Clark Kent
<B>News Bot</B>
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 7,128
- Reaction score
- 6
Principles of SD techs
By Lenny - 09-21-2010 06:04 PM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
When I get asked by my students "how would you defend against X" I normally reply, that I don't know, but if they attack me we could find out together.
And while this is a nice base to work from, I am wondering if there is a more analytical way of dealing with it. Another part of this question is related to the way the Ju-jutsu belt exams are working. The students needs to present a certain "basic" move (like a block or kick) as part of a self defense technique. The person doing the test has then to rate both the technique and the basic ( I think that's a very German way to deal with it... Everything gets a score and at the end the total score determines the pass or fail... At least in theory)
Right now I am using these criteria:
- how effective was the first reaction (like avoiding/ blocking the attack) and how risky was it
- did pint of origin of the hands match the movement executed
- how many filler steps/ movements have been used
- perceived control over the attacker
- was the defender in good balance during the technique
- did he choose good targets for his strikes ( availability and effect)
- how prone to follow up attacks would he have been
- realism and show aspects of the techs
- did the the technique flow well?
For this discussion here I'd like to focus on the technique aspects, not on aspects related to performing the technique.
I am pretty sure that there are some principles for the techniques that could help me here. So, if you know where I could look for more info, that would be great.
I'd also love to hear your ideas / views on the topic,
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
By Lenny - 09-21-2010 06:04 PM
Originally Posted at: KenpoTalk
====================
When I get asked by my students "how would you defend against X" I normally reply, that I don't know, but if they attack me we could find out together.
And while this is a nice base to work from, I am wondering if there is a more analytical way of dealing with it. Another part of this question is related to the way the Ju-jutsu belt exams are working. The students needs to present a certain "basic" move (like a block or kick) as part of a self defense technique. The person doing the test has then to rate both the technique and the basic ( I think that's a very German way to deal with it... Everything gets a score and at the end the total score determines the pass or fail... At least in theory)
Right now I am using these criteria:
- how effective was the first reaction (like avoiding/ blocking the attack) and how risky was it
- did pint of origin of the hands match the movement executed
- how many filler steps/ movements have been used
- perceived control over the attacker
- was the defender in good balance during the technique
- did he choose good targets for his strikes ( availability and effect)
- how prone to follow up attacks would he have been
- realism and show aspects of the techs
- did the the technique flow well?
For this discussion here I'd like to focus on the technique aspects, not on aspects related to performing the technique.
I am pretty sure that there are some principles for the techniques that could help me here. So, if you know where I could look for more info, that would be great.
I'd also love to hear your ideas / views on the topic,
Read More...
------------------------------------
KenpoTalk.com Post Bot - Kenpo Feed
Two criteria I look for, does it adhere to solid concepts and does it work. The second being the more important of the two. If it works, but doesn't meet the concept test then that will be pointed out and a more effecient method shown, but the self-defense is still viewed as a pass. In the end, if it works, it works. Doesn't matter the route that you got to that point.
