This blog will chart everything that is going on in my martial arts world at Epic Martial Arts Academy in Birmingham, UK. I will cover everything that concerns the club as we progress. A brief, non-exhaustive list follows….
My struggles with absorbing the teachings of Steve Morris and the Morris Method
Projects – using Martial Arts training to help disadvantaged groups
Struggles with conforming to ‘good practice’, i.e. multiple across agency CRB checks
Fight observations – resulting from Steve Morris’ assertion that we should ‘watch the fight’ and lessons learned from watching
MMA related information and fight/show reviews and observations
A recent post concerned the imprisonment of the two Hussein brothers who beat a burglar in response to him being part of a gang that imprisoned Munir Hussain’s family and threatened them with death. Last week Munir was released on appeal, his sentence was reduced to a suspended sentence while his brother’s sentence was dropped to 24 months, meaning he will be released at the end of this year, dependent on good behaviour.
Sense has prevailed, it would seem. In this case there were no grounds for appeal, reports the Guardian, but as the case was heard by the Lord Chief Justice he was able to show clemency by ignoring the sentencing guidelines in section 142 of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act. Lucky fella! In a radio interview some further details of the crime appeared. It seems that the time from when Munir Hussains youngest son escaped and raised the alarm to when the police arrived was a matter of only a few minutes.
The 999 call was logged at something 59 (I missed the exact hour) with the police arriving at 03. Great response from the Police there and they were able to stop the assault on the burglar pretty soon after it started. The interview revealed that the Lord Chief Justice decided that Munir’s involvement in the assault resulted as a reaction to the extreme provocation of the original crime (obviously), rather than simple revenge. From the Times report on the release
Lord Judge, sitting with Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Sweeney, described Munir Hussain’s case as one of “true exceptionality” and announced: “The plain, simple reality is that Munir Hussain was acting under the continuing influence of extreme provocation.
“Involvement in this serious violence can only be understood as a response to the dreadful and terrifying ordeal and the emotional anguish which he had undergone.”
His family had effectively been kidnapped in their own home: “He feared for their lives and the honour of his wife and daughter.”
In the original post I mentioned the potential problem with vigilantism, if Conservative changes to the law were introduced. That is if those using self-defence could do so at a level which is not “grossly disproportionate” to that inflicted on them. These concerns have been echoed by Paul Mendelle, QC, chairman of the Criminal Bar Association who said
You would have, in effect, sanctioned extrajudicial execution or capital punishment for an offence, burglary, that carries a maximum of 14 years
The “grossly disproportionate” level of force is no less ambiguous than the “reasonable force” level currently in effect. In the same article in the Times Mr Wolkind, QC, the defence barrister for Munir Hussain, is also sceptical
If I manage to tackle a criminal and get him to the ground, I kick him once and that’s reasonable, I kick him twice and that’s understandable, three times, forgivable; four times, debatable; five times, disproportionate; six times, it’s very disproportionate; seven times, extremely disproportionate — in comes the Tory test — eight times, and it’s grossly disproportionate. It is a horrible test. It sounds like state-sponsored revenge. I don’t understand why sentencing should take place in the home. Why can’t it go through the courts? Why can’t the jury, as they always do, decide what is reasonable?
The Law is not perfect, far from it, but it seems to work fairly well. The simple fact is if you beat a burglar to a pulp it’s not self-defence and neither is it reasonable force, except in extreme circumstances. Catching a teenager breaking in and then rendering him brain damaged will likely result in your imprisonment, as would over-responding to a similarly misbehaving teenager throwing a punch at you in the pub.
Potentially the greatest, anyway. Yesterday it was announced that the Mayweather vs Pacquiao scheduled for March 13th is off due to a row over the drug testing procedure. It seems that the Mayweather camp has been casting doubts over Pacquiao’s status in regard of performance enhancing drugs, despite there being no evidence at all to suggest he is anything other than completely clean.
Pacquiao has agreed to the standard drug-testing protocol of the Nevada State Athletic Commission but Mayweather wants to implement the more stringent protocol of that used by the United States Anti-Doping Agency. This version is used to test Olympians in the US, with Mayweather claiming that if this protocol is good enough for the Olympians then it should be required for a fight ‘of this magnitude’. As Pacquiao has not agreed to the USADA testing protocol Mayweather said
I have already agreed to the testing and it is a shame that he is not willing to do the same. It leaves me with great doubt as to the level of fairness I would be facing in the ring that night
That’s a bit rich in my opinion, there is no suggestion whatsoever of Pacquiao having failed a drug test in that past. It seems like an example of the usual pre-fight games Mayweather plays. To me he’s taking it too far as he’s accusing Pacquiao of being a cheat and by doing so questioning the legitimacy of his achievements.
This implication is hypocritical in that Mayweather has had to agree to an unprecedented financial penalty if either fighter weighs in over. This is set at a staggering $10 million per pound as against Marquez in September Mayweather paid the penalty of $600,000 when weighing in two pounds over. Cheeky sod!
It’s all a bit silly and no doubt will be sorted eventually. Personally I detest all this nonsense and trash talking. It’s all far too WWE which is becoming an increasingly common, unwelcome addition to the UFC as ex-pro wrestlers join up. In regard to the fight in question the last word should stay with Pacquiao
Now I say to Floyd Mayweather Jr, ‘Don’t be a coward and face me in the ring, mano-a-mano and shut your big, pretty mouth, so we can show the world who is the true king of the ring’
Of course, all this nonsense could be nothing more than a promoter promoting…….
A subject of relevance for all regardless of any martial arts participation. A recent story on Radio Five Live detailed how two blokes chased another, beat him with a cricket bat and a metal pole, rendering permanent brain damage; the cricket bat actually broke in three pieces! The accused, two brothers, were sent to jail after being found guilty of GBH with intent. An open and shut case, fair enough, but was it?
The ‘victim’ in this instance had been involved in a burglary where an entire family had been tied up and threatened with death as their house was ransacked. During the burglary the teenage son escaped and raised the alarm. An uncle, living two doors away, and the father managed to catch one burglar with the outcome being the two brothers received jail sentances while the perpetrator, unfit to plead to charges of false imprisonment, was merely given a supervision order.
Reports in The Sun and The Times suggest this is a terrible injustice, however, Hussein and his brother were not acting in self-defence. They left the scene of the crime, chased and caught Walid Salem and brutally assaulted him. It’s easy to be outraged, the preceding crime is horrible and can leads us to think Walid Salem deserved everything he got. He may well have deserved a kicking, but I have to agree with the Judge who said that people cannot be allowed to take the law into their own hands, inflciting instant, violent retribution IS outside of the law.
On the back of this case the Tories are trying to get political advantage by suggesting they will put the right to defend property back in the hands of the vicitm. However, this is nonsense, in Britain we ARE allowed to protect ourselves and our property, but we are not allowed to take things too far, being restricted to ‘reasonable force’. Chasing a perpetrator with weapons and beating him/her to a pulp is obviously beyond reasonable. The Hussein brothers could have overpowered Salem and simply held him until the Police arrived, thereby acting within the law.
A reasoned article in the Telegraph argues succinctly that the judge was correct in his assertion and cites instances when even fatal outcomes of self-defence are not taken to prosecution. A Hungarian business man caused a neck injury to an intruder which resulted in death, but this was shown to be an outcome of reasonable force in self-defence.
There are those that will suggest that Salem got what he deserved and the Husseins should be set free, they do have right to Appeal. While the deifinition of reasonable force can be open to interpretation, we cannot allow vigilante style retribution to persist. If it is allowed, where will it stop, Charles Bronson in Death Wish?
The Death Wish reference is an overreaction but last week I saw a short report in the Independent outlining the number of lynchings in Guatamala. It showed a picture of a woman bloodied on the street, doused in petrol after bus passengers accused her of involvement in an armed robbery. Local media claimed 219 lynchings had occurred in 2009 with 45 of them being fatal, a quick google search provides evidence of the prevalence of Guatamalan lynchings, indicating that such ‘justice’ is on the increase. This may be a large extrapolation from the Husseins case but allowing this type of incident to go unpunished could potentially lead to an environment similar to that supporting the para-Military knee-capping justice in the 70’s. The Law provides the right to trial for everyone accused of a crime, vigilantes and lynch mobs do not.
Aside from this case, there are implications for those practising martial arts. Don’t over do it if you catch a criminal! Obviously, we have to train for worst case scenario but its important to ensure we don’t end up as the accused if involved in such a scenario.
Lyoto Machida has taken the MMA world by storm. He has brought something a bit different to the table, his fighting style incorporates his Shotokan and specifically sport karate background, which along with his other martial arts training has helped him fight his way to the UFC Light Heavyweight Title.
He has had the karate forums buzzing due to the success of one of their own. For non-karate background MMA fighters he has proved a tricky customer, his illusive counter attack style is unusual in the UFC and has helped him to some great victories. While successful does Machida’s style support the use of ‘traditional’ stance training, such as sanbon kumite or the like? I’d argue against this assumption. If you refer to earlier posts (e.g. Marks, get set, GO!) I contend that this training begins from a position that fails to support positional movement, something akin to the sprinter preparing for a blocks start in response to the ‘get set’ order, when he/she should be set!
stances are points of transition; they are snapshots in a continuum of movement. Yes, they are often held statically in training for the sake of conditioning. But this is an exercise only…….. The traditional martial artist will flow through these postures in a dynamic way, never pausing. A camera taking stills will however be able to pick out individual points where the stance “was held” – however fleetingly.
This all sounds very good, and is clearly a huge improvement on the sanbon type training. Dynamically flowing through the postures never stopping, sounds much more like it. He includes some examples of Machida delivering punches to Evans from their fight at UFC98 and concludes that similar movements are apparent in many martial arts because “the human body can only be put into a limited number of functional postures”. Absolutely, I concur completely. All of this seems to negate the stiff sanbon type of training, as there is no flowing evident with these drills hardly being dynamic.
So if the stances are merely snapshots within movements why bother with the exercises to hold them or bother to practice them out of context of the entire movement? Dan expands saying
Virtually every traditional stance is just a lower, harder to hold, more “formal” manifestation of a move you will make in sparring
On example being the forward stance which “is just a boxer’s stance elongated with the back knee straightened” but which can be lunged into, similar to the first few steps of a sprinter out of the blocks (from another post). I would pretty much have to agree with all of this, other than the need to take the movements out of context and practise them ‘formally’. DD suggests the reason involves “kinaesthetic awareness” and “muscle-specific exercise”
The kinaethetics of any movement are gleaned sub-consciously as you practice that movement, while a contextually accurate movement is muscle-specific; as you learn you get a feeling for the movement rather than accurate knowledge of “a framework of known points in time and space”.
There is simply no need to practice separate parts of a movement out of context. By isolating parts of the movement the whole is compromised, and in terms of the sprinters starting position the movement is initiated from a sub-optimal position, i.e. sanbon kumite involves moving from lunge position to lunge position in a rather stilted way. If isolation of parts is necessary perhaps it would be better to practice the starting steps of a sprint!
Rather than practicing the sub-optimal stepping in stance, it would be better to practice lunging forward to punch on a heavy bag. For example, this KO with (lunge) step could be practiced on the heavy bag or the similar, very famous Marciano KO of Walcott. This practice could include the entire movement, thereby allowing the body to glean the kinaesthetics not only of the lunge step/stance but also of the shoulder and hip rotation, opposite side retraction and the diagonal action of the body using the serape muscles. There needs to be some bending of the bow……
A comment on the last post, made by John of Massachusetts, indicated that the clip of the elite level Shotokan fighters did show fast Shotokan techniques delivered from traditional stances, that’s the gist anyway. I chose the clip precisely because of the high standard of the fighters. While these fighters are able to deliver fast punches and kicks, the stance they adopt, fudo dachi I think, fails to support fast positional movement. In order to successfully make ground quickly they need to adjust the starting position before they move. If you observe the video carefully you will notice this adjustment.
This adjustment, particularly from the bounce, rapidly shifts the fighter through the equivalent of the get set and go phases of the sprint start. Bouncing up and down in the starting posture does not provide the correct lower leg angle to propel the fighter forward with plyometric action at the ankle curtailed.Does that make sense?
If we return to the sprint start analogy, the get set phase positions the sprinter to explode out of the blocks, the bouncing stance does not position the karateka to explode, an adjustment is required. The sanbon kumite of the original grisly clip provides even less opportunity for explosive movement as the plyometric action is completely absent. To illustrate what I mean follow this link to an article analyzing the blocks start of Usain Bolt, notice how the angle at the ankle of the right foot changes as he begins the movement, it goes back before moving forward. This is the plyometric action or the stretch shortening cycle, which greatly increases power. The starting position in the blocks completely supports this; forward posture and lower leg angle.
The Karate fighters in the clip tend to move from a position that is not set up to support explosive movement, of course the blocks position is impossible to attain but nevertheless the fighting stances they adopt have limited forward posture and usually have a less than ideal lower leg angle. This results in them having to make an adjustment before they can explode out of the blocks, as it were. It’s the equivalent of not being in the blocks properly when the gun goes.
Despite this drawback the bouncing is clearly more dynamic than the stiff movement of sanbon kumite although the starting stance is not too different to that used in sanbon. Note the centralised weight, supporting stability rather than mobility.
To achieve the equivalent of the starting blocks position the fighting posture needs to support rapid positional movement, with the weight forward and a lower leg angle supportive of a plyometric action similar to that in the Usain Bolt link. Clearly, that would be better than adopting a posture that requires a big adjustment before rapid movement can be achieved.
While the fighters in the clip above start in a sub-optimal position they still move quickly, this is achieved through a lot of feinting and minute positional adjustment to draw the opponent into making a half movement against which they can time their strike. While the rules of the tournament are far removed from street fighting there is still plenty of skill on show. The timing and distancing is very good and this is what Machida has successfully taken to MMA, but thats another post.
In any kind of unarmed martial arts setting, sporting or self-defence the knockout is the most spectacular and effective way to end a contest/confrontation, against an armed assailant it becomes an even greater asset.
There are endless examples on you tube of boxers, MMA fighters and regular citizens knocking out the bad bloke. On the Fighting Arts Alliance Forum Steve Morris has gone into great detail on how a knockout can be effected from both close and longer range in terms of power generation and effect on the target, i.e. the head.
Using biomechanics with reference to great knockout fighters and the use of tools by skilled exponents, knowledge gleaned from these sources provides an insight to
being better able to deliver enough force to knock a guy out or stun him with a shot to the head, or drop him with a body shot, or even break bones with a blow
The article is in several parts over the course of a thread and contains numerous links for supporting evidence and illustrative purposes. The outcome is a wealth of information and tips and how to use this effectively to improve your chances of executing a KO on the bad guy. There really is a ton of information that can be applied to your training to bring BIG improvements. It’s a very well produced piece of work.
Some of what he covers includes
different ’shots’ to effect a knockout
how the knockout occurs
rotational knockout
increasing mass, increasing velocity
levers & supportive structures
hammers & nail guns
the role of the body
training tips
Personally, I find the combination of science with real life examples invaluable, it really gives you something to chew on! Why not join up and have a look?
In the last post I likened the three phases of the sprint race start to the initiation of movement or attack in martial arts. I proposed that the ‘get set’ position was the better of the three, with the ‘on your marks’ phase being unprepared and the ‘GO!’ phase being over committed. Put simply it’s better to be ready to move than not but not at the expense of over committing.
The grisly old clip in that post provided an example of the ‘on your marks’ phase in action. The stiff, robotic, linear movements in this clip are practised in a lot of ‘traditional’ martial arts but is a very crude example. The Karateka are ’stuck’ in a long stance and can barely move as a result, the weight is centralised with the legs so wide that ’stance’, as in a way of standing, is indeed an appropriate word.
Often in karate people are told that movement comes from the hara/tanden or the centre. Pure nonsense of course, ask any child how they move and penny to a pound they’ll say with their legs or feet. The trouble is, when starting from a position that does not support free movement a preparatory movement is required, which could come from the core. Of course the core plays an essential part in the process of movement, linking the top and bottoms sections of the body.
Clearly, if you adopt a fighting posture analogous to the ‘get set’ position, i.e. ready to go, you have an advantage over someone in a posture synonymous to the ‘on your marks’ phase, i.e. requiring a preparatory movement before you can move. Put simply, if you start from a position which allows you to move you have an advantage over an opponent who isn’t ready to move, that’s obvious.
Of course the old clip is karate at its most crude, here’s a more dynamic clip of two karate men training in a ‘traditional’ format, ippon kumite (one step sparring) and so starting from an ‘on your marks’ start.
The video shows the attacker and defender switching roles scrolling through a number of pre-arranged attacks. They start and finish in a long stance that fails to facilitate movement, clearly a huge flaw in the drill which leads to some rather peculiar adaptions to the standard model in the old clip. The bloke on the left has a tendency to ‘flail’ with his back leg when retreating in an attempt to move quickly, while both ‘bounce’.
Despite showing far better movement than in the old clip, including lateral retreats, the whole premise is to block and counter. This manifests in the competition version of karate, thus…..
These are elite level karate athletes, moving much better than the blokes in the old clip, freed from the restraints of formal training but still not as well as they might. Starting from a position that is sub-optimal for movement, synonymous to ‘on your marks’ position rather than ‘get set’ the movement options are limited. The rules of the competition don’t help and other factors contribute to creating a fighting environment that does not support free movement; if something goes wrong they cannot get out of the way again. For example, once they commit to a movement, if it doesn’t work they get hit, via block and counter even. If they feint a movement and the opponent reads it they are in trouble because they return, or are in the process of returning, to the starting position. The whole moving in stance premise is flawed, with the stance being a huge part of the problem.
As these fighters adopt similar movement strategies they start on an even playing field. If a fighters were to adopt a ‘get set’ posture that fighter would be set for movement and would have an advantage over the others, but the years of training sub-optimal movements make this radical adjustment unlikely.
On your marks; get set; GO! The starters orders as a race is about to begin. These remind me of how to and how not to hold yourself in sparring or when addressing pads or involved in any type of training. The picture illustrates the phases of the start of a sprint quite nicely; preparing, ready, off! If we compare the ’state’ of a sprinter in each of these three phases to those of a martial artist addressing focus mitts or a sparring partner we can pick the most suitable. You will need a bit of lateral thinking for this post, lose the literal thinking…..
On your marks
During this stage the sprinter is merely getting into the blocks, placing his hands and feet in the correct position. The athlete is not ready to race either biomechanically or psychologically, he is preparing. In the picture above the bird on the red pepper is on his marks.
Get set
Now the sprinter is in his blocks, hands are in position, the body is raised and the optimal posture to drive forward is assumed; biomechanically ready. He is focused, ready to explode; pyschologically ready. The bird on the yellow pepper is ’set’.
GO!
The trigger has been pulled and the sprinter is off, exploding out of the blocks and the race has begun. The third bird has pushed off and is flying.
If we adopt a posture or stance analogous to the ‘on your marks’ position we simply are not ready to move let alone strike. While nobody is likely to adopt a position literally resembling the ‘on your marks’ position of a sprinter, i.e. kneeling on the ground, people do adopt analogous postures which are unprepared for movement. The adoption of ‘on your marks’ postures unsuitable for movement is rife in Kihon training in Karate.
This old clip makes grisly viewing, and it’s not just the blokes on the beach in their thongs that’s unsightly. The protocol of adopting a posture that is difficult to move from and then expecting efficient movement is an oxymoron. The sprinter moves to the ‘get set’ position for a reason, he/she wants to be able to explode into the race. The clip shows no explosion whatsoever, just stiff robotic movement. The Karateka in the clip may be psychologically prepared but they certainly are not prepared for biomechanically efficient movement.
If we reject the ‘on your marks’ position as too static for explosive movement, we may be tempted to opt for the GO! position as there is plenty of explosive movement occurring. The bird is flying while the sprinters have exploded out off the blocks and are off. Obviously, a posture analogous to this is not plausible as we would be too committed to a particular movement and therefore unable to adapt to a changing environment, focus pads being moved for example. We would be fine psychologically but over-committed biomechanically.
That just leaves the ‘get set’ position, which of course is ideal. Starting from a posture that supports free movement naturally supports many explosive actions to be made. Being biomechanically set for movement it is possible to express the psychological preparation in a bagwork session. From a fighting posture analogous to the ‘get set’ position we are literally set, ready for action; obvious really.
This logic leaves Sanbon kumite and the like redundant as it attempts the impossible. The old clip shows dynamic movement (moving to strike and avoiding this movement) being attempted from the equivalent of the ‘on your marks’ position, which does not support such movement. The postures adopted fail to ’set’ the body biomechanically for effective movement, resulting in sub-optimal movement. If the practice is redundant it needs to be binned, that would be a small progressive step.
I’ve recently been given a link to the youtube section for clips from Fedor’s training team (thanks Tommo). It’s a pretty good insight into some of the practices they get up to. One very obvious thing is the simplicity of their training methods. In the clip below, Fedor’s group are doing some circuits out in the forest at a kiddies playground. Yep a kiddies playground. The greatest MMA pound for pound fighter trains in a kiddies playground making do with whatever there is around, they’re doing crunches on a park bench!
Hammer swinging and some basic exercises put into a circuit. Great. The ‘make-do’ element is continued in this clip, where they are using rocks and even a kettlebell for medicine ball slams. In an article on the benefits of hill running Ross Enamait says
……..people seem to discredit simplicity. They falsely assume that complexity trumps simplicity, when often the opposite is true……. In the words of E.F. Schumacher:
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction.”
I’m a big advocate of using science to ‘get an edge’ but sometimes this approach can overcomplicate matters detracting from the real goal, improved fighting performance in Fedors case. All training should be applicable to that goal.
By taking science into account but without losing sight of simple methodologies a progressive form of trainnig can be achieved. Drawing from many sources can be inspiring but also potentially confusing. With youtube and other internet resources a massive array of training information is available but simplicity should not be ignored. Ask Fedor!
On the Fighting Arts Alliance forum, there’s a huge amount of information available on numerous topics related to martial arts training but simplicity is not ignored. People are using hammers, tyres, bulgarian bags and all sorts of similar simple, often homemade equipment to compliment punching things.
This in many ways is similar to what the Okinawans were doing with their hojo undo in the late 1800’s; using simple training equipment. This practise seems to be less prevalent in the west and with the information available on the internet could probably do with being updated and augmented. That would allow some progression in traditional karate and the like, rather than being restricted to a historical approach. My experience of the hojo undo exercises was along the lines of performing the exercises in a prescribed manner only. There was little if any innovation and as such no progression.
In the hojo undo clip the bloke is performing exercises that clearly provide decent conditioning potential, however by incorporating kettlebell exercises the ishi sashi could become a more versatile piece of equipment, for example. The trouble with being historically accurate, as karate often purports to be, is progressive training methods are negated. All down to personal preference I suppose, my preference is for progression…….
Both Tyson and Fedor have been dubbed ‘baddest man on the planet’ but while both were or are top of their respective games they are very different men. Last night I watched documentaries on each of the ‘Worlds baddest’ and while one rose and faded the other continues to rise and looks unlikely to fade in anything like the same way. Nevertheless there are interesting parallels.
By the time Tyson became the youngest ever World Champion he had a fantastic team around him. Cus D’Amato had taken him out of reform school and away from his troubled neighbourhood in New York and with Kevin Rooney and Teddy Atlas was guiding his boxing potential. After D’Amato died Rooney took responsibility for Tysons training, resulting in his distinctive style that brought him success and fame.
Tyson’s Peek-a-Boo style allowed him to slip and weave his way in close, avoiding his opponents punches, allowing his devastating speed, power, and aggression to wreck the other fighter. In the documentary “The Tyson Story” Kevin Rooney time and again mentions how Tyson, right from the start threw punches with ‘Bad Intention’. That’s the phrase he uses; ‘Bad Intention’. You only have to watch him training to see that while the knockouts are dripping with bad intention.
For me this ‘Bad Intention’ is the overriding similarity between Tyson and Fedor. If you watch Fedor training the same ‘Bad Intention’ is evident and again he’s dripping with ‘Bad Intention’ in the ring. In the documentary ‘Baddest man on the planet’ Fedor says he trains “relentlessly, like an engine”. He has a strong team around him practicing with his trainer Aleksander Michkov for many years, he is comfortable with his surroundings and just gets on with it. His aggressive style re-wrote ground and pound in MMA.
Outside the arena there are similarities, both literally fought their way out of poverty, both liked to fight as kids but I can’t see Fedor fading the way Tyson faded, he just doesn’t have the distractions. Tyson faded because of those distractions and sacking Rooney was clearly a mistake, he changed his fighting style and became a beatable fighter, and then there were the frustrations boiling over with inexcusable results in and out of the ring.
Despite the inexcusable side to Tyson the ‘Bad Intention’ in the punches, training and the fights is key; besides Fedor has shown that these inexcusable outcomes are NOT inevitable. Regardless, this ‘Bad Inntention’ is the type of thing you get from Steve Morris’s assertion to ‘Watch the Fight’ take it, absorb it and use it in training. This ‘Bad Intention’ attitude can then be taken from training into the fight if you have one, in either a sporting or in self-defence setting. In essence you’re preparing properly and you will improve.
So if the stances are merely snapshots within movements why bother with the exercises to hold them or bother to practice them out of context of the entire movement? Dan expands saying
Despite this drawback the bouncing is clearly more dynamic than the stiff movement of sanbon kumite although the starting stance is not too different to that used in sanbon. Note the centralised weight, supporting stability rather than mobility.
