IMPORTANT STATISTIC

[Seanbomber]

[granmasterchen]

i didn't answer the poll b/c i do a combination, i think in advance, yet not enough to get me in trouble if a move doesn't work, i attack and make openings, i know the body enough to throw a tech and if they block they leave an area open, or to throw some fakes to make an opening, yet i do not plan out a whole fight, i make openings and go for them, keep it rather simple...

[TJS]

I like ot make a plan...however you just have to go with the flow of things...im in the middle also.

[Kirves]

I do both. If he attacks, I just react. But if I attack, I may use a plan or set up. Sometimes I have a setup for him to attack, but theoretically that is me attacking then... So I didn't answer the poll as I do both.

[shotochem]

I generally attack and defend depending on the opponent. If there is an opening I take it. If not I try to create one then attack. I tend to be more of a counter fighter than a blitzer but I will if the opportunity arrives.

 

As for a set strategy IME for me it just doesn't work.

[Treebranch]

I think trying to fit a technique into a situation is sure death. You have to flow with the fight. Trust your body, if you train hard it knows.

[Kirves]

I think trying to fit a technique into a situation is sure death. You have to flow with the fight. Trust your body, if you train hard it knows.

 

Sure. But if both are just "flowing with the fight", who is going to attack? One of the guys has to decide to do something and if that's you then you'd better have a plan instead of wildly banging at the general direction of the opponent.

 

Actually, this is where Bruce Lee's "Five Angles of Attack" come in handy. He categorized the five most effective ways to launch your advance. These include fakes, lures, misdirections and so on. If you never use these kinds of tactics, you won't become a good fighter, IMO.

 

And Joe Lewis has his system with set-point control being his main strategy.

 

These just to show that any good instructor will teach not to attack wildly but with a plan.

[capn_midnight]

if i had to choose one, I would go with "just attack"

 

as the great bill "superfoot" wallace likes to say, sparring is no fun when it's my partners turn, it's only fun when it's my turn. thinking about what you turn will be is not taking your turn, it's giving it up to your partner.

 

besides, you should be able to think and attack at the same time. I mean, I do.

[Kirves]

I like the chess part of sparring more than just attacking whenever possible. I like to test my opponent. Try to find out his weaknesses and strengths. Try if I can lure him into attacking what he thinks is a whole in my defence. See what kinds of indirect attacks I can do. Test new kinds of fakes, see if they work or not. I don't like "just attacking" because for me it doesn't feel like such a game anymore. It is more of a fight where I try to break they guy instead of trying to figure him out. Well, that's just me I guess.

[G95champ]

wait and bait