In another thread that OP talks about footwork. I ask, "If you have moved in, why do you want to move back before you finish your job?" I then realize that the OP is talking about the striking art only - to maintain optimal punching range.
Some of my best awareness training, oddly, came at an Aikido dojo in Portugal. It's a big room with pillars all over the place. I've never worked so hard to pay attention to my sourroundings as doing unfamiliar techniques and being afraid I'm going to leave blood on the walls.
How could you? You spent less time learning it than it takes to potty train a child.
Not exactly. That's a very superficial understanding of the goal, process, and results which ends up being both inaccurate and misleading.
Why do you think that the striker does not advance his position as well? The whole point of using angles and lateral movement is to give yourself a better than 50/50 position. Strikers do all kinds of things to put them in a position where they can hit the other guy, but the other guy cannot hit back. In doing so, they are putting themselves into positions of advantage.
Both are trying to put the opponent in the place where they will receive the most damage from their techniques. If both are trying to put their opponent in the worst possible position, how is one a more aggressive attitude than the other? Yes, the positions are different, and the techniques used are different, but both are trying to break the other guy as much as possible. Both are aggressive.
Hmm... this is starting to look really familiar.
If you want to, yes. Strikes and kicking are part of the official syllabus of Judo (depending on which organization) and exist in various kata (such as USJA's Tandoku Renshu). The reason that you think these aren't part of Judo is because 99.99% of Judo is focused on Olympic or variations of modern Shiai rules (the sport), which typically disallow striking. There are a few old-school Judo instructors who teach it, but it's not as common.
What ground game is contained in Judo seems to vary a lot. In general, it has apparently become more limited as the ruleset for competition has de-emphasized the ground game. Back a thousand years ago when I was training, my instructor had competed under rules that had more ground game, so our training had more ground game to it (he was very focused on training to the realities of competition).
If one is choosing what to learn, why not fencing or horseriding?
There are plenty of reasons to "move out" after "moving in" when grappling and throwing. It's about finding leverage and balance points.
Both were so effective that they were a standard part of Western military combat training from WWI going back to before the fall of Rome. They were considered so integral to the basic skills required of a fighting man that they were immediately made part of the re-imagined Olympics in 1896. Horsemanship skills were considered so important that the word "Cavalier" (or "Chevalier") became synonymous with "Knight."
My take on what he said was that a grappler is constantly advancing his position. This is really clear in watching a BJJer moving systematically toward a submission. I don't think there's the same thing in striking, except in the progressive working on one part of the body (like the MT fighter kicking the thigh to weaken the leg). It's not really position, but serves much of the same purpose.
I'll use a boxing example. You have a short boxer fighting a tall boxer. The short boxer is constantly advancing his position. He wants to get inside and close to the taller boxer. Inside and close, the shorter boxer has the advantage, its easier for him to throw full power punches and harder for the taller boxer to hit him. If you watch a boxing match, with a short guy verses a tall guy, usually, you will see the shorter guy continuously advancing his position, trying to cut off the ring, get the taller guy on the ropes and get inside. This is similar to the grappler advancing his position. Both are moving to a position where they have an advantage and the other guy has a disadvantage.
Exactly. Many generals have advocated not taking the same ground twice. Why retreat? Even a failed attack can be used to advance your position.
Many don't. Because most karate fighters do not know how to fight at grappling range, with either wraps, locks, knees, stomps, elbows, etc. These things do not score points so longer range moves are drilled. This is the difference between sport karate and combat self-defense karate.
I think you are confusing "advancing position" with "closing distance." If I have someone in my guard, and then I take their back... I am no closer or farther away from him, yet I have advanced my position. You do not have to close distance, in order to advance your position. Advancing your position is putting yourself into a position with a greater advantage or lesser disadvantage to the one you started in. In the grappling world, that means a different pin. In the striking world, it means something different. If you are the taller boxer, and you are pushed up against the ropes by the shorter boxer... you advance your position by getting off the ropes and out to a distance where you can hit him, but he cannot hit you. You advanced from a position where he could hit you, and you had a harder time hitting him to a position where he cannot hit you, and you can hit him.
Boxing, Kickboxing, Muay Thai and MMA are sports where the strike landing is not the end. The fighters do advance their position, using strikes. They follow up with strikes, and set up bigger strikes and combos.
That's a great explanation. I tend not to think so fully on the striking game, since I'm more likely to transition to grappling past a certain point. But even then, I suppose I'm usually working to get position to transition.
The more I think about this, the more I realize I do play for position in striking more than I had considered. There are positions I prefer to play from (distance or angle) and I work to maneuver us both to create those positions.
