Ah, so you meant with a single principle for the full range of throws.How?
The leg twist and leg block use different power generation and different body method.
The leg twisting require twisting power.
The leg blocking require lifting power.
Toolbox concept
- Thread starter Kung Fu Wang
- Start date
Clarifying my thought on this...
I think it’s possible to teach grappling/throwing from a basic set of principles. Then just work to get to those. Then questions of power generation become a matter of practice. They are simply how you get to the point of the throw.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #43
The difference are:
- Aiki (breaking structure) is MA application which has to do with "opponent".
- Power generation, body coordination, ... are self-training which have nothing to to with "opponent".
All my principles have to do with MA application (not self-training).
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I would describe those in your second grouping as strategy or tactics.
In your first group, your first item is too general and doesn’t identify anything. I wouldn’t include it in anything. But the other three, sure those are principles. Those things can underlie an entire system and make any technique powerful and effective if the technique is executed according to the principle, as that principle manifests in your system.
I believe any good system had a small number of principles. There needs to be a consistent method in the practice of the system, and basing everything on a limited number of principles makes that happen, gives it consistency. Too many principles and there is no consistency in execution. It all gets jumbled up and is less effective.
Honestly, I believe many people are unaware of their system’s principles beyond lip service. They talk about it but fail to understand it and don’t know how to engage the principles in their techniques, and don’t have a systematic way of building that skill. But yes, on some level all systems ought to have these principles, or some principle that fulfills the same purpose.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Principles do have everything to do with application. They drive the technique and make them effective and efficient. Without understanding how to engage the principles, you will rely on raw brute strength and have inefficient techniques.
You use your tactics: for example “step to the inside of the punch”
Then you use a technique to counter the punch: for example: “inward block and right punch to the chin”
But your technique is powered by your principles of rooting and waist rotation, to make that block and punch powerful and efficient and effective beyond what you would accomplish with raw physical strength.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #46
The term principle is general used such as praying mantis 12 character principles.
Will you call this PM 12 strategies?
Praying Mantis Kung Fu: The Twelve Character Principles
OP
- Thread Starter
- #47
Your principle definition is similar to those used in the Taiji principles. To me, those are the "building blocks".
It's not important which definition that we may use here, as long as we know the difference.
10 Principles of Tai chi chuan
- Correct position of chest and back. ...
- Remain relaxed with no tension. ...
- All movement comes from the center. ...
- Harmonize the upper and lower parts of the body. ...
- The entire body moves as a single unit. ...
- All movements are performed in a smooth manner, with no unevenness, and continuous, allowing no interruptions.
- ...
OP
- Thread Starter
- #48
One time I walked back to my car in a parking lot, a Iran wrestler attacked me from behind and gave me a rear bear hug. Believe it or not, he squeezed my body so hard that broke his own ribs.
You can see the "double side elbows" used at 0.51-0.55.
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
They seem mostly like tactics and techniques to me. Suppleness could be a principle if there is a method to it and somehow use it to apply techniques. If it is just a vague concept to try and “be” then I would say it might be more of a strategy, a concept to incorporate when possible. Balance is a skill, not a principle. Of course you should always strive to be in balance, but balance isn’t a method to drive techniques.
Maybe there is a poor translation from the Chinese to the English, and they don’t mean Principle in the sameness way it tends to be used in English. But in my mind, it makes a difference.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Building blocks, yes that is often consistent with principles. But it goes beyond that. They can power your techniques, but if you internalize it well then they can power any movement that you do, even if not a “proper” technique. Then, any movement can become an effective technique because the principles can give it power.
And then you don’t need to worry so much about collecting techniques.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #51
If we just talk about the striking art, the total number of principle may be small.
In the throwing art, different power generation are needed, different principle will be applied. The issue is how many principles will be needed to support all the techniques in your system.
Do you agree that a
- single leg,
- foot sweep,
- firemen's carry,
- hip throw,
- leg lift,
- leg twist,
- inner hook,
- downward pulling,
- ...
all require different principles?
Last edited:
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I’m no expert on grappling and throwing methods and I agree that there would likely be different principles in a throwing/grappling art vs. a striking art. Some principles may be shared, but may manifest differently. I think waist rotation would be found in the throwing art, perhaps coupled with cutting the root or cutting the balance, but I’m not sure if that last bit would be a tactic. The specifics of how you cut the root would be the technique.
I would be surprised if all of those techniques required separate principles. As I say, I’m no expert on them. But I suspect there would be principles common to all of them.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Sure, that’s a technique. Principle could include waist rotation, and I’m trying to decide if dropping the center of gravity would be a principle of a tactic. I’m leaning toward tactic, as I doubt it could be something to build the bulk of a complete system on.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #54
I don't know the following 2 technique can be considered as using the same principle.
You use your right leg to horizontal hook your opponent's left leg from
- inside (clockwise to your right),
- outside (counter-clockwise to your left).
I also don't know I can consider these 2 techniques as the same principle:
- horizontal hooking,
- vertical upward hooking.
All those are hooking motion but require separate training with different body method.
Last edited:
As I said, I think the difference is semantics. What I call “principle” is simply labeled differently in your approach.
I don’t think so. Even by my definition, those have a small number of overlapping principles. Any two of them may have a different mix of those principles, but will also share some.
Keeping weight low is a key principle for grappling. There are alternative approaches/principles that can show up for other techniques, but getting weight below their center is pretty foundational.
Allow me to wrap those in principles as I define the term. The following principles apply to both:
- structure breaking
- position before technique
- attempt only what is available
- control movement
- remove support
OP
- Thread Starter
- #59
Which principle do you think the foot sweep and firemen's carry may share?
Last edited:
Off the top of my (very sleepy) head: structure-breaking (or the broader Japanese term kuzushi), only using techniques that are available, controlling their center, moving the center beyond support (in one case by moving the center, in the other by removing a support).
It really depends how you personally define and parse the principles.
Similar threads
