Methods to deal with Attacks.

[Sihing73]

AdrianK,

Fair enough, then please provide an example which does not fall into one of those three catagories. I mean it should be that simple if those three are not the only methods to deal with an attack no matter how broad the catagory.

As to intellectualizing, what is wrong with understanding things more deeply?

Besides, this does not result in;

When A does B you use C type of thing. Rather it opens the possibilities to respond to A doing B in any manner of methods.

Consider Chi Sua for example; The basic Dan Chi exercise is based on three hand positions on each side. However, proper practice does not limit one to those three hand positions but provides a framework on which to build in relation to the energy being experienced. Thus is allows one many more options than Taun/Bong/Palm or Fook/Jum-Jut/Punch. The concept taught is more important than the specific technique, imo. Although you need to start somewhere.

Consider the three methods I posted to be like the idea of covering. If one understands how to cover or utilize angles like in FMA. Then one does not need to worry about the specific attack. If it comes into a line covered by a specific angle than one defends in pretty much the same way as one will cover the area of that angle.

This is the same as the gate theory. WC has several gates and in a Wu Sau/Man Sau each arm would provide coverage for an area of that gate. One will adapt to what comes into that gate and respond accordingly, but as long as you are defending or dealing with one gate you have a certain range with which to utilize.

In my mind WC should be simple and direct. How much simpler than to break soemthing down into universal concepts which can be applied no matter what technique is encountered. If there truly are only three ways to deal with any attack then understanding those three ways or concepts, gives one a very broad base on which to build. It also means that one does not need to think about how to respond to an attack and go through hundreds of possible responses. You would simply evade, avoid or intercept depending on your position and what was needed.

Considering that WC has only three empty hand forms and the rest of the systems structure in training, it seems to me that WC is about simplicity and efficiency.

What is more efficient; to approach things from a broad and universally applicable mindset or to complicate and over analyze every movement possible? In what I am suggesting there is no need to over analyze, you deal with an attack in one of three ways and that is it. Yes it may be broad, but then again how many ways are there to really throw a punch or kick? Yet there are many variations.

Consider this, human movement can be broken down into the following:

• Sitting
• Standing
• Crawling
• Walking
• Running

Anything else, to include punching and or kicking, would fall into one of the above catagories. Or would you not agree with this thinking?

What I am seeking is someone who is able to say that by doing this one falls outside of one of the three catagories I mentioned. So far I have not heard anything which shows that there are more or that those three are not inclusive.

However, if there are only three methods, than ones approach to combat can be based on expanding based on them as a core.

So here is a question for you and everyone else;

What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.

[Hendrik]

What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.

One can catagorized shoot or take down as any of the three for sake of arguement.

and that is exactly why the three is not a good way to catagorize things,

because it doesnt tell what is it but having those "gray" reason to argue " it include everything".


so, it is telling something but telling nothing.

For me, this is similar to those " keep training and you will get there " stuffs. it really goes no where but lots of good arguements and sound deep.


But then, I do see your idea on trying to make things simple. That is nothing wrong with that. the question is how good is that model work out.

Just some thoughts.

[Phil Redmond]

What's the difference between avoid and evade to you?

[Hardwork108]

What's the difference between avoid and evade to you?

Perhaps, avoid means hitting the opponent when you know he is about to hit you. That would be avoiding. Also, if you walk away from a potentially explosive situation, then you may be successful in avoiding an exchange of blows.

I guess that evading only applies when the strike has been launched.

[Ozzy Dave]

Hi Dave,

I think maybe you’re talking about methods to handle an attack from a different perspective to Hendrik

Intercept
Evade
Avoid

Are to me the three major timings of engaging an attack.

You intercept if you are early as you correctly anticipate the movement/momentum of the opponent.
You evade (which to me is where the control comes in) if you are in time and can flow with the movement/momentum of the opponent.
You avoid if you are late so as to mitigate the effect of the movement/momentum of the opponent.

What Hendrik is talking about IMO from a western context are tactics, more specifically tactics applied to change your timing relative to the opponent.

For instance attempting to destroy a limb has the potential to change your timing relative to the opponent i.e. go from being late to in time or from in time to early.

This is where the skill in applying the concepts comes in IMO in the unpredictable world of actual fighting.

Again, IMO it’s this ability to influence your timing relative to the opponent that allows you to “open the door” or handle “momentum”, as much as structure or fa jin / faat geng.

Dave

[Wayfaring]

Does anyone havr another way to deal with an attack? If so I would be interested in discussing.

Flow with an attack. Doesn't really fit with your 3.

[Wayfaring]

What catagory of the three I suggest would a shoot or take down be considered? Or if it is outside of the three please explain how and what apparoach it would represent.

They are attacks, not responses to attacks.

The responses would be sprawl or turn.

[Wayfaring]

As to intellectualizing, what is wrong with understanding things more deeply?

If the movements and strategies are complex, and your intellectualizing is over-simplified, then what is wrong with it is that it is NOT understanding things more deeply, it is simply trying to create a number of buckets to sort things into.

That's fine for organizing a curriculum for teaching purposes, not so fine for teaching, discussing, intellectualizing the intricate details.

[Hendrik]

You intercept if you are early as you correctly anticipate the movement/momentum of the opponent.
You evade (which to me is where the control comes in) if you are in time and can flow with the movement/momentum of the opponent.
You avoid if you are late so as to mitigate the effect of the movement/momentum of the opponent.

For me, if you are early, you go right into the core because he is still busying with his act.

if you are on time you make use of his momentum

if you are late then you must not avoid but threat it as you are early of the next attack.

[AdrianK]

AdrianK,

Fair enough, then please provide an example which does not fall into one of those three catagories. I mean it should be that simple if those three are not the only methods to deal with an attack no matter how broad the catagory.

Alright look, the point is not that they don't fall into those three categories, the point is that those three categories are too broad to have any substantial meaning in any discussion.

Basically its like this, if I show you a pak sao, I tell you how it works, and what its used for, and then tell you to put it into your "box of ideas" under the label "intercept the attack", the label you put on it is irrelevant. Pak Sao can be used to evade, Pak sao can be used to intercept.

But if you really must know, yes, there is another approach. Absorb.
Muhammed Ali vs. George Foreman. Ali absorbed the attacks to tire Foreman out. Its been shown in combat fighting that you can psychologically weaken your opponent by taking his best shots and continuing to fight.

But thats the thing, Ali didn't just use one approach in that fight, he used several.

Anyways, Evade and Avoid are the same thing, but whatever.

As to intellectualizing, what is wrong with understanding things more deeply?

Intellectualizing is fine. But you're trying to instead oversimplify. In other words, instead of trying to understand things more deeply, you're seeking to understand them more basically. Thats fine, but there's a point of oversimplification that you've reached, where understanding it more basically means nothing.

[JPinAZ]

IMHO,
Dealing with attack in TCMA is never as over simplified as Avoid, Avert, and Intercept.

One can do all the Avoid, Avert, and Intercept, if the door of the opponent is not open up. Then one still out side the door. That do nothing much at all dealing with the attack.


Trying to intercept and enter with Brute force will end up like what Gary Lam says " you use Tan DA, lucky he is my student, otherwise I get hit already; who fast? me or him? he fast because he has started the....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u63OJ...eature=related


also, Gary doesnt go for the center line right away. he let it passed first. meaning he open the door via Dissolve/dilute the attack. but he is not just pure avoid or avert. it is a dissolving momentum open door act. So, it is not true that WCK always going for center line. WCK goes for the center line only after the path is clear.

Just some thoughts out of millions of thoughts.

IMO, this is not WCK thinking. To say someone 'doesnt go for the center line right away' or ' So, it is not true that WCK always going for center line' doesn't make any sense to me from a WCK perspective. Without WC centerline concept, there can be no WC being done or even being 'born'! Wing chun centerline concept is one of the main ideas that allows us to deal with an attacker without having to run away! Why give it up if you haven't even made contact? Does that mean we as WCK fighters are afraid to engage an attack on centerline so we should always run away??

If you side step, or run away from the initial attack in an attempt to 'dissolve', that is an illusion. You are not dissolving anything since you are not engaging. You are only giving up your own reference point and running away from/giving up centerline and only giving your opponent more time to use more follow up attacks. By doing that, you are not being true nor understanding the first primary rules/ideas of engagement in WCK - which is WCK Centerline.

[Sihing73]

But if you really must know, yes, there is another approach. Absorb.
Muhammed Ali vs. George Foreman. Ali absorbed the attacks to tire Foreman out. Its been shown in combat fighting that you can psychologically weaken your opponent by taking his best shots and continuing to fight.

Anyways, Evade and Avoid are the same thing, but whatever.

Well, I would put Absord into the catagory of Intercept as you are relying on your ability to meet force with force. In this case you are accepting the force and hoping to be able to handle it long enough to respond with an attack of your own.

Evade and Avoid are not the same, please reread my explanations. An evasion puts you in a postion where you can strike the opponent. Avoid means you cannot be hit but you also are not in a position to strike.

[AdrianK]

Well, I would put Absord into the catagory of Intercept as you are relying on your ability to meet force with force. In this case you are accepting the force and hoping to be able to handle it long enough to respond with an attack of your own.

Its got nothing to do with meeting force with force. have you seen the fight?

Evade and Avoid are not the same, please reread my explanations. An evasion puts you in a postion where you can strike the opponent. Avoid means you cannot be hit but you also are not in a position to strike.

Semantics, Evade and Avoid are the same. What you're explaining is just a variation on the same concept.

[Hendrik]

IMO, this is not WCK thinking. To say someone 'doesnt go for the center line right away' or ' So, it is not true that WCK always going for center line' doesn't make any sense to me from a WCK perspective. Without WC centerline concept, there can be no WC being done or even being 'born'! Wing chun centerline concept is one of the main ideas that allows us to deal with an attacker without having to run away! Why give it up if you haven't even made contact? Does that mean we as WCK fighters are afraid to engage an attack on centerline so we should always run away??

If you side step, or run away from the initial attack in an attempt to 'dissolve', that is an illusion. You are not dissolving anything since you are not engaging. You are only giving up your own reference point and running away from/giving up centerline and only giving your opponent more time to use more follow up attacks. By doing that, you are not being true nor understanding the first primary rules/ideas of engagement in WCK - which is WCK Centerline.

So how do your view explain what Gary Lam did?

[JPinAZ]

So how do your view explain what Gary Lam did?

I don't explain it, he can do whatever he wants - it's free country. But I don't agree with how you try to explain it.
(of which I already posted above)