Saturday, April 6, 2013
I was recently reading an article that the author was lamenting over the fact that so many systems (now?) emphasize precision with their striking methods. Uh, I always kind of believed that most systems have always emphasized that aspect (although few ever really achieved it).
As I read further, it seems that he was using that premiss to complain about the obsession with “kyusho” (which at least I could relate to that complaint, LOL). His logic got a bit murky as he proceeded, but a number of his points (in general) were valid.
I believe that what he was complaining about was misdirected (IMO). His main argument, was that someone couldn't strike with (what he believed) the level of precision necessary to cause (again, what he believed to be) a debilitating strike.
There is a widely held belief, that if there is no (or minimal) “pain” associated to a strike, then it is/was ineffective. The problem (at least as I see it, is that the desired effect, was an unrealistic expectation.
It should first be established, what is the most probable reaction attained from the most commonly delivered (types of) strikes? Next, one should focus on how that reaction can be effectively utilized in one's defensive strategy.
As those determinations are made, those effects (and the strikes that create them) need to be organized into an effective order of application. Taika always taught us, that if you knew what an opponent was going to do (before they did it), you could more easily defend yourself.
One (obviously) can't “know” what someone is going to do (unless, you make them do it!). Using this premiss for one's defensive striking, they can (pre)determine how they can/will move and what they are then able to do (offensively) to you.
It isn't (always) that you eliminate your opponent's ability to strike, but that you Limit how they are able to strike (thus making your defense simpler).
This is similar (in application) to “if they can't walk, then they certainly can't chase me when I run away” (LOL). The creation of an ability limiting strike, is a perfectly respectable reaction to strive for. Those that (only) seek the “game ending” move, are going to be sorely disappointed (literally), when they're in an actual confrontation.
I've had these same (types of) individual's tell me, about how their arm's have been hit lot's of times (dozen's and dozen's so I'm informed), and even with escrima sticks and have never suffered any serious reaction. Yes, but none of that, is the same as being struck (correctly) by the methods we utilize (which can't be done, with escrima, or any other “sticks”).
And yes, precision is an important aspect of that ability. The claims being made about how one will lose that (or any, if not all) precision/accuracy ability when under stressful conditions, is directly correlated to the amount of training that is done by the individual (and admittedly, the type of training is a relevant factor as well).
I would readily trade any amount of physical strength, for increased accuracy. Additionally, most people will confuse “power” with strength (only one of them can be used to enhance the other). Power is only another example of applied motion to mass (ie. momentum). “Mass” is always available, it's just a matter of how to effectively utilize it (whether that mass is yours, or your opponent's), and strength is not necessarily what's required to do so.