Defense: Continuing, not Stopping, the Opponent's Momentum

[Bodywork]

Dan,

Sorry, I got busy yesterday and didn't see your post with the thread having moved on. Being limited to iPhone right now kinda blows.

Successful throws and submissions have points and methods to consider. You are not going to submit people by untrained dumb luck right?

You're right, and just like with certain chokes and throws, submissions sometimes have more precise technical requirements of that very sort. However, submissions are of course generally a function of grappling. Grappling itself is but one slice of the pie, and is a much smaller slice for actual combat than it is for sport fighting contexts. In fact for actual combat, submissions as a class of tactic are almost utterly irrelevant except to law enforcement officers who are sometimes required to restrain an individual for purposes of arrest.

Perhaps it might be helpful for each and all of us to clarify to which context we are referring since they can have very different needs and requirements.

I was not referrencing grappling submissions only (although standing submissions are sort of retarded) nor am I focusing on any one field of study and it's finished product. My comments were far broader than that. I could go into weapons; both traditional and modern, and how and why trained contact points become natural and without thought -although the teaching of them was incredibly imnportant-there as well.
Anway, opinions don't really matter on this...either your's or mine...it is what it is. No one will or has, ever gotten to where I am talking about, from just free wheeling it and hoping for a good outcome. Though I am happy when they try!
Dan
Oh well.

[Bodywork]

Dan:

SNIP
A better approach since your are trying to draw comparison to ICMA; is to use the center line as the support and you evade / invade at the same time, that way you find his back door and he falls into your door opening and you retain all power shoices, drawing and issuing.
SNIP

If you could stop speaking Japanese and re-write the above in plain English I'd appreciate it.

"Evade/invade at the same time" is fine - evade/yield with upper body as your leg steps forward is the most basic form of tactical movement in Chen Taiji, and a very similar tactic is used in Bagua - but the rest made no sense to me.

Andy
Sorry, those phrases are rather well worn and known so I assumed.
Central axis turning in self rotation creates and evade/invade as the center line is held or moved forward of back with the center of mass /Dantian. And while I am not a taiji or bagua guy, I cannot help but say that I would NEVER have the upper body evade and yield as the leg steps forward. I wonder if that is essentially correct and consistent or your take on it? To a grappler or experienced fighter that it asking...oh hell, begging.... for trouble.
Back door: think of the back door like a jab being thrown with the body weight all launched and dedicated to one side forward. He is then lined up to taken on the off side like a door leaf opening. Same thing happens with judo guys with many fit-ins (set up for throws) In any event, this should NEVER be the way an internal guy moves. Moving properly, there is no back door for us.
oops gotta work
Dan

[Chris McKinley]

Weapons can be another matter sometimes. I'd be happy to talk about them with you all day long, but I think we'd get shushed for taking over the thread. There are really two separate issues at play here, though, to stay on topic. On one hand, you've got the idea of drilling for very precise contact points, which can be done but which I maintain are simply unnecessary most of the time. OTOH, you've got the simple fact that in a real assault, you may have little or no control over precisely where contact takes place no matter who you are or what your skill level may be.

While it is obvious that it would be beneficial to train to a level of precision where one is capable of controlling precise points of contact in the relative luxury and safety of the training hall or ring, it would be erroneous to think that that precision translates without loss to the environment of a real assault. The best we can do is treat it as a case of overlearning, and hope that as much as possible stays with us outside the hall, but we had still better have something else up our sleeve that isn't so dependent on precise contact points or we may be in for a very rude awakening.

I've always been a fan of overlearning and precision, whether empty hands or weapons, it's the same physiology involved either way. And drilling till you're blue in the face is a time-honored method of getting there. They don't call it gong fu for nothing. I'm just separating the ability from the dependency whenever possible.

[johnwang]

evade/yield with upper body as your leg steps forward .

Sound like a good time for your opponent to apply "single leg" on you. Your opponent can borrow your leg steps forward to "pull" you leg. Your opponent can also borrow your upper body evade/yield to "push" your upper body.

we had still better have something else up our sleeve that isn't so dependent on precise contact points or we may be in for a very rude awakening.

A punch on the nose, chin, or side of the face won't make that much different. there will be no "precise contact points" requirement there.

[Bodywork]

Weapons can be another matter sometimes. I'd be happy to talk about them with you all day long, but I think we'd get shushed for taking over the thread. There are really two separate issues at play here, though, to stay on topic. On one hand, you've got the idea of drilling for very precise contact points, which can be done but which I maintain are simply unnecessary most of the time. OTOH, you've got the simple fact that in a real assault, you may have little or no control over precisely where contact takes place no matter who you are or what your skill level may be.

While it is obvious that it would be beneficial to train to a level of precision where one is capable of controlling precise points of contact in the relative luxury and safety of the training hall or ring, it would be erroneous to think that that precision translates without loss to the environment of a real assault. The best we can do is treat it as a case of overlearning, and hope that as much as possible stays with us outside the hall, but we had still better have something else up our sleeve that isn't so dependent on precise contact points or we may be in for a very rude awakening.

I've always been a fan of overlearning and precision, whether empty hands or weapons, it's the same physiology involved either way. And drilling till you're blue in the face is a time-honored method of getting there. They don't call it gong fu for nothing. I'm just separating the ability from the dependency whenever possible.

I think your confusion about my point lies in the assumption that I am striving for something...to make it happen, that is not the case. Once the body is integrated and connected manipulation of contact points happen without thought, they are automatic and instant. There is no luxury of a ring sport or narrow venue to be had. IMO the rude awakening you speak of will be anyone not training and being educated in movement, and just thinking a good result can and will occur in any environment. I think it is veeeery hopeful.

What I am talking about It's not a theory with me it was and is provable, so I am settled on the issue. I hung out with bikers and excons in the late 70's and they were educated in how to play with peoples minds, hide intent and set you up and then go off nonstop. I have been stabbed and sliced and smashed with odd and ends. Ring fighters could learn a thing or two from them, I know I did. There is no doubt the venues change, but educated movement is going to happen to us if we like or not- better if we stay out of bad places. I think it is best to make it a voluntary and preparetory thing!
Dan

[Tesshu]

evade/yield with upper body as your leg steps forward .

Sound like a good time for your opponent to apply "single leg" on you. Your opponent can borrow your leg steps forward to "pull" you leg. Your opponent can also borrow your upper body evade/yield to "push" your upper body.

Not sure what Andy really meant, but evading/yielding is not necessarily leaning (backwards), right?! More like stepping into the right place while moving out of the way of the incoming force.

[GrahamB]

I think Andy is talking about something like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXjEU9KCk34&sns=em

Tai chi and Bagua seem full of these sort of 'throw you over my horse stance' type of techniques.

[Chris McKinley]

John,

A punch on the nose, chin, or side of the face won't make that much different. there will be no "precise contact points" requirement there.

Bingo. But it also works defensively. You've got to be able to take contact anywhere (at least as a Platonic ideal) as well as make it.

[Chris McKinley]

Dan,

I think if you were to use more specific language, it would be easier to understand you. As it is, I'm not even sure whether or not I am in disagreement with you. If you're asserting that ingraining specific points of contact through drill to the point of unconscious competence translates without loss to real assaults, well, we're just going to have to disagree on that issue. And that's fine. If not, that's fine, too.

You also appear to be getting a bit defensive about your approach. I assure you there is no need. I'm glad you are convinced of your view via direct experience. That's more than many can say. I'm pretty sure of where I'm coming from, too, and also based on direct experience. If you're helping the good guys get home safe, good on you.

[Bodywork]

Dan,

I think if you were to use more specific language, it would be easier to understand you. As it is, I'm not even sure whether or not I am in disagreement with you. If you're asserting that ingraining specific points of contact through drill to the point of unconscious competence translates without loss to real assaults, well, we're just going to have to disagree on that issue. And that's fine. If not, that's fine, too.

You also appear to be getting a bit defensive about your approach. I assure you there is no need. I'm glad you are convinced of your view via direct experience. That's more than many can say. I'm pretty sure of where I'm coming from, too, and also based on direct experience. If you're helping the good guys get home safe, good on you.

Well in a good natured sort of way we have to come to some sort of sgreement, Chris. You took me to task for not believing you were not being sarasctic in the other thread and for me not explaining. Then you went off on me. I'm glad you puled that and I pulled mine. Here I am trying to explain and still....it is apparently not good enough. I simply do not know how to say it better. Should I resort to simple comments about getitng punched in the nose? You reacted favorably to that.
I do not want to take you to task for continuing to tell me I am defensive. Let's just say -as you asked - take it on faith. Although even if you don't... I wont go off on you for it, since there is nothing lurking or pent up behind my comments. I'm just trying to give you a fair shake and yakin with you. Oh well.

Hey,Tom
I came back and tried. I've taken a shot at explaining a couple of small subjects. Just like in LCD and LCG spiraling thread....it went nowhere. Look at it this way...Ellis just gave up and left! Oh well.
See you on the mats.
Dan

[Chris McKinley]

Dan,

Here I am trying to explain and still....it is apparently not good enough. I simply do not know how to say it better. Should I resort to simple comments about getitng punched in the nose? You reacted favorably to that.

No need to get snide.  You are responsible for making yourself understood, I am not responsible for understanding you.  I guarantee you that if you wish to discuss the issue in more technical terms, you will not be able to talk above my head.  The issue isn't one of lack of intelligence on my part, it's a simple lack of clarity on yours.  From what I've seen, I am not alone nor necessarily even in a minority in having difficulty understanding what you are trying to say in some of your statements on this forum.

It could very well be that we are familiar with different sets of jargon.  Or maybe not.  Either way, the goal is to try to understand one another more clearly, is it not?

I do not want to take you to task for continuing to tell me I am defensive.

Good, since there is no need.  I carefully stated that you appear to be defensive to me, which is true.  I also very carefully mentioned that there would be no need if you were, since your method is not being criticized.

As yet, it's still possible that I agree entirely with you.  I have, as have others, simply asked for clarification of your views so that I may consider them more accurately and fairly.  If you don't wish to provide that clarification, that's okay.  It was merely a request.

[DeusTrismegistus]

I agree with training with specific contact points. I can hip throw someone for example with a bunch of different contact points. When you train it is not so much about knowing where to get contact points so that you can try to get them but learning what you can do with what contact points. With enough practice you won't consciously try to get specific contact points but when you make contact you will have options. Additionally learning the throw really really well with the specific points allows you to improvise and use less than optimal points because you have a very good feeling of the proper technique.

[bailewen]

Thread took a direction I didn't expect so I am a couple pages behind.

Just a couple notes on the "contact points" debate a couple pages back...

Seemed kind of a shame to me how Chris and Bodywork (Dan?) seemed to be talking past each other there. I read it as two people coming at an issue from opposite directions and felt the two sides were easily reconciled. If I was following it right, Bodywork seemed to be arguing that precise understanding of contact points and what could/should be done with them was a critically important but also very basic skill/knowledge set. Chris was arguing that relying on such precise contact points is a fools errand and that any skill set relying on such precision was doomed to failure.

I don't really see any conflict between these two positions as, even if you accept Chris's supposition that you absolutely can not rely on particular contact points and should be able to work with whatever comes you way, that in no way obviates Bodywork's point that....whatever very specific points of contact you end up with, you should know exactly and precisely how to take advantage of that very specific situation. no? Bodywork's position certainly does not require someone to acquire those specific contact points. It just says that, whatever you end up with, you should know all sorts of very detailed and precise stuff about whatever it is you ended up with. Chris is simply saying you can not require any particular contact because the universe is not so cooperative as to always supply you with what you planned for.

[middleway]

Honestly reading this thread is very strange. It's Arguments about perception and a bunch of aparant chips on shoulders.

From a totally outside perspective dan I really can't see the issue with responses, by far and away most of the time it's asking for deeper clarification which you don't seem willing to give. If that's the case then fine but I don't really see anything particularly offensive from anyone else towards you.

I myself would like to see more detail from someone who I have heard has good stuff and is clear about it in person. If your not happy explaining your ideas on here that's fine. It does appear that the personal issue starts to arrise when you Are questioned. I understand why this is, you are used to visiting people or crossing hands with good talkers and them having nothing. I have felt this myself in recent times. But on this forum.... No matter how good, how long, how experienced you are you will always be questioned. it's just part of forum life my friend.

Take that as you will, I have no side to take and no cross to bare. Look forward to seeing you when the timetable permits

Chris

[Andy_S]

Dan:

SNIP
Sorry, those phrases are rather well worn and known so I assumed.
Central axis turning in self rotation creates and evade/invade as the center line is held or moved forward of back with the center of mass /Dantian.
SNIP

Alas I am none the wiser.

"Central axis turning (OK so far...) in self rotation (Eh?) create and evade/invade (This just ain't grammatical and I have no idea what you mean) ....the rest is comprehensible.

SNIP
And while I am not a taiji or bagua guy, I cannot help but say that I would NEVER have the upper body evade and yield as the leg steps forward. I wonder if that is essentially correct and consistent or your take on it? To a grappler or experienced fighter that it asking...oh hell, begging.... for trouble.
SNIP

Don't take my word for it: Off the top of my head, this is the way Chen Taiji steps EVERY SINGLE TIME you move forward or laterally in the form. All the classic moves do it:
single whip - hands back, leg steps out, hands come forward;
wave hands like clouds - leg steps out as hand spirals back in opposite direction;
lazily tying coat - hand comes back, leg steps out, hand goes forward.
Etc, etc.

Likewise, Bagua's single palm change is similar though the timing is a touch different: Rear hand parry to side, forward hand replacement parry into center as leg steps forward and around.

SNIP
Back door: think of the back door like a jab being thrown with the body weight all launched and dedicated to one side forward. He is then lined up to taken on the off side like a door leaf opening.
SNIP

Sure this is easy to understand and I fully agree. This is one of my big beefs with the JKD front hand punch: One it sets you up for above; second, it is too extreme a movement for the rear hand to rapidly cross with: A boxer may not have as powerful jab as a JKD guy, but by God, he will get his cross off much faster.

SNIP
In any event, this should NEVER be the way an internal guy moves. Moving properly, there is no back door for us
SNIP

I agree that in IMA, one should move at angles, not overextend one's strikes and use rounded movements (both from the torso "engine" and in the shape of the limbs) that, ideally, have no clear beginning or end.

Even so, the above sounds like "properly" is the keyword. I am reminded of "If done right, no can defend..."