I've got a weird question and I'm not sure what good would come of it but I'm going to ask anyway.
What target do you think our 154 or so techniques attack the most? I don't want an actual statistical answer. I want your gut instinct more. If you think about it for more than 30 seconds, you're putting too much into it.
I don't worry about the incoming weapon much, if I hit the target, the incoming weapon is nullified. Now, being offensive, that's where I'm going to direct my blows, to their weapons first, then to other vital targets.
My first strike. Two in one in that example. And you could use delayed sword offensively to stay consistent with my point. All of the sparring techniques are examples of this as well.
CT
but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The strike is on its way, if ignored you are hit plain and simple, your response is to meet it, create
time, crowd it,or get your *** out of the way. If a strike is throw and your delayed response can not only ignore it but beat it, leave the guy alone.
T.Dunne
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
What Clyde had said in not so many words. It boils down to the primary intent of your action. This will significantly effect the reaction you create in your opponent. Your question leaves for two possible answers. One qualitative, one quantitative. I believe the art and the concept of avoid, hurt, maim, kill addresses the concept more succinctly than a quantitative analysis of where we like to hit people. So, in defending, my primary intent is to avoid injury. The techniques do give an example of what you might expect when attacking through the example of striking an incoming weapon. Beyond that it's semantics. Your intent or preference plus environment and target availability should dictate your action. Therefore, the answer to question should end up as a question or series of questions. What is your intent? What is your preference? What targets are available? Incoming weapons are always convenient but once you've moved beyond basic motion they are far from what I would consider a primary focus.
Thanks,
CT
but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"What target do you think our 154 or so techniques attack the most? I don't want an actual statistical answer. I want your gut instinct more. If you think about it for more than 30 seconds, you're putting too much into it."
I say, the incoming weapon.
Delayed Sword, Alternating Maces, Sword of Destruction, Deflecting Hammer.. And so on, the incoming weapon is the most common target attacked.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Still begs for an argument over semantics because by definition an attack is initiated by an attacker not a defender but OK. Of course that means Clyde is dead wrong. I've never seen anyone attacked by a groin. Well....there was that one time at deja vu in Vegas but that's another story.
CT
but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
In our techniques, which target is the most commonly attacked.
Not, which target attacks people. I'll just assume you agree with me unless you provide a response outlining which target you think is the most common with logical supporting statements. Simple.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I don't agree in that your statement presumes a simplistic view of what the motion within a technique really is. In reality your not attacking anything when defending. Your preemptivly moving into a stronger position within the universal pattern than your opponent. Attacking your opponent hopefully creates in them a reaction that creates the same result. It's a chicken and egg argument is all. Which came first? The technique or the attack. Example? I don't attack someone's wrist with a counter grab in crossing talon, I step into a left neutral bow as if my opponent isn't even there. I do this becuase we train such that there isn't any other reasoned course of action under those set of circumstances. So it's simple and complex. I hear you asking for a crude answer to a question that has been shown to have an elegant solution.
Sorry, just how I see it.
Thanks,
CT
but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You might find yourself in a worse situation than if you hadn't "pinned" the hand. Points of contact become levers and fulcrums, and when you pin the hand in CT like that, your will be used as such.
The technique works even better if you're moving forward. I teach this counter to a counter to everyone that learns CT the way you do it, no one has been able to pull of CT that way on me . I realize it's shown that way in Short 3, but under different circumstances and position.
That is one of the most asked questions in MA by those who are not conditioned to accept what is being taught at that particular moment, & is for that particular, specific teaching. (As in this tech is a yellow belt requirement, and will not change until you get to 2nd BB)
Why so much confusion on forums and in the classroom.
Some Rx's are very close in prescribed situations, but individuals are not. The simple answer!
Would Clyde teach CT as he states right out of the get go, and if so, he has changed the original, stuck in the mud, prescribed way. (Easy way to provoke more discussion, a good way???Maybe not for the student that will go back and attempt to show up his teacher).
One would mention, EPS taught it this way, I was taught that way, but, because this is better, by evolution and training with more than one opponent, (not just a dummy standing there being mechanical and can not exercise some free thinking at the time, because to do that, would be to provoke the ire of the teacher)!!
Answer for some, "because one/I was taught that way, and it should not be changed for that specific drill"...If you have a limited number of techs taught at each belt, there is the limitation.
Maybe that is why, Tracy's has 600 or so and EPS has been limited to 150???
Teachers I have been with, have more than one tech, but time in grade is when you are taught them. The secrets some might say!!! LOL
Why I have said many times and not with disrespect, it is basic, as in elementary, Clyde's tech is higher learning. Many say go back to the basics, sure if you don't teach daily, eat and consume the art more than 2-3 days a week.
Regards,
Gary
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Its not higher learning Gary. It's learning why and how as you go instead of having to figure out why later on and relearn everything. A technique is the answer to the why, not really the how. Clyde teaches it that way. It is simple. That's why it's scary to some folks.
CT
but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.
Dennis Miller
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Clyde may teach it that way (as it should be imho) but many don't. They have a prescribed way to teach, connected to a form/kata that has all the moves.
After learning the kata, doing the move/tech is then explained why it is put into the form/kata. I am not into that. Drills are much better imho.
Regards,
Gary
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I recall, training in the backyard of GM Ramon Estalilla, there was a man there on the QT, training, he said that if his instructor found out he was training in Filipino arts, he would be expelled from the school, he was training at.
He asked why would he do that? I told him, he was afraid, you would learn where much of the art comes from (mho). Told him he would see the similarity and know much of it stemmed from PI.
I told him this is a better art to study, no big loss, do not worry about it...
Mentioned he had a long contract with the school. told him go to small claims court! Not sure what he did...
That was in the day of, human bondage via contracts to learn LOL...
Regards,
Gary
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
. I realize it's shown that way in Short 3, but under different circumstances and position.
