I have a Question - What makes a Technique realistic?

Good points Shuri, but I still think realistic technique is not the right term. I believe that the term used should instead be practical application.

Practical application is simply application that works the way it should, not just because of technique and visible factors, but because of the hidden factors such as timing, luck, awareness, situation, etc.

On the other hand, call a haymaker what ever you want, but it is not unrealistic because in REALITY the attack is very commonly used to hit someone with force.

I try to train with realism whenever possible. This does not mean people trying to kill each other, although that could be the case but that ain't usually training related. What it mostly means is that I practice technique to hit vital targets against realistic resistance. All controlled for safety so it isn't the same as the real deal, but it is a step closer to it.

If I am training against an untrained fighter, they can do a lot of pushing, wild swinging, flailing of the arms, short football type kicking, boxing like punching (because they see others do this), some tackles and such (because they see this on TV), short cutting and stabbing knife attacks, and if they are really out to get me, a very determined and aggressive attack. I consider all these techniques to be realistic.

Any technique can be realistic if someone actually would use it in a fight.

Realistic does not mean it is good to me. It only means that in a realistic scenario such techniques are more common.

This is technical detail of technique, or what some would call the perfection of technique. The technical ways are very important, but they do not guarentee that someone will be a good fighter.

I've been knocked out in competition before, it did not matter how good the technique was or how efficient it was. The reason is because I NEVER saw it coming. I only remember waking up from the ground afterwards.

Do not discount the importance of luck, timing, surprise, movement, etc. in practical application.

If you insist on calling it realistic, then be it so. But then I would say the most realistic part of a technique is the element of surprise. Hit them with something they don't perceive, can't defend against.

 

Good points... I think your right on the terminology and thats more or less what i was kinda saying. Practical Application would be a better term.

I see your point on the element of surprise and such, but i would feel it neccessary to train only to use techniques that would be effective utilizing the natural anatomy and forces the body can generate based on physics and such...........

However your point is good, b/c using the above view you may only train those techniques, but something else may be required and if you restrict your training your reactions become restricted. So i see how training with less efficient, but MORE COMMON techniques found on the street would make sense.

I think a way to help with this is to have a good partner that can really take on the mindset of the aggressor and train as such. Generally in schools you see a practicioner throw a excellent punch and the defender defends and thats it. But the aggressor is usually not as clean and controlled.

I think being able to step in the mind of the aggressor and having a training partner that can do the same would be valuable in training for such situations.

 

Excellent way to put things. Now THAT is what I consider a key component of training with realism.

As for perfecting technique... you also make very good points. I do not discount the importance of good technique.

I will try to add my 2 cents on the perfecting of techique. I have been described as being very efficient, no wasted motion, also as having fast hands and kicks, etc. If you took my movements on video tape and ran them through some kind of computer, you would rightfully find flaws and inefficiencies in technique. Yet the technique still worked in application.

There are two components of technique that I don't think are so obvious that work with efficiency. One is to not telegraph the technique. You may have a good technique, but parts of your body may move to give away your intentions, you must eliminate or conceal these triggers if you really want to say you are working towards efficient technique. I won't get into detail, but many martial artists do somehow telegraph what they are going to do, before they do it -- it is only good to consider such things objectively and work to improve in that area.

The second component is timing, but not just when to do a technique but also how fast to do a technique. To perfect technique, you must be able to change speed and angle of attack during transitions. If you know of the game of baseball, this is like a pitcher. Sometimes you throw a fastball, sometimes a sinker, sometimes a curveball, sometimes a change-up, a breaking ball, etc. You keep the opponent guessing all the time while you defend and attack.

 

I liked the baseball analogy-- heheh.

I believe if you practice a technique on someone else, and they don't know it's coming, and you actually pull it off, then yes--

It's "realistic" or can be put into practical application in a real fight--

But training is the most important key, of course.... If you can use a technique in a real fight, and it works, then why WOULDN'T it be "realistic" enough.

Thanks~~

 

Hey Guy's

Thanks for all that. (Rebel Wado & Shuri Great)

So What your saying is a realistic technique, is its application as and when needed.

Cool.

so here's another question:-

How many techniques should we learn, or should we keep it to a minimum?

Look forward to hearing your ideas . ?)

 

It's been demonstrated by quite a few people that learning vast numbers of techniques can cause a problem. I believe Geoff Thompson, among others, did a lot of work in this area. However, clearly you also need to prepare yourself for as many of the most common forms of confrontation that you possibly can. One method of training well might be to concentrate on a relatively small number of techniques that have been shown to work well in a large number of situations.

I think there is another option though and I also think that it has become the option of choice in a large number of styles particularly the older ones. That is, rather than train students in a bunch of techniques that they can use, train them in the principles of good technique. i.e. teach what it is about good techniques that make them good. Examples of this might include "sticking" and "entering". Having sorted that out, I reckon that the student is able to deal with a broader range of situations and also adapt the technique to suit him/herself in an intelligent way.

 

Well, from a competition stand point.......
When we compete we focus in on only about 5-7 techniques. In a given kumite match you only use 2-3 different techniques on average.

In full contact you often see jab, reverse, roundhouse punch. Front thrust kick/thrusting front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick.

My suggestion to someone fairly new in the martial arts would be to focus on only a few techniques (no more than 6-10).

You need a technique to cover:
-straight line techniques: jab, rev. punch, front kick, side kick, etc.

-arcing/hooking: backfist, ridgehand, r.house kick, hook kick,etc.

-Tech. that come from underneath: undercut punch, side kick, turn-back kick, etc.

This allows you to cover any line of projectory and reach your opponents openings at anytime. Note that many techniques can be altered to cover more than one line of projection.

As these become so instinctive and built-in you can then add techniques as time goes on. But at first i would work only 1-2 for each line of projectory/attack.

I would not LIMIT yourself to only a few techniques, but i would focus on mastering as i said 1-2 for each line of attack and only touch on others until you feel ready for more. Remember that quality is more important than quantity, but just make sure you can cover every angle of attack.

Just my 2 cents. More than one way to look at this though.. you could argue that limiting your techniques may limit you in a combat situation. But how many perfectly executed techniques would it take? Not many. On the other hand if you know 30 techniques, but all of them suck your in some trouble.

 

I think it is better in many cases to learn more techniques at first, but only learn to do them one way each. So one way to do a rising block, one way to do a middle outward block, one way to do a reverse punch, etc.

Although I think is it good to inspire students by showing them that each technique has variations and that the practical application of a technique does not have to look like the basics, I have seen many times where working too much detail into a new technique leads to the student not learning as well.

For example, we have a technique that is basically a hammer fist to the front side of the neck. I had some beginners and I had them hit me harder so that I could feel it... I thought this a good thing to get the experience of actually hitting someone. Of course it was not full power, but I still wanted them to make good contact. I also showed them that if they are too close for the hammerfist then they could use a forearm strike, or if too far they could use a back knuckle strike to the target. I also showed them a bit how to use movement to increase the power. And how to tuck the chin and use the hands and arms to cover and protect themselves... etc.

Well, guess what... brain overload for them. What should have been a basic drill turned into a monster of different variables to consider. Face it, combat is complex. I had a group of beginners all doing the same technique AND NONE OF THEM WERE DOING IT RIGHT OR IN THE SAME WAY.

I had to step back and go back to them only practicing it one way, all the same. I don't want to be teaching a 6th month white belt because I complicated the techniques so much before they are ready for it.

I'd rather they learn ten techniques for yellow belt and have them all do it well in ONE way, rather than have them learn one technique but try to learn it better.

You can't rush the learning of good technique, it comes when it comes. It is like a breakthrough that a martial artist has and then ALL techniques improve after that. If someone is fortunate, they will have many and many of these "breakthroughs" in their life time, IMHO.

 

Learn a lot. This lets the students sift and personalize. But allow them to discard what doesn't work. Simple, really.

 

Yep when I competed I only realy used Gayku Tsuki - Reverse Round House Kick - and Back fist.

I think this is it when talking about effective technique, get the principles in place first, then apply these to whatever as and when required.

This is true I somtimes try to work on a single techinque principle when teaching, and have the experiance as many beginners especially think that its all diffrent. I try to explain that when they can see the technique rather than the drill then they are getting there Combat is very difficult to understand.

All these points you are making reagrding this complex problem are valid. It seems to me that once a student begins to understand the basic principles of combat, with the techniques being taught at any give ryuha, Then the teacher becomes the guide, rather than teach, the sensei, watches, and passes comments on the students progress during class session.

I think that what makes a technique realistic ar applliable, is cicumstance, combinded with natural response, and continuouse movement during application, combinded with any other technique or combination of techniques until the enemy has been subdude.

The problem with teaching just a few techniques is that who decides which to teach, based upon what assumptions.

The problem with teaching many and varied techniques is that if the underlying principles of the ryuha are not understood, then each technique becomes a seperate ideal, ratehr than just one from part of the whole.

Either way the teacher is faced with how do to put across the basic principles.

Well thats another question to discuss.

How as teachers do we put across the underlying principles of our chosen martial art??

How do you feel this could be achived??????

 

Good question...................................
Im very new to instructing students so i dont think i am qualified to offer much of an opinion on this one. I am only assisting my Sensei with classes at the moment.

Would like to hear opinions on this though.

 

What needs to happen in order for truly realistic techniques to happen is that everyone needs to show up to the dojo with their girlfriends and a bottles of Jack Daniels (pints of Cider if your in the UK) or amounts of methampetamines ... crank up the techno music, turn down the lights and let everyone get hammered on drink or wired out of their skulls... or both... and try to chat up each other girlfriends... inevitabley a fight will break out... and you just go from there. Bring sure to bring pen and paper.
LOL!

 

...and then

...practice those same techniques against a living resisting opponent

And practice them off of a kick, a punch, a choke.

And make sure they don't need running starts or look like something some 14 year old girl will do in a gymnastics competition.

 

I added the point about practicing them live because that's what we do. Break the form down, figure out the techniques, then use them on a living opponent.

 

The thing about principles is that they are true and independent of any martial art. No martial art has a copyright on a principle.

The idea of a principle is that once you understand one, that one unlocks others to be learned, etc., etc. until hundreds, and then thousands are understood.

Some principles may be emphasized by the training in a martial art, but it all comes down to learning many principles, much more beyond the starting ones. Practical application has no limit on what and which principles can and will be used.

What a martial arts system first does is NOT teach principles, but first and foremost it teaches a student how to move in a manner similar to how others move in that same martial system. So karate teaches one how to first move in a karate like manner. Aikido first teaches a student how to move in an Aikido like manner, etc.

Of course, later on, a good fighter must move beyond the limitations of these movements. These ways of moving are suppose to help one in the understanding and application of certain techniques and principles... however, they are only there to build a foundation.

So I teach my students first how to move in a manner like others in my martial art. Hopefully a student will learn more than what I teach them and after building a foundation, they will build upon that and learn more principles, more techniques, and apply this all in practical application.

I tell my students that basics and such are for foundation, but when they fight, it does not have to look like this. So sometimes we train to build foundation, sometimes we train to build experience in fighting, and sometimes we train in other things. I always try to let the student have an idea of what we are trying to work on in each part of a lesson.

 

Martial Arts is about understanding the relationship between your mind and body, and the journey it takes to get there.

Your hands, feet, elbows, knees, and your mind, are all one weapon. That is you are the weapon.

You are likened to a pistol, and as time goes by you are loaded with ammunition (experience and technique, followed with wisdom).

Like a gun, you should be well taken care of, cleaned, and so on, so that at any moment you can be picked up, ready to fire.

When the time comes, assuming that you have trained in realistic situations, then add real life, and adrenaline, stress and (controlled) emotion, and 'voila', you are realistically as deady as any other gun, weapon, etc., once the trigger is pulled...

The precision of the aim, the environment, balance, and other small things all bring it together for the utmost effectiveness...

Sorry, that is the best analogy this evening...I am tired, must sleep.



Do whatever it takes to bring the Martial back into your Art!

 

thats a good question.
I usually look at it from 5 ways

1. Do you feel comfortable doing it?

2. How would you defend it?

3. How would you apply it?

4. Can you picture it working in the cage?

5. is it easy to modify?