Perform VS Execute

[sensei8]

I’m sure that the topic at hand might be purely embraced in semantics, nonetheless, for the sake of conversation, we’ll entertain which might be correct...or not.

Perform:

1. carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function)

 

2. work, function, or do something to a specified standard

Execute:

1. carry out or put into effect (a plan, order, or course of action)

 

2. produce (a work of art)

 

3. perform (an activity or maneuver requiring care or skill)

I know what you’re thinking right now. I was thinking about the same thing. The above definitions are the exclamation point of the word ‘semantics’, especially when under the very word “Execute” one can simply see at the third definition, the word “Perform”. I can’t argue that which is staring us all right in our faces.

Semantics set aside, I’ve always considered both words, and actions, complete and totally different. How so, you quip?!? As a seasoned MAist, I EXECUTE individual technique(s), whereas I PERFORM demonstrations and the like, i.e., Kata and/or various drills and/or as such.

Inasmuch, I’ve never once performed a MA technique against an opponent because every ounce of effectiveness depends on my executing said technique(s) for cause.

However, I’ve performed Kata and/or various drills and/or as such because those performances have a very explicit purpose as part of a MAist training.

All in all, either of those words, Execute and Perform, have an effectiveness about them for each MA practitioner. All things concerned, how do you, for the sake of our conversation, define PERFORM and EXECUTE??

[bushido_man96]

When I think of techniques, or tactics, or a game plan, I think of executing that particular technique, tactic, or game plan. I think a performance can be for the sake of the performance, where as when executing, it has a goal or end result in mind.

[sensei8]

There's nothing wrong with the practitioner choosing either to perform or to execute any given MA technique under any circumstances. Where it becomes problematic is when there's no effectiveness whatsoever at its most given crucial time, whenever that time might be.

What focused efforts in either direction, the human factor must be realized at that given crucial threshold. Cast away any and all simulations with either to perform or to execute because whatever drills might've been practiced over and over again, the comfort and safety of the dojo wipes away any and all human factors.

Adrenaline, fear, and whatever else matters in any delay to one's perception, decision, and/or response time is a vital consideration. Reaction time can be complicated by human factors such as line of sight, sensory overload, habituation, sensory deprivation, and environment also play a role.

Perform on the streets like one does in the comfort and safety in the dojo without any cause, will drastically affect how one executes out in the streets.

[DarthPenguin]

For me, personally, the difference is in terms of effectiveness and purpose.

I can 'perform' a kick, and to my mind it just means carrying out the kick, eg i might perform a jumping side kick. The important parts here being that i carry out the correct technique and that it 'looks good', whilst when i execute something i think of it being effective and having a purpose: so i wouldn't be just doing a flying side kick, i would be executing a flying side kick to break suspended board A etc.

For the same reason i always think of anything grappling related in terms of execution and never think of it as performed. I don't think i would ever say i performed an osoto gari or i performed a triangle choke etc. But i could see myself saying i executed an osoto gari or a triangle choke.

To my mind the difference is similar to that between speed and velocity, where speed is solely a magnitude with velocity adding a directional component.

so to use my analogy of an osoto gari: i could see carrying out some uchikomi in the air as performing an osoto gari but then once you carry it out on an opponent and throw them then you have executed it.

Have a feeling it is one of those things that will mean something different to everyone and there is likely no 'right' answer, but an interesting question

[bushido_man96]

Well put, DarthPenguin. We are thinking along the same lines; you said it with much more clarity.

[DarthPenguin]

Well put, DarthPenguin. We are thinking along the same lines; you said it with much more clarity.

Thanks, that's definitely a first for me!

Is an interesting topic i think i think and one which comes up moderately often in grappling styles (and i would imagine full contact striking ones too).

Using BJJ as an example people regularly talk about being able to perform a technique versus apply it against a resisting opponent (ie to Execute it). Leads into other interesting conversations and hypotheticals such as the worth of a senior grade who can demonstrate a technique with apparent technical perfection against a compliant opponent, spot flaws in others execution and clearly articulate the details when teaching but who cannot apply the technique in sparring for whatever reason (could simply be too slow, not strong or flexible enough etc).

From a personal standpoint i am reminded of a former instructor who used to teach intricate self defense combinations that might involve catching a punch in a certain manner, with a precise grip on a specific point, to then transition into a wristlock etc. then keep going. I always was quite sceptical about how applicable that is to reality as you need a phenomenal amount of skill and speed to perform that against a live punch (there will be people who are good enough to do so, but i find no shame in saying i am not one of them!). I contrast that to performing a block/parry/redirection and then another appropriate technique which seems much more reasonable. The former 'precise grab' technique can be 'performed' for demos etc. but i doubt it would be possible to execute it in practice for most people.

[bushido_man96]

I've seen many techniques like that too, DP. My time at academy comes to mind. Some things that are done as Ho Sin Sul in our TKD school come to mind. Some of the one-steps and definitely the three-steps we do. I'm to the point that I shrug my shoulders and move on.

[DarthPenguin]

I've seen many techniques like that too, DP. My time at academy comes to mind. Some things that are done as Ho Sin Sul in our TKD school come to mind. Some of the one-steps and definitely the three-steps we do. I'm to the point that I shrug my shoulders and move on.

That is usually my response. I trained under someone really good in the past who would show those things but when you got to know him a bit better he would admit it was due to organisational grading requirements etc. and if it was up to him there would be less focus on them. Otherwise he was really good, large focus on sparring etc and on things being 'practical'

What always worries me is the people who do this stuff and then believe they genuinely can 'fight'. I've always thought that they were at risk of being hurt as instead of sensibly giving in (or running away) they stand longer than needed in a risky situation because they falsely believe they can fight their way out of it.

[bushido_man96]

That is a huge concern, DP. In training my co-workers the other day, I stressed that they "stay in the drill" for drilling purposes, but also stressed to them to watch as they are drilling, and be aware of where they can start throwing in strikes. I made sure to explain that when we actually have to defend ourselves, we aren't "doing the drill," but instead using the drill to get us to a position of control, and then keep control.

I think a lot of this gets missed in more "traditional" instruction.

[DarthPenguin]

That is a huge concern, DP. In training my co-workers the other day, I stressed that they "stay in the drill" for drilling purposes, but also stressed to them to watch as they are drilling, and be aware of where they can start throwing in strikes. I made sure to explain that when we actually have to defend ourselves, we aren't "doing the drill," but instead using the drill to get us to a position of control, and then keep control.

I think a lot of this gets missed in more "traditional" instruction.

Definitely. I had a former instructor (he was a police officer who worked in some shady areas here), who taught some interesting stuff too for self defence. He used to teach a lot of improvised weapons stuff - some of which was quite interesting and would never have thought of (eg the 'correct' way to hold an ash tray if hitting someone with it so it breaks into their face rather than your hand).

He had a view that when it came down to it it is much better to be in a police station having defenced yourself too roughly than in a hospital bed recovering from a stab wound! Personally i think it is a lot more nuanced than that but i didn't disagree with the base sentiment of self defence being about defending yourself first. He did have some odd things that were required as part of the training, which if i am honest were quite effective but won't go into detail here! He was also totally mental so i stopped training with him after a few years!

your point above is also one reason why i am not a fan of generic 'self defence' courses either. People practice a few techniques in a controlled environment for one or a few weeks and then believe that they can safely defend themselves. Takes a lot longer than that to build the muscle memory and that is ignoring the mental aspects of the situation