What Are You More A Proponent Of??

[CredoTe]

There are whole styles that look good with perfect technique but they are never tested at the very least out side their style, in combat or with any other eyes than the converted faithful. This can give a strong false confidence in the style's effectiveness. Knife defenses are an example of this; they look perfect in the Dojo; you know he has a knife, you can see it, he attacks you with a single strike the same way as generations of adepts before him. A crazed knifeman in the dark who feels no pain and attacks like he's trying to make ribbons of your body would be a fatal reality for many. Martial Arts is about execution, but Spirit is more important than Technique and Survival by Effectiveness transcends the need for any Dogma and Technical Tradition. Tradition is here because of Effectiveness, but the need for Reality is paramount in a world of Martial Arts where credibility comes second at times to Profit.

VERY solid post IMO.

Very much agreed... However, I like Wastelander's look at both sides of the coin here:

As long as "proper execution" makes the technique effective, then I am more a proponent of proper execution. On the other hand, if "proper execution" does not make a technique more effective, then I am more a proponent of making it effective despite "improper execution".

IMHO, I agree in most cases that proper execution of a technique will make it effective. However, "proper execution" depends in large part on the background and application of the technique / art. It's the old "the right tool for the right job every time" mantra. For instance, I wouldn't use a spinning hammer fist or spinning back kick to open a fight or while engaged in in-fighting; in either case, even if "properly executed", I'm most likely going to get my rear end handed to me. If I use either move as a follow-up during a series of multiples / combos at proper ma-ai, then I could effectively use them.

But, that begs a question: if I attempt a spinning hammer fist or spinning back kick as a first or opening move, or while in-fighting, would that really be considered "proper execution"? This question applies to any technique attempted in the "wrong" instance...

[JGarner890]

You have proper technique in a move, effectiveness (speed and power) will come with it.

[bushido_man96]

I would go with effectivness. One could say they go hand in hand, but I don't think that is always the case. A properly executed technique should be the most effective means of performing that technique.

But this can change dependent upon the scenario, positioning, height and weight?

A boxing instructor will tell you how to throw a perfect hook punch, but not everyone that gets KO'd via hook punch is hit with the perfect form.

Often it will be the one that connects that makes execution proper, not following strict technique.

Im not saying that we should not train for and strive for perfection in technique, but effectiveness to me encompasses adaptability.

You are not wrong, yamesu. Being able to hit increases effectivness, and adjustments have to be made at times. However, training proper technique will help to assure that when you have to adjust, its an effective adjustment.

[yamesu]

I would go with effectivness. One could say they go hand in hand, but I don't think that is always the case. A properly executed technique should be the most effective means of performing that technique.

But this can change dependent upon the scenario, positioning, height and weight?

A boxing instructor will tell you how to throw a perfect hook punch, but not everyone that gets KO'd via hook punch is hit with the perfect form.

Often it will be the one that connects that makes execution proper, not following strict technique.

Im not saying that we should not train for and strive for perfection in technique, but effectiveness to me encompasses adaptability.

You are not wrong, yamesu. Being able to hit increases effectivness, and adjustments have to be made at times. However, training proper technique will help to assure that when you have to adjust, its an effective adjustment.

I agree 100%, if that is, one is doing the right kind of training as preparation.

I think a lot of the younger competitors these days doing more "extreme" type katas, and who have near perfect technique execution in mid air would struggle immensely if put into an altercation with an amature kickboxer who had sloppy technique but real fighting experience.

This kind of remids me of a self defence seminar I was at not too long ago on knife work.

Both my brother and I attended, and both of us have Isa (black belt) grades in Arnis, though we kept this relatively quiet at the time.

the instructors came in an were trying to tech us defences if someone had a kinfe to our throats. The technique looked very good when demonstrated on compliant attackers, but we both walked away in dismay as there is little to no chance that if someone actually tried this, they would end up with a slit throat very quickly....

[KyungYet]

This is actually a more complicated question than it seems. It's a good one. And we'll skip the important question of "for what?" That is, do we prefer effectiveness or good technique... for what? Board breaking? Katas? Demonstration? Classroom sparring? Barroom brawling? You get the idea.

This question basically asks the difference between a Chuck Norris and a Jean-Claude VanDamme. I've seen movies starring them both, and had the luck to see them both spar in person. Chuck Norris does not look pretty when he fights. He damn near looks sloppy at times. But he also went undefeated for 6 years. JCVD, with a background in ballet, looks pristine. By looks alone, you would assume he was the better martial artist, because his technique is nearly flawless. But he's not. He's a fine martial artist and fighter, but there is no way he could handle Sloppy Jalopy Norris in his prime. Effectiveness wins that battle.

The next question is whether an alternate universe Chuck Norris who had everything our Chuck has PLUS the beautiful technique of VanDamme would be able to beat Sloppy Jalopy Chuck. And the answer is, I think so: all things being equal, better technique can only improve excellent execution. But now we're just asking for perfection, right?

[ShoriKid]

I am always more in favor of the effective. I want there to be proper technique. It will be, or should be, effective. If proper techniques are not effective there is a level of disconnect that you just can't have.

[AdamKralic]

effectiveness implies results, execution implies a action being done well. What if the well executed action did not match the scenario provided?

I'll take results.

Like Karate point sparring for example: effectiveness rules the day. A blitz wouldn't be perhaps the BEST move in street fight at all...but in sport fighting it is a great one. It's fast, has big reach, is easy to surprise people with, can be launched almost anytime. A perfectly executed spin kick CAN land to great results...but often does not. Between the two? A blitz is the winner in sparring. Now don't get me wrong...if you had a nasty, fast, strong spin kick that you could execute well...dang youtube that stuff man!

[cheesefrysamurai]

I enjoy the art as much as the efficiency.

There are things in kata that don't make that much sense. They are there as a conditioning exercise or other purpose.

If effectiveness is all I wanted I would go Krav Maga.

That's not my thing, I want the art, I want the subtle beautiful movements, I want to see how they translate to the skills and lessons they impart.

Watch this kata. http://youtu.be/NBoU_T8VF_0

[sensei8]

I enjoy the art as much as the efficiency.

There are things in kata that don't make that much sense. They are there as a conditioning exercise or other purpose.

If effectiveness is all I wanted I would go Krav Maga.

That's not my thing, I want the art, I want the subtle beautiful movements, I want to see how they translate to the skills and lessons they impart.

Watch this kata. http://youtu.be/NBoU_T8VF_0

Imho...

For a conditioning exercise or the like; this is not Kata, and in that, every movement and the like is there for a purpose away from nonsense. Kata has a purpose, and in that, without any purpose, Kata is for naught.

[Harkon72]

Having the Art or the "Do" doesn't mean it is not effective; while you can argue that styles such as Sombo and Krav Maga have been tested in a combat or real self defense situation, the Bunkai of Okinawan Kata is artistic but born from practicality. This is why we still have it. Okinawan Karateka fought for their lives in the same context as Russian or Israeli troops, it was just a different era. I am alive due to my training, it's not just the technique; it's the spirit and depth of mind. Karate is not a lesser system because it is an art, the application is the key. I studied Russian Sombo for 3 months, I have experienced the aggression and power of a warrior who throws you into the floor hard, really hard. But the look in the eye of master karateka just before he counters with blinding speed and a calm power is just as valid, if not more so as you are so proud of him too.