observations from boxing practice

[apoweyn]

this hit me last night (pun intended) during a casual boxing session at the gym:

part of the difficulty of using a strike to 'stop' someone from shooting in and taking you down is that it hinges on two assumptions that really aren't very accurate, to my mind.

1) the first shot i throw will land properly. i've heard this argument before. i'll just finger jab the guy or punch him square in the nose. well, personally, i'm not guaranteed that shot on anyone with a semblance of evasion skill. when i was boxing last night, i landed (and absorbed) a lot of shots. but not necessarily the first one in a combination.

does it have to be the first one in the combination? that brings me to my second thought.

2) range will not change. very often in striking classes, we are paired up with people our same approximate height, weight, etc. and since we're very often working from the same curriculum, our choices of technique are also similar. so there's an implied and mutually understood range. in boxing last night, it was obviously the approximate length of each of our punches. in taekwondo, for instance, it's very often the length of our kicks. but in any event, there's an agreed-upon range. so if i missed with my first jab-cross, it's okay because my opponent is still in or around that same range.

so what if the opponent isn't in or around that same range? well, they've either closed or faded. if they've faded, nobody's really at the advantage. if they're simply out of range, nobody has anything to bring to the table until they close again.

if they close, however, i've got maybe one more shot (against a moving, guarded opponent) and then he's on me. so, at best, if i'm relying on hitting to keep him off of me, and he's determined, i've got perhaps two hits (one long range and one short range).

after that, we're grappling, whether i like it or not.

so is this a 'grappling's better' thread? of course not. what i know about grappling is about as much as pamela anderson knows about... anything. so i'll just speak for myself. if i want to make use of my striking experience, i need to be realistic about how it interacts with other tactics. and in this case, i believe that means 1) knowing enough about grappling to apply some preventive measures in addition to doing what i do best and 2) making good use of what i already do (footwork to defend against the shoot before returning to striking).

just hoping to get the first shot and ending it there just doesn't ring true for me. your mileage may vary.


stuart

[red5angel]

I agree, I think that is where many strikers go wrong, believeing that if they can hit first it wont be a problem. I think there are a few phases you should be prepared for

Your first, and possibly your second shot. You should prepare to hit the 'right' spot with these. Like you said, it wont always happen, but prepare anyway.
Second, prepare for contact and evasion. If you canmanage to get out of your opponents grab before he takes you down, thats good, it buys you time.
Third, be prepared for the take down. Practice applying your art on the ground, whether it is to just get back up on your feet or to duke it out on the ground, it is important to be comfortable dealing with this.

[Dark Knight]

Dont forget that while you are fighting, this person is also striking. So now timing a punch to the head is complicated as they may give a fake to make you look for something else then shoot for the takedown, Or if they think you will look to astrike they may fake a shoot to get you to put yourself into a position for them to strike you.

If it was easy to stop a shoot in NHB with a punch someone would have perfected it, but there are too many oher variables.

(Fake a punch then shoot for the legs, Fake a shoot and go for the flying armbar now that your punch is out there, Fake the shoot then turn it into an uppercut on you, ....)

Or as you think they are going to strike you block that kick and a lightning fast shoot comes in.

No easy answer

[apoweyn]

right. two good replies. cheers guys.

and the other consideration: even a good solid hit may not stop them. granted, we were wearing gloves and headgear. but i landed a couple of good stiff jab-cross combos on this guy's nose. afterward, he said he saw stars... AFTER weaving the third and fourth punches and rocking me with a right hook of his own. even without the gloves, i doubt he would've dropped on the spot, leaving me safely upright. especially not if taking me down had been his intent.


stuart

[shaolinboxer]

There is also one of my favorite ranges, standing grappling, clinching. This is an interesting range because both sides of the argument can use their skills to gain advantage, and there is constant contact. Also, you can use aikido or judo/jujutsu throws. To me, being a striker/stand up fighter should include this range.

[Olethros]

Well, if they've closed the distance what about elbows and knees? Chin Na? Striking the vitals?

Something my instructor said last week was that sometimes it's adavantageous to use very low stances. It reduces the size of the target the opponent can strike, but it also gives you add'l stability against takedowns.

[Ray Pina]

If he can grab you to grapple he's in range already. Hell, if he grabs you, you got off lucky, he should have hit you.

Now, I don't go to hit the head or torso at this point -- the reaching for the grab. I treat any limb being extended to me as if its a strike, who knows their real intention.

I strike the limb. I'll keep my short hand as an added protection but reach out and strike the forearm or even the bicep area. Its a free shot, and its easier to control the person, sense their intention, momentum and weight. From here use gung fu, whatever is your pleausre. Follow with blows, try to gain more control, go down if that's your thing too. Kick low. ect.

What is they shoot. I drop to a secure, extreme pushing angle to except them, like a major bow and arrow, echest to knee, down, ready. Punching hard to the head. Looking for a shoulder to turn.'

If they don;t shoot and coem with both high. Same stratagy as above. Attck one of the limbs. Not its two (punching hand and short hand) against one. You should be able to open up a momentary advanatge, like turn their shoulder if its cross handed (right had attacking their right reaching hand), using pulling power.

Or raise the left hand for protection and shoot the right that hit his aproaching left against to his throat.

Too hard to explain. Technical takes too long.

[apoweyn]

shaolin boxer and olethros,

absolutely. that part shouldn't be overlooked. it's an inevitable (albeit perhaps brief) transition from striking to takedown, yeah?

as i said, this isn't a 'yay grappling' thread. it's more of a 'i've spent years getting decent at striking, so how do i now capitalize on that' thread.

you know. one of those. :)


stuart

[apoweyn]

evolutionfist,

hmm... i don't know about that. the next time i get dumped on my arse and 'reforged' into a crude imitation of a christmas wreath, i don't expect i'll have much success regarding myself as 'lucky.'

he should have struck if striking was his strength. if taking me down and systematically wrenching my joints out of whack is his strength, then i'd consider myself lucky if he'd gone ahead and tried to strike me.

as for the limb destructions when he tries to grab you, i don't think that's a bad tactic. but once again, you're betting the farm on that one hit. and if he's shooting in for a takedown, the worst frikking charlie horse in recorded history isn't going to stop him from at least body checking you. low stances may do the trick, i suppose. but as i understand it, they tend to give a wrestler that nice front leg to work with. (again, i'm no expert.)


stuart

[Ray Pina]

We all need to find what works for us. The way I punch, if I do not hit my exact intended target, I have at least jammed what was incoming by keeping a shield based aroung forearms looking like this: X, || or |\.

From this connection sensitivity is imprtant. I do not plan on the strike ending anything. It is merely the opening, and the battle must still be won. This is merely a way of getting my specialty in place. I want to get connected to you. I want both your hands. So I can read you and lead you and fill the gaps with blows.

But I don't want to be nice about making that connection.

If he's a better grappler then you are a striker, whatever, well, then, you're going to loose.

My master said something to me a while ago after a brief Chi Sau encounter that has really hit home lately and I've noticed it in chess and sparring:

"When I'm better then you; it doesn't matter what I do -- I can do anything."

Soemthing else I've bee thinking about, one needs to know the rules -- elbows down, never turn ones back, basic stuff, ect -- before one can break them. At least you understand the dangers involved with the move.

Sort of like trading a quenn for a knight, but you see check mate in 3 moves.

[apoweyn]

evolutionfist,

that makes sense. i like the idea of hitting the arm en route to doing something else. it's not going to stop the forward momentum of someone shooting. so it's entirely possible that you'll quickly be doing chi sau from the floor. but i imagine that the sensitivity garnered in that drill would help you in the transitions. and from little i understand of grappling, there's an awful lot to be said for the transitions.


stuart

[Mantis9]

You make a good point about bad assumption made by strikers when dealing with grapplers. I've made those assumptions and was dually rewarded many times in the past.

I would like to also add that strikers little realize that their prefered martial talent is an exceptionally hard task to pull off. Think about it. At high speeds, you throw your legs and arms at small targets located on another high speed individual, who is trying to avoid, block, or jam you. This all happening while your opponent is putting up distractions by attempting to do the same thing to you.

It analogous to sharp shooting. And any good shooter will tell you that as soon as the target starts moving accuracy drops by at least 67%.

I think one of the reasons that grappling claims so much success against striking is this reason: once the grappler has 'closed the gap' they feel you. They're task, perhaps, is a little more managable at this point, once in reach. (That statement will probably get me into trouble. I don't mean to diminish the skill of grapplers by saying this. Its just thinking out loud.) And the strikers becomes more difficult. (I'm using 'striker' and 'grappler' in its most general sense to illustrate my point, not to catagorize styles or fighters.)

Your other point I agree with also. In my experience, when training with wrestlers, BJJ, etc., they continually train to close distances, performing drills that simulate the relationship held between a striker and grapplers. Until recently, I have not seen that trait amoung strikers training together. Maintaining a constant distance with boxers is more comfortable and often encouraged.

Although, thanks to this ridiculous debating between the idealized grappler vs the idealized striker, boxers are starting to formulate their position regarding facing off with a grappler of some ilk, much like MA grapplers have (I assume) been doing for years.

Of course, I say all these things with finite knowledge of either supposed side.

So, what do you all believe is a more managable way to deal with an opponent who wishes to 'close the gap'? I've read of limb destruction and foot work on this thread. Do you have drills to practice these solutions? Please share.

[David Jamieson]

If you are "boxing" then grappling shouldn't even be a question that comes into play.

if you're striking style is american boxing and you are doing a mma match that includes striking and grappling then you should have the tools for the job when it comes to ranges.

Often times a lead jab is a feign and not intended to land.

Jab/ jab/ Hook is common, with the hook (or a cross) being the hammer. If the hammer hits then follow it with another hammer such as a cross, hook, jab or even an uppercut if your in clinch range.

work your tight ranges to include tight shots such as inside uppercuts and tight hooks, work your long ranges to include combos of jabs and crosses.

for grappling, there are a variety of methods, with virtually all of them working in close to extremely close range. You have to know at what point are strikes now weak and grappling takes over. punches delivered out of range are ineffective. punches delivered outside of the position of strength are ineffective.

train your short combos and train your counters. training your boxing seperate from your grappling, but when you apply them together work on having a free flow from one to the other (no mind transistion).

peace

[apoweyn]

mantis9,

very well said. and thanks for moving this thread along to the next logical step.

i'll get back with my own ideas soon. juggling a few tasks right this moment.

cheers.


stuart

[red5angel]

Mantis9 - Right on. Strikers should be training more for that sort o fthing, it is highly neglected. Too many people get into the 'art' of it. They miss out on the martial part a little. If that is what you are into so be it. I say if you are training to fight, train for all the options possible.

[apoweyn]

kung lek,

obviously, if we were talking about boxing proper, the takedown wouldn't be an issue. but we aren't. we're talking about a thought that occurred to me in boxing. and i box as a way to train martial arts. not for the sake of boxing.


stuart

[SLC]

Hey Stuart, :)

I have to admit that I deal with the grappler-adversary issue by ignoring it as a critical issue.

I see it as no more, no less, valid as the ultimate challenge, than facing a gun or knife and probably less common. Grappling may be the art de jur, and so more common in the street than 15 years ago, but it is no more dangerous than a drunk homie or red neck with a hand gun and an attitude.

Maybe it is just blind faith, but I try to keep my goal simply to learn and keep training... in a general sense within my art, with the belief that the art will care for the rest. If I am lucky, my worst street encounter will be no more than an untrained bully. If I am not... karma, neh? ;)

Approaching the end of year three in karate, I am finding some facets of training that might address a grappler (when needed, of course :) ).

One is learning to "target" specifically. I am beginning to see people in their pieces (throat, nose, small ribs, groin, etc) rather than just as a "mass". As this becomes more defined thru my training, it will surely make my strikes more effective.

Another facet is movement. I am becoming more able to manage distance... or at least to understand it (which will make managing it better, ultimately).

Also, I am learning to put the power into my strikes more reflexively. Strike, using full hips or body rotation 500 times, and maybe I will begin to interject it into my strikes "naturally".

So... at the end... if one does all this faithfully for years, you gain the ability perhaps to control your distance better than your adversary and land a telling blow to a critical point. That's how the story goes anyway.

Stuart too :D

[David Jamieson]

fair enough ap ,

I was pointing to the idea of moving from one skill set to another without skipping a beat vis a vis training of both skill sets but not necessarily together until application.

in essence you become the bridge for the ranges and the bridge is made stronger by the sum of it's parts.

peace

[Merryprankster]

Good thread. I more or less agree with Ap.

Some thoughts, especially from a Grappler's Pont of View.

SLC--without meaning to sound like a jerk, have you ever boxed? I ask this because the things you are describing are VERY hard to do. It's hard enough to hit somebody in the head. Trying to hit them on a specific spot in the head is even harder. Secondly, "critical points," don't end fights as frequently as we'd like. I'm all for eye strikes and gouging in self defense. The problem is that I don't need to see to grapple. If I've made contact with you, that's enough. Everything else is feel. So, if you've aimed for my eye or throat, or what have you, and you've managed to partially blind me or make my throat hurt, but haven't crushed it, AND you haven't stopped my forward momentum, then it's human pretzel time ;)

Olethros--what you are describing has a place, but it is not the answer. Low stances do equal a "stronger root." However you are, by necessity, handing me your front leg. Secondly, low stances facilitate a snap down or front headlock. A great place for sinking heavily into your stance is when the person is attempting some kind of hip throw. This enables you to avoid the throw as well as counter quickly. Otherwise, you are better off keeping a mobile,balanced stance, just as you normally would.

Now--to address the clinch. It is true that the clinch is sort of a "no man's land," in that many styles practice some sort of standing grappling. The big difference is in application. As a wrestler, when I attack, I want to shut the space down and remove your base. That's a takedown, pure and simple. However, typically, the goal of a striker in the clinch is to create enough room to throw a balanced, effective strike. The problem is that even the most well balanced strike is less balanced, and has less control over the center, than somebody trying to execute a takedown. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that it's difficult. As a wrestler, I just want you down, period. Everything I do is geared towards that. As a striker, in the clinch, you're trying to stay on your feet AND throw shots. It's harder because you are doing two things at once. This is why I ALWAYS recommend that the striker achieve positional dominance FIRST and then worry about the strikes. If you achieve positional dominance, you can strike or bail out as need be and start over. If you try to strike from a disadvantaged position (meaning the person has control of your 'danger zone,' [a wrestling concept]) then you are more likely than not, going to wind up on your back.

Ap has addressed it correctly--how do I stop their momentum and maintain my balance. This is the key issue. Without these two things, unless you have pulled off some pretty amazing stuff, you're going to have a hard time.

[Braden]

Interesting discussion. Has nothing to do with most styles of kungfu, but interesting.

[SLC]

Prankster,

I won't argue with your point. We are just going in two different philosophical directions. To me, those who pursue yours seem to see martial arts as we saw the cold war between the two super powers, Soviets vrs NATO.... strikers vrs grapplers.

Diatribe:
I do this and you do this. You do this and I do this. If the striker does not have a defense against the (insert grappling attack) he will be mauled.

I just don't buy it for me. I am not training to fight grapplers. It may be something that may be unavaoidable, but I really just train to train.

If I have to fight a grappler someday, I hope my training is up to it. In the meantime, I think there are a lot more mean people out there with guns and knives than there are trained, disciplined, grapplers who would want to hurt me.

Bottom Line: I think the biggest reason this subject keeps reappearing is the sporting aspect of no hold barred contests.... not practical application. Just an opinion though. :)

[Merryprankster]

Sigh... :rolleyes:

I'll bite Braden:D

Why does this have nothing to do with most styles of Kung Fu? If you say "because we train to strike and grapple and grapple and strike (ie, our style has everything) I'm going to mutter obscenities and chew on my computer screen :D

SLC, I never try to turn things into "striking vs. grappling." At worst, you'll see me discuss good and bad training methods, and good and bad strategy/tactics. For example--there is a lot of stuff we both do that would probably be awful for law enforcement officer because it ignores weapon retention needs.

Training to train is fine. I do it cause it's fun too, not because I think I'm going to get attacked. :)

[Braden]

No, no style has everything. Simply by the characterizations of 'striking styles' which you and apoweyn have used, none of the kungfu styles I have encountered would be called striking styles. Specifically, apoweyn characterized striking styles as attempting to maintain a certain range and of counting on the effect of single strikes, neither of which is a characteristic of any kungfu style I have seen. You characterized them by trying to create room in a clinch, which is similarly inconsistent with their strategy. Granted, I imagine this would be true of some chinese styles; wing chun comes to mind. But it certainly is the exact opposite of what I'm learning to do.

[Merryprankster]

Fair enough Braden, I'll buy that. Either/or is clearly not applicable in all cases.

I would say the best answer is that the approach varies from style to style.

After all, the approach of WC to fighting is rather different than Tai Chi, yeah?

[Braden]

I would imagine. I haven't the tiniest bit of experience with wing chun. I just think it's a little silly when people assume that they way they do things is the same way everyone else does things - or, more commonly, that everyone else's style is just less adept at doing what their style does.

Although really I'm just being *****y. If we were to define striking styles as they have been here, I would agree avidly with what everyone has said. Maintaining range and hoping to pop someone out of closing with you isn't in my mind a viable strategy.

I've always believed that a match is won by strengthing your posture and position while weakening your opponent's. Maybe things would be easier if I bit the bullet and called myself a grappler?

[Braden]

http://www.blacktaoist.com/MenuPaKuaChangOverKill.html

Bagua apps. You won't see much range maintance. You WILL see alot of shooting in for takedowns while smacking the guy around though. Mad props to the site; these guys post here on occasion. Check the internal board if you're interested.

[apoweyn]

SLC,

hey, how the hell are you?! i've been meaning to email you for ages. (i'll give you my feeble excuses in private email. how's that?)

great to 'see' you again, stuart.

[apoweyn]

struth, braden, i wasn't trying to define any striking styles. honest, i wasn't. only sharing some thoughts on the transition from on your feet to on your arse.

in any event, i'll have to work up replies for these posts tomorrow. right now, i've gotta go and work my way into graduate school. duty calls.


stuart b. (i'll go back to using the 'b.' now that SLC's back) :)

[apoweyn]

kung lek,

okay, now i'm on board. cheers.


stuart

[yenhoi]

I think i am saying the same thing as EF:

When someone throws a punch at me, I think : Thank you.
When someone grabs me, I think: Thank you.

Because they have already done the hard work, closed the distance, and offered an attachment or made one.

Now in the case of being grabbed, If it is a very serious/trained grappler and Im meat, well, thats the game.

And, coming from a Wing Chun background, I would say that our approach to distance is to reduce it, not maintain it - and destroy the opponent.

Someone asked about Training drills for 'footwork and limb destruction' so if they are still checking in I would suggest looking into some filipino martial arts as those drills are "first thing", basic, and "on the surface" so to speak.

[Mantis9]

Braden

I think that your point is well taken. The 'striker' and 'grappler' labels are too simple. Explaining the intricate facets, techniques, and approaches of a certain style can not be encapsulated in these labels. However, I use these labels to discuss theoretical questions, attempting to point out general themes or patterns observed in a collection of specific circumstances. That's all.

I'm a 7* PM exponent, so when the the theory hits the fan, it (hopefully) is expressed through PM principles.

SLC

You also have a good point. IMHO, you are good student to stay within your style and look for answers there. I think too often people gravitate to the en vogue martial art, looking to it to address a foreseen need that is believed cannot be found elsewhere. Past masters developed their martial art to address problems that they undoubtedly encountered. The evidence of this is found in the thoughtfulness you find in these systems.

It is hard for me to believe that Wong Long or other PM masters never encountered being thrown, clinched, or taken down. In 400 hundred years, I am confident that this occured a least once and was solved through PM.

Prankster

As you are a 'grappler', could you explain your concept of 'positional dominance.' Also, If willing, could you explain how you would achieve this position to strike your opponent? (I'm not ask for step by step instruction here, but attributes you would be looking to create in this circumstance.)

Thank you all for your time.

[Braden]

Ap - didn't mean to single you out. Just addressing some misconceptions which seemed to be occurring. I liked the observations which you made.

[Black Jack]

Braden,

Nice Bagua site, its always good to see people working their art for the purpose intended, plus you saw a bit of boxing in the mix, a showcase of an open mind.

Some of it looked like good old fashion cqb, the only one I did not like, looked a bit complicated, was number 5.

Are these by-rote combinations or are they spur of the moment movements, if their spur of the moment actions, I will be more impressed.

Real good stuff though.

[Braden]

I don't like ALL of them myself, but it's a matter of taste, and I like SOME of them quite a bit. On that page, number five is also my least favorite. I wouldn't say it's complicated, just that I don't think I'd ever be confident in my ability to sieze a limb like that. The other ones seem to me to be more 'idiot-proof' in that no matter what the other guy does, you're still pretty much banging into him and getting a good result.

If you go through the whole site, there are some other app galleries. Some of the apps in these are 'rote application' as you put it, and are listed as such; eg. "Here's an application for the first palm change in Cao style bagua." Although I'm not familiar with the many styles these guys study, it's my understanding that most of them are bagua concepts on the fly. Sort of the main idea in bagua is that you keep moving, and react spontaneously to pressure put on you by your opponent. The palm changes, at least the set I know, are constructed very deviously. On a very obvious level, the palm changes are not entirely unique, but rather seem to meld back and forth between each other, and each new change introduces a new concept. Over time, you can't help but get an understanding of how the different postures can flow together freely - and in fact that is how advanced practitioners practice (which is why bagua is said to have palm changes, rather than forms). On a more subtle level, when you first practice you are introduced to what seems to be a wide variety of postures. Over time however, you realize that there's actually very few postures, you just do them differently. For instance, the first movement in the seventh palm change I know is the same movement that is repeated several times throughout the form, only the energy of it is halted and reversed before you step through and coil into it. As a practitioner's 'body understanding' of this increasing, it further liberates them to react spontaneously.

You can see this at work in the gallery I linked up. Compare this traditional bagua posture straight out of the form: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0865681732/reader/1/103-9114237-5557440#reader-link to this posture in the apps previously linked: http://www.blacktaoist.com/graphics/overkill/overkill34.JPG for example.

If you didn't cruise through the site yourself, you might be interested in http://www.blacktaoist.com/MenuPaKuaChangSkills.html and http://www.blacktaoist.com/graphics/applications/gallerylist.html although there's alot of other interesting stuff as well.

[Black Jack]

By rote, as you know, I mean strikes done by the numbers, something which I am not a big believer in at all.

Through others hard fought research, collectd data and my own experiances, in a fight or violent encounter, where you are prepared or better yet pre-emptive, at the very best, you only have control of the first 2-3 shots/moves before it all falls into non-planned chaos.

I was just curious to see if Bagua was one of those systems where they have a string of complicated fine motor actions and strict movements, the kind of stuff that leaps right out of the window when the frenzy is turned on, I have heard that on the par they are not ultra restrictive, so good for them, the less restrictive the better.

I will check out the links latter and get back to you.

Cheers.

[Merryprankster]

Mantis 9--

One of the clearest examples I could give you might be in the Ken Shamrock-Fujita fight in I think Pride 19 (but don't quote me)

Fujita was looking to shoot. Shamrock was looking to throw leather.

When Fujita shot, Shamrock would use a double underhooks (both his arms under his opponent's) sprawl to shuck Fujita back to standing. While he was doing this, he was creating the space to throw power shots with his right by releasing his right underhook, and jacking Fujita up with his left. By taking Fujita off balance, he nullified the immediate threat of a counter attack, as well as using a "holding and hitting," tactic to whack Fujita around. When the left underhook became tenuous due to appropriate countering or poor body positioning (which always happens in a fight), he was able to shrug him back and off while he was throwing leather. Then Ken Shamrock pussed out claiming some sort of heart problems. Probably all the roids.

Another example might be something similar to a Muay Thai clinch. Let's say you are facing somebody who steps in for a body lock. His goal is to shut the space down by getting your hips close to his body. If he can get your hips close, you are very likely to get taken down. Techniquewise, one of the ways I like to accomplish this if my opponent already has inside control, is to throw my weight and legs back so that I am leaning on my opponent, and I place both hands on his hips, with my arms outside his (no choice really--if they were inside, I'd be attacking!!!). This keeps him from sucking my hips forward, makes him carry my weight, and also prevents him from throwing effective knees to my head or midsection. Obviously, you don't just lay on him--you have to lean on him in a well-balanced, mobile manner :)

Now, when the opportunity presents itself, I open my stance up, applying more pressure to the arm and leg pair that is forward (near side). This continues to keep his hips away. At the same time, my now staggered stance has created distance at the other hip. I use this space to fish what I term the "far side arm," back inside his arm. I like to put my hand behind his head in a collar tie and use my forearm in his chest to control the distance. Then, I repeat the process on the other side (except that my new near side arm is behind his head with the forearm controlling the distance). Get both hands behind his head, with your forearms in his chest acting like a pry-bar and you've achieved positional dominance. NOW you can throw knees and also throw your opponent back easily while striking if you need to bail. If he arches back to avoid having his head pulled into your knees, you go in for the body lock to take him down.

If you hadn't done these things, and tried to just hit him, you probably would be on your ass. So that's what I mean--attend to your balance. Achieve positional dominance. Fire away.

Those are probably the two easiest examples I can give.

[apoweyn]

braden,

no worries. when i introduced the terms 'striker' and 'grappler', i wasn't really discussing style, persay. i was discussing momentary roles. just like in every relationship, someone is the benefactor and someone the beneficiary. that arrangement isn't constant. sometimes i'm the sympathetic ear (benefactor) and sometimes i'm the whiner (beneficiary of said sympathetic ear).

same deal with my explanation (though i didn't make this clear enough). two practitioners of whatever style or no style at all face off. in a split second, one shoots for a takedown (tackle, whatever). the other attempts to stop him in his tracks with a strike.

clearly, the idea of sticking to ONE agreed upon range not only fails to accurately describe bagua. it fails to accurately describe EVERY art. taekwondo has punches and elbows (though they are often not trained heavily enough, IMHO). capoeira has headbutts. boxing has long punches and short punches. so it wasn't an observation about adhering to one range. it was an observation about what happens when one person closes in BEYOND the range that his opponent is prepared for.

in my boxing sparring, that meant that he slipped my jab and hammered me with some body hooks. i intended to keep him out. he got in anyway.

now, i know, essentially how to defend the hook and uppercut. and i know how to throw them myself. so i wasn't caught completely off guard by this.

but if, instead, he had slipped my jab and tackled me, i'd have gone down. or we'd have been standing grappling in some form. either way, i'd be LESS prepared than i was at close punching range and certainly moreso than i was at jabbing range.

that's my only point. we've all got strengths and weaknesses. but we all like to say that we could keep an opponent within our strengths and away from our weaknesses. and what struck me was how unlikely that would truly be. if a determined opponent, with his own strengths and weaknesses, wanted to close distance with me, i would need to develop some additional tactics to try and prevent that (or, barring that, deal with it). and, to date, i have not.


yenhoi,

i think the limb destruction thing was introduced by evolutionfist and followed up by me. now i can't speak for evolutionfist, but i have looked into the filipino arts. for about 8 years and counting. and you're right. the footwork definitely holds potential (though i haven't trained it specifically against shooting in for takedowns). the limb destructions, i'm not sure of in this context.


stuart

[apoweyn]

braden,

another miscommunication. (i'm chalking these misconceptions up to my fault now, but then the whole point of a discussion is to whittle away at this stuff until we figure it out, so that's cool.)

i wasn't really discussing styles in which one shot equals victory. only in the idea that an attempt to close range could be thwarted with a strike. and that idea seems predicated not on the idea that one shot can win the whole fight, but that the FIRST shot will find it's target. because if it's not the FIRST shot that lands, there likely won't be time for a next shot IF the opponent's intention is to collide with you.

so while gung fu, pangamot, or any other striking style you can think of does emphasize multiple strikes, in this particular case, i was suggesting that it's really only the first one or two that matter.

does that make more sense?


stuart b.

[Mantis9]

Good illustrations.

I think the overall theme in your examples is hip positioning. Or your weight distribution between two opposing bodies. A non-martial example would be building card castles. You know, that seems too obvious. It creates space to operate as seen fit.

In PM, listed among our 12 character principles, you can find this general concept. However, illustrated in their classically represented technique, we would normally throw! (This came to me only after reading your post and evaluating PM's position. I slow. Doh!) The throw is not meant so much for takedown, but an unbalancing method to further striking.

My disclaimer, though, is that PM, being a principle base style, can be interpreted differently by person or situation when being employed. Overall hip placement is an essential, split-second, consideration to the PM player (and other styles) when attempting to thwart a takedown with a strike or without.

[HuangKaiVun]

Black Jack, great question!

I would imagine that theblacktaoist's techniques are prearranged motions that show the possibilities of simple movements.

From what little I know about real baguazhang, its moves center around two basic concepts: the Single and Double Palm changes. Those two simple moves are the wellspring from which more advanced techniques flow.

The buildup of more complex techniques from simpler ones is a characteristic common of old Chinese kung fu styles meant for combat. In relation to the single/double palm changes, theblacktaoist's techniques in training is like writing a complete sentence after having learned vocabulary and grammar.

I have heard of well known old school bagua fighters having endless sets upon sets, and I have also heard of other well known bagua fighters practicing absolutely nothing but the Single and Double palm changes. Ultimately, the level of complexity hinges on the individual practitioner/lineage of that art.

The bottom line is that regardless of training complexity, a baguazhang opponent should be able to instantly adjust to any attack fluidly and effectively.