The Classics

Discussion in 'Tai chi' started by Taoquan, May 12, 2007.

  1. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Personally I'm a fan of the hands in pocket headbutt myself.
    But I am old school and have a hard head.

    The Bear.
     
  2. koyo

    koyo Passed away, but always remembered. RIP.

    I feel that I must intercede here Bear. You are painting a cruel picture oF Glawegians. Ther ARE gentlemen in Glasgow you should know for you have trained with us, I am sure were you to fight a girl you would attempt to kick HER in the balls as well. Hasn't your aikido instructor taught you anything.i SHALL BE HAVING A WORD WITH HIM :Angel:

    regards
    William Jonathan Coyle GG (Glasgow gentleman)
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2007
  3. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    Well I never said I agreed 100% with the perspective, but I suppose it is a matter of interpretation. I would turn and sink my entire body weight into most techniques for sure, but I would also observe zhong ding and zhong zheng principles throughout in order to remain balanced on both the horizontal and vertical planes, which is another reason I don't lean. If you lean into pushing a car (for example) you can give 100% of yourself to the push, but you are also very off balance. I wouldn't fight with such an over commitment in any one direction, but rather remain aware of and balance all directions within my posture so as to remain able to deal with attacks from all sides.

    For the record, I do rather like the broadsword - better than the straight sword. I probably like using a stick or staff best though, because they let you fight in basically the same way that you'd fight empty handed, but with extra reach (& therefore power). I'm not a fan of having to move so differently to use a sword when I wouldn't be likely to ever have to use one in real life (or should that be "r34l l1fe" or something :confused: )

    - Confused of Yorkshire.
     
  4. daftyman

    daftyman A 4oz can of whoop-ass!

    maybe for a sword we should use an umbrella? Works for Wong Fei Hung in Once Upon A Time in China so it must be true!

    I'm glad to hear that there are still some gentlemen in Glasgow since I moved out to Doune! (bows)
     
  5. 8GatesAaron

    8GatesAaron Valued Member


    Well I have. It really depends on who is fighting. Most of the time you do get mostly commited attacks, with one person hauling off and taking a swing at someone else, but I seen boxers (or people that fancy themselves boxers) squaring off and jabbing, feinting, and what have you. I've seen wrestlers feint high and shoot low. I've seen guys end up doing what could be called a de facto feint – someone throws a bad pawing punch, or just a really non-commited defensive punch, the other guys over reacts and lunges in like a batter swinging at a wild pitch, and gets clocked or taken down for his efforts.

    What I think is a more important point is that I don't train to fight against untrained people, I train to fight against people that are going to try to feint, fake, or drift. I also work with grapplers, so I need to know if someone is going to shoot on me or not.

    One of the guys I train with is a professional MMA figher, he actually refers to something working in a street fight as a point of derision. He'll say something like "Yeah, that's something that would probably work on the street, but you'd never pull it off against a trained fighter" – in that spirit, I'll say that what works on the street isn't the standard I'm working with. I'm looking for better than that.
     
  6. Taoquan

    Taoquan Valued Member

    I agree JK,
    I think it important to "commit" to the attack, but you still leave yourself a way out so to speak by keeping you balance and awareness. I think this combination does allow a person to commit to the attack, but still be able to maneuver and move.
     
  7. Taoquan

    Taoquan Valued Member

    I think here you are getting into what I call "The Chess fight" where you try to be a few moves in front of your opponent. Some people I have seen can do this fairly effortlessly and seem to have the whole fight planned in thier head, others try to hard and usually get a good shot to the face for thinking too hard.

    Some feints don't necessarily have a plan of attack, some feints may be used to see your own skill. For example if I were to feint a punch and you shudder, then I know you have little fighting exp. But if you react in a block and try to start a combo, then I have assessed you do have skill. Though feints themselves (unless done by someone highly skilled) are fairly easy to see through imo.

    Most people that use feints don't necessarily get set into proper attacking stance, they don't set up for an actual strike so to speak. Their weight is unbalanced, their body not aligned to do any real damage if they do manage to swing etc. If I had an opponent that used feints personally for me I would do little to react so they had no idea what they were up against.

    So for the classic: "If the opponent does not move, I do not move". I would almost have to alter this abit and say attack rather than move, just like the original classic posted.
     
  8. 8GatesAaron

    8GatesAaron Valued Member

    Libraquan, when a person reaches out after a feint, they make openings that you can exploit. The person feinting learns to recognize the different openings, and find the proper angles to come in at. The important first skill is to learn to see openings and angles. A more passive way to do this is by baiting. In baiting, you purposely makes an opening so that you can set up a counter. In feinting and baiting you are basicly controling the behavior of the other person.

    As far as someone in a ready position and not doing anything, a Taiji person doesn't do anything until the other fellow actually makes the intention to jab or do whatever.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2007
  9. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    I do definitely get your point, but I am more focussed on what street attackers would do as they are the ones that could set out to kill you. I'm not talking so much about blokes getting drunk and beating each other up for a laugh as part of a good night out because they fancy themselves a bit, but rapists, murderers, and perpetrators of hate crimes.

    I'm less interested in the sports / competitive fighting scene.
     
  10. 8GatesAaron

    8GatesAaron Valued Member

    Just because someone want to kill you or rape you doesn't make them a good fighters. Unless people like that actually get training (which, given their status as social misfits, doesn't seem likely), they are just like the blokes that get drunk and beat each other up (in fact, they might be the same blokes, you never know). My point is that they aren't trained fighters, and aren't as dangerous as trained fighters in hand to hand combat. Now if they pull a gun (which is more likely given their proclivities), you have quite a different problem.
     
  11. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    I think you're wrong, but I don't see the point in getting into an argument about it. I've already said I see your point.

    The big difference, trained or untrained is the edge someone has when they are trying to kill you. Intention makes a whole heap of difference. Someone who is actively trying to kill you is likely to be a lot more dangerous than someone who is trying not to. Most people are not only not trying to kill when they fight, they are trying not to, to some degree. Seriously, think about it.
     
  12. 8GatesAaron

    8GatesAaron Valued Member

    First of all, it should be noted that while the fellow I mentioned is MMA, I'm not. I used his statement to illustrate my point. The fellow I mentioned also trains in war arts, as do I.

    When you train, you alway assume murderous intent. We train with techniques that are designed to kill or maim, so it's natural to assume that a person you are fighting wants to do the same to you. The reality of the matter, is that can't actually attack people with murderous intent (the authorities frown on that sort of thing) – we, like you, can only pretend. The idea that someone is actively trying to kill you doesn't make them better fighters. It just makes the consequences from loosing that much worst.

    I guess my main point is, what do you do if you run across a homicidal rapist perpetrating hate crimes that knows how to throw a good feint? Now there's something to think about.

    Moving on.....
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2007
  13. Taoquan

    Taoquan Valued Member

    Indeed,

    What about this classic quote?

    "My opponent does not know me, but I know them."

    Could this be used similar to the other context that we already discussed? Based on your observation of the opponent would everyone classify this quote as being the same?
     
  14. daftyman

    daftyman A 4oz can of whoop-ass!

    Don't lay your cards on the table. Don't telegraph what you're about to do. Let the other guy do it.
     
  15. jkzorya

    jkzorya Moved on by request

    Like I said, I see your point. I pointed out that I was unaware of feints being used in really viscious fights because I think that martial artists sometimes focus too heavily on being able to beat other martial artists, thereby missing the basics of "kill or be killed." As you have said:

    Obviously you can train to deal with feints as well, it doesn't have to be either / or. Yes, I'm happy to move on now.
     
  16. Polar Bear

    Polar Bear Moved on

    Ha, I don't think my Aikido instructor would take any soft hearted nonsense either. Anyway it's not like you do "real" Aikido, Koyo. :D

    The Bear.
     
  17. koyo

    koyo Passed away, but always remembered. RIP.

    That is such a PATHETIC feint that it merits no responce :yeleyes: . So I won't.


    regards koyo GG
     
  18. Taoquan

    Taoquan Valued Member

    Vamp,
    I see what you mean, but how does it play down to the "I know them" My question is this the same principle that we discussed in your opinion with reading the opponent?

    I agree with not telegraphing so your opponent does not know you. But I am curious as I have heard these two phrases used in separate ideas, just curious if you all think them the same.

    The Classic I posted above I have interpreted like we have mentioned, but also I have heard it interpreted like the "Chess match" battle where as you develop MA you learn to almost predict with precision what an opponent will do.
     
  19. Sandus

    Sandus Moved Himself On

    I think a better analogy is that of a poker player. 99% of the poker players you'll find in a tournament will be guys you've never seen or heard of before. However, the good poker players have so much skill (and so much practice reading) that it doesn't matter who the opponent is anymore, because those players are able to figure out what they're doing without previous knowledge.

    A poker pro once told me that when you become truly good at poker, you stop playing your cards and start playing your opponents. Your goal is not to react to them and make the proper decisions, but to force them into the decisions that you want them to make.

    I imagine a good fighter operates much the same way. He doesn't care who you are, he only cares how to induce the proper behaviors from you that will give him the upper hand. It's not so much being one step ahead as it is paving the step for the opponent.

    (I just woke up, so forgive me if this is incoherent.)
     
  20. Libraquan

    Libraquan Tenacious Member

    Hi TQ,

    Actually no, I was just thinking about someone attempting to distract me, as Polar Bear's example "Glaswegian feints a strike, but his real intent is to kick/knee my groin".

    ...which sounds to me like, "The opponent starts, but I arrive first".

    Thanks TQ, I did take on board what you wrote about feints. I'm just a little pressed for time at the moment.

    Regards,
    LQ
     

Share This Page