Theory: in most technical disagreements, both sides are correct.

[Gerry Seymour]

I nearly rolled my ankle doing our virtual class last week.

Not on any technique. Just walking back to my mark after we were done with a form...

It’s that complicated stuff that’ll get ya.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So there is no limit on right methods?

No inherent numerical limit. If it works, it’s “right”.

 

[dvcochran]

Agreed, especially on that last point. Even though what I've trained for many years is the bladed position, it feels inherently weaker to me than the heel. Unfortunately, I'm not yet adept at using the heel in that kick.

Getting technical about the foot position, In regards to a side kick, the emphasis on the blade of the foot is to correctly position the heel/toe relationship and to properly load the ankle pre-kick.
The blade is a sturdy member that is very effective in crescent kicks and such. I gave one standing knockout and a broken nose using the blade of the foot.
Relevant to a post @skribs recently made about adjusting a technique to fit the situation, I would slightly lead my crescent kicks with the heel depending on the target/positioning relative to my opponent.
I sure do miss being limber and nimble enough still do things like this.

 

[wab25]

So this is interesting. Your theory is that both sides could be correct.

Do you do a side kick with the heel or with the blade of the foot?
Do you hook punch with a horizontal or vertical fist?
Do you punch straight or do you twist your fist over at the moment of impact?

For each of those questions, there are three possible answers: A, B, or "depends". In my opinion, all three answers are correct, depending on the fighter, the teacher, and the application.

For a theory to be correct, it has to always be correct, not just be correct for specific examples. So lets test this theory...

Do you practice a knife hand block as a block or as a strike?

Does your theory hold up for this question? That is, are answers B or "it depends" just as correct as answer A?

So to say one is intrinsically correct or incorrect is inaccurate.

 

[Dirty Dog]

For a theory to be correct, it has to always be correct, not just be correct for specific examples.

That's frankly nonsense. There are a lot more 'exceptions to the rules' than rules with no exceptions.

Do you practice a knife hand block as a block or as a strike?

Yes.

 

[skribs]

For a theory to be correct, it has to always be correct, not just be correct for specific examples. So lets test this theory...

Do you practice a knife hand block as a block or as a strike?

That's actually a different question. There are subtle differences between how you block and how you strike. It's the same as the difference between a sword and a shield, or between a front snap kick and a front push kick. There are several changes I would make if doing a block instead of a strike:

1. Orientation of my arm compared to the direction of travel: perpendicular for a block, in line for a strike
2. For the block, I will either do just enough motion to knock the strike off target, or a big motion pushing motion to set up a grab. With a chop, I'm going to use a quicker snap to deliver as much energy on target. I want to be as quick as I can with the block, but it ends up as a pushing motion.

If I do the block like I do the strike, then I have literally 0 margin for error. If I do the strike like I do the block, I'm not going to do any damage to the person.

 

[skribs]

There is nothing to indicate you can throw a hook punch. And so this discussion remains theoretical.

Why does it matter to the discussion whether or not I can throw a hook punch? Whether or not I can, you can discuss the hook punch and the question I brought up. You can give your opinion on:

• Which orientation is correct or incorrect
• Situations in which each orientation is correct or incorrect
• Reasons why different people prefer which orientation

Instead, you decided to call my credentials into question. It's a question so nebulous there's no way to answer it.

• I can say "yes, I can hook punch", but that won't satisfy you. You'll ask for a video.
• If I do post a video of myself doing a hook punch, you'll then ask for a video of me using it on an actual person.
• I'm not going to go out and make a video of myself punching someone. I'm not going to risk giving someone a concussion just to satisfy your stupid logic. Especially because even if I gave someone a concussion, you would just say "well I don't know how good a fighter he was, so it doesn't count"

I've had arguments with you before. I've seen all the logic

This isn't true.

Here is exactly what I said.

"If you don't have a reliable method of telling fantasy from reality then your OPs premise no longer works.

So what you are talking about is good. Providing you have the basic fundamentals in place first.

So say two successful boxers discussing their own take on proper orientation of a hook punch is different to two boxers and you having that discussion.

Because we don't know if you can throw a punch effectively or not."

What about that statement is incorrect.

I said "we don't know if you can throw a hook punch."

So your counter argument is.

"How the hell would you know?"

I don't know. That is why i said we don't know if you can throw a hook punch.

You need to be able to follow the conversation. Not just make up your own conversation.

You need to be able to separate fact from fantasy.

Because you do this all the time. You question everyone's abilities because you don't think anyone knows anything. Please show me where all of the martial artists in the world made you the arbiter of fact?

 

[skribs]

So there is no limit on right methods?

You...you do know there's more numbers than 1 and infinity, right?

 

[Steve]

Exept you can very easily determine which method is right. Because it will work or it won't work.

And there is no limit on right methods.

It is where the discussion remains intentionally theoretical that this problem occurs.

There are two things in play. Does the technique actually work (i.e., is this technique practical for anyone)? And does the technique work for me (i.e., is this technique practical for me)?

If we accept as a given that all or most techniques CAN work, then the rest is troubleshooting on an individual level, and you will be successful or unsuccessful based on how you train and your level of self awareness.

 

[Steve]

No inherent numerical limit. If it works, it’s “right”.

Works in what context? In a school where no one touches the other? In a bar? In a combat sport?

Simply put, I think if you're training in a style with no or little contact, and you aren't in a profession where you can apply the techniques as intended, you can have a robust discussion about the minutia of a technique. The stakes are low and it keeps your brain active. Why not?

If the success or failure matters, then you would be wise (in my opinion) to train for your activity and apply a more rigorous, results based standard for your training.

 

[wab25]

That's actually a different question. There are subtle differences between how you block and how you strike. It's the same as the difference between a sword and a shield, or between a front snap kick and a front push kick. There are several changes I would make if doing a block instead of a strike:

1. Orientation of my arm compared to the direction of travel: perpendicular for a block, in line for a strike
2. For the block, I will either do just enough motion to knock the strike off target, or a big motion pushing motion to set up a grab. With a chop, I'm going to use a quicker snap to deliver as much energy on target. I want to be as quick as I can with the block, but it ends up as a pushing motion.

If I do the block like I do the strike, then I have literally 0 margin for error. If I do the strike like I do the block, I'm not going to do any damage to the person.

So, your theory on technical disagreements is more a set of special cases, than a theory. If we are talking about sidekick, or hook punches, then both sides can be correct. If we are talking knife hand block, then only one side can be correct.

So, if I wanted to talk about lunge punch... can both sides be correct on that one, or only one side?

If I want to talk about an arbitrary technique, how do I know if both sides can be correct or not? Is this a case of ask skribs first? What is different about a technical discussion about fist orientation for a hook punch and a technical discussion about knife hand block application?

 

[skribs]

Simply put, I think if you're training in a style with no or little contact, and you aren't in a profession where you can apply the techniques as intended, you can have a robust discussion about the minutia of a technique. The stakes are low and it keeps your brain active. Why not?

If the success or failure matters, then you would be wise (in my opinion) to train for your activity and apply a more rigorous, results based standard for your training.

With very few exceptions, people have downtime between training. That's a perfect time to have this discussion. I myself do a lot of posts while I'm working at my day job, waiting for loading bars to crawl across the screen or spinny circles on an application to stop spinning so I can use it again. During this time I can't exactly spar or hit the heavy bag, but I can discuss martial arts. By your logic, anyone who has time to post on here isn't serious about their training. Because every post here could be time spent training.

Also, even when you are training, you have to evaluate your technique. Nobody's going to learn to punch by just punching over and over again. Otherwise martial arts schools could be replaced by a pamphlet that says:

• Do 1000 punches
• Do 1000 kicks
• Do 1000 elbows
• Do 1000 knees
• Go shower

There's a combination of technical discussion and training that goes into making someone a good fighter. Just because you train, doesn't mean you don't have time for that discussion.

So, your theory on technical disagreements is more a set of special cases, than a theory. If we are talking about sidekick, or hook punches, then both sides can be correct. If we are talking knife hand block, then only one side can be correct.

There are different ways of doing a side kick. You can use a pushing motion or a snap motion, just like I described with a block. If your goal is to send the target far away from you, the snap motion is less effective. If your goal is to cause damage, you will use a snap motion. While both techniques are valid techniques, either technique used in the wrong situation is the wrong technique.

 

[wab25]

There are different ways of doing a side kick. You can use a pushing motion or a snap motion, just like I described with a block. If your goal is to send the target far away from you, the snap motion is less effective. If your goal is to cause damage, you will use a snap motion. While both techniques are valid techniques, either technique used in the wrong situation is the wrong technique.

So, would you agree with the following statement?

There are different ways to do a knife hand block. You can do it as a block or you can do it as a strike. If your goal is to block, to do it one way. If your goal is to strike, you do it the other way. Both are valid techniques.

 

[Steve]

With very few exceptions, people have downtime between training. That's a perfect time to have this discussion. I myself do a lot of posts while I'm working at my day job, waiting for loading bars to crawl across the screen or spinny circles on an application to stop spinning so I can use it again. During this time I can't exactly spar or hit the heavy bag, but I can discuss martial arts. By your logic, anyone who has time to post on here isn't serious about their training. Because every post here could be time spent training.

Also, even when you are training, you have to evaluate your technique. Nobody's going to learn to punch by just punching over and over again. Otherwise martial arts schools could be replaced by a pamphlet that says:

• Do 1000 punches
• Do 1000 kicks
• Do 1000 elbows
• Do 1000 knees
• Go shower

There's a combination of technical discussion and training that goes into making someone a good fighter. Just because you train, doesn't mean you don't have time for that discussion.

If you got "anyone who has time to post on here isn't serious about their training," from my post, I think you missed the point. I would go so far as to say that some discussions are less constructive than others, and that the most helpful will resemble troubleshooting and not a bunch of hypothetical "what ifs".

 

[JP3]

Except I contend that Obi-Wan did intentionally mislead Luke. What he said makes sense from a certain point of view...but that point of view is only apparent if you have all the facts..

Sacrilige! Blasphemy! Heresy!

LOL! I think you just made my point for me, mano...

Our perspective changes as we gather more facts. I contend that we will never know All the facts, as we can't experience the infinite set of potential variations. But we can build... in Hapkido I came up with the (personal) concept of "funnels" which, conceptually, take the universe of potential varieties of inbound... just call them attacks as it simplifies things... and places them into the inbound funnels of appropriate response sets. So that, if faced with, let's say a right-handed fighter (right side farther from opponent, not fighting southpaw [anyone know where THAT designation - southpaw - came from?)] and the fighter decides for whatever reason that he/she is going to come in with a powerful, rear leg kick... to a certain extent a very good potential response can be generalized from the initial set of variables being reduced to "right side coming forward to strike, rear leg to perform strike," and you can execute whatever preparatory set of movements you, your style, your teacher (whoever) "prefers" for whatever set of reasons.

That set of reasons for the preference is mostly based on trial and error, sometimes for a few months, sometimes for thousands of years. But, at the core, it is a chosen set of responses which, int he opinion of "someone" is the "best, Most Appropriate way to respond.

And... those opinions can vary individual to individual.

Thus, we have MartialTalk.com

 

[skribs]

So, would you agree with the following statement?

There are different ways to do a knife hand block. You can do it as a block or you can do it as a strike. If your goal is to block, to do it one way. If your goal is to strike, you do it the other way. Both are valid techniques.

I would say you can use knife-hand techniques as a block or strike. I wouldn't call it a "knife-hand block" if you do it the other way.

 

[wab25]

I wouldn't call it a "knife-hand block" if you do it the other way.

Well, since a hook punch has a vertical fist, I wouldn't call it a hook punch if you do it the other way...

No difference in either statement, mine or yours. But, it sort of goes against your theory, a little, since you think one side of a specific technical disagreement is wrong.

 

[skribs]

Well, since a hook punch has a vertical fist, I wouldn't call it a hook punch if you do it the other way...

No difference in either statement, mine or yours. But, it sort of goes against your theory, a little, since you think one side of a specific technical disagreement is wrong.

You're arguing terminology instead of technique.

EDIT to clarify:

If you say "if you punch with vertical fist that's hook punch, if you punch with horizontal fist that's a different punch" then you're just defining what is and isn't a hook punch. You're not discussing when to use a vertical or horizontal fist, or why it should be vertical instead of horizontal. That's the technical discussion.

When I quibble over knife-hand block instead of knife-hand strike, it's because there are times when each name is more accurate to the technique being used. I am describing the difference in how you would use them. I think it would be more accurate to just use the term "knife-hand" if you're going to use a term that covers both a block and a strike.

 

[JP3]

I would say you can use knife-hand techniques as a block or strike. I wouldn't call it a "knife-hand block" if you do it the other way.

Does what your hand actually "does" change when you do a knifehand strike vs. block? Target different, I get that, but the mechanics from elbow down? I don't think mine do... but it's been aminute.

 

[skribs]

Does what your hand actually "does" change when you do a knifehand strike vs. block? Target different, I get that, but the mechanics from elbow down? I don't think mine do... but it's been aminute.

Your hand itself is the same. However, there are two big differences:

1. With the knife-hand block there's usually a partial rotation of the elbow. The knife-hand strike is more linear.
2. With the knife-hand block I'm aiming to hit with the forearm. With the knife-hand strike I'm aiming to hit with my hand.