Absorb What is Useful

[Xue Sheng]

Absorb What is Useful​

-by Guro Dan Inosanto

Learning what is useful in the martial arts is not contained within the four walls of a dojo. dojang, gwoon, studio or academy Learning and absorbing usable knowledge is not located within the structure of your style or system, whether it is Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Indonesian, Okinawan, Burmese, Filipino, French or whatever. Learning comes from all your contacts, experiences and all facets of your life.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But here is the conundrum. How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

Quite often, I've heard a person tell me that a technique is useless because they cannot make it work. Perhaps it is useless, but how would they know? If others can make the technique work, is the problem with the technique?

 

[Flying Crane]

What is useful depends on context, in more ways than one.

 

[_Simon_]

Blasphemy! Take that back!

 

[Taiji Rebel]

But here is the conundrum. How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

Quite often, I've heard a person tell me that a technique is useless because they cannot make it work. Perhaps it is useless, but how would they know? If others can make the technique work, is the problem with the technique?

We are all unique. No technique can work for every person. A good tailor alters the garment to fit the individual. There is no one-size fits all in life. In order to understand what it useful, it is important to learn from an expert and test the method for yourself. Only then can you absorb what is useful. Context is also key as Flying Tiger notes above - Dan Inosanto also mentions this and more in the article as you can see from the small excerpt below:

I personally encourage my students to study and to look into other systems and other instructors, as long as they are respectful to all parties concerned. No art, person, culture or thing is intrinsically better than any other. A Porsche is no better than a hollowed out canoe in the jungles of the Amazon. I try to bring instructors from many different styles into my Academy as guest instructors to help my students grow. No system has it all. Each system has something to offer and together, they yield a better, more well-rounded martial artist. I think it is important for an instructor to remain a student at heart always-to constantly seek better ways of training and execution. It is important to be creative and to experiment and to seek help in areas where you lack expertise - Dan Inosanto

p.s It's crazy but every mention of the word AMAZON in this post is automatically hyperlinked to ebay

 

[isshinryuronin]

How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

Having a spare tire is useful, but some people only learn that after getting a flat. All the things that your parents taught you were useless in your mind, until you started living life. Experience is key, often by trial and error. Reading glasses are useless to a blind man, yet valuable to an older sighted person. Capability to put a thing to use is also important. Quite a complex question, actually.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Context is also key as Flying Tiger notes above

Flying Crane is the one who references context - Flying Tiger is a figment of my imagination

Reading glasses are useless to a blind man, yet valuable to an older sighted person

Even one with 20/20 vision can appear blind when lacking full awareness of the environment

 

[drop bear]

But here is the conundrum. How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

Quite often, I've heard a person tell me that a technique is useless because they cannot make it work. Perhaps it is useless, but how would they know? If others can make the technique work, is the problem with the technique?

Scientific method.

 

[Taiji Rebel]

Scientific method.

Which method of scientific enquiry are we to use - can you please give some valid examples to add context to your statement?

 

[Fungus]

But here is the conundrum. How does one know what is useful until one has learned it?

Quite often, I've heard a person tell me that a technique is useless because they cannot make it work. Perhaps it is useless, but how would they know? If others can make the technique work, is the problem with the technique?

This is an interesting question.

Superficially I agree that one need to learn a technique first, the try to apply it - in context, before one can conclude that this is not optimal for me, so i will not keep applying it (for example in my fighting).

But then what is interesting is, what is the definition of learn a technique, if certain anatomical differences or other shortcomings in your body or healty really makes it difficult? Does this mean you never really learned the technique at all?

Or does it mean that that technique (as it is defined in the kihon standard of your setyle) simply is designed for some "average" anatomy? IF you look at different legendary fighters, them seem to have different preferences of favourite techniques, and my theory is that it's not because they failed to learn or understand other techniques, but that often they are less natural for their body.

Due to my hip anatomy, I struggle with certain techniques, not because i don't understand them, but because they feel counter-natural to my body. This just meansn that this will not be the most frequenty used technique for me in fighting so i then train and perfect techiniques that are more natural to my body. Alternatatively that I TWEAK the standard technique abit (when it comes to precise angles and execution) to make it harmonized with my own body and joints. This may technically be something that someone could complain on in grading, but it's the best I can do with this body.

This has led me to seek the orginal constructing principles of techqniues, (motivated by optimal anatomy) and then instead of using the superficial kihon prescriptions, use the original constructing principles to reconstruct the eact implementation for each anatomy. This would break the superficial tradition, but it would also honour the deeper constructing principles I think. After all, I think our founders didn't come up with the teqhnicuqes just out of tradition, but because they were optimal in some sense - but optimal relative to whom?

 

[Badhabits]

I have an older off and on employee who's spent time in prison in his younger days. He's also had to literally fight for his survival on more than one occasion, has had way more real world experience fighting than most people. This guy is pretty condescending towards the TMA in general. We've spent quite a a bit of time talking about fighting and violence. He talks about all these fighting tricks, ways of hitting hard, all these things to do to people he's learned through experience. Every last thing he says, are things we learn in the TMA. It really vindicates certain ideas, techniques etc that people say are crap when done in the context of TMA. There's things I've learned and never used on a person that he's used for real and proved they work. Still, show him something he likes to use as it's presented in kata and he'll say it's crap lol.

 

[HighKick]

Which method of scientific enquiry are we to use - can you please give some valid examples to add context to your statement?

In the MA's environment, it is usually called 'pressure testing'. This can from within the class from on the mat testing and sparring, tournaments/matches, or, if you are a young person who is into the night life, real world fights.

 

[HighKick]

This is an interesting question.

Superficially I agree that one need to learn a technique first, the try to apply it - in context, before one can conclude that this is not optimal for me, so i will not keep applying it (for example in my fighting).

But then what is interesting is, what is the definition of learn a technique, if certain anatomical differences or other shortcomings in your body or healty really makes it difficult? Does this mean you never really learned the technique at all?

Or does it mean that that technique (as it is defined in the kihon standard of your setyle) simply is designed for some "average" anatomy? IF you look at different legendary fighters, them seem to have different preferences of favourite techniques, and my theory is that it's not because they failed to learn or understand other techniques, but that often they are less natural for their body.

Due to my hip anatomy, I struggle with certain techniques, not because i don't understand them, but because they feel counter-natural to my body. This just meansn that this will not be the most frequenty used technique for me in fighting so i then train and perfect techiniques that are more natural to my body. Alternatatively that I TWEAK the standard technique abit (when it comes to precise angles and execution) to make it harmonized with my own body and joints. This may technically be something that someone could complain on in grading, but it's the best I can do with this body.

This has led me to seek the orginal constructing principles of techqniues, (motivated by optimal anatomy) and then instead of using the superficial kihon prescriptions, use the original constructing principles to reconstruct the eact implementation for each anatomy. This would break the superficial tradition, but it would also honour the deeper constructing principles I think. After all, I think our founders didn't come up with the teqhnicuqes just out of tradition, but because they were optimal in some sense - but optimal relative to whom?

I would further aver a person does not know a technique until they know how to apply it. Furthermore, knowing what does Not work (for you) is just as important as what does. Great to have in your tool bag for extreme exceptions, but rarely needed since fights generally do not last very long.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Scientific method.

This doesn’t work. The only thing that the Scientific method ever does is to prove or disprove that the path to your goal is the correct one or the incorrect one. It does not invalidate the goal.

The goal is to Fly. The Scientific method will help you define which paths will reach that goal.

In MA, the Scientific method is reduced to: “This path is not the correct path, so therefore the Goal is not valid.” This is why so many throw away valid techniques.

If Martial Artist actually use the Scientific Method, then the conclusions they should have the most is
"This is the way to do technique A" or "This is not the way to do technique A." There should be very little discussion of "What techniques work" and "Make it work"

 

[JowGaWolf]

In the MA's environment, it is usually called 'pressure testing'. This can from within the class from on the mat testing and sparring, tournaments/matches, or, if you are a young person who is into the night life, real world fights.

Pressure testing doesn't test the technique's validity. It only tests the student's ability to use it.

I can give you a Jow Ga technique that I have a 90% success rate. You can then say you want to "pressure test" it to see if it's any good. Your result may be that you have a 20% success rate.

The technique here is not variable. You and I would have used the same technique. So, it's not the technique that is being tested. It's your ability to use it that is being tested. When people speak of "pressure testing", they should speak of it more as a process to test one's ability to use a technique.

I really dislike the phrase "Pressure test a technique."

 

[Flying Crane]

Context matters in more ways than one. The most obvious is contextual appropriateness of a particular technique in a given situation. A spinning back kick is not useful when you are on the ground, in someone’s guard. You simply cannot throw the technique under those conditions. But the spinning back kick is a powerful kick and is useful in other context. If you break out of the grapple and regain your feet, the spinning back kick may suddenly become very useful. But this much is obvious.

There is another context that I rarely see discussed and to which I suspect many people pay little attention. That context is how well a technique fits within the training methodology that they practice. A well-structured martial method should have an underlying and consistent approach to the delivery of technique. It is not simply a collection of techniques, without thought given to how well they function within that consistent methodology. How that consistent delivery is developed to a high level of skill, can vary from one martial method to another. Not all techniques work well, within some of these methods. In that case, one is better off to not include the technique in their practice. Doing so is like trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. If you get a hammer and pound on that peg hard enough you might get it in the hole, but it is a poor fit. Similarly, some techniques within certain martial training contexts lead to a poor fit. it violates the underlying principles that make the methodology as a whole work well and is better to exclude such techniques.

Discussions such as this often lead to claims of “well you need to have THIS technique and THAT technique and THESE techniques in order to have a full tool box, that will give you well-rounded skills.” I disagree. Such a comment is a simplistic answer to a nuanced question. Those techniques may be good to have IF they function well within the training parameters of one’s martial methodology. But if they don’t, then they are not worth having. Other answers may be more appropriate, within the context of the methodology.

“Absorb what is useful (discard the rest).” It seems like a simple statement and advice that is obvious. To do so in a meaningful way requires a more sophisticated understanding of one’s methods than I suspect is often recognized.

 

[Flying Crane]

In the MA's environment, it is usually called 'pressure testing'. This can from within the class from on the mat testing and sparring, tournaments/matches, or, if you are a young person who is into the night life, real world fights.

There is nothing “scientific” about that. What you describe is simply training in such a way to develop real skill. It is an attempt to add a level of realism to the training, so that the individual can develop their skill. There is no scientific method involved.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Due to my hip anatomy, I struggle with certain techniques, not because i don't understand them, but because they feel counter-natural to my body. This just meansn that this will not be the most frequenty used technique for me in fighting so i then train and perfect techiniques that are more natural to my body. Alternatatively that I TWEAK the standard technique abit (when it comes to precise angles and execution) to make it harmonized with my own body and joints. This may technically be something that someone could complain on in grading, but it's the best I can do with this body.

The technique has not changed. It is the limitation of your body that is the variable. You determine your ability to do the technique and then determine if your ability will allow you to be successful in using that technique. This is a reality that we all must go through. We can only do what our bodies are able to do.

How that consistent delivery is developed to a high level of skill, can vary from one martial method to another. Not all techniques work well, within some of these methods. In that case, one is better off to not include the technique in their practice. Doing so is like trying to cram a square peg into a round hole.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. If the technique allows you to stay fit, then keep it and teach it to someone who can do it. This way the technique is not lost. If the technique is not useful to you in a fight, then do not use it.

If you do not plan on teaching and passing on the techniques to the next generation, then throw it away. It won't matter since all techniques that you know will die with you anyway.

If you plan on teaching and passing on the techniques to the next generation. Then keep it. This way the system will stay strong, and the techniques will have depth.

“Absorb what is useful (discard the rest).”

This all depends on how someone defines useful. Something may not be useful to me but is useful to someone with more ability than me. The things that are useful in passing down a system are not always the same things that are useful to a person's fighting ability. Kicking is not useful to a boxer. This doesn't mean that kicking is useless and should be thrown away. It just means that kicking is not useful for someone whose only ability is to punch.


Horse stance to bow stance training may seem like it's a waste of. Funny how this looks like the same thing we hear in Martial arts when doing stances about keeping our backs straight. In addition. He does a horse stance to bow stance.

There are a lot of thing that may seem useless but have a big impact on our ability, include when we may not be able to do a technique well enough to use in a fight. There still may be some benefit in training it.

This is the same as the training below in the screenshot of Tyson coaching below. In Training and in application. The knee is not supposed to touch the ground. Dangers of the knee touching the ground.
1. Smashing the knee into the ground and damaging it.
2. Mobility is reduced when the knee touches the ground. This means you must first lift your knee off the ground before you can move horizontal or forward or back. When the knee is off the ground then you can just move.

This is the correct position for this technique "Go down as far you can" note the knee is off the ground and not on the ground. This technique is good training for the legs even if one doesn't plan to use it. I haven't done this in many years. Now when I try it, it feels like my knees are about to explode. It's because I didn't train it and spent too many times punching the heavy bag and not enought time in my forms.

"Go down as far as you can"

"Go down as far as you can"

With the new studies that talk about how static exercises help to lower blood pressure and may be a better strength builder in terms of wearing out the joints. I'm starting to have a new perspective and appreciation for my forms.

Sometimes what we train doesn't make sense until we stop training it. Then we learn first hand of why it was there in the first place.

I think it's easier to assume what is useful than it is to understand it, without experiencing it first hand of why we do it.

 

[Fungus]

There is nothing “scientific” about that. What you describe is simply training in such a way to develop real skill. It is an attempt to add a level of realism to the training, so that the individual can develop their skill. There is no scientific method involved.

I think the analogy was reonable.

In scientific terms one could say "pressure testing a theory", would be "putting it to experimental test", and demanding falsifiable predictions.

If it fails to makes computable predictions in a REAL experiment, considering real uncertainty, that agrees with observations then the theory is useless, even if it is self consistent and beautiful.

Just like there might be beautiful MA systems that are less useful in real fights, there are scientists (mainly theorists) that has spend DECADES on beautiful consistent theories that fails to connect to reality and produce predictions, they just produce a larger and larger theoretical mess, and get away with it because it's consistent mathematically.

Putting a fighting system to test, would mean also testing it's robustness against "imperfect" or "noisy" karatekas. This is why I think "natural" techniques that harmonize wiith your body are more likely to actually work, rather than fancy stuff that works only for someone that trained the technique daily for 40 years. It us subject to the same problems that are "fine tuning" problems in some physical theories. This makes these theories "unnnatural"!

 

[Steve]

If folks would just stay curious, a lot of things sort themselves out.

If I have any issue with “traditional” arts it’s that their proponents aren’t curious. The belief is that style provides the answers, and it’s just simply a matter of sticking with it long enough to learn them.

Curiosity (as suggested in the OP) and orthodoxy (I.e., tradition) are mutually exclusive.