Valid Techniques

[punisher73]

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.

My apologies, I missed reading your post on that.

I asked because some styles define "technique" differently. For example, in kenpo a "technique" is a series of basics combined into an idea. For me, that definition opens up a whole lot more of "invalid" of we are using the kenpo definition as opposed to a single movement definition.

 

[drop bear]

Lies! It is all about sex. Trust me.

 

[ballen0351]

Thirty five years ago. Nothing has changed.

View attachment 19679

35 year ago. I think that makes you the inventor of the selfie lol

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

OK, I give up. Apparently all techniques are valid because if they are not, they are not techniques or they are not being applied correctly. Whatever. Hard to have a discussion when we can't even agree on terms.

 

[Touch Of Death]

OK, I give up. Apparently all techniques are valid because if they are not, they are not techniques or they are not being applied correctly. Whatever. Hard to have a discussion when we can't even agree on terms.

You, of all people, know you will get a reaction from a good stink eye; so, there is something to the, no touch knock, out stuff.

 

[Danny T]

I apologize Bill. So what is the definition of Technique and what is the definition of application?
Are there differences in technique and applying the technique or are they the same?
I have attempted to define both and use an example of the upper block to express the differences. Where am I going wrong?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I apologize Bill. So what is the definition of Technique and what is the definition of application?
Are there differences in technique and applying the technique or are they the same?
I have attempted to define both and use an example of the upper block to express the differences. Where am I going wrong?

At the basis, cause and effect. If I do X, Y will then occur. For example, if I raise my arm thusly (X), then the incoming punch will be stopped (Y).

It is possible that X will cause Y, and the person demonstrating this can both do it and show it to others such that they also can do it and believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will cause Y, but the person demonstrating this cannot do it, cannot show it to others, and they do not believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will not cause Y, because there is something basically incorrect about the supposed relationship between X and Y, so there is no way anyone could ever demonstrate it, although some may choose to believe it exists anyway.

There are other permutations of X and Y, but this is the basic gist of it - for me. It works and can be demonstrated, it works but this this bonehead can't manage to do it, it works and can be demonstrated, but I can't seem to master it, or it just doesn't work because it's not possible for it to work.

 

[Touch Of Death]

At the basis, cause and effect. If I do X, Y will then occur. For example, if I raise my arm thusly (X), then the incoming punch will be stopped (Y).

It is possible that X will cause Y, and the person demonstrating this can both do it and show it to others such that they also can do it and believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will cause Y, but the person demonstrating this cannot do it, cannot show it to others, and they do not believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will not cause Y, because there is something basically incorrect about the supposed relationship between X and Y, so there is no way anyone could ever demonstrate it, although some may choose to believe it exists anyway.

There are other permutations of X and Y, but this is the basic gist of it - for me. It works and can be demonstrated, it works but this this bonehead can't manage to do it, it works and can be demonstrated, but I can't seem to master it, or it just doesn't work because it's not possible for it to work.

We love it when someone tells us, what we teach won't work. Often times, they never return.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

We love it when someone tells us, what we teach won't work. Often times, they never return.

Whenever I am shown a technique and it appears that the instructor can apply it, but I cannot, my first assumption is that I'm doing something wrong. It is only when experience over time teaches me that the technique does not in fact work on resisting partners ever that I conclude that the "technique won't work." Fortunately, in my dojo, that has never happened. As I've mentioned before, all our instructors are ready, willing, and able to demonstrate a particular technique and it instantly becomes clear that yep, it works. Painful tuition.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[Danny T]

At the basis, cause and effect. If I do X, Y will then occur. For example, if I raise my arm thusly (X), then the incoming punch will be stopped (Y).

It is possible that X will cause Y, and the person demonstrating this can both do it and show it to others such that they also can do it and believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will cause Y, but the person demonstrating this cannot do it, cannot show it to others, and they do not believe it is effective.
It is possible that X will not cause Y, because there is something basically incorrect about the supposed relationship between X and Y, so there is no way anyone could ever demonstrate it, although some may choose to believe it exists anyway.

There are other permutations of X and Y, but this is the basic gist of it - for me. It works and can be demonstrated, it works but this this bonehead can't manage to do it, it works and can be demonstrated, but I can't seem to master it, or it just doesn't work because it's not possible for it to work.

Ah. So my understanding is there’s no discernible or appreciable difference in a technique and application. They are much one and the same.

Therefore, if my understanding is correct, in my "upper block' example when used as a block against a punch that is one technique when used as a forearm smash against an opponent’s mandible that would be a different technique. ???
In your flexible weapon example wrapping a wrist/arm would be a different technique than say wrapping the opponent's neck?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ah. So my understanding is there’s no discernible or appreciable difference in a technique and application. They are much one and the same.

Therefore, if my understanding is correct, in my "upper block' example when used as a block against a punch that is one technique when used as a forearm smash against an opponent’s mandible that would be a different technique. ???
In your flexible weapon example wrapping a wrist/arm would be a different technique than say wrapping the opponent's neck?

Correct. I am not saying that there are no valid techniques using a rope. I am saying that this instructor I ran into had some extremely unlikely scenarios, could not make the technique he claimed to have invented work, and in fact, no one at his seminar could. Based on the mechanics of his supposed technique, I don't believe it was a valid technique - it was not possible for anyone to make it work.

 

[Danny T]

Whenever I am shown a technique and it appears that the instructor can apply it, but I cannot, my first assumption is that I'm doing something wrong. It is only when experience over time teaches me that the technique does not in fact work on resisting partners ever that I conclude that the "technique won't work." Fortunately, in my dojo, that has never happened. As I've mentioned before, all our instructors are ready, willing, and able to demonstrate a particular technique and it instantly becomes clear that yep, it works. Painful tuition.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." - Benjamin Franklin

Yeah, I've had a lot of experiences where a particular movement was unworkable for me in the manner it was being utilized. Often it was after working on other applications that I began to understand the timing and positioning required to make the original work. I was applying it incorrectly, wrong timing or wrong positioning (angle).

 

[Danny T]

Correct. I am not saying that there are no valid techniques using a rope. I am saying that this instructor I ran into had some extremely unlikely scenarios, could not make the technique he claimed to have invented work, and in fact, no one at his seminar could. Based on the mechanics of his supposed technique, I don't believe it was a valid technique - it was not possible for anyone to make it work.

Ok. With this I understand your thoughts of invalid techniques (applications).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

OK, I give up. Apparently all techniques are valid because if they are not, they are not techniques or they are not being applied correctly. Whatever. Hard to have a discussion when we can't even agree on terms.

The "left side kick, right elbow strike combo" is not a valid technique. I have seen that in a TKD demo.

 

[Danny T]

The "left side kick, right elbow strike combo" is not a valid technique. I have seen that in a TKD demo.

Hmm... Interesting.

 

[drop bear]

We love it when someone tells us, what we teach won't work. Often times, they never return.

But you have to do that as part of the process of learning a technique. Some things that seem intuitive are not always the most successful.

And back to this single arm guard pass.

 

[drop bear]

Hmm... Interesting.

Because of the distances involved. But we could come up with convoluted theory as to the kick has been parried somehow and so a mayday elbow is thrown.

High percentage/low percentage.

 

[Danny T]

Because of the distances involved. But we could come up with convoluted theory as to the kick has been parried somehow and so a mayday elbow is thrown.

High percentage/low percentage.

Or, as in Pekiti we have a low side kick to the knee and one to the ankle. From there it is quite simple to follow up with an elbow strike. So yes as you say because of the distance involved the elbow is an excellent choice.

 

[drop bear]

Or, as in Pekiti we have a low side kick to the knee and one to the ankle. From there it is quite simple to follow up with an elbow strike. So yes as you say because of the distance involved the elbow is an excellent choice.

Honestly I still wouldn't based on that range you have to cover. It would be one of those things you would have to test to see if it comes off.

 

[Koshiki]

The "left side kick, right elbow strike combo" is not a valid technique. I have seen that in a TKD demo.

Because of the distances involved. But we could come up with convoluted theory as to the kick has been parried somehow and so a mayday elbow is thrown.

If the left side kick were delivered at a 45 degree angle to the inside of the opponents right knee, and the weight allowed to follow through, so that the kicking leg lands between and behind the opponents legs, I can see a right inward elbow being a pretty valid technique or combination..

In other words, I think to have a meaningful discussion about the validity of techniques, you have to discuss application, rather than solo-person movements with many possible interpretations.

I mean, if we're discussing whether a given movement has any viable application, than even a no touch knockout might be feasible. Imagine holding a big ball of chi, twisting it back to your hip and then firing it with one hand. Sure, that might not work, but the same movement pattern is essentially what you might do to yank on an arm/underhook and then strike.

Applications can surely be valid or complete bull shucky, but with solo movements, it's much harder to make that claim. A one person movement is neither valid or invalid, if it can be interpreted to be many things in application. Some will be valid, some not.