Video Critique

[Spork]

Hey all.

Had someone film some fights at our last practice, want to get some tips/advice from some of the great fighters here. I'm the guy on the right at the beginning in hakama w/ warbraids. And feel free to yell at me for throwing the high-cross a bit at first.

I fought for 2 years or so back in '06, then I took a bit of hiatus while I went to college for 2ish years. I've fought 20 or so times during that period. And recently the past 6 months I've been back on the wagon.

I'd love for you guys to beat me up at some events as well. I'll most likely be at Badon, EQ, and 'Fest and I'd like to learn as much as possible from all of you.

There is no audio in the video, so don't turn up your volume.


Thanks.

[Slagar]

Some preliminary thoughts, which I'll try to expand on later when I'm not working:

You should polish up a good shield side wrap. That dude's shield was horribly out of position, so a good hip wrap would have eaten him alive.

Stab more. I don't think I saw a single stab this video. Put tips on your weapons, and learn to love the pocket-stab/moulinet combo. It's golden.

Your guard is too high, and you shield block your sword side a lot. Sword hand at your navel, and keep that shield over to your other side where it belongs.

You hunch a bit too much. You look tall, so few people probably punish you for it often, but it'll lose you a lot of fights against anyone with a good high wrap.

That's what I've got for now. Given the amount of experience you claim, you're not doing bad at all dude. Good on ya for posting video for the board wolves.

Edit: You're 100% welcome to run me down at fest. Sideline sparring new blood is by far my favorite way to spend events.

[Spork]

Awesome, I really appreciate the response.

It's funny you say that about the wrap, that is usually my bread and butter up here. Timur, the guy I'm fighting, has been doing martial arts his entire life (Mostly Kali) and has taught a bunch of the fighters the same shield technique he uses. It's strange I didn't throw any during the sparring.

As for stabbing, it's something I've only been doing the past 3-4 months, but I actually throw a pocket stab a bit and one of my favorite's is the darkside (?) stab. Under the shield, into the sword/shield pocket of the opponent. I haven't had anyone really teach me the mechanics though, so I'm probably doing them terribly wrong.

The high wrap gets me every time, didn't notice the hunching till you pointed it out, thanks for this.

I'll definitely hit you up at 'Fest.

[Soo Ma Tai]

As to the hunching part. Almost every fighter I know does it. It's not good form, and creates body mechanics issues. (once the spine/waist is bent, throwing shots with power becomes much harder) Always keep you knees bent, pelvis tucked in (so you butt isn't sticking out), spine erect and head up.

[Solusar]

First thing I noticed is you pommel fight a lot. Choke up on that sword! Holding it a little lower on the handle for range is okay, but don't rely on it.
In the beginning you throw a sick pocket stab from your legs, keep doing that. Slagar's opinion about the stab feint/moulinet combo is golden advice. The other thing to learn is stab feint into a high shield side wrap. Practice that ****.
With smaller punch shields like those knowing an off side hip chop is good too. If nothing else you can cut that leg off and rape them on the ground. Don't be afraid to be a little more aggressive and get in their face. You're playing the range game and that's not helping when you're opponent is stationary.

[Spork]

Wow, awesome thanks for the info. I feel like this is one of the greatest services the board offers.

I'm a noob when it comes to a lot of fighting terms, what exactly is a moulinet? And how would I go about performing the stab feint/moulinet combo?

I have a hard time fighting in a closer range, is there anything that I can do to help that? I understand doing it more often will increase the skill level at that range, are there any particular combos that you guys have found effective in close quarters?

Thanks again for taking the time to watch and talk about it, I really appreciate it.

[Slagar]

The pocket-stab/moulinet combo is not a feint. That's a common misconception. The idea is that you throw a stab palm-down into your opponent's sword-side shoulder pocket. When johnny noob reflexively shoves his shield over to block (which is really like 95% of fighters, frequently including me), you roll the momentum of your shot back up and over their head into a shoulder chop on their now exposed shield side shoulder. For extra goodness, step in during the moulinet and throw a high wrap instead of a chop. Make sure to use good body mechanics when generating power for the second shot or it will be light every time. Also try not to clip them in the dome during the moulinet. Moulinet is the term for the wrist-guided momentum-driven circular motion used to take the sword from their sword-side on over to their shield-side before you throw the shot.


Fighting at closer range gets exponentially easier when you learn to reflexively sword block. People will quit being able to wrap your shield side when you quit moving your shield and letting them. Also, settle your footwork down, and sink into a lower stance with your hips, while keeping your back straight. That'll help reduce the angles your opponent can take.

Hope this helps.

[Solusar]

I guess it's a little different for you being left handed Slagar. I throw the stab as a misdirection so they open up for the moulinet, which will hit their sword shoulder, chest or arm. I also fake the stab and just chop their shield shoulder as a slightly different shot. You just explain it way better then me. I however rely on an overblock with their sword to land the moulinet. It's also super effective in single blue fighting.
I do concur 100% with your footwork assessment though. Focus a little more and hop around less.
To get used to grinding in close, I would say every time you square off with someone, take one or two steps closer then you normally are and get comfortable at that range. Just keep doing that until you're in their grill stabbing their guts.

[Big King Jimmy]

Slagar, you just claimed it wasn't a feint, then described it as a shot, you don't really hit with, in order to get someone to open up their defenses.


Sir.... I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Soo Ma Tai]

The best Feint is one that ~will~ hit if it is not blocked. It may not hit with force, as the intent is a fake, but the fake must be good enough to trick the opponent. When fighting against an experienced opponent, the best way to do this is to throw the feint in a way that it would actually hit if no action is taken by the defender.

[Big King Jimmy]

And you know, just stab the dog * out of them if they DON'T react to it. I get it, it's still a feint, not not a feint.

[Spork]

Thanks, Slagar. Definitely a helpful description.

Solusar, will you be at Badon?

Thanks again, all. I hope to meet some of you in person.

[Phlebas]

In fencing terminology, a feint is a simulation of an offensive or defensive action, so it doesn't actually finish. Feint a stab, finish with moulinet = a compound attack (attack preceded by one or more feints or attacks on the blade). If you finish an attack, but intended from the start for it to blocked and to hit with a second shot, that's called a second intention attack. If you start a stab, intending to finish or moulinet depending on your opponent's response, that's what we usually call an open eyes action. The timing and distance setup is slightly different for all three.

[Peanut of Loderia]

You seem to move a lot. I dont know if you're doing fora reason, or just bouncing around for the hell of it.If you're jsut bouncing, stop.

Your shield moves a lot. I get it, its a punch. But if you get faked you're boned. Keep that tight.

Also the fake pocket stab to a "moulinet" (torque) doesnt work for me. Being short and all.

Side note: Your buddy fight a bit like an SCA fighter.

[Solusar]

Thanks, Slagar. Definitely a helpful description.

Solusar, will you be at Badon?

Thanks again, all. I hope to meet some of you in person.

....maybe. If I do go I'll hunt you down.

[Dane]

1. Slouching
2. Guard's too high
3. Feet square too often
4. Lay off the high cross
5. Your right hand is on the right side of your body. As such, it should tend to be on the right side of the left hand. Notice how often your hands switch places. If you want your shield to guard your right side while your sword attacks from your left, fight left handed.
6. It doesn't look like Timur's the sort of fighter to abuse you for silly things like jumping high crosses. You'll need to consciously work those out of your routine.
7. More side to side, please. You do a fair job of circling your opponent, but when you start throwing shots, you tend to stay right on his center.
8. When your opponent is legged, he can't maneuver his body or his guard away from you. As such, instead of poking and trying to get him to mess up, step in and force him over or create a bind; both are easy kills.
9. You're straight-arming your hip wrap and not stepping into it at all. Step in and "scoop" the wrap and the shot will better threaten the opponent.
10. It's a punch shield. Try punching with it. The point of a punch shield is not to throw it across your body to fix your mistakes; it's to move it farther away from your body to cut off shot angles and foul up your opponent's attacks. Do that.
11. In addition to being too high, your guard's too chambered. Subtle tip feints are pretty much impossible from that position. Loosen up and present your sword as an obstacle to be overcome.
12. Timur will telegraph everything he does with that guard.I understand its use in SCA where visibility plays a big part in the fight, but that's not us so much. As it is, he's got about three shots he can throw from that position and about zero setup opportunities.

[Remdawg Killionaire]

I'm no hot-shot big player or anything... Even so, I'd suggest learning to fight left-handed. It's like easy-mode. I like to get in close, grinding most especially when my opponent is on a knee and having the versatility to switch hands has served me well. I mainly fight flo, but punch shields are great for switching hands, tho I'd never suggest it when you're throwing stick super fast and hard to win (that second could cost you the fight, or win it). Also, if your sword arm is taken, then you can fight lefty without looking like a dork; also it will help you glean how to fight lefties
I dunno, I'm just strongly adamant about teaching people to use their off-hands. I'm pretty sure the local University group hates me because I so loudly lauded the benifits of doing such, so I hope you can forgive my vehemence. Also, if you're just starting up again, it's the perfect time. I was in the same boat, with having to take a year and a half off because of work and lack of a realm, and so I've taught myself to step out of my comfort zone, and have managed to leave a lot of my bad habits behind, thank god.
So sorry if this at all sounds like me rambling about myself; I also posted a video of my fighting, my return to fighting really, and was able to improve my game immensly from the tips, advice and genius of those who deigned to help out a perma-nubstain such as myself. Post a follow-up video and let's see how you improve!
Cheers, and welcome back(I guess)! lml

[Spork]

1. Slouching
2. Guard's too high
3. Feet square too often
4. Lay off the high cross
5. Your right hand is on the right side of your body. As such, it should tend to be on the right side of the left hand. Notice how often your hands switch places. If you want your shield to guard your right side while your sword attacks from your left, fight left handed.
6. It doesn't look like Timur's the sort of fighter to abuse you for silly things like jumping high crosses. You'll need to consciously work those out of your routine.
7. More side to side, please. You do a fair job of circling your opponent, but when you start throwing shots, you tend to stay right on his center.
8. When your opponent is legged, he can't maneuver his body or his guard away from you. As such, instead of poking and trying to get him to mess up, step in and force him over or create a bind; both are easy kills.
9. You're straight-arming your hip wrap and not stepping into it at all. Step in and "scoop" the wrap and the shot will better threaten the opponent.
10. It's a punch shield. Try punching with it. The point of a punch shield is not to throw it across your body to fix your mistakes; it's to move it farther away from your body to cut off shot angles and foul up your opponent's attacks. Do that.
11. In addition to being too high, your guard's too chambered. Subtle tip feints are pretty much impossible from that position. Loosen up and present your sword as an obstacle to be overcome.
12. Timur will telegraph everything he does with that guard.I understand its use in SCA where visibility plays a big part in the fight, but that's not us so much. As it is, he's got about three shots he can throw from that position and about zero setup opportunities.

Dude, this is great! Thank you very much. I'll definitely try this stuffs out. It sucks not having people like you guys out here in NYC. But, if you're ever on vacation feel free to hit me up if you have some free time. I have lots of gear.

When I first started, combat was almost a second-thought, but now that I've "grown up" a bit, it's something I'm definitely interested in. I've probably created a lot of sloppy habits since I didn't pay much attention to this stuff and I'm really appreciative of you guys pointing them out now.

And thanks Remy, I actually fought a few battles today left-handed. I've been doing florentine a lot recently to work on my footwork. I'd love to get good at some lefty-fu action, but I feel like a retard out there swinging when I fight left-handed. I sack up and keep trying, which is fun.

I have another video from this day, I feel like it's a better representation only because I get a little camera-weird when I know it's filming. I'll post it up shortly and you guys can tear me apart again.

Thanks again.

[Spork]

I'm guessing I'm doing the same problems here, just less high-crosses. I use a much shorter sword in this one. This is all the same day.

[Arrakis]

Spork, if you ever take the train up to New Haven, I can drive down from Storrs and we can spar for a few hours. I'll bring the gear, but I don't currently have a round punch.

I'll let you know if I'm going to Badon. When is it this year?

[Spork]

That'd be awesome, Arrakis. I'll fight with anything laying around, just usually happens to be sword and board.

Here is the information on Badon: http://www.dagorhir.com/forums/index.php?topic=23097.0

We need to get Belegarth here on the East Coast.

[Slagar]

To clarify, when using the pocket stab moulinet combo, if they have their sword out of position and neglect to move their shield to acommodate the moulinet, just put the stab through them. If they block with their shield, the moulinet is what you use to transition from the shot you were originally throwing. I don't consider the stab a feint, I fully intend to kill you with it if you'll let me.

[Remdawg Killionaire]

I find that all my good feints are really just me trying to get a shot to connect, then fluidly changing to something else that the previous shot opened up(but was unable to connect). I might have a set combo in mind, but I always try to get the first shot to hit if at all possible. My favorite is a 'statue of liberty' feint to a pump-stab to the kidneys, followed by a shoulder chop, hip wrap or * stab. That's about the only time I truly feint, by waving my sword in their upper-hemisphere, trying to distract/break their vision. Very fun florentine combo.

[Dane]

I might have a set combo in mind, but I always try to get the first shot to hit if at all possible.

This notion disappears at the higher levels of fighting.

[Big King Jimmy]

Higher level technical fighting, to be specific. Where fighting just really becomes live action chess.

[Brennon EH]

I might have a set combo in mind, but I always try to get the first shot to hit if at all possible.

This notion disappears at the higher levels of fighting.

It depends. No matter how good you are, everybody misses a trick now and again. The frequency goes down, but it still happens.

It's worth taking the easy, obvious shots when they present themselves. Throw them safely, don't bank on them, and protect yourself with positioning, timing, and footwork. Part of being a top-tier fighter is that you can defend yourself without needing to use your sword, meaning you reach a point where you can exploit openings that aren't frequently targeted because it would be suicide.

This is especially true if you're playing the long game on somebody as opposed to just trying to beat them right then. Beating somebody long term is a different style than trying to beat somebody right now. If I'm trying to kill a guy quickly and I'm not worried about him I'll just throw a few standard openers and move on; He doesn't merit analysis, so why bother actually fighting him? If I'm trying to analyse somebody I'm less concerned about winning. In fact, I might not be trying to win at all right then. I'm trying different things, seeing how he reacts, and learning his habits. Giving him chances to throw shots on me, watching his movement, tells, and fakes. That person is worth fighting long term, so I'll sacrifice winning right now for a good understanding of the fighter that will allow me to dominate them in the long run.

In cases like that, I'll definitely throw for obvious openings. I'll try just about everything once, and most things two or three times. So the guy kills me in the ditch? Who cares? Am I worried about losing one fight or in improving as a fighter?

When you get two really top tier fighters beating on each other is when you see the chess games. If I'm fighting Lief you see us doing a lot of positioning and experimenting with our stances, leaving baits, and playing with range. We don't throw a lot of shots. When we do throw a shot, it's really likely to hit. We've put so much analysis into our movements that we've dialed into that 'sure thing' and forced the other person off-balance or flat-footed. We've disguised our range or timed their advance. Once the shots start flying it's a brutal and close exchange that ends up with one or both of us exiting with wounds; though not typically dead. We can't generally kill each other on the first exchange. In those fights we are literally redefining out fighting styles on the fly and adjusting them to keep our opponents off-balance. Novelty is as important as anything else, since if we've seen it even once before we can counter it. It's this rolling re-invention that really makes things interesting.

Anyway, I digress. The point is that it's okay to take easy, obvious shots sometimes. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Either way, you've got more information for next time.

[Remdawg Killionaire]

Cool. I never thought about it like that. And even tho I am not a 'top-tier' fighter(and would never say as much) I still try very hard to be the best that I can be; analyzing each fight in your mind(or camera) after a fight is essential to bettering yourself. If you can Spork, I would suggest fighting 2v1 and 3v1 as much as you can stomach.

[Phlebas]

Usually high level second intention is done with the first attack to a low percentage, safer shot, usually a long range shot to the arm. if it doesn't hit or is blocked, your opponent has to take another step or lean to riposte to the torso, which creates the time to make a second shot possible. If you complete an attack to the torso that your opponent blocks, but are able to hit them before they riposte, your opponent is not very well trained or confused or something else is going on.

Feints are most effective at the critical point as you are transitioning into close range. From medium range, there's time for multiple feints before a shot hits. From close range, while you're feinting your opponent is probably just hitting you. depending on all the other situational stuff and setup.

[Brennon EH]

Usually high level second intention is done with the first attack to a low percentage, safer shot, usually a long range shot to the arm. if it doesn't hit or is blocked, your opponent has to take another step or lean to riposte to the torso, which creates the time to make a second shot possible.

Assuming they riposte to the torso, yes. Most people will throw to whatever is closest, however. So if you're just in range to throw to their arm, they will riposte to your arm.

A 'safe' shot doesn't mean there is no risk (unless you've got some massive range advantage on your opponent) but it does mean you're not committing to a do-or-die scenario. Even just a throw-away shot to the hand carries some amount of risk. I've hit a lot of people in the forearm after they throw a feeling-out shot to my hand.

If you complete an attack to the torso that your opponent blocks, but are able to hit them before they riposte, your opponent is not very well trained or confused or something else is going on.

Maybe, maybe not. A classic example of this is when you throw a low straight stab to your opponents midline while you're same handed. Many people will over-block the shot, causing their guard to come too far in and exposing their shoulder. If you're aware that this may happen, you can prepare for it. As soon as their block starts to push out your stab, you break your wrist, circle your sword up, and chop down on their exposed shoulder. That's an example of what I mean when I say 'a good feint that is ignored should be a real shot'; if I know they react that way consistently I can throw the low stab and be prepared to circle out to the shoulder chop. If they don't go for the block, I carry on with the stab.

A feint is just a way of controlling a fight. There are some feints which never translate into shots (a stutter, for instance) but a lot of those just don't work on high-end fighters.

Feints are most effective at the critical point as you are transitioning into close range.

Different feints are effective at different ranges. I'm not a range fighter (my swords run about 34") but I do my fighting primarily with range. Controlling the range, and having options at every range, is part of that. I have feints and baits I can use when we are both out of range all the way down to options at shield-pressing distance. I find the primary difference is in the amount of room for error you have. The further out you are, the more room for error you tend to have in terms of recovering from a feint or a shot that moved you out of position. At very close range the margin for error tends to be very small.

From medium range, there's time for multiple feints before a shot hits. From close range, while you're feinting your opponent is probably just hitting you. depending on all the other situational stuff and setup.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Throwing a lot of feints at medium range is likely to get you timed out and hit by a competent fighter. At close range, your window is definitely smaller but feints (and fight control in general) are still extremely important.

[Phlebas]

Assuming they riposte to the torso, yes. Most people will throw to whatever is closest, however. So if you're just in range to throw to their arm, they will riposte to your arm.

More setup and details. you can, say, cut to the inside of the arm, and then leave your blade in a opposition position so the fastest arm cut is not possible, giving you that time back if they change lines. Or, you can make your continuation with a redoublement (another step closer) so whatever shot they make gets stuffed.

Everything has a risk. hmm. so. There are two levels to combat sports- there's the mental game and the baseline, physical reality. For example, medium and long range feints are totally possible, but they're about setting up the mental situation. It's about choices and setups. But there is also a baseline, physical reality. There is a distance and position at which it is physical not possible to parry. The time it takes the blade to travel to the target is less than the time it takes for the visual stimuli to trigger the reaction and the block to arrive. This is where the idea of "action beats reaction" comes from- action time for the attacker being < reflex + action of the defender. Generally, this is true at close range, depending on various setup factors. It is generally NOT true at medium range- the time it takes to step and cut is greater than the time it takes register the attack and move to block. Somewhere along the line between those two positions is a critical point- the point at which it becomes biologically impossible to start a block. So when I say that feints are most effective, what I mean is that they are closer to that critical point. They are butting right up against that hard, physical reality where it becomes impossible to block. The idea of recovering from a feint is possible with mental-type feints, but not feints at the critical point.

What is usually meant by "high level" is full speed through trained, efficient paths. Any sort of conscious decision process becomes way too slow. You've prepped your brain, your reactions are trained, and once you get in close, you're gonna do what you're gonna do.

If you slow down enough that you can make a decision to finish or not finish, you have to move further away from that critical point. Instead of getting into that hard physical reality, you're playing more of a mental game. That works at all levels from medium distance or further back, but at closer distance, it only works if your opponent is playing too. If they're more of a more pure physical speed mindset, it fails. So that's (maybe) why Dane is saying that goes away at a higher level- it's far more uncertain are harder to pull off the faster and more trained the opponent.

When I say that at medium range, there is time for multiple feints, what I mean is that there is, physically, time to do them. There is, physically, moving at top speed, (depending on various other factors, etc) time to do two feints (not "a lot of feints") as you attack from medium distance. and on the other side, the same. during an attack from medium distance, at top speed, there is generally extra time for the defender beyond the stimulus-response and action. So the defender could, for example, feint a counterattack and still be able to parry. Or feint a parry in a different line before closing the one the actual attack is coming on. Or sit and do nothing.

Stutters are OODA loop misdirects- those are a different class of action, designed to sabotage the opponent's reaction cycle. Feints can do that, but are more about forcing the opponent to choose. The better the opponent, the less OODA loops tricks work, because instead of getting tied up they recognize the error and immediately act.

[Brennon EH]

More setup and details. you can, say, cut to the inside of the arm, and then leave your blade in a opposition position so the fastest arm cut is not possible, giving you that time back if they change lines. Or, you can make your continuation with a redoublement (another step closer) so whatever shot they make gets stuffed.

Sure, those are valid. The point is that you shouldn't assume your opponent will take a path that is sub-optimal. You need to understand their likely behavior and set yourself up for that. In this case, you should return your sword to a denial guard after throwing for the arm (at long range). It invites their likely reaction (an arm shot), sets you up for an excellent block/riposte combo, and is a strong defense against their less likely response (torso shot) by sweeping the guard up.

medium and long range feints are totally possible, but they're about setting up the mental situation.

They could be, yeah. But it's also possible to combine feints with footwork to close distance and turn something that wasn't viable into a kill. If I feint a board guy into blocking his sword side with his shield while I step diagonal into his board side, I've got a nice wrap to the hip. I frequently start this from just outside of threat range.

There is a distance and position at which it is physical not possible to parry. The time it takes the blade to travel to the target is less than the time it takes for the visual stimuli to trigger the reaction and the block to arrive. This is where the idea of "action beats reaction" comes from- action time for the attacker being < reflex + action of the defender. Generally, this is true at close range, depending on various setup factors. It is generally NOT true at medium range- the time it takes to step and cut is greater than the time it takes register the attack and move to block. Somewhere along the line between those two positions is a critical point- the point at which it becomes biologically impossible to start a block.

As far as your analysis goes, it's solid. The problem is that you're missing a big chunk of what top-tier fighters do: Reading and prediction. As with many other sports, response time and reflexes are only part of it. My personal reflexes are actually pretty poor, but I'm excellent at reading what somebody is about to do from their body positioning, body language, and behavior. I actually start counters, blocks, and shots before my opponent begins moving. If you're fighting me it appears I've got incredibly, impossibly fast reflexes and hand speed. In reality, I'm just out-thinking and predicting you.

In that sense, even if a block isn't biologically possible to make, I can still make it. I'm creating extra time on the front end.

What is usually meant by "high level" is full speed through trained, efficient paths. Any sort of conscious decision process becomes way too slow. You've prepped your brain, your reactions are trained, and once you get in close, you're gonna do what you're gonna do.

Hmm... I've certainly drilled my responses thoroughly enough that I don't have to consider the physical actions individually, but my brain is fully capable of responding to a change of plans or a new threat on the fly and getting my body to react in time. Again, some of that is reading and predicting, but some of it is straight-up responding in time. I see a pattern and respond to it.

Stutters are OODA loop misdirects- those are a different class of action, designed to sabotage the opponent's reaction cycle. Feints can do that, but are more about forcing the opponent to choose. The better the opponent, the less OODA loops tricks work, because instead of getting tied up they recognize the error and immediately act.

It's not strictly true that stutters and similar tricks work better on lower end fighters. Fighting isn't a linear scale in terms of reacting 'right' to different stimuli. A classic example being that it's often hard to use feints or stutters on new fighters because they don't have the 'proper' responses to exploit. 'Better' fighters are often easier to beat than new players simply because they are more predictable. If I'm fighting a new player, my ability to read, predict, analyze, and control takes a hit. I have to fight them differently; tighten up the defense, press until they throw, and then hit them in their (many) natural openings. It's entirely different than fighting a competent player or a top-tier player. The common term for it is 'taking out the trash'. It's just a task you do with a bunch of pre-set motions rather than something actually interesting.

[Phlebas]

As far as your analysis goes, it's solid. The problem is that you're missing a big chunk of what top-tier fighters do: Reading and prediction.

Not missing it- that's what my original reply was entirely about. Three different actions, with the difference being exactly how much reading and prediction is being done. The "best" compound attack (using a feint) relies on knowing your opponent will parry and when, and so can be done at full speed. A second intention attack can be done knowing what your opponent will do, but not exactly when, since you don't care if their parry succeeds or not. So those both rely on prediction and not reflexes (on the part of the attacker). An open eyes attack, on the other hand, has a decision point where somewhere along the line you are deciding whether the feint becomes a real attack or if it is going to disengage to another line. Good reading skills matter here, but not prediction - if you could read or predict before you started, it would not be an open eyes attack.

In that sense, even if a block isn't biologically possible to make, I can still make it. I'm creating extra time on the front end.

So there's sort of a different situation. If I've got a tell that you can recognize to know ahead of time, yeah, you can make that block. But if my feints are indistinguishable from my attacks - right up to the critical point - then you can make the block... 50% of the time. But you're guessing. That's what feints should do- they should FORCE the defender to make a choice without certainty. Whoever is committing before that critical point gives the other person more opportunity to make an informed choice. If I can make my attack so the feint is at the critical point, but after that I could hit three different targets, then my success rate goes up to 66% if we're both picking randomly. If I can make my attack so that I can read your parry and attack the opening line, my success rate goes to %100 if I can get to that situation. Which means the game changes to the defender not letting that situation start.

This is how things sort of shake out when you fight with someone repeatedly- you go down one tactical path, each person tries this and that, eventually it tends to settle down. If there are more bad endings than good down that tactical path, you try to avoid it. You get some tactical paths mapped out to where you can get more favorable than unfavorable endings, you get a school or a style. Generally the paths they haven't mapped are viewed as mistakes because they only see unfavorable outcomes. thus, for example, striking arts ("The ground is the last place you want to be") vs. grappling arts ("Every fight goes to the ground, that's where you want to be able to end it."). and the guy who knows both is just like, "well... it depends."

anyway. this all matters because, if you're going to talk about fighting tactics and techniques, it's helpful to be able to differentiate between the hard, physical reality of specific techniques and the increasingly probabilistic mental ones. You can talk about the physical realities of a very specific situation, and it either works or it doesn't because of this detail or it won't work if you don't do this, and then it gets more specific and better. but if you say, well, if they do [thing that is not in the specific situation], so that's dumb, then the conversation crashes, because you can do that indefinitely. And then you can get a little cluster of options, if you do X, then A, B, C. and if you point out that there is another option, D, that maps things out better. or that B is not actually a viable response because of [physical reality]. and if you say, also D happens, and B is not viable because of [physical reality], C and D are unfavorable, so this branch is not looking good. but if you say, that whole branch is dumb, this branch is better, then you're basically just talking style wars and that is not helpful. generalizations ("Most people do this, so I do this") are heavily style and experienced based and don't transfer without a lot of translation. but ("I've seen a lot of people do X- the first sign of their doing it is this") is closer to the physical level, ("and when I see it, I do this"), is a conversation of options A, B, C.

and but (this was the initial thing i started with, way back when), if you don't have any agreement on physical realities, and the same word used by different people has totally different meanings, then none of the conversations really mean that much and it's like ¯\(º_o)/¯

I've certainly drilled my responses thoroughly enough that I don't have to consider the physical actions individually, but my brain is fully capable of responding to a change of plans or a new threat on the fly and getting my body to react in time. Again, some of that is reading and predicting, but some of it is straight-up responding in time. I see a pattern and respond to it.

My maestro told me there's two different kind of reactions. One is where there's a stimulus, and then you respond. Usually like 10-60 milliseconds. The other is where there's a stimulus, and then you have to make a choice. And that's like 120-200 milliseconds. So what I meant by conscious decision process is never having to make that second kind of response. You can see and respond, but never have to decide. and then it gets even tighter when you can read ahead of time. So instead of being:
act - see cues - act again
it goes to
act and during action, see cue - act again and during action, see cue

so it flows continuously and at high speed.

It's not strictly true that stutters and similar tricks work better on lower end fighters. Fighting isn't a linear scale in terms of reacting 'right' to different stimuli. A classic example being that it's often hard to use feints or stutters on new fighters because they don't have the 'proper' responses to exploit.

My point is that feints and stutters can use two entirely different mechanics to function. OODA loop tricks are about making people fail to complete their loop somehow. Usually because they can't make the right response to a stimulus or their response is no good. Better fighters are more familiar with a wide variety of stimuli, so they are more likely to have an immediate response, and usually develop a shortcut response to do something anyway when their loop gets messed with.

my interpretation of stutter:
Stutter: Like the freeze, except you initiate it. You start moving, the opponent sees the movement, interprets it correctly, begins their reaction, you stop moving, the opponent sees the stop and starts trying to abort their reaction, you restart the motion, they're still trying to stop, etc. Basically compounds the idea of "action beats reaction", messes them around until you're well ahead. Depends on the opponent reacting in a way that they can recognize as nonoptimal- for example, moving the blade to block, when they realize that doing so would create an opening. If they don't recognize a problem, or if the reaction is safe no matter what (retreating instead of blocking, for example), stuttering doesn't work. Opponents who have been trained that there is one correct on-guard position that they should always be in are particularly susceptible to this.