Basic vs Advanced?

[The Great Gigsy]

I would say that basic refers to the simplest application of a technique, while advance implies that one has an ability to apply all components of said technique to maximum effect.

 

[marques]

In the advanced level, most of movements become so small that seems nonexistent. Techniques look small, easy and simple. They're automatic (if necessary).
At a basic level they look 'large' and quite complex. Too much brain activity.

I'm talking about the same technique at different levels. Other people (with great answers) talked about advanced techniques vs basic techniques.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In the advanced level, most of movements become so small that seems nonexistent. Techniques look small, easy and simple. They're automatic (if necessary).
At a basic level they look 'large' and quite complex. Too much brain activity.

I'm talking about the same technique at different levels. Other people (with great answers) talked about advanced techniques vs basic techniques.

A basic "hip throw" and an advance "hip throw" will look and function exactly the same. Both will require to:

- wrap your opponent's right arm with your left arm.
- wrap your right arm around his waist.
- land your left foot in front of his right foot.
- land your right foot in front of his left foot.
- move in with a low horse stance.
- straight up your knees and throw him over your back.

It doesn't matter whether you are doing basic of advance, you cannot skip any step in the above sequence.

 

[Hyoho]

Everyone seems to mention basics and advanced from a purely technical aspect. It's not until one advances that a sense of timing, automatic response, use of the hips etc come into play. This is why in Budo it is clearly divided into technique (waza) and (kata) shape or form. Anything without these is devoid of feeling and just a set of movements however good you are at doing them. The simplest basic action does work if you have a sense of timing. Maybe a lucky move but it will work.

 

[marques]

A basic "hip throw" and an advance "hip throw" will look and function exactly the same.
It doesn't matter whether you are doing basic of advance, you cannot skip any step in the above sequence.

Who talked about skip steps? Probably, there are even more steps.
Just they are reduced to the essential, that most of them can become invisible to the untrained eye.
A basic "hip throw" will look like a sum of steps. An advanced "hip throw" will look like one "unified" simple movement, hiding the details that make things work.
After that, this only one humble opinion...

 

[Hyoho]

Lol I had Danish Judo Nidan in a Japanese High School doing hip exercises for twelve months because he didn't use enough koshi on any throw and was not allowed to fight. So much for some peoples idea of what constitutes basics.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Advanced techs require a higher skill set.

 

[Chris Parker]

There are no advanced techniques.

I taught a kihon class (fundamentals… basics, in many translations, although I'm with Hyoho in his preference of terminology) last week, and it was more complex, more detailed, and more in depth than my regular classes… in fact, it was more so than my senior classes. And the simple reason is that the fundamentals are the advanced methods… without them, there is nothing at all.

 

[Danny T]

While true...at the same time, some techniques cannot be separated from the application context of using them. But the technique in and of itself cannot give a practitioner the application "how to" knowledge.

Would you be willing to give some examples where technique cannot be separated from the application context?
Thanks.

 

[TSDTexan]

Would you be willing to give some examples where technique cannot be separated from the application context?
Thanks.

Yes. I am somewhat willing.

But with my recent official warning that I received (last night) and my lack of desire to contend with certain individuals over my statements, as either I am too basic in my statements therefore I am supercilious, and/or condescending, or overly verbose, or "incorrect" in my term useage.

The nitpicking and hairsplitting on my terms and use... And what seems to be willfully playing dumb or obtuse... I am not willing to name parties but I am *not* referring to you, DannyT. But I feel I have to withdrawal from speaking on some things for a while.

With all of this, as of right now, I am reticent, or somewhat willing to get into answering your question.

But for the moment, I am not going to answer.
Perhaps, after some time has passed, I will answer your question at length.

Please forgive me if this comes across as evasive.
I am sorry for that.

As I value this community and as I understand my nature, I have do things a little differently or risk a ban.

So withdrawal, observation, and limited engagement or my current order of the day.

 

[Dylan9d]

In Ilmu Buka BelaDiri i only teach basic techniques, people will drill these and refine the basics as they progress.

So for me refined basic techniques = advanced techniques.

 

[Zero]

I'm with Chris Parker on this one and also Hyoho.

Also, it may sound like a cliché the whole thing about "full circle" but you start off with the fundamentals, find yourself able to manage and understand the later or advanced techniques and material and then at this stage you find yourself coming back to fundamentals. It's not "basic" but suddenly (after much time) things, all things, start to be and look "simple".

As said above, depending on where you are looking from, there are no "advanced" or more complicated techs, simply different techs (and again, depending where you are looking from, often not that different).

Some of our most rewarding, and fun - and pushing - classes have been when the seniors have gotten down and focused on the fundamentals and really worked with this and nothing more.

 

[Chris Parker]

Some words on the topic… The Budo Bum: There Are No Advanced Techniques

 

[Steve]

I'm confused by the "no advanced techniques" idea. I mean, it's a great slogan and all,. Catchy and wise sounding. But I don't believe that there is no logical progression of skills in the styles you guys are training. If the fundamentals are more complex. Does that mean you teach a beginner the most complex, esoteric techniques as they start training with you? Bad idea, in my experience. Building expertise in human beings just doesn't work well that way.

 

[Danny T]

I'm confused by the "no advanced techniques" idea. I mean, it's a great slogan and all,. Catchy and wise sounding. But I don't believe that there is no logical progression of skills in the styles you guys are training. If the fundamentals are more complex. Does that mean you teach a beginner the most complex, esoteric techniques as they start training with you? Bad idea, in my experience. Building expertise in human beings just doesn't work well that way.

Would you be willing to present a example of a basic vs advanced technique Steve?

 

[Steve]

Would you be willing to present a example of a basic vs advanced technique Steve?

Half guard basics vs deep half guard or some other variant. Open guard basics vs DLR guard or other variants.

 

[Chris Parker]

I'm confused by the "no advanced techniques" idea. I mean, it's a great slogan and all,. Catchy and wise sounding. But I don't believe that there is no logical progression of skills in the styles you guys are training. If the fundamentals are more complex. Does that mean you teach a beginner the most complex, esoteric techniques as they start training with you? Bad idea, in my experience. Building expertise in human beings just doesn't work well that way.

Hmm.

This isn't necessarily the easiest thing to explain… for one thing, I'd suggest that you're looking at things the wrong way. Yes, there is a progression of skills… but not in the sense of necessarily increasing complexity. Instead, it's more a matter of building on the principles… which, in many cases, can be stripping back (mechanically) of what you do. Probably the best way to look at it is that everything you do, complex, "advanced", or "basic", are simply different expressions and applications of those same "basics".

I'd also suggest that your idea that it's a bad idea kinda goes against the way many systems do approach things… so they're going to come from the perspective that it's a very good idea. I'd include myself in that, for the record. I'm personally aware of a number of systems that explicitly give the students the "esoteric" aspects from the first day… then constantly refer back to them as you continue through the art.

Half guard basics vs deep half guard or some other variant. Open guard basics vs DLR guard or other variants.

Okay… can you explain why these are "advanced"? What makes them so? How is a "deep half guard" more advanced than regular half guard?

 

[Steve]

Hmm.

This isn't necessarily the easiest thing to explain… for one thing, I'd suggest that you're looking at things the wrong way. Yes, there is a progression of skills… but not in the sense of necessarily increasing complexity. Instead, it's more a matter of building on the principles… which, in many cases, can be stripping back (mechanically) of what you do. Probably the best way to look at it is that everything you do, complex, "advanced", or "basic", are simply different expressions and applications of those same "basics".

I'd also suggest that your idea that it's a bad idea kinda goes against the way many systems do approach things… so they're going to come from the perspective that it's a very good idea. I'd include myself in that, for the record. I'm personally aware of a number of systems that explicitly give the students the "esoteric" aspects from the first day… then constantly refer back to them as you continue through the art.



Okay… can you explain why these are "advanced"? What makes them so? How is a "deep half guard" more advanced than regular half guard?

I appreciate your opinions on the matter, Chris. I think we are playing a game of semantics here. I have already said that skills that are foundational would be what I would consider basic. Skills (or techniques or principles) that build on these are what I would consider increasingly advanced. Applying this to de la riva guard or deep half guard should be pretty clear.

I would personally suggest that you are the one looking at this wrong, Chris. Advanced does not mean complex. This sandbox model for training where everything is basic is a trendy fad right now in our YouTube society. Maybe I'm old school and believe that teaching arithmetic before algebra before calculus just makes sense. Simple or complex are just one way to categorize things. Basic or advanced is another. That's my opinion.

I think, as usual, looking at what the words actually mean is pretty helpful and informative, and can provide some clarity on the subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm… no, honestly, "deep guard" and "DLR guard" aren't particularly clear to me… as, really, I don't know what they are. I mean, it's pretty clear how muko and marui are both the most advanced and the most basic in their ryu to you, yeah? That's kinda why I asked for more clarification… I'm not sure what the difference even is, let alone why one is more "advanced" (or, more importantly, what makes it advanced compared to the "regular" guards… which is really what I was asking).

As far as advanced not meaning complex, well, I was taking that tack from you… your phrasing was incredulous that someone would be taught "the most complex, esoteric techniques" first… but, to get to the semantics, and to use your mathematical examples, none of the "higher forms" (whether your DLR guard, or algebra) exist without the fundamental aspects in the first place… and, if you come up against a problem, to solve it, you need to go back to the fundamental applications and principles (which really make up everything found in these "higher" aspects in the first place)… which is really what's meant when it's said that there are no advanced techniques (martially speaking). I am intrigued by your idea that you're "more old school" in this sense, though… or that this is somehow part of the "youtube society"…. as the examples I am referring to are a number of centuries old… and yeah, I'm more than aware of what words mean, Steve. Thanks.

 

[Danny T]

I think many call techniques learned after learning basics advanced simply because of where the learning is within the curriculum. But does that really make that advanced. Within one's pedagogy there may be some basic material taught to beginner, other material as intermediate and even more taught as advanced. In every system I have spent an appreciable time in that has been the case; basic, intermediate, and advanced material but still all either fundamental aspects or combinations of fundamentals used in a more complex manner due to timing differences, range differences, the amount of fundamentals utilized within a short amount of time, the changing or abandoning the use of one action and using something different within the movements. Advanced is the ability to apply the fundamentals though-out ever changing dynamics in shorter amounts of time.