Valid Techniques

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
I see a lot of people criticizing techniques. I have a couple of comments.

A tech is not invalid just because you can't understand how it works or just because you cannot apply it yourself.

However, if no one can apply it other than in the dojo, against a cooperating partner, then yeah, it might not be valid.

There are few really new or innovative techniques. Human bodies haven't changed that much in a couple thousand years since humans began codifying systems of self-defense.

One exception, however. We tend to be larger now. Some techs have to change to address that.

Some techs truly cannot be applied as intended without causing serious damage. That means students have to take the tech carefully far enough to see and understand that it is valid, but stop at that point.

While there are certainly B.S. techniques, it seems to me that too many are too willing to declare a tech invalid because they personally can't make it work.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
Almost any technique can work sometimes. No technique works all the time. I personally prefer to refer to techniques as "low-percentage" or "high-percentage" rather than "invalid" or "valid."

A technique that you can use effectively with minimal training, that carries minimal risk, that can be used in a wide variety of contexts against a wide variety of opponents, would be a very high-percentage technique.

A technique that requires 10 years of dedicated practice and a high degree of athleticism and is only reliable against an inept opponent in a highly specific context would be a much lower-percentage technique.

Being low-percentage doesn't necessarily mean a technique is worthless. Maybe the technique is only useful in a certain limited context, but that context is one you have to operate in regularly. Maybe the technique requires certain well-developed athletic attributes, but you possess those attributes. In that case the technique might be a valuable tool for you, even though it would be low-percentage for most people.

I'm not necessarily against training low-percentage techniques. I just think that it's a good idea to focus on high-percentage moves first. Once you have a solid basis for addressing most situations, it can sometimes be useful to fill in the gaps with techniques that are not so widely applicable.
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
Almost any technique can work sometimes. No technique works all the time. I personally prefer to refer to techniques as "low-percentage" or "high-percentage" rather than "invalid" or "valid."

A technique that you can use effectively with minimal training, that carries minimal risk, that can be used in a wide variety of contexts against a wide variety of opponents, would be a very high-percentage technique.

A technique that requires 10 years of dedicated practice and a high degree of athleticism and is only reliable against an inept opponent in a highly specific context would be a much lower-percentage technique.

Being low-percentage doesn't necessarily mean a technique is worthless. Maybe the technique is only useful in a certain limited context, but that context is one you have to operate in regularly. Maybe the technique requires certain well-developed athletic attributes, but you possess those attributes. In that case the technique might be a valuable tool for you, even though it would be low-percentage for most people.

I'm not necessarily against training low-percentage techniques. I just think that it's a good idea to focus on high-percentage moves first. Once you have a solid basis for addressing most situations, it can sometimes be useful to fill in the gaps with techniques that are not so widely applicable.

I have to agree with you completely on this. I have often thought that given the American propensity to throw haymakers in a street fight, and given that most people are right-handed, the basic left block up followed by a punch to the head or solar plexus, is a great, simple, tech, which one should consider devoting considerable time to. Of course there are all kinds of follow-on techs that come after that, and can be added, but if one can stop the haymaker very easily and deliver a monster counter-attack, that seems like a very 'high-percentage' technique to me.

I recall reading once that one of the more famous of the bare-knuckle martial arts sparring champs of the 60s and 70s said something to the effect that he could turn any average Joe into a champion in sparring by teaching him nothing but the side kick and the backfist, for say a year or so.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
For each and every technique, you should try to find methods that can help your technique to have the "highest successful rate". IMO, that's the most important part of your MA training.

The proper

- angle,
- set up,
- ...

may decide whether your technique will work or not.

If you can

- line up your back foot with your opponent's both feet, your "single leg" will have better chance to be successful.
- find an angle to move in that you don't have to spin your body, your "hip throw" will have better chance to be successful.

If you

- kick low, it can set up your punch high,
- punch to your left, it can set up your next punch to your right,
- pull, it can set up your push,
- push, it can set up your pull,
- ...

Here is an example to use "push" to set up "pull". You want to force your opponent to shift his weight from one foot to another. You then take advantage on it.

 
Last edited:

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
Almost any technique can work sometimes. No technique works all the time. I personally prefer to refer to techniques as "low-percentage" or "high-percentage" rather than "invalid" or "valid."

A technique that you can use effectively with minimal training, that carries minimal risk, that can be used in a wide variety of contexts against a wide variety of opponents, would be a very high-percentage technique.

A technique that requires 10 years of dedicated practice and a high degree of athleticism and is only reliable against an inept opponent in a highly specific context would be a much lower-percentage technique.

Being low-percentage doesn't necessarily mean a technique is worthless. Maybe the technique is only useful in a certain limited context, but that context is one you have to operate in regularly. Maybe the technique requires certain well-developed athletic attributes, but you possess those attributes. In that case the technique might be a valuable tool for you, even though it would be low-percentage for most people.

I'm not necessarily against training low-percentage techniques. I just think that it's a good idea to focus on high-percentage moves first. Once you have a solid basis for addressing most situations, it can sometimes be useful to fill in the gaps with techniques that are not so widely applicable.

The most interesting technique to look at is the single arm guard pass. Which is high percentage provided the other guy does not know how to apply triangles.

It becomes a bit of a dichotomy.
 

paitingman

Brown Belt
Joined
Jun 17, 2014
Messages
453
Reaction score
186
I also think it's helpful to look at techniques as a spectrum of "high percentage" to "low percentage"

but I tend to look at it as a more PERSONAL rather than universal spectrum.

Is MY technique valid or high percentage. While my spinning backfist is pretty low percentage for a variety of reasons, I've seen plenty of guys really capitalize every time they throw it.

For me it's all about my personal spectrum of tools/techniques, and understanding the differences and admiring the personal spectrum of another.
 

Tony Dismukes

MT Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
7,611
Location
Lexington, KY
I also think it's helpful to look at techniques as a spectrum of "high percentage" to "low percentage"

but I tend to look at it as a more PERSONAL rather than universal spectrum.

Is MY technique valid or high percentage. While my spinning backfist is pretty low percentage for a variety of reasons, I've seen plenty of guys really capitalize every time they throw it.

For me it's all about my personal spectrum of tools/techniques, and understanding the differences and admiring the personal spectrum of another.
I think it's good to look at it from both a personal and a universal perspective.

If I'm in a fight, I'm looking at which techniques are high-percentage for me with my own abilities and limitations.

When I'm teaching, I prefer to stick with techniques are generally high-percentage for most people.
 

Kung Fu Wang

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
14,041
Reaction score
4,488
Location
Austin, Tx/Shell Beach, Ca
When I'm teaching, I prefer to stick with techniques are generally high-percentage for most people.
The term "high percentage" can also mean that the opportunity to apply a certain technique is easier to create. For example, if your opponent wants to attack you, he has to step in. His forward stepping can help your "single leg". This is why the "single leg" is a high percentage technique.
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
All techniques are valid. It is knowing what is applicable and when is it applicable that is important.

Only in a mutiuniverse kind of way. I can still create a technique that has no grounding in anything.
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
All techniques are valid. It is knowing what is applicable and when is it applicable that is important.

Well, I'd argue that not all techniques are valid, because I've seen some real B.S. out there. And it wasn't me that could not make it work, no one could, not even the instructor, which a non-compliant uke who resisted it. There are some sketchy people out there teaching garbage, but yeah, most traditional techniques that have stood the test of time are indeed valid.
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
Well, I'd argue that not all techniques are valid, because I've seen some real B.S. out there. And it wasn't me that could not make it work, no one could, not even the instructor, which a non-compliant uke who resisted it. There are some sketchy people out there teaching garbage, but yeah, most traditional techniques that have stood the test of time are indeed valid.
Example
 

geezer

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
3,571
Location
Phoenix, AZ

Are you asking for an example of techniques that are not just "low percentage" but inherently lacking validity in the way that Drop Bear was describing above? Because if you are, I'd point to this form that Runs with Fire posted in the thread Judge my Form in the General Martial Arts forum. He has attempted to adapt movements from TKD empty-handed forms to weapons. In the process he has invented some techniques that are, IMO, definitely invalid.


BTW, He plans to perform this form at a tournament next week. It will be interesting to see the feedback he gets. At any rate it will be a learning experience, and I give him kudos for effort.
 

geezer

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
7,364
Reaction score
3,571
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Only in a mutiuniverse kind of way. I can still create a technique that has no grounding in anything.

What is a "multi-universe" kind of way? Do you mean like in fantasy universes, larping, cos-play and stuff like that? 'Cause IMO, even a good fantasy universe needs internal consistency, and fighting techniques would still have to be valid according to the physical laws that apply. Even in OZ there were phonies ...like OZ himself!
 

drop bear

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Messages
23,337
Reaction score
8,070
What is a "multi-universe" kind of way? Do you mean like in fantasy universes, larping, cos-play and stuff like that? 'Cause IMO, even a good fantasy universe needs internal consistency, and fighting techniques would still have to be valid according to the physical laws that apply. Even in OZ there were phonies ...like OZ himself!

If i did the ooga booga dance for self defence an infinite amount of times there would be a circumstance where it was the best course of action.
 

JowGaWolf

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
13,961
Reaction score
5,857
Are you asking for an example of techniques that are not just "low percentage" but inherently lacking validity in the way that Drop Bear was describing above? Because if you are, I'd point to this form that Runs with Fire posted in the thread Judge my Form in the General Martial Arts forum. He has attempted to adapt movements from TKD empty-handed forms to weapons. In the process he has invented some techniques that are, IMO, definitely invalid.


BTW, He plans to perform this form at a tournament next week. It will be interesting to see the feedback he gets. At any rate it will be a learning experience, and I give him kudos for effort.
yep definitely invalid techniques. Too bad he didn't ask about the form before he decided to commit to it. Because he really got some good advice that would have been helpful on the front end. The thing that I'm really surprised with is "Where was the guidance from his instructor on this?"
 

Danny T

Senior Master
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
2,293
Location
New Iberia, Louisiana USA
Are you asking for an example of techniques that are not just "low percentage" but inherently lacking validity in the way that Drop Bear was describing above? Because if you are, I'd point to this form that Runs with Fire posted in the thread Judge my Form in the General Martial Arts forum. He has attempted to adapt movements from TKD empty-handed forms to weapons. In the process he has invented some techniques that are, IMO, definitely invalid.


BTW, He plans to perform this form at a tournament next week. It will be interesting to see the feedback he gets. At any rate it will be a learning experience, and I give him kudos for effort.
drop bear wrote: "I can still create a technique that has no grounding in anything."
Bill wrote: "Well, I'd argue that not all techniques are valid, because I've seen some real B.S. out there."
So I asked for examples.

Techniques are movements; the way that a person performs basic physical movements. That is what kata and forms are. A series of techniques. What one does with the techniques is application.
I will agree that there are many applications that have little to no validity. So as I wrote; "It is knowing what is applicable and when is it applicable that is important".

Any movement can be a poor choice when done at the wrong time and for the wrong situation.
Geezer, are there times that huen sao is not applicable... yet huen sao is a valid technique.

No touch knockouts. That's just one.
No touch knockouts? Are they real? If they don't exist do they fall within; What is applicable and when is it applicable?
 
OP
Bill Mattocks

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,627
Reaction score
4,435
Location
Michigan
No touch knockouts? Are they real? If they don't exist do they fall within; What is applicable and when is it applicable?

I honestly don't understand what you're asking. Do I think they exist? No, I do not. Therefore, I think they are not valid techniques; no one can make them work because it's not possible for them to work as described. I do not know if that definition falls within the other words you used, they make no sense to me.
 

Latest Discussions

Top