My new theory

[Enviroman]

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....

--

I like this answer.

[White Warlock]

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

Well, that's not quite the concept, and it's not a theory.

Economy of motion covers many things, including ensuring that each action helps to setup the next action, thereby economizing your actions by eliminating 'preparation.' An example would be this tendency of amateurs to 'chamber' their punches. Counterproductive, in that the additional range gained is countered by the resistance encountered due to your muscles having tensed, and for having involved your 'opposing' muscles at the onset. As well, you end up telegraphing and extending the time it takes for your attack to reach its intended target.

Other aspects of economy of motion is to take the most direct route, as opposed to the haymaker approach. Economy of motion conceivably encourages 'linear' attacks, although this is actually a misnomer. What it encourages is that one doesn't waste movement when committing any action. I.e., no need to move your head 3 feet to avoid a strike, when all is needed is to move it 3 inches.

There's quite a bit more to this concept of economy of motion, and i'm... sorry to say... i am given the strong impression you haven't had 'appropriate' exposure to this concept.

As to the other comment about some systems showing how to create more energy at a shorter distance... yes, it can be done. Nothing magical. Merely a recognition of two basic concepts. One is that instead of moving one part of your body a significant distance to strike your target, or avoid a strike, one uses the entire body to move your striking surface closer to your opponent, thus not only decreasing the distance your striking surface has to travel with the energy generated by that one particular limb, but that you encourage your entire body to participate in the strike, thus exponentially, yet incrementally, increasing the overall power generated.

The other would be about centerline generated strikes or actions, as opposed to pivot, or side-body generated strikes or actions, but that's on a different end of the discussions.

Anyway, what you seem to be advocating with your theory, is the use of haymakers as a 'one-all' solution to confrontations. Obviously, i'm going to say... umm... no.

The 'one-strike' solution to any confrontation is a pipe dream. Granted, it happens on occasion, but more often than not you need to utilize a multitude of strikes to disorient your opponent, break down his defenses, and provide you with even more opportunities to commit assault with minimal resistance. Otherwise, you're putting all your eggs in one basket, which is essentially what the 'one-strike' approach is.

In the more effective approach to dealing with a confrontation (and please take into consideration i'm not really inclined to write up all the specifics on this, so i'm going to simplify and generalize), the goals should be overwhelm your opponent and end the confrontation as quickly as possible. By these basic goals, we can assume that the most effective means to overwhelm would be to present a multitude of attacks, whether they be strikes, grabs, pushes, pulls, slaps, nibbles, or tickles... the goal of overwhelming encourages that you do not merely present 'one' strike to end the confrontation, but that you present a multitude of them... and do so within a short time frame. Afterwards, you can slow it down and make your more 'potent,' more power oriented strikes... if necessary.

What i just described some systems refer to as 'bursting' or 'blasting.' Probably (and this is often debated) the most powerful concept in gaining the offensive, encouraging the opponent to go on the defensive, and in providing you with the openings you need to end the confrontation as quickly as possible.

I noted you study muy thai. In muy thai 'sparring' and 'competition,' generating the 'power' strike, or kick, is definitely encouraged. And, it is a very effective utility. But, do consider that competition holds with it many 'rules and restrictions' on what you can do, or are allowed to do. As well, consider that those types of competitions pit you against same or similarly trained opponents. Therefore, what is encouraged there does work effectively, because of the 'test tube' exposure.

However, real life confrontations vary significantly. You do not know how many opponents there may be in the crowd. You do not know if the person has a weapon (knife, gun, or pepper spray) hidden on his person. You do not know if anyone will help or hinder your 'little competition.' You frankly don't know if your opponent is going to 'change' the dynamics of the confrontation by entering into it a hostage or a broken bottle. Because of this, biding your time, dancing and waiting for the window of opportunity to open up so you can present that 'one-strike' wonder you've been developing... is simply a bad idea.

Fast, efficient, merciless.

Last i wish to touch upon is the concept of 'targets.' Striking, generating significant force, is a waste, if the target struck is capable of absorbing the strike, if the target struck is at an angle (thus having your power deflected), and/or if the target is simply missed.

So, essentially, what i am advocating, is that you make your strikes count. All of them, not just the one. Make sure you strike your targets, because it takes minimal power to generate maximal damage, if you strike the right targets. However, you shouldn't rely on targeting, any more than you should rely on power. Instead, you should attempt to do all you can to increase your accuracy whilst also increasing your power, and increasing the amount of strikes you generate in a shorter period of time (note also that more strikes generated means that even if you miss a few times, you'll still get in plenty of hits).

Part of this is attained by decreasing the distance your strikes have to travel, as the longer the distance your strike has to travel, the lessor the accuracy. So, by working on developing your skills to produce the most amount of power in the shortest distance, you not only increase damage you could cause with each strike, increase the likelihood that those strikes will hit their intended targets, but because you are traveling a shorter distance... you can produce more attacks in a shorter time.

Hope this helps.

[carl]

Seikichi Toguchi, founder of Shorei-kan, Goju-ryu, was fond of saying, "You cannot have superior defence, without superior offence."

Practice your offence as diligently as you practice your defence.

'Nuff said.

Carl

[White Warlock]

'Nuff said.

Well, actually... a little more could be said.

Like possibly defining what 'superior' is, what entails offense as opposed to defense, and why it is that 'one-liners' from masters are treated with such reverence when it took them ages to become masters in the first place.

[Belasko]

My mind is now numb trying to follow all the theories, thoughts and explanations that have been given up to this point. Now my turn . Basically the concept is sound. However like was mentioned there is more to economy of motion than what you have eluded to. Also in reference to the power hit vs the small jabs the major thing that many are not mentioning is that all martial arts come down to basic biomechanics and applied physics. Take the ability to generate force. The amount of force generated depends of the mass of the object and the speed with which it travels. The 280 pound guy with hands the size of a christmas ham can probably hit with enough force from short distances to cause x amount of damage with little effort. The 180 pound guy can probably generate the same amount of force but he has to accelerate the fist much more to generate the same power. This then goes into the next part of the equation that depends on how much space does each person require to accelerate to that point? This will depend on their technique. Just how you move your entire body will influence the amount of force you will be able to apply. In a SD situation this can be affected by your environment, the opponent and countless other factors that are constantly shifting, but in the end it still goes back when and how the physics and biomechanics will fit together the best.

[Sauzin]

Actually Muaythaiboxer it is my opinion that you are more correct then you might know. First of all I dissagree with a couple of points Enviroman made so I will quote some and point out a few differences of thought.

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.

Actually this is still true. You see a strike that gets blocked/countered causes no damage or pain. So when reviewing this point you must look at the result (since that is what it speaks to) and not it's method.

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.

...That all depends.

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...

Yes and no. Economy of motion is more involved as has been previously mentioned. But what I think Muaythaiboxer's point brings to the table can be rather simply put. Economy of motion does always mean less motion. It means the most efficient motion. If a motion is reduced past the point of efficiency or effectiveness then it no longer makes the most of economy of motion.

I think a lot of people have missed this point and need to look at the bigger picture. Not just strikes either. Seemingly extra motion can set up and manipulate opponents in ways that increase the effectiveness enough to maintain or even increase the techniques efficiency (movement/effectiveness) ratio. Another thing that I strongly believe is that it is easier to start with more motion and narrow down the movement to where it is most efficent then it is to start with too little motion and increase it from there. Or in other words, shaving movement off a technique is easier then adding movement where in didn't previously exist.

[Muaythaiboxer]

/quote sauzin/ Yes and no. Economy of motion is more involved as has been previously mentioned. But what I think Muaythaiboxer's point brings to the table can be rather simply put. Economy of motion does always mean less motion. It means the most efficient motion. If a motion is reduced past the point of efficiency or effectiveness then it no longer makes the most of economy of motion.

thats what i had in mind!!! i just couldent write it as eliquently as i might have hoped/ thx

[monkeygirl]

I'd like to remind everyone at this point to remain respectful of all opinions, ideas, and of course, all other people.

With that said, I'd like to congratulate Muaythaiboxer on this theory. Regardless of whether or not anyone has ever thought of it before, and whether or not it is 100% effective, you are thinking. I really think that when a martial artist stops becoming a robot of kata and memorized sparring combinations, and begins theorizing and really examining the way things work, is an important distinction. Sharing these thoughts takes a bit of courage.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk to muaythaiboxer with the assumption that he hasn't been training long, because that's something I honestly don't know about. I just meant to encourage others to follow his example...thinking, postulating, and sharing; opening up for critiques.

Anyway, back to the theory.

If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting to begin with the most powerful technique, and go down your repertoire of techniques, ending with the least effective one.

Here's my question: What about the idea that you may need to "set up" your most powerful technique? For example, you may want to "soften up" an opponent with a few well-placed elbows before putting them in a joint lock. Does your theory consider such a "setup" to be part of the same technique it's setting up, so that it's essentially one technique, or should one's most powerful (and therefore, first used) technique be something that doesn't need a setup? Well, that's kind of a loaded question, it's not meant to be multiple choice. I just wondered how your theory handles this.

[Muaythaiboxer]

thx for the input i think i need to make my idea more understood

first i am not advocating the use haymakers/wheel kicks because as i had previosly put a strike that does more damage than another is superior to a strike that does less damage. if a strike is blocked then it does little or no damage there for the heymaker that is blocked is not as effective as the jab that gets threw the gaurd to make contact.

what i was trying to advocate was the use of the most powerful weapon when possible i see many martial artists use a jab cross combo but by the time the jab has made contact the opponent has already covered up because they expect the cross if the agressor had just thrown a straight cross then they would have hit with a more powerful technique instead of just strikeing with the jab.

i know the jab is a feeler technique used to set up the cross or hook or what ever but now i see many of the people i work out with as soon as they see a jab they expect a cross hook or round house. and all the time i was wondering why not just throw the primary technique first when you have the opeaning

[DragonMike]

I think your best bet is to use the front weapons to set up your oponant for the rear techniques. Also, it is possible to overwhelm your oponant with a flury of strikes rather than one single knockout blow.