One good reason for an angled stance.

[JowGaWolf]

Which is pretty accurate.

It's how all living things are categorised, but using words...

So for fauna (flora is slightly different, but sane structure) you have Kingdom : phylum : class : order : family : genus : species : subspecies : variant.

You can use the same structure for any technique, then apply an abbreviation, then assign a personal base number, then weight that number with variables that affect effectiveness...

Yeah but I wouldn't expect the same results from a Chihuahua that I would from a Pit bull. That's like selling a guard dogs and telling the buyer. " Meh.. Chihuahua , Pit bull same thing. Yes they are both dogs but they definitely are not the same thing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'm word vomiting a bit but the wife just left for the beach with the 3-yo so I have time to wax poetic.

get it in while you can

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh ok. I misunderstood before. That's why I was saying that for forms one could show the math because Forms would be constant enough.

No it's actually an accurate example. If I see that you are planning a specific attack or defense, then I already know that you are expecting a specific out come. I can literally show how this plays out through in one of my videos. In the video.

My plan was 1+2=3. As long as she threw 1 straight jab I could do 2 things (redirect and counter with a hook) as a response. I had planned for the exchange to consist of 3 actions that would get me to my target. She threw in an additional action so instead of 1+2 she gave me a 2+2 She did her 2nd action the same time I did mine and we hit each other in the head at the same time. I think it took me 3 punches to my face to understand that 2+3= 5 is what I should have used against her.

1+2 = 3 works, but not against her or anyone who decides to throw more than 1 punch. After that I paid more attention to her. I could tell when she was going to try something new. When I picked that up I added another action to the equation because I knew it would mess up her calculation. Keep in mind that none of this is math. It's sensory. I have an theory / concept about patterns that I use when I fight. Basically if I can identify the pattern then I can exploit that pattern and know how many actions it will take for me to hit my target.

I actually typed it up here (it was long) but when I hit "Post Reply" it showed that i was logged out. Now I'm tired and have no interest in typing all of that out again.

I'd argue that 1+2=3 always works. You just can't always count on the 1 or the 2 for that equation. So, if I know that a jab (1) slipped to the outside (2) puts me in position for a punch to the ribs (3), then that's always the equation if those are present. If it becomes jab (1) slipped to the outside (2) and they pivot to keep me inside (-1 because I never made it to the outside), then there's a different answer (2). It changes the equation, but not the effectiveness of the original equation.

That's why every martial art ever teaches responses to something specific (if she does this, this specific way, you have an opening for a single-leg takedown), and then broadens that (or should - some instructors seem to leave this part out) to the principles of knowing when the response is applicable. So, it starts as simple arithmatic, then becomes a differential equation to allow for more variation, and later something from chaos theory to allow for the fact that we'll never really know all the variables.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'd argue that 1+2=3 always works.

It doesn't always work. But it always works for the situation that it appropriately fits. In other words I have to find the pattern first. If I can find the pattern then I can make something like 1+2= 3 work.

In your example if you know that the jab will put you in position for a punch to the ribs then you can use that to your advantage. It's your advantage because you know where the punch is going.

I don't always have know where you are, sometimes I can know where you are going to be and then prepare for that. Presenting fake openings does exactly this. It exploits behavior.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The main issue of the square stance is you don't have a plan. You don't even know whether you will advance your right leg first, or you will advance your left leg first.

 

[wckf92]

The main issue of the square stance is you don't have a plan. You don't even know whether you will advance your right leg first, or you will advance your left leg first.

But that's the point. That's a strength of that stance. The opponents plan is an unknown and so the horse is ready to move/mobilize in ANY direction. Don't get me wrong, the lead leg stance has its place too...I'm just throwing out some values for the case of the square stance.

 

[pdg]

Yeah but I wouldn't expect the same results from a Chihuahua that I would from a Pit bull. That's like selling a guard dogs and telling the buyer. " Meh.. Chihuahua , Pit bull same thing. Yes they are both dogs but they definitely are not the same thing.

I wouldn't expect the same results from a jab going forward and a jab going backwards.

But I see I wasn't accurate enough before...

 

[pdg]

Martial arts forms are concise. Martial arts applications are far from concise. Which is why math is done in the context (if all things remain constant, then this formula works). 2+2 will always = 4, right up to the point someone throws another number in there.

This is the reality of martial arts. Here Thanksgiving = math. Lucy = the psychology of humans. The math of kicking a football is AWLAYS correct right up until someone pulls it away. The danger is that you go in with one set of math formulas that are based on a constant. The moment someone sees you trying to add 2+2, they will throw a different number into your equation.

That's the bit I was on about.

It's a bad example because:

2+2 (or say twist hips and extend arm) = 4 (punch)

That's always the case.

Putting someone else in front adds a variable, so it's not 2+2 any longer.

It becomes 2+2.(7h/0.6v)-6q/0.076g+d.J4/9-sqrt4n.I-8

So, 2+2 just doesn't cut it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It doesn't always work. But it always works for the situation that it appropriately fits. In other words I have to find the pattern first. If I can find the pattern then I can make something like 1+2= 3 work.

In your example if you know that the jab will put you in position for a punch to the ribs then you can use that to your advantage. It's your advantage because you know where the punch is going.

I don't always have know where you are, sometimes I can know where you are going to be and then prepare for that. Presenting fake openings does exactly this. It exploits behavior.

Yes, that was my point. 1+2 is the pattern. If that's present, then 3 works. If it's not quite that pattern (1+1.75), then 3 might still work, but there's probably an adjustment that makes it better.

And of course we won't know where they'll be outside of drills. That's why we use drills - they give us a chance to repeat motions to build the feel, and also to learn to recognize the pattern that leads to that motion. And, as you say, feints and fake openings are leveraging that pattern recognition from the other side. If you give a good enough fake to trigger my recognition of the pattern you're faking, then I walk into your trap. You present 7 (but it's really a european 1) +2 and I try to respond with 9 and walk right into your 1. Ow.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Yes, that was my point. 1+2 is the pattern. If that's present, then 3 works. If it's not quite that pattern (1+1.75), then 3 might still work, but there's probably an adjustment that makes it better.

And of course we won't know where they'll be outside of drills. That's why we use drills - they give us a chance to repeat motions to build the feel, and also to learn to recognize the pattern that leads to that motion. And, as you say, feints and fake openings are leveraging that pattern recognition from the other side. If you give a good enough fake to trigger my recognition of the pattern you're faking, then I walk into your trap. You present 7 (but it's really a european 1) +2 and I try to respond with 9 and walk right into your 1. Ow.

I feel a kung fail video coming up. All of my greatest hits, that weren't mine. lol

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The opponents plan is an unknown and so the horse is ready to move/mobilize in ANY direction.

This kind of thinking is a bit too conservative IMO. It's like the calm lake water, if you don't throw a rock into it, it will stay calm forever.

When your plan is unknown, your plan will depend on your opponent's initial action. In other words, you let your opponent to lead the fight.

The opposite example of the square stance is the "circular dragging". You drag your opponent in circle. This way, you lead the fight and you are not waiting for your opponent to do anything.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This kind of thinking is a bit too conservative IMO. It's like the calm lake water, if you don't throw a rock into it, it will stay calm forever.

When your plan is unknown, your plan will depend on your opponent's initial action. In other words, you let your opponent to lead the fight.

The opposite example of the square stance is the "circular dragging". You drag your opponent in circle. This way, you lead the fight and you are not waiting for your opponent to do anything.

I don't see circular dragging as opposite to a squared stance. It's pretty much the opposite of any static stance, as far as "opposite" goes.

And, no, using a reactive strategy is not the same as letting your opponent lead the fight. I can have multiple mini-strategies to work from, each designed to upset the timing of a given observed approach. Which I use is dependent upon what the opponent does, but the point is to disrupt his strategy, rather than just go in with what I want to do, hoping it's a good answer to his approach.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

the point is to disrupt his strategy,...

I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.

It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy. In order to do so, you have to attack first. Your plan is attack, attack, and still attack. During your attacking, you will find your opponent's weakness during his weight shifting.

In the following clip, the old man created that foot sweep opportunity himself. He didn't wait for his opponent to create that chance.

 

[wckf92]

I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.

It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy.

I agree. I don't either. But sometimes don't want to get punched in the face...but it happens.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't like "You do ..., I'll do ..." approach.

It's better not to let your opponent to have chance to apply his strategy. In order to do so, you have to attack first. Your plan is attack, attack, and still attack. During your attacking, you will find your opponent's weakness during his weight shifting.

In the following clip, the old man created that foot sweep opportunity himself. He didn't wait for his opponent to create that chance.

Even if you attack, he still gets to choose how he responds. Being the first to attack gives some advantages, but doesn’t dominate the game.

In that clip, he was still responding to what his opponent did. You always are, unless you are shadow boxing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Even if you attack, he still gets to choose how he responds. Being the first to attack gives some advantages, but doesn’t dominate the game.

In that clip, he was still responding to what his opponent did. You always are, unless you are shadow boxing.

The advantage of "you attack first" is your opponent's respond can be a much smaller set then if you allow your opponent to attack first.

When your opponent attack first, his first attack can be a kick, a flying side kick, a flying knee, a punch, a superman punch, a single leg shoot, a double legs shoot, ...

If you don't have experience to deal with a flying side kick, when your opponent does that to you, he will lead you into an area that you are not familiar with.

When you kick/sweep at your opponent's leading leg, at that moment, his respond is limited. You want to lead the fight toward the area that you are more familiar with than your opponent does. That will be your advantage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The advantage of "you attack first" is your opponent's respond can be a much smaller set then if you allow your opponent to attack first.

When your opponent attack first, his first attack can be a kick, a flying side kick, a flying knee, a punch, a superman punch, a single leg shoot, a double legs shoot, ...

If you don't have experience to deal with a flying side kick, when your opponent does that to you, he will lead you into an area that you are not familiar with.

When you kick/sweep at your opponent's leading leg, at that moment, his respond is limited. You want to lead the fight toward the area that you are more familiar with than your opponent does. That will be your advantage.

Yes, but the first attack only happens once per exchange. After that, everything is a response to whatever happens. And every attack also opens up opportunities, so sometimes it's useful to see what they'll give.

I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".

If you are a wrestler and your opponent is a striker, you don't want him to attack you first.

If you don't give your striker opponent any chance to throw his first punch, you can then turn a stand up game into a ground game during the first contact. That will be your advantage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

If you are a wrestler and your opponent is a striker, you don't want him to attack you first.

If you don't give your striker opponent any chance to throw his first punch, you can then turn a stand up game into a ground game during the first contact. That will be your advantage.

Or, you might walk right into that first punch by moving in too early. Because, of course, he's thinking exactly the same thing. There aren't any good absolutes.

 

[now disabled]

Yes, but the first attack only happens once per exchange. After that, everything is a response to whatever happens. And every attack also opens up opportunities, so sometimes it's useful to see what they'll give.

I just don't believe in absolutes like "always attack first".

I get where you are coming from but hey that the Aiki in you me thinks, If I am following you right then like I would you don't dive in you maintain your maai until you see what is going to go down ... you may as I would try and "steer " an unknown opponent into giving you something that you could use or just wait move keep aware and wait some more ....

As you say there are no absolutes in any fight and really until you face it you really can't say oh this or that will work, It hypothetical until it "goes down" and hopefully if we are all as MA aware enough maybe we can avoid or reduce the "going down" bit as the best fight is .........the one you never had.