Self Defense Techniques anyone?

[White Warlock]

Shogeri, excellent post. You covered the issue very well.

IGM, I stated earlier i was going to discuss my thoughts that semantics are creating a problem here. Here goes, as best as i can do under the circumstances (still exhausted from saving two very large accounts that were on the edge of cancellation... but oh well):

As Shogeri noted, principles are the core aspects of offense and defense. They form the fundamental 'understandings' of 'why,' as opposed to 'what if.' They are the answers to the questions presented by children. "But why do we do this?" should not be answered with, "because." Yet, this is the answer that 'techniques' present.. a non-answer. Techniques do not present answers, they merely present responses. If someone does this, do that. Techniques are the 'what if' in the repertoire of fighters, but they do not answer any core concepts. They present a solution to one or more specific instances.

Techniques are essentially 'tricks.' They are singular implementations of a concept or principle, presented to apply to one particular 'what if,' with little to no room for alternative application. On the other hand, principles present the ideals associated with any actions. The ideas of centerline theory, linear/circular, interposition, economy of motion, economy of action, rhythm/broken rhythm, altitudes/latitudes/longitudes, physics, anatomy, mechanics, are all 'examples' of principles. As Shogeri noted, you can drill principles into your being, so that action from principles is instinctive and not formulated in 'thought.'

As to the idea of perfecting a few techniques... without a strong understanding of the principles, these techniques are rigid. In a 'competition,' these techniques can carry a person very far. Because of the 'limitations' presented in a competition, the ability to apply particular techniques is more readily available because the limitations of said competitions allow for the set 'what ifs' to be presented.

However, in a real life setting, where anything goes, there is no room for 'setting.' One cannot encourage a 'what if' all that effectively, nor is doing so a reasonable venture. Therefore attempting to utilize one's liimited repertoire of techniques in a real life setting is to limit ones options while the opponent has no such limitations.

I do agree, though, that having a few 'techniques' down pat is a good idea... as long as the principles associated with those techniques is also 'down pat.' This, as you noted, will help get things going when subjected to the adrenal dump.

[shogeri]

I enjoyed your post as well, and many others who have put time in on this subject.

[lgm]

A good fighter is dynamic, and knows 3 to 4 basic techniques, and from there can add an array of endless combinations, simply by understanding and applying certain principles.

As I have explained earlier, knowledge of principles is basic to learning techniques to efficient fighting skills and to any other physical or mental skills for that matter, because they provide the why and wherefor of these techniques. Knowing an endless combinations simply by understanding and applying certain principles will not automatically make one a good fighter. Physical fighting skills depend on masterfully learned reactions that should be done in instinctive, reflexive and automatic way. This is brought about by constant repetition and practice to the point where conscious thinking and reflection on the steps to be taken is not done anymore.

So, while understanding of principles is critical in learning these skills, practicing repeatedly a generalized set of attack and defense techniques that can apply to multiple situations rather to a single or specific situation, to a reflexive, subconscious, automatic and instinctive level, will benefit more a fighter than just knowing principles and generalized applications in theory and being optimistic that one can handle any random fight situation that will confront him in the ring or in the streets.

[lgm]

LGM, I stated earlier i was going to discuss my thoughts that semantics are creating a problem here.

Semantics may be creating a problem, but only because we don't share the same understanding of the same terms.

As Shogeri noted, principles are the core aspects of offense and defense. They form the fundamental 'understandings' of 'why,' as opposed to 'what if.' They are the answers to the questions presented by children. "But why do we do this?" should not be answered with, "because."

I cannot disagree on the above.

Yet, this is the answer that 'techniques' present.. a non-answer. Techniques do not present answers, they merely present responses. If someone does this, do that. Techniques are the 'what if' in the repertoire of fighters, but they do not answer any core concepts. They present a solution to one or more specific instances.

Here we have a different view on "techniques". For me, techniques are not "non-answer" but practical answer to given fighting situations. They are the concrete applications of core principles which are abstract and theoretical in nature. Effective techniques always presuppose the existence of a good principle or principles behind it. But correct principles don't always presuppose their correct application in techniques.

The ideas of centerline theory, linear/circular, interposition, economy of motion, economy of action, rhythm/broken rhythm, altitudes/latitudes/longitudes, physics, anatomy, mechanics, are all 'examples' of principles. As Shogeri noted, you can drill principles into your being, so that action from principles is instinctive and not formulated in 'thought.'

I don't understand what "you can drill principles into your being" means. To me, this appears to be meaningless semantics, if any "tripping in semantics" here has occurred. You can only drill, practice and master particular techniques based on theoretical principles, never directly principles themselves. But, general principles are understood and learned through specific techniques (induction) and can be theoretically applied to the creation of specific practical techniques (deduction).

In the physical fighting arts, it's mainly a matter of efficient muscle memory and instinctive motor learning in order to have actual fighting efficiency. Too often or too much conscious thinking and problem-solving in a fast-paced fight can result to slow reaction to attack and counter. You must react in an instinctive and automatic manner that is at the same time effective and efficient because these learned reactions are based on scientific fighting principles.

As to the idea of perfecting a few techniques... without a strong understanding of the principles, these techniques are rigid.

Not only rigid, but dangerous and unreliable. All effective techniques must be based on correct and exact fighting principles.

However, in a real life setting, where anything goes, there is no room for 'setting.' One cannot encourage a 'what if' all that effectively, nor is doing so a reasonable venture. Therefore attempting to utilize one's liimited repertoire of techniques in a real life setting is to limit ones options while the opponent has no such limitations.

This may be true, but a good martial arts or fighting system should have an adequate repertoire of basic techniques that could apply to a larger class or group of fight settings. BTW, in most fighting arts what are directly taught are techniques and only indirectly principles. In traditional karate, these are the kihon and kata. What are understood are principles in techniques, but what are learned and mastered directly in the dojo, which are repeated indefinitely and drummed up into muscle memory, are basic techniques that have wide practical fight applications.

I do agree, though, that having a few 'techniques' down pat is a good idea... as long as the principles associated with those techniques is also 'down pat.' This, as you noted, will help get things going when subjected to the adrenal dump.

Here we don't disagree at all. Principles must always govern effective techniques. But only techniques are motor learned, muscle-memorized and mastered through motor training such as done in all the martial arts. Principles are abstract and can only be understood through techniques.

[White Warlock]

Good discussion, i disagree.

lol, just kidding. You bring up some valid points and it presents to me something that may be frustrating our discussions. We are perceiving two aspects here, when in fact there are three:

Principles - concepts, ideals, laws & theory

Techniques - rudimentary positions or actions that encapsulate a principle or combination of principles

Applications - specific, individual presentations of a particular technique that is applied to specific, individual circumstances

In my discussions, i am merging principles with techniques, and presenting applications as techniques. In your discussions, you are presenting principles as principles, discussing techniques, and not presenting applications into the mix. Sound about right?

[h2whoa]

I have to agree, its a principle. Just because youve grabed an arm in a way you are not used to doesnt mean he wont flip when you twist it. The difference between the people who learn Self Defence and those who learn technique, is that the self defence student understands the principles of body mechanics

[lgm]

You bring up some valid points and it presents to me something that may be frustrating our discussions.

Our discussion is not being frustrated but progressing in view of what I think are valid points that I bring up as well as you do.

We are perceiving two aspects here, when in fact there are three:

Principles - concepts, ideals, laws & theory

Techniques - rudimentary positions or actions that encapsulate a principle or combination of principles

Applications - specific, individual presentations of a particular technique that is applied to specific, individual circumstances

No, I don't perceive three aspects or logical distinctions but only two, namely (1) Principles-which refer to general concepts, hypotheses, theories or laws, and (2)Techniques- which refer to specific applications of principles. Techniques are of two kinds: (a) basic (general)- applicable to a set or group of fight situations, and (b) specific (particular)- applicable to only one kind of fight situation.

In my discussions, i am merging principles with techniques, and presenting applications as techniques. In your discussions, you are presenting principles as principles, discussing techniques, and not presenting applications into the mix. Sound about right?

Nope, I'm presenting principles as different from techniques. As I have explained above, techniques are the same as applications (of principles), but of 2 kinds.

Since our definitions and classifications differ, we don't expect to agree on our conclusions and deductions based on them, it appears that our discussion will lead nowhere to a resolution mutually agreeable.