What defines a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial art?

G

geezer

Grandmaster
MT Mentor
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
 
Invisibleflash said:
If it works it is good...if it fails it is bad. My only interest is in self-defense. Any extra benefit would be I get exercise.
Click to expand...
So no personal preference for striking vs. grappling, hands vs. feet, force vs. finesse, long range vs infighting, empty hand vs. weapon, stick vs. blade vs. gun, etc. etc.???
 
geezer said:
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
Click to expand...

The question here, is are you defining which techniques are good or bad, or are you defining a level of proficiency one has with the technique?

If you're defining what techniques are good or bad, then it's very simple. Within your art, all techniques in the curriculum are good, and none of them are bad. According to your art, anyway. I don't think arts teach techniques they believe to be ineffective. There may be some that are less practical, but useful for training concepts, or some that are more situational than others. But I doubt any Master in any art is going to say "I'm going to teach you 5 blocks, 4 punches, and 3 kicks today. In reality, only 2 of the blocks, 1 of the punches, and 2 of the kicks are any good. We're gonna learn the other 7 techniques anyway."

If you're rating the proficiency of a fighter, then it depends on context. I will use different variations of the technique depending on the application, and depending on the class I am demonstrating to. When I am judging tests, I am also looking for different things based on belt level and age. For example...
  • For teaching, I use step-by-step motions. So "good" is having good balance and posture while I do the technique, and synchronizing my movements with my descriptions. For forms, step-by-step motions are also common. In this case, "good" is about how good it looks. For sparring, good techniques are ones that can score points. Speed, distance control, and accuracy are important here. For fighting and self-defense, good techniques are ones that can cause serious damage to my opponent. In this case, my power generation and my ability to stay protected while delivering that power are paramount.
  • When I am watching a white belt test, I am mainly looking at "do they understand the vocabulary". For purple belts, I want to know if they're building good habits (tight fists, keep your hands up, chamber your kicks). For green belts, I want to see smoothness in their movement, and more details in their stances and techniques. By black belt, I expect that every movement and every position is precisely controlled.
  • For a beginner class of 4-6 year olds, the most important skill is listening. If a kid can hear "front kick, ONE!" and do a single kick (instead of kicking 5 times while running around in a circle), that's a win. For a class of 7-10 year olds, the most important skill is taking class serious. If they make serious punches and stances instead of walking around flailing their arms, that's a win. For a class of 11-14 yar olds, the most important skill is to be able to work independently without micromanagement. If they can practice their technique over and over instead of doing it once and then saying "we're done, what do we do now?", that's a win. From around 15-30 years old, the art itself is generally the focus. Past 30 years old, and it's more about re-learning how to learn. I don't expect a 5 year old to have a perfect roundhouse kick, or a 55-year-old to bounce around like the teenagers. What is "good technique" is subjective to the person doing it.
 
geezer said:
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
Click to expand...
A good technique is one that works most of the time unless someone is familiar with the specific defense for it.

Examples..all 3 boxing punches, a double leg takedown, a low leg kick, a judo reap, a close quarters headbutt, a teep kick, etc.

A bad technique is anything that requires partner cooperation to be completed.
 
Martial D said:
A good technique is one that works most of the time unless someone is familiar with the specific defense for it.

Examples..all 3 boxing punches, a double leg takedown, a low leg kick, a judo reap, a close quarters headbutt, a teep kick, etc.

A bad technique is anything that requires partner cooperation to be completed.
Click to expand...

Don't go forgettin' my pride and joy, my baby.

uppercut.webp
 
Good question.
There are not good or bad techniques. They are simply what they are. Movements...or combinations of movements.
What makes a technique good is knowing "What, How, When, Where, Why" and being able to actually do so.
What makes a technique bad is using it at wrong time, position, wrong set up, wrong range or angle, or when not having the knowledge as to why that particular technique works.
 
Martial D said:
A bad technique is anything that requires partner cooperation to be completed.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. When learning to take a back fall, there are many techniques that require cooperation. Some to make the practice safe, others to add altitude or intensity to the fall in a controlled manner. Even though being able to take a good fall, is not going to win the fight, and or disable the other guy, its still a pretty good thing to know. Even though many of the techniques used to teach it, require cooperation, they are good techniques because the ultimate result of doing those techniques well is that you have a good back fall.

We have a few higher level techniques that rely on the lower level techniques. You may learn in one lower level technique, how to get into the right position. In another, how to generate the proper momentum in uke. Once both of these are learned, and can be done smoothly... they can be combined, so that you generate uke's momentum, and use that momentum as you are getting the right position on him. You now have a safe way to learn an effective technique, that requires lots of moving parts and lots of momentum. While the pieces might not be effective at fighting, by themselves, they are effective at training you for the real technique later.

So for me, good technique is technique that creates more ability and understanding in the student... about the art that they are training in. Not all the good techniques have to be fight effective techniques... if they can be used to produce an effective fighter.

geezer said:
So no personal preference for striking vs. grappling, hands vs. feet, force vs. finesse, long range vs infighting, empty hand vs. weapon, stick vs. blade vs. gun, etc. etc.???
Click to expand...
My first sensei taught me to "Never punch a puncher, never kick a kicker and never grapple a grappler." If he wants to fight a certain way, he is probably good at that way of fighting. Make him do something else, preferably something he doesn't want to do.
 
wab25 said:
being able to take a good fall,
Click to expand...
A good technique is a technique that your opponent cannot even take a good fall. For example, if you get hold of one of your opponent's legs, at the same time you hook/sweep his standing leg, he will have no leg to stand but fall. His head will hit on the ground first.

IMO,

good technique - difficult to escape and counter.
bad technique - easy to escape and counter.

inner-leg-block.jpg
 
skribs said:
The question here, is are you defining which techniques are good or bad, or are you defining a level of proficiency one has with the technique?

If you're defining what techniques are good or bad, then it's very simple. Within your art, all techniques in the curriculum are good, and none of them are bad. According to your art, anyway. I don't think arts teach techniques they believe to be ineffective. There may be some that are less practical, but useful for training concepts, or some that are more situational than others. But I doubt any Master in any art is going to say "I'm going to teach you 5 blocks, 4 punches, and 3 kicks today. In reality, only 2 of the blocks, 1 of the punches, and 2 of the kicks are any good. We're gonna learn the other 7 techniques anyway."

If you're rating the proficiency of a fighter, then it depends on context. I will use different variations of the technique depending on the application, and depending on the class I am demonstrating to. When I am judging tests, I am also looking for different things based on belt level and age. For example...
  • For teaching, I use step-by-step motions. So "good" is having good balance and posture while I do the technique, and synchronizing my movements with my descriptions. For forms, step-by-step motions are also common. In this case, "good" is about how good it looks. For sparring, good techniques are ones that can score points. Speed, distance control, and accuracy are important here. For fighting and self-defense, good techniques are ones that can cause serious damage to my opponent. In this case, my power generation and my ability to stay protected while delivering that power are paramount.
  • When I am watching a white belt test, I am mainly looking at "do they understand the vocabulary". For purple belts, I want to know if they're building good habits (tight fists, keep your hands up, chamber your kicks). For green belts, I want to see smoothness in their movement, and more details in their stances and techniques. By black belt, I expect that every movement and every position is precisely controlled.
  • For a beginner class of 4-6 year olds, the most important skill is listening. If a kid can hear "front kick, ONE!" and do a single kick (instead of kicking 5 times while running around in a circle), that's a win. For a class of 7-10 year olds, the most important skill is taking class serious. If they make serious punches and stances instead of walking around flailing their arms, that's a win. For a class of 11-14 yar olds, the most important skill is to be able to work independently without micromanagement. If they can practice their technique over and over instead of doing it once and then saying "we're done, what do we do now?", that's a win. From around 15-30 years old, the art itself is generally the focus. Past 30 years old, and it's more about re-learning how to learn. I don't expect a 5 year old to have a perfect roundhouse kick, or a 55-year-old to bounce around like the teenagers. What is "good technique" is subjective to the person doing it.
Click to expand...

We definitely teach techniques that are "good" and "bad"

We call them high and low percentage.
 
seconded the first response, anything that works is good, anything that doesn't is bad.


I would put high and low percentage as techniques that work and thus are good techniques, they just either work, a lot of the time, or rarely. Obviously for self defence you really only need a broad stem of the former, so you might as well just say the rest are bad for purposes. Or at least useless.
 
skribs said:
Is it low percentage of availability or low percentage of success even when the situation arises?
Click to expand...

Bit of both really.

So say take a flying omapalada.

There is not a lot of opportunity to go for it. And when those opportunities arise the is almost always a better move you could do.

But if you nail it. Well it is freaking awesome.
 
geezer said:
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
Click to expand...

Sorry just read the other thread.

Why isn't a large punch efficient?
 
geezer said:
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
Click to expand...
Within NGA, that's going to depend upon who you ask, and what they're thinking about when you ask. Let me explain that second part first.

If you ask me what makes a good technique, I could respond in the context of general usage (what will be likely to work in competitions, SD, and other situations), in the specific context of self-defense (some different risks and goals there may adjust the value of a given technique), in terms of what can be learned from it (does it teach useful mechanics, even if the actual technique isn't useful?), whether it's interesting enough to be fun to play with (regardless of whether I find any other redeeming values in it), or whether it challenges people in a specific way (which can be useful for self-development). That's a lot of variables/different contexts. There are techniques I really quite like, but would never expect to find useful (at least not directly) in any fighting situation. There are definitely some I consider less reliable, but which teach reliable and useful mechanics (most standing locks fall into this category, for me), and some of these also have great - but very limited - uses.

**** EDIT: Pressed "post" too soon.*****

Now, if you're asking what the "NGA judgment" is, that's going to vary by individual. I'm probably an outlier. Most I know would put more value on flow and "aiki". If it requires muscle or direct opposition, they won't like it. Some of my favorite variations of techniques are much more Judo-like, and make good use of appropriate strength application. I'm also more fond of hitting than most. And I think I look more at the risk side of techniques, so put more value on techniques that limit risk, especially when they fail (meaning I don't much value techniques where a failure puts you in a very bad spot).
 
geezer said:
I just came from another thread debating whether there are any truly "bad" techniques in the martial arts, or are there just poorly understood and mis-applied techniques? Basically a debate over effectiveness.

Personally, I'm of the school that regardless of skill, timing, and appropriateness of application, different approaches vary significantly in practicality and effectiveness. But beyond that, different martial arts place value on very different approaches.

Of course there are the preferences for striking, and grappling for a start. Within striking, there are preferences for hands vs. feet, and so on. Grappling also has many approaches and flavors. And then there are weapons systems to consider...

In competitive martial sports, rule-sets determine a lot of what's "good" or "bad", according to what gets results within the given rule-set. In non-sporting martial arts, often it's more conceptual or cultural ...a "value system" or conceptual framework that determines what is considered a "good" or "bad" technique. And, of course, even with a particualar art, physical build and ability greatly influence what techniques and style you personally value and choose to develop. I like elbows! :)

So, what are the criteria for a "good" or "bad" technique in your martial style?
Click to expand...
Long answer short. Probably a combination of both. If a technique is misunderstood then the person is probably doing it wrong and as a results becomes a bad technique.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

What is the report from the UK?

Previous Thread

What have you learned from watching animals?

Next Thread

Similar threads

Hanzou
Does the removal of "lethal techniques" lead to a better martial art?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
5K
K-man
K-man
G
What makes a good technique?
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
BLACK LION
BLACK LION
Finlay
Martial sacrilege (part 4)
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
Flying Crane
Flying Crane
skribs
Most bad techniques are bad because you're bad at them
7 8 9
Replies
169
Views
13K
geezer
G
B
Martial arts - what is it good for?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Loki
Loki

Latest Discussions

Back
Top