transition from defense to offense

[everything]

I know a lot of you like johnwang say it's better to take the initiative, but in a fight, let's just say a sport fight for simplicity, you may be transitioning from defense to offense. That transition may be very key, but I don't just mean in a deliberate counterattacking tactical approach like the one Machida uses. For example, you are getting pummeled in gnp (not part of your counterattacking tactics) and you find an armbar.

What's key in this transitional skill in general (not the specific gnp example), when you look at both counterattacks/reversals as well as recovery from unexpected defending? maybe this question is too general but I'm guessing RSF has some good insights anyway.

[Chris McKinley]

Yeah, you're right....the question is worded a bit vaguely. You say you don't want the specifics to that particular counter, but you didn't make clear exactly what it is that you are asking. If you wouldn't mind giving it one more try re-wording your question to be more precise, I bet you'll get a lot more useful answers.

[Wanderingdragon]

Simply stated, speed of opportunity. Attack, defend, victory is water it seeks the place of lower concentration and pours in fully.

[everything]

hmm i'll try... when you transition from defense to offense, you might do one of these examples:

- a planned counterattack, e.g., waiting for a jab and throwing overhand
- a specific reversal, e.g., opponent gets mount, you try to reverse top/bottom as a response
- getting an unexpected beating, e.g., getting gnp'ed unexpectedly

so that's in a sort of order from planned transition to unplanned. is there any key commonality across these types of transitions? do you just need a big grab bag? maybe the commonality is just quick mental recognition you lost the initiative and need to get it back? any other advice that applies across that spectrum of transitions?

[johnwang]

The only time that you want to reverse from defense into offense is when you have not decide whether you want to fight or not. You and your opponent are still outside the kicking range. Your opponent tries to attack and intend to enter your kicking range. You either retreat back or kick him and try to remain the same distance (the distance that without a skip, your opponent's front leg cannot reach you). If your opponent already gets into your kicking range, punching range, and into your clinching range, You just take whatever that he gives you. Get into a "dominate position" and then decide whether you want to take that fight or not. Gently put your opponent down and walk away if you don't want to fight. Smash his head and pretend that you lose your balance otherwise.

[Sylkworm]

When I'm sparring a new opponent, there's almost always a period where you're dancing around feeling each other out. You're throwing some feints, a leg kick here, a jab there, and not really committing to the attack. Is he faster than you? What's his range? What's his fighting style?

On a self-defense note, I think you may want to wait for an attack to be initiated before you counter, especially if there are witnesses. Claiming Sa Qi (killing intent) may not go well in a court of law. Also, as trained martial artists, we're generally held more culpable for injury and deaths. So you may just want to knock him down the first time he attacks to see what he will do.

[Chris McKinley]

Sylkworm,

I want to simultaneously commend your for your reasonable thinking and, unfortunately, almost completely disagree with your tactical advice. In real unavoidable self-defense situations which are or could become life-threatening, it is arrogant to presume that you even have the capability of a) responding adequately so as to avoid injury/death by letting the assailant attack before you counter, or b) knocking him down the first time he attacks to see what he will do.

While this appears to be a reasonable person's response, it's also dangerously foolhardy. County morgues are all too full of 'reasonable' victims. Life-threatening assaults are not reasonable situations and do not call for reasonable, well-socialized responses and actions. I think perhaps you may also be off-track in what you are labelling a self-defense situation. If the attacker is so uncommitted to taking your life or that of someone present in your charge that you can afford to "knock him down the first time he attacks to see what he will do", then you are not in an unavoidable situation and, frankly, you shouldn't be fighting him at all, you should be leaving.

If he, or his accomplices, are that committed, you would be suicidally foolish to give him any opportunity at all to attack you to the extent that such a choice is within your hands. If you, miraculously, were somehow capable of knocking down an attacker intent on taking your life on his first attack, I'll tell you precisely what he will do next. He'll draw his weapon and kill you, and possibly whomever is with you at the time. Unfortunately, this is how real life goes down....there's nothing reasonable about it and there's no room for "least possible harm" philosophies in a situation where life is at stake.

Short of that, it's not really a self-defense situation anyway, it's a scuffle...a good old-fashioned donnybrook. Now, if you're engaging in those, you get whatever's coming to you because they are almost always avoidable.

[Sylkworm]

Chris,

I get where you're coming from. I guess I'm mostly thinking of the drunk belligerent at a bar, or a mugger at worst. For those of us with white-collar jobs, who probably don't expect someone to actually try to kill them, it's a reasonable situation. I'm just an average guy, and I don't really have any enemies that I know of. Just the same, I don't want to be someone's punching bag either.

However, I see what you mean about an attacker with the intent to kill you, and I can see how that would apply if I were a police, soldier, bouncer, or in some other line of work or lifestyle where I can reasonably expect people to try for my life.

So, yes. If I believed that someone actually intends to harm me or my family, I would at least destroy his ability to be a threat (e.g. break a limb) if not kill him.

[johnwang]

I'll agree with Chris on this. If you decide to fight, you should not give your opponent any chance. If you are kind to your enemy, you are cruel to yourself. A friend of mine would open a can of red pepper, throw at his opponent's face and then jump in. In long fist form there is a move that you grab a handful of dirt from the ground and throw at your opponent's face. No Wude? I'm talking about survive here.

[Chris McKinley]

John's got it right, IMO. It's about survival. Wu de, sportsmanship, fair play, honor, etc. are for before and after the fight, not during.

Sylkworm,

RE: "For those of us with white-collar jobs, who probably don't expect someone to actually try to kill them, it's a reasonable situation.". I'm going to assume that you're kinda like most folks, maybe, in being uninitiate/unfamiliar with the realities of a real life-threatening violent encounter, so rather than berate you for statements such as this, I'm going to offer some education instead. Feel free to take from it, or not, what you will.

No one save for professionals on the job expects someone to actually try to kill them, randomly, any time 24 hours a day. To suggest that such is either necessary or relevant to whether it happens is just fully naive. Sure, you can play the percentages (it's the best any of us can do) by being "white collar", living in a white collar suburb without all those dangerous poor folk around, and shopping/dining/recreating in only the "safe" parts of town. However, doing so offers no guarantees whatsoever against violent crime.

RE: "Just the same, I don't want to be someone's punching bag either.". It's your right not to be a victim of violent crime if there's anything you can do to stop it. However, you can forget about punching bags, the real concern is not to be someone's gun, knife or club target. Punches are nothing; you can heal up quickly from those.

RE: "However, I see what you mean about an attacker with the intent to kill you, and I can see how that would apply if I were a police, soldier, bouncer, or in some other line of work or lifestyle where I can reasonably expect people to try for my life.". Again, another seemingly reasonable comment, but in actuality, a hopelessly naive sentiment. Cops and soldiers have guns. Bouncers are usually fairly big strong types, always have backup, and have the advantage of knowing in advance that they are in an environment where they are likely to face violent danger. These aren't the folks who need the reality check.

The folks who do are those "white collar" types who think that their lifestyle and "some martial arts training" are going to be sufficient to save their lives if/when they become the victim of violent crime. And while we're at it, nobody's more self-deluded than the typical Tai Chi practitioner if he thinks that his material is going to matter much at all in a real encounter. That's not necessarily a slam at you; it certainly isn't meant that way and besides I don't know you or your practice. That's merely pointing out the obvious about a statistical likelihood based on the combative viability of the average training available.

And speaking of viability, viable self-defense is, more than any other factor, dependent on mindset. Awareness, the next most important factor, stems from a mindset that recognizes that awareness is even necessary, and that in reality, it is necessary at all times. If one's beliefs are that they are in an environment where violent assault is not possible or not really a concern, then their beliefs are going to sabotage their mindset and therefore their awareness. They are then just that much more vulnerable to assault because their outer demeanor will reflect that lack of awareness. Further, should an attack actually occur, they will be that much more taken by surprise, have to play catch-up to the situation just that much more, and have that much less access to their relevant self-defense skills instantly.

[meeks]

I'll agree with Chris on this.

John's got it right, IMO.

well that proves it - John and Chris are actually the same person with 2 logins....

[C.J.Wang]

I know a lot of you like johnwang say it's better to take the initiative, but in a fight, let's just say a sport fight for simplicity, you may be transitioning from defense to offense. That transition may be very key, but I don't just mean in a deliberate counterattacking tactical approach like the one Machida uses. For example, you are getting pummeled in gnp (not part of your counterattacking tactics) and you find an armbar.

What's key in this transitional skill in general (not the specific gnp example), when you look at both counterattacks/reversals as well as recovery from unexpected defending? maybe this question is too general but I'm guessing RSF has some good insights anyway.

I'd say that whenever you are fighting, your defense is a part of offense, and offense a part of defense. It's always one, not one-two.