Fight Theories, Is it a fight? What to do?

rucass · White Belt

I spent a lot of my training preparing for fights that were never to happen, or that were avoidable at worst. The ones you see coming should be avoided. Its when you don't see it coming that essence of training is called on.
If you both are out of striking range, its not a fight. You are in no danger, simply put. You can circle each other, just stand there whatever, no one is getting hurt. But when the distance is closed and the opponent is on you, now its a battle.
There are only three directions at this point that a fighter should consider. in and out, in and down, and in and thru. The first, in and out, usually occurs when the attacker is less than committed for any number of reasons and the defender is able to get in, counter and neutralize the attack and get back out. The second, in and down, is when the attack is countered but in the process is going to the ground. For most if not all, this is a worst case scenario as it finishes for one here. The last, in and thru, is a combination of the two in that the defender enters with a counter, recounter, etc. stopping the attack and moves thru and out of the immediate conflict to either run, or face another attacker.
Movement is what decides whether you survive or not. its not stance, sorry stance folks. Stance is where you are when you are not moving, and if you are not moving you are a sitting target and will not survive. Now I will change the term from stance to base, and say you need to have a strong base, but only in that you can effectively deliver your attacks and counter attacks. Footwork puts you in those positions to counter and to avoid attacks. Fast footwork is the best technique you have, period. Practicing stances in place of footwork will get you killed. Statues have stances. This leads to blocking.
You might get luck and make the first block, but the numbers are against you making any more after. sitting in a stance you will have to rely on blocking to survive. Doesn't work, not against a true committed attacker.
The best "defense" against an attack is a counter attack. Just playing defense is a losing proposition. There is only attack, counter attack, recounter, a and re re counter. Missing the first chance to counter puts you in the hole right away.
These are just some truisms I have learned from experiences with people who live and survive by these rules thru their individual methods and styles.
None of this was taught to me in my initial martial arts experience, though it applies to each and every style. This alone would have changed the way I trained.
Thoughts?

Kusotare · Purple Belt

I teach what I consider traditional Japanese Wado-ryu Karate.
When talking to prospective students, I make it very clear from the off that what we do in the dojo IS NOT self defence.

So you aren’t saying anything to me that I wasn’t aware of a long time ago.

So, why do I continue to dedicate a large part of my life to something that from a self protection basis doesn’t work and I know it doesn’t?

The answer to that is not easy to relay in the written word, but it boils down to the fact that I enjoy what we do and I enjoy the constant challenge of trying to improve by getting better at it. This is the essence of Budo NOT whether you are better than someone – be that in a self protection scenario or in a competition.

But that’s just me and the path I chose to take. Other traditional Karate-ka have taken what they do in traditional Dojo and applied to more real life scenarios. Some do it better than others and one of the best is a guy called John Titchen imo. He’s traditionally trained in Shotokan karate and uses that as a base for his SP system he calls DART…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPXQgJV1KiE&list=PLhcLRLwER_th_Ig4cx3ompMXx5g-rWBga

There are others who do it quite well also, but IMO it’s a bit like reverse engineering if you take that approach.

I’d rather train with folks like Rory Miller if I was being perfectly honest…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvlqicOBSjQ

But that’s the great thing about martial arts – its different things for different folk.

K.
_________________
Usque ad mortem bibendum!

rucass · White Belt

You are at least being honest and doing your students a great service. I took this new found knowledge and went back and re examined the katas(Isshinryu) and started all over again, but with a completely different product than what is currently being peddled. I also feel that just taking one kata and being able to absorb its fight methodology is all one person should honestly be expected to do. Or just pick movement from various katas that fit ones "tool box".

Kusotare · Purple Belt

sensei8 · KF Sensei

I believe that understanding ones methodology allows one to explore beyond its core, and in that, other methodologies and ideologies can be then added to ones core of said practitioner.

I like what both of you are saying!!

_________________
**Proof is on the floor!!!

Kusotare · Purple Belt

How well do you understand that though?

Do you understand that chances are, your karate would be about effective in a self defence scenario, as a fire guard made from chocolate?
_________________
Usque ad mortem bibendum!

sensei8 · KF Sensei

Kusotare · Purple Belt

That's good then, because there are loads of folk out there that believe they are "trained", when they are not!

Realising that fact could cost you your life!

K.
_________________
Usque ad mortem bibendum!

sensei8 · KF Sensei

AdamKralic · Blue Belt

My two cents is that one can talk one out of sticky situations 99/100.

If it's a robbery...I'd give them what they wanted w/o hesitation while explaining that I probably don't have a whole lot more than they do to be honest.

In the instance where it looks like it'll all go to shiite no matter what? I'd hope to be faster than them. If I move first...odds are in my favor.

	KarateForums.com Forum Index -> General Martial Arts Discussion	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2