Principles

[Eric Daniel]

How do you determine what techniques are effective and what techniques are not effetive since you can not cover every encounter you may be in, in the dojo? Do you do what the samurai used to do and find out what techniqes are effective in battle? most likely No.

I think if you have principles to guide you, you can have more Effective techniques than Uneffetive techniques because One principle can have 10,000 techniques. For example, the principle disterbing the balance can have many techniques used for just that one principle.

What is your perspective on this subject?

 

[Navarre]

I think experience and intellect go a long way here.

Like, in my original system, two standard blocks are the rising block and an outside chest block. They are basics of the system and are practiced daily.

I did them for a decade and am good at them. I understand that the rising block should cover my head entirely from side to side, be at an angle to allow the striking force to be deflected, snap into position to maximize the power, and rise to meet the opposing force to minimize the impact of the strike hitting my stationary arm. ... but that baseball bat will probabaly still break my arm!

So, I have steered away from the techinique in my integrated system. I still teach the block because it sure beats taking a Louisville Slugger to the ol' melon. But, I also teach more of how to move the body and head to the angle, flow with the strike instead of providing a more or less stationary block, and so on.

Despite the system, all martial arts techniques work on the human body and are therefore provided the same benefits and limitations. It's all body mechanics.

With some careful thought it isn't that hard to purge what doesn't work well and incorporate or modify what does. You'll never have the perfect set of techniques because the situation is not static so focus on concepts instead of specific techniques.

 

[Brother John]

I really think you're on to something there....keep on that track.

It's like Mr. Lee said about hoping that martial artists would worry more about the "root" than the many different decorative branches and flowers.....
understand the root and you understand all of the blossoming.

Principles ARE those roots.



Your Brother
John

 

[Eric Daniel]

I really think you're on to something there....keep on that track.

It's like Mr. Lee said about hoping that martial artists would worry more about the "root" than the many different decorative branches and flowers.....
understand the root and you understand all of the blossoming.

Principles ARE those roots.



Your Brother
John

That is great! What are some principles you guys use?

 

[Brother John]

That is great! What are some principles you guys use?

OH MY OH MY OHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Try this, just for starters...
a partial/incomplete list of principles, theories and concepts that OUR martial art is founded upon::
http://www.akki.com/articles/akkiconcepts.htm


That might give you some to chew on for a minute.


Your Brother
John
PS: To inquire further about these, go to www.akki.com and inquire there, especially in the "Open Forum" area...
Tell'm your "Brother John" sentcha!!!!!!!!

 

[Flying Crane]

I
You'll never have the perfect set of techniques because the situation is not static so focus on concepts instead of specific techniques.

I think this is a good and valid statement. I would like to add that perhaps it is good to have a body of techniques as well, because at least for the beginner stages it is easier to understand how to apply concepts through the medium of techniques. The techniques need to be kept in perspective, that they are only rough guides meant to give you tools to work with, but are not meant to be the absolute answer to any situation.

 

[JPR]

I believe that you go through a progression. If, at first, you are given a huge (or even small) set of principles they seem like the proverbial Kung Fu master spouting pithy sayings that sound meaningless. Because at first you do not have a frame of reference to apply the principles to. If you have a body of techniques that you understand and own (ie can preform with some degree ease / skill) and then start to learn to apply those techniques, it is from that application that the principle is found / learned.

For example, one principle of JKD is nearest weapon to nearest target. This may or may not make sense to you in the very beginning (admittadly, this one is a bit easier than others to understand), but once you have learned a few hand and foot techniques and tried to apply them to a sparring partner in motion, nearest weapon to nearest target makes itself very clear.

From my work teaching Stephen Covey's Seven Habits, "Principles are timeless, self-evident, and work even if you don't understand them."

Jerry

 

[arnisador]

I would like to add that perhaps it is good to have a body of techniques as well, because at least for the beginner stages it is easier to understand how to apply concepts through the medium of techniques.

I've often heard people suggest that JKD is much better as a second art than a first one because you need a base to be able to appreciate and make use of it. I suppose it depends on how it's taught; those with a Jun Fan Gung Fu bias are surely teaching techniques, while those on the JKD Concepts side may be doing less technique and more on principles.

 

[Dancing Dragon]

I've often heard people suggest that JKD is much better as a second art than a first one because you need a base to be able to appreciate and make use of it. I suppose it depends on how it's taught; those with a Jun Fan Gung Fu bias are surely teaching techniques, while those on the JKD Concepts side may be doing less technique and more on principles.

The main reason why JKD is has gone so astray is because the foundation has been separated. Let me explain why. Principles and techniques are like Yin and Yang according to Fei-Tien style. A balance between both is necessary to obtain mastery. JKD Concepts and Jun Fan Gung Fu are two sides to the same coin. Instead of working together they are working against one another, and neither can win because they are equals, like Yin and Yang.

Anyway, the principles of Fei Tien Gung Fu are highly rooted in Taoism, Yin/Yang theory, the 5 Animals (Crane, Tiger, Dragon, Leopard, and Snake) and the 5 elements (Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water). Both technique and principle make up the art and both are equally needed to master the martial arts.

JKD's principles are excellent, but a solid foundation in techniques is also necessary.

 

[arnisador]

Good points. Of course, some instructors are teaching lots of techniques! Others cater mostly to those with some previous training. That's not bad either. It's when you've got nothing but concepts and are teaching beginners that I worry. They need techniques enough to grasp and apply those concepts!

 

[Brother John]

It's when you've got nothing but concepts and are teaching beginners that I worry. They need techniques enough to grasp and apply those concepts!

BINGO!!!

and amen!!!


Your Brother
John

 

[achilles]

Simple and direct go a long way in martial art training. These two principles are the root from which I operate.

In JKD we have a body of techniques that exemplify our principles. Longest weapon to closest target (as brought up by JPR) is exemplified by the side kick to the knee and the finger jab to the eye. The minimization of passive techniques is exemplified by lin sil die da or the 3rd hand strikes.

Another aspect of JKD is the use of sparring to evaluate ones level of efficacy. While we may not all make it a point to get into bar fights to test our stuff, we do have experience against a resisting opponent.

 

[Flatlander]

I posted this in the tai chi forum, but it's relevant to this discussion. There are a few principles in there that I hold very closely, such as Lu, An, and Cai.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm an idiot and can't think in the morning. This is the link to what I referred to above.

 

[Eric Daniel]

Good points. Of course, some instructors are teaching lots of techniques! Others cater mostly to those with some previous training. That's not bad either. It's when you've got nothing but concepts and are teaching beginners that I worry. They need techniques enough to grasp and apply those concepts!

I agree with you sort of, I think you need concepts for a technique, beginers should learn techniques but when they are intermediate and advance they should learn the principle behind the technique.

 

[Andrew Green]

What is your perspective on this subject?

Just make sure you test your principles, in many different ways.

That's wear sparring comes in. Extend an arm beyond 180' and bad things happen, good principle, but it needs to be put into use in sparring sessions bytaking it too 180' getting pain but not causing injury.

Disrupting balance, same thing. Easily done in sparring, usually ends with a takedown or a throw.

Punch someone hard on the chin, they might get KOed, good principle, glove up and practice hitting people on the chin, even if the gloves and mouth guard are preventing the KO.

Un-useable principles, like knocking him out with a chi ball unless he wiggles his toes are, oddly enough, not possible in sparring

 

[kempoguy71]

I'd be curious to hear how people define "a principle / principles" as it relates to your art? I ask because many people (including myself) often confuse principles with strategies or tactics...

As far as I'm concerned, there are principles in play any time you move your body, but it seems that many people don't have any idea about the principles involved. Of course some will say that you don't need to understand principles to fight... and that's fine.

As far as I know most arts have a guiding philosophy regarding their specific methodology of combat. While some arts have a long list of very specific principles and terms to describe them (Kenpo would be one of them), other arts may be quite a bit more ambiguous regarding the actual principles involved.

Personally I prefer principle oriented training. I think we all agree that there are specific principles that govern our ability to move, i.e. the principles of the body (for a lack of a better term).

In my current studies we are taught primarily by way of principles, not techniques. In my opinion, the techniques are just a means to an end as they are designed to illustrate specific principles. In other words, a simple technique such as a release from a wrist grab may have ten or more principles at work....

I’d also like to mention that we as practitioners in our respective arts ought to take the time to learn about force vectors instead of looking at specific responses to attacks, i.e. punches, kicks, grabs etc. By looking at them as force vectors one can learn to apply and use the same principles / movements against numerous attacks (with and without weapons).

We can do this by studying the principles of movement and the body (books on kinesiology and biomechanics are very helpful) as well as physics (force vectors, mass, speed etc.) Once you have a basic understanding you can start experimenting with simple movements and show these principles by way of techniques (or tricks as we call them).


The body (yours and your opponents) move only is so many ways…


KG

 

[lhommedieu]

I'd be curious to hear how people define "a principle / principles" as it relates to your art? I ask because many people (including myself) often confuse principles with strategies or tactics...

As far as I'm concerned, there are principles in play any time you move your body, but it seems that many people don't have any idea about the principles involved. Of course some will say that you don't need to understand principles to fight... and that's fine.

As far as I know most arts have a guiding philosophy regarding their specific methodology of combat. While some arts have a long list of very specific principles and terms to describe them (Kenpo would be one of them), other arts may be quite a bit more ambiguous regarding the actual principles involved.

Personally I prefer principle oriented training. I think we all agree that there are specific principles that govern our ability to move, i.e. the principles of the body (for a lack of a better term).

In my current studies we are taught primarily by way of principles, not techniques. In my opinion, the techniques are just a means to an end as they are designed to illustrate specific principles. In other words, a simple technique such as a release from a wrist grab may have ten or more principles at work....

I’d also like to mention that we as practitioners in our respective arts ought to take the time to learn about force vectors instead of looking at specific responses to attacks, i.e. punches, kicks, grabs etc. By looking at them as force vectors one can learn to apply and use the same principles / movements against numerous attacks (with and without weapons).

We can do this by studying the principles of movement and the body (books on kinesiology and biomechanics are very helpful) as well as physics (force vectors, mass, speed etc.) Once you have a basic understanding you can start experimenting with simple movements and show these principles by way of techniques (or tricks as we call them).


The body (yours and your opponents) move only is so many ways…


KG

I posted some clips on www.fmatalk.com that are examples of "principle-based" instruction vs. "technique-based" instruction. For the sake of efficiency, I'll re-post them here:

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/body_mechanics_files/body_mechanics_1.mpg

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/body_mechanics_files/body_mechanics_2.mpg

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/body_mechanics_files/body_mechanics_3.mpg

The "technique" presented in the third clip is based on the principles of body mechanics that are presented throughout clips 1-3. If the opponent didn't attack after the media (half-strike) however, one would step in to attack with a flywheel by utilizing the exact same principles mentioned above.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[lhommedieu]

Just a follow-up. I added a clip to the "Seminars" page of my website that illustrates techniques from the Filipino martial art of Pekiti Tirsia Kali (Dan Inosanto is a Matass' na Guro in this art):

http://northshoreac.com/san_miguel_eskrima/pekiti_files/tapping_example.mpg

On this clip, Wes demonstrates techniques that look very different from those performed in the art that I practice. (The techniques are different at least in part because the relative size and length of the weapons employed by each art are different.) It is interesting to note however that the principles employed by both of our martial arts are exactly the same. Both arts utilize the legs, hips, and waist to generate whole-body power to drive the shoulders and arms; both turn the spine as if it were a cylinder and shift the weight of the body back and forth; both use footwork that allows the weight of the body to translate into the tip of the weapon, etc.

As the gentleman noted above - there are only so many ways to move the body.

 

[arnisador]

As the gentleman noted above - there are only so many ways to move the body.

This is true! And yet, arts do sometimes take very different approaches, including very different principles. I never know whether to be more surprised by the similarities, or by the differences.

I do think that in the FMA there is pretty wide agreement on basic principles--implemented variously, as the helpful clips above illustrate--more so than, say, if one were to take all Chinese martial arts as a group. Of course, China is a much larger country!

Thanks to Bruce Lee's writings and its relatvely short period of existence, there's still wide agreement on the principles of JKD, I think--but even there, it's easy to enumerate differences between instructors.