Adhering as a martial sport

[Strange]

just want to say i enjoy reading your post tremendously, Bro Suck

[klonk]

I am not so sure that push is a useless attack, or a mere stand-in for striking. A trained person often will not fall down when pushed, or if he falls, he is not hurt because he knows how to fall. But there are pushes and pushes.

A push angled a bit downward is more likely to cause a fall. A push aimed diagonally toward the heel, or laterally toward the edge of the opponent's foot, is more likely to cause a fall than one straight back. Push's brother, press (upward) has the intention of lightening the other person on his feet, encouraging a loss of traction and of control.

I am not ready to write off push and press as useless counter-attacks. I appreciate JW's point stated elsewhere, that you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer: If you tie up your opponent in a throw instead of pushing him away, you have better control of what he does next. That is quite true, but a fall is a fall and may discourage further aggression from a real-world assailant. That would depend on the circumstances, I suppose, such as how hard he lands and what his mood is.

As a real-world matter, a clever push can be useful self-defense, especially against someone who is not familiar with the tactic and surprised when it happens. I would be in favor of counting the push as a point in adhering contests if the opponent falls.

[Steve James]

Aw, if you push someone, and he comes back, it makes it easy to hit him coming in. Why not hit him first? Legal issues?

[klonk]

A common thread in objections is that if you push down an opponent, you have not done enough to him. It is not sure to take the wind out of his sails. It may even anger him so that he gets up and comes at you with redoubled fury.

There is a martial arts saying that kindness to your opponent is cruelty to yourself. This is a saying I do not think is always true. If causing a pratfall is sufficient to the occasion, there is no point in doing something more than sufficient.

I am sure we all know highly damaging techniques. Even disregarding the legal question, they carry with them the chance to create ill will for years to come. As to the legal question, a lot depends on the jurisdiction and what the witnesses say, but "Klonk pushed him and he fell" is likely not to result in charges where I live, if he was the aggressor.

Opportunities to push arise spontaneously out of the adhering strategy. When the opportunity appears, you may take it without making your situation substantially worse than it was, and it may work to end the hostilities: Or not, that is the chance you take.

Or you could push someone down and then follow after your push to attack him before he gets up or as he tries to rise, but kicking someone while he is down is likely to raise those legal eyebrows, at the least...

[Steve James]

I can remember two "incidents" in my life where a push has at least not escalated a fight. Both were at predominantly male work sites. I could have hit the other guy, but I'd probably have lost my job, and certainly have not made a friend. It did stop people from messing with me. Then again, construction sites are dangerous places and accidents can happen.

Besides, it's not the "push" that is the skill. It's getting into the right position to do what one wants. It may be true that one is in a position to strike or throw if one is in position to push. That only means that there is a choice. Different situations call for different measures.

[klonk]

If I am understanding the matter correctly, which is not something I guarantee, the taiji preference for the push is because you still have both your feet under you, rather than using one leg to throw the opponent.

It is tempting to view the push as rather a half-assed defense because there are more decisive techniques, but that view does not always bear out in practice. Good enough is good enough.

[johnwang]

If you want to develop the pushing skill, why don't you:

- obtain your opponent's leading leg,
- lift that leg over your shoulder, and
- push?

Why don't we see this "push" used in Taiji PH?

[johnwang]

the taiji preference for the push is because you still have both your feet under you, rather than using one leg to throw the opponent.

When you have

- 2 feet on the ground, your opponent also have 2 feet on the ground.
- use 1 leg to hook your opponent's leg, you have 1 foot on the ground, your opponent also has 1 foot on the ground.

If your single leg balance is better than your opponent's single leg balance, you will have advantage. You have to train your "leg skill" such as hook, cut, scoop, sweep. break, block, twist, lift, bite, ...

Push + Leg skill = throw

[marvin8]

Your OP says adhere is "unique" in CMA:

Adhering is a unique development in Chinese Martial Arts in making use of the elastic components of the body to control the opponent which is expressed as the stick and follow techniques in Taijiquan, Xingyiquan, Baguaquan, and Yongchunquan (Wing Chun Kung).

But now, you say "any contact is a kind of adhering:"

1. Open to all, as any contact is a kind of adhering, any one is a winner if one’s strike technique is so good that the opponent fail to provide any defense.

Mizner describes adhere @ :59 & 1:33:

But, if I’m making it so that he is stuck to me. He can’t let go. He gets stuck on my hands. Then, I have control and can hit. . . . If we apply stick, adhere, join and follow through the leg, they can’t retract their leg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_9sqN3MMgI&t=0m59s

5. Fighting is open to any techniques but adhering is limited by using controlled striking techniques only for safety reasons.

Since you broadened the definition of adhere, what is the definition of "controlled striking techniques?"

11. Good on you, if you can apply the 4 oz to 1000 lb principle. If does no sound too difficult if you let the 1000 lb pass you by and hit him or her on the back of the head with 4 oz, or more or less

However, you didn't answer: "Should the taiji player be awarded points? Or is the "rule:" there has to be physical contact?"

At the moment of trying to stick, the others would know they have no where to go and would change their movement - A familiar technique of Wing Chun "run your hand away". To adhere is more like using one's center to work against the other's center so a big guy has advantage on a small guy. Martial arts is to train a smaller guy to get a bigger guy. A big guy can get a small guy anyway so don't need to train on martial arts. Following is different. There may not have touch, contact, or stick. Just play around with other's center, direction, movement, and even intent.

I agree. Requiring contact before every strike can be a telegraph. I have never seen a wing chun fight competition—where competitors use traditional wing chun trapping. Reasons may include telegraphing and too slow. Fighters not only control by contact but, "by other's center, direction, movement, and even intent."

run your hand away

走手 is the terminology in Chinese. The hand moves away and changes a split second before being touched. Going further with this is to move the body away so there is no body contact. The only contact is the finishing strike. It is the goal of training.

The "adhering as martial sport" could be a start to experience the skills but better dump it and move forward after getting it.

Requiring adhere (as described) before striking may telegraph, slow down action, build bad habits, etc. Fighters should develop a variety of methods to control (e.g., contact, no touch).

[everything]

1 leg

Do you also like any two legged throws and takedowns?

[Appledog]

Hello, I'd like to maintain a 'cool post count' of 108 posts. This particular post has gone beyond that number and has therefore expired.

I'm sorry if you were looking for some old information but I'll do my best to answer you if you send me a DM with a question in it.

[everything]

you just haven't been here long enough. this is the same conversation we've had here for over 10 years. it's not trolling. everyone just repeats their own pov again and again and I've never seen anyone change his mind (includes me).

[johnwang]

If you want to develop the pushing skill, why don't you:

- obtain your opponent's leading leg,
- lift that leg over your shoulder, and
- push?

Why don't we see this "push" used in Taiji PH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckw8LzC ... e=youtu.be

This thread and recent (the heavy bag thread) have reached the point where I can no longer believe it's not part of a massive troll. Are you really being serious with this question and video? Is this where we have ended up after all these years?

I mean come on look at the video JW posted. Just look at it. Does anyone not see the problem with this video right away?

When you train the art of pushing, do you want to train where to push, the contact points?

- forehead,
- face,
- chin,
- ear,
- neck,
- shoulder,
- below knee,
- below ankle,
- ...

Do you also want to train how to reach to those contact points? I assume we are still talking about CMA training here.

[Steve James]

Yeah, where and what one pushes is important.

[johnwang]

Is this where we have ended up after all these years?

After all these years, RSF members still talk about "Should you push?" and not "How do you push?" Do people only interest in theory and not interest in application?