Record what you can do

[skribs]

Exploring the variations is an important part of understanding the technique. But it’s still one technique and does not need to be over-complicated by giving it completely separate identities.

In My example of the books I read, those books could have been streamlined significantly if the fundamental technique was presented, and then variations were shown as part of that presentation. Instead, each variation was presented from the beginning to the end as if it was truly unique and separate. I think that is a cumbersome way to organize a body of knowledge.

There are two problems with this line of thinking, though.

1. How do you decide what is enough variance of the technique that it becomes something new?
2. How do you codify and present the variations? (This may be more of an artificial problem, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Variances vs. New Techniques
This is what I hinted at in my post above. Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Are the lead hook and strong hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Right there, you could have 1, 2, 2, or 4 techniques, depending on how you break it down. And different people break it down in different ways.

You can take a lot of techniques and find similarities between them. The front kick and roundhouse kick are pretty darn similar, except that a roundhouse kick includes a pivot that the front kick doesn't. The back kick and spinning hook kick also start off very similar to each other, it's only the final strike that's different. Going the other direction, I know several different wrist locks that we tend to call "wrist lock" but they are fundamentally different from each other in execution. A front snap kick and a front push kick are also very similar (and usually both called "front kick") but executed very different from each other.

You could probably take this to the extreme and just lump every strike under one technique, since physics is the same for every strike. It doesn't matter if it's a knee, a foot, an elbow, a fist, a shoulder, hip, or forehead, the principles of how to generate force don't change from strike to strike.

• You want to use as hard of a surface as possible to strike with
• You want to put your weight behind the strike
• You want to accelerate your strike before hitting the target
• You want to follow through after hitting the target
• You want to strike your target on a vital point that's going to inflict maximum pain, damage, or disruption

Where do you draw the line? Where should others draw the line? Is there any particular reason why your line is "right" and theirs is "wrong", other than what you say?

Codify and Present
One of the issues that I see on a lot of TMA videos is this idea that what isn't presented isn't known. We have one fellow on this site who very much falls into that category (but I'm not going to call him out specifically), where if you don't present every variation of the technique and every way of adapting it, he assumes you don't know it at all.

Now, the simple solution here is just to ignore people like that, but in spite of how stupid the points they're making are, they say them with such conviction that a layman might assume they're right.

Let's say you demonstrate a technique, but you don't demonstrate every variation of the technique. Someone may see that as a hole in your training or curriculum, instead of just something that wasn't included for the sake of time. Of course, now that I think of it, that may happen no matter how you categorize them, as the commenters wouldn't know of your naming convention.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques?

Will you call these 2 technique the same technique, or different techniques?

After

- 1, you can drop your knee into your opponent's groin, or end with a full mount.
- 2, you can drop your knee on your opponent's chest, or end with a side mount.

1. Pull the outside of your opponent's leading leg.

2. Pull the inside of your opponent's leading leg.

 

[skribs]

Will you call these 2 technique the same technique, or different techniques?

After

- 1, you can drop your knee into your opponent's groin, or end with a full mount.
- 2, you can drop your knee on your opponent's chest, or end with a side mount.

1. Pull the outside of your opponent's leading leg.

2. Pull the inside of your opponent's leading leg.

It only matters if you and I are discussing the technique. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter to you what I would call it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It gets further complicated. The way my Master teaches things in Hapkido, a "technique" is a combination of techniques. For example, a technique may be:

1. Opponent applies cross-arm grab
2. Transition into V-Lock
3. Swing your leg around and use the V-Lock to take them down
4. Standing armbar

He may have another "technique" (in quotes because I call it a combination) which changes one or more of the steps.

1. If the opponent applies a 2-arm grab or a straight grab, you can still do steps 2-4, but it will be a different transition to get to the V-Lock.
2. From a cross-arm grab, I could easily transition into one of several different wrist locks; I'm not limited to a V-Lock
3. There are a number of different ways I could take someone down. I could primarily use pressure on the wrist, a couple of different ways I can pressure the elbow, or I could transition into a different take-down from the V-Lock.
4. I also have numerous options what to do after I take them down.

The way I would personally categorize it is each lock, take-down, and submission would be their own technique, and each grouping would be a "combination". Different variances might be a different technique, or a different "application" of the same technique.

It's kind of like boxing. How many punches are there in boxing? Is it:

• Jab, Cross, Hook, Uppercut
• Jab, Cross, Lead Hook, Lead Uppercut, Strong Hook, Strong Uppercut
• Jab, Cross, Lead Long-Range Hook, Lead Long-Range Uppercut, Lead Medium Hook, Lead Medium Uppercut, Lead Short Hook, Lead Short Uppercut, Lead Overhand, and long-range versions of all of the above?

The same coach could teach all of the techniques in the third option, but just teach them as different ways to use the "jab, cross, hook, and uppercut".

Your instructor’s approach is an adaptation of the Japanese terminology used in Daito-Ryu, as I understand it. Techniques are named by attack, direction of response, and the finish used. So shomenuchi omote sankyo (I think I have the order right, but it looks wrong to me) would be a sankyo wrist lock against a strike to the front of the head, finishing to the front. Or something like that. My Japanese terminology is awful.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Will you call these 2 technique the same technique, or different techniques?

After

- 1, you can drop your knee into your opponent's groin, or end with a full mount.
- 2, you can drop your knee on your opponent's chest, or end with a side mount.

1. Pull the outside of your opponent's leading leg.

2. Pull the inside of your opponent's leading leg.

Those are the same technique to me.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There are two problems with this line of thinking, though.

1. How do you decide what is enough variance of the technique that it becomes something new?
2. How do you codify and present the variations? (This may be more of an artificial problem, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Variances vs. New Techniques
This is what I hinted at in my post above. Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Are the lead hook and strong hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Right there, you could have 1, 2, 2, or 4 techniques, depending on how you break it down. And different people break it down in different ways.

You can take a lot of techniques and find similarities between them. The front kick and roundhouse kick are pretty darn similar, except that a roundhouse kick includes a pivot that the front kick doesn't. The back kick and spinning hook kick also start off very similar to each other, it's only the final strike that's different. Going the other direction, I know several different wrist locks that we tend to call "wrist lock" but they are fundamentally different from each other in execution. A front snap kick and a front push kick are also very similar (and usually both called "front kick") but executed very different from each other.

You could probably take this to the extreme and just lump every strike under one technique, since physics is the same for every strike. It doesn't matter if it's a knee, a foot, an elbow, a fist, a shoulder, hip, or forehead, the principles of how to generate force don't change from strike to strike.

• You want to use as hard of a surface as possible to strike with
• You want to put your weight behind the strike
• You want to accelerate your strike before hitting the target
• You want to follow through after hitting the target
• You want to strike your target on a vital point that's going to inflict maximum pain, damage, or disruption

Where do you draw the line? Where should others draw the line? Is there any particular reason why your line is "right" and theirs is "wrong", other than what you say?

Codify and Present
One of the issues that I see on a lot of TMA videos is this idea that what isn't presented isn't known. We have one fellow on this site who very much falls into that category (but I'm not going to call him out specifically), where if you don't present every variation of the technique and every way of adapting it, he assumes you don't know it at all.

Now, the simple solution here is just to ignore people like that, but in spite of how stupid the points they're making are, they say them with such conviction that a layman might assume they're right.

Let's say you demonstrate a technique, but you don't demonstrate every variation of the technique. Someone may see that as a hole in your training or curriculum, instead of just something that wasn't included for the sake of time. Of course, now that I think of it, that may happen no matter how you categorize them, as the commenters wouldn't know of your naming convention.

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly, in mainline NGA, the kicks are often taught as a front kick + variations (2 rounds, snap/hanmi, crescent, wheel, rib), and the side kick. Oddly, the strikes aren’t termed as “techniques”, but if they were it might just be 2 kicking techniques.

As for where you draw the classification lines, it’s pretty much always arbitrary. What ai like about a small number of codified techniques with applications/variations is that it leaves more room for the student to roam in, and more room for variation between instructors.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think this discussion as a whole is kinda silly. It's a semantics thing, where both sides know what the other means (technique vs. variation of a technique), and it started with John discussing the idea of recording 100 techniques (or variations) to test your own knowledge/your students knowledge. Reading through, I don't think any of us actually commented on it.

So @Kung Fu Wang personally, I feel that not all of it is needed. I think what might be a better test is for a student to take 25 or so techniques (from different groups, ie: a sweep that ends with holding their arm, vs. a sweep where you step away afterwards couldn't be used). And then in the video have an example of using the technique on a partner with some level of resistance and/or in sparring. I think that would be better since it would be showing proof they know both technique and application. Whether or not it's recorded so the patient can review it/you can review it together is up to you. A lot more work but I could see the benefit.

 

[skribs]

Your instructor’s approach is an adaptation of the Japanese terminology used in Daito-Ryu, as I understand it. Techniques are named by attack, direction of response, and the finish used. So shomenuchi omote sankyo (I think I have the order right, but it looks wrong to me) would be a sankyo wrist lock against a strike to the front of the head, finishing to the front. Or something like that. My Japanese terminology is awful.

The difference is my Master's approach is to name them #1, #2, #3, and so on.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

To name a technique, the Chinese wrestling approach is to describe:

- hands function, and
- leg (or body) function.

For example:

- Shoulder pulling foot sweep.
- Under hook hip throw.
- Head lock leg lift.
- Downward arm pulling sickle hook.
- ...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The difference is my Master's approach is to name them #1, #2, #3, and so on.

That probably takes a while to keep straight. Though probably not longer than learning Japanese or Korean terms for techniques.

 

[isshinryuronin]

There are two problems with this line of thinking, though.

1. How do you decide what is enough variance of the technique that it becomes something new?
2. How do you codify and present the variations? (This may be more of an artificial problem, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Variances vs. New Techniques
This is what I hinted at in my post above. Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Are the lead hook and strong hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Right there, you could have 1, 2, 2, or 4 techniques, depending on how you break it down. And different people break it down in different ways.

You can take a lot of techniques and find similarities between them. The front kick and roundhouse kick are pretty darn similar, except that a roundhouse kick includes a pivot that the front kick doesn't. The back kick and spinning hook kick also start off very similar to each other, it's only the final strike that's different. Going the other direction, I know several different wrist locks that we tend to call "wrist lock" but they are fundamentally different from each other in execution. A front snap kick and a front push kick are also very similar (and usually both called "front kick") but executed very different from each other.

You could probably take this to the extreme and just lump every strike under one technique, since physics is the same for every strike. It doesn't matter if it's a knee, a foot, an elbow, a fist, a shoulder, hip, or forehead, the principles of how to generate force don't change from strike to strike.

• You want to use as hard of a surface as possible to strike with
• You want to put your weight behind the strike
• You want to accelerate your strike before hitting the target
• You want to follow through after hitting the target
• You want to strike your target on a vital point that's going to inflict maximum pain, damage, or disruption

Where do you draw the line? Where should others draw the line? Is there any particular reason why your line is "right" and theirs is "wrong", other than what you say?

Codify and Present
One of the issues that I see on a lot of TMA videos is this idea that what isn't presented isn't known. We have one fellow on this site who very much falls into that category (but I'm not going to call him out specifically), where if you don't present every variation of the technique and every way of adapting it, he assumes you don't know it at all.

Now, the simple solution here is just to ignore people like that, but in spite of how stupid the points they're making are, they say them with such conviction that a layman might assume they're right.

Let's say you demonstrate a technique, but you don't demonstrate every variation of the technique. Someone may see that as a hole in your training or curriculum, instead of just something that wasn't included for the sake of time. Of course, now that I think of it, that may happen no matter how you categorize them, as the commenters wouldn't know of your naming convention.

You brought several good points. I think we all agree there are almost an infinite number of variations and it is hard to draw the line where one stops and the other begins as a separate technique. Have you ever looked at a rainbow and tried to decide where the blue stops and the green begins? One blends into the other very gradually. You can look at it ten times and each time the line you draw will vary. It is very hard to codify as you said.

I'd like to link your last paragraph to traditional kata. Some criticize them as impractical as an attacker may not attack in the way the kata seems to be designed for, and so proves a "hole in the curriculum" to paraphrase you. But there are, indeed, many variations to a kata's demonstrated techniques - to show them all would require at least 10 different versions of the kata.

Original karate was not codified, not written down; many techniques didn't even have names. If they did, they had names like spicy wings or puking tiger (if these are not historically correct, they should be) which didn't actually describe the move in a way someone could understand like a "high block" or "front kick."
They were meant to only be a catch phrase to remind the practitioner of the moves he already had learned in actual application and meaningless to someone who had not been personally taught by the sensei.

Similarly, the kata template was not meant to be the final word - merely to be a device to remind the practitioner of the basic movements or principles which could be easily adapted into variations to fit the exact situation. Of course, this required hands on teaching and working with partners A LOT to try out the possible variations. Maybe this is why only a few katas were taught in the very early days and only one kata was studied for a year or two before the next one was introduced.

I agree with Monkey it's silly to get too far into this. We should also know there also many different ways to classify them: by the moves originating location, trajectory, target, source/type of power, what part is the weapon, elevation, angle, circular/linear............, or, as Skribs said, just reduce them all to one thing. I liked the bullet points of basic principles, though I'd add a couple more.

As for putting ourselves on video, that would be like Trump giving a press conference - raw meat for hungry lions.

 

[dvcochran]

You brought several good points. I think we all agree there are almost an infinite number of variations and it is hard to draw the line where one stops and the other begins as a separate technique. Have you ever looked at a rainbow and tried to decide where the blue stops and the green begins? One blends into the other very gradually. You can look at it ten times and each time the line you draw will vary. It is very hard to codify as you said.

I'd like to link your last paragraph to traditional kata. Some criticize them as impractical as an attacker may not attack in the way the kata seems to be designed for, and so proves a "hole in the curriculum" to paraphrase you. But there are, indeed, many variations to a kata's demonstrated techniques - to show them all would require at least 10 different versions of the kata.

Original karate was not codified, not written down; many techniques didn't even have names. If they did, they had names like spicy wings or puking tiger (if these are not historically correct, they should be) which didn't actually describe the move in a way someone could understand like a "high block" or "front kick."
They were meant to only be a catch phrase to remind the practitioner of the moves he already had learned in actual application and meaningless to someone who had not been personally taught by the sensei.

Similarly, the kata template was not meant to be the final word - merely to be a device to remind the practitioner of the basic movements or principles which could be easily adapted into variations to fit the exact situation. Of course, this required hands on teaching and working with partners A LOT to try out the possible variations. Maybe this is why only a few katas were taught in the very early days and only one kata was studied for a year or two before the next one was introduced.

I agree with Monkey it's silly to get too far into this. We should also know there also many different ways to classify them: by the moves originating location, trajectory, target, source/type of power, what part is the weapon, elevation, angle, circular/linear............, or, as Skribs said, just reduce them all to one thing. I liked the bullet points of basic principles, though I'd add a couple more.

As for putting ourselves on video, that would be like Trump giving a press conference - raw meat for hungry lions QUOTE]

Agree and to summarize for today's society if I understand you correctly; what appears to be doing the same thing over and over really isn't. The self learning & interpretation component/requirement gets lost on so many.

There is a bill of goods being sold that old equals crap. I fully agree training methods and models have gotten better, much better. But repetition (aka practice) will never be replaced. It is in every facet of life if you think about it.
The gym or conditioning drills are the most basic example I can think of. You do sets or reps of the Same thing over and over until you reach your goal. There is a finite purpose. TMA practice is Not like this. While there is a great amount of repetition as a person becomes proficient they should come to realize there are many different 'options' within a given move/skill to learn and hone.
What appears to be a single movement is really a diverse skill that can be used several different ways.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You apparently typed everything inside the quotes - you might want to re-post.

 

[Flying Crane]

There are two problems with this line of thinking, though.

1. How do you decide what is enough variance of the technique that it becomes something new?
2. How do you codify and present the variations? (This may be more of an artificial problem, but we'll get to that in a minute).

Variances vs. New Techniques
This is what I hinted at in my post above. Are the long-range hook and mid-range hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Are the lead hook and strong hook variations of the hook, or separate techniques? Right there, you could have 1, 2, 2, or 4 techniques, depending on how you break it down. And different people break it down in different ways.

You can take a lot of techniques and find similarities between them. The front kick and roundhouse kick are pretty darn similar, except that a roundhouse kick includes a pivot that the front kick doesn't. The back kick and spinning hook kick also start off very similar to each other, it's only the final strike that's different. Going the other direction, I know several different wrist locks that we tend to call "wrist lock" but they are fundamentally different from each other in execution. A front snap kick and a front push kick are also very similar (and usually both called "front kick") but executed very different from each other.

You could probably take this to the extreme and just lump every strike under one technique, since physics is the same for every strike. It doesn't matter if it's a knee, a foot, an elbow, a fist, a shoulder, hip, or forehead, the principles of how to generate force don't change from strike to strike.

• You want to use as hard of a surface as possible to strike with
• You want to put your weight behind the strike
• You want to accelerate your strike before hitting the target
• You want to follow through after hitting the target
• You want to strike your target on a vital point that's going to inflict maximum pain, damage, or disruption

Where do you draw the line? Where should others draw the line? Is there any particular reason why your line is "right" and theirs is "wrong", other than what you say?

Codify and Present
One of the issues that I see on a lot of TMA videos is this idea that what isn't presented isn't known. We have one fellow on this site who very much falls into that category (but I'm not going to call him out specifically), where if you don't present every variation of the technique and every way of adapting it, he assumes you don't know it at all.

Now, the simple solution here is just to ignore people like that, but in spite of how stupid the points they're making are, they say them with such conviction that a layman might assume they're right.

Let's say you demonstrate a technique, but you don't demonstrate every variation of the technique. Someone may see that as a hole in your training or curriculum, instead of just something that wasn't included for the sake of time. Of course, now that I think of it, that may happen no matter how you categorize them, as the commenters wouldn't know of your naming convention.

Fair points, all of this and I don’t necessarily have the answer for anyone but myself.

You did give me pause to consider this more though as I realize there are a couple ways to look at this. With my book example, one way could be looking to the end joint manipulation as the skillset to be learned. The other could be looking at the path to get to the joint manipulation from a different starting point as the skillset to be learned. I think depending on how you look at it could inform what you feel defines a new technique vs. a variation.

Food for thought.

 

[dvcochran]

You brought several good points. I think we all agree there are almost an infinite number of variations and it is hard to draw the line where one stops and the other begins as a separate technique. Have you ever looked at a rainbow and tried to decide where the blue stops and the green begins? One blends into the other very gradually. You can look at it ten times and each time the line you draw will vary. It is very hard to codify as you said.

I'd like to link your last paragraph to traditional kata. Some criticize them as impractical as an attacker may not attack in the way the kata seems to be designed for, and so proves a "hole in the curriculum" to paraphrase you. But there are, indeed, many variations to a kata's demonstrated techniques - to show them all would require at least 10 different versions of the kata.

Original karate was not codified, not written down; many techniques didn't even have names. If they did, they had names like spicy wings or puking tiger (if these are not historically correct, they should be) which didn't actually describe the move in a way someone could understand like a "high block" or "front kick."
They were meant to only be a catch phrase to remind the practitioner of the moves he already had learned in actual application and meaningless to someone who had not been personally taught by the sensei.

Similarly, the kata template was not meant to be the final word - merely to be a device to remind the practitioner of the basic movements or principles which could be easily adapted into variations to fit the exact situation. Of course, this required hands on teaching and working with partners A LOT to try out the possible variations. Maybe this is why only a few katas were taught in the very early days and only one kata was studied for a year or two before the next one was introduced.

I agree with Monkey it's silly to get too far into this. We should also know there also many different ways to classify them: by the moves originating location, trajectory, target, source/type of power, what part is the weapon, elevation, angle, circular/linear............, or, as Skribs said, just reduce them all to one thing. I liked the bullet points of basic principles, though I'd add a couple more.

As for putting ourselves on video, that would be like Trump giving a press conference - raw meat for hungry lions.

Agree and to summarize for today's society, what appears to be doing the same thing over and over really isn't. The self learning & interpretation component/requirement gets lost on so many.

There is a bill of goods being sold that old equals crap. I fully agree training methods and models have gotten better, much better. But repetition (aka practice) will never be replaced. It is in every facet of life if you think about it.
The gym or conditioning drills are the most basic example I can think of. You do sets or reps of the Same thing over and over until you reach your goal. There is a finite purpose. TMA practice is Not like this. While there is a great amount of repetition, as a person becomes proficient they should come to realize there are many different 'options' within a given move/skill to learn and hone.
What appears to be a single movement is really a diverse skill that can be used several different ways.

 

[dvcochran]

You apparently typed everything inside the quotes - you might want to re-post.

Not sure what happened. Thanks for catching it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

There are more throwing art technique than there are striking art technique.

- The striking art technique can be either a punch, elbow, or kick, knee.
- The throwing art technique all use hand and leg. If there are M hand technique, and N leg technique, there can be M x N throwing art technique.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I don't really think my physical ability adds great import to the MA world. Most of what I do or can do, literally thousands of other folks do better. Why would it be important to document what's already out there?

I cannot understand your attitude here. Your students learn from you. They don't learn from other teachers.

If a book is just a copy of other books, it has no value. A published book should have something "unique" in it to have any value.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I cannot understand your attitude here. Your students learn from you. They don't learn from other teachers.

If a book is just a copy of other books, it has no value. A published book should have something "unique" in it to have any value.

My point was that videos of me won’t add much to MA posterity. I don’t have a legacy in the arts, won’t likely be leaving behind anyone teaching what I teach. My own students can likely benefit from videos of me, but video of me won’t “contribute to the MA world big time”. My effect is over a fairly small group. I don’t foresee that changing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

If everybody can record 100 techniques and pass down to the next generation, we can preserve a lot of MA knowledge.

Are you willing to do it?