Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
physics and martial arts: why F=ma doesn't mean very much
Every time I've heard physics invoked to explain how to hit hard I have been dissatisfied. The most common thing is to invoke F=ma --- force equals mass times acceleration, and talk about how if you want some more force, you gotta get some more speed. Or, put some more mass behind it. Force, yeah! Even if they get beyond that, and explain, well, acceleration is not exactly the same thing as speed, and the force here doesn't actually mean anything, and hedge a bit, and then mention you're only describing the thing you're hitting with, not the target, but equal and opposite reaction, right? Force on target!
No.
What you're talking about, when you talk about how you're throwing a punch with F=ma, is how much work YOU are doing. Acceleration is velocity per time --- a description about how long it takes to make something go a certain speed. The mass is how much you're moving. The force is how hard it is to do it. At the end of that process, you've launched a set mass with a certain velocity, and if you want that velocity to be higher, or for that process to take less time, you gotta work harder. It's just about you, it's not about what that hit is going to be like on the other side.
For striking combat sports, that actually does a decent job of describing what you want. You're basically throwing a ball at a bell at a bell. Whether that ball is a fist or the scoring tip of a foil, the goal is the same- you want to do that with minimal telegraphing (highest acceleration), low commitment, easy to get back on guard (just the mass of the ball, no more), with enough velocity to ring the bell (depress the tip, meet whatever is required to score). For this reason, snapping actions are king. You get a kind of wave of motion through your body to launch that ball, and then pull it back after you score. Or let it continue circularly to come back after glancing off.
That's all pretty clear. And you can sort of expand that to see how if you put more mass behind it, you can hit harder. But it doesn't explain the variety of hitting effects I've seen demonstrated, and the damage they can cause. What more do you need?
First, you switch your thinking. that F=ma? You have to think about it as force equals mass times deceleration. How hard the surface has to work to stop that ball. And your thinking about that mass has to change, too. A little example:
Imagine you have a piece of paper falling down as a vertical plane. Shoot a needle at it. The needle punches through. Throw a marble at it. The paper just sort of crumples out of the way. What's going on? Well, part of it is surface area. But. Suppose we attached big weights to the corners of the paper and dropped it. The needle punches through, the marble punches through. We've increased the mass of the paper. Mass is inertia, base resistance to movement. If it's moving, it's not getting damaged. In order to damage something, we need to do that damage before it starts moving away. If something has more mass, there's more potential for it to be damaged. Momentum is inertia with added effect with velocity. If something is moving toward the striking object, there's more potential for it to be damaged. Consider: Would you rather be hit in the face with a baseball traveling 49mph while you are starting to walk forward at 1mph, baseball traveling 50 mph while you are standing still, or 51mph while starting to fall backwards at 1mph?
So then, damage. This is where things get complicated, and you do not see equations invoked casually. If you wanted to learn how to break things, you'd think you'd want to know how things break, but... it's complicated. From my brief survey on the topic, you've got elastic deformation, plastic deformation. Stretching. Fracturing. Structural deformation, structural collapse. Each of these governed by equations that vary by thickness, constants different for different materials. Humans bodies are mix of elastic and inelastic materials, in a combination rigid and flexible structure. It's a mess! Some takeaways:
Elastic deformation is where something bends or compresses, but returns to shape afterwards, also returning the stored force. Not damage. Skin and muscle can deform elastically. For combat sports, this is what you want. No one gets damaged, and also that returned force helps you get back.
Plastic deformation is where something bends or compresses, and does not return to shape. A form of damage. Can't think of anything on the body that does this. Metals do.
Stretching can be elastic or inelastic. A combination of deformation and stretching is what allows for force distribution, like foam. Parts compress and pull other parts in to compress. Time is important- if force is applied quicker than the material can take, the material rips instead of stretching, and force distribution stops. I think this is what's going with the guys who can make you feel knuckles through boxing gloves, despite the fact that there are bigger guys who can hit "harder".
Muscles are somewhat elastic, ligaments and tendons less so. Bones are slightly elastic. "Brittle" is actually a function of stretching and compression- when something bends, it has to get longer on one side and shorter on the other. Once it can't do that, it's going to break. Both length and thickness are a factor.
Some materials and structures, columns especially, can withstand much higher forces briefly and suddenly applied than they can if the weight was slowly applied or left in place. Consider someone crushing an empty aluminum can on their forehead. There is a dead zone between pushing strongly but slightly slowly and quick crushing where you can really hurt yourself.
Torque (turning force) has a tremendous influence on structures. If you didn't crush that can on your forehead (good choice!), you can do the fun thing where you can set it upright on the floor and slowly and carefully stand on it. Then have someone tap the side with a pencil or twist slightly.
Some structures have secondary structural solutions. That is, force is exerted, they're stable, force increases, they crumple more with more force, then hit another stability point where they hold for awhile.
Oh yeah and equal and opposite: anything you hit with is subject to the same deformation and crumpling and whatnot, and all that decreases the damage done.
hmm. to sum up a bit. To evaluate the damage potential of an attack, you have to look at the pressure (force per area) for what amount of time, with what torque, the material of the target for elasticity and force distribution, mass and structure of the target for resistance and crumpling.
We have a lot of experience with not breaking things. We have an unconscious understanding for how to touch and handle and drop a wide variety of things without damaging them or ourselves. Most of us do not have much experience with breaking things. Maija mentioned in the comments on the last post about Muay Thai fighters sparring light and having no problem going for real. True, but the real there is also still a combat sport. Taking a muay thai kick on the thigh really, really sucks. It's disablingly painful and a fight ender, for sure. But that same kick aimed slightly lower with a little torque would destroy the knee. Or kicking the knee itself. And I'm pretty sure with a little training many Muay Thai fighters would be able to break the femur, wherever the kick. but it's not in the sports training, and it's against the rules to hit too hard in a Muay Thai fight (weird, right?). The training spreads the force out just enough to hit as hard as possible without causing damage. There's a big difference between punching the air, and punching a heavy bag. There's another big difference between punching a heavy bag and punching something that will break or deform. Or crumple, grab, and counterattack.
A science fiction book I read had a punching bag with a programmable smart gel that would provide progressive resistance up to a set density, like bone, where it would release. I immediately wanted one, but I think the martial arts world would be a very difference place if that technology was everywhere.
No.
What you're talking about, when you talk about how you're throwing a punch with F=ma, is how much work YOU are doing. Acceleration is velocity per time --- a description about how long it takes to make something go a certain speed. The mass is how much you're moving. The force is how hard it is to do it. At the end of that process, you've launched a set mass with a certain velocity, and if you want that velocity to be higher, or for that process to take less time, you gotta work harder. It's just about you, it's not about what that hit is going to be like on the other side.
For striking combat sports, that actually does a decent job of describing what you want. You're basically throwing a ball at a bell at a bell. Whether that ball is a fist or the scoring tip of a foil, the goal is the same- you want to do that with minimal telegraphing (highest acceleration), low commitment, easy to get back on guard (just the mass of the ball, no more), with enough velocity to ring the bell (depress the tip, meet whatever is required to score). For this reason, snapping actions are king. You get a kind of wave of motion through your body to launch that ball, and then pull it back after you score. Or let it continue circularly to come back after glancing off.
That's all pretty clear. And you can sort of expand that to see how if you put more mass behind it, you can hit harder. But it doesn't explain the variety of hitting effects I've seen demonstrated, and the damage they can cause. What more do you need?
First, you switch your thinking. that F=ma? You have to think about it as force equals mass times deceleration. How hard the surface has to work to stop that ball. And your thinking about that mass has to change, too. A little example:
Imagine you have a piece of paper falling down as a vertical plane. Shoot a needle at it. The needle punches through. Throw a marble at it. The paper just sort of crumples out of the way. What's going on? Well, part of it is surface area. But. Suppose we attached big weights to the corners of the paper and dropped it. The needle punches through, the marble punches through. We've increased the mass of the paper. Mass is inertia, base resistance to movement. If it's moving, it's not getting damaged. In order to damage something, we need to do that damage before it starts moving away. If something has more mass, there's more potential for it to be damaged. Momentum is inertia with added effect with velocity. If something is moving toward the striking object, there's more potential for it to be damaged. Consider: Would you rather be hit in the face with a baseball traveling 49mph while you are starting to walk forward at 1mph, baseball traveling 50 mph while you are standing still, or 51mph while starting to fall backwards at 1mph?
So then, damage. This is where things get complicated, and you do not see equations invoked casually. If you wanted to learn how to break things, you'd think you'd want to know how things break, but... it's complicated. From my brief survey on the topic, you've got elastic deformation, plastic deformation. Stretching. Fracturing. Structural deformation, structural collapse. Each of these governed by equations that vary by thickness, constants different for different materials. Humans bodies are mix of elastic and inelastic materials, in a combination rigid and flexible structure. It's a mess! Some takeaways:
Elastic deformation is where something bends or compresses, but returns to shape afterwards, also returning the stored force. Not damage. Skin and muscle can deform elastically. For combat sports, this is what you want. No one gets damaged, and also that returned force helps you get back.
Plastic deformation is where something bends or compresses, and does not return to shape. A form of damage. Can't think of anything on the body that does this. Metals do.
Stretching can be elastic or inelastic. A combination of deformation and stretching is what allows for force distribution, like foam. Parts compress and pull other parts in to compress. Time is important- if force is applied quicker than the material can take, the material rips instead of stretching, and force distribution stops. I think this is what's going with the guys who can make you feel knuckles through boxing gloves, despite the fact that there are bigger guys who can hit "harder".
Muscles are somewhat elastic, ligaments and tendons less so. Bones are slightly elastic. "Brittle" is actually a function of stretching and compression- when something bends, it has to get longer on one side and shorter on the other. Once it can't do that, it's going to break. Both length and thickness are a factor.
Some materials and structures, columns especially, can withstand much higher forces briefly and suddenly applied than they can if the weight was slowly applied or left in place. Consider someone crushing an empty aluminum can on their forehead. There is a dead zone between pushing strongly but slightly slowly and quick crushing where you can really hurt yourself.
Torque (turning force) has a tremendous influence on structures. If you didn't crush that can on your forehead (good choice!), you can do the fun thing where you can set it upright on the floor and slowly and carefully stand on it. Then have someone tap the side with a pencil or twist slightly.
Some structures have secondary structural solutions. That is, force is exerted, they're stable, force increases, they crumple more with more force, then hit another stability point where they hold for awhile.
Oh yeah and equal and opposite: anything you hit with is subject to the same deformation and crumpling and whatnot, and all that decreases the damage done.
hmm. to sum up a bit. To evaluate the damage potential of an attack, you have to look at the pressure (force per area) for what amount of time, with what torque, the material of the target for elasticity and force distribution, mass and structure of the target for resistance and crumpling.
We have a lot of experience with not breaking things. We have an unconscious understanding for how to touch and handle and drop a wide variety of things without damaging them or ourselves. Most of us do not have much experience with breaking things. Maija mentioned in the comments on the last post about Muay Thai fighters sparring light and having no problem going for real. True, but the real there is also still a combat sport. Taking a muay thai kick on the thigh really, really sucks. It's disablingly painful and a fight ender, for sure. But that same kick aimed slightly lower with a little torque would destroy the knee. Or kicking the knee itself. And I'm pretty sure with a little training many Muay Thai fighters would be able to break the femur, wherever the kick. but it's not in the sports training, and it's against the rules to hit too hard in a Muay Thai fight (weird, right?). The training spreads the force out just enough to hit as hard as possible without causing damage. There's a big difference between punching the air, and punching a heavy bag. There's another big difference between punching a heavy bag and punching something that will break or deform. Or crumple, grab, and counterattack.
A science fiction book I read had a punching bag with a programmable smart gel that would provide progressive resistance up to a set density, like bone, where it would release. I immediately wanted one, but I think the martial arts world would be a very difference place if that technology was everywhere.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
rules
I think rules in combat sports fall into two categories:
I. Rules for safety
II. Rules to make the other guy admit that you won.
Category II only exists competitively, and most often as a consequence of safety rules, in order to prevent game-breaking tactics. But what that's really necessary is a sense of "fair play"- meaning, in this case, that both people share the goal, and avoid doing the things that are only possible because you're not trying to kill each other while working towards this goal. For example, if you slow down, there are tactics that are possible that would not be at full speed. Someone speeding up is obvious, but not obvious is the case where an action would only be possible if predicted. I start to swing, you counter-attack, I change the course of my swing to block your counter-attack. At speed, this is generally only possible if I planned it ahead of time- if you hadn't counter-attacked, i would've done it anyway. but with slower speeds, you can do it seamlessly, exactly as if you had planned it. And the only person who could know is me. You can't use rules to get rid of this problem- you either would have to go full speed, or else both people have to assume each is playing fair.
and then, competitively, you get the unintended consequences. In foil and saber fencing, they have rules of right-of-way to settle the issue. If I attack, you counter-attack, and we both hit at the same time, I win. Originally designed to promote good sword self-defensing technique- you saw the attack, and you decided to attack? Dumb. You get punished. Which, good, right? Except then competitively, the attacker gets REWARDED when his opponent counter-attacks. And the more committed the counter-attack, the better it is. So you get attacks that start long, lazy, and with the head and torso wide-open (but not the arm, because the opponent could hit that and get away) that encourage the opponent to counter-attack.
Safety foundation ("Only counter-attack if you can avoid getting hit!") plus who-wins rule ("Attacker wins vs. counter-attacker") = reality warping behavior ("welcome, suicidal counter-attackers!")
With the foam combat I've been doing, the head is not a valid target, and if you intentionally (or even solidly unintentionally) strike someone in the head, you should take a loss. Which has some predicatible warping effects on technique, as there's no reason to learn to especially learn to protect the head. But then the warping effect gets stronger- one of the essential problem of a large shield is that you can see, or you can protect your face, but it's hard to do both. Problem removed! Just stick your head right over the top of that shield. Which, naturally, people do. And but then it reaches even further. To counteract the advantage of a big shield, you can "break" it by hitting twice with a two-handed weapon. Which works sort of okay in battles with multiple people. but (unintended consequence), one-on-one, sword'n'shield vs two-handed weapon, the game is trivial (meaning, only one real chain of events, uninteresting). Any pauses mean the 2h-er will hit the shield. If they can hit it twice, the shield-user will probably lose. If the shield-user charges to close distance, the 2Her will have time for only one shot. The shield-user can easily block all shots to the arms and torso during that time, leaving the only possible target the legs. So, the only real course of action is: shield-user immediately charges, 2h-er attempts to hit a leg. If they hit a leg, they win. If they don't, the shielder user closes in and wins.
TLDR version: Two-handed weapon vs. sword and shield is a boring fight, with no possibilities or variations. Which is sort of mind-boggling, given how many possibilities there should be with that matchup. And then origin of that was a simple safety rule, "Don't hit people in the head." with associated who-wins rule, "If you hit someone in the head, you lose."
Every combat sport has these things. Not exploiting them is generally an insurmountable competitive disadvantage. It doesn't take long at all for techniques to warp to adapt to these holes. Attempts to correct the warp will just create new, weirder warps.
I. Rules for safety
II. Rules to make the other guy admit that you won.
Category II only exists competitively, and most often as a consequence of safety rules, in order to prevent game-breaking tactics. But what that's really necessary is a sense of "fair play"- meaning, in this case, that both people share the goal, and avoid doing the things that are only possible because you're not trying to kill each other while working towards this goal. For example, if you slow down, there are tactics that are possible that would not be at full speed. Someone speeding up is obvious, but not obvious is the case where an action would only be possible if predicted. I start to swing, you counter-attack, I change the course of my swing to block your counter-attack. At speed, this is generally only possible if I planned it ahead of time- if you hadn't counter-attacked, i would've done it anyway. but with slower speeds, you can do it seamlessly, exactly as if you had planned it. And the only person who could know is me. You can't use rules to get rid of this problem- you either would have to go full speed, or else both people have to assume each is playing fair.
and then, competitively, you get the unintended consequences. In foil and saber fencing, they have rules of right-of-way to settle the issue. If I attack, you counter-attack, and we both hit at the same time, I win. Originally designed to promote good sword self-defensing technique- you saw the attack, and you decided to attack? Dumb. You get punished. Which, good, right? Except then competitively, the attacker gets REWARDED when his opponent counter-attacks. And the more committed the counter-attack, the better it is. So you get attacks that start long, lazy, and with the head and torso wide-open (but not the arm, because the opponent could hit that and get away) that encourage the opponent to counter-attack.
Safety foundation ("Only counter-attack if you can avoid getting hit!") plus who-wins rule ("Attacker wins vs. counter-attacker") = reality warping behavior ("welcome, suicidal counter-attackers!")
With the foam combat I've been doing, the head is not a valid target, and if you intentionally (or even solidly unintentionally) strike someone in the head, you should take a loss. Which has some predicatible warping effects on technique, as there's no reason to learn to especially learn to protect the head. But then the warping effect gets stronger- one of the essential problem of a large shield is that you can see, or you can protect your face, but it's hard to do both. Problem removed! Just stick your head right over the top of that shield. Which, naturally, people do. And but then it reaches even further. To counteract the advantage of a big shield, you can "break" it by hitting twice with a two-handed weapon. Which works sort of okay in battles with multiple people. but (unintended consequence), one-on-one, sword'n'shield vs two-handed weapon, the game is trivial (meaning, only one real chain of events, uninteresting). Any pauses mean the 2h-er will hit the shield. If they can hit it twice, the shield-user will probably lose. If the shield-user charges to close distance, the 2Her will have time for only one shot. The shield-user can easily block all shots to the arms and torso during that time, leaving the only possible target the legs. So, the only real course of action is: shield-user immediately charges, 2h-er attempts to hit a leg. If they hit a leg, they win. If they don't, the shielder user closes in and wins.
TLDR version: Two-handed weapon vs. sword and shield is a boring fight, with no possibilities or variations. Which is sort of mind-boggling, given how many possibilities there should be with that matchup. And then origin of that was a simple safety rule, "Don't hit people in the head." with associated who-wins rule, "If you hit someone in the head, you lose."
Every combat sport has these things. Not exploiting them is generally an insurmountable competitive disadvantage. It doesn't take long at all for techniques to warp to adapt to these holes. Attempts to correct the warp will just create new, weirder warps.
Friday, July 22, 2011
talkin' tactics, part 1
About a year ago I ran into a shortage of regular training opportunities. No local classes, reliable training partners, not a lot going on. I had seen a group of people who swung foam swords in the park. I figured I'd go play a bit, good for some movement and time outdoors if nothing else. I was pleasantly surprised. I learned there are different foam combat organizations, and while some are heavy on role-playing and ridiculousness, this particular branch is focused almost entirely on the fighting. They hit and play hard, and while there is almost no formal training background present, their veterans have been doing this a long time and have strong natural styles. Additionally, their weapon construction tech was way better than the manufactured foam bats I'd used to spar with FMA groups. Much more sturdy for blocking, allowed for stronger swings that still hit safely, and could be built to mimic most weapon types. I read their national internet forums. The foam construction knowledge was very good, I learned a lot. but in sparring with the locals, I discovered that dealing with a shield was a big problem that I did not know much about.
So I read their Fighting Skill Development & Training board. It was... disappointing. New fighter questions were mostly responded to with varying degrees of "shut up and read the guides in the sticky threads." The guides in the sticky threads were a mishmash of a whole bunch of different things- 17th century illustrated fencing manuals, the wikipedia entry on OODA loops, SCA youtube video series. Not useful for beginners and no coherent basis for discussion. I thought, maybe if I throw some rigor and thought into the pot, the knowledge basis here will stiffen up and show some outlines.
My first effort was a response to a question about charging, which I reposted earlier in this blog. There was no response at all. Which was a bit mysterious- I had put a bunch of stuff in there, surely something would be worth responding to? but nothing. okay, I thought. I'll make a video. The florentine (two-weapon) section of the stickied guide links was particularly disappointing. Some brief descrptions of a static guard positions, advice to learn some filipino martial arts with broken links to videos or incomprehensible text descriptions of sinawali. I had spent 14 years as a rabidly single-handed fencer. To this day, my right arm is noticeably bigger than the left. Not just the muscle, but the BONES. I had some passable ability to fake it with my left hand (coaches need to be able to give a lesson left-handed to teach the differences), but it wasn't until I started with FMA and learned sinwali and other drills did i really gain any sort of ambidextrous coordination.
So I made a video. My target audience was the clueless new fighters who wanted to do cool shit but had zero background or training. I thought, super basic sinawali to begin learning two-handed coordination. Show the useless spinny version. Explain the broken-down timed version that you can start to pull tactical applications from. Make the connection to the classic two-weapon pose that everyone adopts but doesn't know how to actually use. Seemed like an obvious good plan, right?
What followed is familiar and probably predictable to anyone who has read public mixed-school martial arts forums. Let's take a tour! I'm pulling excerpts here, there's just a lot of great ground to cover. Some of this repeats from stuff I've posted here. I was drawing from my previous writing, and my failure in this forum was part of the impetus to start this blog. Italics are current comments, I bolded some choice lines for emphasis.
My video:
http://www.youtube.com/v/oX4yTIjj-hM
Todo: That **** will get you dead real fast. You pulling that on the Bel field?
Me: which part?
Slagar: Honestly, almost any of it. It looks like your mechanics for power generation are probably pretty decent, but any florentine fighter who keeps their swords in any of the places yours are is gonna get hit a lot. Good Belegarth florentine fighting looks sneakily similar to boxing with swords, plus wrap shots. This looks like ninja noob stuff, and will just get ya killed.
Black Cat: Though I am not experienced enough to truly know how to explain the reasons why, I have fought enough to know that these techniques won't work on the Belegarth field. I'm a horrible melee fighter, and I can see the flaws in this particular fighting style. <links to guide post by respected Belegarth elder, Kenneth>
Respected Belegarth elder, Kenneth: Many "real" martial arts techniques are going to get you "killed" no matter what fighting style you do. Some branches of martial arts have practical theories, but many are filled with complex, stylized and inefficient techniques ... Perhaps more importantly, many real martial arts techniques fail to take into account what happens if your move "fails". If your super-seiyan spinning roundhouse backfist lands, the other guy is probably going to be hurting. ...
Unfortunately, the movements shown in the video would fail many modern day combat theories. The angles of attack are limited. The weapons have difficulty traversing the vertical planes. The shots are telegraphed. The set of defensive movements is limited. The arms are easy to "jam" together and prevent effective attacks. Two practical theories I was taught: Putting your arms on top of each other is generally bad. Putting your arms behind you tends to be much less effective than putting your arms in front of you. ... The style shown in the video would probably not be very effective against your medieval knight wearing plate and using a large shield. ... Many martial arts styles teach techniques, not theories. True martial arts theories tend to translate pretty well into any form of combat. EX: Don't telegraph your shots. Don't stand in a stupid spot.
That response was particularly notable, for being completely condescending, lacking content, and just being plain wrong.
Tiercel: Pause sixteen seconds in. I can take a shield, a second sword, a jav, or just about any piece of equipment at all, hold it straight out, and have you thoroughly locked up. While I do this, I hack your left side to pieces. This would require neither much skill, nor quick reflexes, nor experience to do. You're putting yourself in a defenseless position. This is just one example.
There is no value in crossing your arm over your torso and "tucking the blade under." You're wide open. Fighting single sword, I'd throw two blue shots to your exposed side, and get out of your strike area before you could get your sword off your shoulder or out from behind your back.At about 52 seconds in, you show the "continuous swinging." You expose your forearms again and again and again. A Bel fighter wouldn't be intimidated by the swinging. They'd take your arms, since you're offering them so freely.
Note that the continuous swinging was the part that I demonstrated the common but not useful interpretation of sinawali. Which i say is not useful. And do not mention intimidation.
Me: <attempt to bring the discussion to practical details>
This is where you start with it, and is mainly concerned with the question of "how do I learn to operate with two swords in a way that keeps them both active and prevents me from getting tied up?" Attribute development.
The quote from Kenneth is good, but not exactly what's going on here. If you're going to hit someone, pulling your arm back from where it is in order to hit is a bad idea that invites a counterattack. Moving your body forward while your weapon remains behind (stepping forward while your blade is behind your back) is a bad idea that invites a counterattack. The pulling back I was talking about is concerned with what happens AFTER your attempt to hit. Filipino martial arts has several kinds of strikes. One is with follow-through, lobtik, i.e. you swing, it hits or misses, and you continue through to the other side to chamber for the next swing. The other is a rebound, wootik, where you bounce off and chamber back the way you came from. Full sinawali patterns train your arms to do either and not get in the way of the other hands.
that one where I withdraw my right hand to an overhand position is actually a third type, abaniko, or fan. I didn't get in the video because you can only talk about so much at a time usefully, but it's a right forehand shot, which then flips over and hits again. standard introduction is to hit both sides of the head, but in Belegarth translates to an over the shoulder wrap shot. i don't get to use it much because the more experienced fighters here are taller than me and my wrapping over their shield-side shoulder is tricky, but it's the exact same shot they use. the followup is a looping overhead stab which is more useful to me.
the default behavior of the blades straight back is from stick fighting, to prevent getting your stick grabbed and you getting trapped/strangled with your own stick. but if they go vertical they're effective blocks. Would be more effective if anvilling wasn't an issue, but that just makes it more important to have the return momentum for blocking.
like in boxing, i was taught that if i don't have something touching my chin, i should expect to get knocked out. if both my weapon are out trying to hit, i am about to get hit.
and then i get pwned
Todo: And here I was hoping you'd quietly accept your mistake. Silly, silly me.
Do you think EVERYONE who has posted merely "doesn't see your tricky ninja options"? Because trust me, we do, and we will kill you before you get them out. Like in boxing, if you don't have your hands up. If your swords are not up and available for punchblocking/ dodging and counterattacks, you're gonna die. Your arms are going to get pinned or your non-sword side is gonna get hacked. It's up to you.
I haven't even mentioned different options. Let alone tricky ninja options. I'd like to get to them, but we've gotta stick to the basics. I attempt to return to the basics
Me: At no point am I advising standing in fighting range with both arms chambered waiting for action. That is where the drill starts, because beginners need a place to start. Serious dudes roll their eyes at it, because it seems silly, but serious dudes also end up teaching it, because it works. It teaches you how to have an off-hand that isn't stupid and can attack and defend. It teaches you, specifically, how NOT to get trapped and bound up. The issues involved in reaction time, entry tactics, open vs. opening targets, distance, etc, are all interesting, and all factor in, but you start somewhere.
If you're fighting single blue vs. single blue, and you're holding your sword on one side, does that mean you're going to get hit on the other side? Nope, because that sword is gonna come right across and block it. Well, what if you feint an attack to the open side, then go the other way? Well, it might work, unless they counterattack at the start of the feint, or step back and do a compound parry, or just stay because your feint was too fast, or unconvincing, or etc. etc. entire body of combat tactics.
you gotta look and say, what's it for, what works better. there isn't good advice for learning basic two-weapon coordination. Advice i've seen here says do everything with your off-hand, or fight just with your off-hand. Which is alright, but doesn't teach the hands to work together.
Kyrian: I've often introduced sinawali variations to fighters when I'm teaching two-weapon combat. However, I've never seen them as being particularly useful in the melee.
Todo: So are you advocating this as a training drill or technique? Would you ever stand with your swords like that in a Bel fight?
Kyrian, holding the line: Absolutely. For fighting, however, no. I feel it limits the usable angles for the chambered arm; there are only so many attacks and angles you can initiate from there. I personally prefer being able to initiate the same types of attacks from either side. For example, with the arm chambered, I wouldn't be able to do a stab with that arm without some movement indicating my intentions. Plus there's the potential for that weapon getting "stuffed" by an opponent's shield especially if he closes quickly and/or uses aggressive shield techniques.
Todo, establishing battle lines: Oh, I know you wouldn't Kyrian. I was talking to Phlebas.
slightly pissed off at this point, I go take some sparring footage. my opponent, Chris "Dagganoth", is a longtime Belegarth competitor. He's not the best, yet, but he grew up in the sport, regularly attends national events, and is a reasonable representative of the state of the art
Me: Mostly training, but practical applications are pulled out of it in a variety of ways. I wouldn't advocate standing like that in a bel fight, but I'd do it, as much as you ever wanted to be standing in a set position.
it looks like this: <sparring video from earlier post in this blog, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsKwj2WQAA&feature=player_embedded >
you can, in fact, thrust from a low chamber, with almost no telegraphing. i know i did some today, don't know if I caught any on video. there are stab-only sinawali drills, which are sort of awkward but interesting.
Slagar: Please stop posting bad advice in the forum I point everybody at as a teaching resource. Pretty please? Love and Kisses, Slagar
Dagganoth, my opponent: A lot of his stuff is surprisingly effective at Belegarth Combat, windows that are left open for shots LOOK to be open for far longer than they are, and close quickly. I'm pretty quick about fighting people's openings and these techniques, when done just right, pretty well keep my offense shut out. ... It's very sound stuff, and it can be very hard to track where both swords are moving at once, making blocking a real pain. It's an excellent foundation for combos and footwork in particular. I think it needs to be kept in mind that this video wasn't created to make a Sinawali fighter, this video was made to demonstrate a fundamental martial arts technique focused on combos and reliability, in order to benefit your existing belegarth game.P.S. Phlebas' stab technique outshines any Belegarth fighter I've ever fought.
Me: Slagar, you do know that in the tutorial page you refer new fighters to, in the florentine section, two of the three written ones advise people to learn sinawali, and the other written one recommends the cross block as the preferred block? and i made this video specifically because all the sinawali links in those tutorials are broken/useless.
Dane, one of the top fighters in Belegarth: Really hate that chambered guard; the bait is way too obvious. If you have to block to the baited side, that's too much ground to cover, too easy to be opened up for just about anything unless you're super quick, and even then, the super quick fighters that get away with that guard use it against opponents they know to be vastly inferior.
note that I am not super quick. my natural reflexes are actually a bit slow, and i tend to think too much. i do have a decent analytical eye, though, which can seem like the same thing
Slagar: Ok, on the chance I'm wrong and this is really an effective technique/style, I'll keep an open mind. Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, or the last.
Go to an event, fight big names. Post video if you can (video cameras are hard to set up at an event, I realize), or W/L ratios in sets of 10, and against who. Show me that what you're doing is making you an effective fighter in our game, tell me you used it and beat Galin, Kenny, Physic, Peter, Bhakdar, Battlechrist, Ruben, Dane, Angel, Elwrath, whoever the top sticks in your area are, 6/10 or better. Show me what it's good for .... anything to help you coordinate your off hand into fighting is fine to practice, to train with. I'm not harshing on that. You're advocating actually fighting with it, as your video showed. That's what I'm saying is wrong.
Repeating myself from earlier: "At no point am I advising standing in fighting range with both arms chambered waiting for action. " So he backs off slightly due to community pressure. In compromise, he admits that, if I can beat all the top fighters of their organization, documented, all by my lonesome, it might be worth discussing. Then there's some discussion about how sinawali drills are okay for coordination, but have no practical application, based on the one time they went to a class and learned something called "heaven sticks" or something. Seems to be getting somewhat back on track, so i try to work in some more basis of discussion.
Me: The takeaways from sinawali are things like always being able to hit from multiple angles, rhythm and tempo changes, awareness of opening and closing lines, and being able to manipulate weapons without ever getting tangled or bound (the idea of being able to easily tie up someone trained in kali is ludicrous). If you only see the spinny-flourish version, it's easy to get the wrong idea. With half-beat timing, you get the ability to simultaneously monitor low line and high line, as well as simultaneous near-defense (shots coming to the torso) and far-defense/offense (attacking or blocking shots to the arm).
The patterns are 6, 8, 10, even 12 count things. Practical applications are two or three shot extracts from the patterns, put in to proper context. You have to do some application drills to be able to use it effectively.
And then i cross over into discussion about guard positions. Next time!
So I read their Fighting Skill Development & Training board. It was... disappointing. New fighter questions were mostly responded to with varying degrees of "shut up and read the guides in the sticky threads." The guides in the sticky threads were a mishmash of a whole bunch of different things- 17th century illustrated fencing manuals, the wikipedia entry on OODA loops, SCA youtube video series. Not useful for beginners and no coherent basis for discussion. I thought, maybe if I throw some rigor and thought into the pot, the knowledge basis here will stiffen up and show some outlines.
My first effort was a response to a question about charging, which I reposted earlier in this blog. There was no response at all. Which was a bit mysterious- I had put a bunch of stuff in there, surely something would be worth responding to? but nothing. okay, I thought. I'll make a video. The florentine (two-weapon) section of the stickied guide links was particularly disappointing. Some brief descrptions of a static guard positions, advice to learn some filipino martial arts with broken links to videos or incomprehensible text descriptions of sinawali. I had spent 14 years as a rabidly single-handed fencer. To this day, my right arm is noticeably bigger than the left. Not just the muscle, but the BONES. I had some passable ability to fake it with my left hand (coaches need to be able to give a lesson left-handed to teach the differences), but it wasn't until I started with FMA and learned sinwali and other drills did i really gain any sort of ambidextrous coordination.
So I made a video. My target audience was the clueless new fighters who wanted to do cool shit but had zero background or training. I thought, super basic sinawali to begin learning two-handed coordination. Show the useless spinny version. Explain the broken-down timed version that you can start to pull tactical applications from. Make the connection to the classic two-weapon pose that everyone adopts but doesn't know how to actually use. Seemed like an obvious good plan, right?
What followed is familiar and probably predictable to anyone who has read public mixed-school martial arts forums. Let's take a tour! I'm pulling excerpts here, there's just a lot of great ground to cover. Some of this repeats from stuff I've posted here. I was drawing from my previous writing, and my failure in this forum was part of the impetus to start this blog. Italics are current comments, I bolded some choice lines for emphasis.
My video:
http://www.youtube.com/v/oX4yTIjj-hM
Todo: That **** will get you dead real fast. You pulling that on the Bel field?
Me: which part?
Slagar: Honestly, almost any of it. It looks like your mechanics for power generation are probably pretty decent, but any florentine fighter who keeps their swords in any of the places yours are is gonna get hit a lot. Good Belegarth florentine fighting looks sneakily similar to boxing with swords, plus wrap shots. This looks like ninja noob stuff, and will just get ya killed.
Black Cat: Though I am not experienced enough to truly know how to explain the reasons why, I have fought enough to know that these techniques won't work on the Belegarth field. I'm a horrible melee fighter, and I can see the flaws in this particular fighting style. <links to guide post by respected Belegarth elder, Kenneth>
Respected Belegarth elder, Kenneth: Many "real" martial arts techniques are going to get you "killed" no matter what fighting style you do. Some branches of martial arts have practical theories, but many are filled with complex, stylized and inefficient techniques ... Perhaps more importantly, many real martial arts techniques fail to take into account what happens if your move "fails". If your super-seiyan spinning roundhouse backfist lands, the other guy is probably going to be hurting. ...
Unfortunately, the movements shown in the video would fail many modern day combat theories. The angles of attack are limited. The weapons have difficulty traversing the vertical planes. The shots are telegraphed. The set of defensive movements is limited. The arms are easy to "jam" together and prevent effective attacks. Two practical theories I was taught: Putting your arms on top of each other is generally bad. Putting your arms behind you tends to be much less effective than putting your arms in front of you. ... The style shown in the video would probably not be very effective against your medieval knight wearing plate and using a large shield. ... Many martial arts styles teach techniques, not theories. True martial arts theories tend to translate pretty well into any form of combat. EX: Don't telegraph your shots. Don't stand in a stupid spot.
That response was particularly notable, for being completely condescending, lacking content, and just being plain wrong.
Tiercel: Pause sixteen seconds in. I can take a shield, a second sword, a jav, or just about any piece of equipment at all, hold it straight out, and have you thoroughly locked up. While I do this, I hack your left side to pieces. This would require neither much skill, nor quick reflexes, nor experience to do. You're putting yourself in a defenseless position. This is just one example.
There is no value in crossing your arm over your torso and "tucking the blade under." You're wide open. Fighting single sword, I'd throw two blue shots to your exposed side, and get out of your strike area before you could get your sword off your shoulder or out from behind your back.At about 52 seconds in, you show the "continuous swinging." You expose your forearms again and again and again. A Bel fighter wouldn't be intimidated by the swinging. They'd take your arms, since you're offering them so freely.
Note that the continuous swinging was the part that I demonstrated the common but not useful interpretation of sinawali. Which i say is not useful. And do not mention intimidation.
Me: <attempt to bring the discussion to practical details>
This is where you start with it, and is mainly concerned with the question of "how do I learn to operate with two swords in a way that keeps them both active and prevents me from getting tied up?" Attribute development.
The quote from Kenneth is good, but not exactly what's going on here. If you're going to hit someone, pulling your arm back from where it is in order to hit is a bad idea that invites a counterattack. Moving your body forward while your weapon remains behind (stepping forward while your blade is behind your back) is a bad idea that invites a counterattack. The pulling back I was talking about is concerned with what happens AFTER your attempt to hit. Filipino martial arts has several kinds of strikes. One is with follow-through, lobtik, i.e. you swing, it hits or misses, and you continue through to the other side to chamber for the next swing. The other is a rebound, wootik, where you bounce off and chamber back the way you came from. Full sinawali patterns train your arms to do either and not get in the way of the other hands.
that one where I withdraw my right hand to an overhand position is actually a third type, abaniko, or fan. I didn't get in the video because you can only talk about so much at a time usefully, but it's a right forehand shot, which then flips over and hits again. standard introduction is to hit both sides of the head, but in Belegarth translates to an over the shoulder wrap shot. i don't get to use it much because the more experienced fighters here are taller than me and my wrapping over their shield-side shoulder is tricky, but it's the exact same shot they use. the followup is a looping overhead stab which is more useful to me.
the default behavior of the blades straight back is from stick fighting, to prevent getting your stick grabbed and you getting trapped/strangled with your own stick. but if they go vertical they're effective blocks. Would be more effective if anvilling wasn't an issue, but that just makes it more important to have the return momentum for blocking.
like in boxing, i was taught that if i don't have something touching my chin, i should expect to get knocked out. if both my weapon are out trying to hit, i am about to get hit.
and then i get pwned
Todo: And here I was hoping you'd quietly accept your mistake. Silly, silly me.
Do you think EVERYONE who has posted merely "doesn't see your tricky ninja options"? Because trust me, we do, and we will kill you before you get them out. Like in boxing, if you don't have your hands up. If your swords are not up and available for punchblocking/ dodging and counterattacks, you're gonna die. Your arms are going to get pinned or your non-sword side is gonna get hacked. It's up to you.
I haven't even mentioned different options. Let alone tricky ninja options. I'd like to get to them, but we've gotta stick to the basics. I attempt to return to the basics
Me: At no point am I advising standing in fighting range with both arms chambered waiting for action. That is where the drill starts, because beginners need a place to start. Serious dudes roll their eyes at it, because it seems silly, but serious dudes also end up teaching it, because it works. It teaches you how to have an off-hand that isn't stupid and can attack and defend. It teaches you, specifically, how NOT to get trapped and bound up. The issues involved in reaction time, entry tactics, open vs. opening targets, distance, etc, are all interesting, and all factor in, but you start somewhere.
If you're fighting single blue vs. single blue, and you're holding your sword on one side, does that mean you're going to get hit on the other side? Nope, because that sword is gonna come right across and block it. Well, what if you feint an attack to the open side, then go the other way? Well, it might work, unless they counterattack at the start of the feint, or step back and do a compound parry, or just stay because your feint was too fast, or unconvincing, or etc. etc. entire body of combat tactics.
you gotta look and say, what's it for, what works better. there isn't good advice for learning basic two-weapon coordination. Advice i've seen here says do everything with your off-hand, or fight just with your off-hand. Which is alright, but doesn't teach the hands to work together.
Kyrian: I've often introduced sinawali variations to fighters when I'm teaching two-weapon combat. However, I've never seen them as being particularly useful in the melee.
Todo: So are you advocating this as a training drill or technique? Would you ever stand with your swords like that in a Bel fight?
Kyrian, holding the line: Absolutely. For fighting, however, no. I feel it limits the usable angles for the chambered arm; there are only so many attacks and angles you can initiate from there. I personally prefer being able to initiate the same types of attacks from either side. For example, with the arm chambered, I wouldn't be able to do a stab with that arm without some movement indicating my intentions. Plus there's the potential for that weapon getting "stuffed" by an opponent's shield especially if he closes quickly and/or uses aggressive shield techniques.
Todo, establishing battle lines: Oh, I know you wouldn't Kyrian. I was talking to Phlebas.
slightly pissed off at this point, I go take some sparring footage. my opponent, Chris "Dagganoth", is a longtime Belegarth competitor. He's not the best, yet, but he grew up in the sport, regularly attends national events, and is a reasonable representative of the state of the art
Me: Mostly training, but practical applications are pulled out of it in a variety of ways. I wouldn't advocate standing like that in a bel fight, but I'd do it, as much as you ever wanted to be standing in a set position.
it looks like this: <sparring video from earlier post in this blog, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQsKwj2WQAA&feature=player_embedded >
you can, in fact, thrust from a low chamber, with almost no telegraphing. i know i did some today, don't know if I caught any on video. there are stab-only sinawali drills, which are sort of awkward but interesting.
Slagar: Please stop posting bad advice in the forum I point everybody at as a teaching resource. Pretty please? Love and Kisses, Slagar
Dagganoth, my opponent: A lot of his stuff is surprisingly effective at Belegarth Combat, windows that are left open for shots LOOK to be open for far longer than they are, and close quickly. I'm pretty quick about fighting people's openings and these techniques, when done just right, pretty well keep my offense shut out. ... It's very sound stuff, and it can be very hard to track where both swords are moving at once, making blocking a real pain. It's an excellent foundation for combos and footwork in particular. I think it needs to be kept in mind that this video wasn't created to make a Sinawali fighter, this video was made to demonstrate a fundamental martial arts technique focused on combos and reliability, in order to benefit your existing belegarth game.P.S. Phlebas' stab technique outshines any Belegarth fighter I've ever fought.
Me: Slagar, you do know that in the tutorial page you refer new fighters to, in the florentine section, two of the three written ones advise people to learn sinawali, and the other written one recommends the cross block as the preferred block? and i made this video specifically because all the sinawali links in those tutorials are broken/useless.
Dane, one of the top fighters in Belegarth: Really hate that chambered guard; the bait is way too obvious. If you have to block to the baited side, that's too much ground to cover, too easy to be opened up for just about anything unless you're super quick, and even then, the super quick fighters that get away with that guard use it against opponents they know to be vastly inferior.
note that I am not super quick. my natural reflexes are actually a bit slow, and i tend to think too much. i do have a decent analytical eye, though, which can seem like the same thing
Slagar: Ok, on the chance I'm wrong and this is really an effective technique/style, I'll keep an open mind. Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, or the last.
Go to an event, fight big names. Post video if you can (video cameras are hard to set up at an event, I realize), or W/L ratios in sets of 10, and against who. Show me that what you're doing is making you an effective fighter in our game, tell me you used it and beat Galin, Kenny, Physic, Peter, Bhakdar, Battlechrist, Ruben, Dane, Angel, Elwrath, whoever the top sticks in your area are, 6/10 or better. Show me what it's good for .... anything to help you coordinate your off hand into fighting is fine to practice, to train with. I'm not harshing on that. You're advocating actually fighting with it, as your video showed. That's what I'm saying is wrong.
Repeating myself from earlier: "At no point am I advising standing in fighting range with both arms chambered waiting for action. " So he backs off slightly due to community pressure. In compromise, he admits that, if I can beat all the top fighters of their organization, documented, all by my lonesome, it might be worth discussing. Then there's some discussion about how sinawali drills are okay for coordination, but have no practical application, based on the one time they went to a class and learned something called "heaven sticks" or something. Seems to be getting somewhat back on track, so i try to work in some more basis of discussion.
Me: The takeaways from sinawali are things like always being able to hit from multiple angles, rhythm and tempo changes, awareness of opening and closing lines, and being able to manipulate weapons without ever getting tangled or bound (the idea of being able to easily tie up someone trained in kali is ludicrous). If you only see the spinny-flourish version, it's easy to get the wrong idea. With half-beat timing, you get the ability to simultaneously monitor low line and high line, as well as simultaneous near-defense (shots coming to the torso) and far-defense/offense (attacking or blocking shots to the arm).
The patterns are 6, 8, 10, even 12 count things. Practical applications are two or three shot extracts from the patterns, put in to proper context. You have to do some application drills to be able to use it effectively.
And then i cross over into discussion about guard positions. Next time!
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Offensive energies
this is a draft of possible striking "energies". Many weapons and strikes combine different energies- unarmed attacks, for example, are both blunt and striking and can impact in a variety of different ways. Feedback on missing types or terminology suggestions are welcome.
Offensive Energies:
Edged:
Hack
Slice-Push/pull cut
Slash
Blunt:
Snap
Shatter
Slap
Knock
Disjoint
Pointed:
Slide
Puncture
Hook/Gouge
Post-Penetration:
Rip
(See)Saw
Twist
Gouge
Sink
Flexible:
Flick
Lash
Entangle
Constrict
Open
Offensive Energies:
Edged:
Hack
Slice-Push/pull cut
Slash
Blunt:
Snap
Shatter
Slap
Knock
Disjoint
Pointed:
Slide
Puncture
Hook/Gouge
Post-Penetration:
Rip
(See)Saw
Twist
Gouge
Sink
Flexible:
Flick
Lash
Entangle
Constrict
Open
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Openings
When you are looking for an opening, what, exactly, are you looking for? This is an attempt to classify. Note that most of these are a matter of degree; while there is a distance at which an opponent absolutely, positively cannot respond, mostly you get something farther away than that. The physical openings put pressure on the mental ones. They force the opponent to make the right choices faster in order to have a chance. Most practical openings are a combination of these. For example, an opponent at a certain distance who is focused on defense isn't open, while the same distance provides a blatant opening on an opponent who is intent on preparing an attack.
Physical:
1. Distance- Too close, not enough time to react
2. Position- out of position, takes too long to complete the reaction. important distinction: you want an opening target, not an open target. Open targets close. For example, if the inside line is open, it will close when you attack it. If they are moving to close the outside line, they're going to finish that motion, then come all the way back to close the inside line. Much better.
3. Balance- a shift in balance making them slow to get away, or locking them in place
Mental:
1. Inattention- resting, thinking, mind elsewhere
2. Intention- focused on doing something else, or preparing something else. Inattention is vague, out of it, but can snap back. Intention is busy, and better, because they often won't even notice what you're doing.
3. Expectation- prepared to defend an attack other than what you are doing. Could be twitch defense to protect the wrong target, or a deflecting defense that is weak vs. a strong attack.
Physical:
1. Distance- Too close, not enough time to react
2. Position- out of position, takes too long to complete the reaction. important distinction: you want an opening target, not an open target. Open targets close. For example, if the inside line is open, it will close when you attack it. If they are moving to close the outside line, they're going to finish that motion, then come all the way back to close the inside line. Much better.
3. Balance- a shift in balance making them slow to get away, or locking them in place
Mental:
1. Inattention- resting, thinking, mind elsewhere
2. Intention- focused on doing something else, or preparing something else. Inattention is vague, out of it, but can snap back. Intention is busy, and better, because they often won't even notice what you're doing.
3. Expectation- prepared to defend an attack other than what you are doing. Could be twitch defense to protect the wrong target, or a deflecting defense that is weak vs. a strong attack.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Tactical planning: foreseen and unforeseen actions
This is the method of tactical thinking I was taught in fencing coaches college, augmented with some other things I've learned since. It divides an encounter into beginning and end, with each being foreseen or unforeseen. In order for something to be foreseen, you should have at least two of three pieces of knowledge: when, what/how, where. Sometimes the divisions get a little murky if you only have two pieces, and only rarely could count as foreseen if you only have one. So, three possibilities:
Foreseen beginning - Foreseen end
This category includes all first and second intention actions. For example, a first intention attack with a jump-lunge that successfully lands. You begin the action, thus know when/what/where, and it goes according to plan. A second intention action is one in which the first action is intended to fail, but the followup is known. Example: you attack with a lunge, knowing the opponent will parry strongly with a retreat and hold it for too long, and then redouble and remise with a disengage.
Attacks in response to an opening could be placed in the first intention category, but the beginning knowledge may be incomplete. For example, you know that at some point your opponent will relax and lower their guard, opening an arm target, but you do not know when. You have what and where, but not when. Or, you know that after two quick steps, your opponent will prepare and leave either a high or low opening. You know when (the two quick steps giving ample warning), you know what (you're going to attack the preparation), but you don't know where you are attacking.
1st and 2nd intention actions can be some of the fastest, executed at full speed with no need to make decisions. For that reason, the glitches and OODA loop interruptions are most helpful here. However, they are obviously dependent on knowledge of your opponents behavior. This can be gleaned from past experience, either previous encounters or touches, or observation of reflex reactions or repeated arm movements. Or it can be formed by forcing shaping the opponent's behavior. One of my favorite three touch patterns comes from a combination of experience and observation. I observe that my opponent is not fully aware and active- maybe it's his first bout of the day. As soon as the referee starts the action, I immediately launch a fast fleche action. If it scores, my opponent will be slightly shaken, and trying to wake up. The next touch will be a fleche that is even faster. The opponent was prepared for the speed of the first one- it seemed like the fast thing I could possibly do, and the extra speed is surprising. Now he's going to overly aware to the point of being twitchy. The third touch is going to be a stutter, which will immediately draw a panicked parry, then a full fleche as they relax.
Unforeseen beginning - Foreseen end
This category includes a lot of counter-attacks and "whatever happens, I'm gonna do this" kind of things. A lot of reality-based martial arts go for these kind of actions, where they try to simplify down to a couple of a responses that handle most things, so when you're surprised, you just go. It can be very effective, and definitely useful to have some of these prepared. In bouting, a lot of opponent initiated actions go this way, where the initial action fails/turns into a struggle, and one side eventual manages to transform it into their favorite action. I try to put one of these in my mental rack, which probably I'll write about another time.
Foreseen beginning - Unforeseen end
This category is referred to as "open eyes". You start the action, watch the response, and then deal with it. This is one of the most trainable types of tactical thinking. The methodology goes like this: teach an opening, say advance and press the opponents blade. Then teach individual responses: you try to press the blade, the opponent deceives and you don't find it, you close the line the other way and finish. You try to press the blade, find it, finish. You try to press the blade, the opponent presses back, disengage and finish. Then you give random responses and have the student respond appropriately. It obviously works best if the potential responses are limited and mappable, and when you can force the timing, leaving only what and where as the unknowns. I try to always add an additional "if you get a nonsense response, or something you don't understand, break distance and start over" for my fencers, just to prevent locking up or forcing an inappropriate action.
Unforeseen beginning - Unforeseen end
The worst and sometimes the best. The worst when you don't have a plan, you're trying to understand what's happening, and deciding how to respond in the moment. Basically disastrous, and where a lot of thinking beginners live and die. Purely instinctive fighters fair better, as they do whatever they feel, which can be reckless, but, as it cuts out the conscious mind, done very, very fast. And the best, in the zen no-mind state, where your training is good and flows out all on its own. Flow state. Experience, training, mindset.
Foreseen beginning - Foreseen end
This category includes all first and second intention actions. For example, a first intention attack with a jump-lunge that successfully lands. You begin the action, thus know when/what/where, and it goes according to plan. A second intention action is one in which the first action is intended to fail, but the followup is known. Example: you attack with a lunge, knowing the opponent will parry strongly with a retreat and hold it for too long, and then redouble and remise with a disengage.
Attacks in response to an opening could be placed in the first intention category, but the beginning knowledge may be incomplete. For example, you know that at some point your opponent will relax and lower their guard, opening an arm target, but you do not know when. You have what and where, but not when. Or, you know that after two quick steps, your opponent will prepare and leave either a high or low opening. You know when (the two quick steps giving ample warning), you know what (you're going to attack the preparation), but you don't know where you are attacking.
1st and 2nd intention actions can be some of the fastest, executed at full speed with no need to make decisions. For that reason, the glitches and OODA loop interruptions are most helpful here. However, they are obviously dependent on knowledge of your opponents behavior. This can be gleaned from past experience, either previous encounters or touches, or observation of reflex reactions or repeated arm movements. Or it can be formed by forcing shaping the opponent's behavior. One of my favorite three touch patterns comes from a combination of experience and observation. I observe that my opponent is not fully aware and active- maybe it's his first bout of the day. As soon as the referee starts the action, I immediately launch a fast fleche action. If it scores, my opponent will be slightly shaken, and trying to wake up. The next touch will be a fleche that is even faster. The opponent was prepared for the speed of the first one- it seemed like the fast thing I could possibly do, and the extra speed is surprising. Now he's going to overly aware to the point of being twitchy. The third touch is going to be a stutter, which will immediately draw a panicked parry, then a full fleche as they relax.
Unforeseen beginning - Foreseen end
This category includes a lot of counter-attacks and "whatever happens, I'm gonna do this" kind of things. A lot of reality-based martial arts go for these kind of actions, where they try to simplify down to a couple of a responses that handle most things, so when you're surprised, you just go. It can be very effective, and definitely useful to have some of these prepared. In bouting, a lot of opponent initiated actions go this way, where the initial action fails/turns into a struggle, and one side eventual manages to transform it into their favorite action. I try to put one of these in my mental rack, which probably I'll write about another time.
Foreseen beginning - Unforeseen end
This category is referred to as "open eyes". You start the action, watch the response, and then deal with it. This is one of the most trainable types of tactical thinking. The methodology goes like this: teach an opening, say advance and press the opponents blade. Then teach individual responses: you try to press the blade, the opponent deceives and you don't find it, you close the line the other way and finish. You try to press the blade, find it, finish. You try to press the blade, the opponent presses back, disengage and finish. Then you give random responses and have the student respond appropriately. It obviously works best if the potential responses are limited and mappable, and when you can force the timing, leaving only what and where as the unknowns. I try to always add an additional "if you get a nonsense response, or something you don't understand, break distance and start over" for my fencers, just to prevent locking up or forcing an inappropriate action.
Unforeseen beginning - Unforeseen end
The worst and sometimes the best. The worst when you don't have a plan, you're trying to understand what's happening, and deciding how to respond in the moment. Basically disastrous, and where a lot of thinking beginners live and die. Purely instinctive fighters fair better, as they do whatever they feel, which can be reckless, but, as it cuts out the conscious mind, done very, very fast. And the best, in the zen no-mind state, where your training is good and flows out all on its own. Flow state. Experience, training, mindset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)