A shock I know: The strategic use of backing up

A place where this subject can be evaluated and discussed. No "bashing" allowed. "Tell us what YOU do"
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Stryke wrote: A crock of proverbial
Yeah I'm with you Marcus: This stood out quite a bit to me too. I'll just say: I disagree........ :roll:

I believe in 'backing up' which to me means possible multiple linier back up stepping in order to:

1. Deploy the Fence.. For purposes of threat assessment or de-escalation.

2. Deploy a weapon*

3. Bait the wary opponent who stays just outside range and will not commit*


* Note: In these cases the backward movement is only used to set up the close, the attack.

In the end, one may train moving backward, sideward, this way or that way, but when one is talking about fighting or bodily SD all roads lead to engagement. So, while one may study many kinds of setups, for engagement, some of which may involve "backing up" and some not, one eventually finds oneself, finally, needing to attack.

The problem is that, at this moment one encounters the opponent's resistance. This is where things can get scary because the opponent's resistance will most often totaly ruin their 'plan' and if one's plan is fixed and unchangeable they will be in deep schizle aka 'the classical mess.' So, folks need to get used to having their plans ruined and changing and adapting.

Without engagement resistance training folks often resort to the 'primal flail' because the information received in the heat of combat, his *resistance* is foreign to them and does not generate a trained response. In other words their training doesn't recognize this chaotic feedback and "tell them" what to do with it, let alone how to use it to their advantage. This is why studying the engagement and learning to change/adapt with resistance is where real martial depth is and why it merits a main focus of study.
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
Rick Wilson

Post by Rick Wilson »

“Note: In these cases the backward movement is only used to set up the close, the attack.”

I think there can be rare times where disengagement could lead to escape but since I can’t run that fast I totally agree that disengagement is only prep for reengagement.
User avatar
chef
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: State of Confusion
Contact:

Post by chef »

Another perspective: What appears to be a backing up can also be a moment to rebound, a launch into your attacker....done as a plyometric response, much as a cat backs up just before it attacks to launch itself with momentum.

This can occur when you are re-orienting your position to an opponent's attack, blading with your body for sideways torsion and rebounding back with your attack (this is an application you see in Kyu Kumite #2).

Vicki
Last edited by chef on Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Cry in the dojo, laugh in the battlefield"
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Strategic use of back up

Post by Van Canna »

Image _

Image

is an art.
Van
Rick Wilson

Post by Rick Wilson »

In a self protection situation there are only two options:

1. Escape. (This includes everything from verbal diffusion to running.)

2. Engage and survive.

If you cannot escape then you must engage and survive.

Regardless of if you engage immediately, avoid the attack and engage, disengage and reengage, if there is no escape then there is only engagement.

I believe that if there is no escape then the sooner you engage the better.

The only reason to delay is to achieve a strategic advantage before you engage.

The only reason to disengage is to achieve a strategic advantage before you engage.


Van: :D
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

What appears to be a backing up can also be a moment to rebound, a launch into your attacker....done as a plyometric response, much as a cat backs up just before it attacks to launch itself with momentum.
I think plyometric load is a valid point , I dont think you need to take a step to do it . Ying Yang and loading abound in the kata .

Blading and angling are deffinately good tools IMHO
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Rick wrote: The only reason to delay is to achieve a strategic advantage before you engage.
That strategic advantage could also include the opportunity to make your case in a court of law if you have witnesses around you. Self defense is 50% about what happens when people exchange blows, and 50% about what happens afterwards. Those who have been there appreciate this perspective. Of course once someone clearly puts your life in danger (and hopefully it is clear to any witnesses around), then all bets are off...

A lot of cyber warriors don't want to acknowledge that, but if we're talking self defense then the bigger picture applies. It's best to think this through very carefully and practice some "what if" scenarios long before the poop hits the propeller. Hesitation can be fatal.

- Bill
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

Hesitation can be fatal.
Rick Wilson

Post by Rick Wilson »

"Hesitation can be fatal."

So good it had to be repeated twice. :D
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

The crucial difference we have to keep in mind, is the difference between self-defense and fighting.

What's this difference?
Van
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

One can be avoided

the other cant
User avatar
JimHawkins
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Post by JimHawkins »

Loss of ego vs. loss of life... Cooperation: Duel vs. Dinner.. :lol:
Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
User avatar
Van Canna
Posts: 57244
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Post by Van Canna »

True. Is our way of training embedding physical reactions that could be seen as 'mutual combat' by a trier of facts/jury of our peers?

The way we train: does it encourage 'sticking around' and engaging an opponent with 'technique exchanges'_ a.k.a. fighting?

This will be suicide in a court of law.
Van
MikeK
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Post by MikeK »

I'd say yes Van. IMO grabbing someone and beating on them or trapping them against a wall and hammer fisting their head moves you up from self defense to fighting at least in the eyes of a witness.
I was dreaming of the past...
Stryke

Post by Stryke »

How many times when there are witnesses are you really going to NEED to fight ?

It` sall about doing everything you can to avoid violence , If you have done that I see little need to worry about dispatching the bad guy with empty hands .

If it`s that serious I`ll be judged by a jury . But I`ll stand to be judged .

If your asking if training mutual confrontation leads to mutual confrontation thats another topic , and i say it might .

I do think demonstrating that you train for HAPV may be a better scenario .

however I think the burden of proof is going to be on any martial artists shoulders if there training is to deeply delved into .

then it`s time to call in the experts ....

Luckily NZ isnt as litigous a society as the US yet ... but it`ll happen .
Post Reply

Return to “Fighting Drills”