Sure, let me try, I will make an assumption that you are coming from a MMA-ish background?
Originally Posted by debul937
Let me see if any of these examples would bridge the term usage...say someone has you in a reverse mount (excuse me in advance if I am not using terms correctly). This is a powerful positon, even if is seems not to be. You can control your opponent. Now, if I am not the top, I have to find a way to break the "structure" of this position to get out, because the sructure of the reverse mount is stronger than me being IN the reverse mount. So what can I do? I might wiggle a bit upwards forcing his ass into the air a bit and slam my hands into his pelvis to break the feet wrapped at my back then move my arm underneath the broken feet and escape the reverse mount.
Another common example is the mount position. Why is is so powerful? Why is a full mount SO hard to break out of, even if the guy on top is smaller than you? Because the position of mount is superior to NOT having a position of mount, with size and strength not playing a strong factor into is as the mount is STRUCTURALLY superior.
Ok, so let me try to move it to striking and what I study...
Our structure practice is not that much different from study of the "mount". As I am standing, what is the best structure at which i am stongest. Just as a person in a full mount is very hard to get out of, just as it is hard to move a person with great structure while standing. The principals are the same.
Now, IMA-ist have taken this to the extreme and say they are moving mystical energies around to "root" themselves. BAH! It is just the structure.
Now as far a BREAKING a person's structure...many of the things we practice are ways to imbalance the other's structure. A simple example would be if I shoved fingers into your face. You would lean your head back to avoid it, this would force your back to lean backwards, you no longer have any form in which to strike effectively, just as the person in the down position of a full mount cannot strike the person above with any force but the person on top can use AMAZING force on the person below.
Now, this is not to say to we practice putting fingers in eyes, cause well, that would be dumb. I am just trying to relate the concepts.
Does this help any?
EDIT : Cleaning poor typing
Last edited by dwhomp; 2/06/2007 1:03am at .
The not using pads thing is what I really want to know, and it seemed like his answer was that they "break the structure." Thats why I want to know that phrase in particular. No offense, but I don't need a breakdown of the whole style.
Ed- this was supposed to be above that last post. I type slowly.
Last edited by debul937; 2/06/2007 1:08am at .
I wasnt trying to provide you a breakdown, I was trying to use a common reference point.
Looks like I have failed.
I will go home with the other "LARPers" as you all refer?
Ok, I understand the structure thing, at least I think I do. So the reason you can't do some things full force is because that would require striking eyes, groin, or whatever other places people don't want to have struck? Am I close? I'm really trying here. I do appreciate you guys explaining this to me.
PS. I liked your descriptions of the different mount escapes. They made me laugh.
No no. You missed my edit. That post was supposed to be before your description. I typed that before I even read your explanation.
Originally Posted by dwhomp
Sorry, I am trying:) Again, I have very little knowledge of ground systems...
About the Full Force thing....
It isnt about striking the groin or that type of thing...
To prove you have your man beat, you are in the mounted position, do you need to slam him in the face with your fists, padded or not? No, you have proven you have the "win" or the like because you have the structure.
This is the same with us. I dont have to plow a guy in the ribs, from my superior structured position to "prove" I have it. I can use my body and strike to do a "push" instead of hurting.
Just as ground rollers might use slaps to get their point across. You get me into a mounted position, I will fight for a bit while being slapped by you. If I cant get out fast enough, you have proven your point.
Also in one of the other threads someone used the description of "anal about body movement" paraphrased...
This is not inaccurate if not eloquent. The differences in a few degrees of hip, if you stick your butt out too far, lean forward too far, step too wide, step too deep, back foot not placed properly, all affect the structure and make it weaker.
However with that said, we are taught that you will NEVER hit someone with perfect structure...it is a fight, you cant. But the idea is the same as other arts, the more you practice working your structure, the better it gets, the more natural it gets, the harder you hit. This is why many times time has an effect on skill, although not always.
This is where the notion of Tai Chi people studying for 20 years to fight comes from. While this is not true, it DOES take more time than other arts. It is very easy to learn movements. You could learn everything in Xing Yi in a few days really. But it is like chess, just cause you know how to move the pieces and know the rules, doesnt mean you are a good player. But this is not unique of course
Actually, at my gym, yes, but i think I get what you mean. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
to prove you have your man beat, you are in the mounted position, do you need to slam him in the face with your fists, padded or not?
Ok so then question back at you...
Why do you have to repeatedly hurt a training partner? Why would you WANT to?
This seems next to pointless and is sadistic/masochistic to me. It sounds like everyone wants to show how big their penis is or something.
I mean is it not obvious who has won?
Mount doesn't =victory
Originally Posted by dwhomp
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO