Valid Techniques

[Koshiki]

Honestly I still wouldn't based on that range you have to cover. It would be one of those things you would have to test to see if it comes off.

That sort of range is my default. Side kicks followed by elbows work, because you can do them from a similar range. I'm not talking about long range sparring side kicks from 4 feet away, but rather side kicks as found in, say, traditional Karate, which you can easily perform while grasping both the opponent's forearms.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If the left side kick were delivered at a 45 degree angle to the inside of the opponents right knee, and the weight allowed to follow through, so that the kicking leg lands between and behind the opponents legs, I can see a right inward elbow being a pretty valid technique or combination..

In other words, I think to have a meaningful discussion about the validity of techniques, you have to discuss application, rather than solo-person movements with many possible interpretations.

I mean, if we're discussing whether a given movement has any viable application, than even a no touch knockout might be feasible. Imagine holding a big ball of chi, twisting it back to your hip and then firing it with one hand. Sure, that might not work, but the same movement pattern is essentially what you might do to yank on an arm/underhook and then strike.

Applications can surely be valid or complete bull shucky, but with solo movements, it's much harder to make that claim. A one person movement is neither valid or invalid, if it can be interpreted to be many things in application. Some will be valid, some not.

Every time I do Chinto, I see a big chi ball on that one move. And there are lots of applications in that move. Firing a chi ball isn't one of them, but it's cool to visualize.

My issue is when someone teaches it as a real technique. The movement is real, there are real techs that use that movement, but there are no chi balls.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

you have to discuss application, rather than solo-person movements with many possible interpretations.

With some MA experience, one should be able to tell the application even from the solo move. But some solo move just doesn't make sense to start with.

What possible interpretation can this solo move be? It supposes to be a "double pulling" that you use one hand to grab on your opponent's wrist while use another hand to grab on your opponent's elbow. Since in this clip, both palms are facing down and also both "tiger mouth - space between thumb and the 1st finger) are not open (no grabbing intention), I can't map it into any meaningful application.

It's easy to see the application from the following clip.

 

[RTKDCMB]

If the left side kick were delivered at a 45 degree angle to the inside of the opponents right knee, and the weight allowed to follow through, so that the kicking leg lands between and behind the opponents legs, I can see a right inward elbow being a pretty valid technique or combination..

Or a left side kick that has been slipped past leading to the right elbow suddenly becomes valid. etc

 

[RTKDCMB]

The "left side kick, right elbow strike combo" is not a valid technique. I have seen that in a TKD demo.

Perhaps it was just that particular application.

 

[Tez3]

The movement is real, there are real techs that use that movement, but there are no chi balls.

WHAT! oh my days, now you tell me, I've just spent forty years thinking chi balls were real and getting frustrated because I couldn't make them............. > walks away sobbing

 

[Koshiki]

WHAT! oh my days, now you tell me, I've just spent forty years thinking chi balls were real and getting frustrated because I couldn't make them............. > walks away sobbing

Don't worry, there's a thoroughly rewarding substitute:

Every time I do Chinto, I see a big chi ball on that one move. And there are lots of applications in that move. Firing a chi ball isn't one of them, but it's cool to visualize.

My issue is when someone teaches it as a real technique. The movement is real, there are real techs that use that movement, but there are no chi balls.

Exactly. The movement can be as valid or invalid as you like, depending on your preferred application. So in the sense of techniques as the solo-person movement, removed from application, es casi imposible to call a technique valid or not.

Which is why I think it's always the application that needs to be discussed.

 

[Koshiki]

With some MA experience, one should be able to tell the application even from the solo move. But some solo move just doesn't make sense to start with.

What possible interpretation can this solo move be? It supposes to be a "double pulling" that you use one hand to grab on your opponent's wrist while use another hand to grab on your opponent's elbow. Since in this clip, both palms are facing down and also both "tiger mouth - space between thumb and the 1st finger) are not open (no grabbing intention), I can't map it into any meaningful application.

It's easy to see the application from the following clip.

In one sense I see what you're saying. For applications involving pulling or guiding the opponents bodyweight, the second clip looks, at first glance, more true to application, while the first might look more stylized. That said, I'm no Tai Chi practitioner, so I'm likely missing a LOT.

However, in the sense of discussing the application of technique merely by looking at the solo-person form (aside from excluding every one of the many arts that do not practice forms), this mindset of "one obvious, clearly illustrated application," is really quite style specific.

For example, in the Karate lineages, you'd be hard pressed to find a technique, pulled from the solo kata, which is identical in motion to its application. You'd also be hard pressed to find a technique that has a single, identifiable application. Karate and its offspring have very stylized, symbolic forms, some styles more than others, but I doubt there's more than one person on this forum that would claim that all Karate techniques are invalid. To say that a technique is invalid if the motion found in a solo-person form differs from the motion of the application dismisses three things.

1. Any styles that don't use forms. Obviously, techniques are not only solo movements.
2. Any styles in which the forms contain stylized or symbolic movements. (To various extents, Most of them!)
3. The posibilidad that a technique may have different applications. Each application will necesarily have slightly different movement, weight distribution, power generation, speed, areas of body tension, etc.

This last one is the most important, really. Take your example of the rising block from earlier. (Note, descriptions that follow based on my own understanding/application; specifics not important!)

When the motion is applied as an arm drag and a rising forearm bash to the jaw, several things must happen. Significant torque must be applied to the grappled limb, powerful snapping force must be applied to the striking arm, and the weight must be solid, for the moment of impact, as well as a host of other small details. You will likely start and finish the movement in close proximity to your opponent, meaning the stance work will be somewhat stationary. The motion will also have large movements and take longer than in the second case:

When the rising block is employed merely as a ranged deflection of an incoming strike, the most important thing becomes speed and fluidity. Far less force is necessary for the rising arm to deflect a punch than to meaningfully strike the jaw. This will in turn affect stance and weight; instead of needing a solid, powerful connection, what is needed is fluidity and mobility, and the arm should be moving far more independently from the body. The other pulling hand is likely no longer yanking a limb, so it's hopefully doing something else, meaning it's not coming to the hip as it was before, or at least not for the same purpose or in the same way, which will also affect the rest of the body and motion. Obviously, everything mentioned previously about power generation (and thus overall body movement) is now null and void. The timing and footwork will also be different, as the rising deflection works best if you can slip in under the arm, closing with the opponent, and preforming the technique as your stance moves in.

As has been noted, by both you and me, a technique such as the rising block has many uses. Each of them is quite different from each other, when looking at the motion in application. And nearly every application is in some small aspect or twenty, significantly altered from the technique as found in formal solo practice.

My point being, that in most styles, it's simply not feasible to look at a motion, applied in a solo-person form, and then extrapolate from there its true application as well as its validity or lack of.

There are two basic ways to look at the question posed in this thread, "Are some techniques really valid or invalid?"

If by technique you mean "interpretable, solo-person formal motion, "Then the only possible answer is "No, all motion of the human body likely has some application suitable for unarmed combat."

If by technique you mean specific applications of a motion, then two things are true: based on the proven efficacy of the boxing right cross, it's clear that that at least one technique is valid and; based on the proven non-functionality of the aforementioned chi balls, there is at least one technique that is not valid. So, for the second definition, it seems the only honest answer is "Yes, not everything you can dream up will work, but there are some things that do work."

Which I guess implies that the only way to answer the question at all is to, as a group, pick one definition of "technique." I'd say that for the purposes of the discussion of validity, viewing techniques not as motions but as applications is both more functional and interesting.

 

[Danny T]

It would be one of those things you would have to test to see if it comes off.

Cool, test it.

 

[oftheherd1]

I see a lot of people criticizing techniques. I have a couple of comments.

A tech is not invalid just because you can't understand how it works or just because you cannot apply it yourself.

However, if no one can apply it other than in the dojo, against a cooperating partner, then yeah, it might not be valid.

There are few really new or innovative techniques. Human bodies haven't changed that much in a couple thousand years since humans began codifying systems of self-defense.

One exception, however. We tend to be larger now. Some techs have to change to address that.

Some techs truly cannot be applied as intended without causing serious damage. That means students have to take the tech carefully far enough to see and understand that it is valid, but stop at that point.

While there are certainly B.S. techniques, it seems to me that too many are too willing to declare a tech invalid because they personally can't make it work.

I think there are indeed BS techniques such as you mentioned; no touch knock downs. But I think you hit the nail on the head about people dissing techniques only because they didn't understand them, and can't make them work. Understandable in a way, I have had trouble with some really simple techniques in Hapkido. I had to just keep working at them, and keep asking for help from those who were able to make them work.