Boxing vs. Mantis and other fighting strategies: a comparison

[SanHeChuan]

In boxing it is a Fair contest. When one boxer throws a punch at another boxer he has all his defenses to call upon. He has his foot work to evade, he has his body to slip, and he has his guard to shield. And each time he throws his punch it's just as hard as the last time to land, unless they tire at different rates.

In Mantis, I'll lead with a punch and if, with all your defenses in place you let me hit you, I'll take it. But as I advance my attack I'll systematic remove each of your defense until a point when all you can do is flinch at my strike. I do this by stepping on or wrapping up your foot so you can't evade. I bride to lead away and tie up your guard and then I pluck, push, pull, trip, etc to take your balance. Have done that my next strike should land with little resistance.

It is like a knott that get's tighter the more you resist.

What about other styles?
Strategies and Methods

[mickey]

Hi SanHechuan,

There exists an excellent article that came out in the 1982 Yearbook edition of Inside Kung Fu. It features an excellent article written by the late Jane Hallander that talks about the fighting methods of the Praying Mantis Style, according to the late Brendan Lai. Do you have it?

It is this one:

http://cgi.ebay.com/82-INSIDE-KUNG-FU-YB-MAGAZINE-KENPO-KARATE-BRANDON-LAI_W0QQitemZ220358287355QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMagazi nes?hash=item220358287355&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14

It is a real must have.

mickey

[EarthDragon]

Jane Hallander was facinated with my teacher and mantis in general, she has written many articals on mantis.. You should take mickey advice and pick up a copy of that mag

[SanHeChuan]

Is it this article?

http://www.8step.com/news/articles/mantistrainingsecrets.shtml

[mickey]

No,

It is not that article. That one you posted is from 1993. The magazine is from 1982. The content of that article that I am referring to says more about the Praying Mantis style than most English language books on the subject combined.

mickey

[YouKnowWho]

What about other styles? Strategies and Methods
If we look at the sword fight then we can come up a basic principle in fighting and that is to use your sword to feel where your opponent's sword is. You then temporary guide his sword to a position that has no threaten to you, you then enter and attack.

If we apply this principle in open hand, you can do the following:

- Use your leg bite to build a "leg bridge" (you know where your opponent's legs are).
- Use your punch to build an "arm bridge" (you know where your opponent's arms are).
- Guide your opponent's arm to a place that has no threaten to you.
- You then enter and attack.

[EarthDragon]

San,
no that is one of the articles she wrote about my teacher but he didnt arrive leave taiwan until 1984

As mickey said it was 1983 perhaps mickey you could scan it and post it here I would be interested in reading it as well.

[Pork Chop]

In boxing it is a Fair contest. When one boxer throws a punch at another boxer he has all his defenses to call upon. He has his foot work to evade, he has his body to slip, and he has his guard to shield. And each time he throws his punch it's just as hard as the last time to land, unless they tire at different rates.


no offense, but i don't think i agree with that statement at all.
there's an entire science built off of setting everything up with the jab.
another science (though not as common as it once was) that deals with parrying, and how to take advantage of an opponent's compromised structure once he's parried.

I suggest watching tape on Archie Moore, Bernard Hopkins, Floyd Mayweather, and Winky Wright.

There's a reason it's called the "sweet science".
The idea that only the more athletic person will win is an unfortunate by product of the amateur boxing scoring system.
Speed kills, but if you don't know what to do with that speed, it won't.

[SanHeChuan]

no offense, but i don't think i agree with that statement at all.
there's an entire science built off of setting everything up with the jab.
another science (though not as common as it once was) that deals with parrying, and how to take advantage of an opponent's compromised structure once he's parried.

I am marginally aware of these skills. It is my understanding that they either create distraction, or capitalize on the opponents focus on attack vs defense. Go high to hit low, and attack when they attack, type strategies. Am I close?

Either way they don't take way from the opponents ability to defend but seek/create openings in his defenses.

But I can see where you could find fault with this simplification.

And each time he throws his punch it's just as hard as the last time to land, unless they tire at different rates.

[Pork Chop]

It's not all tricks to get him to open up.
Some of them are also taking advantage of how he defends.

Hooking off the jab is an easy example.
If I know he likes to slip to the outside of my jab, i set him up with the jab, then follow up with a quick hook and catch him running into it - makes it hit double hard.
You do take away his ability to defend because when you're committed to slipping one direction, reversing the direction of that slip or suddenly trying to weave mid-slip is near impossible.
Even if he parries instead of slip, you're still taking advantage of him committing to a particular defense (very similar to the mantis principle of "riding the energy" - at least that's what Sifu Fogg called it, I don't remember the official principle name).

One more...
When a southpaw boxer fights an orthodox, he's always trying to get his foot outside the lead foot of the other guy. This is very similar to bridge fighting in that you're trying to get positional dominance- even without touching. Once that lead foot is outside the other guy's lead foot, the orthodox fighter's essentially down to 1 tool - his lead; while the southpaw is in position to fire both of his tools. The orthodox cross is essentially taken out of play because the angle required to hit the southpaw is too sharp across his own body.

Everything's about creating angles where the other guy is compromised.
The boxing clinch is also rife with techniques & strategies to compromise the other guy's structure and exploit it.

Don't even get me started on all the crazy stuff going on with muay thai and it's clinch.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I recall a boxing coach once saying something that stuck with me:

Boxing is as simple as hitting someone, and just as complicated.

[MightyB]

In Mantis, I'll lead with a punch and if, with all your defenses in place you let me hit you, I'll take it. But as I advance my attack I'll systematic remove each of your defense until a point when all you can do is flinch at my strike. I do this by stepping on or wrapping up your foot so you can't evade. I bride to lead away and tie up your guard and then I pluck, push, pull, trip, etc to take your balance. Have done that my next strike should land with little resistance.

It is like a knott that get's tighter the more you resist.


1 big thing that's missed in your comparison and a lot of martial artists miss this. It's that everything in mantis was designed to set up a quick kill... you have to have a mindset of attacking to kill, not hurt, not win some type of contest, just kill. It's horrible to say this but for a good example, watch "Taken". He goes for the throat- everything he does is to set up a good throat shot. True Krav is like that, Mantis is like that. Look at the first Jut Yu form- the first essential. It ends with a series of rapid throat chops, if you're from LGY line- look at Sub Sa Lo- it ends with a series of rapid throat strikes.

You don't intend to kill in boxing. It's probably the best hand method for a fair fight- or somewhat dirty fight where you want to hurt and humiliate somebody. CMA styles aren't supposed to do that (they're supposed to kill)- that's why they are so horrible to use in a contest, that's why they're so horribly taught, that's why they've ended up so horrible. This isn't new. Bruce Lee developed a whole philosophy dedicated to bringing back the killer mindset.

And NO, this isn't the whole "kung fu is too deadly to use" argument because people who use that argument still--- STILL train as if it's a game, and they're horrible sports trainers. They have no business coaching 'cuz they suck- don't know good drills, don't practice basics, don't know how to properly coach sparring, don't know sports weight training and fitness, don't understand crosstraining- they suck as coaches, and they don't even understand the style that they try to teach. It ends up being poor dancing in ugly costumes.

Boxers know how to train and know what they're training for. That's the real comparative analysis.

[David Jamieson]

ime style is meaningless in a very broad sense.

first guy to punch the other with a bomb to the face will prevail usually.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Boxers know how to train and know what they're training for. That's the real comparative analysis.

You sir, have left hooked the correct right in the liver !