What makes a good technique?

[geezer]

When I get together with other martial stylists, we sometimes exchange favorite techniques. I am often surprised that we often have very different criteria for what makes a good move. Last weekend two different guys showed me some FMA moves. Both were very experienced and more than competent. But what they valued was so different. The first one showed me how to take a striking and disarming sequence and accomplish the same thing in half as many movements. The second guy showed me how to add about three more movements onto the sequence. Now neither of these gentlemen are from my style, but by my standards, the first guy who simplified the move was on the right track. My criteria for judging technique is that it should be simple, efficient and directly to the point. And, it should be practical. That means it could be counted on "in the street". Finally, because I'm not a large person, I personally prefer techniques that are designed to be used against larger and more powerful opponents.

How about you guys. Simplicity or complexity? Power, speed or intelligence? What makes a good technique?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Something that follows the K.I.S.S priciple and works most of the time on most people.

 

[Andrew Green]

How about you guys. Simplicity or complexity? Power, speed or intelligence? What makes a good technique?

Simple is always better, as when the pressure goes up complex becomes even more complex.

That said, what makes a good technique is one that the user can effectively use to their advantage. Doesn't matter if it is simple or complex, doesn't matter if it uses strength or not, speed or not. If the person using it can use it in a way that benefits them rather then the opponent then it was a good technique.

 

[MJS]

When I get together with other martial stylists, we sometimes exchange favorite techniques. I am often surprised that we often have very different criteria for what makes a good move. Last weekend two different guys showed me some FMA moves. Both were very experienced and more than competent. But what they valued was so different. The first one showed me how to take a striking and disarming sequence and accomplish the same thing in half as many movements. The second guy showed me how to add about three more movements onto the sequence. Now neither of these gentlemen are from my style, but by my standards, the first guy who simplified the move was on the right track. My criteria for judging technique is that it should be simple, efficient and directly to the point. And, it should be practical. That means it could be counted on "in the street". Finally, because I'm not a large person, I personally prefer techniques that are designed to be used against larger and more powerful opponents.

How about you guys. Simplicity or complexity? Power, speed or intelligence? What makes a good technique?

Something that follows the K.I.S.S priciple and works most of the time on most people.

My thoughts exactly!! Short and sweet, simple and to the point! Many times, we may look at techniques that are long and think that they have no value. They do have value, but we need to look at them as if they're teaching us the 'what if' portion of the fight. I'll use a lock flow as an example. We see a huge series of locks. Will we ever use every lock? Probably not, but the 'extra' things are giving us more options.

 

[geezer]

My thoughts exactly!! Short and sweet, simple and to the point! Many times, we may look at techniques that are long and think that they have no value. They do have value, but we need to look at them as if they're teaching us the 'what if' portion of the fight. I'll use a lock flow as an example. We see a huge series of locks. Will we ever use every lock? Probably not, but the 'extra' things are giving us more options.

So far we all agree. And even though I'm a huge fan of the "KISS" motto, I admit that I enjoy training "flow" sequences that aren't paractical in and of themselves, but they do teach practical skills. Similarly, in the FMAs I'm no fan of fancy disarms and locks for real-life self defense. Still, they are fun to practice and probably useful to know (just in case). I just feel that if you can show me a shorter, faster, or more dependable way to get the job done, my hat's off to you...because that's what it's all about.

 

[terryl965]

I agree the K.I.S.S program is always the best for me and remember not every single person can make every single technique work for them. So use only what you feel most comfitable with.

 

[Brad Dunne]

Since everybody so far is in agreement as to the K.I.S.S. aspect, allow me to pose this question dealing with techniques. Is it important for you to have the technique "look good" or is just plain functional more than enough? The reason I ask is because some styles seem to place a premimum on how a person looks/delivers a particular technique and even though the technique is workable, it dosen't look all that smooth or clean or whatever discription you may want to use. So does it "have" to look good or is just being functional enough for you?....................

 

[bluekey88]

Generally, KISS is my credo. However, I had the pelasure of working with some of our young'uns on a creation self defense against a throat grab. One young lad came up witha simple yet elegant move, breakl the choke and tirp/push the attacker down. On the face of things this might be good enough, but when he tried it on a larger boy it didn't work so good. After adding in a couple of strikes after the choke release (groin and throat), the trip was MUCH more effective.

Point being that SOMETIMES, one has to add some intermediate steps to reach a goal. The good martial artist is the one who knows when and when not to do that.

Peace,
Erik

 

[terryl965]

K.I.S.S. as long as it work being pretty is for the movies.

 

[bluekey88]

there is no better feeling in the world than cleanly executing a technique. no matter how simple. A good straight jab is a thing of beauty.

Peace,
Erik

 

[jks9199]

When I get together with other martial stylists, we sometimes exchange favorite techniques. I am often surprised that we often have very different criteria for what makes a good move. Last weekend two different guys showed me some FMA moves. Both were very experienced and more than competent. But what they valued was so different. The first one showed me how to take a striking and disarming sequence and accomplish the same thing in half as many movements. The second guy showed me how to add about three more movements onto the sequence. Now neither of these gentlemen are from my style, but by my standards, the first guy who simplified the move was on the right track. My criteria for judging technique is that it should be simple, efficient and directly to the point. And, it should be practical. That means it could be counted on "in the street". Finally, because I'm not a large person, I personally prefer techniques that are designed to be used against larger and more powerful opponents.

How about you guys. Simplicity or complexity? Power, speed or intelligence? What makes a good technique?

A good technique for what? Self defense? Sparring? Competition of some sort? Drill? Demonstration?

The purpose will shape the definition of "good." A "good" self defense technique may be useless for competition or demonstration. A "good" demonstration technique may be useless outside of demos.

However, they all should have sound principles to shape them. For the real world -- direct, and simple is good. But sound principles and technique, drilled to the point of unconcious skill, will almost invariably trump the toughest, most direct, and most "simple" technique. Otherwise... why would we train anything other than a direct punch to the throat...

 

[Cirdan]

A good technique is when it is no longer a technique, you just fill the form needed to preform your intended action. Keep it simple, but don`t be locked in one shape, be formless.

 

[Brian S]

A good technique for what? Self defense? Sparring? Competition of some sort? Drill? Demonstration?

The purpose will shape the definition of "good." A "good" self defense technique may be useless for competition or demonstration. A "good" demonstration technique may be useless outside of demos.

However, they all should have sound principles to shape them. For the real world -- direct, and simple is good. But sound principles and technique, drilled to the point of unconcious skill, will almost invariably trump the toughest, most direct, and most "simple" technique. Otherwise... why would we train anything other than a direct punch to the throat...

That's the question I was going to pose.

I'm self defense minded,so I say a good technique is the one that's availiable that you can use most effectively. My good technique may not be your good technique.

 

[KenpoTex]

A good technique should be simple so that it is easy to learn, retain, and maintain. It should also be something that works when faced with "real-world" pressure and realistic attack energy.

...Is it important for you to have the technique "look good" or is just plain functional more than enough? The reason I ask is because some styles seem to place a premimum on how a person looks/delivers a particular technique and even though the technique is workable, it dosen't look all that smooth or clean or whatever discription you may want to use. So does it "have" to look good or is just being functional enough for you?

I've always been a believer in the idea that "form follows function." If it works, its "beauty" lies in its functionality. If it looks good but doesn't work (which would apply to many techniques), what good is it? Hoch Hockheim made a statement in a BB-magazine article a few years ago that: "Your techniques should be scary, shocking, and ugly. People should wince when they see you in action, they shouldn't say 'oh he's so smooth."

 

[MJS]

Since everybody so far is in agreement as to the K.I.S.S. aspect, allow me to pose this question dealing with techniques. Is it important for you to have the technique "look good" or is just plain functional more than enough? The reason I ask is because some styles seem to place a premimum on how a person looks/delivers a particular technique and even though the technique is workable, it dosen't look all that smooth or clean or whatever discription you may want to use. So does it "have" to look good or is just being functional enough for you?....................

I lean more towards functional than looking good. Throw someone in a technique line, not giving them the chance to think much about the attack thats coming at them, which forces them to just move, and all those fancy, textbook moves go out the window. Its funny how we tend to resort back to the KISS principle in those situations.

Now keep in mind that being functional should not be an excuse for looking like total garbage. There is the difference....being slopply, swinging wildly with no purpose, or doing an effective 3 move tech. vs. the 6 or 7 move one.

 

[ackks10]

i think that everyone forgets that a technique (and i said this before) will not work the same way on the street as in the dojo,and i know that this will piss a lot of people off, and i don't know why people can't see this??
i"m not talking about DS, or SOD, or any of the easy ones, look, let me put it this way, and Mike you know what i mean,on the st. you got people using all kinds of drugs that alter there minds and make them feel no pain( i know i have worked the st. a lone time) so what do you do?? if you have to, try (and this works) "what if's" don't worry about using a technique (by name) and finding out it won't work because the perp was not where he was soupose to be,(that only works in the dojo) so take the blinders of and see the big picture, i mean no disrespect.

 

[Nomad]

A good technique should be simple so that it is easy to learn, retain, and maintain. It should also be something that works when faced with "real-world" pressure and realistic attack energy.

I've always been a believer in the idea that "form follows function." If it works, its "beauty" lies in its functionality. If it looks good but doesn't work (which would apply to many techniques), what good is it? Hoch Hockheim made a statement in a BB-magazine article a few years ago that: "Your techniques should be scary, shocking, and ugly. People should wince when they see you in action, they shouldn't say 'oh he's so smooth."

While I agree with most of your statement, I don't agree so much with your quote... smooth can be a very good thing, as it can mean the person is able to optimize their speed and power (relaxing opposing muscles, etc), and it can also make the technique much harder to resist (thinking of throws and locks here... the smoother they're performed, the less the opponent has to work with in terms of stopping/countering them).

Yes, ugly can be functional, but a good technique performed smoothly is, IMO, even better.

In answer to the original post, the techniques which have made me really go "wow" are the ones that are very simple & effective and which feel natural when I perform them.

 

[geezer]

But sound principles and technique, drilled to the point of unconcious skill, will almost invariably trump the toughest, most direct, and most "simple" technique. Otherwise... why would we train anything other than a direct punch to the throat...[/quote]

I wouldn't know about that. To me "sound principles" should emphasize what gets the job done. I study Wing Tsun and Eskrima. Both stress direct and lethal moves. In Wing Tsun we spend a great deal of time learning ways to strike to the throat, how to set up such a strike, or how to hit a similarly devastating target!

And, there's always more to it than a cheap shot. As Bluekey88 pointed out, sometimes it takes an intermediate moves to set up the big one. In the Eskrima I study, you never try for a disarm. That's dumb. But sometimes one comes up and you can execute it coming off a good hit. We just try to keep our priorities straight. Hitting is the objective!!!

As far as the importance of appearance (re Brad Dunne's post), I'd have to agree with Kenpotex. Form follows function. If it works, simply and efficiently, it's elegant. If it looks like an elaborate martial dance, that's fine, but it makes for ugly self defense--since the dancer is gonna get creamed.

 

[thesandman]

Often simplicity is brutality.

Complexity creates options, options allow control.

These are not absolutes, but another side of the debate that needs to be recognized.

Any thug with a baseball bat can come up with a simple, fast and effective way to end a confrontation.

A martial artist should be able to end that confrontation without injury to himself OR OTHERS when the occasion calls for it.

Playing devil's advocate here a bit.

 

[MJS]

i think that everyone forgets that a technique (and i said this before) will not work the same way on the street as in the dojo,and i know that this will piss a lot of people off, and i don't know why people can't see this??
i"m not talking about DS, or SOD, or any of the easy ones, look, let me put it this way, and Mike you know what i mean,on the st. you got people using all kinds of drugs that alter there minds and make them feel no pain( i know i have worked the st. a lone time) so what do you do?? if you have to, try (and this works) "what if's" don't worry about using a technique (by name) and finding out it won't work because the perp was not where he was soupose to be,(that only works in the dojo) so take the blinders of and see the big picture, i mean no disrespect.

Couldn't agree more!