You always attack first

[FriedRice]

ok ..so what? your not actually making a point. for the sake of argument lets say the guy can touch me, so what. i can touch him too.

Well you didn't understand context of the OP then....which was, to always strike first.

can you re phrase this. the grammar is off so i dont know what your trying to say.
none of this has anything to do with my decision process on whether i should hit someone first before they hit me.

I meant that....you've let him into striking range already, which means that as soon as you're answering his question by saying, ie. "I don't have any ciga..."....(POW) sucker-punch....

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not. And I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just somewhat. Main disagreement is that they're already too close and within striking range. You've allowed this. You're waiting for the bus. Are you going to just abandon your wait and walk away?

I'm confused what your point is. You seem to be plainly saying that there'd be little justification for preemptive strikes in a situation like this, AND that the danger at this point is imminent.

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm not. And I'm not disagreeing with you completely, just somewhat. Main disagreement is that they're already too close and within striking range. You've allowed this. You're waiting for the bus. Are you going to just abandon your wait and walk away?

i agree with your observation. the person is close to you. but the situation your alluding to is called an ambush. that is what a sucker punch or a surprise attack is called. its an ambush, and has very little to do, in fact almost nothing to do with what i was talking about. i was presenting a decision process that i would instantly make if i wanted to hit someone first. BEFORE they hit me.

The OP was that it's always best to attack first

that may have been the OP's opinion but that is not what i was proposing.
we are going around in circles on this, and i just dont have the time to continue. if you can elaborate on a point of discussion that you feel is important , i will respond but otherwise im moving on.

 

[FriedRice]

i agree with your observation. the person is close to you. but the situation your alluding to is called an ambush. that is what a sucker punch or a surprise attack is called. its an ambush, and has very little to do, in fact almost nothing to do with what i was talking about. i was presenting a decision process that i would instantly make if i wanted to hit someone first. BEFORE they hit me.

Then this sounds more like a sports fight or some mutually agreed upon combat in the streets.

that may have been the OP's opinion but that is not what i was proposing.
we are going around in circles on this, and i just dont have the time to continue. if you can elaborate on a point of discussion that you feel is important , i will respond but otherwise im moving on.

My main point was, you shouldn't always attack first and attacking first isn't necessarily the best style of fighting....because many people are excellent Counter-Fighters.

 

[CB Jones]

because many people are excellent Counter-Fighters.

Disagree.

Few people are good counter-fighters.

Maybe many trained fighters are excellent counter-fighters....but the majority of the public are not trained and can be overwhelmed easily.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Few people are good counter-fighters.

The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".

What went wrong in the following clip? IMO, the Taiji guy waited too long, allowed his opponent to generate speed and power, and run him down.

If you attack first while your opponent is still "on guard", you can have more "momentum" than your opponent has. If you let your opponent to have enough space to generate speed and power, it will be to your dis-advantage.

If you are a wrestler, If you can achieve "clinch" ASAP, and turn a striking game into a grappling game, that will be toward your favor. The sooner you can do that, the less chance that you have to deal with your opponent's punches, kicks, knees, elbows.

 

[FriedRice]

Disagree.

Few people are good counter-fighters.

Maybe many trained fighters are excellent counter-fighters....but the majority of the public are not trained and can be overwhelmed easily.

I was referring to trained fighters.

 

[CB Jones]

I was referring to trained fighters.

Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.

 

[FriedRice]

Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.

that's pretty obvious though.

 

[FriedRice]

The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".

I don't think that the problem with the Tai Chi guy losing like that was due to him being a Counter-Fighter, but more because he was a Tai Chi guy. What the hell were they thinking putting him in there like that?

Not as bad as this one though, because this was a little kid.

 

[Knapf]

I don't think that the problem with the Tai Chi guy losing like that was due to him being a Counter-Fighter, but more because he was a Tai Chi guy.

Tai Chi's doctrine and theory is always about counter fighting only.

What the hell were they thinking putting him in there like that?

They were thinking that they wanted to see Tai Chi's weaknesses?

 

[drop bear]

Ok but the majority of people are un-trained and you can quickly and violently overwhelm them and end fights fast.....instead of waiting and getting caught with something.

Yes and no.

If you stand toe to toe you are also in a greater risk of having your fight ended quickly as well. You have to be really careful with that overwhelm them approach.

The issue there is if the have a decent chin and can weather a few shots.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1414046728683561

 

[drop bear]

The issue for a counter-fighter is he will have less time to react than his opponent does. His counter action can be decided by his opponent's initial attack. In order words, he is doing "If you do ..., I'll do ...".

What went wrong in the following clip? IMO, the Taiji guy waited too long, allowed his opponent to generate speed and power, and run him down.

If you attack first while your opponent is still "on guard", you can have more "momentum" than your opponent has. If you let your opponent to have enough space to generate speed and power, it will be to your dis-advantage.

If you are a wrestler, If you can achieve "clinch" ASAP, and turn a striking game into a grappling game, that will be toward your favor. The sooner you can do that, the less chance that you have to deal with your opponent's punches, kicks, knees, elbows.

Yeah but.

 

[FriedRice]

Yeah but.

As I recall, this fight was started by a straight up, internet beef.... where they were keyboard warrior'ing all over the place about which styles are better, but both sides ending up having the balls to back up their mouths and put their reputations on the line. Before this fight, I think there were 2 other fights and the kid that won, you can clearly see the animosity. Good stuff. I give both camps props to actually backing up their mouths.

 

[oaktree]

Personally as a guy who does taijiquan I would use a baseball bat on someone's knee and then explain how that was in the taijiquan sword form.

 

[FriedRice]

Personally as a guy who does taijiquan I would use a baseball bat on someone's knee and then explain how that was in the taijiquan sword form.

Yea, you're that guy who carries around that baseball bat all the time, and especially to a gunfight right?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I have tried to find this clip for some time. This is a good example that

left/right hooks > jab/cross.

You can clearly see that when the short guy used right jab, the tall guy used left hook. That left hook not only can stop his opponent's jab, it also can hit on his opponent's head at the same time.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Yeah but.

To use hook (or hay-maker) to counter a jab is one of my favor techniques.

 

[oaktree]

Yea, you're that guy who carries around that baseball bat all the time, and especially to a gunfight right?

Ya the guy who also carries a gun and knife.
But you know us taijiquan guys don't fight Fair would shake hands before the match and bring you close to stab. Or possibly hit you with a car we will call it using peng.

 

[CB Jones]

I have tried to find this clip for some time. This is a good example that

left/right hooks > jab/cross.

You can clearly see that when the short guy used right jab, the tall guy used left hook. That left hook not only can stop his opponent's jab, it also can hit on his opponent's head at the same time.

It's more like an example of a more skilled fighter with a reach and height advantage fighting a lesser skilled fighter.