Lack of upper upper body (grey matter) protection in Kung Fu? (strategy vs apps)

[oxy]

The OP in the other thread got me thinking. Actually, it's a thought I've had for a long time, but I guess there's no time like 1 second into the future.

Should fighting strategy be mixed with applications?

There are two tiers to this question.

One is the teaching tier and the other is the learning tier. I think the teaching aspect should not confuse strategy and applications. I think the learning aspect should learn (and be taught) not to expect or force a strategy interpretation when learning applications.

The reason I think why the other thread is related to this thread is this:

Let's assume that there is a martial art with no lower body protection. ie, it's not and never is specifically taught. ie, not even the (very good) principle of using footwork as a defence/offence is specifically taught.

Such a martial art may be looked down upon. But is that because it is "not good" or is it because people are (maybe subconsciously) looking for a swiss army knife approach when being taught?

I say this because of my experience in teaching (students, but mostly myself) LHBF, I find that teaching applications is not as useful as it once seemed. I find that there are better ways of teaching correct posture without applications. I find that there are better ways of teaching applications than through the postures. I find this when I began thinking about separating strategy and applications when teaching.

So now, I'm thinking that it would be better for the student (that word includes the teachers as well) that they are taught the forms and postures with just enough applications to make them technically correct. And only when they're technically correct do you move onto strategy. Move right past applications onto strategy. ie, strategy informs applications and not the other way around.

I'm not sure I've explained myself well because what I've just said doesn't sound too different from other teachings.

 

[qi-tah]

The OP in the other thread got me thinking. Actually, it's a thought I've had for a long time, but I guess there's no time like 1 second into the future.

Should fighting strategy be mixed with applications? ...
...
So now, I'm thinking that it would be better for the student (that word includes the teachers as well) that they are taught the forms and postures with just enough applications to make them technically correct. And only when they're technically correct do you move onto strategy. Move right past applications onto strategy. ie, strategy informs applications and not the other way around.

I don't know, not being a teacher, but as a student i would prefer basic footwork/stances, apps and strategy being taught concurrently. For several reasons, first, it's going to stretch my brain and keep me engaged more, second, i get a holistic overview of what i might be learning next, and third, i can start to identify my weak areas.
For instance, if i'm practicing apps in a regimented way and never sparring (learning strategy), then i could either get a false sense of security that i know all the apps (and contraindications!) of a move/tactic/combo, or conversely, i could feel a bit alienated from the purpose of the drill. You need both at once - the drill to burn in the app in a controlled environment and the sparring to work out it's RL dynamics.
If i didn't spar (and my stances and app drills are far from perfect!

) then i probably wouldn't now be wondering about stuff like "first strike" tactics vs. counterfighting, and how to work out when is the best time for me to adopt one or the other etc. More questions... more courage needed to ask my teacher... more learning (i hope!)

But then i know that i can get a tad impatient at times... maybe i just ought to go back and stand in horse stance for a little while longer...

 

[pete]

your art dictates your strategies. all aspects of your art should support and strengthen your understanding of those strategies. sparring tests those strategies, sparring with those outside your style tests them further.

 

[oxy]

your art dictates your strategies. all aspects of your art should support and strengthen your understanding of those strategies. sparring tests those strategies, sparring with those outside your style tests them further.

That's the thing.

I've come to think that art should not dictate strategy. It may dictate tactics, but that's as far as it goes. Strategy should only be dictated by situation.

If art dictates strategy, then every art has a different strategy. But the fact that many arts can have the same strategy applied (also dependent on the skill of the practitioner) implies that a viable disconnect exists between art and strategy.

A very good example:

The pincer maneouvre is possibly the most successful strategy in military history. (I don't have the statistics).

It has been successfully applied whether it was foot soldiers, cavalry etc

 

[oxy]

For instance, if i'm practicing apps in a regimented way and never sparring (learning strategy), then i could either get a false sense of security that i know all the apps (and contraindications!) of a move/tactic/combo, or conversely, i could feel a bit alienated from the purpose of the drill. You need both at once - the drill to burn in the app in a controlled environment and the sparring to work out it's RL dynamics.

I don't suggest that people never spar. I actually disagree with my own LHBF teacher that sparring is unnecessary. In actual fact, I was the only one in the school who actually let students practice on me. It's not sparring, but it's a step up from the not-sparring we normally do.

I agree with the "burning in" of the app through drills, but I don't agree that sparring equates to learning strategy. I discuss it more later.

If a student gets a false sense of security, it is the teacher who encourages it despite their teaching philosophy. ie, a teacher who lets their students get a false sense of security is not observant enough and won't be even if they teach sparring. I think we all know of examples where students who spar get some false sense of security from it too...

If i didn't spar (and my stances and app drills are far from perfect!

) then i probably wouldn't now be wondering about stuff like "first strike" tactics vs. counterfighting, and how to work out when is the best time for me to adopt one or the other etc.

I think that's a very good reason to spar, but it gives the false perception that you're learning strategy.

Strategy is a lot more general than "first strike" or counterfighting and tactics in general. In my view, strategy allows you to be able to drop the need for changing tactics.

An example I would use is chess:

Apps for drills would be the same as knowing the legal moves for each piece. Sparring/tactics would be equivalent to getting the king in check or forking the opponent. You can practice those all you want, but they'll only teach you "local" applications. It's probably enough to get you out of most situations, but it's going to take you a lot of work on average.

My theory is that teaching strategy that is too tightly coupled with the apps is equivalent to teaching people how to win a chess game as if simply combining local battles would win a chess game.

Sorry for the analogy stew, but I'm quite out of it today. Maybe I'll have my head screwed on properly tomorrow or something.

 

[qi-tah]

Strategy is a lot more general than "first strike" or counterfighting and tactics in general. In my view, strategy allows you to be able to drop the need for changing tactics.

An example I would use is chess:

Apps for drills would be the same as knowing the legal moves for each piece. Sparring/tactics would be equivalent to getting the king in check or forking the opponent. You can practice those all you want, but they'll only teach you "local" applications. It's probably enough to get you out of most situations, but it's going to take you a lot of work on average.

My theory is that teaching strategy that is too tightly coupled with the apps is equivalent to teaching people how to win a chess game as if simply combining local battles would win a chess game.

Sorry for the analogy stew, but I'm quite out of it today. Maybe I'll have my head screwed on properly tomorrow or something.

Hmm.. i'm confused. But i'll try to paraphrase... forgive me if i get the wrong end of the stick.

So what i take it you are saying is that "tactics" relate to various sequences or combinations of apps that are used within a fight, and "strategy" is how you approach the fight overall, ie an assessment of terrain, numbers of opponents, weapons available etc. So, were you saying originally (in yr first post) that students need to be taught the basics of de-escalation and other ways of strategically avoiding confrontation (or choosing yr battleground if you can't get away) before getting all aggro in sparring apps? 'Cause if that's the case i agree... not that i think it makes much difference to those students who are determined to pick fights anyway. :shrug: