In life as well as the military arts, the most important things to learn are the simplest things. If you have ever sparred with a martial artist before you will know that simplicity is the most difficult thing to learn. It is simplicity that makes a martial art deadly – not high-flying kicks or screaming ninjas.
But what is meant by simplest? It means the most common and most effective technique. For a fistfighter like me, it is the lead punch. You can bet your life a martial art is not legitimate if it does not place emphasis on the lead punch, or jab, or straight lead (with the exception of Judo, wrestling, and other ground arts). In fact, the lead punch is the essence of simplicity, and is the pinnacle of scientific striking accuracy and speed, developed over many centuries since the Olympics in Classical Greece. The jab is the backbone of boxing, there is no arguing around this. The straight thrust is the best friend of champion fencers like Aldo Nadi. The straight lead is, for Bruce Lee, the most simple, scientific and difficult punch to master. The list goes on and on.
The importance of the straight jab compared to the primitive swinging and haymakers mirrors the victory of the more precise thrusting weapon over the more flamboyant slashing weapon – for swordsmen, a good analogy might be the Western rapier over the broadsword, or the Chinese jian over the dao. Greg from Entering the Path will agree with me when I say that a significant constant between swordsmanship and unarmed combat is the importance of the scientific proof (fastest way from point A to point B is a straight line) and empirical evidence of a non-telegraphed and efficient jab that can be utilized in so many ways – including counterattack, combo set-up, defence, and feint.
In fact, there is a correlation. The more the popularity of straight lead punching declines, the more regression there is in martial artists’ overall fighting skill. Champion fighters James Driscoll and Jack Dempsey both complained bitterly of the state of British and American boxing when so-called swinging or haymaker punching was popular. The fact that it emulated bears’ clumsy but powerful movements meant to the combat-ignorant spectators that because it looks powerful, it must be powerful.
But in martial arts – and life – things are rarely so simple. A simple jab in the nose will stop a swinging brute dead in his tracks (unless he is drunk or on drugs). It will set your combos up perfectly. No fuss, no mess.
Good points.
I have been coaching fencing for over three years now and still find myself harping on perfection of the basics even with my more advanced students.
Most days I am reprimanding them for neglecting the basic straight lunge. . .which is the most effective attack, when done with proper timing and blade work.
But Alas, kids will be kids.
I’m technically a kid =(
When I was in high school wild haymakers/slashing movements of the arm were popular. Even the fencers would pick the sabre for its legal slashing. It’s a pity because slashing or swinging is always depicted as a winner in the movies and cartoons. This is because if you swing and hit, it’s guaranteed you’ll get swung and hit back. There’s no strategy behind it. People like to see a blood sport, not a one-sided fight where a smarter fighter is using the straight lead and proper combos to beat up a clumsy slasher.
Even in Sabre a wild swing is good way to loose a touch. It only gives your opponet more time to react.
Perhaps your right about the whole “blood sport” concept. I for on prefer to see skillfulness demonstrated. Although, I realize the untrained eye would not be able to spot this.