Switch Theory

[Tom]

Me and Dave were chatting about this on the bus the other night, and I thought it was an interesting idea. So I'll share:

We were discussing the idea that in order to be a really effective martial artist, you have to be able to change from passive to aggressive instantly, like there was some switch in your mind.

Dave was saying how he has had altercations in nightclubs before, where he got hit because he was too unsure of himself, yet in the second encounter when he was prepared to be aggressive, he won out.

I'm the same as well, I can never usually bring myself to throw a punch in a fight until I get hit, then I tend to go for it, but thats definitely a bad way to be, cos the first punch could be a KO punch.

It's definitely natural to try and avoid conflict as much as you can, but in some cases, this attitude is likely to get you seriously hurt, as hesitation can ultimately cost you valuable seconds where you could be defending yourself.

We agreed that the best way to be is to be able to emotionally seperate yourself from the situation and be able to respond. Just like flicking a switch. Ad is a good example of this, cos he can go from passive to aggressive instantly.

What are other peoples thoughts on the matter?

[superfoot]

If someone is lame enough to make me feel genuinely threatened, i have no hesistation in hitting them. I don't think it has much to do with aggresiveness, I guess you use that word because that's what wing chun seemingly is, an agressive, direct martial art. In wing chun we fight from what is said to be the "fighting distance" - chi sau range; so that is where i seek to be, because that is where i am comfortable and where my opponent is not.


It is not being aggressive to hit first, if someone is threatening you, it is logical. Iv found in the past I havent needed to get in an aggressive mindset, if anything i would think that to be a disadvantage, as you may seek to attack when there isn't an opening (only matters if you come up against someone who knows what they are doing). Instead i think it is better to just relax and let yourself react, get in more of a chi sau mindset. (This should be evident to anyone who has taken part in the 'role play' headgear training.) That is what works for me; in chi-sau, when there is a gap you fill it, you hit. It has nothing to do with being aggressive, its just the optimal approach.


I do think what youv said has some validity for certain people, although maybe it may be better to think of it in a different light. As you say im an example of this, but im not actually doing it. Im just using my wing chun, not aggression. Im always in control, taking a 'crocodile strike' approach, if there is an opening i take it, and dont stop til the fights over by using fan sau. To me this is a much more efficient way of fighting, than just using aggression; that is why i train.

It may just be a matter of semantics, but to me when you say aggression, I infer all-out-attack which i think is a bad approach. However, against unskilled oppoenents, it may be enough (if your daves and toms size), but against anyone who knows what they are doing or are stronger, you will have problems. If you cant bring your training to be useful in 'real life' scenarios, either your training wrong or your doing it wrong.

I guess it can be to do with personality too, but just think of it rationally, if some guy is trying/going to hit you, youd rather it be him on the floor instead of you.

GOGO more headgear training!

[rosenrot]

I do not think aggression should be the primary aim of a martial artist in a combat situation. Generally speaking when we adopt what you have described as an aggressive or angry attitude we lose the ability to think clearly. When this happens all your training will fall away and you will simply be left to defend yourself with animal instinct. This type of mindless violence can win fights, but since we spend our time training it seems pointless to accept this form of self-defence. Anyone who is any doubt about what I have said should try the headgear training sessions, you will realise what I mean. Once you let adrenaline take control, your anger prevails and your training is forgotten. I would consider my self a prime example of this, as I tend to stay calm for a couple of punches then let myself go. Sometimes I can win because I'm perhaps a bit bigger or stronger then some of the guys I've trained with, but that's not a gamble I want to take in reality. My aim is to try and remain as calm as possible, yet this does not mean I won't strike first, only that when I do I try to stay in control of myself so that I can think and act with clarity and precision. Such control is ludicrously difficult to achieve, but I feel the more headgear training we do the more I become immune to the adrenaline and can start to plan and control my fighting. I hope other people find this also.

Of course, as with martial arts themselves, different styles suit different people. I find even when thinking and fighting that anger forms as a product of contact with my opponent and I don't think I'll ever get rid of that. Furthermore, I don't think I necessarily want to either, as it can give me the will to carry on when taking punishment. However, what is important is to stay calm or in control of that aggression so that I can still think clearly. Other people may find that a different attitude aids them, but it is important that we each know what that attitude is otherwise when a real fight begins we'll be overtaken by either panic or anger (which are really the same thing, the latter being a product of the former).

I believe my old Aikido instructor had this down to a fine art. Aikido itself depends on a lack of aggression and flowing with your opponent, something very hard to achieve in a real situation. Yet with Bob (the instructor) he was always totally calm at all times and I can't imagine him ever getting angry even in a serious situation. Thus, he retains the ability to remember his training and retain the fluidity in movement that is lost if we give ourselves over to anger and aggression.

I think a good analogy would be teacher and his pupil. If the pupil does not understand the lesson the teacher has two paths to choose from. Firstly, he can become angry and shout at the pupil and chastise him for being slow. Such a reaction will prohibit any further learning for the pupil as the angry teacher cannot clearly explain the lesson again for him to understand correctly. On the other hand the teacher can choose to remain calm (even though he may feel exasperated) and slowly reiterate the point that the pupil does not understand. No matter how many questions the pupil asks the teacher can calmly respond to each one. The pupil is now able to learn from the teacher and the lesson is successful.

Overall, I would say we should aim for a state of mind where there is no switch between passive and aggressive, only between inactivity and controlled dynamism.

[Dan]

I agree with what has been said above. The headgear training is really good at helping you understands what makes you perform well and i have found it is staying calm. Then the adrenilin can be used productivly.

The different stages Tom calls a switch i think of as a cautious stage and an offensive stage. There are lots of annoying people in this world but you can't (or at least shouldn't) just hit them untill they represent a reall danger. but at the same time you dont want to wait untill its too late and you have been sucker punched even if it dosn't KO you it will be enough for them to get a second and then third hit in.... so for me and i think most people, the hard bit is knowing when to move from not wanting to hit them and staying safe (the cautious stage) and then deciding that violence is needed to solve the situation (the offensive stage). obviously if they thow a lame punch then moving from one stage to the other is easy, but if they are just being roudy of offensive then it is hard to know when to act so as to not act too late or too soon.

[dj]

I think there may have been a little confusion with regards to the semantics of toms article. Me and tom were not talking about aggressiveness as in attacking with anger or going with all out attack, or anything.

What we were simply sayng was that people have natural aversions to violence which makes it difficult to come to terms with the fact that using violence may be necessary to defend yourself in a situation.

We meant 'aggression' as in being prepared to use violence - being prepared to use wing chun (as Dan talks about in his reply).

Although we train at chi sao to be able to react instintively to attacks it seems that people's natural and irrational aversion to the use of violence can prevent them from applying what they've practiced.

We also agreed that Ad is a psycho and doesn't seem to have such an inhibitting aversion to violence, which probably explains his confusion

[Tom]

I think I should just clear up that what I meant by "aggressive" was just responding in a defensive manner as opposed to being in an aggressive mindset. I meant just being in a frame of mind where you are prepared to respond, as opposed to being intimidated or scared, not being in a sort of "ARGGH! I'M GONNA KILL YOU!" kind of mood.

[Tom]

oops, didnt read dave's post...

[superfoot]

ye after dan explained it, i realised i has misinterpreted what you had said. Still an interesting discussion at least!