You always attack first

[Kung Fu Wang]

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?

 

[JowGaWolf]

I train to be aggressive (I attack first), Defensive (my opponent attacks, I only guard and evade), and Countering (my opponent attacks, I counter)
I don't train in the mindset of "If you do A then I'll do B." My approach to kung fu is that I should be able to do kung fu from any position. My opponent's attack may cause me to defend, or evade in such a way that I'm not able to do B, this isn't a problem for me because I should be able to do a kung fu technique based on the position that my body is in. While it won't be technique B, it will be a kung fu technique that fits the attack, defense, and position that my body finds itself in.

If my opponent attacks me, I may jump back or move forward. I don't know until it happens, unless I'm baiting a specific attack with the intent of doing a specific counter.

I also don't specifically train to attack when my opponent is in his guard, because it's not always a safe bet. I've seen professional fighters attack while a person is in their guard only to be countered and knocked out. I do however, train "where my opponent isn't" and "disabling my opponents guard."

 

[drop bear]

You kind of need both.

Who is only doing one or the other?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I also don't specifically train to attack when my opponent is in his guard, ...

You kind of need both.

Who is only doing one or the other?

I don't expect my opponent will drop his guard for me. I have to bait him to open his guard. For example, a groin kick, or fake back fist.

I don't like to train that my opponent always comes toward me. I like to train I always come toward my opponent. This way, I will always train my "entering strategy - close distance with footwork" and never assume that my opponent will close that distance for me.

IMO, Your opponent runs toward you, you raise your fist, your opponent's face will run into your fist is just not a realistic training.

 

[KangTsai]

My preferred way to use defense is to prolong or break combos. One off shots, I've found no real difficulty managing against so far. Combos are when my reaction actually kicks in.

 

[Touch Of Death]

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?

First of all, I just look for the law in his program, and exploit that. However, good attacks, are hard to react to. That is why they are good attacks, Bad attacks, are something to look for. If you are aware that you can break someone's arm, if they come at you with out stretched arms, you kind of hope they try it.

 

[gerardbu07059]

Attacking first may not be the most prudent approach since you have not had time to understand the strength and weaknesses of your opponent. Every one has a preference of moves offensive and defensive you need to understand so that your strategy can be effective

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Balrog]

There are three "games" to play: offense, defense and trap. You need to be good at all of them. One will become your favorite, but don't train it to the exclusion of the others.

 

[hoshin1600]

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?

since you asked for peoples opinions, as usual , we would have to first clarify the context. sport, street fight or assault defense.
your concept will only apply to 2 out of the three. and even then it is mostly only going to be applicable to sport.
so for a martial sport sure have fun. for the other two situations...well... they way you are thinking about it, its not something i would waste time on.

 

[Martial_Kumite]

Bacicly, It depends on the person's owns abilities and what they can actually do effectively. I am not that aggressive when I attack, so I am mostly a defensive fighter. This does not mean that I focus completely on being defensive, but I adjust accordingly to my opponent.

 

[wingerjim]

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 think both are needed, but for me I know there is very much more likelihood that I will be on the defense first. Martial Arts trains me to avoid confrontation until I cannot avoid it, thus the reason I believe I will be attached vs being the attacker.

 

[Flying Crane]

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?

My opinion is that if you do that on the street then you might end up on the wrong side of a prosecutor.

Actions have consequences.

 

[CB Jones]

My opinion is that if you do that on the street then you might end up on the wrong side of a prosecutor.

Actions have consequences.

key is being able to articulate that you felt threatened and you perceived you were about to be attacked and took appropriate measures.

 

[jobo]

since you asked for peoples opinions, as usual , we would have to first clarify the context. sport, street fight or assault defense.
your concept will only apply to 2 out of the three. and even then it is mostly only going to be applicable to sport.
so for a martial sport sure have fun. for the other two situations...well... they way you are thinking about it, its not something i would waste time on.

why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence

 

[CB Jones]

why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence

You can attack preemptively in the US as well.

 

[Flying Crane]

key is being able to articulate that you felt threatened and you perceived you were about to be attacked and took appropriate measures.

Yeah, sometimes that works, sometimes i doesn't. Better be certain of your situation, and certain that you can articulate better than the other guy, and any witnesses will agree with you.

A passerby witness might just tell the police, "that guy threw the first punch, he attacked that other guy!" Because that witness didn't see all the buildup.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself if you need to. But you do need to be mindful of the actions you take in doing so.

Winning in court will still cost you a mint in legal fees, and you won't get to recover those fees just because the prosecution lost.

 

[Flying Crane]

why is attack not viable on a real fight ? In the uk you can attack( pre emtive strike)and it still be self defence

It really depends on the circumstances. The law may see you as the aggressor and may chose to prosecute you. Self defense can be messy, when it comes to the legal side of it.

The story that the other guy tells may be just as compelling as your own. Maybe even more so, if he comes out the worse for it after a fight. So it's just something you need to be very careful about.

You may feel that you were defending yourself from an imminent attack. The other guy may claim that he had no intention of fighting, you were just having some strong words. Now then, who hit first, who escalated the situation into a physical assault? You did. You might be prosecuted. I'm not saying it's a guarantee. But you might.

 

[CB Jones]

It really depends on the circumstances. The law may see you as the aggressor and may chose to prosecute you. Self defense can be messy, when it comes to the legal side of it.

The story that the other guy tells may be just as compelling as your own. Maybe even more so, if he comes out the worse for it after a fight. So it's just something you need to be very careful about.

You may feel that you were defending yourself from an imminent attack. The other guy may claim that he had no intention of fighting, you were just having some strong words. Now then, who hit first, who escalated the situation into a physical assault? You did. You might be prosecuted. I'm not saying it's a guarantee. But you might.

You never worry about what the other guys story is!

You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat. You do not wait for the other to strike first.

That is playing with fire.

 

[Flying Crane]

You never worry about what the other guys story is!

You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat. You do not wait for the other to strike first.

That is playing with fire.

I hope it works out fo you.

I actually hope you never need to find out.

 

[Flying Crane]

You never worry about what the other guys story is!

You perceive a threat....you protect yourself from said threat. You do not wait for the other to strike first.

That is playing with fire.

I hope you actually realize that real life is far more subtle and contains a whole lot more gray area than that.