Originally posted by kkbb
Would it not be wiser to adapt one defense created for one attack to defend against similar attacks. In other words, a reverse punch done to the head, or chest, or low, would be best dealt with by one single defense....would it not? Don't most people in epak or any other multiple technique system "freeze" when confronted by the same attack done with different variables.... because they have to stop and think about 3 or 4 different techniques taught to them to negate minor variations in the attacks (ie straight punch, different angles)? Or do they "explode" into some "technique" that doesn't look anything like they have learned, and therefore are taking a 50/50 chance that it would work or that they could make it work? And if our instructors want us to "expand" or think outside of the box...why do they bother to teach techniques? Why not just concepts? Let the student put it together?
Take a kid to candy store and he will surely take forever to make up his mind, but take a kid to hardware store that only has one candy machine his decision is easy!
Less techniques ("i'd rather have 6 that work than 24 that don't") in mho is better!
People may freeze in training due to thinking about which defense to use. But in a real situation, when people freeze, they're generally not thinking about anything at all. They're a deer in headlights, not a kid in a candy store
To be a fighter, you only need a handful of techniques (or even only one) and good timing/footwork.
But a good fighter isn't necessarily a good teacher. To be a good teacher, you need more than just what works for you. You need to have options so that if something you do doesn't work for a student, then you can present them with alternatives.
Curriculums (in general) are laid out in such a way that the student learns various options and is able to then determine which works best for him/her.
To look at a curriculum and say, "When I get attack A, I'm going to do defense A. When I get attacked with B, I'm going to do defense B." is a very shallow way of looking at things and isn't what the curriculums are intended to present. They are intended to:
A) present options so the student can, as they evolve, find what works best for them
B) present options so that as the student ages, they don't have to go looking elsewhere to accomodate their aging body's attributes - they just have to review the curriculum and find what works best for them at their current age
C) provide multiple perspectives on the same concept/principle to deepen the understanding of the concept/principle
D) provide a "map to the territory" that the instructor can use as he/she guides students through the actual territory - the map is not the territory
There are probably other things, too, but these are the first ones that come to my mind.
A good fighter doesn't need all of this. A good fighter only needs what works for him/her (though what works may change with age). But training in martial arts isn't (for most people that I know) just about being a good fighter.
Mike
I thought that he was saying that he could do 5 Swords against a kick. Detour from Doom is a totally different tech. IMO, doing a modification is making a slight change, not doing a separate tech.
