|
|
| Author |
Message |
NightOwl
KF Sempai
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 987
Location: Japan
Styles: This and that, Rookie Judo
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'd say though that (at least for me) linear comes more naturally. You tend to want to constantly stand face-to-face with your opponent rather than move around a whole lot at first. But I think that footwork is more or less what sets your angle of attack.
_________________
Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft.
~Theodore Roosevelt
Last edited by NightOwl on Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mantis.style
Orange Belt
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no such thing as a linear style or a circular style. All styles deal with both.
_________________
traditional chinese saying:
speak much, wrong much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bushido_man96
KF Sensei
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12841
Location: Hays, KS
Styles: Taekwondo,Hapkido, SCA Combat, and I research Medieval Combat
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NightOwl wrote: |
| But I think that footwork is more or less what sets you angle of attack. |
I agree with this point. I consider TKD to be farily linear, and we use a lot of circular footwork (well, I try to, anyway!  ) to create angles of attack and counterattack.
_________________
Success is where preparation meets opportunity.
www.chiefswarpath.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ps1
Black Belt
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 1701
Location: NE Ohio
Styles: Chuan Fa, Shotokan, JJJ, BJJ
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mantis.style wrote: |
| There is no such thing as a linear style or a circular style. All styles deal with both. |
I agree.
_________________
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
www.ohiobjj.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baronbvp
Black Belt
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: Berlin, Germany
Styles: JKD/MMA, Muay Thai, Shorin Ryu, military combat arts, fencing, archery
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure I agree. Circular styles involve more jumps, turns, and circular limb motion for strikes and defenses. Kung fu is an example.
I think some of these circular styles developed as they did because of what I see as a major difference in styles: whether they are designed to defeat a single or multiple opponents. In my opinion, linear styles are more geared toward a single opponent, whereas circular styles are more easily adapted to fighting multiple opponents.
However, most street fights I've seen were using linear styles regardless of the number of opponents. Maybe my theory is only a theory.
_________________
Only as good as I make myself be, only as bad as I let myself be.
Martial arts are like kinetic chess. Your move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bushido_man96
KF Sensei
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12841
Location: Hays, KS
Styles: Taekwondo,Hapkido, SCA Combat, and I research Medieval Combat
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can see why you would argue that point, Baron. However, I don't really think that any one style is developed to defend against more than one person any more than any other style is.
Trying to fight more than one person is so difficult, anyways. One skilled man vs. 2 untrained, I would probably bet on the two, anyhow.
_________________
Success is where preparation meets opportunity.
www.chiefswarpath.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baronbvp
Black Belt
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: Berlin, Germany
Styles: JKD/MMA, Muay Thai, Shorin Ryu, military combat arts, fencing, archery
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
True, but I respectfully disagree. Some styles are definitely suited to a single opponent: boxing, kickboxing, grappling, fencing, MMA for example. Fighters engaged with an opponent are vulnerable to attacks by another and aren't normally trained to fight multiple opponents simultaneously.
Others - kung fu, karate, TKD, kobudo - are designed to more easily reverse stances and fighting direction, come off a strike move into an immediate attack on another opponent, etc. Good training involves handling multiple opponents at some point.
This may be better discussed in another thread about numbers of opponents.
_________________
Only as good as I make myself be, only as bad as I let myself be.
Martial arts are like kinetic chess. Your move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ps1
Black Belt
Joined: 09 Nov 2004
Posts: 1701
Location: NE Ohio
Styles: Chuan Fa, Shotokan, JJJ, BJJ
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| baronbvp wrote: |
I'm not sure I agree. Circular styles involve more jumps, turns, and circular limb motion for strikes and defenses. Kung fu is an example.
I think some of these circular styles developed as they did because of what I see as a major difference in styles: whether they are designed to defeat a single or multiple opponents. In my opinion, linear styles are more geared toward a single opponent, whereas circular styles are more easily adapted to fighting multiple opponents.
However, most street fights I've seen were using linear styles regardless of the number of opponents. Maybe my theory is only a theory. |
Wing Chun is a form of Kung Fu and has many linear aspects. In another post you make mention of several sports. Of course they are geared toward one on one conflict...they are one on one sports.
Bushido_Man96 is correct. In a situation with multiple attackers the liklihood of "winning" decreases exponentially. Your best bet is attempting to get away. But the idea of beating down a bunch of thugs is something that is not going to be the norm. Movies make it look much easier than it is.
_________________
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
www.ohiobjj.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
baronbvp
Black Belt
Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 1127
Location: Berlin, Germany
Styles: JKD/MMA, Muay Thai, Shorin Ryu, military combat arts, fencing, archery
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good points.
_________________
Only as good as I make myself be, only as bad as I let myself be.
Martial arts are like kinetic chess. Your move. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bushido_man96
KF Sensei
Joined: 31 Mar 2006
Posts: 12841
Location: Hays, KS
Styles: Taekwondo,Hapkido, SCA Combat, and I research Medieval Combat
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| baronbvp wrote: |
True, but I respectfully disagree. Some styles are definitely suited to a single opponent: boxing, kickboxing, grappling, fencing, MMA for example. Fighters engaged with an opponent are vulnerable to attacks by another and aren't normally trained to fight multiple opponents simultaneously.
Others - kung fu, karate, TKD, kobudo - are designed to more easily reverse stances and fighting direction, come off a strike move into an immediate attack on another opponent, etc. Good training involves handling multiple opponents at some point.
This may be better discussed in another thread about numbers of opponents. |
I think that any style can train to reverse lines in order to deal with more than one opponent effectively. However, there really isn't any style that teaches you how to defend when two people attack you at the same time.
I practice TKD, and I don't see much of anything inherent to TKD that would make it easier for me to deal with more than one opponent than it would if I was a boxer or kickboxer.
_________________
Success is where preparation meets opportunity.
www.chiefswarpath.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
on the post.
