Concept Vs. Technique

[zac_duncan]

Here's something that's been buzzing around inside my head for a while and I'd love to get some input from all of you rather knowledgable (and opinionated) folks on the board.

In my training, I've been exposed to two very, very different approaches to teaching. One wich emphasized the learning of techniques another which seems to emphasize conceptual learning as a path to "discovery" of techniques. I want to stress here that this was my personal response to these methods and that I'm in no way criticizing anyone else's approach. I'm merely stating how I responded to these methods and looking for input on how others have learned.

In the early stages of my training, I studied Kuk Sool Won and the techniques were taught in very tight and direct sets. It was nice because everyone at a certain level knew X techniques and nothing more. It ensured that you were taught the complete program. With good instruction you would learn the underlying concepts, but often it seemed that this type of instruction lead to rote memorization and static practice. Resultingly, my ability to improvise was somewhat stifled.


In my post KSW training, I've had the opportunity to work on occasion with Master Babcock. When working with him, he rarely, if ever, teaches a technique so much as teaching a concept and showing how this concept relates to technique. In practicing these concepts I often find myself executing techniques which I have not been formally taught, because the movement simply flowed there. In this way, my improvisational skills have increased greatly and the art feels more "alive" to me. However, I often find it difficult to catalog what it is that I know. My understanding has much more depth, but I find it hard to guage the breadth of this knowledge. This isn't to say that I don't still learn static techniques sets, I do, but this type of training is much less frequent than the conceptual, more "outside of the box" aspects of training.



It seems obvious that both styles of teaching offer benefits and have their downsides, but how do each of you learn and teach? How do you bring the art to life while ensuring that everyone learns a specific set of skills?

Thoughts?

 

[Paul B]

Hi Zac,it's always good to see another Hapkidoin taking part on MT!

For myself,technique has always been taught "statically" and then through maturity progressed to the conceptual stage.

I believe the basic concepts,such as triangulation and differences in timing,tend to "make" technique available. Kinda like "Hey..I recognize this position"..and they also allow for better flow. Freestyle practice is a great way to expand on what you have learned conceptually,if you don't do that already.

I personally think that static technique is great for when your first learning the technique,after that..I don't think your doing yourself any favors by continuing to practice that way. I'd go so far as to say I find it tedious at best..lol I'm sorry if I didn't help much,but it's nice to have you here,anyway.

 

[traz]

Through my experiences, I have also been trained where technique is more taught at the beginning, which then tends to transform into more concept during the intermediate/advanced stages.

It seems to be a natural progression to me, one that works. Techniques are taught first, and over time, the practitioner begins to realise why those techniques worked in the first place, creating a whole other dimension to his training.

 

[glad2bhere]

When I teach a student I usually use whats commonly known as "shaping". By this I mean that I teach the gross motorskills first and then gradually shape the students' behavior a bit at a time down to more and more specific skills. Since the techniques are already divided up into a limited number of skill families, but learning the same gross motor skills for members of the same technical family a particular principle of joint manipulation, striking or kicking etc etc etc are learned. Later on I might lecture a bit to show how everything pulls together, but this is not a substitute for the student having " the light come on" for themselves. That "epiphany" experience is always preferably. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Paul, thanks for the welcome, I'm glad there's such an animated discussion forum for practitioners. It's nice to be able to chat about this art that I love so much.

I entirely agree about freestyle practice, it's great for learning positioning, sensitivity, timing, etc. For me, it was especially useful in learning how important the movement of your hips is, I kept finding myself stuck in long hard stances and I had no where to go from there. On top of that, there's some real confidence to be gained from actually controlling a non-cooperative opponent.

I'm sure it's nothing new, but one free-style drill we've used that I love is to have the attacker to continually attempt to counter/strike until you have control of them and they can't strike anything else. Then let them go and go at them until they get you. No throws or take downs, just locking/arresting. You've got to do this drill with someone you trust and whose toughness you know, because especially at first, people find that they're open and if you're going too hard (easy to do) people get hit and/or locked rather firmly (ouch).

It helps me to learn how to redirect a failed technique. Additionally, it really makes the concept of rhythm in a fight concrete while building your sensitivity. You find yourself feeling the opponents counter attacks before they even launch them. For example, when they attempt to pivot, you can feel whether they're pivoting for an elbow/backfist or a kick well before it comes. I've still got a very long ways to go but this kind of thing has really helped in discovering "my hapkido".

Again, nothing new, but one really cool thing I've found is that when you move inside on your partner's punch you can easily roll towards their other hand, and if they're throwing it, all the locks and throws you know from having both your hands grabbed are all right there. It's amazing how beautifully and naturally these movements flow. Man, I love hapkido.


In favor of regular static technique practice, I think it's probably the only way to remember all the techniques and variations. There are so many damned techniques it's really impossible to remember them all without practicing them somewhat regularly in a static state. Also, I do a lot of teaching of lower belts and I find that through continually demonstrating, explaining, re-demonstrating, re-explaining the fundamentals, my fundamentals get more and more sound. The better my fundamentals, the better everything else is. At least, that's the hope.

Cheers!
-zac

 

[zac_duncan]

Mr Sims, so you're saying that you prefer to teach technique and allow the student to discover the concept rather than teaching the concepts and allowing the student to discover the technique? Am I misreading?

I'd really like opinions on this, as I love to teach the art and teaching, much like learning requires dilligent study and thought.

Thanks,
-zac

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Zac:

Within the context of your question, more the former than the latter.

A student will have a clue, certainly about the nature of the technique simply by virtue of noting the family under study at the moment. But it remains for the student to have the "epiphany" as to how to respect, regard, utilize, maintain etc etc the principle of the technique as various factors change. This is more than simply executing the technique either "offensively" or "defensively". At the risk of writing a tome allow me to use an example.

Most here are familiar with the simple "Arm Bar technique. Traditionally it is one of the earliest, often THE earliest technique taught in the Hapkido arts. For us the Arm-bar is a member of the ElbowLock family. At first light the idea of controlling a person by locking their elbow seems like a no-brainer. This is especially true when one is at Level One and both individuals are in static posture. However, at Level Two, the defender goes into motion, either entering or exiting the attackers centerline. Now the principle must be maintained while the defender is in motion in various ways.

At Level Three, both the attaker and defender are in motion, yet the principle of dealing with the attack using a locked elbow must still be maintained. At Level Four the issue of spontaneous attack is added and the principle must still be maintained. At Level Four there is the introduction of using PP and at Level 5 the use of Strike Points--- and still the principle must be maintained. Even at Level 6 (3rd BB), from a Position of Disadvantage, the principle must still be maintained. The question is always "how is this done?" Dojunim Kim (Yong Sul Kwan) would explain this by saying that Hapkiyusool is nothing more than resolving "problems that need to be solved". I add to that by saying that my job as a teacher is to sit on the perifery and coach the student as they learn how to solve these problems for themselves. As a teacher it can be VERY VERY frustrating, as any good parent will tell you. There is always the temptation to step in and say "just do this and this and this and there you have it". This is an injustice to the student as it never allows them to develope problem-solving skills for themselves and makes them dependent on the teacher. As a teacher, my job is to WORK MY WAY OUT OF A JOB. Hope this is of some help.

BTW: I should also mention that the Confucian Teaching Model simply throws enough variations of techniques in a jumble of principles at a person so that they do the same thing I do using an Academic Approach. The difference is that the Confucian approach often has more problems delineating the principles and assuring retention of the information over time. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Mr. Sims,

Thank you for the information I get a lot out of other's views on teaching and I appreciate how systematic your approach sounds.

One question, it seems clear to me now that most techniques taught to hapkido students (outside of strikes) early in their learning process aren't actually "fighting" techniques but rather rough motions intended to demonstrate what the "real" techniques would look like.

As an example, and in keeping with the theme, in one of our first sets the student is taught a basic (outside) arm bar without a wrist lock as re-enforcement. I've tried to execute this technique with strong partners and found that without the wrist lock I have move very sharply to get the lock (not something I think anyone wants white belts doing), but with control of the wrist, (which is shown in the next set) even the strongest man in our school is going down, like it or not. Obviously, we don't have beginners trying to execute techniques against resistance, but the occasional student does reflexively tense their arm and fight the lock, which is where I've run into this.


Is this true in your sets as well? Not the lock specifically, but the idea that the basic sets are not "fighting" sets. Just curious.

-zac

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Zac:

"....Is this true in your sets as well? Not the lock specifically, but the idea that the basic sets are not "fighting" sets. Just curious...."

No.

There is a very distinct line between what I and other Hapkido people do,and what a person may find regularly across the spectrum of Hapkido varieties and arts. There is never a time that we kid ourselves and pretend that we are not about doing damage. Techniques such as the Arm-Bar began their life as elbow BREAKS. The techniques we do as wrist throws began as wrist BREAKS. The idea behind these techniques was to end the ability of the attacker. If he had skill with a weapon and the circumstances were dire I wanted to end his ability to use his weapon not just toss him on the ground. As a matter of fact, if you examine the earliest history of what we do as yawara now (at least in the documented Japanese traditions --- See: Draeger) you will find that the intention was to restrain a person so as to slay them with whatever was at hand--- usually a belt knife such as the tanto. It was later with the infusion of Chinese material (c. 1610) the emphasis shifted taking the opponent into restraint. This is generally seen as the advent of "yawara" as we know it today.

However, the use of rollling, breakfalling, non-resistance has come to be misused and misinterpreted by many practitioners. It is the responsibility of the attacking partner to remain a 1/4 second and a quarter-inch ahead of his partner so that the defender can use as much authority as necessary to ingrain his muscle-memory with adequate instruction. Using the Arm-Bar we were talking about as an example, an observer sees me perform a motion that looks like I am pressing the partner to the mat. The fact is that I am training my body that such motion is what I want my body to perform under duress. My partner "loans" me his body for use, trusting that I will not abuse it, and will be seen to "go with the action". In actual application I am seeking to fracture the arm at the elbow. Unlike Aikido wherein I take responsibility for the safety of the perp, all I owe the perp in Hapkido is the instruction in the consequences in making a bad decision. If the attacking party can be taken under control by relaxing and going with the technique, submission and restraint are an option. Absent that, I expect the likelihood is high that the attacker will lose the use of his arm. In this manner, Hapkido is not for everyone, and I don't teach Hapkido to children. It is an adult art for people with adult sensibilities who are willing to accept that they will study hard to master an art that they will work equally hard to never use. Not many such people around. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[zac_duncan]

Bruce, I think you perhaps misunderstood me. I do not mean that any of our techniques are pacifistic. All of our techniques, just as yours, are meant to disable the opponent, with little or no regard for their well-being. I'd assume (perhaps incorrectly) this is true across the board when it comes to hapkido. This is not Aikido.

What I meant is that the earliest sets are, for lack of a better term, incomplete techniques. Now, thinking about it a bit more, I'm going to retract that statement. Open mouth, insert foot.

In essence, what I meant is even though an arm bar is being taught, and that arm bar could indeed break the arm, it's not the complete arm bar. But perhaps, thinking further I'm wrong. I could explain better but only if I had an arm to demonstrate on.


I apologize that this thread is going off into the wild, but I am very curious about the teching methods and priorities of other hapkidoin. Simple intellectual curiousity.

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Zac:

Yeah, I think I must be missing something, but then, we may be hitting one of those limitations of this venue. Like you say it would be nice to be able to just put a hand out or throw a punch and demonstrate the principle.

BTW: One of the challenges I have for the up-coming Yong Sul Kwan meet in Australia is to approach Dojunim Kim with the terms I have been working on and get his in-put. These will not so much be terms for things such as kicks and punches. Rather, these will be terms for concepts such as "balance-breaking", "mis-alignment" and such. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Paul B]

Interesting...When is an armbar not an armbar?... *fill in punchline here* :uhyeah:


How about this..when learning the dynamic version of the armbar *say from a grab*..is the concept still about breaking the arm or moving off center? What is the actual redeeming concept?

 

[hwarang]

Ive been taught a certain way to do the technique, then to learn to use it in other ways, like twist the wrist for example learning to do it from a punch to a grab to a handshake anyway you can immagine, it can be done.. thats what ive been told

 

[pesilat]

Here's something that's been buzzing around inside my head for a while and I'd love to get some input from all of you rather knowledgable (and opinionated) folks on the board.

In my training, I've been exposed to two very, very different approaches to teaching. One wich emphasized the learning of techniques another which seems to emphasize conceptual learning as a path to "discovery" of techniques. I want to stress here that this was my personal response to these methods and that I'm in no way criticizing anyone else's approach. I'm merely stating how I responded to these methods and looking for input on how others have learned.

In the early stages of my training, I studied Kuk Sool Won and the techniques were taught in very tight and direct sets. It was nice because everyone at a certain level knew X techniques and nothing more. It ensured that you were taught the complete program. With good instruction you would learn the underlying concepts, but often it seemed that this type of instruction lead to rote memorization and static practice. Resultingly, my ability to improvise was somewhat stifled.


In my post KSW training, I've had the opportunity to work on occasion with Master Babcock. When working with him, he rarely, if ever, teaches a technique so much as teaching a concept and showing how this concept relates to technique. In practicing these concepts I often find myself executing techniques which I have not been formally taught, because the movement simply flowed there. In this way, my improvisational skills have increased greatly and the art feels more "alive" to me. However, I often find it difficult to catalog what it is that I know. My understanding has much more depth, but I find it hard to guage the breadth of this knowledge. This isn't to say that I don't still learn static techniques sets, I do, but this type of training is much less frequent than the conceptual, more "outside of the box" aspects of training.



It seems obvious that both styles of teaching offer benefits and have their downsides, but how do each of you learn and teach? How do you bring the art to life while ensuring that everyone learns a specific set of skills?

Thoughts?

I think everyone should strive for reaching a conceptual understanding. However, pure concept is very difficult to learn because the instructor never does the same thing twice. It's not impossible but it is more difficult. On the flip side, pure technique is easier to learn but can be limiting in a real fight where flow and improvisation are the only way to hope to keep up with the chaos that is a fight.

I like systems that use techniques and drills to illustrate the concepts. The students start out learning the techniques and, at first, they're just techniques. But the instructor is constantly showing how a particular technique or drill isolates a certain concept/principle. As training progresses the focus shifts from the technique to the underlying concept/principle.

This can also be accomplished as you did it. Train with one instructor who teaches very technically. Then, once your foundation is built, train with an instructor who is very conceptual.

In this teaching model (one instructor moving from the technical to the conceptual or getting technique from one and then concept from another) when at the technical stage rules are written in stone and can't be broken. At the conceptual stage, the rules are written in mud. They're there and they still apply. But there are times, places, and situations where they can and should be bent and/or broken.

Developing the wisdom for knowing when/where they can/should be bent/broken is the most important and most difficult part of the process.

Mike

 

[zac_duncan]

Mr. Castro,

Thank you for your input on this. I tend to agree with your position. The way I'm coming to see it is that in the early stages of training, you learn techniques to help you "find" the concepts, in later training however, you use concept to find the technique.

That's the way I'm looking at it this week.

 

[pesilat]

Mr. Castro,

Thank you for your input on this. I tend to agree with your position. The way I'm coming to see it is that in the early stages of training, you learn techniques to help you "find" the concepts, in later training however, you use concept to find the technique.

That's the way I'm looking at it this week.

Absolutely. That's the way I've come to look at it (and how I've been looking at it for quite some time now).

As my instructor puts it, "To learn a technique is to know a technique. To learn a concept is to know a thousand techniques."

However, learning concepts at first is very difficult. Learning techniques is relatively simple. The trick is in not allowing yourself or your students to get stuck at the "technique" stage. They become what I've heard referred to as "technique collectors." They end up with a huge box of tools but very little idea of how to use them in conjunction with each other to complete a project.

Another instructor I highly respect actually dislikes the term "concept" because it's very vague. He prefers the term "principles." And it's more than an issue of semantics. I use both.

To further my prior explanation, I constantly remind my students of the principles that make a technique work. Once they understand those principles then they can develop their own conceptual understanding that transcends that specific technique.

Mike

 

[American HKD]

Absolutely. That's the way I've come to look at it (and how I've been looking at it for quite some time now).

As my instructor puts it, "To learn a technique is to know a technique. To learn a concept is to know a thousand techniques."

However, learning concepts at first is very difficult. Learning techniques is relatively simple. The trick is in not allowing yourself or your students to get stuck at the "technique" stage. They become what I've heard referred to as "technique collectors." They end up with a huge box of tools but very little idea of how to use them in conjunction with each other to complete a project.

Another instructor I highly respect actually dislikes the term "concept" because it's very vague. He prefers the term "principles." And it's more than an issue of semantics. I use both.

To further my prior explanation, I constantly remind my students of the principles that make a technique work. Once they understand those principles then they can develop their own conceptual understanding that transcends that specific technique.

Mike

I agree to a point, in the sense that a single tech. can be use in multiple applications (surely not 1000, 100, 50, maybe 25 but probably even less?)

But if all you learned was concepts or principles you would not be very good at defending yourself.

The physical "Core Technical skills" must be taught and drilled to the point of being able to use them, only then do "Concepts & Applications" come into play.

It's a long process to get to that point.

 

[pesilat]

I agree to a point, in the sense that a single tech. can be use in multiple applications (surely not 1000, 100, 50, maybe 25 but probably even less?)

But if all you learned was concepts or principles you would not be very good at defending yourself.

The physical "Core Technical skills" must be taught and drilled to the point of being able to use them, only then do "Concepts & Applications" come into play.

It's a long process to get to that point.

That's one way to do it but not the only way. I know people who have been trained through a very conceptual method with no real set techniques. It was certainly more difficult for them to learn but in the end they wound up being just as good as others who learned in a technique-based system.

What ends up happening is that the students develop their own techniques to illustrate and train the concepts for themselves (and possibly for their students later).

Both methods - technique-based and concept-based - have strengths and weaknesses. And, like the yin-yang, they tend to lead to each other at some point.

Personally, I agree with you that, overall, it's better to start with technique-based and then move toward conceptual understanding because it takes a very specific type of person and mindset to thrive in a concept-based training method. These are much harder to come by than people who can thrive in a tehnique-based training method. Consequently, instructors who take a conceptual approach tend to have a much smaller student base. That's neither good or bad ... it simply is.

Mike