Basics & Techniques

[Kenpobuff]

Forgive me for asking this question if it has been addressed already. I tried the search function and saw nothing related. I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.

Since doing this exercise for numberous times, that of finding each basic movement we have listed for learning in a given belt and then highlighting it in the respective technique descriptions, I have taken a look at the techniques from a different angle. Why it took so long to see it I don't know, anyway...

Please consider this question...Which came first, the technique or the basic movement? Were the techniques developed to illustrate the practical use of basic movements, or were the techniques developed for true self defense purposes and then the basics were extracted from the techniques and put in a particular belt requirement because of the complexity of the the basic movements?

I hope this made some sense. I look forward to your take on this.

Steve

 

[michaeledward]

I believe the Basic is the originating point.

Strong Basics, Strong Techniques.
Weak Basics, Weak Techniques.

It would seem that the Techniques were assembled to address specific attack situations from the available Basics.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I would say the techs were all based on pre-existing concepts. For instance the Kenpo way of thinking turns a basic front take down into Tripping Arrow.
Sean

 

[MJS]

I'll also have to agree that the basics came first. The techniques are a compilation of the basics. Without them, there would be no techniques.

Mike

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think basic motion comes from your body teaching itself to do any given task in the most effortless way possible. Differences of opinion lie in the differences in the base activities. Perhaps Martial Arts changes so readily because ultimatly the instructor can only offer their own life experiences, concerns, and beliefs.
Sean

 

[lenatoi]

I think it is possible that the technique came first, and the basics came after.... So, you first come up with a technique. You work it a bit. you find out that it doessn't have the optimal effect. You adjust. The same proccess continues. After a while, you find out what works best. This is where the basics come from orrigionally. Later on, however, many new techniques can be derived from the basics discovered from the first.

 

[stickarts]

I think it is difficult to know what came first but it makes sense that the basic is learned first since the rest of the learning grows off of that base. It's a natural progression.

 

[evenflow1121]

I agree it is very difficult to say what came first, I have to go with the techniques for this reason. Forget modern martial arts, when the first two cavemen got into a fight, one of them I am sure found out how painful a kick to the groin could be, or a punch to the face, for example; but I would like to think that this came through trial and error, and as fighting evolved, we developed 'basics' in order to lay the foundation for more effective techniques, yet techniques were already around, perhaps not what you and I would use today, but in a raw form.

 

[Carol]

Awesome question.

I think it depends on which of the basics one is talking about.

I can't confirm if this is right...someone (I think, one of my instructors) told me that SGM Parker took a sideways stance, moved it out one step, and created the neutral stance. There were other moves that he developed after being inspired by other sources...including highly physical comedy of the 3 Stooges.

Other basics such as the horse stance, or the cross, existed long before SGM Parker did.

:idunno: Not sure, really

 

[Doc]

Awesome question.

I think it depends on which of the basics one is talking about.

I can't confirm if this is right...someone (I think, one of my instructors) told me that SGM Parker took a sideways stance, moved it out one step, and created the neutral stance. There were other moves that he developed after being inspired by other sources...including highly physical comedy of the 3 Stooges.

Other basics such as the horse stance, or the cross, existed long before SGM Parker did.

:idunno: Not sure, really

Only in Kenpo is this even a question ma'mam. Traditionally, the 'basics' of movement drive everything, and so-called techniques are nothing but the expression of those basics.

Looking at a different vehicle, would you consider separating 'dribbling' in basketball, from a 'jump shot?" Traditionally a 'technique' could simply be one move. Modern day commercial Kenpo ushered in the '20 strikes makes a technique' thought process. When thinking is adjusted, than you realize the basics and techniques are one in the same. There is no difference between the two ideas.

For the record, Ed Parker did not create the neutral bow. It is an old Traditional Chinese Stance.

 

[lenatoi]

Your comment makes sense Doc, but I think that some of us were making our guesses based on a different deffinition of the word "technique," and "basic."

As much as this may not make sense, I was thinking of "technique" as a series of movements used to create a desired effect, while I was thinking of the "basics" as the peices of movement that we have ultimatly found to be the best way to execute that series of movements.
I was thinking of them in two seperate lights, instead as the same. Did that make sense? Or was I running arround in circles too much?

 

[Sapper6]

i believe the basic came first. without an understanding of a basic move, how could you possibly understand a multitude of basics that form techniques? take away the basics, you have no techniques. if you have sloppy basics, you have sloppy techniques. basics are the foundation.

i will echo Doc's statement that ideally, a technique could possess only one simple movement. a technique is just that...a technique.

a technique is a well defined procedure used to accomplish any specific activity or task. in fighting, your "technique" is a mixture of strikes, blocks, parries, kicks, manipulations, etc. all of which are basics.

cheers.

 

[KenpoDave]

I think it is possible that the technique came first, and the basics came after.... So, you first come up with a technique. You work it a bit. you find out that it doessn't have the optimal effect. You adjust. The same proccess continues. After a while, you find out what works best. This is where the basics come from orrigionally. Later on, however, many new techniques can be derived from the basics discovered from the first.

I think you are correct. Look at language. People begin to talk to each other first, then later, when people sit down and actually study the language, we get an alphabet and grammar. And then, the study of the alphabet and grammar makes one's use of the language better, more efficient, more creative, and ultimately more effective, and the language grows.

I think nowadays, many martial arts schools (and artists for that matter) tend to do one or the other. Ultimately, I am not sure that either can be fully understood or realized without an effective study of the other.

Which brings up another question...rather than which came first, which should be taught first? Personally, I introduce both from the very beginning, but with a lean towards the basics. I think that if a student is going to be asked to spend hours perfecting a kick, there should be some examples of how that kick is going to be applied in techniques. The horse stance is a great example. I have had many people come to me from the more traditional arts where a whole lot of time was spent in that useless stance without ever being given a reason or an application for it. They always have two things...a great sense of balance and ability to root, and a deep hatred of the horse stance. And suddenly, when they need to root a little deeper in an application, it all makes sense.

Great thread!

 

[Kenpobuff]

I think I agree with you lenatoi in that in my experience a technique in the traditional sense (parting wings for example) is made up of different basics. Now those basics can (at least in the system I train) be stances, blocks, parries, checks, traps, sweeps and the killing shots made up of kicks, punches, strikes, and finger techs for example. On the street or in history as "Doc" points out a single strike may end a confrontation and thus be referred to as a "technique". While I think "Doc" may be able to pull off a basic like the Neutral Bow Stance as a conflict ending maneuver thus making it a technique in of itself I know I can't so I must add strikes and kicks to my stance and block basics to make the technique complete. Hopefully one day I can use only single movements to end a physical conflict...or not.

Steve

 

[kenpo_disciple]

original 18 hand movements, then came the 72 hand movements, then 170 hand movement, etc. so, i would say that the basics came first and from that came techniques.

18 hand movements

1. With the right hand, strike vertically up
2. Strike vertically down
3. Strike above the shoulder, diagonally left
4. Strike below the waist, diagonally right
5. Strike horizontally in or to the left
6. Strike horizontally out or to the right
7. Strike below the waist diagonally left
8. Strike above the shoulder diagonally right
9. Execute a straight right punch
10. With the left hand, strike vertically up
11. Strike vertically down
12. Strike above the shoulder, diagonally right
13. Strike below the waist, diagonally left
14. Strike horizontally in or to the right
15. Strike horizontally out or to the left
16. Strike below the waist diagonally right
17. Strike above the shoulder diagonally left
18. Execute a straight left punch

just my opinion

 

[Goldendragon7]

Which came first, the technique or the basic movement? Were the techniques developed to illustrate the practical use of basic movements, or were the techniques developed for true self defense purposes and then the basics were extracted from the techniques and put in a particular belt requirement because of the complexity of the the basic movements?
Steve

In the beginning....... hee hee

Basics came fist. Self Defense techniques then came into being when situations arose and discussions on how to handle the attack became the topic of discussion either on how someone reacted during a recent encounter or on how to do it in a more efficient manner if it came about again.

:asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

Nice to see you on the boards again; Sir.

:asian:

 

[Doc]

In the beginning....... hee hee

Basics came fist. Self Defense techniques then came into being when situations arose and discussions on how to handle the attack became the topic of discussion either on how someone reacted during a recent encounter or on how to do it in a more efficient manner if it came about again.

:asian:

Oh now you've got somthing to say!

 

[Kenpobuff]

Doc, GD7 or anyone else:

Was Mr. Parker the first to put a name to all the basics in order to complete the "motion sentences" or did the Japanese and Chinese do the same as they developed their techniques and forms for reference sake?

Steve

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Doc, GD7 or anyone else:

Was Mr. Parker the first to put a name to all the basics in order to complete the "motion sentences" or did the Japanese and Chinese do the same as they developed their techniques and forms for reference sake?

Steve

That is a kenpo idea, unique to the American Kenpo scene (originally, though cats do copy).

The Japanese & Chinese systems generally focus more on the tradition and legacy behind how something is done: I.E., "we do Bassai Dai this way, because that's the way it was passed from one great poo-bah to the another great poo-bah, who incidently founded our systems lineage lo, these many years ago".

Mr. Parker wanted to demystify martial arts training, and limit the hero/lineage worship of the asian schools. To this end, any system should have interchangeable parts that allow you to adapt. When Mr. Parker learned I played guitar and piano, but hated grammar, he switched (quite easily, I might add) to discussing musical references. The basics and techniques are the notes and chords; how you arrange them is the song you write. Jazz improv & classical arrangement...some interesting correlations in there. Notes become chords become riffs become songs become arrangements; basics become techniques become forms, etc.

Regards,

D.