Valid Techniques

[Touch Of Death]

One tech, I have read, that is invalid is the step-through punch. I think it is perfectly valid, and people just don't know how to use it. It is really a two for one special. You launch, connect to his sternum with a vertical forearm elbow thing, and as he is moving away you culminate with the step-through punch. It is freakin' awesome!

 

[Danny T]

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.

If it doesn't exist how can it be a technique to begin with?

 

[Touch Of Death]

If it doesn't exist how can it be a technique to begin with?

I saw a movie once where, the Kung Fu Master, was teaching a facial expression as a weapon, The guy jumped back, when the master used it, and it is a valid idea. The South pacific Islanders have made that stuff an art form.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If it doesn't exist how can it be a technique to begin with?

Ah. Ok. If that's the game, I get it.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Ah. Ok. If that's the game, I get it.

Show Me Your War-Face, Bill.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Show Me Your War-Face, Bill.

 

[Touch Of Death]

View attachment 19678

Woah! Tone it down, man.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Woah! Tone it down, man.

Thirty five years ago. Nothing has changed.

 

[drop bear]

One tech, I have read, that is invalid is the step-through punch. I think it is perfectly valid, and people just don't know how to use it. It is really a two for one special. You launch, connect to his sternum with a vertical forearm elbow thing, and as he is moving away you culminate with the step-through punch. It is freakin' awesome!

I dont mind a step through punch fron time to time.

 

[punisher73]

Looking into the "no touch KO" stuff, I would say it works within the same context as stage hypnosis. It is NOT a valid combat technique though in that context.

The other thing, to me, that needs to be defined is what is meant by "technique". A series of moves? A single basic/movement? An application?

For example, I remember seeing a very well known pressure point expert showing a techinque that required you to hit three points all at the same time. One of the points, he was showing was him pushing the point on the opponent's foot using his own big toe. The other two points were on the wrist and on the neck. No way that you would be able to hit the point on the foot the way it was shown, or to hit all three precisely like that at the same time.

Another example is seeing a person saying to use a rising block (bone side up) to block someone holding the barrel/fore end of a miltary style rifle (think M-1 Garand) and swinging it towards your head like a big club. It might work, ONCE. Then your forearm is broke the way it was shown. It was NOT a redirect btw.

But, I have not seen a single movement (basic) in and of itself being in-valid. Usually, it is an improper usage of the tool that I would consider it to be "invalid".

 

[Danny T]

I believe I have defined ‘technique’.
Techniques are movements; the way that a person performs basic physical movements. That is what kata and forms are. A series of techniques.

Application is what one does with the technique/s.

For example; an ‘upper block’ technique is the movement one does to the upper block position or structure. The technique can be presented with or without footwork. How it is utilized by a practitioner is application. It can be applied as a ‘block’, a ‘fist strike’, a ‘forearm strike’, a lift action, with a knife it can be a backhand stab, and it can be a part of a combination of movements just to give some examples. One technique – numerous applications.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I believe I have defined ‘technique’.
Techniques are movements; the way that a person performs basic physical movements. That is what kata and forms are. A series of techniques.

Application is what one does with the technique/s.

For example; an ‘upper block’ technique is the movement one does to the upper block position or structure. The technique can be presented with or without footwork. How it is utilized by a practitioner is application. It can be applied as a ‘block’, a ‘fist strike’, a ‘forearm strike’, a lift action, with a knife it can be a backhand stab, and it can be a part of a combination of movements just to give some examples. One technique – numerous applications.

Yeah, I get that. I've argued that point myself. What I was trying to say, without offending anyone, was that there are some nonsense techniques - movements if you will - that do not do what they purport to do and cannot.

I think I was a bit frustrated because it appeared to me that you were saying that all techniques are valid because if a technique does not work, it's not a technique. Uh, yeah, but that's just a word game.

What I meant was that I've been shown some movements, some kata, some 'techniques' that the person teaching it appeared to believe were valid - typically they were not traditional movements, but 'made up' newly by some enthusiastic younger person. They can describe it, they can appear to apply it to a willing uke who cooperates, but they cannot be made to work on the unwilling or even mildly uncooperative partner.

If no-touch knockouts don't work as a technique in your vocabulary, I'll use another example. I went to a seminar (when I was still going to seminars, before I realized what crap 90% of them are) where a gentleman was teaching a 'rope' defense. Just a piece of rope, which he advocated carrying around in the pocket for self-defense purposes (strike one, who does that?). He described and then demonstrated various trapping techniques that he had invented. He had us practice these techniques ourselves. Sure, if our partners let us do it, we could wrap the rope around their incoming fists and then apply a twisting motion like tying a bread wrapper and control their hand. However, if the partner didn't throw exactly in the way we needed them to throw, or resisted the technique by spinning out of it (a pretty natural movement, since they all seemed to think of it on their own), or used any amount of power or speed, it didn't work. In fact, the design of the defense seemed to intentionally put the rope-wielder's face in line with the incoming punch, which seemed unwise to me.

When questioned, the instructor could not really seem to make the technique work either, or to explain why it didn't.

My conclusion was that the instructor's technique was invalid. Maybe it's valid and he just could not do it himself, but since he claimed to have invented it, I have my doubts.

At the same seminar, I saw some other 'questionable' techniques by other instructors. One involved a defense to a side kick which involved actually receiving the kick on the hip and THEN trapping it. Uh, no. Getting kicked to stop a kick is bad technique.

Now, I suppose I could call those not actual techniques at all, since they did not and (apparently) cannot work, but I see them as simply invalid techniques. They are described as techniques, they are taught as techniques, and they're pure B.S. as far as I can tell.

While I accept that most traditional techniques are quite valid, even if the instructor can't properly demonstrate them or the student can't properly apply them, some of these 'make-um-up' techniques being peddled these days are frighteningly dangerous, IMHO. Invalid because they can't actually work, ever.

 

[Buka]

Yeah, I get that. I've argued that point myself. What I was trying to say, without offending anyone, was that there are some nonsense techniques - movements if you will - that do not do what they purport to do and cannot.

I think I was a bit frustrated because it appeared to me that you were saying that all techniques are valid because if a technique does not work, it's not a technique. Uh, yeah, but that's just a word game.

What I meant was that I've been shown some movements, some kata, some 'techniques' that the person teaching it appeared to believe were valid - typically they were not traditional movements, but 'made up' newly by some enthusiastic younger person. They can describe it, they can appear to apply it to a willing uke who cooperates, but they cannot be made to work on the unwilling or even mildly uncooperative partner.

If no-touch knockouts don't work as a technique in your vocabulary, I'll use another example. I went to a seminar (when I was still going to seminars, before I realized what crap 90% of them are) where a gentleman was teaching a 'rope' defense. Just a piece of rope, which he advocated carrying around in the pocket for self-defense purposes (strike one, who does that?). He described and then demonstrated various trapping techniques that he had invented. He had us practice these techniques ourselves. Sure, if our partners let us do it, we could wrap the rope around their incoming fists and then apply a twisting motion like tying a bread wrapper and control their hand. However, if the partner didn't throw exactly in the way we needed them to throw, or resisted the technique by spinning out of it (a pretty natural movement, since they all seemed to think of it on their own), or used any amount of power or speed, it didn't work. In fact, the design of the defense seemed to intentionally put the rope-wielder's face in line with the incoming punch, which seemed unwise to me.

When questioned, the instructor could not really seem to make the technique work either, or to explain why it didn't.

My conclusion was that the instructor's technique was invalid. Maybe it's valid and he just could not do it himself, but since he claimed to have invented it, I have my doubts.

At the same seminar, I saw some other 'questionable' techniques by other instructors. One involved a defense to a side kick which involved actually receiving the kick on the hip and THEN trapping it. Uh, no. Getting kicked to stop a kick is bad technique.

Now, I suppose I could call those not actual techniques at all, since they did not and (apparently) cannot work, but I see them as simply invalid techniques. They are described as techniques, they are taught as techniques, and they're pure B.S. as far as I can tell.

While I accept that most traditional techniques are quite valid, even if the instructor can't properly demonstrate them or the student can't properly apply them, some of these 'make-um-up' techniques being peddled these days are frighteningly dangerous, IMHO. Invalid because they can't actually work, ever.

Seminars...oh, so caveat emptor. Been to a lot of them suckers. The good - was first meeting several of my (since) long time instructors.

I went to a George Dillman seminar about ten years ago. I just had to. It was close by and I like seeing things for myself. I'm glad I went. Extremely high entertainment factor. I was kind of hoping for some of that no touch fall downy stuff, but, alas, it was not to be. But, man, what a character! Bombast extraordinaire. It was like being at a high pressure sales conference. And I'm pretty sure I saw Dorothy and Toto there. Always makes me smile when I think of it. Which isn't often enough because I like things that make me smile.

 

[lklawson]

"If it works- if he's dead and you're alive- it's not wrong."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Danny T]

Yeah, I get that. I've argued that point myself. What I was trying to say, without offending anyone, was that there are some nonsense techniques - movements if you will - that do not do what they purport to do and cannot.

I think I was a bit frustrated because it appeared to me that you were saying that all techniques are valid because if a technique does not work, it's not a technique. Uh, yeah, but that's just a word game.

What I meant was that I've been shown some movements, some kata, some 'techniques' that the person teaching it appeared to believe were valid - typically they were not traditional movements, but 'made up' newly by some enthusiastic younger person. They can describe it, they can appear to apply it to a willing uke who cooperates, but they cannot be made to work on the unwilling or even mildly uncooperative partner.

If no-touch knockouts don't work as a technique in your vocabulary, I'll use another example. I went to a seminar (when I was still going to seminars, before I realized what crap 90% of them are) where a gentleman was teaching a 'rope' defense. Just a piece of rope, which he advocated carrying around in the pocket for self-defense purposes (strike one, who does that?). He described and then demonstrated various trapping techniques that he had invented. He had us practice these techniques ourselves. Sure, if our partners let us do it, we could wrap the rope around their incoming fists and then apply a twisting motion like tying a bread wrapper and control their hand. However, if the partner didn't throw exactly in the way we needed them to throw, or resisted the technique by spinning out of it (a pretty natural movement, since they all seemed to think of it on their own), or used any amount of power or speed, it didn't work. In fact, the design of the defense seemed to intentionally put the rope-wielder's face in line with the incoming punch, which seemed unwise to me.

When questioned, the instructor could not really seem to make the technique work either, or to explain why it didn't.

My conclusion was that the instructor's technique was invalid. Maybe it's valid and he just could not do it himself, but since he claimed to have invented it, I have my doubts.

At the same seminar, I saw some other 'questionable' techniques by other instructors. One involved a defense to a side kick which involved actually receiving the kick on the hip and THEN trapping it. Uh, no. Getting kicked to stop a kick is bad technique.

Now, I suppose I could call those not actual techniques at all, since they did not and (apparently) cannot work, but I see them as simply invalid techniques. They are described as techniques, they are taught as techniques, and they're pure B.S. as far as I can tell.

While I accept that most traditional techniques are quite valid, even if the instructor can't properly demonstrate them or the student can't properly apply them, some of these 'make-um-up' techniques being peddled these days are frighteningly dangerous, IMHO. Invalid because they can't actually work, ever.

I don't know what moves (techniques the rope guy was using/teaching but there are flexible weapon applications in many of the Filipino MAs, Chinese MAs, and Indonesian MAs. (other arts as well I'm sure)
If it was unusable then I'd say the manner in which he was using the technique/s were not applicable to the particular attacks. Either through a lack of understanding the application, the timing of the application, the range and/or angle of the application.

Again what is applicable and when is it applicable.
Deflecting, controlling, and wrapping up an attackers hand/arm with a rope, belt, sarong, scarf can be a very good application of a circling and wrapping technique when done properly at the correct time or it can be a major failure when not. Just as a spinning backfist at the correct distance can be a fight ending strike; if done at the wrong time, wrong range, you may have simply given the opponent your back.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

that there are some nonsense techniques - movements if you will - that do not do what they purport to do and cannot.

At 0.37 before he ends his form, there is a move that he moves his right hand to the right of his body and then move on top of his head with fingers facing to his left. I can't figure out any valid application of that move besides trying to throw a dart. It will make more sense to move his right forearm from below and above his head instead.

The move at 0.12 he has right leg forward with right hand forward. I also cannot make any valid application out of it. I believe it will make more sense if he has left leg forward instead as shown at 0.16.

 

[Touch Of Death]

At 0.37 before he ends his form, there is a move that he moves his right hand to the right of his body and then move on top of his head with fingers facing to his left. I can't figure out any valid application of that move besides trying to throw a dart. It will make more sense to move his right forearm from below and above his head instead.

The move at 0.12 he has right leg forward with right hand forward. I also cannot make any valid application out of it. I believe it will make more sense if he has left leg forward instead as shown at 0.16.

We use a version of the move at 12 secs. In a tech. It is just meant to bop them. The move here looks like a back fist to the nose, and as he drops his head, you bop him on top of the head. I like it.

 

[drop bear]

It is like dong lyrics a bit. You hear a lyrics that mabye dosent make much sense. And you search for the hidden meaning behind it.

And some times there just isnt one. A bunch of guys in a room somewhere jut thought that line sounded cool

 

[punisher73]

Yeah, I get that. I've argued that point myself. What I was trying to say, without offending anyone, was that there are some nonsense techniques - movements if you will - that do not do what they purport to do and cannot.

I think I was a bit frustrated because it appeared to me that you were saying that all techniques are valid because if a technique does not work, it's not a technique. Uh, yeah, but that's just a word game.

What I meant was that I've been shown some movements, some kata, some 'techniques' that the person teaching it appeared to believe were valid - typically they were not traditional movements, but 'made up' newly by some enthusiastic younger person. They can describe it, they can appear to apply it to a willing uke who cooperates, but they cannot be made to work on the unwilling or even mildly uncooperative partner.

If no-touch knockouts don't work as a technique in your vocabulary, I'll use another example. I went to a seminar (when I was still going to seminars, before I realized what crap 90% of them are) where a gentleman was teaching a 'rope' defense. Just a piece of rope, which he advocated carrying around in the pocket for self-defense purposes (strike one, who does that?). He described and then demonstrated various trapping techniques that he had invented. He had us practice these techniques ourselves. Sure, if our partners let us do it, we could wrap the rope around their incoming fists and then apply a twisting motion like tying a bread wrapper and control their hand. However, if the partner didn't throw exactly in the way we needed them to throw, or resisted the technique by spinning out of it (a pretty natural movement, since they all seemed to think of it on their own), or used any amount of power or speed, it didn't work. In fact, the design of the defense seemed to intentionally put the rope-wielder's face in line with the incoming punch, which seemed unwise to me.

When questioned, the instructor could not really seem to make the technique work either, or to explain why it didn't.

My conclusion was that the instructor's technique was invalid. Maybe it's valid and he just could not do it himself, but since he claimed to have invented it, I have my doubts.

At the same seminar, I saw some other 'questionable' techniques by other instructors. One involved a defense to a side kick which involved actually receiving the kick on the hip and THEN trapping it. Uh, no. Getting kicked to stop a kick is bad technique.

Now, I suppose I could call those not actual techniques at all, since they did not and (apparently) cannot work, but I see them as simply invalid techniques. They are described as techniques, they are taught as techniques, and they're pure B.S. as far as I can tell.

While I accept that most traditional techniques are quite valid, even if the instructor can't properly demonstrate them or the student can't properly apply them, some of these 'make-um-up' techniques being peddled these days are frighteningly dangerous, IMHO. Invalid because they can't actually work, ever.

That's a tough one without seeing the actual techniques shown. I know that using an "obi" or belt is a traditional technique in karate and in many other arts they use "flexible weapons". The traditional way of tying an obi where you put the middle of the belt to your hara/tandian and then wrapping it around (as opposed to the approach of letting a length dangle some and then wrapping it around your body one way) and then back to the front allows you to remove it in two moves. The first you grab the knot and push your thumb into the hole and pull, this unties the knot in one move. The second move is grabbing the belt and pulling and it comes off. Rope/belt techniques make sense historically if you are wearing the obi as part of your dress. I'm not a big fan of "carrying a piece of rope" to try to be able to do a set of techniques like that.

As to the side kick thing. I have seen and used something similiar, BUT it involved moving into the kick and jamming it with your hip so the kick has no power and trapping it. So, I wonder if it was just a case of lack of skill on the instructor or just didn't understand what he was trying to show.

 

[Touch Of Death]

It is like dong lyrics a bit. You hear a lyrics that mabye dosent make much sense. And you search for the hidden meaning behind it.

And some times there just isnt one. A bunch of guys in a room somewhere jut thought that line sounded cool

Lies! It is all about sex. Trust me.