Today we did many rounds of progressively heavier timing, we really need to settle down. Anyway I noticed many people waiting for me to do something and I think this is a mistake. We all have a game/strategy/plan and we have to apply it, if it works great, if not we adapt, but in the final analysis we must act. In ancient Japan when two samurai dueled, the warriors knew one of three things was going to happen (a) warrior A would win killing warrior B, (b) warrior B would emerge victorious killing warrior A, or (c) both warriors would kill each other. Action might get you killed, inaction certainly would. In combat sports there is a parallel, at any moment of time:
- You attack, provoking defense (action)
- You must defend an attack (reaction)
- Both hold and wait (non-action)
- Both attack (action)
I think action provoking reaction is easier than starting with reaction. I initiate and I can create a response versus having to respond or accept an offense. However we must have reaction in any altercation lasting longer than a few seconds, both sides will be aggressive at some point. Non-action is the time when movement may occur but no contact occurs, it is the time when the ebb and flow of the fight can change without a blow exchanged. It is also the initiator of the next segment of action and reaction.
We also discussed movement. At the most basic level combatants are one dimensional, they work on a line, until one prevails. As fighters improve they become two dimensional and work on circling, but lose much of the in-and-out, instead working on one another in the dangerous "no man's land" between the safer ranges being really near or really far from one another. At a higher level fighters increase their versatility either using an oscillating circle (baiting and drawing their opponent) or a spiral pattern (circling while cutting or expanding the range). At all levels movement is offensive and defensive, but the level of efficiency is vastly different.