Self Defense Techniques anyone?

[Eric_]

. . . if you want to go deeper than a greater understanding is required.

Of course. I very much doubt that there is a single person reading this that feels otherwise. I was reffering to the fact that if you must think about a technique, you either need to practice it more, or should not be using it, because, as you pointed out, that would just get you hurt. But it goes right back to what i said about the versatility of a technique. The flexibility of the technique makes no difference if the individual applying it lacks the knowledge of the reasoning behind the movements; they will be unable to reapply the technique to the infinite variations possible for any given attack. It goes without saying that there must be skill to back up the technique.

AngelaG, i must agree with yourstatement of "Techniques are fine if you have 1 or 2 to remember" (i'm making the asumption that you exagerate). I've always been fond of Ed Parker's saying: "I'd rather have ten techniques I can fight with, than a hundred that fight me." In my system, we learn fifty-five self-defense techniques, but that is not to say that any of us "masters" fifty-five techniques. It is only the select few that suit us best that are commited to reflex, the rest are simply stored away to draw and learn from, and to teach, but not necessarily to use.

[Goju_boi]

well you just have to use what is called for at the moment.It's not a good idea to go and think I need to do a highblock and counter,you should be doing it without thinking on reflexes.

[AngelaG]

. . . if you want to go deeper than a greater understanding is required.

Of course. I very much doubt that there is a single person reading this that feels otherwise. I was reffering to the fact that if you must think about a technique, you either need to practice it more, or should not be using it, because, as you pointed out, that would just get you hurt. But it goes right back to what i said about the versatility of a technique. The flexibility of the technique makes no difference if the individual applying it lacks the knowledge of the reasoning behind the movements; they will be unable to reapply the technique to the infinite variations possible for any given attack. It goes without saying that there must be skill to back up the technique.

AngelaG, i must agree with yourstatement of "Techniques are fine if you have 1 or 2 to remember" (i'm making the asumption that you exagerate). I've always been fond of Ed Parker's saying: "I'd rather have ten techniques I can fight with, than a hundred that fight me." In my system, we learn fifty-five self-defense techniques, but that is not to say that any of us "masters" fifty-five techniques. It is only the select few that suit us best that are commited to reflex, the rest are simply stored away to draw and learn from, and to teach, but not necessarily to use.

Yes, you should definitely not have to think about what you are doing when you fight. However this is what will happen if you concntrate on techniques rather than principles. If you concentrate on principles then you can start to deal with any kind of attack, from a wide range of people.

I suspect that in your 55 self-defence techniques there are a number of recurring principles than can be easily adapted to defend a multitude of attacks. These can probably be broken down to a far fewer number of set principles to effectively defend against an attack. In this way there is a lesser chance of failure and less chance of having a brain block from technique overload.

Copying a technique is not sufficient to gain understanding. As in anything you need strong foundation upon which to build an effective MA system, if not it may all look pretty but come tumbling down at the first puff of wind.

[Eric_]

. . . It's not a good idea to go and think I need to do a highblock and counter,you should be doing it without thinking . . .

Exactly.

Yes, you should definitely not have to think about what you are doing when you fight. However this is what will happen if you concntrate on techniques rather than principles. If you concentrate on principles then you can start to deal with any kind of attack, from a wide range of people.

I suspect that in your 55 self-defence techniques there are a number of recurring principles than can be easily adapted to defend a multitude of attacks. These can probably be broken down to a far fewer number of set principles to effectively defend against an attack. In this way there is a lesser chance of failure and less chance of having a brain block from technique overload.

Copying a technique is not sufficient to gain understanding. As in anything you need strong foundation upon which to build an effective MA system, if not it may all look pretty but come tumbling down at the first puff of wind.

I don't think we are broadcasting on the same wavelength. I'm trying to make an argument against your earlier implication that techniques are useless in a fight, not suggesting that they be relied upon exclusively. I'm not sure why you are going on about "understanding"; learning or using a self-defense technique and a lack of understanding of principles are entirely unrelated. On another note, I cannot imagine any scenario in which anything involving a kick to the testicles and a rake across the eyes could be conceived as "pretty" (I'm not that much of a sadist. )

[White Warlock]

If i can jump in again.

The fact is, techniques are 'applications' of principles. However, if you study the techniques, and fail to grasp the principles behind said techniques, then you are rigid, inflexible, in your application of whatever art you purport to study.

Confrontations are never the same, nor are circumstances going to be presented that mimic the training associated with the study of techniques. Thus, in most respects, techniques as standalone are essentially useless.

Now i gather much of the debate here is on semantics... hope the above clears some of this up.

[AngelaG]

I don't think we are broadcasting on the same wavelength. I'm trying to make an argument against your earlier implication that techniques are useless in a fight, not suggesting that they be relied upon exclusively. I'm not sure why you are going on about "understanding"; learning or using a self-defense technique and a lack of understanding of principles are entirely unrelated. On another note, I cannot imagine any scenario in which anything involving a kick to the testicles and a rake across the eyes could be conceived as "pretty" (I'm not that much of a sadist. )

Learning nothing but lots of techniques for self-defence is fairly useless IMO, and a huge expenditure of effort that could be spent more wisely. And I completely disagree that learning a technique and understanding the principles are totally unrelated on several levels. Firstly if you don't understand the principles behind any given technique and just mimic the move then in a real self-defence situation, when one is working against an resisting attacker, and not a compliant partner, the likelihood is that you will fail to make it work. Either that or you will be able to make it work if they attack you in exactly the same way as you have consistently trained for, but will be unable to find a solution if the attack is in anyway different, which is the more likely scenario.

Secondly if it does happen that you can make it work, but you do not understand what the technique does, you run the risk of severely injuring, or even killing, the attacker when perhaps you only meant to lock them up and escort them outside. Not all attacks require the use of lethal force. As martial artists it is our responsibility to know what our defences do to the attacker, should we ever need to use them.

[Goju_boi]

I guess that sparring is a good tool for helping you get some of your self defense tools into use,but then again you can't use everything in your arsenal.

[Eric_]

And I completely disagree that learning a technique and understanding the principles are totally unrelated on several levels.

My fault; I should have clarified. "Learning or using a self-defense technique and a lack of understanding of principles are entirely unrelated." I meant that learning or using self-defense techniques is not indicative of poor understanding, I did not mean to sound as though I was saying that you don't need to understand a technique to use it (which would just contradict my earlier arguments). A punch is ineffective ifyou don't understand what a punch is and how it works. The same holds truefor kicks, blocks, and any other movement. It is equally true for techniques.

[lgm]

Learning nothing but lots of techniques for self-defence is fairly useless IMO, and a huge expenditure of effort that could be spent more wisely. And I completely disagree that learning a technique and understanding the principles are totally unrelated on several levels. Firstly if you don't understand the principles behind any given technique and just mimic the move then in a real self-defence situation, when one is working against an resisting attacker, and not a compliant partner, the likelihood is that you will fail to make it work. Either that or you will be able to make it work if they attack you in exactly the same way as you have consistently trained for, but will be unable to find a solution if the attack is in anyway different, which is the more likely scenario.

Understanding the principle behind specific fighting techniques is fine and critical indeed when learning them because you will be able to generalize them to a greater number of fight situations you may encounter. However, more critical than understanding of principles needed in learning techniques effectively is mastering through repetitive practice a few basic techniques that have wide applicability in combat situations to the point of making them almost instinctive, automatic and second-nature without the need for conscious thought or problem-solving. Deliberate problem-solving or thinking and conscious specification of general principles of fighting while in the heat of a fight can take too much time and will unduly delay your effective attack-defense reaction.

[AngelaG]

Learning nothing but lots of techniques for self-defence is fairly useless IMO, and a huge expenditure of effort that could be spent more wisely. And I completely disagree that learning a technique and understanding the principles are totally unrelated on several levels. Firstly if you don't understand the principles behind any given technique and just mimic the move then in a real self-defence situation, when one is working against an resisting attacker, and not a compliant partner, the likelihood is that you will fail to make it work. Either that or you will be able to make it work if they attack you in exactly the same way as you have consistently trained for, but will be unable to find a solution if the attack is in anyway different, which is the more likely scenario.

Understanding the principle behind specific fighting techniques is fine and critical indeed when learning them because you will be able to generalize them to a greater number of fight situations you may encounter. However, more critical than understanding of principles needed in learning techniques effectively is mastering through repetitive practice a few basic techniques that have wide applicability in combat situations to the point of making them almost instinctive, automatic and second-nature without the need for conscious thought or problem-solving. Deliberate problem-solving or thinking and conscious specification of general principles of fighting while in the heat of a fight can take too much time and will unduly delay your effective attack-defense reaction.

I disagree. I would still much rather prefer to have good sound foundations (principles) burned into my muscle memory, rather than a "technique". These priciples are core and therefore must be used in everything we do from the very first day we step in the dojo, so that everything we do has the ingredients for being correct, and there is less likelihood that if ever we have to rely on it we fail to complete it because the very foundation is flawed. I can easily make a technique look pretty with no understanding of what makes it work, but that technique will probably not work under pressure as there will be nothing behind it to back it up. The whole point of having techniques rather than principles is that it is more likey to require thought, such as what technique should I apply to this attack, but if the principles are constantly drilled in then anything we choose to use has a better chance of being effective. So many techniques rely on a few core principles. Look at techniques such as age uke, soto uke, uchi uke etc. they all fall back on the same principles, the only difference is where the arms go. If you know what principles make those techniques effective then whatever technique you instinctively choose to use will have a better chance of working.