Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Discussion on the three big Chinese internals, Yiquan, Bajiquan, Piguazhang and other similar styles.

Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby rojcewiczj on Tue Dec 27, 2022 11:28 am

It seems to me that, if you really look at what is necessary to have a successful technique in combat, attack and defense have to be threaded together in such a way as every attack of the opponent can become the opportunity for your own successful attack. Every attack of the opponent that takes place with out being defended against and countered is an unacceptable danger. If you only defend you are overwhelmed, if you only attack you stop responding to the opponent and miss opportunities.

Modern martial arts allow you to just defend or just attack. You can shell up and dodge, or throw punches and kicks. Counter striking is understood as a higher level meta-discipline. Traditional CMA requires that you counter strike at every opportunity, that your intention is constantly holding defend and attack together, turning defense into offense in an instant. This requirement for countering at every opportunity, becomes a life long study of movement. How to counter punches, kicks, grabs, locks, throws, etc... How to weave defensive action into offensive action in a near-infinite amount of variations.

I think this is a reason why traditional techniques cannot be easily understood by modern people. Modern marital arts tends towards being more discrete: a punch is a punch, a guard is a guard, etc...
Traditional techniques tend towards being continues movement from defense, moving into position, and attacking, lacking hard boundaries between each phase.

My last thought on this is why sparring is not as common in traditional martial arts. Putting aside the many cases when sparring is avoided for business reasons, ignorance, lack of ability etc...
Sparring tends to move towards a less than ideal mentality when it comes to counter-striking. When people spar they tend to allow the opponent to attack a certain amount, defending for
a few movements before switching to offence, with these roles being traded every few seconds. Alternatively, people can become insistent on countering their opponents every move, which tends towards escalation towards an unfriendly situation.

When I look at something like Aikido, which uses an attacker and defender paradigm, I understand the reasoning. To my mind, the issue with attacker and defender practice isn't that the roles are pre-defined, the issue
is that the attacks are often lacking realism in speed and intent. Pressure testing is necessary and helpful, but it should be directed towards building up effective counters towards challenging, realistic attacks.

If our techniques are truly effective counters, containing both defend and attack in one, and able to adjust to near infinite variation, I feel that a good standard can be kept by TCMA.
The challenge is in holding oneself to such a standard, where your defense has to create opportunities for your attack, where your intention and body usage is challenged to weave together timing and power,
reaction and action, where you can truly counter act your opponent.
rojcewiczj
Anjing
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:09 am

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby johnwang on Tue Dec 27, 2022 12:26 pm

rojcewiczj wrote:Modern martial arts allow you to just defend or just attack. ... Traditional CMA requires that you counter strike at every opportunity,

- In modern MA, a punch is just a punch. If you miss a punch, you pull your punch back, and throw another punch.
- In TMA, a punch is a punch followed by a grab/pull. You throw a punch. Your opponent blocks. You change your punch into a grab/pull on his blocking arm, you can then throw another punch, apply joint lock, or apply a throw.

The XingYi Pi Quan is a good example. The Zuan Quan can turn into a grab/pull, and followed by a Pi Quan.
Crow weep in the dark. Tide bellow in the north wind. How lonesome the world.
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 10240
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby windwalker on Tue Dec 27, 2022 12:56 pm

johnwang wrote:
rojcewiczj wrote:Modern martial arts allow you to just defend or just attack. ... Traditional CMA requires that you counter strike at every opportunity,

- In modern MA, a punch is just a punch. If you miss a punch, you pull your punch back, and throw another punch.
- In TMA, a punch is a punch followed by a grab/pull. You throw a punch. Your opponent blocks. You change your punch into a grab/pull on his blocking arm, you can then throw another punch, apply joint lock, or apply a throw.

The XingYi Pi Quan is a good example. The Zuan Quan can turn into a grab/pull, and followed by a Pi Quan.


Outlines one way, how this is done...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNsJGc89pMA&t=93s

Xingyiquan 孙禄堂, the secret of forward strength and backward strength
(形意拳孙禄堂前辈,前后劲的奥秘)

Last edited by windwalker on Tue Dec 27, 2022 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
windwalker
Wuji
 
Posts: 10545
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:08 am

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby johnwang on Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:05 pm

rojcewiczj wrote:every attack of the opponent can become the opportunity for your own successful attack.

When your opponent

- punches you, you can kick him (leg is longer than the arm).
- kicks you, you can block/catch his kick, pull yourself in, jam his leading arm, and punch him (use your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm).

If your are used to train this way, your opponent'a attack will be your attack.

Image
Image
Crow weep in the dark. Tide bellow in the north wind. How lonesome the world.
User avatar
johnwang
Great Old One
 
Posts: 10240
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:26 pm

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby origami_itto on Thu Dec 29, 2022 3:37 am

Remember karate kid 2? The no can defend move was a counterpunch, completely mystified the Japanese kid who grew up learning from one of the most well respected masters in Okinawa...

I don't think anybody has a monopoly on counter punching. I think that taijiquan is supposed to be more of a countering art than other things I'm aware of, but even then that comes down to personal style.

We can see it in the writing though. I guess it's Chinese thought in general, dispatching the troops last but arriving first, turning a retreat into an attack, using feints and honeypots to draw their attacks where we want them.

I think it's a mistake to let the opponent keep control, but we get control by letting them attempt something. Their focus on attacking while I am not threatening emboldens them into ignoring or abandoning defense, which makes it easier to turn the attack around. It gives an opening for me to slip into and reveals nothing about my intention or ability. They are revealing to me their medicine but can't see inside my gourd.

They call the tune but we lead the dance.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5033
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby origami_itto on Thu Dec 29, 2022 3:45 am

johnwang wrote:
rojcewiczj wrote:every attack of the opponent can become the opportunity for your own successful attack.

When your opponent

- punches you, you can kick him (leg is longer than the arm).
- kicks you, you can block/catch his kick, pull yourself in, jam his leading arm, and punch him (use your opponent's leading arm to jam his own back arm).

If your are used to train this way, your opponent'a attack will be your attack.

Image
Image


We talked before about cutting across the circle, like using a shoulder stroke to respond to a pull or arm drag. When they are trying to move us in a circle we cut through the middle to put slack into their hold on us allowing us to direct an attack against their chest.

I was watching ANOTHER movie, Nobody, and the guy is a former gov spook and the fight scenes are very reflective of combatives tactics with some Hollywood flair.

Anyhow, one scene he's facing like his brother I think, a nobody, no training, just standard male rage. Dude throws a haymaker and the hero changes levels and favorable step punches(jab?) Into the other guys solar plexus/xyphoid process/breadbasket, somewhere in there. He didn't die, but he had zero fight in him for a minute or so.
The form is the notes, the quan is the music
Atomic Taijiquan|FB|YT|IG|X|
User avatar
origami_itto
Wuji
 
Posts: 5033
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: Palm Bay, FL

Re: Counter Striking as Kung Fu

Postby Bhassler on Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:09 am

rojcewiczj wrote:It seems to me that, if you really look at what is necessary to have a successful technique in combat, attack and defense have to be threaded together in such a way as every attack of the opponent can become the opportunity for your own successful attack. Every attack of the opponent that takes place with out being defended against and countered is an unacceptable danger. If you only defend you are overwhelmed, if you only attack you stop responding to the opponent and miss opportunities.

Modern martial arts allow you to just defend or just attack. You can shell up and dodge, or throw punches and kicks. Counter striking is understood as a higher level meta-discipline. Traditional CMA requires that you counter strike at every opportunity, that your intention is constantly holding defend and attack together, turning defense into offense in an instant. This requirement for countering at every opportunity, becomes a life long study of movement. How to counter punches, kicks, grabs, locks, throws, etc... How to weave defensive action into offensive action in a near-infinite amount of variations.

I think this is a reason why traditional techniques cannot be easily understood by modern people. Modern marital arts tends towards being more discrete: a punch is a punch, a guard is a guard, etc...
Traditional techniques tend towards being continues movement from defense, moving into position, and attacking, lacking hard boundaries between each phase.


What do you mean by "modern martial arts"? If you're talking about competitive sport martial arts, then you see less countering because you're facing a skilled, cautious, and dangerous opponent who is doing things that are meant to force you to deal with a set of problems while specifically not allowing you to counter-strike. Getting sucker punched in a bar is a totally different scenario, where some sort of counter offensive may be the only way to stop the assault. It is as much a mistake to think that the old, dead guys had some kind of unique insights today's mind can't handle as it is to think that an MMA bro who's only ever done monkey dancing has figured it all out in a way our ancestors never could.

rojcewiczj wrote:My last thought on this is why sparring is not as common in traditional martial arts. Putting aside the many cases when sparring is avoided for business reasons, ignorance, lack of ability etc...
Sparring tends to move towards a less than ideal mentality when it comes to counter-striking. When people spar they tend to allow the opponent to attack a certain amount, defending for
a few movements before switching to offence, with these roles being traded every few seconds. Alternatively, people can become insistent on countering their opponents every move, which tends towards escalation towards an unfriendly situation.

When I look at something like Aikido, which uses an attacker and defender paradigm, I understand the reasoning. To my mind, the issue with attacker and defender practice isn't that the roles are pre-defined, the issue
is that the attacks are often lacking realism in speed and intent. Pressure testing is necessary and helpful, but it should be directed towards building up effective counters towards challenging, realistic attacks.


Sparring is a symmetric engagement. For self defense and other types of field usage (i.e. military, militia, etc.) asymmetric engagements are the norm. In that light, drills and scenarios are likely more effective forms of partner training. The real issue, of course, is that most "traditional" arts lack any form of meaningful partner work, in that even what they do have tends to either be watered down to the point of uselessness, or so narrowly focused as to be impractical. Such is the price of commercialism when the main selling point is disproportionate gain for effort expended.


rojcewiczj wrote:If our techniques are truly effective counters, containing both defend and attack in one, and able to adjust to near infinite variation, I feel that a good standard can be kept by TCMA.
The challenge is in holding oneself to such a standard, where your defense has to create opportunities for your attack, where your intention and body usage is challenged to weave together timing and power,
reaction and action, where you can truly counter act your opponent.


That's certainly not a bad standard. I think it's a bad idea to assume that one paradigm is "smarter" or "better" than another. It all comes down to context, and most arts that have survived are good for the circumstances in which they've thrived. The trick is in understanding one's own needs and being able to determine whether the outcomes produced by the art/school in question align with those needs.
Bhassler
Great Old One
 
Posts: 3546
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 8:05 pm
Location: xxxxxxx


Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

cron