From: mary@Cayman.COM (Mary Malmros)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Why is there little discussion of striking technique on this net?
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:34:53 GMT
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: taddiken@ms.uky.edu's message of 9 Oct 92 21:59:33 GMT


In article <1992Oct9.175933.11296@ms.uky.edu> taddiken@ms.uky.edu (scott taddiken) writes:

[snip]

  >What I am driving at is this: I find it remarkable that there is so little
  >discussion of technique on this net, and I wonder why that is true.  It
  >seems to me that most of my fellow ma-ers practice striking arts of one
  >kind or another.  Why do they not discuss strikes, evasions, counterstrikes
  >and try to learn from each other?  I don't mean just say what your coach or
  >teacher says, but rather tell about movements which you have adjusted to
  >your personal style, and which you think might work well for others.

[snip]

  >I have thought of a few possible explanations for this phenomenon:
  >
  >1) Perhaps in the striking arts, technique of execution is much harder to
  >   describe than technique of training, i.e. people find it more easier
  >   to discuss ways to develop more powerful strikes than ways to use those
  >   strikes on active, intelligent opponents.

Offhand, I don't know why this would be more true of striking arts than
grappling arts, but since I know zip about grappling arts, I'm willing to
agree that it might be so.  Certainly I have a hard time visualizing a 
striking technique from a verbal description.  

As for creating a decent verbal description...now that is REALLY a pain
in the neck.  I have a hard enough time writing a description of something
as simple as a reverse punch -- I have to specify what kind of stance is
being used, what foot is forward, which hand is punching, what the other
hand is doing, how the body is turned, how the head is turned, how the
fist is turned...all of those things matter, none can be left to 
interpretation, and so my description has to include them all.  This is
particularly true because we are talking about many different schools and
styles, and what two styles call a "reverse punch" may differ; therefore, 
for discussions of technique to have any value, the descriptions have to
get rather detailed.  And that's a reverse punch...if you're talking 
about something that's a lot less universal, like a spinning kick, 
many members of your audience will have never seen the technique, except
perhaps through the repeat-action lens of a JCvD film ;-)

  >2) Perhaps the language barrier between striking arts makes discussion
  >   impossibly difficult.

Well, that's a variation of 1), I think.  It is easier when you're only
talking with people of a common style, and you can use common terminology, 
but there are still a lot of variations between schools.

  >3) Perhaps it is in fact possible to have a discussion of technique with
  >   fellow ma-ers, but it is, after all, completely useless from the point
  >   of view of enriching or improving your ma ability, so it isn't done.

Disagree...but I think most of the enrichment we get from these discussions
is more subtle than, say, a faster punch or kick.  

  >4) Perhaps the readers of this net are victim to one of the two imposters:
  >   pride and shame.  Maybe they are too proud of their best technique to
  >   allow others to learn it.  Or maybe they are afraid that they will be
  >   flamed if they say they have a good defence to some attack.

Perhaps true in some cases, but I don't think it's very common.  

Personally, I think that there are several different kinds of "technique"
threads, and I treat 'em differently.  Some examples:

	"How are you supposed to do x?"

I don't initiate these kinds of threads for a very simple reason: I 
have teachers, and if I have questions about how to do x, I can ask them
and they will show me.  If my instructors were incompetent bozos, I 
might be able to get better answers off the net; as it is, they know
what they're doing, and I can always get better instruction from them
live than I could from anyone over the net.  

	"Do you think x would work against y?"

Some questions like this are pure idle speculation and just don't have
a lot of interest for me...for example, "Do you think a string trimmer
would work against a buzz saw?"  My answer to this is, if buzz saw 
attacks ever become common, perhaps I'll investigate the string trimmer
option; until then, I'll confine my efforts to solving real problems.  

Other questions in this category are less idle speculation ("Do you 
think a wheel kick would work as a counter to a roundhouse kick?") 
but typically all have the same answer: Yes, if the person who's countering
can avoid the roundhouse kick and then get there firstest with the 
mostest with the wheel kick.  It's not a question of whether technique
x is better than technique y; it's a question of whether person A's 
technique x is better than person B's technique y.  So as a matter
of abstract discussion, there's only so far you can take it.  

	"I saw a film/demonstration/dog-and-pony-show by students
	 of style W, and I saw them doing something that looked like
	 technique X of style U.  Can someone who studies style W 
	 explain a little about how this is done?"

These are IMHO the really interesting and productive technique 
questions.  I don't know why we don't see more of these, in relation
to the number in the first two categories...probably because we all
live our lives in between the keyboard and the dojo/dojang/kwoon/whatever,
and don't get out enough ;-)



--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mary Malmros     | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
 mary@cayman.com  | Phone 617-494-1999  Fax 617-494-5167  AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH