Footwork

Observe the footwork. Just observe it.

Now Observe this footwork.

What's the big difference? They are both bouncing. They are both inching their way to the attack. They both use first-strike and counter-strike methods. What's the deal, here?

The deal is the purpose of the bouncing. Bouncing does not make you a better fighter, or more agile. It DOES lock you into a predictable rhythm- this makes it possible for your opponent to gauge when you will be in the air and strike at that time, where you have only jump or flying attacks to utilize, at less power.

The purpose of the bouncing in the first clip is the kind that makes you light on your feet, and more mobile... but not more agile or effective.

The bouncing in the second clip is the kind that hides your footwork. When you use a proper bounce and stances you must retain your schooled footwork. How many steps are you taking, what kind? Where is your balance starting? Bouncing hides this fact. The drawback is that you are in the air 1/2 the time. If your opponent learns your rhythm and overcomes you by that, you need to stop bouncing. It's okay to do that, and you can still "win," if that is your goal. In a fight, bouncing can be dangerous due to the lack of rules on grappling. The footwork needs to be your principle concern in training. No bounce and learned footwork will beat out bounce with crazy footwork (by crazy I mean chaotic and undisciplined/uncontrolled). How do you secant the circle, dodge to counter, side step, switch in step, move in or out of range appropriately? Bouncing doesn't teach you that- it just looks athletic. Using a static stance- remaining on your toes, not on your heels!- can be more effective.

Bouncing right is a huge advantage. Don't get me wrong; it can increase your speed and hide telegraphs. Having said that: being in the right place and seen selectively is better than being unseen in all the wrong places at once.

Train hard. Train right.