Action faster than re-action.

[red_fists]

There are many System and People that claim in a fight you need to act rather than react as this is faster and thus guarantees victory.

Leaving the legal ramification for hitting first on the side, let me look at it from another angle.

Ok, somebody tries to hit me and I block the punch and counterattack.
Wasn't my reaction faster than his action?

Would it not be better to wait for his offensive and than manipulate him into a position where I can counterattack him and thus maybe end the fight.

Any Opinions?

Or did I simply misunderstand what everybody else was talking about.

[gazza99]

What people are reffering to is the cognitive process that is involved in reacting. Essentially it takes more time to react, than to simply act. The logic in this is simple, the acting party has already pychologically finished the process of acting and it is being manifested physically. To react you need to recognize the action and counter, which is more difficult and time consuming especailly sans training.

Gary

[Sharky]

"Ok, somebody tries to hit me and I block the punch and counterattack.
Wasn't my reaction faster than his action?"

Happens very rarely. People who have been in fights understand: blocks just don't (often) work in a streetfight. I know you are gonna go off on one at "that's only if you're not doing it properly" but all i can suggest is: bite me.

[red_fists]

Sharky.

Naah, don't wanna bite you after you told us about the Pets that are living with you.
:D

Onto your Post.
Yes, I know that blocks are not the 100% answer.
The block was just an example, it could have been an evasion move, counter attack without a block or whatever.

All of this are initiated after the inital "action".

All that I am saying is the following:
If "action" was really that fast why bother with learning blocks, parries, evasive actions & counter-attacks.

Most MA I know seem to advocate reacting after an attack was initiated.
As an "initial action/attack" commits you and thus you loose a certain degree of control over the fight.

Some of the Street/Reality fighting schools seem to say hit first and try to end the fight that way. (Offensive mindset, blah blah)

Just seem like 2 very opposite positions.

[dedalus]

If a reaction is a reflex, it's faster.

[scotty1]

Yup. if your reaction does not require thinking time then the process is speeded up because there is one less link in the chain. Isn't that why we're all training, to hone our instincts?

[HongKongPhooey]

You don't have to hit to be active. You could be setting some-one up, giving them a target to hit. block what you know is comming and then counter. But beacuse you know whatas comming, you're being active.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but I'm knackered and can't think straight.

[red_fists]

Originally posted by HongKongPhooey
You don't have to hit to be active. You could be setting some-one up, giving them a target to hit. block what you know is comming and then counter. But beacuse you know whatas comming, you're being active.

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but I'm knackered and can't think straight.

Yeah, it makes sense to me.

That's similar to the way I see it.

[scotty1]

I would think each situation should be taken on its merits. If some guy is in my face and I'm waiting for that first strike I might just put it in first. But then I'm saying that without any actual experience, so who the f.uck knows what I'd do?

Certainly not me.:D

[dezhen2001]

i think it depends on how you see it. As HKphooey said you don't need to be doing something overtly aggressive to take the initiative. It doesn't have to be something like a pre-emptive strike. you can put yourself in a well protected but natural stance, try to talk your way out of it, leave an opening, manouver yourself so you can escape easily etc. so many things you can do apart from striking, but all help to end the confrontation quicker.

To me it also depends on the othe rpersons intent. If it's obvious that they're gonna start something anyway (ie. all other avenues have been exhausted) then that to me counts as something aggressive from them. So what can you do then?

good threas red_fists :)

david

[HongKongPhooey]

Also, thinking about it. If you're active then you have a plan and maybe a backup plan etc.... but if you being reactive then you are following some-one else's plan and they might have a back up etc...

As for what I'd do in a "real" situation. So far, touch wood, I haven't had any. Does a broken nose and a dislocated jaw in sparring count?

[JWTAYLOR]

I think some of you are missing the point on the whole "action is faster than reaction" thing.

The simple fact is that very often, more often than not, if someone throws a punch at me I can do something about it. Be it move out of the way, block it, something. Watch a professional boxing match, how many hits really land vs. how many are thrown. It goes double for the really powerfull blows.

Why?

Because, as Ed Parker said, "action can beat reaction if the target to be reached LAST is the FIRST target to move out of the way."

JWT

[Mantis9]

This comment sort of follows HongKong's comment about being active through anticipation.

First, I believe action is faster that reaction. To paraphrase gazza, there is one stage to action, possible two, and at least three stage to reaction. It just a sorter course. In a few cases, I can see that one individual could react faster than his/her opponent act, but through experience this is awfully rare.

With that said, I believe blocking not an obsolete course of action. (Though, it is only the first step to a solution.) When reacting to an attack, let's give your example of a single punch, there are a couple of things that could be happening to accomdate your success. First, the fabled reaction distance line. (I think that's the common terminalogy.) Often, a dominating counter comes when the reactor purposely floats along that imaginary line, pulling in to entice an 'active' punch, then pulls slightly back to a buffer to compensate for his/her reaction.

Second, telegraphing. The moment you are able to read an opponent his/her action time advantage is severely diminished. You effectively get to physically watch their mental process in that split second.

That's my two cents. Thanks for the post.

Mantis9

[HuangKaiVun]

be mentally flexible and martially versatile.

[Sharky]

a) why bother waiting for an action to react to

b) i'll rephrase " blocks, evasions move, counter attacks without a block or whatever" hardly ever work in proper streetfights.

c) if i was on a mat, standing in front of you jwt, i'm sure you could handle my punches or as u say "do something about it" nearly all the time. but things are different on the street mate - the land of sucker punches, bottles, knifes, etc etc etc etc...

Hit first and hit hard, keep hitting till they're down.

I know LEGEND will be with me on this.

[Black Jack]

I agree Sharky, if one has the choice to be proactive, that is the best bet, you said it in a nutshell, hit first and hit hard, keep hitting tell they are down.

[MonkeySlap Too]

The debate between offensive strategy and defensive strategy is a long one. In our country, where our heads get filled with clap trap about escalation of force (He has a knife! Don't hurt him!) defensive strategy often gets the dominant position. Especially since you really do not want to teach anyone off the street how to attack and hurt someone else.

However, it is often a mix of the two strategies that produces the best result. I train defensive skills first, A.) Most attacks in the street are a complete flipping surprise and B.) It teaches Timing, Distance and Positioning. This understanding of timing and distance leads into the skills for the more sophisticated offensive strategies.

The key to making defensive strategies effective is to utilize one beat instead of two. If you have to block - then strike, you are inherently slower than the attacker. But - if you enter on one beat and break thier structure - you now have the dominant position.

The determination of which strategies to use are built on a number of different factors - which I'll be writing about in a book I am writing - this is kind of a summary. Whatcha think?

[Black Jack]

Sounds good MonkeySlap:)

I like your analogy of the block then strike description, you see alot of that in many schools, almost a paint by the numbers approach to fighting, attacker throws a punch, defender parries punch and then does a complicated combo to which attacker falls down without a hassle, which is something that I don't believe will happen on most if any occasions.

By using beats are you in reference to how kali uses a beat structure, as that is how I am getting it across? Attack and Defend at the same time?

P.S. Will the book have naked pics of ladies in it? Maybe something with a funky 70's motif, get smart karate stances, afrows, bead jewelry, a lot of hair? You in bell bottoms and a leather vest with feathers on it?

Now that would be one grooooovy martial art book, part serious info, part advant garde.

Call it something like Shonuffs guide to kicking ass and looking cool:D

[Sharky]

It will probably just have ninja's flipping out and killing each other in it, and be totally sweet.

[MonkeySlap Too]

I was thinking of calling it 'The Big Book of Ninja's'. It could have every page blank, with one pop-out Ninja that pierces your eye with a pin! Sho-nuff.

BlackJack - yeah, I'm using the Kali term, cause heck, I play Kali and the term makes sense for what we do. The thought is simple - if I am attacked, I am automatically a beat behind. My response can't be two beats, I need to assume the dominant position in one beat, or face (possibly) overwhelming force. Wether creating that beat is penetrating or accepting force is determined by the nature of the attack.

[Sharky]

monkeyslap - where the hell is sevenstar?

[MonkeySlap Too]

I dunno, but I owe him some stuff, so I'm sure he'll pop up sooner or later. Seems everybody, myself included, have been busy at work.

I'll pop him an e-mail, see what's up.

[Changquan_Wushu]

well, in kendo we have a technicque called Debana waza (i think that's what it is :P) where you counter before the oponent finishes his strike. Isn't that a reaction faster then an action? ;) even if u are fast the higher in students can still get you.

[JWTAYLOR]

Sharky, if he sucker punched you there wouldn't be the opportunity for you to "hit first, hit hard" either.

I totally buy the hit first, hit hard, argument, but, as you pointed out, throwing the first punch in the street isn't allways possible.

JWT

[Sharky]

if he sucker punched you, you wouldn't be able to block it either though?

[JWTAYLOR]

No, by definition, with a sucker punch you just get hit.


JWT

[Tigerstyle]

"I was thinking of calling it 'The Big Book of Ninja's'. It could have every page blank, with one pop-out Ninja that pierces your eye with a pin! Sho-nuff."

LOL!

[C. Martin]

I know I'm a little late at adding to this post, but it's a good one.

Let's start with the steps involved in (RE)action:
1. Perceive (the threat)
2. Evaluate (determine the level of the threat, manner of threat)
3. Decide (Tap into existing tools, or formulate plan of action)
4. Act (initiate action)

For driving purposes (something we do everyday), insurance industry standards are 1.6 seconds from observation of danger to reaction (actual action)

Now....stay with me here......we as martial artists, tend to work towards shortening the first three steps as much as possible. This is the purpose of drilling. Whether you refer to it a "feeling" the attack, or "sensing" the attack, it's all part of the perception step. Then, you are essentially trained to blow through the last three based on your perception.

Problem: Most martial arts training does not take into account Pre-Incident Exhibitors and emotional climate....result....a punch that you should have known coming turns into a "sucker punch."

P.I.E., as I have copywritten the acronym, stands for Pre-Incident Exhibitors. Actions like the "look away" (looking over the shoulder), the face rub and removal of the hat or glasses, are sure fire indicators that the bad guy/girl (lest I be accused of being a sexist, racist pig), is going to initiate.

So where the hell am I going with this.......

If my reaction is in the perception stage....then my reaction will appear faster than his/her action. In reality, my re-action is initiated by P.I.E. that I train extensivley to recognize.

Otherwise, the traditional one step, attack/block/counter model, is worthless. Drill training is much better, but still lacking in terms of street confrontations unless the emotional climate is addressed, as well at the pre-incident exhibitors.

So, I action faster than reaction? Depends on what you are talking about, but and excellent question. If you want more info, email me. I'm teaching an instructor's course some time this summer, and will soon initiate a distance learning program that will allow you to do a home study of this information, and apply it to the art you are practicing.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Decades ago I trained in a Japanese Kenpo style - 80% of what they did was distance / timing drills. The end result was that they could beat most attackers to the punch most of the time.

The rest of the art was not that sophisticated, but heck, they hit first most of the time even though they did not initiate the attack.