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.
No comments:
Post a Comment