# Advanced Techniques



## ShortBridge (Jun 11, 2019)

Something that I started saying a few years ago and I finally wrote down (on a chalkboard at my kwoon):

*Advanced Techniques are:
1) Difficult -or-
2) Dangerous (to you) -or-
3) Dangerous (to someone else) -or-
4) Break some of the rules or defy some of the system's basic/intermediate principles -or-
5) Some combination of the above*

So, it stands to reason, based on #4 that advanced techniques in one system could be beginner or intermediate techniques in another system. If you are a free-form, collector-of-techniques-as-a-style type of practitioner, I don't think this applies to you. 

For the rest of you, regardless of what system you teach or train in, what are your thoughts?


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 11, 2019)

Advanced techniques are the basics mastered...


----------



## Martial D (Jun 11, 2019)

Advanced techniques are the ones you can land regularly, without getting creamed yourself. 

It's not the quality of the knife that makes the chef and all that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 11, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Advanced techniques are the ones you can land regularly, without getting creamed yourself.
> 
> It's not the quality of the knife that makes the chef and all that.


That seems like a definition of foundational techniques, or go-to techniques, or reliable techniques. What makes them more advanced?


----------



## yak sao (Jun 11, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> * Break some of the rules or defy some of the system's basic/intermediate principles *



Reminds me of the saying, "_ the young man knows the rules, the old man knows the exceptions".
_
I don't  think it's as much advanced techniques, as it is advanced _technique.
_
The movements, or techniques of wing chun are all laid out in front of us almost from the beginning.
What sets the advanced practitioner apart from the novice is not because the advanced practitioner is doing some technique not yet learned,by the novice, but he has better technique, that is, the way he performs the movement, not the movement itself.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 11, 2019)

wckf92 said:


> Advanced techniques are the basics mastered...


You beat me to it.... oh well I'm still gonna say it lol.
There are no advanced techniques, just basics applied at an advanced level.




Seems like we all actually agree for once


----------



## Martial D (Jun 11, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> That seems like a definition of foundational techniques, or go-to techniques, or reliable techniques. What makes them more advanced?


Because they work. The most 'advanced' you can be is synonymous with the most functional you can be.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 11, 2019)

Highlander said:


> Seems like we all actually agree for once



Well, that sucks. Quick, someone say something controversial...I would, but I'm a lover not a fighter.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 11, 2019)

yak sao said:


> Well, that sucks. Quick, someone say something controversial...I would, but I'm a lover not a fighter.



Ok. Fine.

The most advanced move is one that takes in to account the most pieces of the puzzle.






So this requires a lot of things to have happened.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Fine.
> 
> The most advanced move is one that takes in to account the most pieces of the puzzle.
> 
> ...


Very basic move applied on an extremely high level.


----------



## wckf92 (Jun 12, 2019)

Something else to keep in mind are advanced "attributes" that are integral to advanced techniques.  Things like speed, timing, rhythm, agility, eye/hand/brain coordination, conditioning, etc etc etc


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2019)

Highlander said:


> Very basic move applied on an extremely high level.



No a basic move could be applied on a guy standing there doing nothing. It has one layer. 

An advanced move takes more components and therefore more training time to accomplish.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Because they work. The most 'advanced' you can be is synonymous with the most functional you can be.


Interesting take. In all the discussions of advanced techniques, I've never heard the term used that way before.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Fine.
> 
> The most advanced move is one that takes in to account the most pieces of the puzzle.
> 
> ...


Nice. (And, yes, to answer the question in the title of the video.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

wckf92 said:


> Something else to keep in mind are advanced "attributes" that are integral to advanced techniques.  Things like speed, timing, rhythm, agility, eye/hand/brain coordination, conditioning, etc etc etc


To me, that's really what defines a technique as advanced - it requires more of those attributes (perhaps a high level of one or more, or no gaps at a moderate level). A basic technique is something that works reasonably well with a lower total of those attributes.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 12, 2019)

drop bear said:


> No a basic move could be applied on a guy standing there doing nothing. It has one layer.
> 
> An advanced move takes more components and therefore more training time to accomplish.


He definitely just pulls the guys arm down and across while taking a side step. 
He just does it with great timing.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 12, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Because they work. The most 'advanced' you can be is synonymous with the most functional you can be.


I agree.. it's easy to confuse 'advanced' with 'complexity'. Which, to be fair, in some cases they run hand and hand.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Interesting take. In all the discussions of advanced techniques, I've never heard the term used that way before.



If my timing, speed, power and awareness were so high that I could defeat anyone and everyone, without fail, with a single straight punch, would I not be more advanced as a fighter than everyone else? Would this kill button of a strike not be the most advanced combat technique?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If my timing, speed, power and awareness were so high that I could defeat anyone and everyone, without fail, with a single straight punch, would I not be more advanced as a fighter than everyone else? Would this kill button of a strike not be the most advanced combat technique?


Okay, but that seems like a description of an advanced puncher, not an advanced technique. In that case, it's you (with all your advanced attributes) that is advanced.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, but that seems like a description of an advanced puncher, not an advanced technique. In that case, it's you (with all your advanced attributes) that is advanced.



What's the difference? A technique is only as good as the person doing it can do it, which is reliant on a person's attributes.

Tell me, what good is complexity if it doesn't or cant accomplish anything?

Is not the most advanced thing also the most effective thing? If it isn't, then advancing past it to something less effective isn't really advancement..it's regression.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Jun 12, 2019)

I would just put it down to difficult, a punch is dangerous to yourself and the other party. All techniques performed for combative  purpose unless restraining* should be dangerous, the entire point is to damage the other persons body/destroy it. 


Fun thing i think Scottish targ and something forgot the names, basically highlander sword and shield fighting has the last rule being   "there are no rules" or something.    a few other things do as well.    Its like the "there are no absolutes and i believe that absolutely"


This is just my view on it, i would go with 1 and 4.  But 4 isn't really a issue or thing to some people as previously mentioned.

*  Both meaning pulling power when relevant and wishing to restrain the other party not maim/hurt past necessary.    Both ways to read that fit.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 12, 2019)

Interesting perspective thank you everyone. There are some references in some replies to content from someone on my ignore list, so I'm not seeing everything, but appreciate what I see.

What started me on this is the old MA myth of "secret, advanced techniques", of which there are certainly a few, but more often than not, I find that things that we hold for later are more about pedagogy than mysticism. Not to make it too much about wing chun, but when I take a new student, it's tough for me to get them comfortable with the idea of going in and getting close to someone who is trying to hurt them. Our system is built on the notion that we are safer and more effective at close range and that's not intuitive to someone without training that would specifically convince them of that. So, while we have longer range techniques and backward movement, I'm not quick to introduce it because it would work against my goal of teaching them to be comfortable closing and staying close.

But, that doesn't make longer range techniques generally "advanced" in the broader field of martial arts. Those ideas are basic in Tae Kwon Do, for example and (I assume) operating at the range we do might be considered "advanced" in TKD, for the same reason. We have different constructs/systems.

There are somethings like elbow strikes for example, that I don't like for students to do with partners until I'm sure they have good control (which takes time to develop), because it's harder to control elbow strikes than things with our hands, probably because our hands are designed to be more articulate than elbows. An errant elbow can cause a lot more harm than an imprecise fist or palm. 

The first Wing Chun lineage I studied in (not true is my current one) didn't have students do drills that involved shifting, stepping, or kicking until they learned Chum Kiu (our 2nd form), because those things don't exist in our first form. That sifu's pedagogy was that you learn the forms in order and drill skills and qualities from the form you know. ergo - Shifting, stepping, moving your feet at all are advanced techniques or at least intermediate techniques. But, shifting is not considered advanced in most systems, and not even in my current wing chun lineage. 

This language that I developed around it (my first post) is really an attempt to be straight with my students about what to expect over time. We've all been subject to the myth of these ancient, eastern secrets. Not saying there aren't any.


----------



## Highlander (Jun 12, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> Interesting perspective thank you everyone. There are some references in some replies to content from someone on my ignore list, so I'm not seeing everything, but appreciate what I see.
> 
> What started me on this is the old MA myth of "secret, advanced techniques", of which there are certainly a few, but more often than not, I find that things that we hold for later are more about pedagogy than mysticism. Not to make it too much about wing chun, but when I take a new student, it's tough for me to get them comfortable with the idea of going in and getting close to someone who is trying to hurt them. Our system is built on the notion that we are safer and more effective at close range and that's not intuitive to someone without training that would specifically convince them of that. So, while we have longer range techniques and backward movement, I'm not quick to introduce it because it would work against my goal of teaching them to be comfortable closing and staying close.
> 
> ...


Really like this reply, of course there is a progression to learning the skill, (something that's easy to forgot once you've already learned said skill) and techniques can be dangerous if learned to soon. I think you hit the nail on the head by comparing two arts. What's advanced to you might not be advanced to me (assuming were both on the same level) and to a brand new student every move seems advanced. In wing tsun we have an advancing of techniques and knowledge, but we should strive to keep the movements simple and efficient


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

Martial D said:


> What's the difference? A technique is only as good as the person doing it can do it, which is reliant on a person's attributes.
> 
> Tell me, what good is complexity if it doesn't or cant accomplish anything?
> 
> Is not the most advanced thing also the most effective thing? If it isn't, then advancing past it to something less effective isn't really advancement..it's regression.


I think it's a matter of definition, as so many things are. I don't think the most advanced thing is necessarily the most effective thing - it's the thing that requires the most skill. A jab is highly effective, and pretty basic. You can get really good at doing it, and make it more effective by your advanced attributes, but those attributes aren't necessary for the jab to be reasonably effective. Most grappling moves are significantly more complex, requiring more advanced skill to do with competence.

I guess what I'm coming around to (brain's a bit slow today) is most folks seem to define "advanced technique" as "a technique that requires advanced skill" for whatever reason (those reasons being something like the list in the OP). I also don't think most folks consider an advanced technique necessarily better than a basic technique - most of us find the basic techniques more generally applicable than the advanced stuff.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 12, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> Interesting perspective thank you everyone. There are some references in some replies to content from someone on my ignore list, so I'm not seeing everything, but appreciate what I see.
> 
> What started me on this is the old MA myth of "secret, advanced techniques", of which there are certainly a few, but more often than not, I find that things that we hold for later are more about pedagogy than mysticism. Not to make it too much about wing chun, but when I take a new student, it's tough for me to get them comfortable with the idea of going in and getting close to someone who is trying to hurt them. Our system is built on the notion that we are safer and more effective at close range and that's not intuitive to someone without training that would specifically convince them of that. So, while we have longer range techniques and backward movement, I'm not quick to introduce it because it would work against my goal of teaching them to be comfortable closing and staying close.
> 
> ...


I like the concept that some things are more advanced in a given context. Like those elbows - I teach them early, but restrict their use in early sparring, for just the reasons you point out. So, they're basic techniques, but advanced sparring techniques, if we define it that way.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2019)

Highlander said:


> He definitely just pulls the guys arm down and across while taking a side step.
> He just does it with great timing.



And do people tend to fall over if you take a side step and pull an arm?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's a matter of definition, as so many things are. I don't think the most advanced thing is necessarily the most effective thing - it's the thing that requires the most skill. A jab is highly effective, and pretty basic. You can get really good at doing it, and make it more effective by your advanced attributes, but those attributes aren't necessary for the jab to be reasonably effective. Most grappling moves are significantly more complex, requiring more advanced skill to do with competence.
> 
> I guess what I'm coming around to (brain's a bit slow today) is most folks seem to define "advanced technique" as "a technique that requires advanced skill" for whatever reason (those reasons being something like the list in the OP). I also don't think most folks consider an advanced technique necessarily better than a basic technique - most of us find the basic techniques more generally applicable than the advanced stuff.



How did that jab get to the point of impact and therefore become effective?


----------



## drop bear (Jun 12, 2019)




----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 12, 2019)

Doing a basic punch 100% effectively doesn't make it an advanced technique.  Attributes like speed, rhythm and timing (as Highlander alluded to) give advanced execution to a basic move.  The punch itself is not advanced in this case, just the execution.

A punch or other basic move can work with a lesser degree of execution.  Advanced techniques I would say are techniques which require a high level of execution to work.  A sloppy punch has a chance of landing - a sloppy flying spinning heel hook or a poor setting of a joint lock in a fluid situation have little chance of working.  So, these moves I would call advanced techniques - techniques which require a high level of execution to be effective.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 12, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> To me, that's really what defines a technique as advanced - it requires more of those attributes (perhaps a high level of one or more, or no gaps at a moderate level). A basic technique is something that works reasonably well with a lower total of those attributes.


I guess I just reworded what gpseymour wrote.  Didn't mean to plagerize you, gp.  Didn't see your post till after I posted.  Needless to say, great minds think alike.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 13, 2019)

IMO, an advance technique is a technique that you can change from there no matter how your opponent may respond. For example, a hip throw can be an advance technique. Not only you know how to set it up in different situations, when you apply hip throw, if your opponent

- sinks down,
- steps in front of you,
- spins with you,
- moves his hip away from you,
- ...,

you can change your hip throw into ....

In other words, an advance technique is an area that you are very familiar with. Not only you are good with that technique, you are also good with all the counters and counters to those counters.

It's the root of one MA tree that you have built through your life time.


----------



## Buka (Jun 13, 2019)

I think in the overall grand scheme of self defense, advanced techniques are more fun than necessary. 

But some of them are way cool fun.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Doing a basic punch 100% effectively doesn't make it an advanced technique.  Attributes like speed, rhythm and timing (as Highlander alluded to) give advanced execution to a basic move.  The punch itself is not advanced in this case, just the execution.
> 
> A punch or other basic move can work with a lesser degree of execution.  Advanced techniques I would say are techniques which require a high level of execution to work.  A sloppy punch has a chance of landing - a sloppy flying spinning heel hook or a poor setting of a joint lock in a fluid situation have little chance of working.  So, these moves I would call advanced techniques - techniques which require a high level of execution to be effective.



Because those attributes occur via magic?

Or ar they the results of training?


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 13, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think in the overall grand scheme of self defense, advanced techniques are more fun than necessary.
> 
> But some of them are way cool fun.



Don't disagree, but let me offer an alternative. Beginner techniques work predictably well against simple, predictable attacks. Perhaps some advanced techniques become relevant when you are in a position that would you prefer not to be in. Perhaps they can serve as a transition back to a point where a more basic response will be more effective.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 13, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> Don't disagree, but let me offer an alternative. Beginner techniques work predictably well against simple, predictable attacks. Perhaps some advanced techniques become relevant when you are in a position that would you prefer not to be in. Perhaps they can serve as a transition back to a point where a more basic response will be more effective.



Absolutely. As a wing tsun practitioner, we should seek the most direct, efficient route to end the fight, the problem is, the guy we're fighting has a say in the matter and is trying to keep that from happening....even worse, he's trying to beat us!

By learning more advanced, or more complex techniques, we are adding to our body's repertoire of movement.

If all we know are basic movements we may not have the skill set needed to recover if placed in an awkward situation in the course of a fight.

By having a larger catalog to pull from, our body is not as likely to be placed in unfamiliar territory and it will seek the path of least resistance to regain its footing and "get back to basics".


----------



## yak sao (Jun 13, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, an advance technique is a technique that you can change from there no matter how your opponent may respond. For example, a hip throw can be an advance technique. Not only you know how to set it up in different situations, when you apply hip throw, if your opponent
> 
> - sinks down,
> - steps in front of you,
> ...



So I see it as not that we're doing advanced techniques, but we become advanced and are able to execute how we need to to make it happen.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> How did that jab get to the point of impact and therefore become effective?


With some appropriate level of skill. The higher that level of skill (the more advanced the practitioner) the more situations that jab will get to the point of impact.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> IMO, an advance technique is a technique that you can change from there no matter how your opponent may respond. For example, a hip throw can be an advance technique. Not only you know how to set it up in different situations, when you apply hip throw, if your opponent
> 
> - sinks down,
> - steps in front of you,
> ...


So, a basic technique becomes advanced as the person becomes advanced?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

Buka said:


> I think in the overall grand scheme of self defense, advanced techniques are more fun than necessary.
> 
> But some of them are way cool fun.


I agree big time on this. There are some I'd remove if they weren't so much fun to work with.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Because those attributes occur via magic?
> 
> Or ar they the results of training?


I don't understand what you're arguing against in this, DB. I think we all agree this definition of advanced technique requires more training - a more advanced practitioner. In fact, I think that's pretty much the definition being used.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't understand what you're arguing against in this, DB. I think we all agree this definition of advanced technique requires more training - a more advanced practitioner. In fact, I think that's pretty much the definition being used.



You don't just get punched in the face by a good technical jab at a high level. 

There is a whole bunch of back of house that is at work that makes the jab work. 

Advanced practitioner is a non answer.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 13, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You don't just get punched in the face by a good technical jab at a high level.
> 
> There is a whole bunch of back of house that is at work that makes the jab work.
> 
> Advanced practitioner is a non answer.


I don't disagree with the first part. But that doesn't make a jab an advanced technique in my mind - just makes it true that there can be a more advanced application of it. Which is true of literally every technique.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, a basic technique becomes advanced as the person becomes advanced?


A basic technique is like a soldier. If you make it become a general with many soldiers to support it, it will become an advance technique. Since it takes time to develop so many soldiers to support your general, it's not an easy task. Sometime a general may need more than 30 soldiers to fully support it.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I don't disagree with the first part. But that doesn't make a jab an advanced technique in my mind - just makes it true that there can be a more advanced application of it. Which is true of literally every technique.



It makes that jab an advanced technique because there are multiple layers to applying it.

Ogres have layers. Onions have layer. Advanced techniques have layers.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I think it's a matter of definition, as so many things are. I don't think the most advanced thing is necessarily the most effective thing - it's the thing that requires the most skill. A jab is highly effective, and pretty basic. You can get really good at doing it, and make it more effective by your advanced attributes, but those attributes aren't necessary for the jab to be reasonably effective. Most grappling moves are significantly more complex, requiring more advanced skill to do with competence.
> 
> I guess what I'm coming around to (brain's a bit slow today) is most folks seem to define "advanced technique" as "a technique that requires advanced skill" for whatever reason (those reasons being something like the list in the OP). I also don't think most folks consider an advanced technique necessarily better than a basic technique - most of us find the basic techniques more generally applicable than the advanced stuff.



Here's where only real time sparring can inform you;

Yes, a jab mechanically, ie throwing into the air, or to a stationary target, is a simple motion.

However, landing it with regularity on a resisting opponent is an entirely different matter, and it does in fact require a high level of skill. Just as much(probably more) than any complex grappling move where you are actually controlling your opponents movement.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 13, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> So, a basic technique becomes advanced as the person becomes advanced?


Exactly.

Is your jab the same as Floyd Mayweathers jab?

Mechanically, maybe similar. But in practice?

I would say one is far more advanced than the other.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 13, 2019)

wckf92 said:


> Advanced techniques are the basics mastered...


Man. Beat me to it.

I really do think that "advanced" techniques, not to be confused with "complicated" techniques, are oftentimes just the most basic of techniques "done correctly." Meaning, without all the unconscious short-cuts that we all develop to make a less... perfect? version "work."

In the Tomiki-ryu I do, my instructor Ray had a devastating technique he would use on us in randori all the time. It was a technique usually taught to a beginner/white belt in their first week of class.  Typical aikido thing, we call it giaku-gameate. It's the eye-flash, hand above the eyes as the person is in front of you, and you lock the head and they fall backwards as you sidestep beside  them holding the contact.  Lots of systems have this, not just aikido, but CMA, FMA, other Japanese systems, etc.

The thing is, when Ray would do it, his timing would be nigh-perfect, his off-balance on you was very subtle but he knew where you were going better than you did and the execution happened very much like the crash of a wave on the shore. It's scary impressive.

And.. a white belt technique.

To me, Advanced as all get out.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 13, 2019)

Another way to look at the advance technique can be:

Beginner technique - attack 1 point (such as a hook punch).
Intermediate technique - attack 1 line (such as a hook punch to the head change into a straight punch to the body, a spiral punch).
Advance technique - attack 1 space (such as a hook punch change into an under hook along with leg spring to take your opponent down).


----------



## Ivan (Jun 14, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> Something that I started saying a few years ago and I finally wrote down (on a chalkboard at my kwoon):
> 
> *Advanced Techniques are:
> 1) Difficult -or-
> ...


Advanced techniques, to me, have always been those that I did not yet know how to do. I would imagine it is the same for everyone else. For example, everyone here who has practiced a martial art that involves kicking was at the point where they thought that side kicks were impossible.
"How do these people generate so much power?"
"How do I keep my balance while pivoting my root foot?"
"I'm just not flexible enough."
These are the *types* of thoughts which I can state with 100% certainty everyone's experienced at some point while learning to sidekick. However, once you nail the kick down on both legs, and you constantly practice, the technique is no longer an _advanced technique_. The word _advanced_, *in my opinion (I understand that I could be wrong),* is relative to each student, practitioner, fighter and sensei. Everyone has a set of techniques which they can execute in an almost legendary manner and they might consider as _easy _or even _basic._ Yet they will also have techniques which they whole heartedly avoid using, as they're not good enough with them yet and they might consider them advanced. Meanwhile, another practioner considers these same techniques easy, and the ones that former practioner has mastered, as advanced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It makes that jab an advanced technique because there are multiple layers to applying it.
> 
> Ogres have layers. Onions have layer. Advanced techniques have layers.
> 
> View attachment 22289


I can see that. It's not the definition I use, but I like it. So, the advanced technique is the advanced development of a technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Here's where only real time sparring can inform you;
> 
> Yes, a jab mechanically, ie throwing into the air, or to a stationary target, is a simple motion.
> 
> However, landing it with regularity on a resisting opponent is an entirely different matter, and it does in fact require a high level of skill. Just as much(probably more) than any complex grappling move where you are actually controlling your opponents movement.


I disagree, to an extent. Every grappling technique has a high failure rate if it's used regularly, which is the same for a jab. But getting a jab to land requires a lot less complexity than getting most grappling techniques. And the level of competence of the opponent matters a lot (in both). Hitting a gumby with a jab doesn't take a high level of skill, at all.

So, I think you're kind of saying the same thing DB is. Getting that jab to land against a skilled opponent requires an advanced jab.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Is your jab the same as Floyd Mayweathers jab?
> 
> ...


I'd call that an advanced version of a jab, rather than that making the jab advanced. His jab is advanced, mine...probably not so much. This is why I don't say the jab is an advanced technique.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'd call that an advanced version of a jab, rather than that making the jab advanced. His jab is advanced, mine...probably not so much. This is why I don't say the jab is an advanced technique.


 Ok.

Since you seem to be sticking to that position without offering any sound argument as to why, let me help.

Define, in your view, what 'advanced technique' means. Define it, and we can proceed from there.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 14, 2019)

There are techniques (for example, the jab) and there are advanced applications of said techniques. What makes them advanced is knowing how and when to use setup techniques for said technique (the jab) to work. However, the Jab is just a fundamental technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Ok.
> 
> Since you seem to be sticking to that position without offering any sound argument as to why, let me help.
> 
> Define, in your view, what 'advanced technique' means. Define it, and we can proceed from there.


I don't think it really needs a defense, MD. It's just a statement of the definition I use. Nothing wrong with the one you use; as I said to DB, I kinda like it.

I've stated my definition (more or less) earlier. An advanced technique is one that requires an advanced level of skill.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> an advanced technique is one that requires an advanced level of skill.



So then, any technique you can land with regularity without getting creamed. Glad we agree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> So then, any technique you can land with regularity without getting creamed. Glad we agree.


Nope. Not the same thing. A jab can be completed with basic skills. I'd argue a hook is more complex, requires more skills to execute, so I'd rate it as more advanced.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Nope. Not the same thing. A jab can be completed with basic skills. I'd argue a hook is more complex, requires more skills to execute, so I'd rate it as more advanced.


Landing ANYTHING on a resisting opponent without taking something back, especially one that knows what they are doing, requires an advanced level of skill, as per your definition.

Would you like to change your definition?


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

For the record I do understand your point, but it's only true under certain conditions; that being a compliant partner or no partner.


----------



## marques (Jun 14, 2019)

Anything I can apply against a range of opponents must be quite advanced technique, even if it is a jab.

Usually people think advanced stuff is the fancy stuff. Fancy stuff is risky; and from time to time helpful.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 14, 2019)

Just because it is harder to do or even more complex doesn't mean it's 'advanced'. There are fundamentals that are difficult and complex in what we do but they aren't advanced. They are just fundamentals.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Landing ANYTHING on a resisting opponent without taking something back, especially one that knows what they are doing, requires an advanced level of skill, as per your definition.
> 
> Would you like to change your definition?


You're moving the goalposts. My definition stands, and works fine for me. If you don't like it, that's okay. Use yours.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Just because it is harder to do or even more complex doesn't mean it's 'advanced'. There are fundamentals that are difficult and complex in what we do but they aren't advanced. They are just fundamentals.


How do you define advanced, then Danny?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

marques said:


> Anything I can apply against a range of opponents must be quite advanced technique, even if it is a jab.
> 
> Usually people think advanced stuff is the fancy stuff. Fancy stuff is risky; and from time to time helpful.


I like the thought behind this. Still not the definition I use, but I like it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> For the record I do understand your point, but it's only true under certain conditions; that being a compliant partner or no partner.


When the other person changes the situation, it's not the technique that changes.

Basically, my definition boils down to an advanced technique being something that's too complex or finicky to be worth teaching early. They require a more advanced skillset (or set of attributes).


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> You're moving the goalposts. My definition stands, and works fine for me. If you don't like it, that's okay. Use yours.


How am I moving the goalposts? Are you saying landing without getting hit(which is ultimately the end game of any fight type situation) does not require an 'advanced level of skill'?


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> When the other person changes the situation, it's not the technique that changes.
> 
> Basically, my definition boils down to an advanced technique being something that's too complex or finicky to be worth teaching early. They require a more advanced skillset (or set of attributes).


 But the technique does change. The footwork especially, and the level of skill it takes to know where and when.

Yes, some moves, especially in grappling, require more complicated setups, and I get that's where you're going here, but even the most complicated submission is much easier to pull off against a compliant opponent than landing a jab on someone that is trying not to get hit. The latter takes more skill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> How am I moving the goalposts? Are you saying landing without getting hit(which is ultimately the end game of any fight type situation) does not require an 'advanced level of skill'?


No, but that was never part of my definition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> But the technique does change. The footwork especially, and the level of skill it takes to know where and when.
> 
> Yes, some moves, especially in grappling, require more complicated setups, and I get that's where you're going here, but even the most complicated submission is much easier to pull off against a compliant opponent than landing a jab on someone that is trying not to get hit. The latter takes more skill.


You're talking about an advanced version of the technique, by my definition.

And comparing compliant use of one technique to noncompliant use of another seems senseless.

Advanced version, I agree with (actually, I'd call it an advanced application, but close enough). But not advanced technique, by my definition.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, but that was never part of my definition.


?



			
				you said:
			
		

> An advanced technique is one that requires an advanced level of skill.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> How do you define advanced, then Danny?


Would you call a Jab-Rear Straight-Hook punch combination an advance technique? I don't. That combination is more complex than just a Jab or a Rear Straight but it certainly isn't an advanced technique.


----------



## Buka (Jun 14, 2019)

When you first train boxing and learn your way around a ring....a jab is something you might feel pretty good about, might even have a nifty one yourself.

The first time you spar with a talented, professional boxer who has great jab.....it's like walking into a swarm of angry wasps.....when you've been drinking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 14, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> Hitting a gumby with a jab doesn't take a high level of skill, at all.


An advance technique doesn't have to be the finish move. It can be the set up move (door opening move) as well. If your "door opening move" can always lead you into your finish move, it will require a lot of training and it's advance technique.

For example,

Beginner level technique - a jab is just to land your fist on your opponent's face.

Advance level technique - a jab is a bait to invite your opponent's arm to block it. You then change your jab into an arm pulling. Your pull will help you to move into your opponent faster. You then land your other fist (the cross) on your opponent's face.

Your jab serves the following purpose:

- punch on your opponent's face.
- invite your opponent's arm to block it.
- use your pulling to open your opponent's guard.
- borrow the counter force to pull yourself into your opponent.
- your pulling will start your power generation for your other hand's punch.
- ...

Your jab will become the following "advance" weapon:


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 14, 2019)

The sentiment of one of my original points has kind of been lost over this discussion or maybe I just didn't make it clearly enough to begin with.

In a "system", techniques are just tools, they aren't the system. I teach techniques to beginners, of course, but my priority with them is to establish some principles and get them processing things in-line with the foundational qualities of our system. Of course they think they come for techniques and I give them some. Which techniques I give to a beginner vs hold back for an intermediate or more advanced student often come down to whether they work for or against my goal if establishing those foundational principles.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> The sentiment of one of my original points has kind of been lost over this discussion or maybe I just didn't make it clearly enough to begin with.
> 
> In a "system", techniques are just tools, they aren't the system. I teach techniques to beginners, of course, but my priority with them is to establish some principles and get them processing things in-line with the foundational qualities of our system. Of course they think they come for techniques and I give them some. Which techniques I give to a beginner vs hold back for an intermediate or more advanced student often come down to whether they work for or against my goal if establishing those foundational principles.



This is ultimately no different in principle to how boxing or MMA is trained.


----------



## Buka (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> This is ultimately no different in principle to how boxing or MMA is trained.



There was for me. In boxing, I can mess with boxers using various things I learned in dojos. And when I say mess with them, it was all in the spirit of sport. In MMA those same things got me wrecked. 

There's just so many different ways to do things in MMA. And boxing is just so very limited.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 14, 2019)

Buka said:


> When you first train boxing and learn your way around a ring....a jab is something you might feel pretty good about, might even have a nifty one yourself.
> 
> The first time you spar with a talented, professional boxer who has great jab.....it's like walking into a swarm of angry wasps.....when you've been drinking.


YEP!


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

Buka said:


> There was for me. In boxing, I can mess with boxers using various things I learned in dojos. And when I say mess with them, it was all in the spirit of sport. In MMA those same things got me wrecked.
> 
> There's just so many different ways to do things in MMA. And boxing is just so very limited.


But conversely, you can get pretty tricky with just your hands under MMA rules.


----------



## Buka (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> But conversely, you can get pretty tricky with just your hands under MMA rules.



Very true, bro, very true.

But if I'm allowed to use Martial Arts skills against boxers, it gets rather ridiculous. Through no fault of their own, they aren't prepared for sweeps, traps, take downs, skilled kickers who've worked against boxers etc.

I spent more than a few years in boxing gyms learning to box better. Then, after a time when everyone knew me, they said, go ahead, use that chop sockey stuff if you want. That was a whole lot of fun. First thing I did was sweep of course. Boxer fall down. Then I used a bastardized form of a cross between the Philly Shell and Ken Norton's old Peek-a-boo stance but leaving a big opening between my arms so they could jab me in the face.

Which is obviously what I wanted. And they knew that, they just _couldn't resist_ the opening it. I would slam shut my arms together and trap their glove. Then started dragging them around, always moving outside the trapped arm. Remember now, they are the ones that said use that chop sockey stuff.

Another thing I did that really P'd them off was to extend both my arms in front of me - right toward their face....then played Matador and bull. They could not touch me. I know, I know, everyone will say that they would get through that foolish stance - just like they all said at the boxing gyms. Except they couldn't. I will also point out I've worked with some pretty good boxers in my day.

WHEREAS....in MMA they'd just take me down and we would grapple from there. Boxers may know how to knock you down, but they don't know how to take you down. Even if they did, they do not train on the ground. They be screwed.

This is in no way meant as in insult to boxing. It is one of the most difficult, practical and plain nasty arts I have ever been involved in. But it's specialized. Please spend some time in it before making any judgements.

And that goes for MMA as well. Everybody who has never trained MMA seems to have opinions on it....based on absolutely nothing other than watching it on TV, maybe going to a match or two. Damn it's good stuff. But, damn, it's so hard to do.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 14, 2019)

Buka said:


> Very true, bro, very true.
> 
> But if I'm allowed to use Martial Arts skills against boxers, it gets rather ridiculous. Through no fault of their own, they aren't prepared for sweeps, traps, take downs, skilled kickers who've worked against boxers etc.
> 
> ...



My favorite thing in the universe is that look you get the first time you kick a boxer in their legs. :


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 14, 2019)

Buka said:


> to extend both my arms in front of me - right toward their face.....


I call that Chinese zombie arm strategy (American zombie doesn't have stiff arms).

America zombie:







Chinese zombie:






The Chinese zombie arms is heavily used in Chinese wrestling.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> ?


I'm not sure where we've crossed up on this one. You were talking about landing a punch against another fighter without getting hit - which was not part of my definition at any time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Would you call a Jab-Rear Straight-Hook punch combination an advance technique? I don't. That combination is more complex than just a Jab or a Rear Straight but it certainly isn't an advanced technique.


No, that's a series of techniques. The combination is more advanced than the individual techniques, I suppose (using my own definition), but it's not a single technique.

I'm truly curious how you define advanced technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 14, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> An advance technique doesn't have to be the finish move. It can be the set up move (door opening move) as well. If your "door opening move" can always lead you into your finish move, it will require a lot of training and it's advance technique.
> 
> For example,
> 
> ...


I like this approach, but it's still not the way I'd define it. What you're describing is still what I'd refer to as advanced application of the technique. An advanced technique - to me - is an advanced technique at all times (sort of).


----------



## Buka (Jun 14, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I call that Chinese zombie arm strategy (American zombie doesn't have stiff arms).
> 
> America zombie:
> 
> ...



I will forever call that The Chinese Zombie stance now. That’s pretty trippy.
I just used to love doing the Chinese Zombie against boxers. Hell, brother, that was even fun to say.  I’m all Zombied up!


----------



## Buka (Jun 14, 2019)

Martial D said:


> My favorite thing in the universe is that look you get the first time you kick a boxer in their legs. :



Yes, that is a fine look indeed. But my very favorite look is when you sweep them and when they start to get up you fake like you’re going to kick their face as their hands are on the canvass pushing themselves up.

They so hate that. But, man, I learned so much about fighting in boxing gyms. Not just about punching, but about fighting.

I love boxing. I fricken’ hate boxing. It’s a real Yin Yang thing to me.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 15, 2019)

Buka said:


> I just used to love doing the Chinese Zombie against boxers.


When you use the stiff arms guard such as the

- rhino guard (close the center but open both sides), or
- Chinese zombie guard (close both sides but open the center),

you have eliminated your opponent's striking path into 1/2. Since most likely, your opponent will try to destroy your stiff arms guard (such as to push on your arm), you have just bait your opponent to play your favor "grip fight" game and forget about his favor "fist fight" game.


----------



## Danny T (Jun 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, that's a series of techniques. The combination is more advanced than the individual techniques, I suppose (using my own definition), but it's not a single technique.
> 
> I'm truly curious how you define advanced technique.


Hmm, not certain there is 'advanced technique' other than being taught or shown at a later period in training. We have fundamentals, advanced would be how those fundamentals are chained, when they are chained, etc. What makes it advance is knowing when and why something is use and not just the what and how.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 15, 2019)

Danny T said:


> Hmm, not certain there is 'advanced technique' other than being taught or shown at a later period in training. We have fundamentals, advanced would be how those fundamentals are chained, when they are chained, etc. What makes it advance is knowing when and why something is use and not just the what and how.


Got it. Yeah, my definition pretty much just refers to the stuff that's held for later because it doesn't make sense struggling with it early. I'm not sure typical definitions for "advanced" really apply to that entire body, except that they're reserved for more advanced practitioners.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I'm not sure where we've crossed up on this one. You were talking about landing a punch against another fighter without getting hit - which was not part of my definition at any time.



I'm not sure if I lost you or you are being purposefully disingenuous. I'll assume the former and explain it again.

I asked for your definition of 'advanced technique'.

You replied with the definition I requoted, and I'll quote here again.


> An advanced technique is one that requires an advanced level of skill.



To that I replied 'oh, we agree' as the definition I stated was that an advanced technique is anything you can make work in real life, as ALL techniques require 'an advanced level of skill' to make work reliably in real life, outside of a mat where people are cooperating.

The example fits your definition.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> I'm not sure if I lost you or you are being purposefully disingenuous. I'll assume the former and explain it again.
> 
> I asked for your definition of 'advanced technique'.
> 
> ...


I honestly can't tell if you're doing this on purpose, or not, MD. So, let's go back to the idea of "advanced". If there's a basic skill level that allows application of basic technique against a not-so-skilled opponent, then there are both techniques and opponents who will call for a more advanced skill level.

Not every technique in every application requires advanced skills.


----------



## Buka (Jun 15, 2019)

We used to do a scissors take downs as a basic techniques, either going one leg across the belt line and the other behind the knees - or going one leg behind the knees and the other against the front of the ankles.

For advanced technique we used to do a head scissors, one leg across the front of the face or throat, the other behind their back. This scissors is much more fun - but you have to know how to train it safely.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> I honestly can't tell if you're doing this on purpose, or not, MD. So, let's go back to the idea of "advanced". If there's a basic skill level that allows application of basic technique against a not-so-skilled opponent, then there are both techniques and opponents who will call for a more advanced skill level.
> 
> Not every technique in every application requires advanced skills.



Have you ever sparred full or fought before? If it were easy to just do stuff to people and win martial arts wouldn't need to exist. When someone is trying to hit you back you are going to need a high level of skill in any technique you expect to work.

You can't both hold to your definition of 'advanced technique' and deny examples that fit that definition of you care about being honest or consistent.


----------



## drop bear (Jun 15, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> No, that's a series of techniques. The combination is more advanced than the individual techniques, I suppose (using my own definition), but it's not a single technique.
> 
> I'm truly curious how you define advanced technique.



It is more like an iceberg. You only see the top 10%





So maywhether's jab isn't really a basic technique it it takes all these other factors to make it work.

If a technique takes five other techniques to set it up. It is advanced.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 15, 2019)

Martial D said:


> Have you ever sparred full or fought before? If it were easy to just do stuff to people and win martial arts wouldn't need to exist. When someone is trying to hit you back you are going to need a high level of skill in any technique you expect to work.
> 
> You can't both hold to your definition of 'advanced technique' and deny examples that fit that definition of you care about being honest or consistent.


So, in your opinion, it takes the same amount of skill to hit a gumby as to hit someone who's well trained??


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 15, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is more like an iceberg. You only see the top 10%
> 
> View attachment 22292
> 
> ...


Okay, I can buy into that thought. I like that.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jun 20, 2019)

As long as the technique is simple and direct and can be applied with dilligent practice and muscle memory it really doesn't matter. Now you have some techniques that just look good but serve no real purpose. Use what works for you. Because what works for me may not work well for you. 



ShortBridge said:


> Something that I started saying a few years ago and I finally wrote down (on a chalkboard at my kwoon):
> 
> *Advanced Techniques are:
> 1) Difficult -or-
> ...


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 20, 2019)

A lot of confusion here.  Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated.  Definitions should be precise and simple.  We are considering a single technique.  You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced.  The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move.  A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.

A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work.  That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique.  A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move.  A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.

Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced.  Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic.  This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."


----------



## jobo (Jun 20, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> A lot of confusion here.  Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated.  Definitions should be precise and simple.  We are considering a single technique.  You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced.  The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move.  A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.
> 
> A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work.  That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique.  A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move.  A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.
> 
> Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced.  Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic.  This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."


but a jab for instance can range from a inaccurate annoyance to a nose breakiNg fight ender dependent on the level of skill with which it's performed, as there is a contimum of skill in its execution it would by your definitive definition above be both basic and extremely advance and any conceivable point in between dependent on the practitioner


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 20, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> A lot of confusion here.  ... making this too complicated.  Definitions should be precise and simple.  ...
> 
> Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced.  Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic.  This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."



I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.


----------



## MetalBoar (Jun 20, 2019)

I see what appears to be a lot of discussion, confusion and perhaps disagreements about semantics in this thread.

From my perspective one swath of commentators seem feel that advanced skill with any technique = an advanced technique no matter how basic, fundamental, or simple that technique may be within the context of it's associated art. Another set of people seem to be arguing that there must be something complex or difficult about the technique itself to qualify it as "advanced". What makes a technique complex or difficult also seems to be a matter or debate, wrapping all the way around to some making the argument that if it's hard to apply the technique against a professional fighter then that makes it advanced - taking us back to advanced skill = advanced technique. Then there are other outliers who argue that a series of techniques utilized to set up a basic technique become an advanced technique.

I personally like @ShortBridge's original definition, that advanced techniques are either more difficult, more dangerous to train (to self or others), or in some fashion break from the base of the art. I think it's a little disingenuous to pretend that the only difference in how challenging it is to practice a technique is the skill level of your opponent. As if there's no difference in difficulty between achieving a base level of competency with a jab versus a spinning back kick or that throwing techniques that require a high fall to recover from can be taught as quickly and safely as throws that can be performed with much less force and a much shorter drop. 

I think part of the disconnect may be that some people are associating "basic" with lesser and "advanced" with superior. Another issue may be that people seem to want to label techniques either "advanced" or "basic" without acknowledging that they all fall on a spectrum from most basic to most advanced. I also agree with ShortBridge that things that are considered advanced in one art may be fundamental to another, so context matters. 

I tend to feel (and I believe that @gpseymour expressed something similar) that much of the time very "advanced" techniques are in fact far less useful and usable than more basic techniques. They're generally low percentage or very specialized. I never practiced the balestra (a relatively advanced technique by my definition) when I was fencing because I simply didn't see a lot of use for it, especially considering how much more work it took to learn to use effectively in comparison to what I'd get out of spending that time improving my disengage and circular parry (less advanced techniques), or my straight attack and parry/riposte (most basic of techniques).

I don't like the definition that advanced skill = advanced technique. No matter how good I get at consumer math I'm not doing advanced math. I may never need anything more than consumer math to be extremely effective at my job and in my life. In fact, being really good at consumer math is probably much more useful for most people than being mediocre at combinatorics, or even great at combinatorics and mediocre at consumer math. Similarly, I always got a lot more use out of the fundamental techniques in fencing than I ever did out of the more complex techniques. No matter how good I got at them, and no matter how good the opponent that I managed to successfully apply them against, I didn't think of them as advanced.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 20, 2019)

Martial D said:


> If my timing, speed, power and awareness were so high that I could defeat anyone and everyone, without fail, with a single straight punch, would I not be more advanced as a fighter than everyone else? Would this kill button of a strike not be the most advanced combat technique?


But you have now crossed over into the "if" realm. Once this happens there is never an end to a discussion. So, IF you have this killer punch, the next logical step is for someone to eventually get to a level where they can beat you. History has proven this time and again. Evolution of all things is inevitable. Your killer punch would bring about the next evolution.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 20, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.



I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced.  That is a valid point.  But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced.  Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique.   Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught.  The technique has its own inherent identity.

Now this is getting metaphysical!  Too complicated for my simple mind. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                  On to another idea raised by Jobo:  Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's.  There is a continuum of skill as one progresses.  But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced.  Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution.  The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.

Damn!  Sounding philosophical again.


----------



## Martial D (Jun 21, 2019)

dvcochran said:


> But you have now crossed over into the "if" realm. Once this happens there is never an end to a discussion. So, IF you have this killer punch, the next logical step is for someone to eventually get to a level where they can beat you. History has proven this time and again. Evolution of all things is inevitable. Your killer punch would bring about the next evolution.


Well, yes. That is true. Separate and unrelated, but true.


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced.  That is a valid point.  But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced.  Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique.   Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught.  The technique has its own inherent identity.
> 
> Now this is getting metaphysical!  Too complicated for my simple mind.
> On to another idea raised by Jobo:  Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's.  There is a continuum of skill as one progresses.  But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced.  Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution.  The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.
> ...


----------



## jobo (Jun 21, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced.  That is a valid point.  But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced.  Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique.   Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught.  The technique has its own inherent identity.
> 
> Now this is getting metaphysical!  Too complicated for my simple mind.
> On to another idea raised by Jobo:  Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's.  There is a continuum of skill as one progresses.  But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced.  Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution.  The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.
> ...


people are trying to categories techniques in issolation to the practitioner, which is silly, they don't exist with out him or her, anyone one with reasonable fitness, motor skills, flexibility can learn( nearly) any technique in a few weeks, then the only difference between them and a black belt is they can't do it as well ( or maybe they can ), it all about advancing your execution


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jun 21, 2019)

What are some techniques your speaking of you hold back. Are you referring to Biu Tze or Bil Gee?

What exactly are these advance techniques? An what makes them advanced per-se? 




ShortBridge said:


> I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 21, 2019)

ShortBridge said:


> I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.


So they are really exceptions to the rule?  Holding those for later would make sense.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 21, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> What are some techniques your speaking of you hold back. Are you referring to Biu Tze or Bil Gee?
> 
> What exactly are these advance techniques? An what makes them advanced per-se?



So, let me answer two ways:

Wing Chun guy to Wing Chun guy...Si Lim Tao is a very constrained expressions of our system. We don't shift or move our feet. Almost everything is linear and the concept of "center" is pretty simplistic. We (mostly) only move one hand at a time.

As early as Chum Kiu, we're shifting and stepping and the concept of center gets a little bit less black and white...in no small part because we're shifting and moving. The Biu Gee form introduces more circularity in addition to things like circular elbow strikes. So, not me, but the system is organized in a way that suggests opening up as you go, which I think is a pretty good approach.

For me personally, any backward footwork, like we find in the Baat Cham Do form for example, would work against what I am trying to get a beginner student to buy into. So, it's not that that particular footwork is hard or dangerous, it just goes against what we're trying to teach for a while. 

Taan Gerk is both difficult and also contrary to the efficient, straight forward approach that I try to get new and intermediate students to adopt. So, I find myself telling people "we don't do x" and then later telling them "actually we do or you can, but you just have to make sure..."


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Jun 22, 2019)

So basically your saying getting them use to certain muscle reflexes first before going on to a new level. I guess thats why you progress slowly make sure they can chi sau first, then later move and chi sau, and then later apply techniques from sparring. i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? How ever i would say the Long pole and its traditional stances break away from Wing Chun structure.



ShortBridge said:


> So, let me answer two ways:
> 
> Wing Chun guy to Wing Chun guy...Si Lim Tao is a very constrained expressions of our system. We don't shift or move our feet. Almost everything is linear and the concept of "center" is pretty simplistic. We (mostly) only move one hand at a time.
> 
> ...


----------



## ShortBridge (Jun 22, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> ...i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? ...



You're right, I don't think they go against our core principles either, but I think some of the movements and ideas confuse some of the early lessons. 

I appreciate everyone playing alone with this discussion, it's gone the way that I wanted it to and I value everyone's input and perspectives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> A lot of confusion here.  Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated.  Definitions should be precise and simple.  We are considering a single technique.  You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced.  The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move.  A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.
> 
> A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work.  That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique.  A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move.  A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.
> 
> Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced.  Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic.  This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."


I think the issue here is that people have very different definitions - most of which are fairly simple. We're not discussing a single definition, and I don't think there's a good argument that any one definition should be necessary. In fact, that seems to have been the point of the OP.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced.  That is a valid point.  But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced.  Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique.   Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught.  The technique has its own inherent identity.
> 
> Now this is getting metaphysical!  Too complicated for my simple mind.
> On to another idea raised by Jobo:  Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's.  There is a continuum of skill as one progresses.  But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced.  Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution.  The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.
> ...


I think his point was that the context of the overall system can make learning something more or less complex. If basic principles of the system conflict with the basic principles of a single technique (given that principles of a system are generalities and guidelines, not absolute injunctions), that technique will be harder to learn/teach in that context than in the context of a system where the principles are in alignment.

An easy example of this is teaching some basic takedowns to someone who has studied an aiki-oriented art with a major focus on the aiki. They often have trouble with the concept of the forward pressure of a single- or double-leg, the lifting force used, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, a beginning wrestler has no issue with that same learning. So the question is whether this means the technique is more "advanced" in this context, where it is harder to learn. (Note, it wouldn't be harder to learn if it were taught early in the process, but that shifts the focus of the principles being taught.)


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> An what makes them advanced per-se?


Wasn't that the whole point of his OP?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> So basically your saying getting them use to certain muscle reflexes first before going on to a new level. I guess thats why you progress slowly make sure they can chi sau first, then later move and chi sau, and then later apply techniques from sparring. i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? How ever i would say the Long pole and its traditional stances break away from Wing Chun structure.


I read that as them going against the simplistic form of the principles that are taught early. Which probably brings us back to the idea of what's advanced, because we could say the early forms teach basic principles, and progression through the forms presents a more and more advanced version of those principles.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Jun 25, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> we could say the early forms teach basic principles, and progression through the forms presents a more and more advanced version of those principles


Principles are usually easy (basic) to understand - i.e.,  use your opponent's force against him - but have countless ways of being expressed; some simple, some more difficult to execute.   I guess the bottom line of this thread is that, in general, things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time considering the context.  The important thing for the martial artist, I think, is that no matter what technique is being done, it should be executed with as much skill, dedication, and commitment as the practitioner is capable of, regardless of level.  Continually striving for ideal perfection - that's advanced!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> Principles are usually easy (basic) to understand - i.e.,  use your opponent's force against him - but have countless ways of being expressed; some simple, some more difficult to execute.   I guess the bottom line of this thread is that, in general, things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time considering the context.  The important thing for the martial artist, I think, is that no matter what technique is being done, it should be executed with as much skill, dedication, and commitment as the practitioner is capable of, regardless of level.  Continually striving for ideal perfection - that's advanced!


True enough. But most of us do make distinctions about some things being more "advanced" (whatever we each mean by that), and I like the discussion the OP engendered. I'm always interested to hear other approaches, especially when they're significantly different from mine - it gives me a new way to look at things.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 25, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time ...


Agree! When you punch,

Beginner technique (static punch) - your back foot does not leave the ground.
Advance technique (dynamic punch, or running punch) - your back foot slide forward.

It's much

- easier to punch a person when he is standing still.
- harder to punch a person when he is moving back.


----------



## dvcochran (Jun 25, 2019)

isshinryuronin said:


> A lot of confusion here.  Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated.  Definitions should be precise and simple.  We are considering a single technique.  You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced.  The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move.  A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.
> 
> A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work.  That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique.  A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move.  A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.
> 
> Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced.  Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic.  This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."


Very well said.


----------

