One technique vs many?

[ninjanurse]

One of our members recently stated in a post: "Take TKD, you can specialise in round house kicks, thats fine. But, if you have no experience with any other kicks you will get beat, even if your round kick is a lot better than the other guys, he has more tools to use."

 

This may be a "general rule" but personally, I don't think that it is necessarily true as I have seen many a fight won (and personally lost ) with the same good technique done over and over. I think it is about strategy-learning to block, feint, and create openings. Having control of the fight so that the other person does what you want and falls into your traps . If you are a round house specialist you should be able to score with it ; if you are a good strategist you should be able to evade and block whatever they throw at you. Now some of you may argue that having only one technique allows your opponent to know what is coming every time but one technique can be thrown in many, many different ways and situations, and if they continually open themselves up for it, so be it. Now, if they are a better strategist than you will probably get beat no matter how many techniques you know.

 

Come on people, bring it on!!!

 

[Martial_Artist]

I choose a boundaryless approach to fighting and do not limit my arsenal. I believe it is better to have a good tool and never use then to not have a certain tool and need it really bad.

 

So any limitation to the fighting person is bad for me. This includes just sticking to one technique. Strategy comes into play but there are only so many moves you can do with a pawn. Only so many things that can be done with a Knight. It takes the entire crew to win the game.

 

Let's say one technique gives you so opportunity for 10 different strategies. It is, after all, only one movement. One intended purpose. For example, you now have 10 situations in which your one technique can be used. Does it cover everything possible that could happen? Add another technique with 10 uses and you have just jumped to 20 uses and 10 new situations from which to strategize.

 

Keep adding and you may find a moment of limitless possibility where you are not restricted by style or technique.

 

So, for me, I choose expanding the arsenal.

 

MA.

[delta1]

Ed Parker once said "I'd rather have ten techniques I can fight with than one hundred techniques that fight me." He was talking about ballance, not limmitations. Learn all the techniques and moves, then develope your bread and butter techniques (the ones that work best for you) from this knowlege base. These are the techniques that you train and hone to razor sharpness. One technique is a good start. One hundred techniques, unless you've been doing this seriously for >20 yrs, might be a little too ambitious. One thousand techniques wouldn't be too broad a knowlege base to work from, providing you really knew and understood them.

[Martial_Artist]

But, if you're training properly, then you won't have 100 hundred techniques that fight against you, or confuse you. Each and every technique you learn you should be learning to be natural. There shouldn't be a reason for you to stutter in thought with technique. When punched at you shouldn't be restricted to a single response. You should have the option of choosing how to react, because you do not know in advance how every single situation is going to be played out. And saying that one move or even ten will handle everything thrown at you is a bit naive. No one knows how a fight will resolve or what circumstances will alter or affect the fight.

 

One hundred techniques/movements isn't that many. Every little thing that happens in a fight is governed by motion. The human form is capable of an almost limitless supply of movement.

 

Saying otherwise is the limitation of style.

 

If you train properly, one thousand techniques does not hinder you, but provides you with the ability to direct the situation the way you want.

 

MA.

[G95champ]

You need to have your bread and butter move....

[Martial_Artist]

Nothing wrong with a bread and butter move, but remember bread and butter don't go with every meal.

[delta1]

...any limitation to the fighting person is bad for me. This includes just sticking to one technique.

 

Everything you said in your post is true, but I think you've missed the point. You should learn the entire system, but there will be parts of that system that work for you and parts that don't. Play to your strengths and develope those that work best for your body type, temperament, and physical condition to a much higher degree. And you won't learn them all overnight. Start with one. In a year or two you'll have ten or so. In twenty years you should have your hundred. They aren't all you know or can use, but they are what you can rely on in the worst situations when nothing else is getting in.

 

A good example is Bill 'Superfoot' Wallace. I copied this from the Century website:

 

"Known to the karate world simply as "Superfoot", Bill Wallace retired from his illustrious 15-year career as the undefeated Professional Karate Association (PKA) Middleweight Champion in June 1980. "Superfoot" used his left foot, which was once clocked in excess of 60 mph, to fake opponents with two or three rapid fake kicks and follow with one solid knockout technique. His power was amazing, his precision astounding."

 

Was this a bread and butter technique? I'd say so. Was it all he could do? Not by a long shot. The man is a living legend, he knew his art inside and out. By the way, the reason he used his left foot is that he had a problem with his right. But he worked the left to a such a degree of skill that the best fighters of his day, knowing what was comeing and even what foot, could not reliably stop that technique.

[Martial_Artist]

No see, that's just it. He used that technique because it worked against his opponents. However, he also knew his whole system. He didn't limit himself to that one technique. He didn't use that kick every single time, only when the opportunity presented itself. If that was the only thing he knew and did nothing else better he probably wouldn't have achieved the level he did. He most likely would still be famous for a 60mph kick, but not knowing how to do anything else doesn't amount to much.

 

Like I said, nothing wrong with a bread and butter move, just that bread and butter don't go with every meal.

 

I see what you're saying. But I still think that a broader arsenal is better, experience has taught me so.

 

MA.

[Hannibal]

One of the most famous Judokas only specialised in 3 holds and won many opens in Japan ( sorry I do not remeber his name).

 

In all the TKD tournaments I have seen they pretty much use roundhouse, side kick and sometimes back kick the majority of the time. Some people use ax kick as well but not many. The point I am trying to make is that much of the time spent in TKD training is spent on kicks they do not use when they are fighting. So how much use are the techniques?

 

For fighting I would say not much but then that begs the question what is the purpose of the art? If it is to fight then I would say it is not the most efficent use of training time to use moves that are not used when you fight.

 

Personally I would focus on 2 or 3 things that worked for me and then I would learn how to counter those and then learn how to counter the counters. The same way I did with boxing and all I really use in boxing is my right hand with a jab or hook here and there to disguise the fact that I only have a right hand.

[delta1]

No see, that's just it. He used that technique because it worked against his opponents. However, he also knew his whole system. He didn't limit himself to that one technique.

 

We're like a dog chasing its tail here. You are correct, and I said as much in my post:

Was this a bread and butter technique? I'd say so. Was it all he could do? Not by a long shot. The man is a living legend, he knew his art inside and out.

 

A good fighter knows and uses his whole system. The bread and butter techniques are those that play to his strengths and he's honed to a finer edge. Many fighters have been known for only one punch or one type move. But they all had to stay alive against good fighters 'till they got the opening. They are all complete fighters, but they have a specialized edge.

 

Another way to look at this- in my style there is a technique called 'Sleeper'. I love the technique, but it is not a reliable technique to use on a larger opponent. I know how to use it, how to apply it and several modifications and permutations and the 'what iffs' that you have to deal with against a resisting opponent. But not being a very large person this isn't a technique I'd spend years perfecting for one of my bread and butter techniques. It has a sister technique though that uses the same entry but through a lower gate, where I can come in under the bigger guys guard. I train that one a little more, and am far more likely to use it. Over time it may become one of the techniques I rely on a little more than others. It plays to my body type a little better than the flashier 'Sleeper'. On the other hand, if he ain't too much bigger than me...