# Assessing practicality - the nonsense filter



## Gnarlie (Feb 10, 2012)

Hi all

In the eclectic world of martial arts it's certainly easy to find guidance on what makes effective self defence.  In deciding whether or not a particular piece of guidance is valid, I sometimes find it difficult to maintain objectivity.  This is partly because some techniques just suit me better, but also because the people 'selling' the concepts sell just as strongly regardless of the actual validity of the concept presented.

Just like everyone, I can sometimes vulnerable to persuasion, suggestion, advertising, marketing, and context.

To help me to be able to filter out the wheat from the chaff better, I'd appreciate it if you guys could give your thoughts on the following questions:

What criteria do / would you use in objectively deciding whether a technique, concept, tactic or strategy would actually work in a self defence situation?

What characteristics in a technique, concept, tactic, or strategy would set your BS meter twitching?  :BSmeter:

Thanks
Gnarlie


----------



## K-man (Feb 10, 2012)

The more simple the technique, the more chance you can pull it off under pressure.  The more complex, the opposite. 

For a defensive technique, the closer it is to a reflex action, the more likely it will succeed.

And, I hate high flashy kicks.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 10, 2012)

It's going to sound a little twee, but my process is I look at it, and I can see if there are issues or not. I don't have a list of criteria, but I do have a "feel" that I go with. It's more about my having a quarter century in various arts, as well as highly insightful teachers who have guided my ability to perceive what I'm looking at.

So, in short, to figure out whether or not something is "good" or "BS", it's simple. I look at it. And that's enough.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 10, 2012)

K-man said:


> The more simple the technique, the more chance you can pull it off under pressure.  The more complex, the opposite.
> 
> For a defensive technique, the closer it is to a reflex action, the more likely it will succeed.
> 
> And, I hate high flashy kicks.



Simple is very, very good!


----------



## TaiChiTJ (Feb 10, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> What criteria do / would you use in objectively deciding whether a technique, concept, tactic or strategy would actually work in a self defence situation?
> 
> What characteristics in a technique, concept, tactic, or strategy would set your BS meter twitching? :BSmeter:
> 
> ...



I almost always look at height dependencies first, i.e. "...does this technique only work when the defender is as tall or taller than the attacker?...". Then I look at other thngs like power and speed dependencies.


----------



## WC_lun (Feb 10, 2012)

Techniques must pass the framework of concepts that I have learned from the system I am in and my experience over the years.  All techniques are situational relative.  I try not to get too caught up with this or that technique.  I'm more concerned about the fundmentals techniques are based upon.  Now having said that, if I must evaluate something that I am being shown then I determine the weaknesses and strengths of a technique being shown and if those are being taken into account for the sitaution.  For example, if a person is trying to spin round kick the head while standing six inches from thier opponent, the technique itself may be great, but it isn't the best tool for that range.

One of the biggest problems I see in the martial arts world, is basics are not ingrained and tested.  As a result there are many fantasy martial artist out there.  They think they can do this or that, but have not tried those things under the pressure cooker of real resisting training partners.  So when it comes time for them to use it in a real self defense situation they are not prepared to adjust thier "technique" to all the variables that are thrown into the mix.


----------



## Jenna (Feb 10, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> Hi all
> 
> In the eclectic world of martial arts it's certainly easy to find guidance on what makes effective self defence.  In deciding whether or not a particular piece of guidance is valid, I sometimes find it difficult to maintain objectivity.  This is partly because some techniques just suit me better, but also because the people 'selling' the concepts sell just as strongly regardless of the actual validity of the concept presented.
> 
> ...



Gnarlie, if it smells to you like BS, it probably is BS.

If you ask here for individual views of BS, then what is BS to one person is SuperStreet to another.

Good luck figuring it all out.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 10, 2012)

I gotta agree with Chris Parker.  I don't have a checklist or anything, but I definitely got a BS Meter that starts to twitch.  I just look at some things and my gut tells me, that might look good on paper, might match with some combative theory, but in the real world, against a real attacker who really wants to hurt me, there's no way in hell I could ever pull that off.

Other people might feel that they CAN pull it off, even if I feel I could not.  Maybe they are right, maybe they are delusional, I dunno. 

Ultimately I think you gotta make decisions for yourself, and not worry about what others might feel about it.  If you know in your gut that X technique or approach or theory or strategy will never work for you, no matter how much you practice, then just accept that and look for something that jives better with you.  Other people might believe it's good for them, but that's irrelevant to you.  There will always be some people who can make things work that you cannot, and vice-versa.  Make decisions for yourself.


----------



## MA-Caver (Feb 10, 2012)

K-man said:


> The more simple the technique, the more chance you can pull it off under pressure.  The more complex, the opposite.
> 
> For a defensive technique, the closer it is to a reflex action, the more likely it will succeed.
> 
> And, I hate high flashy kicks.


 Strongly agree and likewise. In my own younger personal MA-studies, it included TKD and the round-house kicks for which is it is noted. Now as I'm older (and less flexible  ), I've adopted the JKD ideal that such techniques would only work under specific circumstances, settings i.e. open parking lot, city park or anywhere where there's room to perform it. So I dropped it and a lot of other things along the way. 
Simple is the way and as you stated closer it is to reflex the better. 
Now one may be able to get away with a fancier technique if the initial (defense) has the attacker rocking and reeling/dazed then by all means do so because the complex maneuvers can be very devestating and would leave the attacker out of the fight long enough to get away.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Feb 10, 2012)

To be a part of my toolbox a technique must be:
-Reflexive
-Adaptable
-Simple
-Inter-supportive (the techniques compliment and lead into each other interchangeably)


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 10, 2012)

In addition to what has been said already I look at the timing of the demonsration of the technique and whether or not the technique will affect a person's physical or mental balance. Plus if there are more than 2 or 3 movements in it, it is porbably too complicated to be properly applied under pressure.


----------



## WingChunIan (Feb 11, 2012)

for me it has to be simple and the response has to be almost independant of the attack. Any system teaching complex multi part moves is doomed to failure under pressure and the minute i see an instructor talk about if the opponent does X you do Y I always ask what if they do Z instead? If the answer is radically different I walk away as my BS meter goes off the charts.


----------



## MJS (Feb 13, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> Hi all
> 
> In the eclectic world of martial arts it's certainly easy to find guidance on what makes effective self defence.  In deciding whether or not a particular piece of guidance is valid, I sometimes find it difficult to maintain objectivity.  This is partly because some techniques just suit me better, but also because the people 'selling' the concepts sell just as strongly regardless of the actual validity of the concept presented.
> 
> ...



You already got some damn good advice, and alot of it echos my thoughts already.   Anyways...for me, when I'm learning something, I want to make sure that it works for *ME* as I'll be the one doing the tech.  I dont care if my teacher can do it, or his teacher or his teachers teacher....I'm not them, I'm me.  

Another thing is how simple and effective is it?  Some people tend to think that the more detailed something is, the better it is.  I disagree with that.  I'll use Kenpo as an example.  There are some loooong techs in the system.  In many cases, they're designed to be 'what ifs', meaning, well, 'what if' the bad guy doesnt go down after this strike...you then do this, and this, and this, and so on, so in the end, you have this long tech.  Furthermore, IMO, the more detailed and intricate something is, the more the student will have to remember.  

I'll use Krav Maga as an example.  Watch some *quality* Krav Maga clips.  You'll see simple, effective things.  Nothing long, drawn out stuff.


----------



## chinto (Feb 15, 2012)

K-man said:


> The more simple the technique, the more chance you can pull it off under pressure.  The more complex, the opposite.
> 
> For a defensive technique, the closer it is to a reflex action, the more likely it will succeed.
> 
> And, I hate high flashy kicks.



I Agree good basic criteria! 

yep kicks above the pelvic girdle, flashy kicks,  very complex techniques,  all make me think provably not.  
But it does come down to training in a system long enough to have a feel.  
If it feels like BS it most likely is!  so if you watch it and go... I don't think so in the back of your mind, because it just feels like it wont work for real ... trust your gut .. 

that does not mean that some very experienced people cant make some things work that others can't.   But trust your gut about what you think will or will not work at least for you.....  like some one said, what some one here might say is BS,  some one else might say ya I can make that work for me great !


----------



## FeralTao (Feb 21, 2012)

Usually you can tell on the person who's trying to teach you. With some years of experience in a serious club you should be able to tell when your self-proclaimed teacher has never so much as peeped outside their dojo door nor done any research. Some things might work well in the system they're put in but might prove to be useless in reality simply because the situations are different. Try to get hold of videos or records of such "random" assaults, what is actually happening? 

But generally, when someone can not tell me if it is necessary to adapt the technique to different kinds of people and how, or says something along the lines of "take it for what it is" it goes in the paperbin.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 21, 2012)

The only thing I would add is that in a school I was attending, I would not be inclined to walk away.  Bad form.  I would also not decline to try and learn, just because at first it didn't seem something I could do.  That is what training is al about.  If its being taught, I would first assume there was something there for me.  Over a long period of time, if I were still having trouble, and nothing my teacher said or demonstrated helped, I would continue to practice, but not mentally place it in my toolbox until I felt I had in fact mastered it.

If I were at a seminar, I would still learn as much of the technique as I could, asking the instructor what I could do to improve.  Who knows when it will click, and you will have another useful tool.  

I personally would not be too quick to think in my limited experience I knew too much more than my teacher.

Just my two cents.


----------



## WingChunIan (Feb 21, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> The only thing I would add is that in a school I was attending, I would not be inclined to walk away.  Bad form.  I would also not decline to try and learn, just because at first it didn't seem something I could do.  That is what training is al about.  If its being taught, I would first assume there was something there for me.  Over a long period of time, if I were still having trouble, and nothing my teacher said or demonstrated helped, I would continue to practice, but not mentally place it in my toolbox until I felt I had in fact mastered it.
> 
> If I were at a seminar, I would still learn as much of the technique as I could, asking the instructor what I could do to improve.  Who knows when it will click, and you will have another useful tool.
> 
> ...



I understand where you're coming from but my perspective would be that having a toolbox full of nice shiny tools is no use if when the pipe bursts you can't find the one you want for all the clutter. If someone studies arts for the sake of learning or personal discovery etc then new techniques are great but if you're looking for effective self defence then you need the trimmed down adjustable wrench, screwdriver, tape and hammer toolkit - it might not be pretty, but it works; a small number of tools you can trust and apply in multiple situations is better than a garage full of bespoke only ever use once designer gear.


----------



## MJS (Feb 21, 2012)

wingchunian said:


> i understand where you're coming from but my perspective would be that having a toolbox full of nice shiny tools is no use if when the pipe bursts you can't find the one you want for all the clutter. If someone studies arts for the sake of learning or personal discovery etc then new techniques are great *but if you're looking for effective self defence then you need the trimmed down adjustable wrench, screwdriver, tape and hammer toolkit - it might not be pretty, but it works; a small number of tools you can trust and apply in multiple situations is better than a garage full of bespoke only ever use once designer gear.*



qft!!!


----------



## Ironcrane (Feb 22, 2012)

In an instance like this first I try to judge if the technique would cause actual harm to an opponent, or just be a slight annoyance. Second, if the technique leaves an opening for the opponent to attack. The second thing I do is ask a friend of mine who is also a martial artist, who has been in a number of street fights. He can draw on his experiences to get a feel for how well the technique would actually work.


----------



## Zenjael (Mar 13, 2012)

Flash has its time and place. Like every technique, knowing when to use it, and how to counter it, will enable true understanding.

There are no inefficient techniques, there are just wasted ones.

There is a kick I developed where the practitioner advances, in one step, a sidekick over 10-12 feet. When will you use this? I hope never, because the target impact is fatal. There are many techniques like this. 540s, tricking, and the like, may never be used. But that does not mean they are useless.

Inefficient is not the same as impractical, however. I will grant that.


----------



## geezer (Mar 18, 2012)

Gnarlie said:


> Hi all...
> * What characteristics in a technique, concept, tactic, or strategy would set your BS meter twitching?*  :BSmeter:



Try the following:



Zenjael said:


> Flash has its time and place. Like every technique, knowing when to use it, and how to counter it, will enable true understanding...
> 
> There is a kick I developed where the practitioner advances, in one step, a sidekick over 10-12 feet. When will you use this? I hope never, because the target impact is fatal. There are many techniques like this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Mar 18, 2012)

I think different techniques also work better for some individuals than others.  This can be based on body type, age, flexibility, strength, speed, experience, and even temperament.  For me, it's less a question of whether or not a technique is effective in the real world, and more a question of whether or not I can make it work for me.


----------



## Buka (Mar 18, 2012)

Well...you could always go out and have a fight. Or talk to people who do.


----------



## frank raud (Mar 18, 2012)

Buka said:


> Well...you could always go out and have a fight. Or talk to people who do.



But,but,you could get hurt.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 19, 2012)

Zenjael said:


> Flash has its time and place. Like every technique, knowing when to use it, and how to counter it, will enable true understanding.



Flash has its place in entertainment only. In case you don't know why many of us at MT take this position is because we tend to think of flash as anything that is elaborate, flowery, and useless in any combat scenario.



Zenjael said:


> There are no inefficient techniques, there are just wasted ones.



I would say an inefficient technique is one that does not properly account for the situation it was designed against. A high kick to the face of a standing opponent is inefficient because there are too many things that can go wrong during the execution and the situation could most likely be better resolved by something else.





Zenjael said:


> There is a kick I developed where the practitioner advances, in one step, a sidekick over 10-12 feet. When will you use this? I hope never, because the target impact is fatal. There are many techniques like this. 540s, tricking, and the like, may never be used. But that does not mean they are useless.



I think you are making pretty bold leaps in think to assume something would be fatal, it might be, but there are no absolutes. And are you saying you use a side kick to travel 10-12 feet to close the distance or send you enemy 10-12 feet? And lastly I don't know what a 540 or "tricking" reffers to, but if its not meant to teach a principle, tactic, or strategy then training on it is useless.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 21, 2012)

540 refers to the number of degrees you rotate when you spin (one and a half full circle rotations), tricking is the XMA gymnastic/martial art concept, with a lot of acrobatics but little that has anything to do with martial arts. Both are pretty good indications of "nonsense" if put forth as self defence ideas.


----------



## Bill Shaw (Mar 23, 2012)

There&#8217;re some very good observations here, and some I really like.   Even so, if I might offer, here are a few further considerations: 

In my view simplicity&#8217;s advantage, is not so much because of an &#8220;easy to do&#8221; reflex quality.  Most anything can be trained high quality to reflex execution.  Rather, simplicity&#8217;s advantage is more because, when it a technique is well mastered, it is more instantly adaptable, adjustable, and applicable to more situations than a complex compound technique might be  

Moderately (& even highly) complex techniques, I&#8217;ve seen successfully applied, in full on & full heat, many times &#8211; most often by those trained & experienced to the point that it&#8217;s complexity (to them) had diminished.  So to them, it had become simple, quick, and easy to do.  

BTW, here&#8217;s a big hint: Simple does not mean easy. Some simple tactics, especially those based in subtlety, can be very difficult to do correctly.  What do I men &#8220;correct&#8221;  I mean so it has the desired effect, like to land a strike, drop a guard to, or draw an attack into a set up.

You also have to be careful about depending on the idea of &#8220;reflexes&#8221;&#8230; after all, reflexes are what are being exploited in &#8220;high level&#8221; drawing tactics as well as indirect attacks.  

So then how do you assess a good technique?  Unable to be anywhere near &#8220;complete&#8221; here, I offer what I hope is a good starting point.  In the past I have often told my students that a really good technique should, at minimum, be: 
Efficient - without wasted time, movement, or energy.
Effective &#8211; according to your intended use of it, in the moment.
Adaptable - with many practical applications.
Secure &#8211; without exposure to injury, or vulnerable to counters.
Compatible &#8211; with you, and the rest of what you do.

Other desirable qualities are: Speed, Power, Surprise, Deception, Control, and Devastation factors.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2012)

Bill Shaw said:


> So then how do you assess a good technique?  Unable to be anywhere near &#8220;complete&#8221; here, I offer what I hope is a good starting point.  In the past I have often told my students that a really good technique should, at minimum, be:
> Efficient - without wasted time, movement, or energy.
> Effective &#8211; according to your intended use of it, in the moment.
> Adaptable - with many practical applications.
> ...


How about adding: high percentage chance of success?


----------



## Bill Shaw (Mar 23, 2012)

K-man, Good one.  And like I said it wasn't intended to be "complete&#8221; and was offered as a "starting point".  I wonder though, do how much of your "Percentage Chance of Success" to attibute  to the skill of the fighter and the application opportunity presented.  Still, at the hear of tactical intention, you are right on.


----------



## K-man (Mar 23, 2012)

Bill Shaw said:


> K-man, Good one.  And like I said it wasn't intended to be "complete&#8221; and was offered as a "starting point".  I wonder though, do how much of your "Percentage Chance of Success" to attibute  to the skill of the fighter and the application opportunity presented.  Still, at the hear of tactical intention, you are right on.


As someone said, 'flashy' is great entertainment and looks fantastic in the movies. Flashy on the mat might also be acceptable as can be seen well demonstrated in the video of, I think, full contact Kyokushin KOs posted a couple of days ago. There were even a couple of KOs that were achieved by flipping. 

Now we change the scene to the pub.  Try a flip for a KO? Not for me. The percentages have plummeted. Punch to the abdomen, higher chance, punch to the jaw higher again, de-escalate and strategic retreat, best of all and possibly the greatest level of skill!


----------



## Bill Shaw (Mar 25, 2012)

Unquestionably, situational circumstances matter!


----------



## softstylist (Apr 14, 2012)

"look at a technique from the inside out " 

I mean by this that good self defence comes from core principle/concepts  and these are totally maluable and when learned you will be able to  create correct technique based upon the opponents action/movements. I  know this may sound complicated but it isn,t and usually leads to the  most simplistic of techniques in a confrontation as the economy of  motion of both people involved dictates the sequence of events. I have  written something here that seems esoteric but its simple really look at  the core of say an arm bar instead of thinking where do my feet go or  do i grab with my right or left hand just think I have to anchor 2 parts  of the arm (usually either end) and move the 3rd part (usually the  elbow) and an arm bar is the result. If you look at the martial  techniques you learn you will see these commonalities in principle at a  base level and you will understand that all arm bars (to use my example)  have the same principle as the one common thing is how an arm works and  that is just human anatomy which is the same for everybody.

I have found actually that in a confrontation (unfortunatly I have been in a few)  that even when things boil down to gross motor action that a good  result is still achieved as you do not have to remember anything you  just respond with reactive skill to another persons primitive actions.  In conclusion I will offer some advice that even when you see a  technique being performed badly or by someone with obviously limited  knowledge you can still learn from them by looking at what they are  doing and then super imposing a higher understanding level onto it and  you might find something valuable that otherwise you would have  dismissed.

remember the martial arts are not set in stone that is a mistake you are alive and ever changing and so too should you martial arts be.


----------



## Cyriacus (Apr 14, 2012)

softstylist said:


> "look at a technique from the inside out "
> 
> I mean by this that good self defence comes from core principle/concepts  and these are totally maluable and when learned you will be able to  create correct technique based upon the opponents action/movements. I  know this may sound complicated but it isn,t and usually leads to the  most simplistic of techniques in a confrontation as the economy of  motion of both people involved dictates the sequence of events.
> 
> ...



Just My Contribution.


----------

