Efficiency and Effectiveness

[bushido_man96]

This topic was touched on lightly in another thread, but I thought it might be worth its own discussion, so I'll attempt it here.

Efficiency and effectiveness do not always go hand in hand. In the thread where this popped up, the flying side kick was used as an example. A flying side kick can be a very effective kick, when it comes to generating power; its a popular Martial Arts demo break, especially when done flying over human objects. This break is actually a requirement for my dan gradings. However effective the flying side kick may be at dishing out punishment, it doesn't necessarily make the technique all that efficient; it requires serious considerations in distance, timing, and opportunity to set up and deliver.

The jab, on the other hand, is a very efficient tool, but it may not be considered the most effective tool out there; not many knockouts result from the standard Boxing or MMA jab. But, it makes up for its lack of effectiveness with its efficiency; opportunity, timing, distance, etc. Its a lot easier to jab an opponent 14 times, then it is to even land one flying side kick.

So, when it comes to efficiency vs. effectiveness, what are the deciding factors in the end? A lot of things are going to play into it, from the opportunities presented, to the targets available, and how they relate to timing, distance, opponent's reactions, etc.

I hope this brings some good stuff; I open the floor to you!

[NightOwl]

Oh- nice observation! However I would argue that the jab isn't necessarily meant to totally incapacitate your opponent, and thus is quite 'effective' in its own way.

I think you could also look at it as comparing the percentage of success with the amount of damage you deal; in other words a cost/benefit analysis. Does the low chance of success make up for the amount of damage you will deal if you make it? Likewise will the possible failure of the move have enough of a cost that it isn't worth it? A wrist lock might not be very practical, but even if you miss it you can quickly recover into a different grappling move. However a 360 roundhouse could leave you in a bad spot if you miss.

[bushido_man96]

Your cost/benefit analysis is right on the money, NightOwl.

As per the jab, I think you have to take it in consideration of what platform you use it in. Its very popular in the sporting arenas, with rules and protection. But when it comes to self-defense, it may not hold its value as much. I could be wrong, though.

And I am not trying to denounce the utility of the jab; just that in a power comparison with the flying side kick, it fails in comparison. However, useing your cost/benefit analysis to describe it, the amount of successful times you can land it makes it a useful tool.

[joesteph]

Does the low chance of success make up for the amount of damage you will deal if you make it? . . . A wrist lock might not be very practical, but even if you miss it you can quickly recover into a different grappling move. However a 360 roundhouse could leave you in a bad spot if you miss.

Some techniques may be very effective, but a crap shoot that they'll be executed with precision ("if you make it"). I remember a short discussion I had with another student, that with some people the wrist lock may or may not be successful when you execute it in real life, but you've got your adversary's hand off you, and you've set him up (in the technique we were working on as my example) for two elbow strikes.

I am not trying to denounce the utility of the jab; just that in a power comparison with the flying side kick, it fails in comparison. However, useing your cost/benefit analysis to describe it, the amount of successful times you can land it makes it a useful tool.

That jab can take a smaller toll, but it's got an impact to it, can be repeated easily, and lends itself to setting up the adversary for stronger strikes. I find it more logical to use what has a greater chance of success, and go for follow-ups, than use riskier moves in a real life situation.

[The BB of C]

It's all about timing. Jabs and flying kicks both have their place in a fight. As well as spins, joint locks, pressure points, sidesteps, haymakers, straight punches, thrust kicks, low kicks, high kicks, throws, everything. What makes them effective as well as efficient is how they're taught along side the quality of training and the person's ability to absorb the technique.

Just today I almost got taken out by a spin kick from a fellow Korean Martial Artist. Even more so, I was going for a jab-cross-uppercut combo when I got slammed. I started the jab and my opponent disappeared and the next thing I know I'm eating carpet. It was timed so well, was so fast, and so hard that I had to ask him what he just hit me with.

Everything is just as effective and efficient as the other thing. One just needs to learn and apply it properly. Timing plays a huge roll in this.

[tallgeese]

And what about the time needed to learn that jump spinning hook kick vs. the time spent learning a jab cross? Not to mention the sheer physical aptitute needed for one and not the other.

Just because something will work, even infrequently, does not make it efficient. I really do like the cost/benifit model talked about above. This can be applied at all levels of learning and deployment I'd think.

Here's the thing, just because I, or someone else, dosn't find something efficient, dosn't mean people shouldn't do it. Again, it's what you're looking for out of what you do.

[The BB of C]

Jab, straight punch, uppercut, hook, palm, underhand, downward chop, cross chop, diagonal chop, spinning back fist, leg kick, side kick, high kick, thrust kick, front kick, back kick, knee strike, spinning back kick, uppercut kick, roundhouse, axe kick, spin kick, flying spin kick, flying high kick, flying thrust kick, double front kick, double hammer kick, wrist throws, wrist locks, hip throws, neck throws, escapes, blocks and submissions - These all qualify as basics. You learn all the basics first and then build on them while learning more complicated techniques. Some styles develop the basics and learn new techniques at the same time. For example in Kuk Sool Won, there is a set of wrist throws we learn at white belt. At red belt (just under brown) we learn another set of wrist throws that are slightly more complicated but in essence the same techniques we learned as white belts. The point is that there's a lot more to the basics list than some people think. The objective is to learn all of them and practice them continually while learning more complex or advanced techniques so that while you're learning new things, the basics become second nature and you can apply them harder, faster and at the right times.

[joesteph]

Different members have stated their viewpoints. I, for one, am going by what I believe to be best for the average martial artist (which includes me), someone who is not a dan member, but who has invested the amount of time and training that would make him or her proficient in the simple and straightforward efficient and effective.

We aren't going to change each other's viewpoints and, in the end, it's not who's "right," but "To each his own."

[bushido_man96]

I am not trying to denounce the utility of the jab; just that in a power comparison with the flying side kick, it fails in comparison. However, useing your cost/benefit analysis to describe it, the amount of successful times you can land it makes it a useful tool.

That jab can take a smaller toll, but it's got an impact to it, can be repeated easily, and lends itself to setting up the adversary for stronger strikes. I find it more logical to use what has a greater chance of success, and go for follow-ups, than use riskier moves in a real life situation.

I agree with your assesment on the jab. This is precisely why it is such a utilized tool.

Everything is just as effective and efficient as the other thing. One just needs to learn and apply it properly. Timing plays a huge roll in this.

I don't think that this is the case. As much as I would like to be able to put every high-flying kick that I know to use if needed, each one is just not as efficient or as effective as simpler techniques like the straight punch and round kick to the thigh. Degree of difficulty has to be one of the considerations to take into account when delivering a technique. Nor can you apply what one person does or is capable of doing across the board to everyone else in the world. It takes too many assumptions into account.

[bushido_man96]

Jab, straight punch, uppercut, hook, palm, underhand, downward chop, cross chop, diagonal chop, spinning back fist, leg kick, side kick, high kick, thrust kick, front kick, back kick, knee strike, spinning back kick, uppercut kick, roundhouse, axe kick, spin kick, flying spin kick, flying high kick, flying thrust kick, double front kick, double hammer kick, wrist throws, wrist locks, hip throws, neck throws, escapes, blocks and submissions - These all qualify as basics. You learn all the basics first and then build on them while learning more complicated techniques. Some styles develop the basics and learn new techniques at the same time. For example in Kuk Sool Won, there is a set of wrist throws we learn at white belt. At red belt (just under brown) we learn another set of wrist throws that are slightly more complicated but in essence the same techniques we learned as white belts. The point is that there's a lot more to the basics list than some people think. The objective is to learn all of them and practice them continually while learning more complex or advanced techniques so that while you're learning new things, the basics become second nature and you can apply them harder, faster and at the right times.

What you describe here as basics, to me, seems to be more of an all-encompassing group of techniques. To me, the basics include the straight punch, the high block, the down block, the middle block, the knifehand strike, and the front, round, and side kick. From there, we build off of these to do more advanced techniques. You are correct though; the advanced techniques build off of the basic techniques. However, I don't think that one should have to move up from the basics, if they don't feel the need to, unless a curriculum expresses otherwise.

The section that I put into bold is something I'd like to elaborate on, too. We have similar curriculum in our Combat Hapkido, and I see similar progressions in the DT program that I have been exposed to. I see them as the basics applied in various ways. So, you learn your wrist lock, say, from the wrist grab. Then, as you move on, you learn how to apply the wrist lock from other attacks and responses. Its part of the learning curve; if you could only apply your wrist lock from one scenario, then I don't it would be a very effective or efficient technique.