I am curious as to how others think technique is developed...? Look at a guy with 12 months experience and look at a guy with 12 years experience. They both 'know' a particular technique, let's take a thigh kick for example. I may 'know' how to do a thigh kick which could most likely drop someone if I connect with it. But, on the other hand someone who's been doing it for 12 years will drop someone without a doubt if they connect with their thigh kick. (whether you think people will drop or not is a moot point, it's for argument's sake) What is it that seperates our kicks? Obviously, it's going to be the thousands and thousands more repititions he's done that I haven't done. What is it that's achieved in these repititions though? The technique becoming second nature is one, I have no doubt. Obviously a person who is more comfortable and familar with a technique can execute it faster. Buuut, we can be executing bad technique at that if we've practiced it enough so that it becomes a reflex quicker than a person who has good technique. I guess my question is what makes *good* technique? Is it attention to finer details of a technique and good observance so that when we go and do repititions of the technique, we break the bad habits we've formed in drilling the technique to get it up to where it is now? I'll elaborate a bit. With a jab, you've seen people come in that start throwing puches with their elbows out wide and extend their arm half a metre or whatever. You get them tucking their elbow in and they get more reach with their jab. Still, they might be tense the whole time, or their wrist might not be straight upon impact. They could be dropping their hands, etc. To counter each of these bad habits, they have to drill over and over again to break bad habits... Then when they find more bad habits, they have to drill over and over again to break them again. I hope you can understand what I'm saying, I've had a hard time putting it down. Do you agree/disagree? Thoughts on how you think technique is developed? I'd be particularly interested to hear from the more technical people.
Its also a little to do with muscle memory. If you've done a technique for a year, yes, its probably only semi-conscious, but if you've done it for twelve years then most likely you don't even have to think about it. Positioning, the shifts, everything is so ingrained into you that it comes out as natural a response as putting your hands up if you fall over. This means that you are much more relaxed in the technique, which builds more power into it from the get-go.
Practice and Realisation. More Practice and Application. Then back to the realisation again. Ad Nauseum. You do something physically and you 'Understand' it. But then when you've done it enough times, suddenly 'Eureka' and you 'Know' it. The difference is immeasurable.
What you should develop over time: 1. More efficient mechanics (adjusting small details to reduce their options and improve your speed, power, accuracy etc). 2. Better timing (throwing the right move, at the right time, with the right speed/power etc to have the effect you desire). 3. Becoming familiar with an opponent's possible reactions during sparring and what you can are in response. For me that's mostly it (on the more physical side of things). Learning/relearing to do the technique in the most effective way, building timing through live drilling/sparring, solving problems that occur from your opponents reactions. Nathan
Can't really add anything to what Levo said except for confidence in the actual application. The 12 year guys not going to have any (or much) hesitation in the execution, and if it does muck up will be better at recovery. Col
Practice and practice. Have someone watch you and nit pick your every flaw, every little telegraph. Video tape yourself and watch it.
I have always found good use of Bruce Lee's simple guidelines when it comes to technique, or overall MA, develoment: 1. Absorb what is useful. 2. Reject what is useless. 3. Add what is your own. The question of usefulness and uselessness depends I think on at least 2 important factors: 1. Personal make up--physical built (are you tall or of below average height? would you consider yourself physically stronger or weaker than most persons? etc.), temperament (personal gut reactions and how they frequently manifest in stressful situations), preferences, etc. Tailoring or choosing techniques (I would rather call them "tools") that fits your personal "profile" is one way of making them particularly effective, for yourself, and assuring your proficiency in using them. 2. Environment--this includes everything that is external to you, including the potential atacker. Realistic development of techniques must take into careful consideration the type of environment an attack could potentially occur, in other words, the places that you frequent and pass by, and the type of people you could find in them. Is the ground often slippery due to snow or puddles? Is it a cramped alley or wide open space? Are you more likely to be attacked by a single person or a group? What types of weapons would you most likely contend with? It always helps to assume the worst conditions if only to be better prepared. I've mentioned "at least two" because there is at least one other important factor that could be considered, if you have the time: strategy. I consider this as the synthesis of the first two in order to assure one thing,and only one thing: attaining your objective. Now, in determining whether one technique or tool is useless. Dan Inosanto I think have added a clarification: First determine why something is useless, for you, and use that knowledge to devise or add what is your own. Romy Macapagal (of kali illustrisimo) have some interesting things to add regarding this topic: "Technique is fine as long as it can work. But sometimes if you are teaching and things are going at a slow pace, not at combat speeds, there is a tendency to modify the technique. You seem to see that it is possible to add an additional movement. Unlike real life, at combat speeds, at combat strength, you will find that the movements are limited. The movements have to be short, simple, because you have to take into consideration inertia, you have to take into consideration reaction times of the combatants, and you have to take into consideration that both sides are trying to kill each other, right? So there are movements that will work in the classroom or in demonstrations, which won't work in real life." Apart from this, I totally agree with Levo and others. Refinement could only come with continuous practice.
