[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
What are we talking about?
A rapist attacking from the shrubbery or an agonistic scenario?
To keep things debatable, we should assume both opponents -antagonistic or agonistic- are facing each other and one tries to bridge and “attack by drawing”.
If he does that by going with pure action, the other one WILL notice it beforehand, even before the attacker(!), assuming he has attained an advanced level of combat training.
[/quote]
Since we’re talking about sparring, or even sport striking competitions like boxing, I was speaking more so to an “active combat” scenario where both fighters realize that it’s a fight and there isn’t really any chance of “ambushing” one’s opponent.
“Pure” action (meaning the complete lack of response to one’s environment) is pretty much impossible and not what I was talking about. Obviously there is some element of reaction (reaching the correct distance, being in the correct alignment, probing the opponent’s defensive tendencies to allow you to employ a strategy to exploit those tendencies) to pretty much all combative skills. But the notion that one doesn’t act, but instead only react disallows one the use of anything but reflexive action, which is a fine skill to have, but isn’t going to take you very far (unless you’ve got tremendous physical gifts).
As far as you noticing what someone else is going to do before they do, that’s again pretty much mystical nonsense. I’ve yet to see anyone actually be able to read someone else’s mind. Unless there is either a disconnect between the attacker’s mind and their actions, or a physical telegraph, you won’t be seeing it coming before it’s actually coming.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
If that’s the case, the sport of boxing would be a boring mess, since simple reaction tests reveal a certain temporal threshold even striking beginners can overcome with ease.
Thankfully for the martial arts, this theory is completely wrong.
[/quote]
Not at all. There is such a thing as the “time/distance” variable, which all good fighters attempt to manipulate to their advantage. If someone is far enough away, then you can see the attack coming in time to be able to defend it, but if they are close enough (and have decent speed and have learned the techniques correctly so they don’t telegraph) then you will not be able to. Most good fighters learn where this “critical distance line” is, and try to keep their opponent’s just outside of it, or cheat their way just inside it (using fakes, evasive headmovement, etc…) to either be able to defend their opponent’s attacks, or land their own.
The art of effectively closing the gap (without missing or getting hit) is one of the most difficult skills in all of fighting to master, and one of the reasons why not every lead off technique lands. Not because the fighters are reading each others’ minds.
[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
“Reacting” can mean a lot of things. A martial athlete can and should learn to attack not because he feels aggressive or compelled by his rage but when he sees or even senses an opening.
[/quote]
That’s one reason, sure. But he can also attack to probe his opponent’s defense, to maintain distance, to “draw” a counter attack to create an opening, etc…
Again, there is some element of reaction, yes, but there is also deliberate action. Neither should really exist at the exclusion of the other, at least not unless you are far superior to your opponent (like Mayweather or Roy Jones) and can simply outclass them. If it’s a fairly even match, or you are even at a disadvantage physically, then strategy will play a much greater role in helping you win than simply reacting.