Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 16:48:02 +1000
For what it's worth (to me, it means a lot), here's what a friend
who's a black belt in Hap Ki Do had to say when I forwarded on some
select pieces of our recent mail about speed vs skill in martial arts ...

> Hi Luke
>

> An interesting discussion, but to me focuses on entirely the wrong
> level. The assumption in this discussion is that an attack is
> launched and then the only response is to dodge/block etc.
>

> I started a long diatribe but it got too long. So I deleted it. A
> few points instead.
>

> - this discussion ignores the most critical area, that of watching
> your opponent and _reading_ their next move. This is a function of
> experience.
>

> - IMO the most important MA skills are timing and distance. Easy to
> say, describing what I mean could take while.
>

> - speed (whatever you call it) is only one parameter. I would propose
> it be broken into speed of movement (e.g. punch), reflexes, and power.
>

> - a quote from my instructor ... "a black belt moves slowly but is
> always safe". It is important to conserve energy in fights. It is
> important to be safe. It is not important to be fast, particularly
> against multiple opponents. Real fighting is about surviving, not
> winning.
>

> - don't ignore the mental side. Someone who doesn't think they can
> win, can't. You haven't lost, till you give up.
>

> - someone who has a lot of training in MA is also hard to hurt (same
> with rugby actually). Understanding the body aids in protecting it.

And, after also forwarding on Bob's story about the Muay Thai inter-
discipline contests:

> Not really. Who's more skilled? A Thai kickboxer or a ShotoKan black belt
> of the Nth degree? Until Steve Fristo did it, no foreigner EVER won a
> competition against a Muay Thai fighter. How long did they last? The
> Japanese sent over 12 of their best fighters. All were out within 30
> seconds [...]

My friend commented:


> Again, due to time constraints, a pointed message.
>

> - not all the great masters are fast. Sounds like too many martial arts
> movies to me.
>

> - the Thais probably won because they had a more effective fighting
> style. Martial arts comprises 'sport' arts like Tae Kwon Do, and
> 'fighting' arts. The two should not be mixed. Ironically 'sport'
> arts often involve full contact fighting with a set of rules, fighting
> arts often learn how to kill each other, but surprisingly they do this
> (mostly) non-contact.
>

> ANECDOTE
> - they tried full-contact Hap Ki Do in Korea for about two years.
> They stopped it because they were destroyting all their best young
> talent (broken knees etc).
>

> Is this apropos? Sorry, but with my hectic schedule finding it
> difficult to respond adequately.

luke
Message no. 2
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 14:04:24 -0700
Yes, I agree with Luke's message. First, concerning speed vs. skill,
there is a quote from Bruce Lee about his sifu, Yip Man:

"His skill reduced their speed by half."

Secondly, as the fellow hapkidoja pointed out, Dodging/Blocking an attack
aren't the only options, by far. Counterattack, trapping, and
counterthrowing the attacker are much better options in my opinion. This
is the entire premise of aikido. On certain throws, the harder you punch
the harder you're going to land when I throw you, believe me.

And then of course there's counterthrowing the counterthrow, and so forth
but that's the subject of judo practice...

========================================================================
Adam Getchell "Invincibility is in oneself,
acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu vulnerability in the opponent."
http://instruction.ucdavis.edu/html/getchell.html
Message no. 3
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 23:18:24 -0500
>Secondly, as the fellow hapkidoja pointed out, Dodging/Blocking an attack
>aren't the only options, by far. Counterattack, trapping, and
>counterthrowing the attacker are much better options in my opinion. This
>is the entire premise of aikido. On certain throws, the harder you punch
>the harder you're going to land when I throw you, believe me.

If I swing a big wild roundhouse, yes. But that would be foolish unless you
were aleady incapacitated. And yes, there are many other options, but how
often can you grab a hand moving faster than yours or possibly even faster
than you can see?
There are many other options available aside from the dodge/block. Those
were examples. Coounter-anything still requires two things... 1) you defeat
his attack. 2) you get your attack in. If that doesn't happen due to
superior physical qualities possessed by the opponent, you're meat. And if
they are superior, the odds are against you.

The problem many people are having is that they add the physical ability
gained from martial arts training as a part of the skill itself. That is
wrong. It does not only affect what is done by the martial art. If your
reflexes are faster due to training, they are faster in all things. Which
makes it a physical attribute, not a skill.

Find me a slow Hapkido teacher and put him against a fast Wing Chun teacher.
It'll be over quick and it'll be Wing Chun by a mile. A fast striking
opponent will always defeat a slow reacting one. No matter the knowledge.

>And then of course there's counterthrowing the counterthrow, and so forth
>but that's the subject of judo practice...

And jui-jitsu and hapkido (at least from the teacher I know) and tai chi and
so many other arts that I can't name them all here... but if you're too slow
on the counter, you won't counter at all. Maybe you'll ENcounter the floor
or a wall or a random damaging body part of your opponent's, but that's the
extent of it.

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Who finds himself strangely in a style vs. style argument... In a reactive
style (jui-jitsu, hapkido, jodo, etc...) you have to react faster than your
opponent. If you don't, you lose. In a striking style (taekwondo, karate,
kenpo) you must strike faster than your opponent can counter or you'll lose.
A skillfully delivered punch moving slow is easier to block than a less
skilled, but faster punch.
Message no. 4
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 00:11:51 -0500
>> An interesting discussion, but to me focuses on entirely the wrong
>> level. The assumption in this discussion is that an attack is
>> launched and then the only response is to dodge/block etc.

No, it still takes speed to do anything. If you move slow, you're meat.

>> - this discussion ignores the most critical area, that of watching
>> your opponent and _reading_ their next move. This is a function of
>> experience.

Feints are easy enough. I can't tell you the number of times I've watched
opponent's throw up an arm to block a punch that isn't coming. Skill didn't
matter (I'm not that skilled). I'm just smarter. They know their art
better (see definition of skills in Shadowrun) but I was smarter and faster.
Of course, I know there are many smarter and faster than me, which is why I
train to improve those two aspects. I learn to improve my skill, I train to
improve my body.

>> - speed (whatever you call it) is only one parameter. I would propose
>> it be broken into speed of movement (e.g. punch), reflexes, and power.

Speed = reflexes to me. It is all encompassing and if you lack it or any
portion of it (which would be difficult) you don't have a chance. My
reflexes mean I can throw a faster punch which by definition and simple
physics will have more power.

>> - a quote from my instructor ... "a black belt moves slowly but is
>> always safe". It is important to conserve energy in fights. It is
>> important to be safe. It is not important to be fast, particularly
>> against multiple opponents. Real fighting is about surviving, not
>> winning.

I've seen many a "safe" black belt wonder why a faster brown (or lesser)
belt could take them down time after time...

>> - don't ignore the mental side. Someone who doesn't think they can
>> win, can't. You haven't lost, till you give up.

Exactly, why would I give up if everything you throw looks like it's been
sent by Western Union?

>> - someone who has a lot of training in MA is also hard to hurt (same
>> with rugby actually). Understanding the body aids in protecting it.

Right... enhanced attribute, not enhanced skill. Acquired through rigorous
training, not through a neat new color of belt.

>> - not all the great masters are fast. Sounds like too many martial arts
>> movies to me.

Right, they weren't as fast or as physically able. They lost miserably for
just that reason. Skill isn't everything (as the movies would lead one to
believe and obviously have done so, though not in your case which is good)

>> - the Thais probably won because they had a more effective fighting
>> style. Martial arts comprises 'sport' arts like Tae Kwon Do, and
>> 'fighting' arts. The two should not be mixed. Ironically 'sport'
>> arts often involve full contact fighting with a set of rules, fighting
>> arts often learn how to kill each other, but surprisingly they do this
>> (mostly) non-contact.

It is because you can't effectively train on how to kill people and not end
up killing someone. Very few people would come to a class like that (I,
myself, have no wish to die because little Billy decided to test Dim Mak)

>> ANECDOTE
>> - they tried full-contact Hap Ki Do in Korea for about two years.
>> They stopped it because they were destroyting all their best young
>> talent (broken knees etc).

I know that. There are organized competitions today, but competitors are
limited in which moves they may use (no deadly or permanently damaging
ones...surprise, huh?)

Thai kickboxing maintains it's level of competition and is one of the VERY
few arts which keep their deadliness in a sport form. Ask the foreign
competitors from that first round of fights whether it's damaging or not...


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 5
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 09:07:06 BST
HEre's a nice and easy mechanic for a feint;
roll opposed (feinter's) quickness vs (target's) intelligence
[the hand is faster than the eye].
If the attacker wins he gets the -1 Tno (opponent disadvantaged)
bonus.

Same thing works for Kiai except it's charisma vs Willpower.

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 6
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:13:16 +1000
My black belt friend wrote:

> - someone who has a lot of training in MA is also hard to hurt (same
> with rugby actually). Understanding the body aids in protecting it.

Bo Ooton replied:

> Right... enhanced attribute, not enhanced skill. Acquired through rigorous
> training, not through a neat new color of belt.

Paradoxically ... no. The body doesn't get stronger or more able to
resist damage. You just learn that you don't have to fall down when
someone slams you, as he explained it to me once.

So it really does belong as part of the skill, not the attribute.

luke
Message no. 7
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 09:17:01 +1000
P Ward suggests:

> HEre's a nice and easy mechanic for a feint;
> roll opposed (feinter's) quickness vs (target's) intelligence
> [the hand is faster than the eye].
> If the attacker wins he gets the -1 Tno (opponent disadvantaged)
> bonus.

Surely you'd roll vs the target's combat skill, not intelligence?

> Same thing works for Kiai except it's charisma vs Willpower.

This sounds plausible, though, given it's sort of a mana-spell attack.

luke
Message no. 8
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 19:31:06 -0500
>> Right... enhanced attribute, not enhanced skill. Acquired through rigorous
>> training, not through a neat new color of belt.

>Paradoxically ... no. The body doesn't get stronger or more able to
>resist damage. You just learn that you don't have to fall down when
>someone slams you, as he explained it to me once.

Right, but falling (which throws aren't covered in Shadowrun, so it'd
effectively a nil until someone produces rules to that effect) is only one
part. A lot of good knowing how to fall will do when your teeth are on the
express train down your throat. Combat isn't all throws, locks, etc. I
know that that is what Hapkido specializes in. But there are far more arts
out there that rely on striking. Falling is one minor (very minor) part of
combat, if I throw you it matters. If I cut loose with a reverse punch, it
isn't going to help you. And I know what you're going to say... but then I
can dodge (grab, whatever...). Only if you're fast enough, I reply.

>So it really does belong as part of the skill, not the attribute.

Falling skill would be a skill, no doubt about it (we use athletics for tht
purpose now). Reflexes are not...

-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 9
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 12:56:25 +1000
I wrote:

>Paradoxically ... no. The body doesn't get stronger or more able to
>resist damage. You just learn that you don't have to fall down when
>someone slams you, as he explained it to me once.

Bob Ooton wrote:

> Right, but falling (which throws aren't covered in Shadowrun, so it'd
> effectively a nil until someone produces rules to that effect) is only one
> part.

Apologies, I was imprecise. I used fall/slam in the attempt to suggest
the idea of someone resisting the damage effects of an attack. I didn't
intend it literally.

I'd sum up my friend's remarks by saying that damage resistance is not
a function of the body alone. Discipline comes into it.

So I think that aspect of the unarmed combat rules is just right.

luke
Message no. 10
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 10:45:11 BST
Luke Wrote :-
> Surely you'd roll vs the target's combat skill, not intelligence?

If you prefer, maybe you should default to Intelligence at +2 (the
hands is quicker than the eye), or maybe quickness, your choice.
I like intelligence; the faster your mind is, the quicker you recognise
your opponents attack to be a feint. Also, People with street-fighting
type skills, (ie. CP 2020 brawling) should ahvae a penalty to recognise
or feint against a 'proper' martial artist.


> This sounds plausible, though, given it's sort of a mana-spell attack.
Erm, I was thinking of a loud shout meant to distract the enemy actually,
not any form of attack.

PHil (Renegade)
Message no. 11
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: Speed vs skill in unarmed combat
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 17:02:24 -0500
>> Surely you'd roll vs the target's combat skill, not intelligence?

Lot of slow-minded people know the moves, but don't know exactly how to
judge what's coming in. Skill's got little to do with it if you're lacking
in the core areas. Not that I'd use said rule, but I would defend it's
sensibility.

>Also, People with street-fighting
>type skills, (ie. CP 2020 brawling) should ahvae a penalty to recognise
>or feint against a 'proper' martial artist.

Ummm, aside from a few months martial training... all I've ever known was
"brawling". And I can feint pretty well (well enough to fool more than a
few "martial artists"). Some styles hide feints better than others (many of
the Shao-Lin styles empasize this) but once again, a slow feint is almost as
good as comitting one's self. Better have the ability to follow up.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Speed vs skill in unarmed combat, 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.

Thwap!