What do YOU mean when you talk about techniques vs. concepts?

[skribs]

This is a topic that comes up a lot in a lot of the threads I'm in, the difference between a "technique" and a "concept." A similar, (but I think slightly different) discussion is technique vs. application. But I want to focus on technique vs. concept in this thread, and I hope the people I'm usually in these discussions with see this thread and leave their thoughts.

1. When you talk about techniques vs. concepts, what do you mean?
2. What is the difference between a "technique" and a "concept"?
3. How does training change when you train for concepts instead of techniques?
4. Can you give an example of a related technique and concept (i.e. not "a punch is a technique but ground-fighting is a concept")

To be clear, I'm trying more to figure out what the terms mean, than the actual training application. Talking about techniques vs. concepts is very academic, but I haven't really had them defined, and want to see what other people think these words mean.

 

[frank raud]

If I was to show you a technique to counter a push to the chest, that is a technique. If I could show you that the same technique can be used against a grab, a push, a lapel grab, that is a concept. How do I defend against an attack from the front? A concept goes beyond the strict if he does this, you do this, mechanical, by rote training, and allows you to see the similarities between different attacks and how the concept of a block, as an example can be applied against various attacks, not just a punch.

 

[CB Jones]

A technique is a specific movement.

A concept is a theory or idea.

A straight punch is a technique.

The idea of using a straight punch to create a certain reaction is a concept.

 

[Martial D]

Technique - throw the hook with a tight elbow.

Concept - throwing the hook with a tight elbow makes it more likely to land with power.

 

[JR 137]

Technique:
Attacker steps forward with a right hand straight punch. Defender steps forward 45 degrees to his left, left hand outside-in block, right punch to ribs, left punch to head, right punch to ribs.

Concept:
Rather than stepping backwards, and rather than blocking the punch away from the attacker’s centerline, step into the attack at an angle that you can hit you can hit your opponent but he can’t hit back and has minimal defense. Hit open targets, and not just one strike.

Learning and using the choreographed technique helps you learn the concepts. After you’ve practiced that combo enough, you start trying to get to that spot different ways and under different attacks, and using different strikes, sweeps, throws, etc. None of which were choreographed. When you’re doing that, you’re using principles rather than specific techniques.

The above technique is one of our standardized one-steps. It’s not meant to be used as a textbook response to an attack. An attacker won’t step in exactly that way, won’t throw the punch exactly that way, won’t wait for your counter, and the fight won’t miraculously be over. It’s meant to teach the concepts of where to optimally move, how to get there efficiently, when and where to block, which direction to block, and how to follow up. Basically, timing, distancing, footwork, and target and weapon selection.

If I’m about a foot away from you at your side, and your arm closest to me is all the way across your chest, I can do practically anything I want, and there’s little you can do to stop me. That’s the concept. I’m trying to get to the “blind spot.” If all I think about and practice are techniques, all I’ll be able to do is wait for the exact circumstances to make that technique work. And once there’s some variation, the technique doesn’t work anymore. If I learn and understand the concept, I can adjust to fit the situation on the fly.

IMO concept is interchangeable with principle here. I use the term principles more often than concepts.

 

[skribs]

Technique - throw the hook with a tight elbow.

Concept - throwing the hook with a tight elbow makes it more likely to land with power.

I consider both of those to be part of the technique.

 

[Oni_Kadaki]

To me, concepts are broader principles that cross individual techniques, whereas techniques are specific movements to obtain a given effect in a given situation. For example, a kotegaeshi wrist lock will, depending on your opponent's response, obtain a) compliance, b) an opponent on the floor, or c) an opponent with a non-functional wrist. A shiho nage is a throw that, if done right, will result in your opponent being on the floor. Those techniques have several broader concepts in common, to include extension, generating power from your hips, and blending. That's how I differentiate the two.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Concept (or principle) - your goal (or guideline).
Technique - one particular path that can help you to reach to your goal.

Example,

Concept - Take over your opponent's position.
Technique - You punch with footwork and body weight behind. Your punch is not just a point (your fist). It's a line (your arm), or even a space (your body).

When you think about this concept, your punch will not be just your fist meet your opponent's face. You want to use your shoulder to meet your opponent's face instead (your fist, elbow, and shoulder will all pass through your opponent's face). Your body will be like a tank that run down (and through) your opponent.

Another example.

Concept - hip throw

Technique:

- waist wrap hip throw,
- under hook hip throw,
- over hook hip throw,
- head lock hip throw,
- back head strike hip throw,
- back belt lift hip throw,
- ...

 

[wab25]

I hope the people I'm usually in these discussions with see this thread and leave their thoughts.

I will leave my thoughts... hopefully, I am off your ignore list at the moment...

Concepts are the important things to learn, once you understand the concepts, you can apply them anywhere you want. The problem is that it is very hard to learn and understand concepts. I can tell you to blend with your opponent, but you need to learn what that feels like, in order to even know if what you did was blending or not. Techniques are the tools used to teach concepts. It is convenient that these tools are also able to be used as very efficient applications of the concepts, once the concepts are learned. Its useful to realize that in some instances, the concept is spread across many techniques and in other instances one technique can cover multiple concepts.

Lets go for some real examples. Techniques first. We can do a lunge punch, a lead side punch, or a reverse punch. These can all be done low, middle or high. We can also do blocks: low, middle and high. Whats interesting is that these are all done in front stance. So, what are the concepts these cover? They are all done from front stance. One concept they are teaching is power generation. With the punches we learn how to generate power from the front stance, right down the center line. This power can be delivered low, middle or high. It can also be delivered with either hand. There are small variances that need to be made, to use either hand and to go to each level, but through the practice we learn how to make those variances and produce a lot of power from that stance, down our center line. That power can be used as a punch, or a push, or a throw or anything we want.

One of the first things we learn to use that power for, besides being a punch, is as a block. The power still goes through your center line, to make the block, only you are now using a different part of your arm. We are also delivering the power in a slightly different way... its usually not straight into the attack to meet force on force. The punching teaches us to put the power directly into the opponent, the blocks teach us to put the power into the opponents limb to effect his structure and balance. (to create the opening for the counter punch... mid block, reverse punch) This power is still being generated from the front stance.

When we block, we block to the side of the shoulder but no further. Yes, it wastes movement and leaves us open. But, we are currently talking about power generation in the front stance. When you extend your block outside the width of your shoulder, you start to lose power quickly. We learn that the front stance is great for generating a lot of power down the center line at all height levels. However, that power is only effective between your shoulders and most effective down the center line.

Put together, we learn how to direct power straight into your opponent and how to put different directions on that power, having different effects on your opponents structure. Additionally, we learn the area of effectiveness of the power generated in the front stance. Now, we should be able to do whatever we want with power, in the front stance, provided we keep our power application with in the "strike zone" defined by our shoulders. These applications can be punches and blocks... or shoves, grip breaks, throws, joint locks whatever. There are a million ways to use that power generated from the front stance.

As a side note, what if you need to use that power outside the "strike zone?" Thats why kata / forms practice turning. We turn to move the "strike zone" and we learn to integrate the turn with the power generated from the front stance. (lots of fun stuff here...)

So, that is one concept looked at from many techniques. Its not the only concept those techniques teach, but it was an easy one for this discussion. Now lets look at the lunge punch, also done in front stance. Another concept this teaches is the idea of one punch, one kill. Or, the other guy should be unable to continue after receiving our single technique. In doing the lunge punch, we are coordinating our entire body to deliver force into that punch. The body should be moving forward, driven from the legs, the body should be dropping to add our weight with everything tightening on impact. We have put the maximum amount of force possible into that attack. Now, we need to put the commitment into it at the same time. If you watch wrestling or judo, you will sometimes see someone going for a takedown or throw... they do everything "right" and it still does not happen, because they are not committed to that attempt. You will see other folks nail their takedowns and throws, sometimes entirely based on their commitment. Its the same commitment that is being talked about in the lunge punch. As you can see, that commitment can be used everywhere... and that concept is taught within the lunge punch technique. (along with other things)

To go further, use the same set of techniques but instead of looking at power look at balance, or structure, or speed or blending.... Or, take a different stance and all the things done in that stance and think about power generation again.

 

[skribs]

I will leave my thoughts... hopefully, I am off your ignore list at the moment...

Concepts are the important things to learn, once you understand the concepts, you can apply them anywhere you want. The problem is that it is very hard to learn and understand concepts. I can tell you to blend with your opponent, but you need to learn what that feels like, in order to even know if what you did was blending or not. Techniques are the tools used to teach concepts. It is convenient that these tools are also able to be used as very efficient applications of the concepts, once the concepts are learned. Its useful to realize that in some instances, the concept is spread across many techniques and in other instances one technique can cover multiple concepts.

Lets go for some real examples. Techniques first. We can do a lunge punch, a lead side punch, or a reverse punch. These can all be done low, middle or high. We can also do blocks: low, middle and high. Whats interesting is that these are all done in front stance. So, what are the concepts these cover? They are all done from front stance. One concept they are teaching is power generation. With the punches we learn how to generate power from the front stance, right down the center line. This power can be delivered low, middle or high. It can also be delivered with either hand. There are small variances that need to be made, to use either hand and to go to each level, but through the practice we learn how to make those variances and produce a lot of power from that stance, down our center line. That power can be used as a punch, or a push, or a throw or anything we want.

One of the first things we learn to use that power for, besides being a punch, is as a block. The power still goes through your center line, to make the block, only you are now using a different part of your arm. We are also delivering the power in a slightly different way... its usually not straight into the attack to meet force on force. The punching teaches us to put the power directly into the opponent, the blocks teach us to put the power into the opponents limb to effect his structure and balance. (to create the opening for the counter punch... mid block, reverse punch) This power is still being generated from the front stance.

When we block, we block to the side of the shoulder but no further. Yes, it wastes movement and leaves us open. But, we are currently talking about power generation in the front stance. When you extend your block outside the width of your shoulder, you start to lose power quickly. We learn that the front stance is great for generating a lot of power down the center line at all height levels. However, that power is only effective between your shoulders and most effective down the center line.

Put together, we learn how to direct power straight into your opponent and how to put different directions on that power, having different effects on your opponents structure. Additionally, we learn the area of effectiveness of the power generated in the front stance. Now, we should be able to do whatever we want with power, in the front stance, provided we keep our power application with in the "strike zone" defined by our shoulders. These applications can be punches and blocks... or shoves, grip breaks, throws, joint locks whatever. There are a million ways to use that power generated from the front stance.

As a side note, what if you need to use that power outside the "strike zone?" Thats why kata / forms practice turning. We turn to move the "strike zone" and we learn to integrate the turn with the power generated from the front stance. (lots of fun stuff here...)

So, that is one concept looked at from many techniques. Its not the only concept those techniques teach, but it was an easy one for this discussion. Now lets look at the lunge punch, also done in front stance. Another concept this teaches is the idea of one punch, one kill. Or, the other guy should be unable to continue after receiving our single technique. In doing the lunge punch, we are coordinating our entire body to deliver force into that punch. The body should be moving forward, driven from the legs, the body should be dropping to add our weight with everything tightening on impact. We have put the maximum amount of force possible into that attack. Now, we need to put the commitment into it at the same time. If you watch wrestling or judo, you will sometimes see someone going for a takedown or throw... they do everything "right" and it still does not happen, because they are not committed to that attempt. You will see other folks nail their takedowns and throws, sometimes entirely based on their commitment. Its the same commitment that is being talked about in the lunge punch. As you can see, that commitment can be used everywhere... and that concept is taught within the lunge punch technique. (along with other things)

To go further, use the same set of techniques but instead of looking at power look at balance, or structure, or speed or blending.... Or, take a different stance and all the things done in that stance and think about power generation again.

I can still see your posts if you're on my ignore list. I just have to click "show ignored content." Even if I don't see it, others will.

I would like to thank you for giving me a name for Lunge Punch. That's a common technique in our forms but we don't really have a name for it.

At what point in teaching these techniques do you explain the concept of the centerline?

 

[wab25]

I can still see your posts if you're on my ignore list. I just have to click "show ignored content." Even if I don't see it, others will.

You asked the question... so I was kind of hoping to answer it for you.

At what point in teaching these techniques do you explain the concept of the centerline?

When teaching the first punch. Stand in horse stance, chamber both hands. Extend left hand into punching position. This is on the center line. Punch with the right hand, while chambering the left. Right hand should punch on the center line. We don't let them punch off in random directions. Their target is their imaginary enemy that they are punching, right in front of them. Repeat when teaching them basic blocks... protect your center line. It starts there and continues.

 

[Martial D]

I consider both of those to be part of the technique.

One is the technique (physical mechanics) the other is the concept behind it ..ie the reason why.

 

[skribs]

One is the technique (physical mechanics) the other is the concept behind it ..ie the reason why.

In this case there seems to me to be a 1:1 correlation. The "why" when applied to a specific technique is still part of the technique.

 

[Martial D]

In this case there seems to me to be a 1:1 correlation. The "why" when applied to a specific technique is still part of the technique.

Not really. You can perfect a technique without fully understanding the mechanics or applications.

 

[Danny T]

Concepts are abstract ideas; general notions.
Technique is the execution or performance of work or an action.

Lifting your leg and stepping forward toward an opponent is a technique of footwork.
That same action could also be utilized as a knee strike if the range were correct or a kick rather than just a step; Concept.

 

[Punchy]

Technique: chain punching

Concept: relentless attack
Chasing the center
Occupying Centerline

 

[JP3]

An example I use a lot is regarding foot sweeps, deashi-barai for example.

The technique part is how you step, where you step, the placement of the base foot/supporting leg and that of the attacking foot/attacking leg, and when you move their foot away from where it was going.

A concept, or principle as I use them interchangeably too (usually principle) is that you attack with the sweep when the person has committed to their stepping action, either Onto or Off Of, the foot you are attacking. The principle applies to deashi-barai, but it also applies to Osoto-gari, Ko-soto-gari, ouchi-gari and kouchi-gari. You can stretch this principle also to make sense when you think about throws with the opponent involved in a live stepping function, such as Uchimata, like that.

Simply explaining a movement, and even how the movement is performed is "technique." The "why" the technique is done that way, and "how" the why can be used in other techniques is usually a concept/principle.

 

[zzj]

I switched from a technique-based art, Judo, to a more concept-based art in Tai Chi.

In a stand up grappling for Judo, I may attempt a technique that I am more comfortable with, let's say a Tai-otoshi against an opponent. To achieve that I would go through the steps in the technique, ensuring I break the opponent's balance by pulling his sleeve, placing my other arm against his chest while stepping into the correct stance in relation to his position to execute the throw. The success of the throw depends largely on the correct applications of the steps in a technique and timing. There are different ways to move into a technique, but in execution the form must be adhered to for maximum efficacy.

In a similar situation for Tai Chi, I would ensure my own equilibrium and rooting, instinctively feel for the imbalance and involuntary rigidity in my opponent. In my mind there are no steps or prescribed technique, instead I would try to remain as relaxed as possible and move my opponent into 'emptiness' using trained non-muscular torque or springing force; this results in throwing him off balance or straight down on his face if successful, and it depends on conforming to the principles of the art against normal instinct. The execution of a takedown may vary in its form but the underlying concept remains unchanged.

 

[thanson02]

To be clear, I'm trying more to figure out what the terms mean, than the actual training application. Talking about techniques vs. concepts is very academic, but I haven't really had them defined, and want to see what other people think these words mean.

Well there is the dictionary definition of them:

Technique: A way of carrying out a particular task, especially the execution or performance of an artistic work or a scientific procedure.

Concept: An abstract idea; a general notion.

Not really helpful, I know. Perhaps reframing the situation will help.

For me, there are actually three parts. Basic concepts, underlining principles, and techniques. The basic concept is about the underlining goal you are trying to accomplish with the task at hand (what you are trying to do and how you are generally trying to do it). The principles are key elements that allow you to better execute specific parts of what you are doing in a efficient manner towards the goal. And the technique is the specific sequence of actions you are performing to achieve your goal. You can have multiple ways to execute techniques that lead back to the same concepts and goals and many of them can be similar to each other. But where the rubber hits the road from what I have seen is your ability to apply the underlining principles that make the techniques effective. Some people use different wording then I do on this, but for the most part, we are all talking about the same thing.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is a topic that comes up a lot in a lot of the threads I'm in, the difference between a "technique" and a "concept." A similar, (but I think slightly different) discussion is technique vs. application. But I want to focus on technique vs. concept in this thread, and I hope the people I'm usually in these discussions with see this thread and leave their thoughts.

1. When you talk about techniques vs. concepts, what do you mean?
2. What is the difference between a "technique" and a "concept"?
3. How does training change when you train for concepts instead of techniques?
4. Can you give an example of a related technique and concept (i.e. not "a punch is a technique but ground-fighting is a concept")

To be clear, I'm trying more to figure out what the terms mean, than the actual training application. Talking about techniques vs. concepts is very academic, but I haven't really had them defined, and want to see what other people think these words mean.

I purposely haven't read the other replies yet, so I might be repeating others' comments.

I think my term "principle" and your term "concept" are the same thing, so I'll go from that assumption. A technique has fairly defined borders - a stance that's used, positions for both thrower and throwee (I tend to think in terms of throws and locks). We can identify that something is or is not a hip throw (ogoshi?) fairly easily. But then we run into a space where something isn't quite a hip throw. I mean, yeah, you're moving kind of like a hip throw, but that's not the right position, and you've got him turned wrong. "Where did you learn to do that?" I don't know - I just kinda did it. It feels a lot like a hip throw. Well, that's applying the hip throw principles/concepts in a different way.

This is one of the things I (mostly) like about NGA. It (mostly) uses very discrete techniques, with little overlap. Once you know how to use them within their defined borders, it's time to learn to do other things with those concepts - what I call "playing in the grey area". Sometimes, students even "discover" techniques they've not yet been taught. When I was a blue belt (second colored rank earned), a partner and I were doing some free work, and "discovered" the cross-arm throw (juji garumi?), which we wouldn't actually be taught for two more ranks. We were just looking for solutions to an odd tied-up position we ended up in, so played the scenario over and over to see how many ways we could resolve it (from each side). It turned out this was our best solution, and worked from both sides of the tie-up, depending who managed to break structure first.

Now, let me bring in application, because this is an important part of the discussion, IMO. A technique in application need not look anything like its formal, defined counterpart. In fact, if it's blended with another technique, that's entirely cool. That's using the concepts to solve a problem, rather than trying to force a perfect situation for the technique.