How much do you really need?

[marques]

Since most people do NOT train in martial arts, you are right: usually simple is better. Every now and then you might have a self-defense scenario where the person is naturally a good fighter, but I think those are more rare than one might think. In a competition, you need to know more because your opponent knows more.

On the other hand, in self-defence, you don't know your opponent. Neither how many are hidden, if any. He (they) may be on drugs (and unresponsive to pain). You don't know which weapons are there, if any. Don't think it will be easy. Avoid.

Stupid people fight (illegal ones). Bad people just hit/shoot/kill you when you are vulnerable...

 

[wingchun100]

On the other hand, in self-defence, you don't know your opponent. Neither how many are hidden, if any. He (they) may be on drugs (and unresponsive to pain). You don't which weapons are there, if any. Don't think it will be easy. Avoid.

Stupid people fight (illegal ones). Bad people just hit/hoot/kill you when you are vulnerable...

Right. You should never underestimate the opponent, of course.

 

[Flying Crane]

More moves are just more options. That's not really detrimental is any way, is it?

It can be, but it depends.

The point I'm really making is that there are a lot more ways to use something than we sometimes realize. Getting more mileage from less material can have advantages over having an extensive and vast curriculum with many options that run the risk of becoming too many options and can become cumbersome and problematic in various ways. Just where that line may be is impossible to say in a general sense and probably varies from person to person, but is an issue.

But yes, it can be detrimental, but it depends.

 

[Xue Sheng]

in contemplating self-defense, while acknowledging that I have managed to get through life without a self defense encounter turning physical (meaning: I can usually talk it down, or else extract myself from the situation before it gets physical; it's not that difficult really, it's rare that a reasonable person has NO choice but to fight)... but anyway.

My feeling is that a very small curriculum can take you a long ways. I guess maybe a half-dozen well-trained techniques with the ability to apply them quickly and powerfully, will probably be enough to get you through 85% of what you are likely to encounter. Perhaps another half-dozen will get you through the less likely remaining 15%. And perhaps another half-dozen to deal with the unlikely things that could come at you but probably won't.

I don't believe a highly developed or elaborate strategy is necessary. A simple and straight forward approach, meant to end the encounter quickly, is what is needed. A more elaborate strategy is appropriate for competition fighting, where the fight will last long enough for that kind of thing to play out. A self-defense scenario won't last that long, and there isn't much room for an elaborate strategy.

These are my thoughts. Feel free to comment.

You are not alone in this thought, I agree and based on this quote

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times. -- Bruce Lee"

I think that Bruce Lee would agree as well

 

[wingchun100]

The only flaw in that logic is that one technique cannot be applied to every fight.

Say the one technique you learn is a front snap kick. Not complicated, right? But if your opponent (or opponents) is/are too close for kicks, then what? And what if there is no room to step out so you CAN be in kicking range?

Maybe...one technique per fighting range?

 

[marques]

The point I'm really making is that there are a lot more ways to use something than we sometimes realize. Getting more mileage from less material can have advantages over having an extensive and vast curriculum with many options that run the risk of becoming too many options and can become cumbersome and problematic in various ways.

In my opinion (and experience), we can have a narrow offensive arsenal, but we need a wide defensive arsenal. We can see that on MMA. My instructor once said he had only one good offensive technique (even if it was not true) and everything else was for setting up.

More options take more time to be learned and take more time to be chosen quickly enough. That is quite clear.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The issue, for most of us, is that learning just a few techniques gets boring and we eventually move along. Having a more extensive "vocabulary" to learn, along with deeper physical principles, has kept me training and improving. It's all useful stuff, but some is more complex, so I keep finding more layers I can work on. That consistent practice means I'm always as ready as I can be to defend myself, rather than having several years of rust to dig through.

For my part, I've started moving as much of the simple stuff as possible to early teaching. This way, if a student quits after a few weeks, they are probably better prepared to defend themselves.

I heard this from my Sanda Shifu and I heard this from one of my xingyiquan shifus..... "training is boring". Meaning if you want to do it right, it is long hours of repetition. But with that said, in my quest to not be bored, I have trained Jujutsu, TKD, Taijiquan (Yang, Chen, dabbled in Wu and Sun), Baguazhang, JKD, Xingyiquan, Changquan, Wing Chun, Karate, Sanda and probably one or two more I can't remember. I also had a job once that required me to get into multiple confrontations and I was on many occasions able to talk the other guy out of doing what he wanted to do but at times I had no choice but to act and most of the time, qinna handled the situation, but I will admit that multiple jump kick with a spinning kick I could do at the time looked much cooler, however I never used it once in any of those confrontations.

I also spent over 20 years of serious training of Yang style taijiquan only to realize that a long form, 2 fast forms, a staff form, 2 Jian forms, a Dao form, multiple push hand drills and a 2 person form was just way to complicated, and I came to this conclusion after I was given permission to teach Yang style and after a lucky encounter with a Dachengquan guy.

If I were a younger man I would likely focus on JKD for a few years because my short time in it taught me volumes about many of the other arts I trained, especially Xingyiquan. JKD is uncomplicated and rather direct and I like that. But for those same reasons I like Xingyiquan, it is uncomplicated and rather direct, but can be painfully boring to train (literally painful at times). But if you train it right it works well on many levels from SD to health. My current thinking is that Dachengquan simplifies things even more, but can be even more boring to train. But again, done correctly the reward for that training are immense.

What old age, injury, multiple arts, multiple confrontations and years in training MA have lead me to believe is that Flying Crane is absolutely correct. and again to quote Bruce Lee.... the goal should be "simply to simplify"

 

[marques]

Maybe...one technique per fighting range?

I think it is more an intellectual exercise than anything else.
Maybe for each range, a technique for the strong males and another for 'old ladies'? Or one for fat guys and another for tiny ones... One for big guys and another for short guys? Because each one is special and deserves a special treatment. And we will end up with the extensive programmes we already have...

 

[Flying Crane]

but we need a wide defensive arsenal. We can see that on MMA.

I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations. That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense. I am not saying that at all. But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.

More options take more time to be learned and take more time to be chosen quickly enough. That is quite clear.

Agreed on this part, and that can become too much to the point where it is a problem. It can also spread out your training over too many options, so you never really get any good at any of it. Too many things to practice, not enough hours in the day, days in the week.

 

[Flying Crane]

The only flaw in that logic is that one technique cannot be applied to every fight.

Say the one technique you learn is a front snap kick. Not complicated, right? But if your opponent (or opponents) is/are too close for kicks, then what? And what if there is no room to step out so you CAN be in kicking range?

Maybe...one technique per fighting range?

Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others. If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations. That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced. Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.

 

[wingchun100]

I think it is more an intellectual exercise than anything else.
Maybe for each range, a technique for the strong males and another for 'old ladies'? Or one for fat guys and another for tiny ones... One for big guys and another for short guys? Because each one is special and deserves a special treatment. And we will end up with the extensive programmes we already have...

Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.

Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.

 

[Tez3]

Krav Maga was intended for the military not the civilians, that came along a lot later.

 

[Flying Crane]

Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.

Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.

Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady? If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.

I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not. But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady? If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.

I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not. But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.

The issue is that what's easiest to learn would work for the linebacker, but not for the frail old lady. So, if we teach only to the frail old lady, we leave out some of what is effective, but requires more athleticism. This is an error I see some instructors in the "aiki" arts make. They teach what they are currently working on, what they've found intriguing and motivating 20-30 years into the art, and they skip the stuff that made them effective in the first 3 years.

Something the old lady can use will have more inherent limitations, unless it can be "amped up" by simply adding strength and speed - something which doesn't actually add to the effectiveness of all techniques and can actually make some harder to do.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Not if it were tailored to the practitioner.

Example: the techniques the old lady has will be different than the linebacker.

Don't forget that some day that linebacker will be an old...well, an old man, anyway. If he only learns "linebacker" techniques, he has to keep learning new stuff as he ages. Wait, that's what long-term students in martial arts do!

Damnit, now you've got me debating against my own earlier post, WC!!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Depends on the technique, some may be more universally useful than others. If you get really good at throwing fast, powerful punches, you can probably find that tremendously useful in a wide range of situations. That alone might handle that initial 85% that I referenced. Kicks by their very nature are less universally useful, even tho something like a front kick can have a lot of flexibility in when it is used.

Even fast punches fall apart when your opponent charges, head-down. Or if their entry to the conflict is a hard shove, or a kick. They are useful, but for SD should be paired with a few other controlling techniques. And even with that said, there are different punches, so we can't just call "fast, powerful punches" a single technique. They'd need at least a short-range, a long-range, and a filler (elbow, cross, and jab, perhaps). We're already at 3 techniques without getting to the other bits I mentioned.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't agree, and I don't believe that what works well in MMA necessarily translates directly into other situations. That is not to say that MMA training doesn't work for self defense. I am not saying that at all. But I am saying that MMA is not the yardstick against which to measure all things related to martial arts or fighting or self defense.

Agreed on this part, and that can become too much to the point where it is a problem. It can also spread out your training over too many options, so you never really get any good at any of it. Too many things to practice, not enough hours in the day, days in the week.

This is a good point. Some styles throw the whole damned curriculum in too fast, so folks don't get good at much of it for a long time. Perhaps the answer, even within a large curriculum, is to focus on one bit of the system for a sustained period and get good at it, then move on to the next bit. In the limited-curriculum SD systems, this could translate to revisiting the same work over and over, and simply adapting it to new scenarios, ranges, speeds, etc.

 

[wingchun100]

Why would the linebacker need different techs from the old lady? If something works well for an old lady, then it ought to work even better for someone athletically inclined and much younger.

I would say that something that relies on strength and athleticism may be something that a linebacker can use, but an old lady could not. But if an old lady can use it, certainly a linebacker could too and it suggests the technique is optimally efficient and useful.

I'm not saying the technique for the old lady wouldn't work for the linebacker. The comment was made that what I said about how one technique will not fit all situations would wind up leading us back to the wide, diversified curriculum that is already in place. I was pointing out that, since different practitioners will be different in terms of physique and other factors, you could just teach them techniques that would work for them as individuals. That doesn't mean that some people won't have the SAME curriculum.

 

[wingchun100]

Don't forget that some day that linebacker will be an old...well, an old man, anyway. If he only learns "linebacker" techniques, he has to keep learning new stuff as he ages. Wait, that's what long-term students in martial arts do!

Damnit, now you've got me debating against my own earlier post, WC!!

This is something that we all do as we are in the arts longer. My first Sifu used to be very proud of his footwork; he considered that to be his secret weapon. Then he sustained an injury to his left leg (tore an ACL, I believe). Suddenly, he couldn't even pivot to the left without being in pain, so he had to alter his approach.

 

[wingchun100]

This is a good point. Some styles throw the whole damned curriculum in too fast, so folks don't get good at much of it for a long time. Perhaps the answer, even within a large curriculum, is to focus on one bit of the system for a sustained period and get good at it, then move on to the next bit. In the limited-curriculum SD systems, this could translate to revisiting the same work over and over, and simply adapting it to new scenarios, ranges, speeds, etc.

If you want to be able to open and sustain a school, then you have to balance what you know to be effetctive on the street with what you know to be effective at making sure people keep coming and paying. LOL Spend too long on the same thing, and people will get bored and quit. Saw it happen time and time again when my previous Sifu stuck strictly to teaching just forms during class. He stopped doing self-defense applications, and people didn't get to really hone their chops until he thought they were good enough to do chi sao.

Wanting to keep the art pure and develop a core group of people who were REALLY good wing chun practitioners was admirable. Unfortunately, it cost him students. People can get bored super fast standing around doing the stationary form of Sil Lum Tao super fast. In my opinion, it needs to be mixed up. So you need to find that balance. How long can we stay on punching combos long enough to get these people good at them, but not SO long that they get bored and stop coming to class?