NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/martial/17279

Text File | 1993-01-23 | 3.7 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!netcomsv!netcom.com!dsmythe
From: [e-mail] (Dave Smythe)
Subject: Re: Openings.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:44:54 GMT
Lines: 62

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>    A "philosophical" disagreement has arisen in email, and I
>thought that I'd throw it out on the net for discussion.
>
>    1) No matter how good the martial artist is, there are _always_
>openings which can be exploited by their opponent(s).
>
>    2) The _best_ martial artists do not give their opponents _any_
>openings to exploit. Either by timing, or positioning, the openings
>only occur when and where their opponent(s) cannot take advantage of them.

I'd guess that both are true.  "Which can be exploited" is somewhat vague;
"theoretically exploited" might be better.

Of course, sometimes you leave openings to draw attack.

Sometimes you condition yourself for taking blows (hard or soft: "Iron Bone"
training vs. "receiving jing", for instance).  This reduces the penalty for
"missing a hole" (at least in unarmed combat).

Perhaps what you meant was that everybody has holes in their defense that
are not adequately defended.  The whole thing kind of hinges on the
judgement of the attackee, in any event.  Fighting is somewhat probabilistic
in that you *train* to be consistent, but there are too many variables to
manage perfectly, so you choose what to leave open based upon your confidence
that you can deal with a threat.  If your judgement is incorrect, you lose.
The openings *are* there, but they may not be exploitable.  After all that,
I guess I'm in camp #2, but it doesn't really seem to contradict #1.  The
defender could have good judgement but be slightly off that day.

That's one aspect of Ba Gua that I am learning to appreciate.  Ba Gua is
a dynamic style, in that you have to keep moving for it to be most effective
as it was designed.  If you stop, there are, as you said, big holes.  But,
I've found (in the little practice I've had so far) that if you really can
keep movements from the sections of the form flowing, then there is this
kind of automatic-defense that occurs.  Hard to describe, but it feels like
if you are doing things right that you just seem to do stuff and end up in
the right place at the right time (as long as you do it right...)  This is
in contrast to much of the other material I have learned, which, although
it contains many combinations and variations in strategy, doesn't seem to
have the same emphasis on continuity.  Tai Chi is kind of that way, too,
but my limited experience makes that feel like a lower-level thing, rather
than a technique-by-technique thing.  Of course, perhaps it is just that
I have encountered yet-another-new-and-different-strategy.  Tiger's
continuity is that of attack.  Don't stop attacking until the opponent is
no longer a threat.  That leaves no opportunity for your opponent to exploit
the holes.  Tai Chi has continuity by stickiness.  Stay stuck to your
opponent and you can tell what he's going to do before it's a problem.
Hmmm; it must be in the other styles, too.  Guess I'll have to go back
and think about them.

Just as a parting shot: an advanced internal stylist would have no holes.
They would sense the chi in the opponent's attack.  They could then
counter the attack before it had been fully manifested by the opponent.  ;-)

Oh, well.  This sounds like babbling, even to me...

D

--
========================================================================
Dave Smythe   N6XLP    [e-mail] (also [e-mail])