8-step MMA

[PangQuan]

Why would one want to spend time investing in an unproven technology when there is already an extremely viable one already in existence?

Exactly, like why would Henry Ford want to try and put everything on the line to build a automobile when we have millions of proven reasons why horses work just fine. Oh but wait, he went out there, did it. Took lots of time and lots of effort. Was ridiculed and denounced, then after many years he developed what we see on every single corner in most of the colonized world.

Why go out on a limb? Because you may just get a wonderful surprize at the end of the journey.

[fa_jing]

"Why go out on a limb? Because you may just get a wonderful surprize at the end of the journey."

There's a surprise at the end of the way you spelled the word "surprise."

J/K, you made a good point. Which kinda lends itself to my theory, which is that as professionals whose livelihoods are on the line, fighters can't go out on a limb for a "just might" This is one-against-one business and it works differently than investing, or searching for new markets.

[PangQuan]

Dam my bad spilleng i suk or sumthin.

I see what you mean. But we will never know till someone does it. How about Columbus, Amerigo Despuchi (prob spelled that wrong too) Genghis Khan, The Mayflower?

These people had so much more on the line than a fight. They often had severe persecution, death, famine, war, etc. on the line.

One day someone will introduce a new method and everyone will be SURPRISED that it works. Then they will all adopt it. Its the pioneers that move the evolution of any thing. I just think we have less pioneers now. We have so many people compared to the rest of history, everyone gets this warm and fuzzy feeling of security in doing the same thing over and over.

Myself included. I do study traditional arts. But I also think about it. I realize that I need to make modifications to adapt it to my body and this time period.

I see what everyone means by taking the risk. And it is completely true. But one day someone will and they will make everyone smack their foreheads and say DOH!! why didnt i think of that.

[Merryprankster]

The backstep is the fastest, most efficient way to turn your hips into an opponent and off balance them. It is an attack. It is NOT used as a way to "move around the opponent."

Further, once you have done it, your feet "uncross" themselves, because you are going from facing one direction to facing the other way.

Cross-stepping as a way to move around the opponent gets you foot-swept, hit, or shot on, or (fill in blank).

[fa_jing]

OK, I learned this backstep at a Shuai-Chiao seminar. However, I don't know BaGua as I said before. I thought that the running behind the opponent thing was a myth? I know that BaGua can take you behind the opponent but I thought it was more of a linear thing. There is linear BaGua. I've also heard that you can't get behind the opponent without simultaneously engaging the hands. Are you sure it's different from a backstep?

Sucks to be two people arguing over something neither knows much about....

[Merryprankster]

I speak with no authority, but I seem to recall that the circle walking had crossing feet in it.


When I say "move around the opponent," I don't mean get behind them, I just mean, like when two boxers are moving around. Crossing feet is bad, mmmmm'kay?

[Christopher M]

-- None of the "8-step" styles I've seen exhibited bagua footwork as it would be recognized by a bagua stylist, nor trained bagua style footwork exercises to develop such an attribute. It's possible they saw some bagua and decided to change their footwork based on what they saw, but that's not the same as using bagua footwork.

-- The common prescription against crossing your feet is as important in bagua as in any other style. One of the reasons beginning bagua students are asked to inscribe a circle to practice footwork on is to learn to avoid crossing their feet -- each foot stays on the appropriate side of the line. Circular footwork can be used for angular advances and retreats, hip switches, and stealing and covering steps -- but not crossing your legs in front of the opponent. Experience is a quick teacher concerning the results of such a tactic.

[Merryprankster]

Chris,

Glad somebody with some knowledge posted. Clearly the video was deceptive - it's hard to gather depth (vision wise) relationships from that stuff sometimes.

[Christopher M]

Or he could have been doing it poorly.

Or I could not know what I'm talking about.

All possibilities!

But I think that if people are doing their paired training drills, it will become evident that crossing their legs is a bad idea. There's an example of a paired drill here with a cross-step at ~ 0:59 (the little step made with the left foot by the guy closest to the camera).

[red5angel]

I think thier Qi has propelled them into the negative plane!

[Merryprankster]

There's an example of a paired drill here with a cross-step at ~ 0:59 (the little step made with the left foot by the guy closest to the camera).

Yup, I saw it.

Did you notice that his upper body and lower body were out of alignment for that split second? His hips were closed off to the left while his shoulders were square to the opponent.

Hellllllooooooooooo floor! Time to count the ceiling tiles.

[Christopher M]

In the context of the situation he's in, I don't think I agree with you. He (black shirt) is taking that step while 45o to the left (closer to the camera) of the other guy (grey shirt). Grey shirt's center is pointed forward (perpendicular to the angle made by the camera's viewpoint; pointing directly left across the frame) -- towards where black shirt would be if they were squared off; but actually to black shirt's left, because black shirt has that angle. The cross-step looks twisted because of the angle of the foot (called 'bai bu', 'swing step', or 'toe-out'). My interpretation of what is going on is that that angle was taken in order to get an angle of force on grey shirt, rather than merely an angle of position. That is, while black shirt is out of the line of grey shirt's force before the step, he doesn't exactly have grey shirt in his line of force -- and that's what he wants. The angle of that toe-out transects grey shirt's angle of force by 45o -- if black shirt entered at that angle, he would be going right through grey shirt's center at it's weakest point and could toss him around easily because of that. You'll notice that grey shirt's response to that is to turn his hips towards the camera so his center is pointing towards black shirt -- negating this positional tactic and threatening black shirt. Had he not done that, he would have gone sailing.

Unless you're talking about the bigger cross black shirt does right after that, at 1:01 (again with the left foot, with his back to the camera). In that case, I'd agree that grey shirt should have had him -- and I think he was aware of it because he seems to hurry himself there. I think that was a clumsy step out of recovering from the aforementioned tactic.

In any case, people are going to make mistakes like that, and that's one of the reasons these drills are so valuable -- to teach us not to.

[red5angel]

MP, are you absolutely positive that that position is that dangerous, or that someone who trains it might not know the proper responses? I ask knowing most people don't address grappling in their traditional training but on the off chance that these guys know somehting you don't?