View Single Post
Old 08-11-2002, 09:26 PM   #21
guest1234
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 915
Offline
Quote:
Dave Organ (DaveO) wrote:
LOL - Colleen hit the nail right on the head, I'm a-thinkin'. I have no clue what muay thai is like, but the first rule of strategy is always to make your opponent play by your rules, not his. In a defensive-based conflict scenario, that means to draw your opponent out of his 'comfort zone' while maintaining your own. In Aikido vs. Karate, for instance, one could work to stay outside your opponent's striking range, forcing him to commit to a lunge, thus opening himself to your defense. (Or whatever - there're a billion options and variables.) The idea is to force your opponent to do something he doesn't want or is not ready to do; or to force him to do something you want him to do. Aikido works great, for instance, when your opponent grabs your wrist, so use your wrist as bait, and goad him in. If you can get him to commit to an overhand strike, you can come in with shihonage. If you can anticipate a straight punch, you have several options.

The idea of being wholly defensive does not necessarily mean being wholly passive; you CAN make an attacker do what you want him to.

Sorry, hope I'm not being too confusing here, but what I'm trying to say is winning - or losing - a bout between dissimilar martial arts is not necessarily an example of an martial art's superiority or inferiority, (or an artists) but may be a victory of strategy.

Thanx!
An interesting variation on Clausewitz's teaching on the non-polarity of attack and defense: that it may be in Country A's best interest to attack Country B in 4 weeks, but in B's best interest to be attacked now rather than 4 weeks from now...but that is not the same as B attacking A now. Classic war strategy from 1832, easily applicable to say a desert war in chem gear in the winter vs summer, or your next randori practice. I agree, strategy is what decides the winner.
  Reply With Quote