"Absorb what is useful" and the automotive metaphor

[Kung Fu Wang]

Question: How can I move in and punch my opponent's face without being punched/kicked/elbowed/kneed by him?
Research: I need to make sure that his arms and legs will not give me any trouble when I move in.
Experiment: Use my front leg to jam my opponent's front leg. Separate both of his arms away from his head.
Conclusion: I'll need both "entering strategy" and "finish strategy".

 

[jobo]

Question: How can I move in and punch my opponent's face without being punched/kicked/elbowed/kneed by him?
Research: I need to make sure that his arms and legs will not give me any trouble when I move in.
Experiment: Use my front leg to jam my opponent's front leg. Separate both of his arms away from his head.
Conclusion: I'll need both "entering strategy" and "finish strategy".

no you need a round house kick to his ribs, any thing else is unnecessary , of course you can elbow him as well if you feel he deserves it

 

[Steve]

It's good to see this kind of dialogue, but I'm not sure that you guys quite have the hang of the scientific method.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

no you need a round house kick to his ribs, any thing else is unneccersary

What if he catches my leg, sweep my rooting leg, and take me down? I have to consider that risk in my "entering strategy". IMO, a foot sweep, low roundhouse kick, knee stomp, shin kick are much safer than the high round house kick.

 

[jobo]

What if he catches my leg, sweep my rooting leg, and take me down? I have to consider that risk in my "entering strategy". IMO, a foot sweep, low roundhouse kick, knee stomp, shin kick are much safer than the high round house kick.

well if he catches my round house, he will have a badly damaged hand. But ok then a low round house but its not as much fun as breaking a rib of two

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

no you need a round house kick to his ribs, any thing else is unnecessary , of course you can elbow him as well if you feel he deserves it

I was like 99% sure you were a troll rather than just an idiot from the other thread, this post and the one before it proved it. Thanks for making it clear so I don't have to bother.

 

[JR 137]

There are a couple of schools of thought which sometimes clash in forum discussions.

The first is often expressed through the Bruce Lee quote "Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own." The idea is that you don't have to take everything from a martial art as is. You can use the pieces that work for you as part of your own individual system.

The opposing view is that a martial art is an integrated system of inter-related principles, techniques, and training methods which are designed to work together. Picking a piece out in isolation doesn't make sense. A common metaphor to express this idea is to talk about the absurdity of designing a car by taking the engine from a race car in the chassis of a subcompact with the wheels of a semi, the bumpers of a SUV, the flat bed of a pickup, and the armor plating of a presidential limousine. You get a Frankenstein mis-mash of random parts which were not meant to work together.

I'll set aside for now the JKD response that the pieces selected from different arts are not chosen at random, rather they are chosen because they fit the principles of JKD (or the individuals expression thereof). Instead I'd like to extend the automotive metaphor further.

When I delve into another martial art, it's not because I want to assemble my own system one piece at a time. I'm more like a design engineer at Honda taking apart the newest offering from Volkswagen to see what the competition is up to and what I could learn from it. I'm not going to just take out the carburetor and stick it in our newest model. I'm going to look at all the tradeoffs the VW engineers regarding power vs efficiency, cost vs safety, use of space, quality of components, and so on. Maybe I'll find an idea I can steal directly. Maybe it will open my mind to new design possibilities in general ("we've always put part A on top of part B, but VW has them reversed. I wonder what other configurations will work ..."). Maybe I'll find a general concept which I can apply to our own designs. Maybe it will just be a good mental exercise in understanding engineering at a deeper level which will improve my own designs in the future.

I've been studying Wing Tsun for a bit over a year now, and I've already started integrating certain WT concepts into my own sparring outside WT class. I'm not trying to become a WT specialist, but I'm also not trying to just pick and choose random cool looking techniques from the art. I'm trying to learn the whole art well enough to understand why it works the way that it does. Some of my best discoveries have come from saying "hmmm .. according to everything else I've learned, this is a seriously flawed way of doing things. Why would they do it this way?" and then tracking down the answers. When I understand the concepts behind how things work, then I can understand how and when and if I can apply those concepts to my own art.

We talk sometimes about the different principles of different arts, but ultimately anything that works comes down to the same bottom line principles. The engineers at Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, Rolls Royce, Tesla, etc. all have to deal with the same laws of physics, the same laws of material sciences, the same laws of economics. They're just applying those laws in different ways depending on the intended purpose and market for their vehicles. Same thing applies to martial arts. We all are operating under the same laws of physics and biology. Different arts just apply those laws (some more effectively than others) in different ways according to the context for which they were designed.

You had me until you said carburetor. The last model year cars in the US used them was 1990. Actually, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors had carburetors until '91, but weren't available to the general public.

 

[jobo]

]

I was like 99% sure you were a troll rather than just an idiot from the other thread, this post and the one before it proved it. Thanks for making it clear so I don't have to bother.

I dont see what you are taking issue with, if I hit someone clean with a round house mid section they fall over, if their arm gets in the way then it damages their arm. Ether way the worse that happen is I'm fighting a one armed man from that point on.
this rather makes my point, if your kick isn't powerful enough to drop someone, then you need to work on your kick, not learn another two dozen techniques' to compensate for your lack of fire power

 

[Tony Dismukes]

You had me until you said carburetor. The last model year cars in the US used them was 1990. Actually, Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors had carburetors until '91, but weren't available to the general public.

This is why I'm a martial arts engineer rather than an automotive engineer.

 

[Mou Meng Gung Fu]

] If your kick isn't powerful enough to drop someone, then you need to work on your kick, not learn another two dozen techniques' to compensate for your lack of fire power

Hence what many refer to as the "nucleus" and I totally agree, though many years ago I would've disagreed because I was actually one of those students who tried to compensate for my lack of fire power by learning several techniques. I now know this is the wrong perspective to have. A better perspective to have would be like you said, practice practice practice. That's the only way to really become good at anything in life.

Even better than cross-training, is full-fledge traditional training. Why try to only master one system while borrowing techniques from another system, when you can actually master both systems in full? I've never done this personally, but to me it seems like it would be a better approach maybe instead of cross-training like most stylists do. (The cross-training method works too, very well in some cases as that's how I trained, but I think the full-fledge traditional training in different arts would probably be better than what I did if you can afford it).

I also agree that the majority of martial artists out there are not qualified enough to discern these kinds of things. Without the foundation or nucleus of a martial art, there is no way to tell what should be added or discarded from the mix. There are many striking, kicking and grappling arts. Some mix well better than others and produce less sloppy, more fluid combinations whereas some arts don't even share anything in common. It's important for anyone who cross-trains in martial arts to discern wisely when choosing a system to cross-train in. It's important to have a good foundation. It's also important not to stray too far away from that foundation when researching techniques from other systems.

 

[Flying Crane]

yes it was, Il try
observation I only have two arms and two legs
so does any potential opponent
question , how many ways do I have to move my arms and legs to be able to hurt someone/ stop them hurting me
research watch some full contact karate fights
hypothesis, three kick 4punches elbows and knees plus two blocks is more than sufficient.
experiment knock seven bells out of people who have spread themselves to thin trying to learn dozens of techniques' for situation that probably will never happen
data,, out come
conclusion enough is sufficient and sufficient is enough

Having studied a couple of systems that had enormous curriculums, I have come to the conclusion that more mileage with less material is a better way to go. At least for me. Just what that material is, may differ from person to person, and training several methods in order to become educated and make that decision can make a lot of sense. But in the end, I agree that trying to do everything is a recipe for failure.

I do also believe that there needs to be some consistency with your material. It needs to work well together, in terms of power principles and movement principles and combat strategy. Not all material mixes well, and that means that people not only need to decide what to include in their curriculum, but what NOT to include. I think people go wrong when they try to indiscriminately include everything that they might have seen, no matter the source and no matter the principles upon which it operates.

Making an intelligent mix of material that works well takes some serious thought and experience, and I would say that a lot of people do not do it well. For that reason, I say that most people are better off sticking to one system and getting to know it as well as they can.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are a couple of schools of thought which sometimes clash in forum discussions.

The first is often expressed through the Bruce Lee quote "Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own." The idea is that you don't have to take everything from a martial art as is. You can use the pieces that work for you as part of your own individual system.

The opposing view is that a martial art is an integrated system of inter-related principles, techniques, and training methods which are designed to work together. Picking a piece out in isolation doesn't make sense. A common metaphor to express this idea is to talk about the absurdity of designing a car by taking the engine from a race car in the chassis of a subcompact with the wheels of a semi, the bumpers of a SUV, the flat bed of a pickup, and the armor plating of a presidential limousine. You get a Frankenstein mis-mash of random parts which were not meant to work together.

I'll set aside for now the JKD response that the pieces selected from different arts are not chosen at random, rather they are chosen because they fit the principles of JKD (or the individuals expression thereof). Instead I'd like to extend the automotive metaphor further.

When I delve into another martial art, it's not because I want to assemble my own system one piece at a time. I'm more like a design engineer at Honda taking apart the newest offering from Volkswagen to see what the competition is up to and what I could learn from it. I'm not going to just take out the carburetor and stick it in our newest model. I'm going to look at all the tradeoffs the VW engineers regarding power vs efficiency, cost vs safety, use of space, quality of components, and so on. Maybe I'll find an idea I can steal directly. Maybe it will open my mind to new design possibilities in general ("we've always put part A on top of part B, but VW has them reversed. I wonder what other configurations will work ..."). Maybe I'll find a general concept which I can apply to our own designs. Maybe it will just be a good mental exercise in understanding engineering at a deeper level which will improve my own designs in the future.

I've been studying Wing Tsun for a bit over a year now, and I've already started integrating certain WT concepts into my own sparring outside WT class. I'm not trying to become a WT specialist, but I'm also not trying to just pick and choose random cool looking techniques from the art. I'm trying to learn the whole art well enough to understand why it works the way that it does. Some of my best discoveries have come from saying "hmmm .. according to everything else I've learned, this is a seriously flawed way of doing things. Why would they do it this way?" and then tracking down the answers. When I understand the concepts behind how things work, then I can understand how and when and if I can apply those concepts to my own art.

We talk sometimes about the different principles of different arts, but ultimately anything that works comes down to the same bottom line principles. The engineers at Ford, Honda, Volkswagen, Rolls Royce, Tesla, etc. all have to deal with the same laws of physics, the same laws of material sciences, the same laws of economics. They're just applying those laws in different ways depending on the intended purpose and market for their vehicles. Same thing applies to martial arts. We all are operating under the same laws of physics and biology. Different arts just apply those laws (some more effectively than others) in different ways according to the context for which they were designed.

Here's how I look at the automotive metaphor. I have a 2000 Mercedes E320. To me, it's a fairly classic example of one of the best lines they've made. There are Hyundai automobiles more than 10 years newer that have very similar front shape (actually, quite close to the 2003 E320). Hyundai saw that shape, and fitted it into a vehicle, making other changes to the body as needed to adapt that feature. My car doesn't have a real cup holder. If I were to just pull one out of a Hyundai (or any other car), it wouldn't fit. I'd have to re-work the console area to make it fit, so that's a major refit to include it. So, I either decide it's not worth the refit, or I do the work to include it. But if I look at a car that has a storage container that fits into a cup holder, and I like that container, I could put that into almost any other car with a cup holder without much effort. Perhaps even into mine, because it has this odd cup holder add-on that fits many such items.

So, with that metaphor, it can come in one of two ways. An individual practitioner can sometimes borrow pieces from another art, because they fit easily into their existing art. There's a lot of standing work from wrestling and BJJ that can fit nicely with NGA, for instance. And an instructor can alter what he teaches by incorporating "new" material from other places, more like Tony is talking about here.

Of course, there's also the option of deciding the car you have doesn't fit all your needs (let's say I want to haul stuff), so you add a second car (I could take up BJJ to have more ground capacity).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if your kick isn't powerful enough to drop someone, then you need to work on your kick, ...

This is another MA paradox.

- If your opponent can catch your roundhouse kick, your roundhouse kick is not good enough.
- If you can't catch your opponent's roundhouse kick, your leg catching skill is not good enough.

 

[jobo]

This is another MA paradox.

- If your opponent can catch your roundhouse kick, your roundhouse kick is not good enough.
- If you can't catch your opponent's roundhouse kick, your leg catching skill is not good enough.

are you suggesting they should catch it before or after it has hit them in the ribs, after is easer but to late, before just smashes' their hand up

 

[jobo]

Here's how I look at the automotive metaphor. I have a 2000 Mercedes E320. To me, it's a fairly classic example of one of the best lines they've made. There are Hyundai automobiles more than 10 years newer that have very similar front shape (actually, quite close to the 2003 E320). Hyundai saw that shape, and fitted it into a vehicle, making other changes to the body as needed to adapt that feature. My car doesn't have a real cup holder. If I were to just pull one out of a Hyundai (or any other car), it wouldn't fit. I'd have to re-work the console area to make it fit, so that's a major refit to include it. So, I either decide it's not worth the refit, or I do the work to include it. But if I look at a car that has a storage container that fits into a cup holder, and I like that container, I could put that into almost any other car with a cup holder without much effort. Perhaps even into mine, because it has this odd cup holder add-on that fits many such items.

So, with that metaphor, it can come in one of two ways. An individual practitioner can sometimes borrow pieces from another art, because they fit easily into their existing art. There's a lot of standing work from wrestling and BJJ that can fit nicely with NGA, for instance. And an instructor can alter what he teaches by incorporating "new" material from other places, more like Tony is talking about here.

Of course, there's also the option of deciding the car you have doesn't fit all your needs (let's say I want to haul stuff), so you add a second car (I could take up BJJ to have more ground capacity).

your considering getting another car as your Merc doesn't have cup holders, that a bit extravagant, cant you buy one of those after market ones that clip on the door

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

are you suggesting they should catch it before or after it has hit them in the ribs, after is easer but to late, before just smashes' their hand up

When you try to catch a roundhouse kick, you should step in, squeeze the space, and don't give your opponent the proper space to fully generate his kicking power. The key is to move in and not to move back or to stand still.

 

[jobo]

When you try to catch a roundhouse kick, you should step in, squeeze the space, and don't give your opponent the proper space to fully generate his kicking power. The key is to move in and not to move back or to stand still.

if your that close why bother catching,you could just push him over whilst he is on one leg

 

[Tony Dismukes]

When you try to catch a roundhouse kick, you should step in, squeeze the space, and don't give your opponent the proper space to fully generate his kicking power. The key is to move in and not to move back or to stand still.

Alternately, side step in the direction the kick is traveling so that some of the force is disappated.

 

[jobo]

Alternately, side step in the direction the kick is traveling so that some of the force is disappated.

if it hits that that won't dissipate any of the energy,

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if your that close why bother catching,you could just push him over whilst he is on one leg

You can do that too. That's called "run him down".