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"

Postby JimHawkins » Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:19 am

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
User avatar
JimHawkins
 
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Postby Rick Wilson » Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:54 am

“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.
Rick Wilson
 

Postby chef » Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:24 pm

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
chef
 
Posts: 1746
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 6:01 am
Location: State of Confusion

Strategic use of back up

Postby Van Canna » Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:32 pm

Image _

Image

is an art.
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45613
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby Rick Wilson » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:22 am

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
Rick Wilson
 

Postby Stryke » Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:28 am

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
Stryke
 

Postby Bill Glasheen » Mon Oct 24, 2005 7:12 pm

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
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
 
Posts: 17308
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Postby Stryke » Mon Oct 24, 2005 8:53 pm

Hesitation can be fatal.
Stryke
 

Postby Rick Wilson » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:32 am

"Hesitation can be fatal."

So good it had to be repeated twice. :D
Rick Wilson
 

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:49 am

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

What's this difference?
Van
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45613
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby Stryke » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:55 am

One can be avoided

the other cant
Stryke
 

Postby JimHawkins » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:02 am

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
JimHawkins
 
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
Location: NYC

Postby Van Canna » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:14 am

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
User avatar
Van Canna
 
Posts: 45613
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am

Postby MikeK » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:34 pm

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...
MikeK
 
Posts: 3672
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:40 pm

Postby Stryke » Wed Oct 26, 2005 1:25 am

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 .
Stryke
 

PreviousNext

Return to Fighting Drills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests