Effectiveness vs Showiness

[Steve]

It's not just about how effective a technique is, but how economic it is. Let's compare for example a roundhouse kick with a tornado kick. Both kicks are relatively safe to perform and can do a lot of damage, but the tornado kick requires a lot more energy to pull off. In a fight you don't know how long you will be fighting for, and generally want to conserve your energy. After all, there's no point in doing a bunch of tornado kicks and exhausting yourself at the start of the fight.

Economy is an excellent example of one possible criteria for evaluating effectiveness. Absolutely.

But you also bring up another point. While a tornado kick is a very flashy kick, I know that there are many martial artists who would also consider the roundhouse kick to be flashy. I've heard said around here that anything above the waist is just showing off. And that's just a roundhouse. There's also a spinning roundhouse that's somewhere in the middle.

 

[drop bear]

The more basic a technique is the more it is likely to work.(Sorta. you can trade basic for high percentage there)

But the more basic a technique is the more likley the other guy has trained to defend it.

A showy technique trades its basicness for its unpredictability.

 

[JR 137]

LOL. I don't know. Stoned and cowardly? I'm open to suggestions.

Stoned and cowardly would be more Shaggy IMO. Scooby would probably just be hungry and cowardly.

Not sure what techniques fit in there, but it gets the mind going a bit. I gotta go... just got hungry... all I can think about are those huge sandwiches they used to scarf down.

 

[drop bear]

Steve beat me to this one. In most cases, the showy stuff is less useful, but less useful doesn't mean less effective. I'll take the Kyokyushin kicks. I don't even know what to call them - flipping axe kicks?? Those things are definitely showy. And if they hit you with it, it's also very effective. It wouldn't be as useful as a front kick, because it fits a more limited number of circumstances, but it might even be more effective than a front kick.

I suspect there are moves like that in most arts, if not all.

rolling thunder.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hold on. I am worried I might have given the wrong impression. I think there's still an inappropriate link between flashiness and effectiveness. My point is that one may very well have nothing to do with the other. It's an association fallacy.

It's like old biases against pretty women. There was a time in our country when pretty women were presumed to be dumb. And plain women were smart. Think Daphne and Velma, or Chrissy and Janet on Three's Company. But, the truth is, some pretty women are really, really smart. And some plain women are plain and also dumb.

In this case, we presume that flashy techniques are less effective, or lower percentage. And we presume that non-flashy techniques are more effective and higher percentage. Why? Because we can think of some examples which support our preconception.

This is only a problem when we start to look at Velma techniques and presume that because they're not flashy, they must be effective. Or we see a Daphne technique and think, "Man, that's flashy. No way that's a reliable, high percentage technique."

I've seen a lot of well executed, spinning back kicks in the UFC (a Daphne for sure) and they end fights, and they land. And while flashy, when well executed, they are relatively low risk to the kicker.

So, to sum up:

• Flashiness/Showiness is a characteristic, one of many that MAY be considered when evaluating effectiveness of a technique.
• Effective is a determination, and in order to really evaluate effectiveness, one must have in mind a set of measurable criteria.
• I will forever more refer to flashy techniques as Daphnes, regardless of whether they work or not.
• I will also refer to boring techniques as Velmas.

Good point. I can think of some very subtle techniques within NGA that have nor more points of application than the flip-axe kick from Kyokushin. They're less acrobatic, so far less flashy. In fact, I can think of one that doesn't actually look like I'm doing anything, because all it does is change the structure of the person attached to me. It's good for understanding some structural principles, and would be really effective in those very few circumstances where it has live application, but it's certainly not flashy.

Plain can be dumb, too.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

LOL. I don't know. Stoned and cowardly? I'm open to suggestions.

Wait, that's Shaggy. Get your styles straight, dude.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

rolling thunder.

Nice find. And that's not even the one I remembered, because it ended the fight, as I recall.

 

[drop bear]

The issue you guys are having with showy is why I use the term conservative a lot.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The more basic a technique is the more it is likely to work.(Sorta. you can trade basic for high percentage there)

But the more basic a technique is the more likley the other guy has trained to defend it.

A showy technique trades its basicness for its unpredictability.

All true. Where can we add in the likelihood of its application point showing up? There are some basic moves (I'm defining basic as "few moving parts, and easy to execute") that only have application under very specific circumstances. They are very likely to work, but unlikely to get used.

The one I'm thinking about is a technique for breaking balance (not a full throw, just changes structure and balance to open opportunities). I use it mostly as a tool to teach some principles of affecting structure and balance, but it could actually be used in application if someone grabbed an arm with both hands and tried to arm-drag toward them. It would work beautifully and would set up opportunities for all kinds of takedowns and strikes, but that's not likely to happen very often in any context I can think of.

 

[drop bear]

Nice find. And that's not even the one I remembered, because it ended the fight, as I recall.

Peter graham was famous for it. Even did it in a MMA Which i thought was ambitious.

 

[drop bear]

Quick scooby do trivia.

The masked guy was Sam greco.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I just wanted to point out the difference between martial arts that would be effective in a fight and martial arts that's meant to be flashy and look good on the movie screen. BTW JR 137 you were not being a jerk with your post at #3. I wasn't asking a question just pointing something out. Now, Im sure a person can be good at both, they can be both good on screen and in real life, just like Bruce Lee was, but what you use on the screen much of it you would probably not use in a real fight and vice versa. All the high kicks and jumping and spinning looks impressive but its more akin to ballet than to real fighting. Take for instance this video in the UK, from 1:14 onward. She sure is good and what she does works really well for what she's doing, incorporating it into a break dancing routine, most impressive for that purpose, but I would not do what she does in the video if I was in a real fight.

 

[Midnight-shadow]

I just wanted to point out the difference between martial arts that would be effective in a fight and martial arts that's meant to be flashy and look good on the movie screen. BTW JR 137 you were not being a jerk with your post at #3. I wasn't asking a question just pointing something out. Now, Im sure a person can be good at both, they can be both good on screen and in real life, just like Bruce Lee was, but what you use on the screen much of it you would probably not use in a real fight and vice versa. All the high kicks and jumping and spinning looks impressive but its more akin to ballet than to real fighting. Take for instance this video in the UK, from 1:14 onward. She sure is good and what she does works really well for what she's doing, incorporating it into a break dancing routine, most impressive for that purpose, but I would not do what she does in the video if I was in a real fight.

Is it just a person's techniques that define effectiveness or their intent as well? For example, there are plenty of times where people in films throw basic punches at each other, but does that mean they would be able to use those punches effectively in a real fight. Action movie stars practice pulling punches that look 100% real but aren't. Practice makes permanent so chances are they will do the same kind of punch in a real fight as they do in training for the movies.

What I'm trying to say is that there are multiple ways to train the same technique, based on the intent of the person using it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Peter graham was famous for it. Even did it in a MMA Which i thought was ambitious.

That one at 1:00 looks a lot like the one I remember seeing.

 

[JR 137]

@gpseymour - This one (about :50 in)?

Called rolling axe kick in my neck of the woods. Too bad the ref got in the way a bit.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Movies have almost ruined Martial Arts completely. It's all bad, or one reason, or another.

 

[Steve]

Wait, that's Shaggy. Get your styles straight, dude.

Do you guys really think scooby snacks are food? It's a pill shaped treat for which scooby would do anything. Sounds like an addict to me.

Movies have almost ruined Martial Arts completely. It's all bad, or one reason, or another.

Ruined by increasing visibility and generating new students? Movies are terrific advertising.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Do you guys really think scooby snacks are food? It's a pill shaped treat for which scooby would do anything. Sounds like an addict to me.


Ruined by increasing visibility and generating new students? Movies are terrific advertising.

But the issue, is that people want you to teach them what they see in the movies, and you will do just that; because, it pays the bills. Crap-tastic.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Do you guys really think scooby snacks are food? It's a pill shaped treat for which scooby would do anything. Sounds like an addict to me.


Ruined by increasing visibility and generating new students? Movies are terrific advertising.

Even, "The Perfect Weapon", considered a great movie, is different from what we do; so, while we don't mind the advertisement, we will never teach you to move like that. You would need years of Goju, and kickboxing, and then maybe...

 

[Gerry Seymour]

@gpseymour - This one (about :50 in)?

Called rolling axe kick in my neck of the woods. Too bad the ref got in the way a bit.

That's the one. I've also seen it done higher - less of a roll, and almost a flip.