the street and use reasonable force to restrain and usually hold until the police arrive. If they merely want to throw the patron out then they have to use minimum physical means, there are ways such as guiding by the elbow towards the door, because if they injure the person they are liable to be sued. usually police and door staff work together quite well.
Here door staff ( as do security staff in all areas and close protection personnel) have to be licensed. https://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Documents/licensing/sia_get_licensed.pdf

you picked me up on that the other day, but you are incorrect, there is indeed a right to use reasonable force to remove trespassers'in the uk. There is also a criminal offence of of refusing to leave a licienced premises when asked

 

[FriedRice]

its you that's being over dramatic, I wouldn't queue for 2 hours for anything, and I mean anything, if it was the last boat out in the zombie apocalypse, id give it 20 minutes and then take my chance.

Some people do, are you saying they don't exist? This was just an example of being in public somewhere, sheesh.. You're so cool, you sneak in through the back door or hole in the fence with your pack of cigarettes under the sleeve of your white t-shirt, right?

Drunks are easy meat, by the time they think they can fight anyone they can't fight at all. The chances of him hitting me are extremely low,

Good job in agreeing with me that attacking first isn't always the best choice.

the chance of a hit resulting in death are extremely small, about the same as a piano landing on you at the bus stop , ok not quite that low, but very low

Maybe you don't have much to lose should you get sued, etc. and maybe what's also in question would be your knock out power + precision.

 

[FriedRice]

i am thinking you misunderstood or did not read the entire post. what i said was to initiate the attack (preempt) then i would want my three requirements to do so, AND be in fear ..... if these are not there then you should be trying to de escalate and disengage. your scenario has no impact on the decision making process. i dont understand your point. are you suggestion we all walk around punching people out cold everytime they ask what time it is? perhaps you are saying we cant turn and walk away....this is true but what that tells me is that you dont have a varied strategy for disengagment. you should have more options in your tool box then turning your back on the guy and walking away. also in your "asking the time" scenario this is a common tactic for criminals but it relies on ambush. under those situations you do not have a preemtive attack. you do have counter ambush, but thats a different subject.

as for this scenario as well as your first, your fishing .....
i could have just as easily died in a car accident on my way to the theater or had a mass shooting while i was inside. either i misunderstand your point or you failed to make any point that is pertinent to the conversation.

You misunderstood everything I said, pretty much.

I was saying, when would you detect any or all of these "fear" qualifications of yours, before you strike ....when some stranger of the street has just gotten up close to you, within arm's length already....by, ie. asking for a cigarette.... and therefore, can sucker-punch you?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The following match happened just 2 years ago.

I met a WC instructor. We discussed the WC Bong Shou (pic b). I told him that I didn't agree with exposing elbow to opponent. He disagreed. He asked me to punch him. I did.

- I delivered a right jab to his face.
- He used right WC Bong Shou (pic 1) to block my right punch (this is called "wrong Bong", a wrong move in WC).
- My right punch easily slide down to his wrist (because that 45 degree downward angle).
- My left hand pushed his right elbow joint up (I tried to apply an arm lock on him).
- He changed his WC Bong Shou into WC Tang Shou (pic a) by dropping his right elbow down.
- I used my left hand to take over my right wrist control (as shown in the following clip).
- I then used my right hand to grab on his left arm on the wrist.
- I pushed his left arm against his own right arm and also against his body.
- He could not move and could not break away my double arms control.
- I let go my hands. Nobody got hurt. We both lived happy ever after.

If I let him to throw that first punch, I don't think the outcome could be the same. Can I achieve "double arms control" while my opponent's fists are flying? I don't think I can. Can I achieve this while my opponent is "on guard"? I think I have good chance to achieve that.