You always attack first

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh I realize that.

But I also realize....

You protect yourself first and foremost.

If you are honest and truly defending against a reasonable threat you should have no problem. There is nothing that says you have to wait for the attack for it to be self defense.


It's like that old myth of waiting for them to shoot before you shoot....no....you perceive the attack is imminent and you are in danger....you now can take appropriate actions.

I think the issue is that there are relatively few scenarios where it is actually clear that an attack is imminent, before the attack is present.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I like that approach. And tactically, it fits my personality. I am a patient man in real life, I have a very slow burning fuse, I'm good at verbally de-escalating situations. And I do not take bait at all. The only difference from what you said, for, me, is if my opponent attacks first - I'm flying straight into him. It has been my experience that when a person attacks, the very last thing that know how to deal with is their perceived target attacking them with much speed and vigor.

Sparring/training - I wait, trying to lull or trying to counter, then charge with total commitment. Competing - same thing. One of my greatest enjoyments in life is closing distance.

Rolling - I suck, I just keep moving.

Agreed, on all points. And I keep getting worse on that last point. Or other people are getting better. Maybe both.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Ha. That.
Exactly what I was talking about.

Where is @gpseymour?

Eh? What?? How did I miss this??

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't always attack first I assess the situation. As always I assume the worse.
Preemptive strikes may be legal but they are more tricky to plead your case even when stand your ground is legal.

Saying I want to punch you is a slippery slope for preemptive strikes and stand your ground. Someone approaching you and getting close to your face saying it while their finger touches your head a better case.

A lot really depends on the situation at hand.
On the most part, I wouldn't preemptive strike.

I agree with this on the whole. When we practice defensive scenarios, I rarely strike pre-emptively (because there are only a few scenarios where that would be justified/justifiable). But when someone makes it clear they are going to attack, but doesn't do so immediately, it's my turn.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The advantage that you attack first are:

- You will have less change to fall into your opponent's trap (set up).
- You force your opponent to fight your way and not his way.

I'm not sure either of those are proven to follow from your starting point. Someone could taunt you into attacking, so they get to be the "defender" (and many defenses are easier from there, including a legal defense), and just because you attack, you don't necessarily get to change how they fight (again, if they are anticipating your attack).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

this is how you do pre emptive strikes,

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.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

only by a tenth of a second or so

Where are you getting that number from, Jobo?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have always loved those terms such as:

- preemptive self defense.
- help someone to go to heaven.
- help someone to end his misery life.
- help someone to be with his passed parents.
- help someone to reconstruct his ugly face.
- help someone to get ride of his useless body part.
- ...

You forgot, "put them down for a nap".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The problem about a counter fighter is he may fall into his opponent's set up.

For example, When your opponent

1. kicks at your groin, if you drop your guard, you may expose your face for his punch.
2. throws a back fist at you, if you block it, his groin kick may come right after.
3. sweeps your leading leg, you may raise your leg, or put more weight on that leg. In either case, his punch will come toward your face.
4. uses a flying side kick at your leading leg knee joint from a 45 degree downward angle, it can put you in defense mode right at that moment. That will be his advantage.
5. circles around you, if you turn with him, you are fighting the way that he wants you to fight.
6. ...

In all chess games, whoever makes the 1st move will have advantage.

Chess is a turn-based game. Fights are not. Yes a counter-fighter "may" fall into his opponent's set up. Likewise, his opponent may fall into his. It comes down to the better fighter.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Agree! The counter fighter assumes that

- his opponent's attack is always real. What if his opponent's attack is fake?
- he can be faster than his opponent. What if his opponent is faster than him.
- ...

To avoid a problem is better than to let the problem to happen and then try to fix it. IMO, the counter fighter lets a problem to happen. To avoid the problem is don't give your opponent the space and time to generate his powerful and fast punch in the first place.

Those are strawmen. A good counter-fighter does not always assume every attack is real. If he does, he's not a good counter-fighter. He also doesn't depend upon being faster. All he needs is to create the right opening.

 

[Paul_D]

It also makes it look like you cold-cocked a guy for no observable reason (on a security camera).

Which is why you have to familiarise yourself with your local laws, and ensure that the necessary key phrases are used in your statement to the Police.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I just told you the reason why it's important, especially when the OP is suggesting that "going first" is alwyas better. I'm saying it's not necessarily so.

And most to maybe all (since I didn't read all the posts), aren't saying this at all.

Everyone I've trained with for any length of time defined a "counter punch" as any punch that starts after the other guy's punch.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You don't know what a "counter" as a opposed to a "return" is, do you?

You're asserting that everyone must use those terms the same way you do. I've never used the term "return" in the way you imply. We've always had a different usage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Apparently, if you can't articulate nor argue your sets of terminology vs. mine...and what Pro Coaches use (because I just didn't make it up); then it's probably a good idea if you want to resemble someone of such knowledge.

You're assuming "Pro Coaches" use a terminology that is universal to martial arts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Which is why you have to familiarise yourself with your local laws, and ensure that the necessary key phrases are used in your statement to the Police.

Those can help, but security footage is still there. Statements don't erase video.

I'm not saying those tactics shouldn't be used. It's just a contradiction in objectives that's inherent in self-defense considerations.

 

[Psilent Knight]

when someone makes it clear they are going to attack, but doesn't do so immediately, it's my turn.

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!

 

[FriedRice]

I don't know, I haven't been in a pro boxing gym in 15 years.

But, I don't think the word "confuses" fits in this discussion, it's not a matter of people confusing anything with anything else. It's just terminology. As for pro boxing gyms, I've been in many. And in those gyms, not all trainers use the exact same terms. But there was never any confusion, because it's all in context with what's being done at that time. And people weren't there for words and terms, they were there for training and prep.

I've been in and around boxing since I was a kid, trained with a lot of folks. I'm completely familiar with the term "return", have used it myself, but don't really any more. At a certain level, returns and counters kind got lumped together. Counters are also sometimes called "intercepts", and outside of the boxing gym, some of us use the term "time framing" to encompass all of it.

In 79 I had dinner with Tommy Hearns. I think he was 22 and 0 at the time. For three hours we talked boxing and fighting in general. It was a lot of fun. In that conversation I don't think either of us used "return', we just spoke it as counter. I trained many times with Ray Leonard, sometimes we'd use the term "return" but most times we wouldn't.

So, maybe it's a generation thing. Years ago we would describe you as a popcorn, no disrespect intended, it was just used in a descriptive sense, but that's not used much any more. Look, bro, I know you want it to be THE terminology used by everyone, but it ain't.

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?

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

Many people like to train "If you attack me with ..., I'll respond with ...".

I like to train, "When I attack, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". In other words, all my training is to attack my opponent when he is "on guard".

If my opponent attacks first, I'll jump back to remain distance, I then jump back in and attack. IMO, this strategy can make fight simple.

What's your opinion on this approach?

I agree entirely with your philosophy, but my personal approach is slightly different. If the opponent attacks first, I prefer to close the gap between us as soon as possible. Rather than jumping back, I usually respond with an attack of my own (90% of the time I'll use a low kick or slide step to close the distance really fast while the opponent is in mid-advance). Once a bridge forms and the gap is closed, I try to stick to the opponent as much as possible. I'll use one hand for defense and the other for striking simultaneously (or else I'll grab hold of the opponent with one hand while attacking with the other). This is just a setup for my takedown. My ultimate goal is to get the opponent on the ground as quickly as possible. I use the dirty little cheap tricks like legsweeps, because they're just so much easier for me personally. Then once they're on the ground I just go into ground-n-pound mode. I'm not too big on wrestling locks and submissions, but if a chokehold presents itself, I'll take it. I'm just more of a dirty fighter I guess (meaning I will kick them while they're down). My approach is very direct and simple, but it's more effective for me personally. As for my philosophy behind this approach, the opponent is only the aggressor, meaning that he is not actually attacking me. On the contrary, he is only moving in to accept my attack. So I agree with that mentality. It makes perfect sense.

 

[drop bear]

Everyone I've trained with for any length of time defined a "counter punch" as any punch that starts after the other guy's punch.

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.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If the opponent attacks first, I prefer to close the gap between us as soon as possible.

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.