What would it be?
I don't know how this would ever happen, but say you agreed to a fight (striking) where you could only use one attack the entire time. What would you use? A jab? A cross? An elbow? A Thai Kick? That's what I would use.
Printable View
What would it be?
I don't know how this would ever happen, but say you agreed to a fight (striking) where you could only use one attack the entire time. What would you use? A jab? A cross? An elbow? A Thai Kick? That's what I would use.
Chi Blast!!!!
But seriously... perhaps a well conditioned phoenix eye punch.
Do you get to know what your opponent will be using?
Also, is this just for attacking? Can you use any defense techinques?
that's silly question because A. each fight is different with diff techs being best in diff situations and B. because unless you're some thug whose striking first, you'll need to block first aswell.
elbows
Strong leading rights, with my left back hand to block. Strike and block any thing that moves simultanously. If the distancing and timing are right, the back hand is only insurance.
I would use punching, or shooting.
running
Grasp sparrow's tail
EDIT: Oops, didn't read the original post too carefully... You want striking techniques? I'll stick with taijiquan: deflect, parry and punch.
The technique of no-technique.
(cue spooky flute music)
Or less engimatically - I tend to be responsive rather than pro-active. So, the single technique I choose will depend on what my opponent does. Wait for the opening and exploit it by whatever means is most appropriate.
doesn't that count as 3 techniques?Quote:
Originally posted by aedolon
Grasp sparrow's tail
EDIT: Oops, didn't read the original post too carefully... You want striking techniques? I'll stick with taijiquan: deflect, parry and punch.
no you won't. you can move. Or, if you see him attacking, you can beat him to the punch. That brings me to the technique I would use - the teep.Quote:
Originally posted by blooming lotus
because unless you're some thug whose striking first, you'll need to block first aswell.
I thought about using a lead hand punch, as efist said, as I have long arms. But, my legs are longer and more powerful, so I won't have to be as close to do damage. I then thought about the thai roundhouse as IF said, but what if my opponent is a grappler, san shou guy or another thai boxer? I'd be more prone to get cut kicked, thrown, etc.
I was thinking Thai roundouse too until I read what Seven* posted. I think I have to agree with E-fist. Not very sexy, but the most effective and adaptable if you had to stick with a single technique.
In some ways I see it as a ridiculous question and in other ways its really not IMO.
For the most part I train in hope of not having to think much about which technique will need to come out in an encounter. Thats why questions like what would you do If I did this I no longer entertain because I dont believe anyone can no for sure what they will do in any situation.
But with that said many of the old timers have been known to specialize in one or two hands and of course were said to have used them mostly when in public encounters. An example is Guo Yun Shen and his half step Beng Chuan.
Personally not to be too poetic I look at techniques more like branches that all come off the trunk of a tree. Where the trunk is your fundamentals (footwork, power generation, mindset etc.)
So what would I use? either Beng Chuan or Chun Choi both take the shape of a linear straight punch but each off a different set of body mechanics.
What are you gonna do if they clinch you or take you down?Quote:
Originally posted by Judge Pen
I was thinking Thai roundouse too until I read what Seven* posted. I think I have to agree with E-fist. Not very sexy, but the most effective and adaptable if you had to stick with a single technique.
Elbows are the equalizer.
Quote:
Originally posted by Palmer
In some ways I see it as a ridiculous question and in other ways its really not IMO.
If the question was "what is the best technique to use in a fight?" I would think it was ridiculous as well. But that's not what the question is. I sometimes spar this way. If I want to focus on a particular technique, I will look for openings to do it as often as I can. Granted, I'll use other techniques as well, but will use that one more than any others. Also, we'll do drills like one person can only to takedowns and the other can only do strikes.
But with that said many of the old timers have been known to specialize in one or two hands and of course were said to have used them mostly when in public encounters. An example is Guo Yun Shen and his half step Beng Chuan.
that's no different than today. cro cop is known for his roundhouse, yoshida for his throwing, etc. all MA will have their specialty. It's by no means the only technique they use, however.
Actually in some ways it IS ridiculous and I clearly stated in others it is not. This is a "fight" we are talking about not some sparring session where you can focus on just throws and your opponent is probably not even putting enough pressure on you in the first place. Especially if he is as limited as you.
If anybody thinks that in a real unpredictable encounter your going to be hanging back looking for openings so you can pull off your one allowable technique there crazy. IMO the only reason that someone may throw one technique over another is because they have drilled it to death and it comes out instinctually.
Regardless of what your opinion is I stated that it is both ridiculous in some ways and a valid question in others. Either way its purely theoretical.
I'd wish that I had picked a different technique.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterKiller
What are you gonna do if they clinch you or take you down?
Elbows are the equalizer.
Actually, the lead right hand is pretty much my "go to" technique. Everything for me starts from there .... pretty much like opening with the King's pawn ... let's out the queen and the bishop.
If someone shoots, I'll throw out the lead hand -- backed up with the left back hand -- not in hopes of KOing (not realistic) but in getting an agressive bridge. From there elbows or sinking or whatever comes into play.
If the other begins with striking, again, lead strike to intercept and get a feel and hopefully find a hole to slip into and T-out ... use lenght and leverage while blocking with the back hand.
Knee-high to waist high round house, lead right hand and maybe pivit step to absorb and play from there.
I find this technique very useful and adaptable. I also don't know if I agree with the "no thinking just "flow" mentality."
There is a lot of thinking, a lot of reading your apponant and adapting .... finding openings, seeking tendencies .... especially when playing with a skilled guy.
Fighting a brawler is different. Things get forced on you so quick sometimes you just have to snap as well and hopefully roll with a strike and gain advantage latter.
But for the most part, most of the fighting I'm doing now -- and I learned this from my last San Da LOSS -- is more brain based than brawn based.
kick in the knee........
I wouldnt want this thread to digress into reality vs competition but really thats what I believe the difference is here. The first example you mention about seeking tendancy's and the time spent "viewing" your opponent and "figuring" them out I believe will let the critical moments pass in a real encounter. I believe real encounters pretty much are brawling events.Quote:
Originally posted by EvolutionFist
. I also don't know if I agree with the "no thinking just "flow" mentality."
There is a lot of thinking, a lot of reading your apponant and adapting .... finding openings, seeking tendencies .... especially when playing with a skilled guy.
Fighting a brawler is different. Things get forced on you so quick sometimes you just have to snap as well and hopefully roll with a strike and gain advantage latter.
But for the most part, most of the fighting I'm doing now -- and I learned this from my last San Da LOSS -- is more brain based than brawn based.
Dont get me wrong I dont believe the point of ma training is to go flat line with your brain. Just certain aspects of your training should be more instinctual so it can actually "free up" your mind to be aware of other things like where your opponent "is" at any one moment and how close you are to them or do I engage or retreat. In my experience the people that start thinking to much about what the opponent is doing and how you will react to any individual technique they employ are the ones that very often freeze.
Bingo! I was going to say that. Nothing like a thrust kick to the knee.Quote:
Originally posted by iWalkTheCircle
kick in the knee........
"so it can actually "free up" your mind to be aware of other things like where your opponent "is" at any one moment "
Agreed.
Evolution dont get me wrong I'm not against competition as a very viable training medium for actual encounters. I think competition is great.
Since I can't run, Seiken Oi Tsuki; step in, punch with lead hand.
against a moving, opponent, a kick to the knee isn't the one technique I'd like to have in my arsenal. What's the guarantee that you will hit it when you try? What's the guarantee that his knee will be straight enough for you to break it?Quote:
Originally posted by Indestructible
Bingo! I was going to say that. Nothing like a thrust kick to the knee.
If I could use other techiques also, then that would be cool, but as a lone technique? nah. IMO, of course.
But a teep is better?Quote:
Originally posted by SevenStar
against a moving, opponent, a kick to the knee isn't the one technique I'd like to have in my arsenal.
It's more ambiguous (IE: versatile) anyway. You can teep a dude anywhere, including the knee, if that's the beset target.
Seven Star beat me too it.
I was reffing a few guys last night and one guy went for a chip knee shot (they were going light so it was no big deal) but I pointed out to him that when he missed or didn't hit square he wound up in a bad position, offering his flank, when the foot diflected.
I consider it a risky opening: no guarantee of success, chance of losing position AND lack of mobility.
You can't guarantee any technique will do the job, but I believe you want to stack odds in your favor and have back up and double back up.
This is why I like the lead strike. My feet are firmly planted. I can strike out to slow down the attack and step back disengaging (for the most part) or step out like a bull fighter and throw a lead hook.
Quote:
Originally posted by Palmer
Actually in some ways it IS ridiculous and I clearly stated in others it is not. This is a "fight" we are talking about not some sparring session where you can focus on just throws and your opponent is probably not even putting enough pressure on you in the first place. Especially if he is as limited as you.
as it's a theoretical question, it's not really ridiculous. It's actually quite informational, in a way. No need to keep going back and forth on this though, as we are entitled to separate opinions.
If anybody thinks that in a real unpredictable encounter your going to be hanging back looking for openings so you can pull off your one allowable technique there crazy.
naturally we don't think that way.
IMO the only reason that someone may throw one technique over another is because they have drilled it to death and it comes out instinctually.
bingo. Hence the informational part I was getting at. we are finding out things about the others on this forum. I use the teep alot. efist stated he uses his lead punch alot. Do you repeatedly drill beng chuan? My guess is that the people that reply to this thread won't just pull a random technique out of their arse, but will respond with something they use quite often.
bingo.Quote:
Originally posted by Chang Style Novice
It's more ambiguous (IE: versatile) anyway. You can teep a dude anywhere, including the knee, if that's the beset target.
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenStar
"as it's a theoretical question, it's not really ridiculous. It's actually quite informational, in a way. No need to keep going back and forth on this though, as we are entitled to separate opinions."
Some theoretical questions can be ridiculous for all "practical" purposes. It really all depends on the context that the question is being asked and we do not know really why the person is asking the question or how they will use the info for there personal practice. I agree we are entitled to our own opinions.
"naturally we don't think that way"
As a moderator I'm sure you have come across people with very naive perceptions of ma in general. So I never assume anything when talking to someone regardless of the forum.
"My guess is that the people that reply to this thread won't just pull a random technique out of their arse, but will respond with something they use quite often"
See above
theoretical questions are not practical by definition.
right cross.
Palm strikes. They can double as defence and offence.
-assuming only one movement can me made. i'd go with hammerfist chopping. for the same reason joedoe picked palm strikes. being very "longfisty" i overuse chopping as it is. i'm comfortable with them and its kinda my default move.
-assuming other movements are allowed as long as the chosen technique is the one doing the damage. i'd swat and grab with my hand and deliver elbow strike(as the chosen technique).
Pow Choy, Poi E Sau, or 7 Star Punch...for now anyways.
Since 90%* of all fights go to the ground, how you gonna teep once you hit the pavement?Quote:
Originally posted by SevenStar
bingo.
*not an actual statistic
single leg takedown.
and then what...?Quote:
Originally posted by ShaolinTiger00
single leg takedown.
Either Elbows, Palms, or a suplex.
If elbows or palms are adequate answers, any type of closed fist punch would just be a punch.
:eek:
;)