My new theory

[Muaythaiboxer]

most people know of the theory of economy of motion (basicly it says to always strike with the nearest weapon to the nearest target)

i personaly have always had a little bit of a problem with this theory because it gives so little room to generate power (which is why you see so few fighters fight KO people with the front hand/hand in front) i recently have been thinking long and hard about this and have come up with the theory of economy of force basicly my theory states that

1. a strikeing technique must cause damage or pain to be viable for self defence

2. a strikeing technique that does more damage or causes more pain is superior to a technique that causes less damage or pain

3. in order to cause damage a strikeing technique must have power

4. the rear leg/hand can generate more power than the front leg/hand

5. this makes the rear leg/hand more viable for self defence that the front leg/hand

problem: the rear leg/hand have furthere to travel than the front leg/hand and are inherently slower

solution: use my theory

Theory: strike with the most powerful weapon if possible, if not possible strike with the next most powerful weapon if possible, then progress down to your weakest weapon in order you would perfer to use them.

i know it has some flaws but i was wondering what some more experienced MA's thought of it. all thoughts welcome

AMITABHA

[Drithen]

Well I personally use the front hand/foot to measure distance so that I can hit harder with the back, I think thats how they do it in boxing also, and I'm sure other MA's do it as well

[tkdBill]

The difficulty using the most powerful weapon (back hand strike or back leg kick) is that while powerful, it is easily blocked or evaded if used alone. They can also tend to open you up to counterattack beacause you have to turn your body into your opponent. That's why you may be more effective by distracting your opponent with a less painful but quicker front hand/leg, and then apply the power blow after he reacts to the initial strike. Since in a real S/D situation you don't have time to work through a list of techniques, you must react quickly and effectively, while not leaving yourself vulnerable.

--

[Enviroman]

most people know of the theory of economy of motion (basicly it says to always strike with the nearest weapon to the nearest target)

i personaly have always had a little bit of a problem with this theory because it gives so little room to generate power (which is why you see so few fighters fight KO people with the front hand/hand in front) i recently have been thinking long and hard about this and have come up with the theory of economy of force basicly my theory states that

1. a strikeing technique must cause damage or pain to be viable for self defence

True but how much damage each strike causes is the point. This leads into...

2. a strikeing technique that does more damage or causes more pain is superior to a technique that causes less damage or pain

Definitely not always true, especially in self defense situations. A wheel kick is pretty stinking strong but it is also awkward and easily avoided (as TKDBill pointed out). A series of small, less powerful jabs is most likely a lot more effective than one huge knockout haymaker.

3. in order to cause damage a strikeing technique must have power

Well, yeah...again the amount of power is the whole point. A large knockout attack that will ultimately leave you vulerable to counterattack if you miss isn't very effective.

4. the rear leg/hand can generate more power than the front leg/hand

True, but try striking an attacker that is flailing away madly with a well placed spinning back fist or an ax kick. It rarely works and it almost always leaves you in a poor position if you fail to connect fully.

5. this makes the rear leg/hand more viable for self defence that the front leg/hand

It doesn't. The speed and balance requirement (and resulting position) of a quick roundhouse or front kick is far superior to that of a wheel kick or other rear leg kick. Same goes for a reverse or vertical punch versus a backfist.

problem: the rear leg/hand have furthere to travel than the front leg/hand and are inherently slower

solution: use my theory

Theory: strike with the most powerful weapon if possible, if not possible strike with the next most powerful weapon if possible, then progress down to your weakest weapon in order you would perfer to use them.

Your theory is essentially the same as economy of motion. Use the best attack for the situation (which, invariably, is the attack that is the quickest and leaves you in the best position). So I'm not sure what you're going for...

[wcnavstar]

Few people are aware, or perhaps they are, that the ability to generate short range power equal to that of a long range motion is quite achievable. A few styles which I am aware of that help their practitioners develop short range power are Wing Chun, Tai Chi Chuan, Pa Qua, Hsing- I, Shorin Ryu, Goju Rn shyu, and if anyone knows of any other systems which practice this type of power, please respond. However I will not be responding to defend my belief in short range power, seeing as it is quite impossible to prove anything of this nature over the internet.

Very Respectfully

Wcnavstar

[wcnavstar]

Goju Ryu

Sorry

[Muaythaiboxer]

thanks for the input as i said it has some flaws but hey i was kind of off the top of my head. but who knows mabe something better will come of it.

but if you have the choice of hitting with a jab or a cross which would you take?

[Muaythaiboxer]

you know after i looked over it. it reminds me of one of those things that looks good on paper and wont work in real life.

Edited July 17, 2005 by Muaythaiboxer

[MenteReligieuse]

but if you have the choice of hitting with a jab or a cross which would you take?

Depends of his guard. Shorter distances does not necessarily mean lack of power, just takes longer to learn how to use the movement to it's maximum.

The strenght of a punch is not linked to the distance it travels before hitting the target but the acceleration (amongst other things).

[tkdBill]

It depends on the risk i would incur. I pretty much always lead with a jab probably because it is a relatively safe way to gauge his reaction.

If I knew for sure that he could not hit me back, I would go with the cross... no, wait a minute, I wouldn't hit him at all....

--