PDA

View Full Version : So what makes a good technique?



Neil Hawkins
7th June 2000, 01:59
In the BJJ/JJJ thread Toby made the following statement:

"Most Jujutsu systems are so subtle in application that the slightest loss of fine motor skills and spatial awareness renders them impossible to apply effectively. Without addressing this aspect of combat you will not have the tools available to be successful on the street."

Now this got me to thinking, (which is always dangerous http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif) Is it true that Jujutsu requires such control that the loss of fine motor skills renders it useless?

Jujutsu can range from an almost karate style hardness, to an aikido softness, that is it's appeal, at least to me, and somewhere in this range there is the perfect technique for almost every defence. This is one reason why so much more study is required to master jujutsu as opposed to some other arts.

So what makes a good technique?

By this I do not want a list of specific techniques and why they are good for defence, as we will probably never agree on this. My body type makes one technique practical and another useless, your body type is different and so the opposite is true. Plus the fact that what I call tekubihineri, you call kotehineri and someone else calls wrist twist.

What I mean is what factors are common in all techniques that make them good? We can all watch a demonstration or a movie and say "that was a good technique" but do we know why?

Is it balance, control and direction? If so why are they important?

I'll think about this some more, but I'd like your views.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

TimHillman
7th June 2000, 02:59
To me a good technique is one that can be applied from a number of attacks and will work almost all of the time. Make yourself a list of "never fail techniques", these are the ones that you can do all of the time on any attacker using a number of different attacks.

------------------
Tim Hillman

Joseph Svinth
7th June 2000, 04:21
A good technique is one that a 110-pound woman can use consistently to stop a 260-pound NFL linebacker armed with a tire iron without seriously injuring anyone.

------------------
Joe
http://ejmas.com

Kolschey
7th June 2000, 04:38
A good technique is flexible. It can be used in a parking lot, or in a phone booth. It can apply excruciating pain, or gently redirect. It can found without looking, as it will appear as a natural by product of the force that is intercepted. Good techniques are the ones that the founders of schools only start to understand themselves after years of practice. Not because they are complex..but because they are so simple and fundamental that their practice involves years of stripping away all that is unneccessary.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

szczepan
7th June 2000, 05:45
A good technique is not to use ANY technique...or to use ANY technique....

oops sorry http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Szczepan Janczuk

Neil Hawkins
7th June 2000, 06:27
Come on guy's, what sort of half-hearted answers are those? http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

Below the points I consider to be the most important factors in examining practical technique. These allow an informed judgment on how effective it is and how well it has been performed. I'll list them now, get some feed back, then explain them in detail later.

1. Good Attack
2. Use of Body Movement
3. Appropriate Unbalancing
4. Mechanically Correct
5. Economical use of Strength
6. Economical use of Movement

These cover the technical considerations of a technique however, one must never forget the use of strategy.

Strategy refers to the best possible position for the body during defence and the choice of an appropriate defence in the event of attack. There is little point in doing a technique against a group of attackers if the defence places you in a dangerous position, such as with your back toward the other attackers.

Good strategy with poor technique, is as dangerous as poor strategy and good technique, but strategy does not affect the practicality of the technique itself, it merely gives you options after the technique is completed.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Dokanyama
7th June 2000, 06:35
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Joseph Svinth:
A good technique is one that a 110-pound woman can use consistently to stop a 260-pound NFL linebacker armed with a tire iron without seriously injuring anyone.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whatever! I'll put my money on the 260-pound NFL linebacker with the tire iron! Without the tire iron even!

Jujutsu isn't a new age cure all! There are times when sheer strength is going to win out over technique, especially when there are no weapons, as in the case of hand to hand. Atributes such as speed and strength are just as important in survival as the techniques themselves, if not more so.

A few years ago, the guy who ran my powerlifting team, let's call him Randy, also played beer-team slow-pitch softball. During a game, one of the guys from the other team said something about Randy's mother. I have never seen a big man move like he did. He was out of the dugout and into the other team's dugout quicker than you would think for a guy who weighed around 300+ pounds. The other guy, actually took a swing at Randy with the bat, but Randy grabed him, bat and all, and gave him a squeeze. They had to take the guy to the hospital and the cops took Randy to Jail for the day. By the way, these were all State corrections officers who had at least some training (not that I think the training is/was good but that they had it, same as all police recruits who go through acadamy plus training for dealing with violent inmates.) I don't think the guy with the bat had a chance, and a 110 pound unarmed woman (or man) with what ever jujutsu training- NO WAY.NO CHANCE!

Size and strength, and just plain meanness- the mental edge (even steriod induced) gives one an advantage over the physically weaker person whether his technique is better or not. That is reality! (I know I'll get in trouble for saying that... O well...)

The best technique; it's the one that keeps you alive. If you can do that without hurting anyone, great! if you have to hurt the other person to stay alive, worry about it later.

But then, we'll all have all the time we need to practice "pretty" technique once your dead.

Unless we are talking dojo only waza, and not worrying about the realities of combat.This is the koryu forum right. The focus in Koryu isn't self-defence (originally), it's focus should mainly be (traditionally) on the quickest way to dispatch your oponent.That was the aim of training the professional Japanese soldier and how he stayed alive to see another day.If you want to talk about Jujutsu as self-defence (mainly) then we have to talk gendai budo. Let's face it, asthetics should be a secondary worry and effectiveness a priority.

Mr. Svinth, this isn't an attack on your opinion. But I think one of the problems with modern martial arts is people think Aikido, jujutsu, whatever, is a magical thing that will give the physically weak an advantage over the physically strong. Maybe some think this is true of Koryu as well, and it probably is when we speak weapon systems. While training in a jujutsu system helps a lot, there are many cases where it isn't going to help you at all (in the case of the 110 pound woman- or man). Let's face it, there is a reason professional military and (most) police spend so much time on gaining physical combative attributes such as strength and the mental/survival aspect of violent encounters.

Thomas James


[This message has been edited by Dokanyama (edited 06-07-2000).]

Kit LeBlanc
7th June 2000, 08:57
Hello Neil,

To my thinking, "good technique" is one which has one or at most two counts to it (two beats). It is simple to apply, works when your hands and knees are shaking, and works against people bigger and stronger than you. It gets plusses for shock value, that is you can apply it so quickly that the guy is had before he realizes it (of course, that is more strategy than technique).

It is good if the same basic method can be used to either immobilize someone if you wish to use it that way, or break limbs/heads/throats if you want to finish it quick.

And it must naturally flow into the other techniques which make up your system, in case he happens to know how to counter it.

Thomas,

I agree with most of what you say. A lot of koryu techniques (and modern police and military CQB techniques for that matter) do surprise attacks (speed, surprise, violence of action) in order to take an enemy out or completely control him for arrest/hostage taking, so that he cannot mount a threat against you.

But self -defense manuevers are not only "gendai budo." Maybe I am reading too much into what you wrote, but koryu methods contain a lot of techniques for defeating attacks on your person, where the enemy has the initiative, assaults you, and you counter him and take the initiative back. To me that is self-defense.

Kit

Dokanyama
7th June 2000, 09:27
Kit,

How is there in Portland? I miss it.

I sort of got the soapbox back there didn't I?

Well, if you call killing your opponent/enemy to stay alive self defense then I agree with you. That is what Koryu was mainly created for. I am not saying that gendai budo is less leathal than koryu just because it's gendai. That wasn't the point. But I don't think koryu waepon systems were created for self defense as we think of self defense in America today.Maybe, jujutsu systems were different, but I think the ultimate goal was more along the lines of killing rather than preserving life. A very important aspect of koryu is the mental side, by theat I mean, koryu was created by professional bugei who were concerned with staying alive. Maybe in peaceful times, the focus changed, but the nature of the beast didn't change.

This is just my take on it, it's not any more or less true than anyone elses

By the way, could you send me a note privately, I have some questions I would like to ask you about some things that are probably not of interest to others on the board.

Thanks Kit.

dokanyama@hotmail.com

tj

Joseph Svinth
7th June 2000, 10:20
Six months ago it seemed to be generally agreed on E-budo's aikijutsu threads that the touch of an aiki master had the power to send anyone, even Chris Dolman or Cheng Man-ch'ing, instantly flopping on the floor like a fish. When I suggested otherwise, I was told that I was simply displaying my ignorance. Meanwhile, on another thread I learned that repeated full-power kicks to the groin have no stopping power whatsoever to someone who possesses Combat Ki, something that can be learned by anyone after just a single paid seminar with a certain master.

Personally I think this is hogwash, but then I'm not an aiki master, just a community center karate teacher.

Be that as it may, that image of the linebacker is precisely the one that I use when teaching self-defense. In an American context, it encourages you to see if you can't talk your way out of this and in a Japanese context it teaches you that the way of the warrior is the resolute acceptance of death. And it isn't implausible; Tohei S. once eluded five judoka at once, including a former college linebacker trying a flying tackle. Quite exciting, said Mr. Tohei, but good practice.

Anyway, first learn avoidance of conflict. Second, practice putting words back into the other person's face. And finally, breathe, center, relax. Everything else stems from that.

------------------
Joe
http://ejmas.com

Jeff Cook
7th June 2000, 12:37
Joseph,

Right on.

Thomas,

Physical attributes are obviously desirable. Training too is desirable. They are both part of the combat equation.

If I was a 110 pound woman being attacked by the 300 pounder, I would prefer to have some training under my belt. It gives me more of a chance for survival.

It is all about improving the odds.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Dokanyama
7th June 2000, 14:11
Mr. Cook:

I'll still?@put my money on the line backer over the 110 woman no matter how training she has had. I'm not saying training is unimportant. I agree with with all you guys, but like Mr. Svinth, I'll not buy into the Aiki master touch crap nor the kicks to groin thing. That just plain silly.

I don't really care who I make angry, because those who think that way are in for some rude awakings to reality if reality ever gets mean with them. If they really meet someone mean, and put that guy on PCP or LSD and see how easy it is stop him. Maybe they have been watching too many movies. But if you are willing to stand there and let some fool kick you in the groin, then hey, they are just as stupid as they sound.

The situation with Tohei S. probably would have been different if the guys chasing him were told anything goes; biting, poking an eye out, hitting in the throat, maybe a broken bottle... or 10,000 yen to the guy who draws his blood first, and it might have turned out different. And then, he wasn't a 110 pound woman either, was he!


Reality and the sterile environment of the dojo are never going to be the same! You do what you can to teach your students to protect them selves, but sometimes lfe just isn't fair and the bad guys win.

Thomas

Ramirez
7th June 2000, 15:31
Speaking of that 110 pound woman, I saw a 125 pound woman police officer take a 6'2" 220 pound man right out of a subway station. The conductor who called her even told her to get back up. When she confronted the trouble maker, she took a pen out of her pocket and shoved it up his nose. He had no problem following orders after that. Maybe the right technique and the advantage of surprise can work despite physical differences.

Daniel Pokorny
7th June 2000, 16:33
I personally believe a good technique is any one that allows you to escape the situation unharmed, or alive at the least. I also have to agree with Mr. Thomas James here. Too many times I have witnessed people that train get into a real situation thinking their art will protect them, only to end up pondering what went wrong while the doctor stitches them up afterwards!

Regards,

Daniel C. Pokorny

Kolschey
7th June 2000, 17:40
I think part of the equation is the environment of training. It is not simply a question of the technique itself, but also that of the emotional space surrounding the technique. In many dojos, there is a deemphasis on factors like kiai and zanshin that can make or break a technique. Very few people have a realistic understanding of Atemi-Waza, which Ueshiba Sensei felt to be a critical element of the art. Some people have never experienced being seriously punched, as they are accustomed to smooth, well telegraphed strikes that move at half speed. Sadly, I have met plenty of people who are not accustomed to rough language, shouting, or even a fierce expression. A number of people that I know are also uncomfortable with knife techniques and will conspicuously avoid such classes. This does not even begin to touch on varibles of environment. If a person is not trained to respond to realistic environments, attacks and circumstances, it is quite possible that they will not have the proper cues that will allow them to adjust appropriately to an unexpected situation. Aikido became accepted more readily among many police officers in the Cranston, RI area after an incident in which a diminutive( Roughly five foot tall) female officer effectively took down and restrained a large male troublemaker who had to be forcibly removed from a public school. The technique she used was ikkyo- first technique. What I suspect made the technique effective was the combination of the fundamental mechanics of the technique with a no !!!!!!!! "you-are-coming-with-me-right NOW!!" attitude.

------------------
Krzysztof M. Mathews
" For I am the Cat who walks by himself, and all places are alike to me"
-Rudyard Kipling

Kit LeBlanc
7th June 2000, 19:49
Thomas,

Ok, I get your point now. And you are right, the overall end result is generally lethal force.

Kit

7th June 2000, 20:56
Joseph,

Ahhh....the old miraculous aikijujutsu posts, I remember them well. Boy did I start a firestorm over there or what! Glad you were watching and reading and agreeing.

Sheesh!

As a practitioner of both Aikijujutsu (Yanagi ryu) and Jujutsu (Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu) I can vouch for the effectiveness of both arts but..... genuine aikijujutsu is definitely the more difficult to apply and master. It does offer some real advantages in a genuine attack but with that statement comes so many conditions that I can't list all of them here. Realistic siutuational training is probably the biggest and most problematic of these. Sometimes I think aikijujutsu as a street art is for superhuman beings while jujutsu like SYR is for mere mortals like myself. Guys like Ken Good (Navy Seal instructor/Surefire Institute), James Williams & David Slocumb (Full Contact kickboxers and professional boxer) can demonstrate the effectiveness of aikijujutsu too you in person if you so desire. These guys are hardcore blood & guts fighters. But the secret of their combat success is the fact that they have trained so often under pyychochemical stress that they are able to apply some of the the subtle tactics and techniques of aikijujutsu effectively even under this stress. Without this intensity of training I feel the average person is at a real disadvantage regardless of physical expertise. Of course there are exceptions. In my experience I have met a small handful of individuals that maintain total mental calm in the the face of incredible duress. These individuals are naturally so mentally well adapted to conflict that they are lightyears ahead of their technical/physical superiors in a threatening confrontation. I have one student / police officer that fits this definition exactly. The level of emotional calm he is able to maintain is itself frightening to those who recognize it for what it is. I am unfortunately not on of these individuals. My ability to execute technique under psychochemical stress has been gained thru numerous years of physical conflict, challenge and injury. I still need more work on it! Without experience confronting genuine fear on the mat the average person simply connot appropriately size up and respond to a violent attack no matter how well they are physically trained. Many martial artists live in a fantasy land and don't like hearing these facts. They have an almost child like attitude about martial arts which sometimes includes mystical powers and such. Reality is a hard dish to swallow for these people but in the street it's even harder. You will fight the way you train even when your life depends on it. Thats just the way it is.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record but if you have not read the interview with my sensei Yukiyoshi Takamura that appears on the Aikido Journal website please do. It is the finest discussion on this topic I have ever read

Toby Threadgill
Soryushin Dojo

[This message has been edited by Toby Threadgill (edited 06-07-2000).]

Jeff Cook
7th June 2000, 21:00
At the risk of sounding trite, all techniques are good if used in the proper context of the given attack.

A "good" technique is quite lousy if used at the wrong time, against (or with) the wrong attack it was designed for. Example of a lousy technique: trying to apply ikkyo on a boxer who is dancing and jabbing, or on a grappler who has mounted you, or the aforementioned kick to the groin by the little woman on the big, mean eunuch.

Maybe we should ask what makes a combative principle "good," instead of what makes a technique good.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Neil Hawkins
8th June 2000, 00:44
Now, guy's we're running off on those tangents that spring up when ever we have a discussion. If this was the Combatives forum I would weigh in as well, but what your saying here is that Jujutsu (and I'll include Aikijutsu here as well) is basically useless.

If so why do we practice it? (Don't answer that, it's off topic! http://216.10.1.92/ubb/wink.gif)

What I want to talk about is what makes good technique, as I said previously the technique is not important to this discussion, they all exhibit a quality that is quanitifable.

Wether you're running away from a linebacker or fighting the 90lb weakling, or practicing in the dojo (after all just about all of us will spend the huge majority of our time doing this stuff in the dojo! http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif).

What makes good technique? We all teach this stuff, how do you know that the katagaruma your student just did was good. How do you explain it to the rest of the class?

I listed six things that I thought were important, the first of which I was sure would elicit some response, so how about we get back on topic an forget self defense for awhile and talk about jujutsu!

My points were:
1. Good Attack
2. Use of Body Movement
3. Appropriate Unbalancing
4. Mechanically Correct
5. Economical use of Strength
6. Economical use of Movement

Let's talk about them or the things I've missed.

Neil


------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Dokanyama
8th June 2000, 01:11
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neil Hawkins:


My points were:
1. Good Attack
2. Use of Body Movement
3. Appropriate Unbalancing
4. Mechanically Correct
5. Economical use of Strength
6. Economical use of Movement


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1.- 6. Case by case. It depends on the student and the environment the situation takes place in. All of these things will be individual based on individuals, and then in a practical application all of these are case by case depending on the attributes of both combatents.

Personally, I don't want to sit around talking about this. If I did, I would read a book with a lot of nifty pictures. I would rather spend my time reading other's opinions just like they are here in this thread.

I know the board went down and now it looks different, but we are talking Koryu Jujutsu here right? The mental side is the side that you never get to read about in the pulp mill variety MA books because they are either too full of time wasting pictures or the people who write them don't have a clue about the mental side of martial arts to begin with.

If you want to write about the above six things, go ahead, you did start the thread after all. But it doesn't look like what you want to address is what people really want to talk about. If others want to persue a different angle then they should ba able to freely write about the topic as it develops and is relavent to them. Isn't this the way any conversationa naturally turns and develops?

TJ

Neil Hawkins
8th June 2000, 02:07
Ok, I can respect your point of view, however, it seams at times that the entire board is used to discuss self defense.

It seams every book I pick up these days is full of this rubbish, people talking about how to defend against this, what technique works best here and so on. There is a time and place for that and everyone here knows that I am more than willing to discuss these things ad nauseam.

However, what I am trying to do here is get back to the essence of the arts. Koryu practicioners spend years getting their technique good, it's not about fighting it's about perfection. The fact that with perfection comes the ability to defend oneself is seperate, it's a by product of the training not the aim of the training.

The six things I have listed can be applied to every technique in every style regardless of the situation or the people, they are what gives the technique quality, what makes them worthy of keeping in the system and not discarding.

Do you think that any koryu jujutsu would have survived to this day without having this concept of what makes good technique? How would they have ever evolved or lasted?

As I said we all go through this process, most of the time it's subconcious but it's there. It is my opinion that it is one of the things that makes a style a system of martial arts, rather than a bunch of tricks.

Anyone can come up with a set of techniques that work for them, a buch of 'tricks'. The real test of a system of martial arts is that it works, or provides alternatives for all situations, regardless of weapons, regardless of who uses it.

Koryu jujutsu has in some cases lasted 500 years, you won't find explainations of why in any books, you may find pictures or lists of techniques, but never the philosophy that held the system together for so long. This is what I am trying to discuss.

If we meander and wander from subject to subject that's fine, but the things discussed so far on this thread have not touched on Koryu at all, they are generalisations that relate to modern self defense systems. I was trying merely to prompt us back in the right direction.

If you want to talk about that then fine, move over to combatives or the gendai forums. I'll probably join you and discuss it there. But, let's try and keep just a little koryu in the koryu jujutsu thread.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Jeff Cook
8th June 2000, 03:42
Neil,

I think it is entirely appropriate for you to direct this discussion. Moderators and topic-starters are responsible for trying to limit digression, and to keep the thread "on topic." TJ, opinion noted; as you stated, if people don't want to discuss it, they won't write, and the topic will die a natural death. By the way, please sign your posts with your name per the rules of E-Budo.

Neil, I think I understand your question now - you want to know how we as instructors evaluate proper technique in a training/dojo setting.

My simple criteria for utmost effectiveness is when the student can execute the technique with the minimum amount of movement, maximum amount of speed, minimum amount of energy expenditure, maximum utilization of uke's energy, with maximum effect on the uke, while maintaining the utmost control. (This is a generic, simple explanation of my evaluation process, and certainly not all-encompassing, but these are the main points.)

The best thing about these criteria: they can be applied to virtually any technique in a training setting.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Dokanyama
8th June 2000, 06:01
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Neil Hawkins:



However, what I am trying to do here is get back to the essence of the arts. Koryu practicioners spend years getting their technique good, it's not about fighting it's about perfection. The fact that with perfection comes the ability to defend oneself is seperate, it's a by product of the training not the aim of the training.


Do you think that any koryu jujutsu would have survived to this day without having this concept of what makes good technique? How would they have ever evolved or lasted?

Koryu jujutsu has in some cases lasted 500 years, you won't find explainations of why in any books, you may find pictures or lists of techniques, but never the philosophy that held the system together for so long. This is what I am trying to discuss.

Regards
Neil

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, Koryu is not about technique over fighting. It was about staying alive on the battlefield.

The evolution of koryu technique revolved around its killing effeciency or abiltity to teach that through a kata.

The philosophy that held the system together was and is still often held in the oral teachings of each ryuha. They tend to be secrative so that others coudn't use that knowledge to kill you.

I don't know where you get your ideas of what Koryu are, but you can not blanketly say that perfection of technique is the goal of practice, (not historrically).in Koryu, when they were martail systems intended for professional soldiers.

Thomas

8th June 2000, 06:21
Neil,

You stated:

"Now, guy's we're running off on those tangents that spring up when ever we have a discussion. If this was the Combatives forum I would weigh in as well, but what your saying here is that Jujutsu (and I'll include Aikijutsu here as well) is basically useless."

I don't belierve I said that. In fact I said just the opposite. I even mentioned a seal instructor who teaches jujutsu & aikijujutsu techniques to tactical CQB units around the globe. I don't think that qualifies as "basically useless" My point was that training for technical perfection becomes a hollow shell if the mental training isn't pefected as well. Too often now in koryu the mental training is ignored and because of this the physical/technical perfection goes down the tubes when under psychochemical stress. Oh, mental training is still talked about a lot in most koryu but it's not taught in a way that makes it truly applicable. Koryu existed in a time when technical and mental training was so closely intertwined that they became one. Without that relational dynamic I believe no technique is "good". And you asked in this thread "what makes a good technique". If you want this thread to just cover the physical aspects of training, fine. But then in my opinion nothing discussed on this thread will ever qualify as "good". The true martial aspect of koryu is lost when the psychology of conflict is neglected because the art becomes only pretty calesthentics with no martial purpose or soul.

Toby Threadgill
Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu


"Without the consideration of modern realities to challenge an arts effectiveness, it becomes a museum piece whose only modern relevence is that of a historical curiousity. Remember that the koryu as they existed in the Warring States era were constantly changing and adjusting to the realities they faced on the battlefield. Only when this era ended did the innovation slow." - Yukiyoshi Takamura

Neil Hawkins
8th June 2000, 08:02
Thomas,

That may have been the case during the 14th or 15th centuries, but by Tokugawa the systems developed a strong emphasis on form.

The main reason for this was that Japan was in a time of relative peace, whereas before skills were required quickly, now they had nothing but time. People spent time studying the movements and looked closely at why they worked. The schools that survived until today had to develop or continue this introspective facet.

Take a look at schools like Shinkage, Katori Shinto, Shinden Muso or Kashima and you will see hour, upon hour, upon hour, spent perfecting technique. The techniques cannot be performed for real, they are design to kill, so they are put in kata and repeated until the instructor is happy with the movements.

Perfection of form is in many cases the only outlet available, it is the only measure of effective technique. Some jujutsu schools continue in that fashion, others use a randori style practice, but all emphasize the perfection of technique.

I have lost count of the number of hours I have spent repeating the same moves over and over, and I am far from perfection, but after nearly 20 years the occasional glimmer of hope keeps me going http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif.

This attitude is rare these days, many westerners are impatient and want to know quickly. There is a strong move toward practical efficiency in the west today and some schools cater to this. Techniques that will work if applied correctly are discarded because they take too long to learn or teach. just look above at the posts claiming simple to learn practical techniques are better!

The so called "20-year technique" is not a marketable commodity in this day and age. That doesn't mean that it is not practical, just that people don't want to take the time to learn it properly.

There was a time (and in some Japanese schools still is a time) when instruction was purely demonstration / imatation you were expected to learn the "secrets" by repeating and feeling the technique, how it works, why it works. There is a lot of interaction between the senses, and between opponents in jujutsu and if you can't feel what is happening, some techniques are harder to apply.

I am not sure which styles you have been exposed to, but this is certainly the case for the ones I have seen.

This is a tangent I don't mind taking http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif, does anyone else have any input?

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Richard Elias
8th June 2000, 22:40
Timing.

------------------
Richard Elias
Shidare Yanagi Ryu

Joseph Svinth
8th June 2000, 22:46
Kokoro (roughly, spirit or morale; the will to make the thing work) -- all the technique in the world does you no good if you're not willing to use it.

------------------
Joe
http://ejmas.com

Neil Hawkins
9th June 2000, 00:33
Toby, sorry, I was not actually referring to your post, but those made previously. I fully believe that Traditional Jujutsu and Aikijutsu can and do work.

I have probably gone about this all wrong, but what I have been trying to do is get the discussion down to specifics. We spend so much time generalising here that I wanted to get a feel for how we all view technique, how we gauge quality, what we look for when grading a student.

It is pointless to talk about the techniques themselves, as I said before we will never agree, but the qualities in a technique are universal.

I would agree that the right mental attitude is something that assists in making the tecnique work, but is it something that is learnt as part of the technique or is it seperate? I would be inclinded to believe that it is a seperate entity, extremely important, but like strategy not part of the technique.

But as always I'm open to discussion. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 04:55
So Neil,
Tell me, you've got time to think of all of that stuff when some one is trying to take your head off? A good technique works all of the time, even when you're suprised or scared, or a little drunk or sleepy or tired, or cold or sick, or what ever. You can do it all of the time on any one. You don't have to think about doing the technique, it just happens.

------------------
Tim Hillman

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 05:21
Neil,
Come on, you've got time to think of all of that stuff when some one is trying to take your head off? A good technique works when you are suprised, or scared, or a little drunk, or cold, or sick, or all ready injured, or your timing is off, or you are sleepy , or tired, or you're attacker is big or little.
Tim Hillman

------------------
Tim Hillman

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 05:30
Neil,
so tell me, you've got time to think of all of that stuff when someone is trying to take your head off? A good technique works all of the time, even when you are sick, or tired, or cold, or sleepy, or a little drunk, or suprised, or scared. It just happens with little or no thought.
Tim Hillman

------------------
Tim Hillman

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 05:34
Please pardon my blunder of repeating myself.

------------------
Tim Hillman

Richard Elias
9th June 2000, 05:37
"I wanted to get a feel for how we all view technique, how we gauge quality, what we look for when grading a student."

Calmness of mind, timing, proper execution of technique, expedient application, good posture, stable base, proper breathing, awareness, and control of oneself and the opponent.


------------------
Richard Elias
Shidare Yanagi Ryu

[This message has been edited by Richard Elias (edited 06-08-2000).]

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 05:46
Grading how well a student does a technique is different than grading how good a particular technique is.

------------------
Tim Hillman

Richard Elias
9th June 2000, 06:09
A technique is only as good as the person who is applying it. There are techniques that my teacher can make work that I have not yet aquired the ability to. For me the technique may be dangerous, yet he can do it safely and easily.

When I view a technique, whether it is from our school or not, I look for the same things as I mentioned above. If the person performing the technique can make it work, then it's a good technique.(a "trained" uke not withstanding) It may not be applicable to every situation, but no technique is.

I think we're looking for a specific answer to a very broad question.

If everyone had the same ideas about what a good technique is, there wouldn't be so many different styles of martial arts.


------------------
Richard Elias
Shidare Yanagi Ryu

Neil Hawkins
9th June 2000, 06:22
Tim,

No, these things do not go through your head when executing the technique. After many hours of practicing the technique, your body becomes conditioned to performing it correctly and does the right thing under stress. There should be no concious effort involved at all.

This level only comes after many years of training, that is one of the reasons perfection of technique is so important, if your body acts without thought but does the wrong thing, you're in trouble.

I firmly believe that the 'quality' inherent in techniques and how they are performed are the same thing. Without at least one person, the technique does not exist. On it it's own it has no quality, it is nothing.

The things that make it 'good' (not effective, but this should/could be the same thing) are just as Richard stated.

Maybe it's time I elaborated on my list:
1. Good Attack. This is mainly a training issue but if people get into the habit of attacking badly (ie, punching offline, not strangling strongly) then the bodies reaction is based on this and not a real attack. Now, I don't mean that we should aim to hit each other in training but we should attack in a strong, controlled and realistic manner.

2. Use of Body Movement. Sabaki, it is important that you use the appropriate movement to get off the line of attack, whatever is required for the technique.

3. Appropriate Unbalancing. Most techniques require the opponent to be off-balanced. Sometimes this means pulling, sometimes pushing, you must feel his weakness and react in the correct manner.

4. Mechanically Correct. Most Jujutsu is designed around the physiology of the body, the lock or throw will not work unless it is correctly applied.

As an aside people often talk about escapes from certain locks, there is NO escape if the lock is applied correctly, there are counters but these are applied before the lock comes on.

5. Economical use of strength, and 6. Economical use of movement pretty much speak for themselves.

Those are the things that I look for, again mental attitude and strategy are important but these should be exhibited all the time, even when still and waiting for an attack.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

TimHillman
9th June 2000, 06:51
Neil,
I guess that we are all headed in the same direction, I agree with most of what you are saying. But there is a difference between a good technique and some one doing a technique well.

------------------
Tim Hillman

profsarj
9th June 2000, 19:39
Dear Sirs,

I think one of the most important things is that first the teacher understands the technique, and that they can break the technique down into its most simple stage, and also that the techniques is learned to be utilized in a variety of situations.

Secondly, the student must break down the techniques, and practice them constantly in different scenarios and positions.

It is my belief that in order to make a technique work for you, you have to constantly practice, breakdown, and explore your techniques. You will find that the understanding increases, the confidence increases, and the ability to perform the technique proficiently increases.

Professor Darrell Sarjeant www.kamauryu.com (http://www.kamauryu.com)

------------------

Aaron L. Seay
13th June 2000, 17:03
Neil Wrote:
Now, I don't mean that we should aim to hit each other in training but we should attack in a strong, controlled and realistic manner.

---

Why not???

------------------
Aaron L. Seay

Osoto2000
14th June 2000, 00:27
What makes a good technique?
practice,practice,practice.
It is only when you have developed muscle memory and can claim some degree of Zanshin, that a tecnique will work and "feel" correct.
Zanshin is not some mystic abilty that some of you claim does not exist, but the ability to act and react instinctivly without thought.
If you have to think about your technique, it is too late, you've already been defeated.
By the way, why so much preoccupation with life and death situations, do you all really live in such violent places as to be constantly fending off axe wealding murderers?

------------------
We practice for thousands of days, whether we win or lose is decided in an instant.

TimHillman
14th June 2000, 02:51
Osoto 2000,
The reason for the preoccupation with life or death situations is because that is when it counts. People get killed by getting into a life or death situations that they did not see coming.

------------------
Tim Hillman

Osoto2000
14th June 2000, 21:14
Yea Tim, I suppose is does, but you still didn't answer my question. When was the last time you faced a life or death situation? I realise this is possible if you are in the forces and actually at war, or even in the police, but what about your average joe? I have been on this planet for forty years come next friday and have only encountered one sticky situation, that I had no alternative but to defend myself, hardly a desperate need for a "killer Technique" always at the ready!
P.S Sorry for being inadvertently rude, I did not realise one of the rules was to include your name.

Osoto2000
14th June 2000, 21:24
Yea Tim, I suppose it is. However you still havn't answered my question. When was the last time you faced a life or death situation. If you are in the forces actually at war or perhaps in the police I can see why it would become important. But what about your average Joe? Come next Friday I have been on this planet for forty years and have only had one sticky situation, where I was forced to defend myself. Hardly a need for a "Killer technique" always at the ready!
PS Sorry for being inadvertantly rude I did not realise it was one of the rules to post your name.
PPS this may appear twice I'm not sure but I think I did it wrong first time. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
(We practice for thousands of days, whether we win or lose is decided in an instant). Ray Brown

TimHillman
15th June 2000, 05:06
Osoto2000
Don't feel bad about posting twice, I did the same thing on another thread. I guess that you may have a point about life and death situations. Most people will probably never be in one. Usually we tend to train for "the worst case senario." I would hate to get into a situation that I didn't see coming though.

------------------
Tim Hillman

Tetsutaka
16th June 2000, 00:26
Tim,

It is easy to fall for the fallicy of training without thinking of a real situation.

It is also a fallicy to say that one would never see it coming. There are always pre-incident indicators, unless you're wandering along the beach right as a S.E.A.L. team is mounting an assault and you're in the way... http://216.10.1.92/ubb/wink.gif

A good technique, from an evaluative point of view, is one that is powerful and efficient. The thing I look for is a lack of extraneous foot movements and shifts in balance. Contrary to the popular mythology in CQB circles, any technique that has good fundamentals can be practiced enough to work in a real situation. The impatience that people mistakenly assert as their lot in life for "not having enough time to learn intricate technique" is largely hogwash. There's enough time in life to do more than lifting weights and simply learning to maim.

The problem in traditional practice comes in when you "drift" from the true core essence of the technique, and start to slide in little additions of movement that evetually become habit. It kind of goes back to the addage: "Practice doesn't make perfect - *perfect* practice makes perfect."

Good technique is effective in the ways illucidated as 1-6, but those features have to be repeatable, including in a real situation.

Knowledge of this [the *real situation* as an impending test of effectiveness] adds a level of sincerity in drilling technique that cannot be replaced.

My $.02,

------------------
Houston Haynes (http://home.nc.rr.com/houstonandjulie)
"You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you."

[This message has been edited by Tetsutaka (edited 06-15-2000).]

TimHillman
16th June 2000, 02:52
Tesutaka,
You've made some good points, there are always pre-incident indicators, but many people don't read them. Also, some people with training fall into the "Superman syndrome" and feel that they are invincible. You should know your own strengths and weaknesses.

------------------
Tim Hillman

genjumin
16th June 2000, 08:33
Actually, even though ZJujitsu doesn't mean this, I have always felt that Jujitsu should be translated as 'effective techniques or skills.'

Effective meaning what will enable the 110 pound woman to take out the linebacker with tireiron.

Kan Jigoro had a picture of a tiny woman pushing a sumo wrestler over with one finger which he said epitomized judo.

Every aspect f a human being must be flly engaged to roduce sch and effect as this, physical(tai sabaki, centerednbess/haragei,metsuke, kiai, kake, kuzushi, kaboom:-), and zanshin, with plenty atemi and nerve and pont type stuff in there as well, and then, it can be done.

Iknow it can be done because kano, Uyeshiba, Shioda, and Funakoshi could all do it, and so could many of their students and still can.

So how can little bitty guys like Ch'eng Man- Ching kik the butts of huge American martialarts experts, boxers, wrestlers and Judo Fifth Dans?

Lets think about that and the mystery will be over, especially as almost everyone of those people explained how they did it.

Knowledge of a system trained meticulously with faith in the principles and understandinng of them, and a good catalog of techniques many of which modern pracitioners ignore, practiced carefully over a period of decades, enables this skill.

Sorry no magic answers, just common sense.But the knowledge must not be neglected.How many judo tournaments do you see with strongarm tacics and no unbalancing?

How much jujitsu is attempted with no thought to the little things, the fine points that make, say, a Wally Jay effective at eighty?An Helio Gracie still able to move on the mat and submit younger,stronger and bigger folks?

I think the problem in modern society is everyone wants instant gratification instant mastery, and it is not there to be had.

But the thing is, there are techniques and principles you can learn and work on that you can be efective with in a short time with an untrained person , their very simplicity is a guarantee they will be ignored.

Laugh if you will, but Bruce Tegner even put some of these things together into effective self defense systems that could be learned quickly and still work.

So have many others.The pont is that against ordinary people these will work, but to get that liebacker with a tireiron you have to train like Helio Gracie, Jigoro Kano, Funakoshi, or Uyeshiba.

Then , one year or decade, compared to even those people, you are 'magic."

Almost overnight, or fifty years to be exact.

But only if the principles you train according to are fundamentally sound and things you can still do at an advanced age.

And one does have to have real knowledge at the base of it all.Truly effective techniques(knowledge base, good teacher and good art) done according to sound principles over many years and decades equal good technique.

Put it like this: How good is your(substitute your favorite technique here) O Soto Gari technique?can you do it every time? Can you do it against a larger, stronger resisting opponent also trained in your style who nows how to counter it?Every single time? No? Your technique is not good enough.It maywork on anyone who mayever attack you, and then it is good enough to save your life, but to be good enough to be called 'magic' it must work every time, on every body.

Impossible? Damn near.But not quite. When your technique will always work on almost(you may meet someone else who does it too) everyone , it can be said your technique is good.

And that is what the people we all look up to did, exactly.But how many people will go out in the freezing snow and ice of Hokkaido or Fargo, and do as Takeda Tokimune was forced to do, chop trees all day to strengthen his wrists and his spirit, as well as his concentration?

How many will do as Kimura did, tietheir obi through their radiator grille and do throw practice up a long hill, pulling their little car behind them all the way up, just to get an unbeatable seoinage?

Or, like Tohei, kick and sweep the foundations of his Japanese house until he nearly knocked the place down, to become strong in sweeps in Judo?

Or do ten thousand repetitions of one strike or sword cut, as many Japanese type masters do?

Are we patient and enduring enough to train this way over a period of decades to attain this level of skill?

Who practices their Taiji form eight hours a day like Yang Cheng Fu did , forced to by his father?he hated it but he did it.

Who practices one karate kata thirty times a day for a year or three years, just to master it?

Do this then sayit can't be done , a small person cannot defeat a muuch larger one. They Can, they jus have to pay their dues, and know what they are doing, and do it right and well.

John V.

kenkyusha
16th June 2000, 14:43
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by genjumin:

[snip]
Or do ten thousand repetitions of one strike or sword cut, as many Japanese type masters do?
[snip]
John V.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is only ten days of practice... It seems there is something more than just sheer repetition to developing effective waza. 'Blank stare' training is good, but Kimura was good for a number of reasons, not just from humping a honda up an incline with Seionage. http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif

Be well,
Jigme



------------------
Jigme Chobang
Kenkyusha@bigfoot.com

Neil Hawkins
17th June 2000, 04:02
This is actually going the way I wanted it to now (more or less http://216.10.1.92/ubb/smile.gif), I've been sick so I'll post a quick message now and get back in detail in the next couple of days.

We are still concentrating too much on practical efficiency here. The Koryu were designed to be practical and efficient under a set of circumstances that don't exist today.

There are dozens of techniques in my repertiore that have no use at all in today's society, does that mean I shouldn't learn, practice or teach them? They have been part of the system for hundreds of years, they are the essence, the root of what is effective today. If I don't include them, then I'm doing a modern combative art, not a Koryu (this is after all part of the Koryu forum!).

There have been some very good responses and I'll read them a bit more carefully then respond in detail.

Regards
Neil

------------------
The one thing that must be learnt, but cannot be taught is understanding.

Dale
25th June 2000, 15:49
Great question Niel,
To me, as I have recently discovered, a good technique is not one that leaves me astounded by the defenders Gymnastic abilty or dynamic whirl throws etc but one which makes me say "of course".
To me great Ju-Jitsu is the perfect response to a particular stimulus. So the utter simplicity and sensible logic of the art attracts me far more than the dynamics. As a tree responds to a breeze is the nature of a great technique.
I have never been awe-struck by thr grandeur one of my Sensei's demonstrations but I am constantly more enlightened by them, which to me is far more amazing.


Yours in Budo
Dale Elsdon

Rob
29th June 2000, 17:37
Neil,

For me there are two possible reasons for carrying on training in techniques which obstensibly have no use in a modern setting.

1) The practical - Many of the techniques in many arts have no practical application per se, but they do teach the principles, or balance or grip etc needed for other techniques which do.

2) The historical / spiritual - If a technique has been in a syllabus for a long time it is fundamentally part of that art - To stop training in it can only lessen that art. It comes down to why you are training, the art I train in is a relatively modern one, with an emphasis on self defence, however in 8 1/2 years I have never had a fight. Is my training wasted - Not at all, I love the art I do regardless of whether it is 'practical' or not.

Just my rambling thoughts.

Hwyl

Robert Wallis