Practicioner VS Technique

[IPON]

I am posting this question to generate discussion. I have noticed ppl discussing which are good/not good tecniques. I feel most if not all techniques from TMA have application.

So my question is is the technique the problem or is it actually the dedication of the practionioner to the style/technique.

I think the goal is to master all techniques of your style. But becasue you master these techniques some may not be practical to you or you may not, due to speed or flexability, be able to apply them effectively in a fight.

Any other thoughts??

[chris davis 200]

good thread.

I think that all techniques ARE applicable in some way.

The comparative difference between the ' effectivness' of the technique is IMO down to how much time the practitioner has given to mastering that movement or technique.

You will find that many Martial Artists (not just Traditonal but modern also) Train irregularly and use their training as a pass time. You will also find that in the 'ring sports' area fighters tend to be better. This is due to the difference of training regeme, the focus of proffessional / semi proffessional fighting allows these people to train harder.

This generally higher fighting proffeciency is IMO not due to the art being superior.

I know of many TMA's that train to an equal or greater extent to those ring sports that are suposed to be superior in technique.

This provides those TMA's with often a greater fighting ability outside of the ring - due to the lack of regulations and figthing to accommodate those rules.

This is something that cannot be tested 'in the ring' as so many people insist. No figthing format accommodates fair fighting, in the respect of allowing the opponent to use all their weapons.

I myself train daily for around 4 hours. This is in 'TMA's' and have used my skills in style vs style and street encounters.

I beleive that i have been successfull because i train hard not because my arts are 'necisarily' superior.

I do think that some arts do not cover all bases but that is for a different thread.

Cheers
Chris

[gregimotis]

Another thing that isn't mentioned enough when people talk about this art being better than that one:

Not everyone and not every art is really meant to be primarily a fighting art. For instance Krabi Krabong is a sword art, do people practicing it really carry around a pair of swords in their car? Or how about Tai Chi practioners?

One of the students at our school also teaches Aikido and I know he sees Aikido firstly as a philosophy and secondly as a fighting art.

[ryanhall]

Wow this is long...

I'd say that the practitioner matters more than the art. However, I still classify moves/tools/techniques into "high" and "low" probability of success moves. I feel that things such as wrist locks and high kicks are lower percentage of success moves regardless of skill, whereas eye jabs or a rear cross are higher percentage of success regardless of skill level. One can certainly possess the requisite skill to pull off a lower pertentage of success technique, but the fact of the matter is that if they could do one of those, then they probably could have exercised one or more safer options.

When I say regardless of skill, I mean that a movement is difficult in and of itself, no matter how good you are. It is simply easier to punch someone in the face than it is to ax kick them in the head. Sure, you can possess a great ax kick, but it is easier to perfect your rear straight. Your rear straight will connect more often and on more people than will your ax kick, because it is less telegraphic, a shorter movement, and it allows you to remain better protected against your opponent's counterattack.

In style v style matches, I feel that it is usually the better fighter who prevails, not the one who uses an allegedly 'better' style. In real world confrontation, however, your methods matter quit a bit more. No longer is it a challenge of skill, but a challenge of ferocity. Your mental state will dictate your ability to function, and the environment/situation will prevent you from fighting the way you would in the ring. Your opponent will likely be larger than you, and often more aggressive. He may have friends or a weapon in addition to possibly knowing his environment better than you do.

Simplicity works best here, as there is little physical strategy other than 'overwhelm the other guy before he can do the same to you.' The guy kicking to the head will usually lose to the guy using an eye jab followed by a cross and a knee to the face. Why? Your fine motor skills tend to deteriorate under stress, you tire very quickly, your vision is often impaired (tunnel vision), and your emotions will SERIOUSLY affect your ability to cognitively process information (think clearly).

Outside the ring, there really isn't any style, so whatever you practice, it should be simple, direct, offensive, and aimed at terminating an engagement with another individual immediately. So, yes, there are methods that are better for 'streetfighting' (not the childish illegal kind, but self-protection), but martial arts are, as a friend of mine recently explained 'process oriented' rather than 'goal oriented.'

When something is 'process oriented,' you are there to leran a martial art in its entirety. You are there to learn how it is done, how it is practiced, and how it is used. Your goal is to learn the art. Self-protection may be a side effect of the process, but you do not learn only the things that you would use in protecting yourself from attack. For example, I don't need to know 50 submissions on each arm or three variations of the Kimura in order to protect myself. In fact, Hick's Law states that the more responses we have to a situation, the slower our brain is to choose one. This is particularly true under stress. Whittle your options down to the smallest possible number, and you will react more quickly when it counts.

Something that is goal oriented is focused on one thing: hurting the other guy(s). Everything you do/practice is directly related to doing one thing: hurting the other guy(s). No tradition, no cool moves, nothing complex, nothing more than necessary. So does technique matter? Yes. It matters that it is simple, effective, offensive, and damaging to an opponent of larger stature as well as someone of comprable size to yourself.

Basically, keep it simple, and you will be fine. Your skills as a fighter will show themselves, and style won't be an issue. If you notice, the basics of most styles are very similar. I find it interesting that the elbow strike that you learn in your first week of Hapkido class is much more functional than a multi-step wrist lock that you learn at black belt level. The person attempting to use the former will likely have much more success than the person attempting the latter, despite the black belt's greater experience.

[Great Sage]

Re: Practicioner VS Technique

Originally posted by IPON
I am posting this question to generate discussion. I have noticed ppl discussing which are good/not good tecniques. I feel most if not all techniques from TMA have application.

It’s my opinion that your statement is partially true. Every technique has application, or serves a purpose in it’s own scheme. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily make it useful. For instance, if you pulled off Low Block to Reverse Punch, the application has worked. But what have you accomplished if it didn’t phase the opponent? Which it won’t.

Originally posted by IPON
So my question is is the technique the problem or is it actually the dedication of the practionioner to the style/technique.

Dedication is probably more important, since each individual has particular strengths and weaknesses. However, there is such a thing as “blind faith.” A person may spend 20 years learning tai Chi for a fight, when he should have been doing Muay Thai.

Originally posted by IPON
I think the goal is to master all techniques of your style. But becasue you master these techniques some may not be practical to you or you may not, due to speed or flexability, be able to apply them effectively in a fight.

Any other thoughts??

I’m not sure anyone has completely mastered all ranges of techniques of any style. Every martial artist will eventually figure out what works best for them and cultivate those techniques. Martial arts is a parody of life. You make decisions based on yourself. What’s my favorite color? What does my stomach agree on? Don’t be so worried about how many techniques and focus on execution, precision, timing, etc... Here’s a short story for you. When I first started MA, I bought over a hundred books and tried to learn every MA... In the end, I learned nothing.

[IPON]

Sage when say master all techniques of your specific style I mean it is a goal not that everyone will of course, but the techniques you learn you should master. The point of the thread is not style vs. style which is better (I am not advocating or defending any style) it is a conceptual question.

A lot of times in MA or weight training I hear people say this technique doesn't work (and it may not for the individual) and it seems that it have more to do with there maturity in MA in their style and the fact they may not be training properly and do not realize it is a function of the training/precision/skill not just the technique. Don't get me wrong I have defenately seen techniques which would not realistically save me from an attack of a single roach(insect)

There are dozens of types of chokes (kicks strikes whateevr), if someone says that that a choke doen't work because the application is wrong....is not being honest of fair to themselves or the style...That is what I mean by dedication and training, why is the technique not working and try perfect it......after that the person may say the tecniques is not practical except for a few situations or they may not feel comfortable the techique..OK but that does not mean the technique does not work (in an appropriate situation). The reason you have a multitude of techniques to learn is beacuse not every technique is good for evey situation (althougth, generally, the basics should always be good).

I can sweep an opponent, but I would rarely, use it on the street, if I am presented with an oportunity yeah, but it is not one my best moves, but that does not invalidate the technique.

Thank you for the responses, I am just curious what everyone thinks.