The Three Planes of Attack and Defense

Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Discussion' started by wanderingdaoist, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Aight, this is something I've had in the back of my mind for awhile and working on articulating it for a book, so here's the first draft. I have been teaching this theory for awhile, and it works, but all theories work under certain circumstances. I'd like any comments, refutles, questions etc. on it. This article, while I think it's valid and fairly decent, may have holes in it that I'm not aware of, so please, read it, analyze it, take it to bed with you, and by all means, experiment with it, try to find violations of the theories!

    so, here it is!

    The Three Planes of Attack/Defense in Martial Arts

    Pugilism is often regarded as both science and art. Bruce Lee coined his system ‘The Ultimate expression of the human body.’ Gongfu, Karate, Silat, Krav Maga, all different, but all fundamentally the same. With all the thousands of forms of fighting invented in the world, it’s easy to forget that they are all based off of the finite movements of the human body. Once this is understood, true understanding of martial arts can take place. This article is an attempt to break self-defense down into one very manageable concept; all attacks come via the three geometric planes, and thus can be countered using similar, if not identical methods (allowing for adaptation) depending on the plane of attack. The end result is one of maximum versatility using minimal tools.
    Too often, Martial Arts, and Martial Artists focus on accumulating techniques. Using a “If he throws a hook, I have this counter, if he throws a sword hand, I use this other counter” mind frame. This is inefficient and leads to what Bruce and other masters have referred to as ‘The Classical Mess’ and what Mixed Martial Artists simple refer to as ‘Traditional Martial Arts.’
    By the end of this Article it is the Authors hope that the reader will have a firmer understanding of the basic mechanics behind attack and defense, and will thus be able to maximize their personal effectiveness and develop their own repertoire. This theory is not specific to any style or martial art, it is based solely off of the human body and it’s relationship to the martial arts.


    Planes of the 3 dimensional world. (There would be a graphic here normally, but use your imagination!)

    Y-axis movements: Hammer fist, sword hand, uppercuts, rising elbow strikes.
    X-axis movement: Horizontal sword hand, back fist, Horizontal elbow strikes,
    palm slaps, ridge hand, sideways palm strikes, wushu-punches. Roundhouse kicks.
    Z-axis movements: Jab, Cross, Straight Punch, Palm heal, Finger jabs, pushes,
    Pulls, front kicks.


    First – Lets look at the Z and X-axis of movements, as these are probably the most common in all martial arts.

    Horizontal – This means forward and back, or from side to side. So this is broken down into two more parts.
    Z-axis – The Z-Axis is the ‘depth’ axis, meaning, coming closer or moving farther away, examples of this would be a Boxing Jab, a straight punch, a palm strike, a finger jab, etc.
    X-axis – This means from left to right, right to left, these techniques can move in arcs from left to right (or vice versa) or can be straight. An example of an arc x-axis technique would be a sword-hand or a ridge hand, and a boxer’s hook. A straight out x-axis attack would be a side-ways palm strike (out from the shoulder OR across the body), or a wushu-punch (not particularly effective.)

    And the Last Plane of Movement:

    Vertical – Y-axis Up and Down motions, these are fairly easy to understand. Think of the standard (if not somewhat cliché) ‘Karate CHOP!’

    Now that the planes of movement have been defined, directions of force must be discussed. For each of the three basic types of movement, you have two other subsets of mechanics, straight and circular.

    An old adage states that the quickest path between two points is a straight line. This holds true in martial arts as well. The boxers jab, a straight out snap of the fist, is one of the fighters’ most deadly weapons. Economy of motion is essential for Martial Arts and Self-Defense. The problem with straight motions is one of power; it is difficult to generate a large amount of force (in the beginning) using straight motions. Straight motions include straight kicks, jabs, crosses, palm strikes, finger jabs, pushes and pulls.

    Circular motions are on average more powerful and devastating, however, they often take longer to perform. Think about all those old ‘John Wayne’ movies, where the cowboy winds up for a haymaker punch. You know if that punch hits you it WILL hurt, A LOT. The problem is, the body needs to telegraph before the strike, so it’s often stopped before it reaches its target. Circular motions are devastatingly powerful, and if used wisely, are wonderful additions to the arsenal of any martial artist. Care should be taken when training circular attacks and defense to keep adequate guard and to use proper body mechanics to help with the execution and recovery times.

    This is all very logical, and most readers have probably come to similar conclusions (though perhaps have not articulated it as much as ‘felt’ it in their personal practices), the real work begins with how to respond to these techniques. All attacks in can be countered using a basic formula.

    Here is the formula:
    If Attacked with Z-Axis, foil with X-Axis
    If attacked with X-Axis foil with Z-Axis
    If Attacked with Y-Axis, foil with X-Axis

    To put it in a simpler form:
    X defeats Y and Z.
    Z defeats X.

    Now for an Elaboration using first, the Z-Axis attack.
    X Foils Z
    This can be done as a drill between two people squared up in any guard.
    1
    Partner A Throws a Right Straight Punch (Traveling along the Z-axis) towards Partner B.
    Partner B swings his right arm down across his body, up and outward while rotating his waist to the right, creating an X-axis sweeping block. Clearing the punch to his right side and opening A’s right gate to B’s left counter attack.
    --- This is a standard Wing Chun Response (Taun Sau against a straight punch) ---
    2
    Partner A Throws a Right Front Kick towards B’s Torso (Z-axis Straight Kick)
    Partner B Sweeps his right or left arm downward to push the kick to either side coupled with rotation of the waist.
    --- This is a standard response in almost any martial art ---

    These are two basic examples of how this theory applies to the Z-axis. Experimentation is key, notice how the same defense can be used against any upper body Z-axis attack, and the same with lower body attacks. Try throwing different strikes; jabs, crosses, palm strikes etc. and adapt the basic ‘Taun Sau’ to foil the attack. Do the same against front kicks and side kicks.

    X-Axis Attacks
    Z Foils X
    Against an X-Axis attack, best method of defense is a straight (Z-Axis) defense. Almost all X-Axis attacks follow a circular path. From a combat perspective, this is actually quite effective, as any object traveling along an arc will have two times the velocity it had when it began its path. However, this means that most X-axis movements are dependant on leverage as a source of power. Take away an opponents leverage and you foil the strike.

    1
    Partner A throws a right hook towards partner B’s head.
    Partner B extends his left hand straight forward and presses contacts Partner A’s right bicep, forcing through in a solid ‘push.’
    This technique is a perfect example of removing leverage from a popular strike. Again, experimentation is essential; try this against sword hands, back-fists, elbow strikes (horizontal sweeping, not rising.)
    2
    Partner A executes a right roundhouse towards Partner B’s Torso (or thigh)
    Partner B in a quick motion lunges straight forward, ‘through’ Partner A.
    Here the theory is fundamentally the same, A’s roundhouse’s leverage is removed by B displacing A’s center of gravity. B becomes the Hub, A becomes the wheel.

    --
    After exploring X-axis and Z-axis defensive techniques, Y-axis will be fairly natural. Thus this article will not elaborate upon the Y-axis except to say, this is the hardest to defend against because of the close range these attacks typically come in. Though, remember the formula and the techniques will evolve on their own.

    The purpose of this article is not to teach specific techniques, but rather to elaborate on theory that, while is universal to martial arts, has not to the authors knowledge been adequately explained or articulated in any academic fashion to date. This article is not the ‘ultimate’ guide, and there is no dogma involved stating that everyone must practice it this way.

    What’s important is to learn what works for the individual. It is the author’s belief that by using this theory, people will be able to analyze their own system and help their personal practice evolve by deepening their understanding of the nature of movement and force, which will in turn lead to an ‘evolution’ of each individuals personal style, and hopefully a heightening of skill.


    Sifu Nick Tallmon
    Fifth Generation Budizhen Gongfu

    ---

    I look forward to everyones analysis and criticisms.
     
  2. sliver

    sliver Work In Progress

    Well, not a bad start, but not quite complete or accurrate if you'll permit me to say. I'm going to use your nomenclature as it's good, and easy to follow for anyone who's done middle school geometry. For example, Y axis attacks (lets say a decending hammerfist) can easily also be countered by Y axis defenses (such as a rising forarm block, a staple of any Karate system). Trying to block a Y axis attack along the X plane actually is much harder as it relies on the defender to time the block or parry to meet the incoming attack at a single point rather than having what I call a line of closing (meaning it can meet the attack anywhere along a given line and still be effective). This being the case, X axis defenses aren't generally the best against Y axis attacks.

    Z axis attacks can also be countered by Y axis defenses. This is perhaps more commonly seen in Kung Fu styles than others. For example a pak sao in Wing Chun would be a Y axis defense as it smacks the incomming Z axis attack downward, but is in fact quite effective in defending against such attacks. Bong sao would be another example. In my style (Lung Ying) we use Kao Sao, another Y axis defense that employs the line of closing concept to counter Z axis attacks. One doesn't have to look too far for other examples of this.

    Defeating X axis attacks with Z axis defenses is not the only way, nor necessarily the most effective. The defense you use in the example can work, but it does require that you see the punch comming long before it lands. Usually with a hook this is not the case as it tends to move just outside your field of view, and come after other attacks that, effective or not have blinded or distracted you. Further, your hand has to travel all the way from it's on gaurd position and try to effectively intercept a very fast moving and powerful upperarm to stop the punch in the way you describe. This is going to be very dificult as the punch has a prety good head start by definition -attack has initive over defense (one beat), as well as the amount of time it takes the defender to recognize the attack (two beats) and react to it (three beats). This being the case, the most effective defenses MUST involve a shorter path of movement than the attack. Though in theory a straight line is faster than a circle, given the large head start of the circle in question (litteraly three beats ahead), and the dificulty of it's target, it's probably not nearly enough. A more common defense against this punch used in many arts would actually be classified as a Y axis defense- simply fold up the defending arm and raise it (Y axis) to the side of your head to absorb the shot on your arm rather than your jaw.

    Finally, this theory does not adequately address attacks that move along multiple planes at the same time. A shovel hook for example, moves just about equally along the X, Z and Y paths. Though these kinds of attacks are by no means impossible to stop, you should probably address them directly.

    I think you're going down a good path, but the theory as it stands now could use a little more work and polishing. Generalizing motions to planes of movement and away from specific techniques is likely a worth while teaching tool for your students. Good luck and I'm looking forward to reading how you refine this. Be well.
     
  3. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Ah, i'm not saying there is only one way to skin a cat. Of course Z can be countered by X or Y. This can be done by with all three. I'm simply speaking from an economy of motion, the idea of using less force to counter... Hence why I'm staying away from straight out 'blocks' in the references.

    I'm operating from a unified body theory, that one isn't disjointing their arms from directly in front of their torso (well, +-30 degrees, so still easily in peripheral vision), following principles of intrinsic strength and utilizing waist mechanics behind all their techniques, so that's flawed definitely on my end.

    A rising block against something like a hammer fist is a concussive block, causing as much damage to oneself as it does the attacker (unless of course you've conditioned your forearms, which is impractical for novices.) So I have to disagree with you on that point.

    This "line of closing" theory does have a place in mine as well, actually, that's part of the reason I'm stressing X-motion over Y, as your arms are more pliable from an X-axis block (downward, upward, outward, inward) and can articulate in any of their other directions with ease, thus allowing for someone to Stick/Adhere (TJQ style), apply jointlocks, launch into other attacks etc. Where as an Upward block would give you limited options.

    The Z-Axis countering X-Axis is an interesting dillema that I've thought about and explored in my personal practice, and to a limited extent with students. Against a boxers hook punch, it is definitely tricky, but no more tricky than countering via the Y-axis as you had mentioned. Raising ones elbow and exposing your flank is something to strongly be discouraged in my opinion. Furthermore, if one is in range to even be struck with a hook punch, then the forward motion of the hand to counter at the bicep isn't as slow as you might think, it's actually half way there usually anyway! Actually, as a note here - I have always been horribly suceptable to left-lead hooks, and this is the method I found worked best for me, so perhaps it's just my habit.

    Shovel hooks don't violate the theory at all, it is closer to an upper-cut/hook so you'd deal with it accordingly. The Z-motion could practically be ignored, since Z-motion is implied and doesn't add that much to the technique as the rising motion (Y-Axis) is the emphasis.

    All attacks utilize the three planes, you're right, some utilize more than one. But addressing them specifically puts everything back to the 'if they do this, then i have this move' mentality that i'm trying to stear away from. Using the theory, there is an acceptable defense against something as the shovel hook. As it's primarily Y-Motion (think of the point of impact) 'Sweeping' the arm away while turning the waist and stepping forward with the opposite leg counters the punch, and follows the X-axis movement of the strike, giving a good position from which to counter, throw etc. Allows you to stick to the strike, and forces the person to re-adjust.

    Anyway, there's my defenses for the lack of continuity, and you have some valid points, I'm considering them, but I don't at the present moment see the actual 'flaw' in it, so I'll have to think more on it. If you can articulate, given my responses, I'd appreciate it.
     
  4. sliver

    sliver Work In Progress

    Ok, let's see if I can help and be more clear.

    Perhaps not, but from the theory as it is written the implication seems to be this is the "right" way and others would either be wrong or less efficient. Not necessarily the case. We'll have to just disagree on the particular defenses you advocate as I don't think they are necessarily the best. Perhaps they work well for you, or are advocated in your system (we're naturally going to advocate what we're framilliar with), but other arts will definetly have a different take on things.



    Not necessarily. You're making the assumption here that the rising block basicly holds the forarm paralell to the ground. This isn't usually the case, as the forarm is more commonly held at something in the neighborhood of a 45 degree angle in most styles. This causes a decending blow to glance off and does produce significantly less trauma for the defender. Additionally, since you're writing this to be non-stlye specific I don't think you should rule out "hard" blocks as would be the case if the arm were meeting the incoming blow at a perpendicular angle, a few styles do advocate this.


    I guess we'll agree to disagree on this point. I would say you have just as many options from a rising block as you would from something else, and the rising block has a greater chance of successful defense than most other options.


    I've had a few people try this method against my hooks, and frankly it's never worked once. To date, this or something very similar has been attempted by a Wing Chunner, a Choi Li Fut player, a Lung Ying player and a Kempo man. Clearly, this is an idea that's been played with by many before. What's tended to happen is their hand, even if it makes contact with my bicept, tends to slip off or colapse as the motion of the hook continues. Once or twice it has managed to slow down my hook and make it less effective, but in either cases it left me with either an overhook or a perfect setup for a whizzer-not what you expect out of a reliable defenseive move.

    As for the defense I advocate, yes, it does in fact expose the flank, but so does yours, so it's about a wash there (opens the outer gate). You just can't keep everything covered at all times. However, the defense I advocate tends to launch after it's too late for the guy throwing the hook to change course, so I've yet to be heavily countered on it. You're right though, in theory it could happen. Be that all as it may, I'm not saying my way is the only way (even I have other methods), it was more just an example to illistrate a point. I think this area of the theory needs work more than any other, dealing with circular attacks, particularly fast snappy ones that occur at short range is no small task. Prety much every art has some amount of trouble with them.

    Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying shovel hooks violate the theory per se, but they are something of a special case. A shovel hook has substaintal X and Y axis motion, and needs to be handled differently than a simple uppercut or hook, as it can't be defended just like either one effectively.

    Most attacks move predominantly in one line as you've correctly mentioned before, and can be dealt with as such. What I'm saying is you should specificly address attacks that do move in more than one plane at a time- there aren't so many of them as might seem at first blush. You don't need to make a catalouge of what those attacks are, just adress what to do with attacks moving in multiple planes of motion.


    Good luck, hope this helps a little bit, and I hope you work this out. As I said before, it sounds like a good concept, but I think a few details need to be hammered out still. Be well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2006
  5. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Okay, I'll pause here and not form a rebuttle because this gives me some things to look at and experiment (both physically and literararily).

    Thanks Sliver.
     
  6. aml01_ph

    aml01_ph Urrgggh...

    Good thread wanderingtaoist. But adding to sliver's responses have you even considered the concepts of x vs. -x, y vs. -y, and z vs. -z?

    Sliver also makes a good point in saying that since we live in a 3D world there will be attacks that move in all 3 planes.

    An alternative concept I would suggest is to imagine yourself at the origin surrounded by a sphere crossing the axes at equidistant points from the origin. All avenues of attack and defense will be represented as segments extending from the origin to any point on the sphere. However realistically, there will be limits to the number of avenues you can take depending on which is your front and up (+ y,z using your reference frame) or back and down (-y,z). Another limit also will be whether you are latterally impaired (+x , -x).

    To say it simply. Any segment from the origin to any point of the sphere is an attack from you while a segment extending from any point of the sphere is an attack against you. Any defense would instantly imply that no segment ever connects with the origin.
     
  7. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Yes, I have cosidered the negative axis responses.

    The reason I'm attempting to stay away from them is one of simplicity. Too much leads leads to a cluttering which is fundamentally against the principles I'm trying to relate.

    The Sphere Idea is not a bad idea, and it's implied, as you said, that all attacks travel along the 3 planes. Fundamentally though, attacks coming towards the front of the attacker all fall into positive axis categories. Furthermore, combining axis as was illustrated in Slivers post, doesn't happen all that often (for effective attacking techniques I mean.)

    Lastly, Attacks originating from the defender are not discussed simply because it's beyond the scope of THIS segment of the theory. They will be addressed, but in a section discussing proper footwork.

    One of the biggest flaws, that I'm sure people are noticing with this now, is that I'm using WingChun/TJQ immovable elbow/relaxed strength principles as the building blocks for this theory. Both of these systems are sound, but it takes me away from the original purpose, which is to be devoid of 'style' as much as 'technique' in order to make it universally applicable.

    If one doesn't know or practice the principles of the immovable elbow, and relaxed strength, then the theory does seem very flawed at first glance. Sliver pointed that out with his 'upward' block suggestion which is frowned upon in the aforementioned styles.

    Again, a good suggestion, one I need to consider, but more importantly, I need to find a way to get the principles across without promoting one specific style's tools. More to meditate on.
     
  8. Ma Bu

    Ma Bu Valued Member

    wushu-punch

    What is a wushu punch and how can I perform it? Would like to know because I study shaolin kung fu.
     
  9. sliver

    sliver Work In Progress

    Keep us up to date on how the theory is comming WD, I know I'm looking forward to reading the update. I realize it's easy for us to all be a bunch of nay-sayers, but much harder to actually work out a solid theory!
     
  10. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Ma Bu - Wushu Punches are verticle fist punches that launch straight out to the side from the shoulder, they are not particularly safe or effective, in my humble opinion. People tend to straighten their elbow while doing them for 'look'.

    Gongfu is different than wushu.
     
  11. aml01_ph

    aml01_ph Urrgggh...

    Negative axis responses are the most simplest to understand. Meet force with equal or greater force in the same path. :confused:

    The path of a front snap kick already travels in two planes (z and -y relative to defender). A right hook also travels in two planes (-x and z). I could name more which is why I agree with Sliver.

    Just somethingto expound upon.
     
  12. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Okay - That reply seemed more argumentative than helpful, but I'll try to take what you said into consideration. I'm doing a major re-write, but I've not had time to work on it as I'm preparing to move up to beijing in a few weeks.

    Again, the sphere idea is solid, but in my mind it's too complicated for people still. negatives and positives are also irrelevant as much as they are implied, so adding extra information into the 'equation' just makes it more confusing for people.

    Simplicity and adaptability... those are the goals.

    how can a snap kick be -y? is it coming from under-ground?
     
  13. aml01_ph

    aml01_ph Urrgggh...

    Well I just imagined your cartesian cube in an empty space. Since a front snap kick comes from lower your waist I just imagined it as sourced from -y.
     
  14. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Ah, well, that does actually make sense... But I tend to think of the whole body at the point of origin... so -x and -z would apply but not -y.

    Thanks for clearing that up though.

    I'll have a repost in a week of something hopefully more agreeable to you guys (but still falling inline with my original intent)... still haven't had time to sit down and rewrite or even really flesh it out.

    Peace
     
  15. BlindClown

    BlindClown tinit

    That was a good thread
    very interesting ... when i read things like this i cant really see an effective side to all parts of theorys. i practice wing chun so simplicity and adapatablity is the main aspect.
    i know what you are trying to do
    write a theory which can be applied without little effort or thought .
    to put it simply if he throws left punch you use right block , if he throws right you use left.

    if only things were this simple lol . i dunno practicng wing chung makes me disgregard sum theorys and find them ineffective in comparisant to wing chun , guess this is a flaw within learning any MA.

    i once got told by my sifu that when u study a MA its hard to "empty that glass and re-fill it with knowledge of another art"

    i can only imagine tryin to write theorys like this so my congradts
    goes out to u and hopefully you will finish this and post full version for all to enjoy.

    Nice 1
     
  16. Hawke

    Hawke New Member

    I knew I should have paid more attention to my trig class :D

    I like at how your theory is shaping up and the replies by Sliver.

    Have you looked at Arnis, Kali, Escrima, Pakamut? The Filipino martial arts have an interesting way of dissecting angles of attack and coming up with counters and reversals.

    Looking forward to reading an update on your theory.
     
  17. Angelus

    Angelus Waiting for summer :D

    OOO I Gotta read up on that ... man i know i been taught this before lol but need a little refreshing on the theories.
     
  18. wanderingdaoist

    wanderingdaoist New Member

    Yeah, the filipino martial arts are solid in their angles, but they go to an extreme, some styles of kali/escrima/arnis have as many as 60+ angles... obviously a little more complicated than what i'm intending.

    I'm up in Beijing now, working out with a few foreign Mixed martil artists of varying disciplines, they're helping me hammer out the theory a little more, and i'm getting the opportunity to test it out against them as well...

    I'll have a repost in mid to end-march with pictures i reckon. It'll also be explaining how to use the angles in your footwork as well.

    Oh yeah, my z-defense against the hook is holding up pretty well sliver... but you're 100% right about the palm slipping off the bicep. But if you are moving in with your body (still z-axis, a step in), then it negates the punch and puts you in ideal 'clinching' range.

    Peace
     
  19. sliver

    sliver Work In Progress

    Interesting WD. Not sure how you're actually applying the step in as a text forum leaves much to the imagination, but it sounds mighty like you might be stepping inside the arc of the punch, and using the touching/pressing of the bicept as an additional layer of security. If this is the case, well, yes it works, it's a tried and true method from western boxing- slipping the hook. If it's something else I'll be very interested to see picture of it so I can get a better handle on how you're working it; could be useful!
     
  20. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Aikido attacks are broken into these same 3 categories.

    At first I didn't like it. I thought it was incomplete. In kali I was taught 5, 9, or 12 angles of attack, so I thought 3 couldn't be enough. Now I like it. Now I think these 3 are enough.

    Keep up the analysis. There's merit to the theory.
     

Share This Page