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...

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! :)

[BLACK LION]

Techniques are only as good as the principles it is based on... with simple- honest- solid- principles you find infinite techniques.... ultimately there wont be any techniques....only adapting principle to situation or circumstance

[jkembry]

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?....................

Funny this should be a topic now. The other evening at training we had a visiting Sensei that stressed getting the mechanics of the technique right and then once that happens, let the technique do the work.

I am still working out what exactly that means...and I suspect that I am trying to make too much out of the statement.

[BLACK LION]

its the principles.... you can train technique after technique only to find the situation doesnt warrant it... then its useless... if ones trains in the realm of techniques then one finds variation after variation from person to person... there is no solid ground... you may have ground techniques and gun techniques and knife techniques and club techniques and all these techniques for various situtations ... its overload... most of them dont even apply to one another... then when actually in a fight for ones safety or survival you find ones techniques inaccessible and only the most primal of instincts kick in... you see people curl up in a ball... try to run... you see them in despair.... look at police footage where a suspect or perp goes for the gun... they end up squirming around for minutes on end... all those techniques they learned to control suspects went out the window...

if what you train is based on physical and scientific truth and principles are established on such... technique becomes absent and adaptation becomes prevelant.... so rather than accessing my log of techniques all I am doing is accepting the situation adapting to it and aggressing it till it is no longer a threat.... AAA

techniques seem to add complexity on top of complexity.... when using principle truth is the smoothest most effect approach

[ackks10]

its the principles.... you can train technique after technique only to find the situation doesnt warrant it... then its useless... if ones trains in the realm of techniques then one finds variation after variation from person to person... there is no solid ground... you may have ground techniques and gun techniques and knife techniques and club techniques and all these techniques for various situtations ... its overload... most of them dont even apply to one another... then when actually in a fight for ones safety or survival you find ones techniques inaccessible and only the most primal of instincts kick in... you see people curl up in a ball... try to run... you see them in despair.... look at police footage where a suspect or perp goes for the gun... they end up squirming around for minutes on end... all those techniques they learned to control suspects went out the window...

if what you train is based on physical and scientific truth and principles are established on such... technique becomes absent and adaptation becomes prevelant.... so rather than accessing my log of techniques all I am doing is accepting the situation adapting to it and aggressing it till it is no longer a threat.... AAA

techniques seem to add complexity on top of complexity.... when using principle truth is the smoothest most effect approach


you got it Black lion:)

[geezer]

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.

Using control so that you can subdue an attacker without undue injury to him or yourself...this is a noble sentiment. I note that you describe yourself as a fifth degee black-belt. Perhaps you do have the skill to allow yourself to be compassionate and achieve this goal. I would wager that most of us do not. OK, maybe if we are attacked by a drunken brother in law, but not on the street when confronted with a weapon wielding mugger. I would only resort to fighting in such a desperate situation, and only if either I couldn't get away, or had to protect someone else. In such a scenario, I wouldn't presume the luxury of being so merciful. Not when my life or the lives of those I love are at risk.

Now, on a different note, Black Lion reiterates his earlier assertion that "Techniques are only as good as the principle it is based on..." Fair enough, Lion. What do hold to be the core principles that a good technique shoud be rooted in? That's the real question.

[celtic_crippler]

Did it work?

[BLACK LION]

Now, on a different note, Black Lion reiterates his earlier assertion that "Techniques are only as good as the principle it is based on..." Fair enough, Lion. What do hold to be the core principles that a good technique shoud be rooted in? That's the real question.


Depends on the purpose of the individual.....

for me... all of my responses are based on a combat/combatives perspective and never meant to be coupled with social or anti-social situations... I feel that an individual who is trained to the extent of being "lethal" should be able to easily avoid or de-escalate social situations in which real violence is not the initial intent.... matches of ego and wits should be non-existent....

that being said... I believe the core principles should be honest and simple...they should be universal... based on physics and science...
for example... i have no gun technique , knife technique, club technique, or even a naked meth head technique ...the principle is the same for all situations regardless of the infinite angles and approaches... for me its... injure them now and continue till I am satisfied...as long as I am injuring them I have control.... I have the choice to end it when I feel it is necessary... there is no technique to that... just get in there and get it done... there are prisons full of people with not training or technique but they knew what worked and did not stop until the job was done....

and of course I will elaborate more...but I have to go for now

[Cirdan]

Rooting, for instance is a pretty universal principle.

[BLACK LION]

I wanted to train it all... I wanted the best and most effective techniques... i wanted the best groundwork and footwork... i wanted to be faster and stronger than any one or more I faced.... I figured becuase I had been jumped, beaten, hit with bottles and what not I could handle whatever came at me... becuase I trained hard, I trained the raw forms like jkd, muay thai, wing chun, chin na, juijitsu but I didnt train like the guys in the gym... i put scenarios in my training and added force multiplyers(knives,guns) as well as multiple attackers.... I felt empowerd but I was infact confused and began fearing that my training would fail me if all these techniques werent available when I needed them...maybe one day I will meet someone who is "BETTER".....I never realized I had sacrificed the very basic necessities in my search for my own skill and my own style.... I wanted to be so good becuase I felt like since I had faced many there is no harm one man can do to me. I never realized that all my hard work existed under a SOCIAL/ANTI SOCIAL CURTAIN.... I realized that I had trained to deal with events in a social fashion by kicking,punching,grappling,joint locks, chokes, disarming, eye gouges and groin shots...I even trained to hit "pressure points".... but all socially meaning... "I am not going to kill you right here and now".... I had an epiphany... from mma to kimbo collins backyard brawl to youtube to comegetyousome fights, brawls and knockouts... all social and yes seemingly violent... but infact no where near "real violence"....

I was forced to turn my attention to the most shocking and horrible situations... columbine,911, virginia tech, plane hijackings, carjackings, home invasions, terrorist bombings,workplace shootings, hostage situations, kidnappings, rapes,armed robberies, gang violence, drug addicts, mental patients etc they are in the paper daily.... ASOCIAL SITUATIONS IN WHICH ALL MORAL REASON AND APTITUDE IS ABSENT... WHEN ONLY THE MOST PRIMAL AND PRIMITIVE CONTRACTS EXIST... IN BLOOD... IN DEATH

I began a quest in the "REALITY BASED" sector looking for the answers...looking for the right tools... what I found shocked me... ... I found most were doing the same thing but just with certain techniques involved.... every one had a different twist but "based on real world experience"... although based on asocial confrontation the physicality was still complex thru techniques and very elastic in nature, it was also governed by the rules "bigger better stonger" becuase the techniques require you to use speed and strength but never take into the consideration you may be slower and weaker at any point in a violent confrontation.... leaving you copitulating or assisting in your own injury or death... they all had the same thing in common... techniques for everything..... but to me...techniques apply when there are rules that govern the situation... what about when thare are no rules????? when its just you alone in the face of death.... all you have at your disposal is the most basic essentials... eveything becomes simple and honest... injure or be injured... kill or be killed... there is no technique in the face of that situation... only principle, only truth....