This highlights your misunderstanding. See, I'm not the head. I teach a few students. Other NGA instructors (not all of them) also teach many of these techniques. They all - if they are teaching reasonably well - are teaching the principles that are necessary to work them. Students sometimes even "discover" them on their own before they are introduced, because they are within the basic framework of principles.
And, no, having some overlapping principles doesn't make two systems the same. Judo and NGA share a large number of grappling principles. Even ignoring our striking, anyone who knows grappling wouldn't mistake one system for the other if they visited multiple classes. But that would onlly apply to someone who has an understanding of grappling. Easier if they are familiar with one of those two styles, but I think a competent wrestler would pick up some of the differences. And the same is true in a different direction for NGA and Aikido - which are more visually similar in most of our core curriulum. What differentiates systems is the difference in the principles they focus on, although there will be overlapping principles at play.
Fair enough, i thought you were the head/had significant say in the day to day of the style. If anyone who was head said they deemed X part of their system but didnt have it in there, i would question it.
The diffrence is in applciation, of principles, so techniques. You still follow the same few principles to achive something. The number of principles i do not know, but the exact number doesnt matter, its finite. The perfect straight punch is the stepping punch you learn in TKD and karate(for the sake of argument it is), is that valid for actual fighting and can you pull that off in actual fighting? very limited. This is just where my deviation shows, i draw systems on technique as opposed to principles, they should be following one of the valid principles to devolope their techniques.
Unless we ID and designated a few principles that are for the same thing i dont think we can really have the argument proper, because we need to ID if they all use the same, or which principle they use. Where as you can get another list of finite techniques off of one principle.
I dont disagree, im just drawing my definition off technique as opposed to principle, principle comes before technique. At least how i use both and have defined. (i think i defined principle)
As far as i understand the martial arts model for how its normally used, there is a principle, you then show one or two techniques for how to apply said principle, the issue people have ID'ed is you stop at just learning the technique as opposed to the principle. So instead of learning the principle you memorise the techniques, but thats not bad if its technique based, its within the context of what you are aiming for.
You could maybe build a system off of pure principles, but i think very few are so its a exeption to the rule as opposed to the rule. The user just needs to know enough to apply it for their task, if you wish to teach you need to know enough to explain the context and reasoning to better teach it.
Both technique and principle are ill defined for martial arts to say the least, thats why these agruments still happen. Wasnt there a phase of technique vs principle based learning argumentation one time on the internet? I feel like it was a phase.
There is overlap between physics and biology (for instance, looking into the conservation of energy problems involved in transmitting neurological signals). So, yes, at times when you discuss biology, you can end up also talking about physics. And a physics textbook definitely contains information that applies to biology (pressure, leverage, etc.).
See, i knew this was coming.
the other two sciences are technically applications of physics, but i am not getting into the science purity nonsense, lest a mathematician appear.
But, inter displinary subjects are considered that, their own thing. If they are grouped into one, its which ever is dominant or which ever science takes contol of it. I belive bio chem is in biology as opposed to chemistry. I could be wrong i havent looked that one up in a while.
You woud still learn physics and physics theory in physics, you wont learn the theory of biology in physics or chemistry, nor would you learn any of the others in any of the others unless you go into one of the inter displinary subjects.* Which should be their own thing. Somone who specilises in bio chem doesnt say "they are a biologist or chemist" they normally say they specilise in bio chem. Or call themselves a bio chemist. At least as far as i know, they would use bio chemist as their name.
this is kind of a flawed point as you normally do combined science and learn them all together, your sort of isolating things that are and should be taught together, kind of like striking and grappling.
*You may use the theories of physics and biology etc outside their subjects, but you shouldnt be taught it/only be taught the applied version for your subject. I slightly misread your point so i overlooked you stating the theories of physics used in biology. Still a cheap move subject to choose as physics is technically literally everything science wise.
At least this is how i recall me being taught science, they were still all distinctly their own subject, like you wernt taught maths in science, you were taught the principles that requires maths to do and forumula, but not addition, subtraction etc. So, in other words, applied maths in science, but not how to actually do maths. They may remind you/tell you if you forget, but thats because they are a teacher in school, not because its part of the subject.
(above pciture is a joke, but its a funny joke and illitrates my point, and yes people do joke about this and argue about purity in science)
).
