Should you bother with difficult techs?

[cfr]

I posted this in this section because I dont want any biased opinions towards any specific styles. Im in MA mainly for SD and fun. Fun to me is aggressive, high intensity training. From a SD and fun point of view, should you bother with techs that are very difficult to get good at? Techs that may take years to be able to pull off with power, on a consistant basis, by the admission of the styles "senior" people. Are techs like these easily forgettable?.... that is not forgetting how to do them, but easy to not be able to do with speed and power if a short time goes by without training them.

 

[AdrenalineJunky]

I think that if you practice a particular art, you should embrace everything it has to offer. Don't neglect the practice of those techniques that are effective, high-percentage tech. in favor of the more difficult ones, that would be silly. . .but testing yourself is sort of the purpose of MA, in general, I think.

 

[AdrenalineJunky]

On a side note: that is not to say that practicing MMA isn't a perfectly legitimate way to train; practicing an art is not necessarily synonymous with a life-long pledge to that art.

 

[Navarre]

Despite the fact that an entire class may work on certain techniques for a long period of time, each person will develop their own arsenal.

I don't fight the same as any of my comrades with whom I've trained for 20 years. In a fight we have our own unique set of techniques and act very differently.

For this reason I don't think there is anything wrong with working on a very difficult technique. It may never become part of our individual arsenal but that doesn't mean the time is wasted.

The subtle skills, concepts, and insight developed through a technique, particularly a difficult one, may advance us much more than repetition of those with which we are comfortable.

 

[TheBattousai]

I agree with AdrenalineJunky, you really should learn and practice everything you can. One thing to think about is that all movement is related in some way, it may take some time and practice to see how everything fits together.

 

[7starmantis]

I posted this in this section because I dont want any biased opinions towards any specific styles. Im in MA mainly for SD and fun. Fun to me is aggressive, high intensity training. From a SD and fun point of view, should you bother with techs that are very difficult to get good at? Techs that may take years to be able to pull off with power, on a consistant basis, by the admission of the styles "senior" people. Are techs like these easily forgettable?.... that is not forgetting how to do them, but easy to not be able to do with speed and power if a short time goes by without training them.

I think from a self defense and especially a fun standpoint, you should train in those "hard" techniques. I would say yes, they are easily forgettable, hence continued training. I think most techniques are "easily forgettable" by your definition. However, the effecientcy of learning certain techniques usually overshadow the work required to learn them. Most fihgting techniques are not really natural, should we abandon all unatural techniques for use of only those that use the body's reactions? I think the point of bettering yourself, your skill, and your saftey, is learnin those techniques.

My opinion,
7sm

 

[CuongNhuka]

I'll explain my thoughts this way.I’ll use a jump inner crescent kick (Tae Kwon Do term). To do it at first is difficult, to nearly impossible (depending on height, weight, build, and a few other things). With training it becomes easier. Lets say that your normal inner crescent is not very strong or fast. After years of training a jump inner crescent kick, your normal becomes easier to do, go higher, hits harder, and moves faster. That is part of the point of complex techniques (to make less complex ones easier).
Another part of way difficult techniques easier is that some of them can be used in a fight. I’m not; repeat NOT saying that a triple spinning jumping drop down and drive your heel into the crown of their head is a useful attack. Just that there exist difficult attacks, which can be used in a fight. My example above of a jump inner crescent kick is one of them. The major problem with it is that you need space and a stupid opponent. Or to trick him/her. Same with spinning strikes. And a lot of people I have heard use MMA fights as an example of how the “traditional mess” is pointless. These people happily ignore that a lot of what is used in UFC is complex, unrealistic, and includes jumping and spinning kicks.
Just my thoughts. But since you said that part of your training is for fun, right? Then wouldn’t trying to do complex moves be part of it?

Sweet Brighit Bless your Blade,

John

 

[tshadowchaser]

The harder the tech the more effort you may have to put into learning and thusly my learn a few things about yourslef along the way. You may also develop your stances, and movment in ways you don't/didn't expect the more you do the tech
they may also teach you few things about your art in the long un

 

[Cujo]

Many good thoughts and points of view. I also am a MMA, and I think that we have to respect that there will be many differant ways of looking at this subject. My only intrest is in self defence. This does not make me right or wrong, but it definatly colors my outlook on techniques that I use. In CloQuBA Ha-Jutsu, we give a technique a try, and if it doesn't work, we toss it.

Pax
Cujo

 

[cfr]

Many good thoughts and points of view. I also am a MMA, and I think that we have to respect that there will be many differant ways of looking at this subject. My only intrest is in self defence. This does not make me right or wrong, but it definatly colors my outlook on techniques that I use. In CloQuBA Ha-Jutsu, we give a technique a try, and if it doesn't work, we toss it.

Pax
Cujo

What exactly do you mean by "it doesnt work". What if it works... but only after years of practice. A "triple olie ooop sidekick with a twist" may take years to get good at. Or it may work but only on even terrain, with lots of open space. Would you therefore deem it as not working, and rule it out? Not trying at all to second guess what your saying, just get clarification.

 

[Cujo]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean is, if it is not usable by most people, most of the time, and usable without years of trying to perfect the technique, it gets tossed. I teach police combatives, I am training leo's to try to survive a street confrontation, and all of my training is geared in that direction.

Pax
Cujo

 

[Touch Of Death]

I think too much emphasis is placed on the complex by beginners. It is natural for a teacher to offer the complex as an enticement to train as well. In short its natural to teach up. However I think every one can see and feel the difference between a black belt doing a simple tech from a beginner doing the simple tech. I don't feel it is just an hardstyle concept to hold things back until certain standards of motion are acheived. Remember complex motion is just simplicity compounded. The complex tech sequences are another matter. Within each is a lesson. You must rank that lesson by what you feel you need to know and master. If you feel its worth knowing then by all means practice it. Put thing you like at bout it on the end of simpler techs, but by all means master the simple techs first.
Sean

 

[Rich Parsons]

. . . should you bother with techs that are very difficult to get good at?

All techniques are difficult to get good at. So why even try at all? Usually one enjoys the training for a reason or two. And yes all techniques are hard to get good at. How many people just walking in off the street never trained in anything in their life, can block or pass, or step out of the way of a telegraphed incoming strike?

This leads to a couple of theories I have heard/discussed/used. Every technique is basic. You keep practicing your basics, and eventually your basics improve as you discover more of what could or should be. By these little steps these "Hard" or "difficult" techniques are not so hard or difficult to learn.

All techniques are designed by masters to be used by masters. (* I use the term in the mind set of an Apprentice/beginner, Journeyman/Advanced, and Master/Skilled. And the Master still can make mistakes and still learn *). So, until one is skilled at a techinique one does not understand the technique in full, and it would seem hard as you have to work at it to get better.


Now some techniques may require more effort to learn than others, and one has to determine if it is worth ones time for the gain for investment. If it is a traditional like art, then I would say if one wishes to stay with the art, they should learn it. Or understand they will not be a skilled practitioner or instructor in said art. This does mean you have to perfect it and be the best person in the world at that technique either. This same person could set aside the technique and determine what works for them and move on and only worry about themselves for application. This is good for the individual, and not for the "art". It depends upon the individuals goals and desires. Neither is correct nor wrong.

Are techs like these easily forgettable?

All techniques are easily forgetable, if not practiced and maintained into muscle memory for reflex, otherwise, your mind will be looking through a filling cabinet of techniques, while the opponent is acting or reacting on ones' person.

Just my thoughts

 

[mad_boxer]

I think the saying 20 percent of workers do 80 percent best describes the effectiveness of techniques (meaning 20 percent of techniques account for 80 percet of ur successfulness) I think this philosophy should be adopted and you should train the twenty percent of techniques that work the best 80 percent of the time and the eighty percent that are too hard or flashy to really be effective in most situations 20 percent of the time.
of course the 20 percent and 80 percent are not exact but yea basically spend most of ur time training the handful of techniques that work best for you
and spend a litte time practising the hard ones and ones with limited use

 

[Adept]

All techniques will have an investment : payoff ratio. The only question is deciding for yourself if it is worth it.

For myself, I don't train to learn the entirety of an art, or for fun (although it is enjoyable). I train for self defence, and my work as a crowd controller/bouncer. If something has a high investment for a relatively low payoff, I'm not interested. I don't care if a jumping spinning heel kick is part of TKD, it's not something I'm ever going to use, and the hours I'd need to put into training it are hours I could use refining the basics that I will use much more often.

 

[MJS]

I posted this in this section because I dont want any biased opinions towards any specific styles. Im in MA mainly for SD and fun. Fun to me is aggressive, high intensity training. From a SD and fun point of view, should you bother with techs that are very difficult to get good at? Techs that may take years to be able to pull off with power, on a consistant basis, by the admission of the styles "senior" people. Are techs like these easily forgettable?.... that is not forgetting how to do them, but easy to not be able to do with speed and power if a short time goes by without training them.

I would say that every art is going to have something in it that is going to seem difficult, not practical, etc., but IMO, if you're going to invest the time to train in the art, you may as well learn the entire art. There are many things that are difficult, but putting in extra effort, will make those things easier.

Mike

 

[jdinca]

Most definitely. Yeah, you may not used the more advanced techiques but within it are the basics you've done from day one. Make the basic movement as perfect as possible and the advanced part becomes that much easier to learn. In addition, the more advanced your techniques, the easier and more ingrained the basic stuff is.

Example, if you train for a multiple attackers, how much more confident do you think you would be in a single attacker situation?

 

[DeLamar.J]

I posted this in this section because I dont want any biased opinions towards any specific styles. Im in MA mainly for SD and fun. Fun to me is aggressive, high intensity training. From a SD and fun point of view, should you bother with techs that are very difficult to get good at? Techs that may take years to be able to pull off with power, on a consistant basis, by the admission of the styles "senior" people. Are techs like these easily forgettable?.... that is not forgetting how to do them, but easy to not be able to do with speed and power if a short time goes by without training them.

The techniques that take a long time to master are for advancedd students who are willing to put the time in. If your just in it for fun or some quick self defence, dont bother. But if you want to keep up the training and set a very respectful long term goal for yourself, then I would say learn the harder techniques. It all depends on what you are wanting out of your training.

 

[arnisador]

There are some good discussions of these ideas in these threads:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25930
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7549

 

[green meanie]

I'm inclined to agree with AdrenalineJunky, if you believe in your art and what you're learning then you should try to learn everything it has to offer. But I have to admit that I've trained in arts in the past that I wasn't really sure if I agreed with everything I was seeing and being told. I've been in situations where the techniques were 'difficult' because they were (in my opinion) complicated and unrealistic. Maybe it was the art; maybe it was me; but either way, that's usually when it's time to find something else.