Technique or Concept

Not to be awkward, but my answer to both questions is intent. Neither the thought nor the physical matter much without the feeling. Bad intentions will beat good technique any time. Of course the goal is bad intentions and good technique, but in the heat and chaos of the moment intention is everything.

michael rosenbaum wrote:

I'm curious about which you feel is the most important. The concept behind the technique or the technique itself?

Also which do you feel came first. The concept or the technique?

My answer would be that concept is more important, but that concept can never be divorced from technique.

Concepts / principles are “ethereal” and it is impossible study or apply them without combative techniques that make use of those concepts and thorough which the concepts can become manifest.

Techniques are specific and hence limited. Concepts can give rise to an infinite number of variations and hence the ultimate aim is not to learn lots of techniques, but to intuitively internalise the concepts such that one can adapt to circumstances. As Motobu said, “It is important to understand the principles of kata such that one can bend with the winds of adversity”.

As regards which came first, they came together as they inseparable. With regards to practise, one will learn the technique and through that learn the underlying principles. So we tend to learn technique before we intuitively understand principle, but that is “understanding” … technique and concept are always wrapped together; it is just that we tend to appreciate the manifest technique before we gain understanding of what gave rise to it. To quote Funakoshi, “When you master one technique you will realise its close relationship to all other techniques”.

All the best,

Iain

Concept for both. 

If we believe that some techniques (Kung-fu thank you) came from observations of animals fighting in the wild (snake vs. crane, etc), then the concepts came first and specific techniques were created/used to embody those same principals in order to transfer the knowledge to others. 

Of course....if you don't believe in those stories, then I would have to agree with Iain. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

With regards to practice, one will learn the technique and through that learn the underlying principles. So we tend to learn technique before we intuitively understand principle, but that is “understanding” … technique and concept are always wrapped together; it is just that we tend to appreciate the manifest technique before we gain understanding of what gave rise to it. To quote Funakoshi, “When you master one technique you will realize its close relationship to all other techniques”.

And I would have to agree with this statement as well, in regards to training. However, I do think that most of the concepts and principles are a little less 'intangible' than we give them credit for. Think about the concept of proper leverage for instance. It is possible to explain this without martial arts. Levers and pressure and weight and fulcrums, etc. Then once understood, we can see how this same concept works through technique. It's all science and anatomy anyways, but I do agree that in the beginning of training- technique and these concepts are inseparable, and through understanding in training, you can drop the specific techniques, and apply the principles through whatever technique you like depending on the situation. 

I enjoyed reading Funakoshi's book: To-Te Jutsu for this reason. At one point he lists the 'techniques' of karate divided into hand techniques and foot/leg techniques. These lists are closer to a list of concepts and principles however, than specific techniques. General things like, lead hand and rear hand, changing hands, hooking blocks, etc. This leads me to believe that he would be attempting to teach the concepts from the start with few techniques to show each concept. The emphasis on the principle rather than the technique used to show it. 

A technique without the concept of it's purpose is useless.

A concept with poor technique will fail and also be useless.

So which is more important? Neither and both. Where you are in the learning process determines where your attention needs to be focused at that time.

I must be a bit slow as I honestly don't understand all this theory.

Principles - techniques - strategies - concepts etc all merge into one in my fuddled brain.  I just train hard on stuff that works in most situations, then make sure I can do it under pressure.

Am I missing out here or have I found a shortcut? 

Gary

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

Principles - techniques - strategies - concepts etc all merge into one in my fuddled brain.  I just train hard on stuff that works in most situations, then make sure I can do it under pressure.

I guess it comes down to learning and teaching styles. When we talk about “what works in most situations”, the principles, tactics, etc are the “WHY what works works”. If we don’t get that, then there is no guarantee that any variation we use will work when we move away from the confines of specific techniques to the free flowing variables of conflict.

Any effective fighter will understand principle, tactics, etc. They not only know what to do, they know when to do it, and can adapt to the situation in a heartbeat. Whether they intellectually draw these things out when learning, or point out these things when teaching is a matter of teaching and learning styles.

Some people drill the “what” (technique) and simply get the “why” (principle) without conscious effort. Others, like me, are more analytical in nature and I find it useful to have the “why” explained as part of the “what”.

If I am to move my hips a certain way on a punch, I want to know why I’m doing that? That way I better understand the technique and can more effectively vary it (because the underling principles are always adhered to).

I have found that the teachers I respond best to are the ones that teach in a principle based way. I also tend to teach this way myself. The working hard and testing under pressure is needed whichever way you go, but I find that drawing out the principles during the explanation part helps. But this is personal preference and those with other teaching / learning styles will have equally effective ways of reaching the same ends.

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

Am I missing out here or have I found a shortcut?

If you tell people why it is important to get a technique right, why the right way is the right way, and you also explain how those techniques should be used in conflict (as I’m certain you do) then you are missing nothing. However, you may prefer not to draw out such things and identify them as specific principles; which is just a matter to teaching style.

As regards a short cut, I would say that explaining a concept as part of a given technique, drill or exercise should take not more than a sentence or two. There is no real time saving either way. The best way to learn principles is to practise applying them. If a groups is spending hours discussing “theory” then that’s ineffective “training” and poor teaching.

I could say, “Move your hips like this” (no drawing out of principles) or I could say, “Move your hips like this because it will get more bodyweight into the technique and it will speed up the transitions between strikes and hence better able you dominate the enemy” (principles of bodyweight, efficient transactions and combative domination identified).

So I would say there is no real time saving or shortcut by not drawing out principles (2 seconds tops) and that time is a worthwhile investment if it increases understanding for the “analytical types”. Totally a matter of learning and teaching styles though.

Can’t speak for others, but I hope this explains what I mean by principle and how that impacts on my teaching and training?

All the best,

Iain

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

However, I do think that most of the concepts and principles are a little less 'intangible' than we give them credit for. Think about the concept of proper leverage for instance. It is possible to explain this without martial arts. Levers and pressure and weight and fulcrums, etc. Then once understood, we can see how this same concept works through technique.

This makes perfect sense to me and whenever you have something tangible to demonstrate a principle – whether that be a martial arts technique or some other physical manifestation of that principle – you are on solid ground. Without such a “tangible demonstration” though principles are forced into the realm of the “intangible”. How can you demonstrate a principle them without a manifestation of it?

That may seem so obvious that some may wonder why I am pointing that out? The reason is that are plenty of martial artists who make that claim of “principle based training”, but who never make those supposed principles manifest.

An example would be those who practise kata, but never bunkai or live practise, and hold the belief that partner work is irrelevant because in a real situation the kata will just “come out”. We also have those who say kata is about learning to move, but who never link those motions to real conflict.

I simply can’t see how combative principles can be internalised without using combative techniques in a combative environment to make those principles manifest?

Despite the claims that combative principles can be learnt without resorting to combative methods, I’ve never heard anyone attempt to explain the supposed mechanism for how combative principles can be acquired in a non-combative way?

Principles should be very tangible if training is correct. However, for those who subscribe to the “no need to manifest” view point, principles will forever be intangible.

Andrew Carr-Locke wrote:

It's all science and anatomy anyways, but I do agree that in the beginning of training- technique and these concepts are inseparable, and through understanding in training, you can drop the specific techniques, and apply the principles through whatever technique you like depending on the situation.

Totally! Funakoshi, Motobu, Mabuni etc all expressed the above sentiment. The sad thing though is that some use “principles” as an excuse to avoid the combative without realising that there can be no principles without the combative.

Nice post Andrew!

All the best,

Iain

MIke,

By way of direct answer, I would say that 'concept' that is more important, but I need to elaborate... 

One of the things I like about the new MCMAP program is their slogan 'one mind, any weapon'.  I think certain tactics are like that.  If you focus simply on 'an action and an outcome' vs.  a specific technique, I think you are further ahead.  Of course, like Iain said, 'principles' need to be ILLUSTRATED by specific 'techniques' in order to be learned.

The way I break it down:

"Paradigms" are those things which form the base assumptions/ vantage points that underpin your  training.  For instance, the idea that '95% of effective self-protection is non-physical in nature' is an example of a paradigm to me, as is the idea at our that school we ASSUME in a 'street fight' that our attacker will be larger and stronger than us.  Paradigms dictate the way training commences.  So, as an example, that latter paradigm  in turn causes us to 'privelege' certain techniques that 'only work' against a larger stronger opponent.  For instance, certain techniques that 'work' very well for me against a guy who is about my size and strength just don't work for me against one of my students that outweighs me by 100# and can bench press probably twice what I could.  As a result, if I can't pull it off on him, I don't teach it in 'self-protection', I teach it as 'martial artifice'.

"Principles" are ideas which can either be embodied by, or which somehow facilitate or 'enable' the effectiveness of GENERAL tactics.  So for instance, in ground fighting, head control, hand control, and hip control would be three principles, because they are at the heart of, are precursors to, or are necessitated by, the effectiveness of many tactics. Another example would be the idea of 'non-resistance' in judo/ aikido; or 'punching THROUGH the target' in striking.  Basically, those ideas 'make effective' the tactics of a great deal of judo, and a great deal of striking respectively.

"Concepts" are ideas which underly the effectiveness of SPECIFIC tactics.  So, a particluar type of technique (say a kimura from side mount) might rely on a specific 'set-up' to make it easier, or a PARTICULAR type of hip control (i.e. pinioning with knee and body weight).  As such, these are 'notions' which enable the effectiveness of THAT PARTICULAR tactic.  Using 'figure four' leverage to execute the technique (which can be applied to many limbs, in many ways, both with and without physical objects, both with arms and with legs, etc.) would be another example of a "principle" in our parlance.

"Mechanics" would be a 'generalized body movement', i.e. a FIgure four lock using the arms.  You can APPLY this lock (tool) to execute a kimura on the ground, or you might apply this same mechanic differentlyin order to execute an inside sacrifice throw.  Note that the physical mechanic of a figure four lock is related to, but not the same as, the principle of figure four LEVERAGE, which can be applied in many ways from many positions as noted.

"Techniques" are then the SPECIFIC combination of a generalized 'mechanic', plus its inherent enabling 'concepts', plus whatever 'principles' lie beneath it, plus a target OBJECTIVE (submission, create pain, escape, throw)  i.e. "a kimura" on the ground or a "paintbrush" or whetever stylistic NAME you might ultimately use to lable that application is a 'technique'.

So in teaching you work backwords...  You need to illustrate 'all of the above' with SPECIFIC pictures.  But you might have a class that explores specific concepts and/or specific principles using multiple techniques as illustrations:  grounded figure four arm lock (i.e. 'kimura'), the reverse kimura, an ankle lock, a standing figure four takedown, a figure four sacrifice throw, a figure four rear naked choke, finsihed with a figure four baton choke or v-lock etc.   All of these specific 'applications' (i.e. 'techniques') explore generally the same physiological BODY 'mechanic'.  So the student learns the 'concepts' of the various relative positional differences at the same time they are learning the 'principle' of figure four leverage, at the same time they are studying the application of the figure four arm lock 'mechanic'.

Or staying with the kimura as an example, you could make a different exploration of how to 'exploit' the physiological weaknesses of the threats shoulder joint.  So instead you have a class that focuses on various ways to strike/ manipulate/ lock/ injure the shoulder joint from various reference positions.

In both cases, I try to keep the focus 'on the body', i.e. 'GENERALLY' how you can use a particluar motion/ weapon of your body to attack his; or, correspondingly, how a particular area of his body can be exploited in different ways. 

Then, circling all the way back to the MCMAP idea above, a larger strategic / use of force objective gets attached:  escape to gain safety, injure, submit, 'win' a match however that is measured, kill on the battlefield, etc.  So you USE a kimura to 'submit' a guy in a wrestling tournament, or you use a figure four choke to put a guy out while working a door,  or you use a figure four sprawling neck break as a lethal force anti-sentry move.

I don't mean to get tied up in semantics but this is another 'one of those questions' where two people can be saying "concept" or "principle" and meaning totally different things.  Because of that, I find it helpful to be clear about definitions when approaching the topic.  In practice, like Iain said, it is virtually impossible to divorce or isolate all of the above in physical learning.

Good question!