Is Your Toolbox Too Full?

[isshinryuronin]

Another short essay from my idle brain:

There are so many kitchen gadgets no one's kitchen is big enough for them all: Hardboiled and soft-boiled egg makers, hardboiled egg slicers, bagel slicers, hot dog cookers, pizza cookers, melted sandwich makers, bacon cookers, etc. to name just a few. That's a lot of tools. Some people may think all these things are a must. I don't have any of them. I do just fine with the tools that I have. If you know how to employ them, they are quite versatile and can handle most all my cooking needs with simple slight adjustments. I think this illustrates a similar situation in TMA.

Do we really need to spend time on perfecting a backflip front kick with a half-twist? How often will a need for that come up? OK, that's a bit X-treme. How about a simple hammer fist? I can do one but find a back fist or knife hand strike just as, if not more so, an effective replacement. One less tool I need to carry around in my box. As Paul Simon sang, "There's 50 ways to leave your lover," but combat is less dangerous and we don't, IMO, need 50 ways to smack a guy in the head. Just a few techniques well executed with tactics are needed to choose from to land a head strike in most any situation.

Pre-1900 karate was a lot more streamlined. It had to be very effective, relatively simple to execute and lightening quick. I've taken 15 minutes to choose a dinner from an 8-page restaurant menu. Too many choices, and that slows down the decision process - irritating in a restaurant, lethal in combat. IMO, our toolboxes are often over-full with stuff we hardly ever use and can do without. How did this bloating occur?

I used to live in a 1100 sq. ft. condo then moved to an almost 3000 sq. ft. house (an impulse purchase - it was a really cool house and a lot more than I needed). This required a bunch more furniture, some rarely if ever used, to fill it up. IMO, the intro of karate into the public schools started this bloating of excess "furniture" in a similar way. There was a now curriculum to fill up so there would be content over the years. When the belt system came into play, another motivation to add technique so each belt had new stuff. Then commercialization of karate required more things to learn to space out the belt progression, keep the students engaged, aid retention and bring in more revenue. Sport karate created a need for new techniques tailored for competition points (such as longer-range techniques). The toolbox was getting heavy.

How about re-evaluating the abundance of our tools and toss out a few that are redundant, rarely used or impractical. The one's we keep should be effective, simple and quick to execute. Quality over quantity. We should not, IMO, become so enamored with technique that we feel we just have to have more and more of it. Sometimes less is more.

 

[skribs]

I don't think the problem is with the quantity of the technique or the level of detail you learn the specific technique to. It's the focus on the technique itself. Let's look at knife-hand strike vs. hammerfist. It doesn't take twice as long to learn both to an effective level. Most of the concepts that work for the hammerfist work for the knife-hand strike. I also disagree that it takes a lot of decision-making to pick the right technique between the two. It's something I do subconsciously, either based on the targets we typically use for drills with each technique, or even something as simple as whether my hand is already open or closed.

In BJJ, there's a big concept about the A game vs. the B game. The A game is what you plan to do in a tournament, what you go to in sparring when you're against someone who is a challenge for you. It is your most likely path to success. For some people, the A game is highly aggressive wrestling to achieve positional dominance. For others, it's to pull guard and sweep to set up a technical attack series. The B game is what you train to broaden your skillset for situations when your A game doesn't work, or so you can become a leader and help those whose A game is different from yours. I like to pull guard, but I've also got a lot of guard passing skills for when people pull guard on me first.

 

[Badhabits]

Don't know that I've thought karate had too much per se. Maybe too much splitting hairs on labeling techniques. Good example, a book I have here has a list of a gazillion different blocks with pictures. Hand strikes and kicks as well but the chapter on blocks is insane. It's overwhelming to look at unless you realize the book lists what must be every damn minor variation of the major blocks, strikes and kicks as individual techniques.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Most of the concepts that work for the hammerfist work for the knife-hand strike.

I agree, that's why they're often interchangeable. So, why have both? Like the letter "X" which has two sounds in English: "___cks" and "___z." I could get by very nicely without that letter in our alphabet, using those other letters instead. BTW, I have never seen a hammer fist used in a karate match.

a book I have here has a list of a gazillion different blocks with pictures. Hand strikes and kicks as well but the chapter on blocks is insane. It's overwhelming to look at unless you realize the book lists what must be every damn minor variation of the major blocks, strikes and kicks as individual techniques.

It may be just to make more pages/photos for the book, which publishers seem to like so they can charge more, or to make it seem like karate has more techniques than it really does and glorify it a little? Or the writer is really into detailed nuances of individual techniques. It so, he's probably concentrating on the physical technique itself rather than the nuanced concepts.

It may be that I'm looking at the subject (and TMA in general) from a different perspective than others. It has certainly changed over the many years I've been in it thru my experience, reflection and academic study. The many condense into the few. The many individual trees merge into a single woods. The various woods into a single forest. Actually, I think this is similar to skribs dividing and grouping his curriculum based on concepts.

I see more "sameness" in techniques than I used to. My forward elbow strike is executed very much like a punch, sharing the same biomechanics and applications, the main difference being their range. So, when practicing one, I'm also basically practicing the other. I think I'm getting off track, so I'll cut this post off here.

 

[Badhabits]

I don't think you're getting off track. It sounds like how the progression should go, which is pertinent to this topic. If you're learning a bunch of techniques as varying examples of how the same principles can be applied then a person should eventually be having the techniques sort condense into just the principles that make movements work. Which ties back in to why there are so many techniques. I think part of it is just having enough differing examples of something to give people a better chance to grasp the concepts behind them.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I think part of it is just having enough differing examples of something to give people a better chance to grasp the concepts behind them.

And once one fully understands the concepts, they can better judge which examples are best to be in their toolbox and which can be discarded, their job done.

Another way to phrase this is:

The beginner knows no technique or concepts.
The intermediate knows technique.
The advanced knows many techniques and some concepts.
The expert knows many concepts so can do with less technique.

Simple > Complex > Simple

I think this is the journey in TMA.

 

[skribs]

I agree, that's why they're often interchangeable. So, why have both? Like the letter "X" which has two sounds in English: "___cks" and "___z." I could get by very nicely without that letter in our alphabet, using those other letters instead. BTW, I have never seen a hammer fist used in a karate match.

I'd rather use a hammerfist for certain targets and angles, and a knife-hand strike for others. I trust the hammerfist more when I want a shorter attack surface, such as when striking the solar plexus or temple. I'm less likely to hit my fingers on bone that way. I trust the knife-hand more then I want a narrower attack surface, such as to attack the neck (between the jaw and shoulder).

It also depends on what I am doing in the combo. Hammerfists chain better with punches and a closed-fisted approach, knife-hand strikes chain better with trapping blocks and palm strikes.

In a self-defense situation, I trust palm strikes and hammerfists more than I trust punches and knife-hand strikes. Which means interchange between the four may be the way I operate, because of the crossover in effective combos.

In BJJ, you often need different techniques because your opponent may give you a different read, have different grips, be of a different body type, be better at defending one technique than another, etc. Having multiple attacks that can be used in the same situation allows you to chain attacks to threaten different things. For example, you may use a cross-collar grip to set up a cross-collar choke or a scissor sweep. Those two are "enough" to have that back and forth. But if your opponent posts their leg on the side you're trying to sweep and postures up to avoid the cross-collar choke, then you'll want additional attacks from that position to deal with that specific position.

Too many techniques learned too fast and you spread yourself too thin. But over time, you should acquire more and more techniques to better suit specific situations they might arise.

I think instead of looking at reducing the techniques in the style, it's more important to look at when the techniques are learned. Techniques that should be learned easy should be:

• Easy to deal damage with relatively little amount of training (i.e. not something like a twist kick that is difficult to generate power)
• Have a low risk of "recoil damage" from the attack itself (i.e. not something like a spearhand strike, which when untrained you're likely to break your own fingers)
• Apply to a high percentage of situations (i.e. not something that only applies if fighting someone who is using long guard in a southpaw crane stance)
• Have a high percentage of success (i.e. not a haymaker)

Things that have a higher risk and/or lower reward shouldn't be ignored completely, but should be taught at higher levels.

 

[Same Trick]

:





Pre-1900 karate was a lot more streamlined. It had to be very effective, relatively simple to execute and lightening quick.

I wonder about that, sure we can read quotes from old masters such as Funakoshi that in the old days a master knew just a few kata, Funakoshi himself spent several years just with the Naihanchi/Tekki kata.
But todays Shotokan has some 20+ kata curriculum, however there’s a designed core going through most of them, and Funakoshi’s Taikyuko katas that surfacely are the most simple looking are according to Funakoshi the ones the advanced student will eventually come back to/(come to fully understand). About the old karate way was more streamlined, I actually think the modern sportification(kumite) has its own streamline to it, example - all blockis are replaced with natural parries/deflections, knife-hand, spear-hand, finger strikes/pokes and such not needed anymore, the modern way tap very quick into essentials such as timing, positioning, fluidity., there’s no need anymore to spend three years on a Kata to hopefully understand those things.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'd rather use a hammerfist for certain targets and angles, and a knife-hand strike for others. I trust the hammerfist more when I want a shorter attack surface, such as when striking the solar plexus or temple. I'm less likely to hit my fingers on bone that way. I trust the knife-hand more then I want a narrower attack surface, such as to attack the neck (between the jaw and shoulder).

It also depends on what I am doing in the combo. Hammerfists chain better with punches and a closed-fisted approach, knife-hand strikes chain better with trapping blocks and palm strikes.

In a self-defense situation, I trust palm strikes and hammerfists more than I trust punches and knife-hand strikes. Which means interchange between the four may be the way I operate, because of the crossover in effective combos.

In BJJ, you often need different techniques because your opponent may give you a different read, have different grips, be of a different body type, be better at defending one technique than another, etc. Having multiple attacks that can be used in the same situation allows you to chain attacks to threaten different things. For example, you may use a cross-collar grip to set up a cross-collar choke or a scissor sweep. Those two are "enough" to have that back and forth. But if your opponent posts their leg on the side you're trying to sweep and postures up to avoid the cross-collar choke, then you'll want additional attacks from that position to deal with that specific position.

Too many techniques learned too fast and you spread yourself too thin. But over time, you should acquire more and more techniques to better suit specific situations they might arise.

I think instead of looking at reducing the techniques in the style, it's more important to look at when the techniques are learned. Techniques that should be learned easy should be:

• Easy to deal damage with relatively little amount of training (i.e. not something like a twist kick that is difficult to generate power)
• Have a low risk of "recoil damage" from the attack itself (i.e. not something like a spearhand strike, which when untrained you're likely to break your own fingers)
• Apply to a high percentage of situations (i.e. not something that only applies if fighting someone who is using long guard in a southpaw crane stance)
• Have a high percentage of success (i.e. not a haymaker)

Things that have a higher risk and/or lower reward shouldn't be ignored completely, but should be taught at higher levels.

Can't argue with most of your points. Many I agree with. We still aren't eye to eye, but I won't hold that against you . TKD is curriculum driven, very structured, Okinawan karate not so much. We're looking at this from different perspectives. I know you've been in TMA for a good while, but I've got close to 60 years in the art. That likely comes into play as well. The OP was an intellectual exercise for me as well as a topic I think deserves some consideration and to get others to think a little deeper about TMA. If this is accomplished, I'm happy.

 

[skribs]

I know you've been in TMA for a good while, but I've got close to 60 years in the art.

I have mostly enjoyed talking with you on this forum, but I really don't like when people belittle me because they've been around longer than I have.

It's been very frustrating within the TKD community, but also in my professional life as well. People don't take me seriously because I haven't been in the industry as long as they have, and they don't even trust me to do the job I was hired to do.

And in my academic career, I've had too many teachers and professors that avoided discussions by saying, "I know better than you do, so I'm right."

I really hope that isn't what you meant, because if it is, I don't think it's possible for us to discuss things. Because I'll never catch up to you on experience.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I really don't like when people belittle me because they've been around longer than I have.

There was no belittlement intended. I "liked" your post that I responded to and in my post mentioned you had good points that I mostly agreed with. I wouldn't have done those things if I didn't take your thoughts seriously. I only meant what I said - that my years simply gave me a different perspective. No doubt you have a different perspective on some things than someone in the art for just 3 or 4 years. That's not good or bad, just natural.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I'll never catch up to you on experience.

Oh, but you will. At least I hope so. Of course, I'll be dead, and you'll be the old guy.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There are so many kitchen gadgets no one's kitchen is big enough for them all: Hardboiled and soft-boiled egg makers, hardboiled egg slicers, bagel slicers, hot dog cookers, pizza cookers, melted sandwich makers, bacon cookers, etc. to name just a few. That's a lot of tools. Some people may think all these things are a must. I don't have any of them. I do just fine with the tools that I have. If you know how to employ them, they are quite versatile and can handle most all my cooking needs with simple slight adjustments. I think this illustrates a similar situation in TMA.

I don't have a lot of kitchen tools, but I often find myself in situations where I wish I had a specific kitchen tool that would make it easier for me, but not so much easier that I'm willing to spend money or time buying it. I can do what I need to without the special tool. And most of the time I will buy kitchen tools if it's something I'm going to use a lot or if the task is such a burden that it's good to have the tool even if it's not used often.

I don't know when the last time I baked a cake, but if I wanted to do so I can bake one with the tool designed to handle that. But I still have the option of going out to get a new tool if my current one is worn and outdated.

Describing Martial Arts as a Kitchen. Is really good. I know a Sifu who describes kata as menu and what people take from it are the meals that they choose. His job isn't to tell people which meals to buy. His job is to present the menu of what is offered. Kitchen tools and Food fit well for martial arts.

It's something that everyone is familiar with as an adult.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'd rather use a hammerfist for certain targets and angles, and a knife-hand strike for others. I trust the hammerfist more when I want a shorter attack surface, such as when striking the solar plexus or temple. I'm less likely to hit my fingers on bone that way. I trust the knife-hand more then I want a narrower attack surface, such as to attack the neck (between the jaw and shoulder).

It also depends on what I am doing in the combo. Hammerfists chain better with punches and a closed-fisted approach, knife-hand strikes chain better with trapping blocks and palm strikes.

In a self-defense situation, I trust palm strikes and hammerfists more than I trust punches and knife-hand strikes. Which means interchange between the four may be the way I operate, because of the crossover in effective combos.

In BJJ, you often need different techniques because your opponent may give you a different read, have different grips, be of a different body type, be better at defending one technique than another, etc. Having multiple attacks that can be used in the same situation allows you to chain attacks to threaten different things. For example, you may use a cross-collar grip to set up a cross-collar choke or a scissor sweep. Those two are "enough" to have that back and forth. But if your opponent posts their leg on the side you're trying to sweep and postures up to avoid the cross-collar choke, then you'll want additional attacks from that position to deal with that specific position.

Too many techniques learned too fast and you spread yourself too thin. But over time, you should acquire more and more techniques to better suit specific situations they might arise.

I think instead of looking at reducing the techniques in the style, it's more important to look at when the techniques are learned. Techniques that should be learned easy should be:

• Easy to deal damage with relatively little amount of training (i.e. not something like a twist kick that is difficult to generate power)
• Have a low risk of "recoil damage" from the attack itself (i.e. not something like a spearhand strike, which when untrained you're likely to break your own fingers)
• Apply to a high percentage of situations (i.e. not something that only applies if fighting someone who is using long guard in a southpaw crane stance)
• Have a high percentage of success (i.e. not a haymaker)

Things that have a higher risk and/or lower reward shouldn't be ignored completely, but should be taught at higher levels.

Tell me again why are you hesitant about opening a new school of your own. I think you should go for it. start small with minimum investment maybe training in the park or rented space. If you like the Flavor then go for it.