Testing Certain Techniques

[Rook]

That is indeed true! So what does this mean?

Does this mean that whatever it is ineffective, because I cannot do it? Or does it mean that I don't know how to make it work?

Neither. It means it is time for more investigation.

It sounds like a cop out, but it isn't. We look to others - we see if people with similar physical traits can make the technique or principle work according to the 3 Cs I mentioned earlier, and then decide whether or not to train it for ourselves. (This is called this SYSTEMS PRESSURE TESTING.) If we train it for ourselves, we then test personal ability to perform the technique. (This is called PERSONAL PRESSURE TESTING).

-------

Let me give a hypothetical example. Let us say that I am a very obese man and I have poor leg flexibility. One person says "fat people can't kick high," another tells me it is still quite anatomically possible. I look to PRIDE FC, and notice the very overweight Mark Hunt performing sucessful highkicks, and conclude that it will be possible for me to lose some weight, limber up, gradually develop flexiblity, and eventually kick high. (systems pressure testing testing)

Hypothetically, I would then find a competent teacher who guides me through this process, and I periodically test my progress by kicking high at opportune moments in sparring. Perhaps I am sucessful - then I have added a weapon to my abilities. Perhaps I am unsucessful - then I will know, I can ditch that training and do something more productive. (Personal pressure testing)

The reason this works is that the systems pressure testing establishes it as probable, improbable, or impossible, and then personal pressure testing establishes that I personally can do it. In the example, I don't simply draw a conclusion based on my present circumstances, nor do I take the word of any person. I look for evidence for and against each side, and then test whether that applies to me or not.

 

[MJS]

Neither. It means it is time for more investigation.

It sounds like a cop out, but it isn't. We look to others - we see if people with similar physical traits can make the technique or principle work according to the 3 Cs I mentioned earlier, and then decide whether or not to train it for ourselves. (This is called this SYSTEMS PRESSURE TESTING.) If we train it for ourselves, we then test personal ability to perform the technique. (This is called PERSONAL PRESSURE TESTING).

-------

Let me give a hypothetical example. Let us say that I am a very obese man and I have poor leg flexibility. One person says "fat people can't kick high," another tells me it is still quite anatomically possible. I look to PRIDE FC, and notice the very overweight Mark Hunt performing sucessful highkicks, and conclude that it will be possible for me to lose some weight, limber up, gradually develop flexiblity, and eventually kick high. (systems pressure testing testing)

Hypothetically, I would then find a competent teacher who guides me through this process, and I periodically test my progress by kicking high at opportune moments in sparring. Perhaps I am sucessful - then I have added a weapon to my abilities. Perhaps I am unsucessful - then I will know, I can ditch that training and do something more productive. (Personal pressure testing)

The reason this works is that the systems pressure testing establishes it as probable, improbable, or impossible, and then personal pressure testing establishes that I personally can do it. In the example, I don't simply draw a conclusion based on my present circumstances, nor do I take the word of any person. I look for evidence for and against each side, and then test whether that applies to me or not.

3 C's?? I'm sorry, can you tell me about that again. I must've missed this.

Considering that we're all different, don't you think that a better method would be to just test yourself and see what you can/can't do? I mean, sure, I can try to find someone thats my height and weight, but that doesn't mean that we're going to be 100%. The other person could still be more flexable, a bit stronger, etc. Like I said in another post here, I personally don't want to disregard a potential move just because someone else can't make it work. If I'm the one doing the move, be it a kick, punch, grappling, etc., I need to know if it works for me.

 

[Rook]

3 C's?? I'm sorry, can you tell me about that again. I must've missed this.

Consistancy - should have a reasonable ratio of sucess to failure
Competency - should have been used against high quality opponents, not the local drunk
Convincing proof - should have proof like court documents or video to prove that the asserted instance actually occured as reported.

Considering that we're all different, don't you think that a better method would be to just test yourself and see what you can/can't do? I mean, sure, I can try to find someone thats my height and weight, but that doesn't mean that we're going to be 100%. The other person could still be more flexable, a bit stronger, etc. Like I said in another post here, I personally don't want to disregard a potential move just because someone else can't make it work. If I'm the one doing the move, be it a kick, punch, grappling, etc., I need to know if it works for me.

True, but no one has time to test every possible technique. You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on. There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.

 

[Robert Lee]

Practice finger strikes on a focus shield bag ect As you need to know to condition for the strike. Eye pokes you could end up hits to forhead Groind kicks train the focus shield. Knees the same. Now as a fight goes it is what gets done eye pokes groins did it effect the other person that much if so it worked. Best to just keep going until you have the upper hand and end the fight. We never know who we would be fighting just if we do have to fight use what ever is needed and keep it up no time to test anything just do it.

 

[MJS]

Consistancy - should have a reasonable ratio of sucess to failure
Competency - should have been used against high quality opponents, not the local drunk
Convincing proof - should have proof like court documents or video to prove that the asserted instance actually occured as reported.

Thank you.

True, but no one has time to test every possible technique. You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on. There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.

True and I see what you're saying. Sure, I have a number of kicks and punches in my art. While I can perform all of them, there are some that I tend to focus on more. Kind of like the "Take whats useful, discard the rest" theory.

Mike

 

[MJS]

True, but no one has time to test every possible technique. You have to screen out ones that you don't want or are unsuited for to figure out what you want to focus on. There is only so much time and energy to train with, and you shouldn't spend all of it testing new techniques all the time.

Let me give a hypothetical example. Let us say that I am a very obese man and I have poor leg flexibility. One person says "fat people can't kick high," another tells me it is still quite anatomically possible. I look to PRIDE FC, and notice the very overweight Mark Hunt performing sucessful highkicks, and conclude that it will be possible for me to lose some weight, limber up, gradually develop flexiblity, and eventually kick high. (systems pressure testing testing)

Hypothetically, I would then find a competent teacher who guides me through this process, and I periodically test my progress by kicking high at opportune moments in sparring. Perhaps I am sucessful - then I have added a weapon to my abilities. Perhaps I am unsucessful - then I will know, I can ditch that training and do something more productive. (Personal pressure testing)

The reason this works is that the systems pressure testing establishes it as probable, improbable, or impossible, and then personal pressure testing establishes that I personally can do it. In the example, I don't simply draw a conclusion based on my present circumstances, nor do I take the word of any person. I look for evidence for and against each side, and then test whether that applies to me or not.

I just want to expand a bit further on this. Now, just like when we go to a seminar, theres going to be a ton of info. given out. Chances are, we won't remember everything, so I usually take a few things that I learned and focus on those, as chances are, I may see the same or a similar technique again in the future. So, going with that, the same can be said for a sparring technique. We may have our 'signature' moves, that we have success with. The same with a certain technique against a punch, kick or grab.

The fact remains, that we're all built genetically different. No matter how hard we try to find someone close to our height, weight and build, I just may not be able to pull something off that the next guy can. What makes me think that the techniques person A uses for them, are going to suit my needs? I don't want to clone myself after someone, because A) we're not robots and B) as I mentioned, we have genetics. I want to find whats usefull to me and train that.

In the case you mention above about the overweight fighter. Due to genetics, I may never develop enough flexability to throw a head high kick. Just because they do it, maybe the next guy can't. But, I can throw a kick lower and have success with it. Again, I'm the one doing the technique, not them.

I hope this makes sense.

Mike

 

[Rook]

I just want to expand a bit further on this. Now, just like when we go to a seminar, theres going to be a ton of info. given out. Chances are, we won't remember everything, so I usually take a few things that I learned and focus on those, as chances are, I may see the same or a similar technique again in the future. So, going with that, the same can be said for a sparring technique. We may have our 'signature' moves, that we have success with. The same with a certain technique against a punch, kick or grab.

So far I agree.

The fact remains, that we're all built genetically different. No matter how hard we try to find someone close to our height, weight and build, I just may not be able to pull something off that the next guy can. What makes me think that the techniques person A uses for them, are going to suit my needs? I don't want to clone myself after someone, because A) we're not robots and B) as I mentioned, we have genetics. I want to find whats usefull to me and train that.

No, you're right. No two people fight exactly the same nor should they. However, in order to find out what is useful to you, you will need to train it regularly and then test it for yourself. There is only so much training a person can do before they overtrain, and there is only so much time available for training. There will only be enough time to "try out" so many techniques and strategies etc. In order to get a technique to the point that you can make a final conclusion about whether or not it will work for you will take time and energy. It is important not to simply try to personally try every single technique out there. You need a method of screening out the junk that you won't or can't use so you can focus on the good stuff.

In the case you mention above about the overweight fighter. Due to genetics, I may never develop enough flexability to throw a head high kick. Just because they do it, maybe the next guy can't. But, I can throw a kick lower and have success with it. Again, I'm the one doing the technique, not them.

Thats why the second part, personal pressure testing, is so important. At the end of the day, you will have to see if you can do as they do and to what extent. If it doesn't pan out for you, then it will still need to be ditched. Seeing others capable of doing it just means that it might be worth trying - it is not a guarantee of sucess by any means.

I hope this makes sense.

Mike

Makes sense.

 

[zDom]

Well... yea, except with training you can do things you thought were impossible before the training.

15 years ago I could kick, jump and kick, and spin and kick.

But jump-spin kick? Pfft. Not a chance.

Now? Not only can I jump spin heel kick head high, I can do it in a "pressure situation" accurately and with good enough timing to hit an unwilling target — hard.

 

[James Kovacich]

1) Well, I personally want to see a move used consistantly against competent opponents in match that I can see convincing proof of before I start to train it.

2) Lots of stuff works against a compliant opponent that holds up poorly under pressure. .

1) It's not that simple. If it was your technique base will be more limited than need be. There are no true anything goes mathces. Where are you going find this "convincing proof."

2) Techniques don't generally work the way they are taught. Thats the nature of martial arts. To be able to translate our knowledge base to usable techniques without thinking is one of the final stages of development.

 

[Flying Crane]

...there is only so much time available for training. There will only be enough time to "try out" so many techniques and strategies etc. In order to get a technique to the point that you can make a final conclusion about whether or not it will work for you will take time and energy. It is important not to simply try to personally try every single technique out there. You need a method of screening out the junk that you won't or can't use so you can focus on the good stuff.

Interesting point, and I think we all develop that screening method with experience. In the beginning, as a complete newbie, we have no idea what we might be able to accomplish, where we might excell, where we might have problems, and even what kind of techs we might have interest in. So to try them all is more important, work them enough to get a sense of what they are about, how they work, whether or not YOU can make them work. Later, with more experience under your belt, you can make an educated judgement when seeing new techs, as to whether or not they are right for you. At this point, you don't necessarily need to try them all before making some choices.

 

[still learning]

Hello, The most successful martial artist...the very true martial artist and and true Black Belts are those who NEVER TESTED OR USE THERE ART ON SOMEONE !!!!

To be humble, kind, and gentle person, as well confident, physcially strong and mental sharp (strong minded -knowing right and wrong)....should be the GOALS every martial artist should achieve!

Yes there will be times we need to step in and correct the wrong!

But our goals is to never escalated, get into fights or trouble situtions!

AWARENESS!!!!

If you live your life truely.....you will never ever have to use your martial art skills!

Verbal Judo works and running too!

PS: Best to keep mouth close and be thought as a FOOL....than to open it and remove all doubt! ....practice...practice and more practice...Aloha

 

[Brad Dunne]

I have seen this discussion before and there is a very important point that most if not all participants overlook and that is the vast majority of folks in the arts are not going to be up against Pride, UFC, K-1 etc trained attackers. The focus always seems to be aimed at "does the technique work in the ring" or something of a similar nature. Is every technique going to work on everybody? Of course not!, but it will work on the majority of human beings that the average person training in the arts will encounter and that's what matters, plus the given aspect of more than one technique being used (follow ups) come into play. There will always be the "exception to the rule" person out there and hopefully we won't have to deal with him/her, but even with that, any technique in question would just be a spring board for the followup technique(s).

 

[Rook]

I have seen this discussion before and there is a very important point that most if not all participants overlook and that is the vast majority of folks in the arts are not going to be up against Pride, UFC, K-1 etc trained attackers. The focus always seems to be aimed at "does the technique work in the ring" or something of a similar nature. Is every technique going to work on everybody? Of course not!, but it will work on the majority of human beings that the average person training in the arts will encounter and that's what matters, plus the given aspect of more than one technique being used (follow ups) come into play. There will always be the "exception to the rule" person out there and hopefully we won't have to deal with him/her, but even with that, any technique in question would just be a spring board for the followup technique(s).

Well, the thing is, many people in the street are not really very good fighter, but a few are. Instead of taking my bearings from the average "street thug" or the local town drunk, I want to be prepared for the possibility that I will face one of the few. Now, a normal person in good physical condition and with good situational awareness who doesn't panic has a pretty good chance of winning against the majority of the opponents he or she is likely to face. I don't want to wonder what I can get away with, but rather what the most I can do with the time and energy I can put it. (At some point that is going to mean switching to a full out MMA gym rather than my karate dojo, but I'm covered ok as it is.)

 

[pstarr]

You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work. In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd. It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.

I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...

 

[MJS]

Something to take into consideration. While we could gear our training for the worst case scenario, meaning facing a highly skilled person vs. a lesser skilled person, the fact remains, that we have jobs that we need to go to. I work 40hrs, sometimes more a week, and I have other responsibilities that need to be tended to. That being said, someone who is a professional fighter does not have those worries. His job is training for X number of hours each day. Fighting/training is his job.

So..taking that into consideration, the best we can do is keep training hard, when we can. Work our techniques the best we can. Of course, the use of environmental weapons, ie: a stick, rock or sand, in addition to weapons that we carry on us, ie: keys, knife, could also come into play.

Brad: You summed it up pretty good IMHO and I've said the same thing. As I've said, I do my best to train for that worst case scenario, but chances are, the guy thats going to try to mug me at knife point is not going to be a protege' of Chuck Liddell, but instead, some strung out punk thats looking for an easy victim for his next fix.

Mike

 

[Rook]

You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work.

Its not just to see if the techniques work, but if you personally can do them and how well. Feedback from actually using the technique will tell you what you need to improve.

In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd. It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.

Why shouldn't we?

I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...

Thats probably why I don't study a knife art.

 

[Andrew Green]

You know, the big thing nowadays seems to be on trying out ALL techniques for real - just to ensure that they work. In my opinion, this is often pretty absurd. It's one thing to train these techniques for accuracy, quickness, and power, but something else to "test" them on another human being just to see if they really work.

I'm sure glad our knife-fighting teachers didn't have this same mindset...

I think you are setting up a straw-man here.

Things don't need to be tested to full execution by everyone. I've not broken someones arm with a arm bar, but I still train armbars, I make sure I can get them, I make sure I can control the person sufficiently, and I make sure I can get enough leveredge to do damage if I wanted. I do this in sparring, against full resistance.

When we train with weapons we blunt them somewhat so that we can go to work the next day, but we still spar, and we still try to hit each other. If a block doesn't work we get hit, if a strike lands well, it still hurts.

It is a question of making sure you are capable of doing your techniques against someone that is motivated to not let you, and is trying to do nasty things to you.

It is also a matter of looking at the evidence out there, and the evidence gained through training. I've been kicked in the knee countless times, kicked many others in the knee, seen countless kicks to the knee in Kickboxing and MMA events. Very, very rarely has it ended a fight, or even done much to turn a fight. I have been hit in the nose countless times, hit people in theres countless times, seen full contact fighters hit in the nose countless times with a lot more force then I will ever be able to generate, and not once have I seen someone drop dead from nose bone to the brain.

It doesn't matter how hard you can hit someone in the face, not unless you CAN hit them in the face, and the only way to get good at that is to, Hit them in the face. And if you want to learn to hit people in the face hard, guess what you need to do? Glove up, headgear if you like, and hit people in the face, hard.

Not testing things in this way is kind of like getting a gun and firing blanks at a target all day to work on your accuracy. Dry firing may have its benefits, but until you actually put holes in the target you have no idea how good of a shot you are.

 

[zDom]

Not testing things in this way is kind of like getting a gun and firing blanks at a target all day to work on your accuracy. Dry firing may have its benefits, but until you actually put holes in the target you have no idea how good of a shot you are.

I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.

Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.

As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.

And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?

Sure, I too have seen many (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.

Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?

Crippling someone on videotape to "prove" to posterity that knee kicks have the potential to cripple up a knee makes about as much sense as shooting someone to prove bullets cause serious injury.

 

[Rook]

I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.

That would be closer to saying that the only way to train streetfighting is to be in a streetfight.

It is necessary to actual fire a gun to become proficient in its use, ideally against a target. You don't necessarily have to shoot a person and kill him or her. You could approximate it with a non-human target. Someone who shoots proficiently in a competition is probably capable of utilizing the weapon. Someone who never fires the gun but talks alot about "blowing people's brains out" to the point that it sounds like a fetish isn't going to be trusted.

Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.

As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.

Sure.

And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?

The two are not the same.

Sure, I too have seen many (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.

Yep. I wouldn't want to be punched by many people, but that doesn't meant that I uncritically accept their proposed punching power. I wouldn't want to be stabbed by many people whose "credentials" as "knifefighters" I doubt.

Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?

Crippling someone on videotape to "prove" to posterity that knee kicks have the potential to cripple up a knee makes about as much sense as shooting someone to prove bullets cause serious injury.

You don't need to shoot someone yourself to prove that bullets cause serious injury. There are reams of video, mountains of case reports, hundreds of medical studies and years worth of proof. I don't have to trust anyone about what a gunshot can and can't do. If I doubted it, I can turn to the medical literature or the video or other reliable sources and examine what is known.

On the other hand, your proposed leg kick seems to be rare indeed. It may actually happen, but not very regularly and certainly not at the consistancy against competent opponents with convincing proof that I would expect of so supposedly effective a technique.

 

[Andrew Green]

I think a more accurate analogy is trying to argue that the only way to REALLY train gunnery is by shooting people.

No, because that kills people.

More accurate would be live fire on targets, combining that with other drills with people on each side.

Your analogy lines up more with an argument regarding practicing punches and kicks in the air versus hitting a heavy bag.

Assuming I meant more then target shooting as a sport

But that does line up well with just hitting a stationary target, like a bag. If you want to learn to shoot against living, moving targets that are fighting back, you need to train against them. Whether it is martial arts (sparring) or military (war games)

A army that did nothing but shoot targets in training would not do very well in a combat situation.

As for knee strikes, we KNOW that a football tackle has the possibility of causing serious injury to a knee. Not all football tackles injure knees, but some definately DO.

yes, but I'd imagine that most people look for techniques that have a high percentage of success, not a low percentage one. There is also a large difference between a tackle and a kick, there is a lot more weight behind a tackle.

And there are some people who can kick as hard as a football tackle. Why is it so hard to believe that a kick has the potential to cause serious knee injury, given the proper angle and timing?

It's not, a good kick can do serious damage, but experience says, most of the time it won't.

Sure, I too have seen many (in my opinion, weak) kicks do no apparent damage. But there are MANY kickers I know (including myself) that I would NEVER want to receive a kick in the knee from.

Yup, most pro kickboxers I wouldn't want kicking me. But they kick each other, and live to tell about it.

Heck, you HAVE seen demos of people breaking up to two or three baseball bats with a roundhouse kick, right?

Yes, with aluminum bats as well. They bend though, not snap. He was also a pro kickboxer