Practical vs Principles, Real vs Research

[Hissho]

Perusing both martial arts and combative systems over the years, the difference between Practical vs Principle-based, and Real vs Research, has struck me as one sometimes not recognized by practitioners and commentators.

I feel we most often see the error on the Principle based and Research side of the equation. That is, training practices, exercises, drills, even the bulk of a discipline, much more about exploration of principles, playing with energy, working with structure in various ways being mistaken for practical and realistic fighting methodologies. This is not to say that some Principle and Research based stuff may not be directly practical.

Unfortunately, when the difference is not recognized, this serves to dilute the credibility of the art and/or its practitioners. When people are touting what is obviously more developmental exercise or practice as "realistic" there is a tendency to dismiss the art and "throw the baby out with the bath water."

For example, there is plenty within BJJ that is by no means street practical, or competition practical, on various levels. But I would not look at something like "flow rolling" or the various cooperative drills we do and say "see, this is practical fighting application."

Steering clear of specific arts, what and or how do people go about telling the difference between what is practical and realistic and what is more "research and development" oriented in what they do?

[mkrueger]

Steering clear of specific arts, what and or how do people go about telling the difference between what is practical and realistic and what is more "research and development" oriented in what they do?

That's quite a decent explanation of the problem of balance between practical and principles. Concise and to the point. I like it.

These are the three "questions" I try to remember when training with practicality in mind. I'm not saying these are the complete set or what everyone else should be using, just what I personally use. I suppose these are principles in a sense too.

1. How can I be hurt from here? (I want to try and minimize the opportunity of my opponent to inflict damage on me. That's armed or unarmed.)
2. Will I tire more quickly if I keep doing this? (I don't want to get tired before my opponent.)
3. Does this come naturally? (I don't want to be doing something that is counter-intuitive to my natural balance, posture, flexibility.)

[Hissho]

Those are good questions, Matt. Another I would add:

4. Is this application dependent upon my partner's accommodation?

By that I don't mean all partner training, as practice always includes accommodation at some point.

[mkrueger]

That's a good point. Partner compliance while necessary for some practice can create a false-sense of the applicability of a technique.

It seems that there needs to be a set of over-lapping training methods to properly simulate portions of "practicality" in microcosm. I've yet to find a way to simulate the full-range of a high-stress combative scenario without compromise in some fashion for "realism." Otherwise we'd always end up with someone dead or in the hospital and that gets in the way of additional training.

A "holodeck" could potentially provide that realism... but that's still firmly in the realm of science fiction.

[Hissho]

It seems that there needs to be a set of over-lapping training methods to properly simulate portions of "practicality" in microcosm..

I think that is largely true - integrated and over-lapping methods. Then evaluated against ongoing experience.

Even a holodeck wouldn't do it as there is no actual fear of injury or death.

[mkrueger]

Even a holodeck wouldn't do it as there is no actual fear of injury or death.

I'm letting my geek-flag fly here, but... That is true, unless one is unable to distinguish between the simulation and reality. Set up circumstances such that they do not realize they've entered a simulation and it may become possible to simulate that. There's also a few instances where injuries in the holodeck had to be treated by medical personnel outside the simulation. Ski injury accidents as I recall. There was also the ability to remove the "safety boundaries" during certain combat simulations that allowed for the possibility for injury and death. A certain Klingon may have trained under those conditions.

Ah, but enough of whimsy and the fantastical.

I was hoping to hear about how you differentiate between principles and research as well. I'm also curious as to what you mean by "research and development." The closest I've come to in that idea is to ask or answer the question during training "What if I do this?" However, that usually comes down to then identifying how my "research" fails at the above "questions."

[Derzis]

Steering clear of specific arts, what and or how do people go about telling the difference between what is practical and realistic and what is more "research and development" oriented in what they do?

I have just one word in the back of my mind: efficiency. Just because to be efficient it means 2 things for me:
1. you understood the situation you are into
2. you can't be efficient without using minimum effort with maximum effect

Martial arts are giving you words (technics) and some syntaxes (situations where technics are applied) but you are the writer after all.