Hi Simon Until Andy D gets here this will have to do.... from Patrick Strong.... ================= Fistic Law Monday, 16-Oct-00 21:55:15 Gary has requested opening a thread on "Fistic Law." This is a term that Bruce used to describe his method of having one answer for every question. In his notes, later published as "The Tao of Jeet Kune Do," Bruce mentions "Choice Reaction," briefly explaining something to the effect that you as a fighter, do not want to be in a position to have to make choices, rather you make your opponent make the choices. The reason for this is that it takes time to make a choice. Therefore, Bruce had one response (answer) for every question. In otherwords, one way of intercepting regardless of the opponent's hand attack. And it was brilliant! Although, the mechanics and principle is quite simple in this one response, there are, as usual, a great many pieces of information that can be applied to make it work even better and more effectively. Before I get more into this, perhaps there are others that would care to offer their thoughts and share some of the things that they have learned. Re: Re: Re: Re: Fistic Law Thursday, 19-Oct-00 23:33:22 As always, Robert presses interesting points. He mentions: <"instinctive" response to an attack to intercept rather than react defensively and possibly counter-ect.> This is one of those important details that I mentioned that greatly enhance the effectiveness of this "Fistic Law." It has to do with training an instinctive response into your "one answer." The way in which the instinctive response is trained is quite important, as what follows next is what delivers the speed and power. The instinctive response is used to initiate the "fast start" at reaction time. Since the response is instinctive, it does not require a decision of what to do next. Before you can even begin to think of what to do next, it has already happend. But now, what happens next? This is where Fistic Law goes to work. Robert: <But to make this intresting I will throw a couple of things in here! One is "destroying" a limb, such as done in FMA as effective in your opinions? Or do you feel things such as clothing and requiring a higher degree of accuracy make interception more effective?> In Bruce's method of Fistic Law, there happens to be an inherent movement, not one that is planned, but one that is, more or less, built in. The move is an automtic arm break, or elbow capsule rupture. Like I said, the movement (or technique) is not attempted as to break an arm. It just happens automatically, if things work that way. In otherwords, as you lin sil dar, striking your opponent, you may have broken or injured his arm. Call it frosting on the cake. In my opinion, although I know a lot of nerve destructions, I'm really not that keen on them. Here is why. The technique requires a beat. I would rather use that beat to accomplish something else that I would feel is more important. A nerve destruction may work, and then it may not work. If it doesn't, it was a waisted opportunity, and it could have been a risky one. But then, everyone to their own. Robert asks: <Second, what if your instinctive reaction is to intercept but your opponent is very good at ABD and broken rhythm / angle attacks? Would this cause this approach to backfire on you???> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean on this one Robert. Accuracy is naturally a product of body structure, connection, timing and distance. But there is something else that is also very important. It is the understanding as to where to put the speed. In Bruce's method this is quite different than in boxing and other forms of martial art. I'll save this one for another time....
Hi Yoda Thanks for that. One misconception I've had up to now is that there is one answer to every question rather than every question having an answer. So a different attack would provoke a different responce? But always the same. Much speed/reading of intention required I think! Thanks again Simon
Hi Simon, The responses vary according to the attack but this variance is kept to a minimum. A good analogy is turning a corner in a car. The sharper the corner the more you have to turn the stearing wheel. Now imagine if you had to do something completely different for each type of corner - perhaps push a different lever, flick a certain switch etc. Just imagine how much more thought would have to take place as well as what problems this decision time would cause. Andy
