Advanced Techniques

[MetalBoar]

I see what appears to be a lot of discussion, confusion and perhaps disagreements about semantics in this thread.

From my perspective one swath of commentators seem feel that advanced skill with any technique = an advanced technique no matter how basic, fundamental, or simple that technique may be within the context of it's associated art. Another set of people seem to be arguing that there must be something complex or difficult about the technique itself to qualify it as "advanced". What makes a technique complex or difficult also seems to be a matter or debate, wrapping all the way around to some making the argument that if it's hard to apply the technique against a professional fighter then that makes it advanced - taking us back to advanced skill = advanced technique. Then there are other outliers who argue that a series of techniques utilized to set up a basic technique become an advanced technique.

I personally like @ShortBridge's original definition, that advanced techniques are either more difficult, more dangerous to train (to self or others), or in some fashion break from the base of the art. I think it's a little disingenuous to pretend that the only difference in how challenging it is to practice a technique is the skill level of your opponent. As if there's no difference in difficulty between achieving a base level of competency with a jab versus a spinning back kick or that throwing techniques that require a high fall to recover from can be taught as quickly and safely as throws that can be performed with much less force and a much shorter drop.

I think part of the disconnect may be that some people are associating "basic" with lesser and "advanced" with superior. Another issue may be that people seem to want to label techniques either "advanced" or "basic" without acknowledging that they all fall on a spectrum from most basic to most advanced. I also agree with ShortBridge that things that are considered advanced in one art may be fundamental to another, so context matters.

I tend to feel (and I believe that @gpseymour expressed something similar) that much of the time very "advanced" techniques are in fact far less useful and usable than more basic techniques. They're generally low percentage or very specialized. I never practiced the balestra (a relatively advanced technique by my definition) when I was fencing because I simply didn't see a lot of use for it, especially considering how much more work it took to learn to use effectively in comparison to what I'd get out of spending that time improving my disengage and circular parry (less advanced techniques), or my straight attack and parry/riposte (most basic of techniques).

I don't like the definition that advanced skill = advanced technique. No matter how good I get at consumer math I'm not doing advanced math. I may never need anything more than consumer math to be extremely effective at my job and in my life. In fact, being really good at consumer math is probably much more useful for most people than being mediocre at combinatorics, or even great at combinatorics and mediocre at consumer math. Similarly, I always got a lot more use out of the fundamental techniques in fencing than I ever did out of the more complex techniques. No matter how good I got at them, and no matter how good the opponent that I managed to successfully apply them against, I didn't think of them as advanced.

 

[dvcochran]

If my timing, speed, power and awareness were so high that I could defeat anyone and everyone, without fail, with a single straight punch, would I not be more advanced as a fighter than everyone else? Would this kill button of a strike not be the most advanced combat technique?

But you have now crossed over into the "if" realm. Once this happens there is never an end to a discussion. So, IF you have this killer punch, the next logical step is for someone to eventually get to a level where they can beat you. History has proven this time and again. Evolution of all things is inevitable. Your killer punch would bring about the next evolution.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.

I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced. That is a valid point. But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced. Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique. Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught. The technique has its own inherent identity.

Now this is getting metaphysical! Too complicated for my simple mind.
On to another idea raised by Jobo: Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's. There is a continuum of skill as one progresses. But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced. Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution. The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.

Damn! Sounding philosophical again.

 

[Martial D]

But you have now crossed over into the "if" realm. Once this happens there is never an end to a discussion. So, IF you have this killer punch, the next logical step is for someone to eventually get to a level where they can beat you. History has proven this time and again. Evolution of all things is inevitable. Your killer punch would bring about the next evolution.

Well, yes. That is true. Separate and unrelated, but true.

 

[jobo]

I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced. That is a valid point. But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced. Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique. Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught. The technique has its own inherent identity.

Now this is getting metaphysical! Too complicated for my simple mind.
On to another idea raised by Jobo: Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's. There is a continuum of skill as one progresses. But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced. Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution. The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.

Damn! Sounding philosophical again.[/QUO
/QUOTE]

 

[jobo]

I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced. That is a valid point. But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced. Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique. Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught. The technique has its own inherent identity.

Now this is getting metaphysical! Too complicated for my simple mind.
On to another idea raised by Jobo: Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's. There is a continuum of skill as one progresses. But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced. Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution. The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.

Damn! Sounding philosophical again.

people are trying to categories techniques in issolation to the practitioner, which is silly, they don't exist with out him or her, anyone one with reasonable fitness, motor skills, flexibility can learn( nearly) any technique in a few weeks, then the only difference between them and a black belt is they can't do it as well ( or maybe they can ), it all about advancing your execution

 

[Yoshiyahu]

What are some techniques your speaking of you hold back. Are you referring to Biu Tze or Bil Gee?

What exactly are these advance techniques? An what makes them advanced per-se?

I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't disagree with you and I think is the classic definition. What I was getting at is that we have some reasonably simple techniques and movements in Wing Chun that we hold back until students are more advanced because they sort of work against our theme. So, what makes them for "advanced" students isn't always complexity or effectiveness, but just that the would work somewhat against what we try to instill in beginners.

So they are really exceptions to the rule? Holding those for later would make sense.

 

[ShortBridge]

What are some techniques your speaking of you hold back. Are you referring to Biu Tze or Bil Gee?

What exactly are these advance techniques? An what makes them advanced per-se?

So, let me answer two ways:

Wing Chun guy to Wing Chun guy...Si Lim Tao is a very constrained expressions of our system. We don't shift or move our feet. Almost everything is linear and the concept of "center" is pretty simplistic. We (mostly) only move one hand at a time.

As early as Chum Kiu, we're shifting and stepping and the concept of center gets a little bit less black and white...in no small part because we're shifting and moving. The Biu Gee form introduces more circularity in addition to things like circular elbow strikes. So, not me, but the system is organized in a way that suggests opening up as you go, which I think is a pretty good approach.

For me personally, any backward footwork, like we find in the Baat Cham Do form for example, would work against what I am trying to get a beginner student to buy into. So, it's not that that particular footwork is hard or dangerous, it just goes against what we're trying to teach for a while.

Taan Gerk is both difficult and also contrary to the efficient, straight forward approach that I try to get new and intermediate students to adopt. So, I find myself telling people "we don't do x" and then later telling them "actually we do or you can, but you just have to make sure..."

 

[Yoshiyahu]

So basically your saying getting them use to certain muscle reflexes first before going on to a new level. I guess thats why you progress slowly make sure they can chi sau first, then later move and chi sau, and then later apply techniques from sparring. i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? How ever i would say the Long pole and its traditional stances break away from Wing Chun structure.

So, let me answer two ways:

Wing Chun guy to Wing Chun guy...Si Lim Tao is a very constrained expressions of our system. We don't shift or move our feet. Almost everything is linear and the concept of "center" is pretty simplistic. We (mostly) only move one hand at a time.

As early as Chum Kiu, we're shifting and stepping and the concept of center gets a little bit less black and white...in no small part because we're shifting and moving. The Biu Gee form introduces more circularity in addition to things like circular elbow strikes. So, not me, but the system is organized in a way that suggests opening up as you go, which I think is a pretty good approach.

For me personally, any backward footwork, like we find in the Baat Cham Do form for example, would work against what I am trying to get a beginner student to buy into. So, it's not that that particular footwork is hard or dangerous, it just goes against what we're trying to teach for a while.

Taan Gerk is both difficult and also contrary to the efficient, straight forward approach that I try to get new and intermediate students to adopt. So, I find myself telling people "we don't do x" and then later telling them "actually we do or you can, but you just have to make sure..."

 

[ShortBridge]

...i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? ...

You're right, I don't think they go against our core principles either, but I think some of the movements and ideas confuse some of the early lessons.

I appreciate everyone playing alone with this discussion, it's gone the way that I wanted it to and I value everyone's input and perspectives.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A lot of confusion here. Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated. Definitions should be precise and simple. We are considering a single technique. You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced. The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move. A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.

A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work. That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique. A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move. A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.

Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced. Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic. This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."

I think the issue here is that people have very different definitions - most of which are fairly simple. We're not discussing a single definition, and I don't think there's a good argument that any one definition should be necessary. In fact, that seems to have been the point of the OP.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can see that a particular school may have its own teaching strategy in the way techniques are introduced. That is a valid point. But just because a basic technique is held back until taught to a more advanced student doesn't make the technique advanced. Just like teaching a flying spinning kick to a white belt does not make it a basic technique. Whether a move is basic or advanced, in itself, is independent of when or to whom it is taught. The technique has its own inherent identity.

Now this is getting metaphysical! Too complicated for my simple mind.
On to another idea raised by Jobo: Of course a black belt's punch will be different than a white belt's. There is a continuum of skill as one progresses. But just because a black belt throws a punch, that doesn't make that punch advanced. Its still a basic technique, but done with advanced execution. The identity of the technique (punch) does not change based on who does it or how it's done.

Damn! Sounding philosophical again.

I think his point was that the context of the overall system can make learning something more or less complex. If basic principles of the system conflict with the basic principles of a single technique (given that principles of a system are generalities and guidelines, not absolute injunctions), that technique will be harder to learn/teach in that context than in the context of a system where the principles are in alignment.

An easy example of this is teaching some basic takedowns to someone who has studied an aiki-oriented art with a major focus on the aiki. They often have trouble with the concept of the forward pressure of a single- or double-leg, the lifting force used, that sort of thing. Meanwhile, a beginning wrestler has no issue with that same learning. So the question is whether this means the technique is more "advanced" in this context, where it is harder to learn. (Note, it wouldn't be harder to learn if it were taught early in the process, but that shifts the focus of the principles being taught.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

An what makes them advanced per-se?

Wasn't that the whole point of his OP?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So basically your saying getting them use to certain muscle reflexes first before going on to a new level. I guess thats why you progress slowly make sure they can chi sau first, then later move and chi sau, and then later apply techniques from sparring. i get what you saying, I think Bil Gee, and short killing knives are advance i just dont agree that they go against WC principles or maxims? How ever i would say the Long pole and its traditional stances break away from Wing Chun structure.

I read that as them going against the simplistic form of the principles that are taught early. Which probably brings us back to the idea of what's advanced, because we could say the early forms teach basic principles, and progression through the forms presents a more and more advanced version of those principles.

 

[isshinryuronin]

we could say the early forms teach basic principles, and progression through the forms presents a more and more advanced version of those principles

Principles are usually easy (basic) to understand - i.e., use your opponent's force against him - but have countless ways of being expressed; some simple, some more difficult to execute. I guess the bottom line of this thread is that, in general, things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time considering the context. The important thing for the martial artist, I think, is that no matter what technique is being done, it should be executed with as much skill, dedication, and commitment as the practitioner is capable of, regardless of level. Continually striving for ideal perfection - that's advanced!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Principles are usually easy (basic) to understand - i.e., use your opponent's force against him - but have countless ways of being expressed; some simple, some more difficult to execute. I guess the bottom line of this thread is that, in general, things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time considering the context. The important thing for the martial artist, I think, is that no matter what technique is being done, it should be executed with as much skill, dedication, and commitment as the practitioner is capable of, regardless of level. Continually striving for ideal perfection - that's advanced!

True enough. But most of us do make distinctions about some things being more "advanced" (whatever we each mean by that), and I like the discussion the OP engendered. I'm always interested to hear other approaches, especially when they're significantly different from mine - it gives me a new way to look at things.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

things can be basic and/or advanced at the same time ...

Agree! When you punch,

Beginner technique (static punch) - your back foot does not leave the ground.
Advance technique (dynamic punch, or running punch) - your back foot slide forward.

It's much

- easier to punch a person when he is standing still.
- harder to punch a person when he is moving back.

 

[dvcochran]

A lot of confusion here. Set-up, execution, dangerousness, series of techniques...- making this too complicated. Definitions should be precise and simple. We are considering a single technique. You may use five moves to set up a punch - that doesn't make the punch itself advanced. The series may be considered advanced as a whole, but the individual punch is still a basic move. A basic move can still cause a lot of damage, so damage is not a factor in the definition.

A series of moves to set up a punch could be called advanced, only because it would have to be very well executed to work. That doesn't make the punch an advanced technique. A flying heel hook HAS to be executed well to work at all, so I would call that an advanced move. A kick to the shins hurts and can cause damage, but not a lot of skill is needed, so that is a basic move.

Techniques which require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are advanced. Techniques which do not require advanced skill/execution to perform effectively are basic. This definition seems to me to be complete, and, dare I say, "definitive."

Very well said.