Backpedal Defense in Uechi

[JimHawkins]

Backpedaling? What does that even mean? I don't get it. If you think that the sum total of skill in self defense, fighting, what-have-you, is in the forward motion of the feet, you're seriously deluded.

In order to fight you must be close enough to the opponent to fight using whatever methods you train. It's really that simple. Whatever method you do the range must allow for you to be close enough to fight using those methods. If you think that is best achieved by “not closing” or not allowing distance to be closed, then by all means do that, train that and be happy with that.

It's like saying that all you have to do to master karate is to be bigger and stronger than everyone else in the world. "just kick their ass"

So, saying “one should close the distance to preferred fighting range” is like saying that you must be bigger and stronger? Sorry, but there is not even a shadow of a parallel there.

Again, closing distance does not mean hard or soft or force against force or anything in particular other than being close enough to do whatever it is you do... And you can do it any way you like. In systems and methods where people train to work off of feel for example, they must be close enough to feel. This range does not dictate how they must use this feel or how to manage energy of the opponent, only that they must be close enough to the opponent to use whatever it is they train. Again, it's really that simple.

So why learn anything at all, other than "keep walking forward, and you will become master of the universe, Daniel-San." I never learned anything called "backpedaling".

Again the idea of closing to whatever range is needed does not mean that, "you do not have anything to learn". I don’t see how anyone could even reach that conclusion. In fact it’s just the opposite: Whatever fighting style you study; The actual fighting must happen at a range where fighting <and training> is most effective for that style. The learning does not END when the fighting range is met it BEGINS there.

[fivedragons]

Jim, the words "self defense" presuppose the idea of being within range of deploying whatever "techniques" or "concepts" that one feels comfortable with. The meaning of self defense is that someone else has taken it upon themselves to impose that wondrous "telephone booth" "in close" "ultimate fighting range" that everyone raves about on this deluded mindscape of fantasy kung fu movie- super athlete black belt octagon of death martial art forum. I wouldn't want to tell a 5' lady holding a baby, to just "move forward". "get in close, attack the attack" "crawl up the predators nostril, you can't fail."

I don't need to teach a child to "move forward so you will be in the optimum range for your deadly karate technique to have the optimum effect according to some fuc***g taoist priest. You see, if you are attacked in a predatory manner, you are already as far forward as you could possibly wish to be. Wing Chun wasn't designed for self defense, it is a compression of shaolin concepts, meant for short training time, not to take the place of the foundation disciplines, but to focus on certain attributes that could best make use of determined and fatalistic warriors, in the shortest time.

Uechi wasn't designed for self defense either. What is a praying mantis known for? Self Defense? Uechi is a predatory art. To truly understand and access the movements in the kata, one has to engage the mind in the practice of becoming a "predator of predators". Then it becomes what some might call self defense.

The cool thing is that all these movements can be invaluable for "self defense", but only if the student doesn't burden themself with unrealistic idealistic interpretations of what is required from them. There is a huge difference between the mindset in learning self defense and that of the kamikaze.

It's so easy to sit back and say "be like the divine wind", which is fine if you're just teaching people who are fatalistic samurai. Don't impose this on people who come to you looking for self defense. It's all about truth in advertising.

Do you think that once you start to learn karate or kungfu, one has the magical ability to become impervious to the sucker punch, or to being knocked backward? If you only train in forward motion, does it mean that you'll never find yourself moving the opposite direction? Wishful thinking.

Jesus, I'm running out of steam. THE YIN AND THE YANG, JIM!!!! Think of Judo, for Christ's sake. Uechi isn't just about punching people! Kanbun didn't spend ten years in China just learning how to punch hard.

[JimHawkins]

Jim, the words "self defense" presuppose the idea of being within range of deploying whatever "techniques" or "concepts" that one feels comfortable with.

You are responding to me but not addressing my post.. Why don't you address the post instead of asserting random opinions about martial history, meanings and labels I did not use or imply?

The term Self-Defense is a generic term that means:

1. Defense of oneself when physically attacked: took a course in self-defense.
2. Defense of what belongs to oneself, as one's works or reputation.
3. Law. The right to protect oneself against violence or threatened violence with whatever force or means are reasonably necessary.

There are a myriad of training venues, methods and styles BUT there are some fundamental truths.

To wit:

In order to fight you must be close enough to the opponent to fight using whatever methods you train. It's really that simple. Whatever method you do the range must allow for you to be close enough to fight using those methods. If you think that is best achieved by “not closing” or not allowing distance to be closed, then by all means do that, train that and be happy with that.

[Guest]

methods. If you think that is best achieved by “not closing” or not allowing distance to be closed, then by all means do that, train that and be happy with that.

Does this mean your done agruing with anyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy Jim?

[JimHawkins]

methods. If you think that is best achieved by “not closing” or not allowing distance to be closed, then by all means do that, train that and be happy with that.

Does this mean your done agruing with anyone who doesn't agree with your philosophy Jim?

What it means is what it says..

Folks who train "to stay away" from an opponent or an attack are, and have always been entitled, to do so. In fact, I am a strong proponent of "staying away from threats.." By all means folks should be doing that if at all possible.

As for "arguing" folks here have always and will always discuss and assert their beliefs. Even if you don’t like it.. Folks will continue to debate and discuss what they feel the best ways to train are. Folks are entitled to any opinion they wish to share here but should be prepared to support their ideas with logical arguments and not just hot trolling air. This is because other folks will invariably disagree and post counter points and may support them with logic.

Some folks here have worked hard to share lots of useful information that may be of value; and some folks will only blow smoke. Some may learn from the sharing of these ideas; and still others will feel threatened by this kind of discussion, cry foul and get their panties all knotted up. In the end whatever ups and downs these kinds of discussions may have you may rest assured that they will continue so long as there are people posting.

[Guest]

debate and discuss what they feel the best ways to train are. Folks are entitled to any opinion they wish to share here but should be prepared to support their ideas with logical arguments and not just hot trolling air.

How much more prepared can one be then by actually doing it? Yet, that isn't good enough for you... your still the great "know it all" even when your sitting there in your underpants.

[JimHawkins]

Very good example of hot trolling air there.. No need to actually contribute with all of that. Got any more?

[Rick Wilson]

For those who just wish to throw insults we now have the Hideaway forum for that nonsense. Take it there or discuss the issues.

First question I have is why does everyone think forward movement has no angles and no strategy to it?

Have any of you ever studied Jim Maloney’s closing?

While I am sure Jim can use backwards motion whenever he wants, when he needs to finish he closes. He engages. He goes forward.

Watch how he does it.

It is not some mindless I need to be much bigger than you fantasy.

Closing and engaging need to be done with intelligence.

Closing and engaging done properly have nothing to do with putting your strength into their strength where only the biggest and the strongest win.

So, as per George’s wishes for his forums, I repeat: Either discuss and stop with the pointless (and I mean that literally) insults, or take it to the hideaway.


Everyone is free to disagree and make a case for their view, but do it or get out.

[Guest]

I never said it was pointless... I see the advantages in all approaches. Lets not forget Rick, I am actively involved right now in the trenches trying to make this stuff work. I'm only sharing what I am experiencing. I agree with going in..in..in.. in fact, prior to actually doing any serious kumite work, the "Wrecking Ball" mentality predominated in my sparring... unfortunatley, this did not work well with experienced fighters. I had to re-think my strategy, and unfortnatley, I pretty much was on my own.

[Rick Wilson]

Tony it was some of the comments that were pointless in my mind.

Strategy is always good.

[fivedragons]

I just want to make it perfectly clear that I have nothing against "closing", "backpedaling", "running away", or whatever. What I think that Uechi ryu gives me is the ability to efficiently express my intention. The ability to move my body in the same instant that my mind moves, whether it be backward, forward, side to side. Over the years there have been many experts of self defense, combatives, etc who have come to this forum and said that "karate *****". Not in so many words, but you know the drill.

In the same period I have read the experiences of people who defied everything that has ever been said about "traditional martial arts". People who have survived the very kinds of situations that supposedly "karate" doesn't prepare you for.

Here's my new revolutionary theory: There is no such thing as bunkai, or applications.

When Bruce Lee decried the "classical mess", was he talking about traditional methods of training people into the warrior mindset, or was he talking about the illusions and fallacies that have been layered onto the mind-body-spirit practices over decades of misuse and abuse, the complete lack of understanding of what is being aimed for.

Self defense is so simple, it's almost laughable, but there aren't that many people who really want to hear about it. As soon as you present the reality of interpersonal violence, most people's eyes glaze over. It's really impossible to teach something that any reasonable person would rather pretend doesn't exist.

Much easier to compartmentalize martial arts into techniques, bunkai, drills, competitions, dances. And yes, I'll say it, risk-laden, very skillful GAMES.

How many people would feel comfortable practicing Shotokan, for instance, if they knew that every time they stepped forward with the right foot and threw a punch with the right hand, they where actually practicing how to grab someone's throat and rip it out?

What does a closed fist mean to you? Is it a punch or a pull? The secret is that it shouldn't mean anything at all. You are not limited in your ability to survive. You have the right to respond instinctively and naturally to any circumstance that presents itself. There is only one true teacher, and karate, kung fu, yoga, meditation are all different ways to find it.

So, back to bunkai. "sensei, what does this move mean?" "grasshopper, jump the sword a thousand times and you will understand".

It's really quite absurd. But that's okay, because so is life, and so are we. The only thing that isn't absurd is the movement that comes from the heart.

[JimHawkins]

Yes it's true that the idea of making space upon initiation or reception of attack is foreign more or less to the system of WCK.. Now, Attack by Draw or Attack on the Completion are things I and others have acknowledged but this acknowledgement apparently fell on deaf ears or for some reason does not count. Still, these kinds of attacks are known and accepted but are not the mainstay of street defense in so far as most systems go for the many reasons already posted on this subject. Moreover none of these strategies, as I understand and would agree with include or entail hitting *while* one is reversing. This is because striking forward while one is going backward with negative momentum takes away much of the power that would otherwise be available.

Attacking the attack does not mean using force against force, is also does not have to mean going straight in, nor does it really mean "charging in".. It means using timing, distance, angle and whatever system concepts are in play to fit in with the attack and cutting off his attack with yours, there are many variations, not one, all purpose ‘charge forward’ technique o doom. Despite everyone’s tendency to say forward vs. backward, these terms do not even begin to articulate the ideas in play.

WCK, for instance, seeks contact for feel in order to speed up timing and control. This represents 90% of our training so clearly one must have contact to feel/control and the close proximity to do so. Now just because we seek to clash in WCK this does not assume that you are going to clash and mow them down, though if you can we say go for it. In many cases in WCK you clash with the opponent feel his intent and find that you cannot control read take *that line* or angle. So what happens then? Well you have to *make space* and change lines. These concepts and mechanics can be observed in the wooden dummy set where most of the moves have the person constantly changing lines..and to do that they do make space albeit inches vs. feet. When WCK makes space and changes lines, this is analogous to the slip you mentioned Laird, but in WCK we train to release their pressure by moving and sinking or stepping/sinking back and over on the rear leg just a little, as this happens you change the line, let their force go and then go forward again with attack and pressure. This is all done in two parts, the release/change and then forward with the resumed attack. Total reverse distance could be an inch or it could be a foot depending on their energy and contact is often retained..

So this kind of space creation address the real need to *change* in order to gain a better position for the attack.. This can be seen used by grapplers when they are in the midst of grappling, say trying to get the mount, instead of getting all tied up by the opponent's guard and attempts to control they often begin a stand up move to create space for just a moment and then resume their attempt to get the mount or pass the guard or otherwise try to improve their position.

So "space making" is not absent in any close range system or even grappling, it is there, but it is subtle, it is brief and it happens after the attack or clash, in response to the conditions one finds once in contact with respect to energy and position..

[Rick Wilson]

Fivedragons:

Now that was a good post, thank you.

“Much easier to compartmentalize martial arts into techniques, bunkai, drills, competitions, dances. And yes, I'll say it, risk-laden, very skillful GAMES.”

I agree. Often the training (the drills) becomes the WAY.

Kata gives us how to generate lines of force. These are many and varied and they’re for you to see (such as your example of the closed fist being a punch or a pull – it generates lines of force use them as you will.)

An aggressor attempts to inflict upon us their line of force.

Application is using our lines of force on the aggressor’s weaknesses to win.

“Techniques” or the drills bunkai, kumites etc are merely demonstrations of the use of lines of force in a given situation and in a particular manner.

Personally this is why I prefer to think of the under lying principles (use of lines of force against weaknesses) rather than any specific applications. Which is why I can agree that there is no such thing as applications.

The true use of bunkai has also been lost in “drills.”

Bunkai means analysis.

The drills are a demonstration of one analysis. From my perspective bunkai is the exploration rather than a drill. Although I don’t know what else I would call such a drill.

Good post and one that should generate some useful discussion.

[Rick Wilson]

Jim:

Good post.

This is a better approach and I will be the first to step up and accept responsibility for NOT taking it.

I think we should follow Jim lead here and point out what is done when we go forward, or what is done when we go backwards, rather than simply saying one or the other is wrong.

And I have been very guilty of this in the past so we can all get off to a fresh start.