Assessing practicality - the nonsense filter

[geezer]

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

Try the following:

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]

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]

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

 

[frank raud]

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

But,but,you could get hurt.

 

[Aiki Lee]

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.

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.

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]

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]

There’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’s advantage, is not so much because of an “easy to do” reflex quality. Most anything can be trained high quality to reflex execution. Rather, simplicity’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’ve seen successfully applied, in full on & full heat, many times – most often by those trained & experienced to the point that it’s complexity (to them) had diminished. So to them, it had become simple, quick, and easy to do.

BTW, here’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 “correct” 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 “reflexes”… after all, reflexes are what are being exploited in “high level” drawing tactics as well as indirect attacks.

So then how do you assess a good technique? Unable to be anywhere near “complete” 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 – according to your intended use of it, in the moment.
Adaptable - with many practical applications.
Secure – without exposure to injury, or vulnerable to counters.
Compatible – with you, and the rest of what you do.

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

 

[K-man]

So then how do you assess a good technique? Unable to be anywhere near “complete” 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 – according to your intended use of it, in the moment.
Adaptable - with many practical applications.
Secure – without exposure to injury, or vulnerable to counters.
Compatible – with you, and the rest of what you do.

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

How about adding: high percentage chance of success?

 

[Bill Shaw]

K-man, Good one. And like I said it wasn't intended to be "complete” 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]

K-man, Good one. And like I said it wasn't intended to be "complete” 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]

Unquestionably, situational circumstances matter!

 

[softstylist]

"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]

"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 read that as implying that theres some kind of order, to brawling. Ill not reply to that bit.

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.

Assuming You can get over the desire to break the threat to You with Blunt Force, Yes, I agree.

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.

There is also the anatomical considerations of Adrenalin, on both parties.

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.

Im sorry, but I disagree. Thats such a broad brush to stroke with, that We may as well call Ashida Kim a Martial Arts Master, because We can take His, for example, Bullet Dodging, and simperimpose a higher understanding level to it, and find valuable knowledge wed normally dismiss. Then You have people whos solution to everything is to, say, Grapple. Theres a reason competitive MMA Fighters cant just use Grappling. Or just Striking. Because there is no one fully reliable method. Nothing will universally work, and nothing is flawless. Much in the same way, some things really are just overcomplicated and/or poor quality.

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.

That does not mean changes will be for the better. If You took the striking out of Muay Thai, and just made it a Clinch Contest with Knee Taps to the body scoring a point, the whole system would degrade in a hurry. Whats amusing, is that such stupid alterations have been made. Not exactly that, to My knowledge, but not all change is good.

Just My Contribution.