The Myth . . . and the Math
FB
there were some very good and astute responses on the subject. Probably
owing to the particular individuals who participated -- Snivekram,
Mehran, Dave, and especially Sikal's last response.
-- The Myth --
When I was younger, I and others from my generation were flooded with
paradoxical images of self defense. That is, everything from the Kung
Fu TV series, to Hong Kong Phooey on Saturday morning, to a number of
other media generated sources, convinced us that one meek individual
could take out not just one larger attacker, but even several. AND . .
. he could do it with style, flair, panache, . . . (insert trendy noun
descriptive of person handling difficult situation with push-button ease
and a confident James Bond smile).
Only problem is, it's not that way.
Anyone who has been in a fight knows this.
Example: A situation early on which started to make me see the light.
When I was pretty young (6 or 7 years old), I got into a scrap with
another kid in my grandmother's neighborhood while visiting for the
Summer. I was out playing in this wooded area next to my grandmother's
property, and these other kids who were a little older and bigger came
along. Trouble ensued, one thing led to another, and now I've got my
back against the wall of a barn with about 5 larger kids staring me down
as one of them stands there taunting, pushing, and eventually punching
me a few times. I realized I didn't have a chance. Not a chance in
hell. My uncle David -- who was a little younger than me, long story --
was nearby, saw what was happening, and ran to the house to get his
brother, my other uncle.
Tony.
Tony was a number of years older than me, and very big for his age. At
full maturity, he was a strong and capable 6 ft. 7 in. man. So, even at
a younger age, his appearance on the scene made a big difference. He
got me out of that situation, where otherwise I would have gotten the
snot beaten out of me.
My point?
First of all, I realized on that day that the whole impression I got
from watching David Carridine, et al., was false. Dangerous, even.
Second, this situation typifies a very important truism of fighting that
is *not* taught in seminars, short courses, and even a lot of martial
arts classes. It is based on what I have witnessed and experienced
directly in real fighting situations.
-- The Math --
This truism is simple, and there are no exceptions to it. It goes like
this: 3 is more than 2, 2 is more than 1 1/2, and 1 1/2 is more than 1.
So what, right?
Let me explain. Fighting is like a balancing scale. Everything that
happens is governed by objective physical facts. Like a scale that
measures mass. Greater mass always tips the scale. 3 is always more
than 2. And there are no exceptions.
Further explanation. Two guys fighting. Johnny and Bubba. Johnny is
pretty confident in the hardness of his fists. He throws an
indiscriminate punch in the general direction of Bubba's head. Bubba,
in turn, is pretty confident in the hardness of his skull as he ducks
into it and rushes in. Bubba takes down Johnny (who broke his knuckles
on Bubba's skull), and pounds him into oblivion.
Second scenario: Johnny and Bubba again. This time, Johnny gets Bubba
on the chin. Doesn't even take much, and down goes Bubba.
Now then. When Johnny tried to hit Bubba's skull (and succeeded), he
was putting his fist on the scale (give it a rating of 4) against
Bubba's skull (we'll give it a rating of 7). Bubba's skull tipped the
scale. You don't crash into a diamond with a piece of limestone. When
Johnny went for Bubba's chin in scenario 2 (we'll give Bubba's chin an
objective rating of 2 -- pretty strong for a chin, but no match for a
fist), Johnny's 4-rated fist was more than enough to overcome this PART
of Bubba.
Now, a third scenario. Bubba against a woman half his size. Her
overall rating on the scale is, say, a 3. Bubba's is a 7 -- twice her
rating. On the objective scale, assuming all against all, Bubba wins
EVERY TIME.
But. Let's say she's smart, and realizes that the pen in her purse
(rates a 10 on the scale) far outweighs Bubba's eyeball (rates a mere
.25 on the scale). She wins, because greater defeated lesser. Again, I
have to stress that lesser can NEVER defeat greater. If it appears
otherwise, it is always because other factors weren't taken into
account.
My point in saying this is that there is nothing in this universe which
will allow lesser or smaller to overcome greater. It just doesn't work
that way. When smaller *appears* to overcome greater, it's ALWAYS
because the sum total of what came to bear from the seemingly smaller
end truly and objectively outweighed what came to bear from the
seemingly greater end. i.e. Bubba is big, but his eyeball is frail.
Woman in 3rd scenario is frail as a whole, but brought something to the
mix that outweighed an isolable part of Bubba.
So, when a little woman appears to defeat a larger man, it's not because
small overcame weak. This is a fallacy. Greater still overcame
smaller, if you see it for what it is.
That's the math I'm speaking of, and it doesn't lie.
It never lies.
-- Summation --
The other day in one of my submission grappling classes, I taught
methods of taking the opponent's back from the guard, and follow-ups to
the counters. It's a very important transition, since it's one of the
few ways you can end up in a dominant position against a person with
good takedowns who is unsweepable -- e.g. against a freestyle wrestler
who outweighs you by 50 lbs.
So, after showing the transitions in different stages, how to secure the
neck and shoulder, your shoulder goes through, shifting the hips, lat
grab, etc., etc. I then (which is common for how I teach) went into
what an intelligent opponent would do to try and counter your movement.
For one thing, a person with good balance and sensitivity will not let
you shift your hips out to one side when you're close. If he's smart,
he'll shift his base over to where you're back in center axis. A
not-so-smart opponent will reach forward and try and grab your neck in a
quasi-headlock. This, by the way, makes it even easier to get his
back. But I digress.
My point in mentioning it is in what followed. I then showed them how
when the person does the *intelligent* counter, he is still setting
himself up for other things. Where you have compensational movement you
have a potential imbalance -- something you can exploit. This is also,
by the way, how a lot of escapes from very tight dominant positions are
begun.
So then, you're shifting your hips out, getting ready to slip out to the
back mount, he adjusts, you move the hips again, he adjusts again, and
by the third time, you've moved your head toward the opposite side,
hooked your arm inside his leg, controlling the arm on the side your
hips originally slid out to, and you've got a rocking chair sweep. Over
he goes. You wouldn't even normally be able to do this sweep, except
that these unique circumstances allow it. Even works against the
otherwise unsweepable person in your guard. Works because his
adjustment and counter to your first move actually HELPED you get the
next one.
Again, the math holds. He has more on the scale than you. You fail to
sweep him EVERY TIME. When you finally succeed, it's because his
movement added to your rating on the objective scale, and in turn took
away from his.
This can even involve perception. That's the reason why I included the
story with Tony in it. Perception made each of those five kids shake in
their shoes, because each individual knew they were no match for this
giant.
It extends to your environment too. Another anecdote. One time as a
young boy, I was confronted outside of school by a large bully while
waiting for the bus. It was in the wintertime, and we used to carry our
books in these heavy vinyl satchels -- you know, the two handle ones
with a zipper across the top. I noticed he was standing right on a
patch of ice, so I swung my heavy satchel full of books right at his
feet. SLAM! Down he goes like a stack of bricks. Looked like he hit
his head pretty good too. By the time he's halfway back to his feet,
I'm already back in the building.
This guy was bigger than me. But on the objective scale, the ice under
his feet combined with the heavy satchel of books in my hands gave me a
X10 rating factor. His 5 rating was more than my 2.5, but the satchel
and the ice shot my efficacy up to 25. Bigger defeated smaller. Even
though it didn't look that way.
si...@yahoo.com
to expand on an issue he skirted, but didn't attack.
That is "relative superiority." While the bigger, stronger, more athletic,
better trained individual will always have several strong advantages, this
doesn't mean that he/she/it is always going to win. The "disadvantaged"
fighter can attain "relative superiority" by utilizing some key elements.
First is surprise. By this, I don't necessarily mean a sucker punch (though
that would certainly fall into this category). What I'm more specifically
referring to is to doing the unexpected ... or feigning the expected. Doing
the unexpected is simple and straightforward: when your opponent expects you
to run away, you run toward, when he expects you to go left, you go right.
Feigning the expected is a bit more subtle. The best example I can give is
something that happened to me. This guy had found out through the grapevine
that I study martial arts. Well, he also had studied some martial arts and
thought to prove his machismo by making a fool of me. He started messing
around shoving me and generally trying to piss me off. I eventually got fed
up and when he shoved, I pivoted so that he stumbled past me. He turned
(quickly, I might add) and managed to catch my hand in a wrist lock. I have
very flexible wrists, though. So, I feigned the expected: in this case, I
acted like lock hurt, then I popped him in the ribs, pulled my hand free, and
walked away.
The second element to relative superiority is sheer aggressiveness. As
Richard Marcinko so eloquently phrases it in his books, "attack, attack,
attack." Keep your enemy off balance (mentally and physically as much as
possible) and you can gain the advantage. Once you have the advantage, don't
back off until the fight's over. I know, this sounds a little bit hard-edged
... but if a person/animal is bigger than you and is attacking you
(especially if you are a female being attacked by a man), then you can't play
nice. If you play nice, you'll get smeared.
The third element (which is kind of a subset of the first two elements) is:
Fight Dirty. When you're in a fight, you can't be thinking about "winning."
As my Dad says, "There's no winner in a fight. There's only a lower hospital
bill." If you're thinking about "winning," then you're not being aggressive.
You have to be proactive, not reactive. You can't be squeamish. Pinch, claw,
bite (I know, AIDS and other things are an issue, but if I feel that it's a
life or death situation, then you can bet your last dollar that I'll bite
anything I can get hold of), poke (i.e.: eyes), and break. Don't hesitate to
grab an inanimate object ... even if it's just to block with. Remember,
inanimate objects don't bleed or feel pain.
Above all, though, maintain your awareness. If you get too focused on one
guy, you're liable to get blindsided by his buddy (even if you thought it was
a one-on-one fight). Or, maybe it's not even his buddy ... maybe it's just
someone who likes to jump into fights ... maybe it's a dog that wants to join
in the play. Who knows. There's no way to plan a fight. You have to be aware
of your surroundings and ready to take advantage of anything. Use your
environment, don't fall victim to it (you have enough to worry about with the
guy attacking you). If you can run your opponent into a
wall/table/chair/door/floor/car/etc., then do so.
And remember, that LUCK is always a pivotal factor that no one has any
control over. Training and practice can give you a better chance of turning
the luck to your advantage ... but if you're having a day where absolutely
nothing is going right for you (and worse yet, your opponent is having a day
where *everything* goes right), then you're probably going to get creamed and
there's not much you'll be able to do about it.
OK ... I'll get off my soap box now. I really didn't intend to have a rant ...
sometimes these things just sneak up on me :-)
Mike
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Buzzcut98
I just want to thank both FB and Sikal for their insights. They are much
appreciated.
It's nice to see discussions like this instead of trolls and "Fighter X can
beat Fighter Y" tirades.
Thanks again!
Buzzcut98
coldblood
Buzzcut98 wrote in message <01be6b76$5b3a1a40$04552399@619158923worldnet>...
>
>I just want to thank both FB and Sikal for their insights. They are much
>appreciated.
>
>
>It's nice to see discussions like this instead of trolls and "Fighter X can
>beat Fighter Y" tirades.
>
>
and besides we all know fighter y is the better of the two anyway,
especially since he studies style XX
i mean its unbeatable
Andrew
>Thanks again!
>
>
>Buzzcut98
>
FB
tangent from what I was originally talking about, but it was still good material.
I didn't really want to get into strategy and mindset much -- especially since
I've already posted at length about these in other threads -- but instead wanted
to get down to some mechanical facts of fighting. As an instructor and teacher,
I've worked for many years on dispelling misconceptions and myths about what
fighting and martial art really are, what makes a technique or an overall approach
work, etc.
Let's say I'm showing a person how to do a very basic maneuver in submission
grappling -- e.g. a scissor sweep from the guard. There are a number of key
points which make this technique work. Say about a half dozen. Each of these
factors counts as 1 point on the objective efficacy scale. The opponent's
stability in this position (physically speaking only) counts for, say, 4 points on
the scale. He's the one inside your guard. That means if you perform three of
the key points of the technique, you'll still fall short of what it takes to bring
him over. Every additional aspect of the technique you include brings your rating
up one point. 6 is a perfect technique with all points covered, and greatest
efficacy of technique (i.e. he goes over like a tidal wave took him).
So, you establish the right grip. Okay. 1 point. You turn on your side and move
your hips. 2 points. You bring the knee across in the right way. 3 points. You
sweep low at the knee, not high at mid-thigh. 4 points. This is often how far
beginners get, and the technique kind of teeters there, sometimes succeeding,
sometimes coming close but failing.
Two more important factors -- or even one of them -- will bring them over the
top. Head and shoulders move away from the direction you're facing. 5 points.
Over he goes. Pull him ON TOP of you with your grip, and SLAM!! 6 points. Now
you're really tipping the scale against his stability of 4.
And that's my point. Your sweep worked because 6 is greater than 4. The sum
total of what you brought to bear outweighed his resistance or stability.
When teaching a woman or a smaller man how to defeat a larger opponent, you have
to give them techniques and strategies which break up the opponent into digestible
pieces. This is more or less straight out of Sun Tzu's Art of War. This can also
include deception, luck, etc., as you brought up. And it works on the individual
level, not only between armies. When you fail to apply this, though, or find an
opponent who can apply it toward you, you may find yourself on the losing end
pretty quickly. It's because, again, on the measuring scale 2 can never outweigh
3, and 4 can never outweigh 6.
Boxing applies this in every aspect. Certain places you don't try to hit, because
it would be a waste of time. You want to create a battle between your hard parts
and his softer parts, basically -- between what is fortified in you and what is
unsupported in him.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu does the same thing, in a different way. You orient and
configure your own body relative to the opponent's in such ways that what is free
and allowable motion on your part is impossible for the opponent. Gang up on him,
and he can't resist -- while you do it with ease. Classic example is the cross
armlock. All of your body against his arm. Your own back arches and your hips
lift naturally. But his arm does not bend backward naturally. Yet there is way
too much of you against too little of him for him to have much to say about it.
Judo does the same thing, in tachiwaza (throwing) and to a lesser degree in newaza
(groundwork). Every time you pull off a successful throw, it is because the sum
total of all forces brought to bear by tori *at that moment* were greater than
what uke could do to resist *at that moment*, whether from conscious action or
just inertia.
This, I'm sure, is obvious to a lot of people. But it's certainly not obvious to
everyone. All the time, I see people try and break this rule. But the rule does
not vary. x+1 is always greater than x. If your fist is softer than what it
hits, then you are the one who gets hurt. In the more yin (i.e. receptive)
martial arts, of course, you're not seeking to be greater, or harder, etc., but
rather stealing energy from the opponent to add to your own through proper
placement, leverage, timing, etc. Or, you just send his energy out to somewhere
where it won't hurt you. Even freestyle wrestling is replete with this, every bit
as much as Aikido, Jiu Jitsu, etc. Sometimes the way you tip the scale in your
favor is even passive -- e.g. through orientation and manipulation that disperses
the opponent's efforts, redirects his spine, etc. -- the cross face from wrestling
is a prime example. A really strong man (with say a rating of 10 on our weighing
scale) becomes a really small man (we'll give him a 3) when I'm cross facing him.
He can't even do anything in my direction.
Mehran Habibi
analogy, where a giant has a strength of 10(?) and a woman has a strength of
7(?), but once off balanced, he only has a strength of 4(?), and is thus
thrown by the woman. Just shows that you're tapping into a fairly universal
truth.You're managed to articulate it in a very down to earth way , and it
is appreciated.
best regards,
Mehran
Buzzcut98
<7c7h0g$s4c$1...@garnet.nbnet.nb.ca>...
Maybe in tournaments, but does XX work on the STREET? I bet Fighter X
would kick Fighter Y's ass outside the ring!
FIGHTER X RULZ!!! FIGHTER Y SUX!!!!
Buzzcut98
(tongue firmly in cheek)
>
>
> Andrew
>
> >Thanks again!
> >
> >
> >Buzzcut98
> >
>
>
>
Steve Perry
overall, and not just on size and weight. Shows why old and treacherous
beats young and strong every time . . .
Steve
Garth Wallace
---
How am I supposed to hallucinate with all these swirling colors
distracting me?
(remove the __ from my address to reply)
Arthur
Definitely an excellent post. I like how you demystified
the breakdown of strengths and weaknesses. This is one
of the things i love to do when i teach the arts. I have spent
a few years studying how the techniques in aikido exploit
the physics of energy and movement and how, there are
"apex" points along the trajectory of the path that the energy
of someone's fist is moving along, and that these apex points
are, in fact, how an attack can be turned into your advantage.
(ie, if you receive/lead an opponents strike out to its full extension,
then all of its energy/force is dissipated, (and this is what i call
one apex point) ). Almost any attack, if seen/understood
and "harmonized" with, can be changed.
-- a strength can be a weakness and a weakness can be a strength--
force moving in one direction, is strong, in that direction,
but it is weak, behind it, (if you can get behind it,)
The defenses of a castle, are usually designed to keep people
out, not keep people in. (ah .. i realize that this is not always true,
in fact, one of the strategies of the ancient chinese castles
was that it had many layers of walls, and the first one, was
easy to penetrate, but it led the attackers into a cul-de-sac,
within which they could be attacked from all sides, another
exploitation of how an attack, even one with "overwhelming"
odds, can be changed into "underwhelming" odds,)
This conversation, though, takes it into the "strategy" realm,
and baiting and leading and anticipating and blending
with the attack .... to move with one's opponent's movements.
(not so easy a thing, but i do feel this is one of the essences
of aikido.)
Another thing one does in aikido, is to enter. By this, i mean,
when your opponent is beginning to attack, move into his
center. Now if you study the physics of force-upon-impact,
and how the attack has not yet reached its full potential,
this strategy of entering is in fact exploiting another very real
and tangible aspect of energy ... nothing mysterious,
just more efficient.
peace,
arthur,
Mike Casto
old, that way I can be young, strong, *and* treacherous ... of course, that
still leaves me at the mercy of old, frail, mean, and experienced ...
The more I strive to get ahead, the harder I have to work to keep up ... life
is such an interesting paradox :-)
Mike
In article <sperry-ya0236800...@news.teleport.com>,
Mike Casto Assistant Instructor
Asian Fighting Arts Filipino Kali/Indonesian Pentjak Silat
Dayton, Ohio Phone: (937) 293-5520
URL: http://www.guild-hall.com/afa/