Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Movement Rules and martial arts
Date: Tue Jan 29 14:05:01 2002
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Graht wrote:

> Sorry, I should have clarified where I was coming from.
>
> Many martial styles incorporate movement into attacks and defenses. I
> studied Hapkido and it very much relies on being able to move
> around/through opponents. As a Hapkidoist muscle strength (which would
> allow me to move my body faster) would benefit me *much* more then wired
> reflexes. Off hand I can't think of any martial arts which don't
> incorporate body movement to a high degree...

The type of counter punching in Wing Chun springs immediately to
mind as an example of a technique that doesn't require as much gross body
movement. But its range is very limited.
In some sense, you are absolutely correct: developing power in an
attack requires you to use your whole body. But the fact remains that an
unwired human can generate more than one powerful attack in a three-second
time block. I know I can. I assume that you can as well. The difference
is that a wired combatant will be more likely to defeat his opponent's
defenses, or take advantage of very brief openings when his opponent is
off balance or whatever. So it's not that he's necessarily moving his
whole body any more, it's that he is moving it in such a way that he's
always one (or two or three) steps ahead of his opponent.
This is also why skill is the great equalizer in SR melee combat.
Both combatants are assumed to be moving quickly, throwing a number of
attacks, but the faster opponent reacts more quickly, or initiates
movement more quickly. But a skilled opponent will take advantage of that
fact. Maybe the slower but more skilled combatant knows that the faster,
lesser skilled guy will be able to get out of the way of the first punch,
but he'll use that "flinch reaction" from the first punch to set up the
*real* attack, which will be much more devastating because the opponent
is just a little off balance. In other words, without control, speed is
less useful than you might otherwise think.
The same concept applies to melee weapons as well. In working
with swords, I can definitely verify that control and finesse is much more
important than either raw speed or brute strengh.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Movement Rules and martial arts
Date: Tue Jan 29 16:00:01 2002
At 02:06 PM 1/29/2002 -0500, Marc Renouf wrote:


>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Graht wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I should have clarified where I was coming from.
> >
> > Many martial styles incorporate movement into attacks and defenses. I
> > studied Hapkido and it very much relies on being able to move
> > around/through opponents. As a Hapkidoist muscle strength (which would
> > allow me to move my body faster) would benefit me *much* more then wired
> > reflexes. Off hand I can't think of any martial arts which don't
> > incorporate body movement to a high degree...
>
> The type of counter punching in Wing Chun springs immediately to
>mind as an example of a technique that doesn't require as much gross body
>movement. But its range is very limited.

Yeah, but the guy with one technique is the guy who will lose :)

> In some sense, you are absolutely correct: developing power in an
>attack requires you to use your whole body.

Not if you focus your Chi ;) For those of you who take Chi seriously, I'm
not joking. For those who don't, you can laugh with me. How can I do
both? I'm a Taoist :)

<gets serious>

> But the fact remains that an
>unwired human can generate more than one powerful attack in a three-second
>time block. I know I can. I assume that you can as well.

<nod>

> The difference
>is that a wired combatant will be more likely to defeat his opponent's
>defenses, or take advantage of very brief openings when his opponent is
>off balance or whatever. So it's not that he's necessarily moving his
>whole body any more, it's that he is moving it in such a way that he's
>always one (or two or three) steps ahead of his opponent.

No argument there.

The argument I stated was that I perceived a conflict between the movement
rules and the melee combat with regards to the initiative rules: someone
who can perform multiple melee attacks in a round should be able to move
farther each round, because melee attacks/defenses almost always entail
movement. There are of course attacks and defenses which don't require
movement, but every martial style incorporates movement (I remember when I
was taking Karate the first thing I learned was how to move).

But after this morning's revelation there isn't a conflict for me. In
melee combat the person with multiple actions can't move their body any
faster/farther than the other guy, but because their reflexes/reaction is
much higher they can take advantage of more of the opportunities that
present themselves. And as one really doesn't have to move to defend
oneself (but boy does it help if you can), it doesn't matter for the defender.

I.e., I don't have a conflict anymore :)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader II
--
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Marc Renouf)
Subject: Movement Rules and Martial Arts
Date: Wed Jan 30 10:25:01 2002
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, [iso-8859-1] Rand Ratinac wrote:

> But while that sounds like sense on the surface, Marc
> (and I pretty much agree with it myself), it opens the
> whole "How come a slow bastard who's a good martial
> artist can get extra attacks on the fast bastard
> through counterattacking?" can of worms again..

Because it's often much easier to counterattack an attacking
opponent than it is to launch an attack yourself. If Mr. WiredBoy is
going to make four committed (yet amatuerish) attacks at me, I'm going to
smack him down every time. Remember that in terms of gross body movement
he's not really going any faster than me.

Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Other ShadowRN-related addresses and links:
Mark Imbriaco <mark@*********.com> List Owner
Adam Jury <adamj@*********.com> Assistant List Administrator
DVixen <dvixen@*********.com> Keeper of the FAQs
Gurth <gurth@******.nl> GridSec Enforcer Division
David Buehrer <graht@******.net> GridSec "Nice Guy" Division
ShadowRN FAQ <http://hlair.dumpshock.com/faqindex.php3>;
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Rand Ratinac)
Subject: Movement Rules and Martial Arts
Date: Wed Jan 30 20:00:01 2002
> > But while that sounds like sense on the surface,
Marc (and I pretty much agree with it myself), it
opens the whole "How come a slow bastard who's a good
martial artist can get extra attacks on the fast
bastard through counterattacking?" can of worms
again..
>
> Because it's often much easier to counterattack an
attacking opponent than it is to launch an attack
yourself. If Mr. WiredBoy is going to make four
committed (yet amatuerish) attacks at me, I'm going to
smack him down every time. Remember that in terms of
gross body movement he's not really going any faster
than me.
> Marc Renouf (ShadowRN GridSec - "Bad Cop" Division)

Okay, I'll buy that, and Graht's explanation. Cool! :)

====Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow, aka Doc'booner, aka Doc' Vader)

.sig Sauer

If you SMELL what the DOC' is COOKING!!!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Movement Rules and martial arts, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.