Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Theory and ideology of strategic combatative techniques

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Theory and ideology of strategic combatative techniques

    From experience, what would you like to share about H2H combat and what your theories why it works?

    here is an example;
    Experience
    Advancing defence; during attack a continuous advancing defence has been more useful rather than a retreating one.
    Theory
    Through the advancing defensive strategy, my theory is that psychologically the opponent thinks that their attacks are in effective and thus psychologically defeated.Another theory of mine is that each time you close in on an attack the opponent, they open an unprotected space .The time you close in is the time they throw an attack whilst the time they draw the arm back allows you enough time there for an unprotected attack.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Oraenor
    From experience, what would you like to share about H2H combat and what your theories why it works?

    here is an example;
    Experience
    Advancing defence; during attack a continuous advancing defence has been more useful rather than a retreating one.
    Theory
    Through the advancing defensive strategy, my theory is that psychologically the opponent thinks that their attacks are in effective and thus psychologically defeated.Another theory of mine is that each time you close in on an attack the opponent, they open an unprotected space .The time you close in is the time they throw an attack whilst the time they draw the arm back allows you enough time there for an unprotected attack.
    Nothing can take the place of experience and practice. Theories are nice but you gotta have experience and practice.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Oraenor
      From experience, what would you like to share about H2H combat and what your theories why it works?

      here is an example;
      Experience
      Advancing defence; during attack a continuous advancing defence has been more useful rather than a retreating one.
      Theory
      Through the advancing defensive strategy, my theory is that psychologically the opponent thinks that their attacks are in effective and thus psychologically defeated.Another theory of mine is that each time you close in on an attack the opponent, they open an unprotected space .The time you close in is the time they throw an attack whilst the time they draw the arm back allows you enough time there for an unprotected attack.
      Theories are ok, that is where strategy start after you have finish formulating the theories you then proceed to actual experiment apply your theory with a sparring partner.

      Advancing as defensive strategy is no longer a theory it is an actual fighting technique, advancing include side stepping and counter with a strike, ducking and advancing, going low and diving for the legs, ducking and advancing with a reverse sweep, a reverse backfist, and many more.

      Advancing against an attcaker is basically to take away his fighting room and to keep him off balance.

      Comment


      • #4
        this all depends on the person you are fighting he could be unpredictable and catch you off gaurd, but i see what your getting at and phsycology is a big factor, put it to training.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by gong fu
          this all depends on the person you are fighting he could be unpredictable and catch you off gaurd, but i see what your getting at and phsycology is a big factor, put it to training.
          Psychology has been a major factor since humans learnt to fight. In ancient days most causualties on the battlefield were not during combat but from troops breaking away from the fight.

          I am not questioning whether theoretical moves but asking from experience why certain things worked and what major factors allowed such strategy to make it happen. This is perhaps more of a reflection rather than prediction.

          Comment


          • #6
            (Theoretically)

            If you don't attack/advance then you will be swallowed by momentum.

            It's all about momentum.

            But, I can see that that balance bit is closer to the truth in "more normal" term's. You're affecting his balance by attacking him and making him adjust/defend.

            .....If you don't "Use Attack..." then who is in control!?

            Comment


            • #7
              (Theoretically)...

              Don't defend..."Attack their Attack"!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bbbb
                Don't defend..."Attack their Attack"!
                I agree, in any situation there is only attack and counter attack.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Psychology/Philosophy...

                  Most important.

                  All thing's are created twice. (Or - All good thing's come from meditation.)

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X