18 posts / 0 new
Last post
Marcus_1
Marcus_1's picture
Functionality v technique

Ok, so after the discussion on power v technique, I feel maybe we should discuss functionality v technique.  I feel that anyone who has studied any form of martial arts (in my case Shotokan), tend to get bogged down with the techniques taught and practising these techniques in the dojo, never having had to use them in a real life self protection situation because, lets be honest unless you live in a particularly rough area, you just won't stumble into a fight.

To me, in dojo's across the world, what should be taught, as well as the grading syllabus for those traditional schools should be functional techniques that would work in a "real life street fight" (or when our self protection has gone terribly wrong and we end up in a fight).

Take a simple Oi Zuki, one of the if not the first offensive moves any karate-ka will learn, generally on their very first lesson.  Yes it is a stable of the style, yes it appears numerous times in kata from Kihon to Bassai Dai, yet in a real life fight, with all the effects of adrenaline thrown in , loss of fine motor skills etc, are you really going to remember all the technical stuff about how to generate the power of the punch?  In my experience (and I do have some due to my job), the answer is no.  You are far more likely to through arms about hoping to connect while trying damn hard not to get punched yourself as you actively step into your opponent with not a single thing to protect yourself as, according to the teaching, you step forward with your punching hand glued to your hip until you start to move.

Surely a more functional technique to teach would be to incorporate sideways movement at an earlier grade than is "typical" in most syllabus and to teach more functional techniques such as uraken where the technique launches from a more central area?

These are just my thoughts on what we teach from years of working in a high risk area for staff.

bowlie
bowlie's picture

This is my major gripe with most traditional martial arts. I did boxing and BJJ for a while, before hurting my shoulder and going back to taekwondo for a while. The Taekwondo was fun, but the whole time I was there I was thinking 'this isnt the most efficient thing to do' or 'why are we bothering with spinning kicks?' or 'this is silly'. Maybe I am overestimating myself and being arrogant thinking I knew better, but I felt I enjoyed the results driven culture of boxing and BJJ more.

I dont, however, agree that you should change your art, or others, because then every fighhting sport would become a reality based self defense system. There are already plenty of them, and if people want to learn self defense they should go there. That doesnt mean that everyone that wants to learn a sport should go there too.

What might be a good idea is to START every martial arts training with a simple self defense part. In the BJJ self defense video I posted the guys say that in Graccie BJJ the first thing they teach is self defense, and the acheivement of a blue belt means they have reached a stage where they have a grasp of the basics of self defense. From there they can learn the sport elements knowing they can defend themselves, and they will also have a 'filter' in their mind so that when they are sport training they can think 'this would work in a SD situation' or 'this would not work' or 'if I did this it would be better'.

Me and a few people have discussed this on a Taekwondo forum, changing the art to become a more effective fighting style. The consensus is that it would fail, because people dont go to martial arts gyms to learn to fight, they go to learn martial arts. Likewise, people dont go to MMA gyms and boxing gyms to learn martial arts, they go to learn to fight. Changing karate into a fighting sport or a reality based self defense system would change the market for the art, and the majority of people that wanted to learn karate (often kids, parents, people who like the art and cluture but not fighting) would quit.

This was my problem. I wanted to learn a pragmatic fighting art, but I spent my time bowing, doing kata and learning fancy spinning kicks when what I wanted was to learn to fight, and I have moved away from traditional arts again. Im now looking at taking up judo and muay thai or mma or something like that. The thing holding me back and making me think traditional arts are the way is the injury rate is much lower.

Finaly, I think we all develop a 'filter' to ideas from the things we train first. When I went from boxing to Taekwondo my filter was telling me things were impractical, like outerfore arm blocks. If an outer forearm block was effective for stopping a punch, why isnt it done in boxing? So I discounted it, and kata in general. What I like about Iain's stuff is it gives me a context where it does work. An outer forearm block would be great to jam a haymaker on the way in if im in a fence like position. Likewise, I can appreciate kata more. Before I was thinking 'this is stupid, why am I in this traditional stance I dont punch in, why is my hand at my hip when it should be guarding my brain, why am I doing knife hand thrusts when I should be practicing my right cross untill its perfect'. Now when im doing kata I can see it as what it is, a list of other techniques. So I dont mind the hand at hip, becuase I understand its part of a throw. I dont mind a knife hand thrust or low block, because its a throw. What initilly failed to make it past my filter (or bullshit detector) because it woudlnt work in the context it was presented, DOES make it past in another context, I.E. the context it was intended before General Choi got his mucky fingers all over it.

If an art isnt meeting your needs, another school or art will be, so instead of trying to change an entire arm, change schools. If enough people do so, the art will realize its not providing what people want and change itsself.

JWT
JWT's picture

In my first club, after a year of teaching the standard kumite sequences first, I decided to focus on sideways stepping rather than backwards stepping.  After a few months of this I put students 30cm from a wall and had another student attack them with a known attack.  All the students who had learned to step back first bumped into the wall and had difficulty - all the students who had learned to slip sideways, automatically slipped sideways.

I think there might be a lesson there. :)

bowlie
bowlie's picture

To add to my earlier post, I just did a session with a dan grade under Iain and it involved light sparring against two people. The priority was moving around and trying to making / keeping space and distance, so I couldnt plant my feet easily to throw power shots. It would be interesting what kind of technique would work best while moving.

shoshinkanuk
shoshinkanuk's picture

It would be interesting what kind of technique would work best while moving.

One of the major uses of Uchi as opposed to Tsuki as a base level of understanding, I call it 'clipping', it drives set up, active defense, delivery of multiple techniques etc and allows us to really 'get' we may not be in control from the off, things can and do go bad often in reality.

So Nukite, Backfist, front Fist, Hammer Fist etc can be used in this way, of course they can also be very powerful finishing strikes, or they may finish something on route.

Ben Ryder
Ben Ryder's picture

Why functionality vs technique? Shouldnt the premise of the question you are raising simply be the functality of your techniques?

Martial arts are not the only activity/sport that train in an abstract form in order to prepare for the application of the abstract lessons in the reality in which they are used. Most competitve sports isolate aspects of training in order to develop technical competence (get as close to perfection) in order to improve the performace of that applied technique. A direct comparison can be draw between the tennis serve and the oi tsuki; both can be practiced outside of the match or fight, but the practice of either outside of the 'match point' or 'street attack' will not perfectly prepare the practionner for that eventuality, but the rigourous training will provide a reference point of what should be done and develop the biomechanical actions used to support it. It is template based learning...training for perfect action in acknowledgement there will be variation from the ideal when neccessity requires it use...I'm starting to sound like one of the 20 precepts now but it is viable training tool which was probably over emphasised in Japanese-based activities because of their over reliance on shi-kata (lit. the way things must be done).

The viability of the training tool (lets use the example or marching up and down practicing oi tsuki) is relative to how it fits into the other areas of training (proportion of time spent on it, how it is supported etc). Marching up and down punching does have some value to the outcome but must be supported with pad and bag work, partner based drills for use of the hikite, role play etc if you are to meet the desired outcomes of having the confidence to step forward and hit someone.

If you are training specifically for the ability to do this when forced to defend yourself then there needs to be more of the applied stuff and less of the abstract. As a shotokan karate-ka my opinion would be simply that the balance is the opposite and that needs to change to improve the functionality of your technique. Its no criticsm of shotokan  because its outcomes are majoritively sport-related budo now and beforehand almost exclusively fitness related budo, not dealing with habitual violence...its a bit like criticising the swimming coach because your golf swing isnt improving.

When trainng is balanced and outcome based then there is no reason why one of these techniques cannot be useful in 'live application'. Your training simply doesnt support it.

DaveB
DaveB's picture

Marcus, I think everyone on this Forum will agree that training should be practically oriented from pretty early on. I think working with natural reactions and tendencies is a good path for teaching beginners. I'd be mindful though of cutting out too much because it doesn't immediately appear useable: some lessons take time to learn.

The whole point of training in a martial art is to change what we do under pressure. If you only work to what you already do why bother training? The technical detail of a correct 

Bowlie, I for one understand where you are coming from, I used to think the same way and though I disagree with the main thrust of your posts, I think the compromise of beginning classes with a self defense segment making use of common movement styles is a very good idea. That being said trust me when I say there is more to the techniques and methods of Traditional martial arts than your current understanding. A lot depends on your teacher, but more important is your ability to be a good student, to be open minded and strive to find how why and when a technique should be employed to be effective rather than throwing things out because they don't make sense straight away. 

Though arts like Taekwondo and karate may be young, whether it is the jumping hook kick or the forearm block, the methods they employ have survived centuries. They survived for a reason. Figure out what it is before you choose to discard it. 

Marcus mentioned the difference between what we are taught in TMA and how we respond when faced with real violence. This is a perfect example of what happens when you throw the baby out with the bath water. The whole concept of DO (Budo, karatedo etc) arose because soldiers of old realised that martial skill is worthless if you don't discipline the mind so that you control your fear response and think about what you are doing when fighting for your life. Yet the modern karate-jutsu movement discarded this aspect of the art and are now having to figure out their own ways of dealing with adrenalin dump and it's consequences. I'm not saying the old ways are always the best, but assuming we know best without knowing how things came to be as they are can lead to the loss of valuable knowledge. 

jeffc
jeffc's picture

There are some great points made on this thread, but isn't it frightening that all of us at some time have practised techniques, and some still do, based not on their effectiveness and and functionality, but rather how they look and compare to an ideological template, regardless of an individual's physique, age, athleticism etc.  This is even when we know that what we are doing is less effective than doing it in a different way (eg. a complete refusal to allow the rear heel to raise to aid in weight transfer/hip rotation when performing a full-power cross punch/gyaku zuki because it contradicts a "style edict").  How nuts is that?  I know that everyone trains for different reasons and everyone's reason for training should be respected, and I am all for that.  I understand the argument of pure aesthetic perfection of technique being a "path along the way", although personally I do not believe in that "way".  I believe that if you do not test a technique then how do you know that you have achieved perfection? 

I am however reminded of the Choki Motobu quote that warns of the dangers of learning ineffective techniques.  Can you imagine the danger of believing that you are going to be able to effectively defend yourself and the painful reality of when you fail your acid test?  Or even worse, realising deep-down that your techniques are ineffective, despite your lofty ranking, and having a desperate desire to "prove" yourself and getting into fights in the process.  One senior karate acquantance of mine once said to me "the most dangerous grade is Nidan.  Those are the most likely people to get into fights."  Isn't that a damning indictment of the modern-traditional training model?    

The very title of the thread, as Ben pointed out, actually separates technique from functionality, which is something that should never be done.  It has been so deeply ingrained into our subconscious that we find ourselves doing it, even when we know better!

Regards

Jeff

shoshinkanuk
shoshinkanuk's picture

Thing is (with respect) Marcus is discussing the basic, mainstream Shotokan Oi Tsuki.

In context it is not practical (think of the Hikite lack of use, think of the no defense elements etc), but then again IMO it wasn't mean't to be applied- 'do' vs 'jutsu' idea etc.

The delusion of many of the modern masters was massive, of course many of them were outstanding people and karateka- just not in the applied martial arts sense.

I have found Oi Tsuki to be totally applicable when worked in the right way. Some simple things to use are start from high guard, intercept and use HikiTe, use the step as a knee/barge, use the 'punch' as a 'thrust' to a weakish target, or as Tuite etc.

JWT
JWT's picture

I think Oi tsuki is a great combative technique, in context.  

In Shotokan it's often taught in a manner that does not lend itself to HAOV and contact, but is very good for exercise and concentration.  Personally I still see use for it both as a punch and as an arm control, but for me to do so it has to be applied in a completely different format to the one in which I trained when I did my formative years in Shotokan. I have to apply it in the context indicated by the kata, or rather my interpretation of the context indicated by the kata.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Paul_D
Paul_D's picture

The ovious question if you want to teach "functional techniques that would work in a "real life street fight" " is "How do you know what works and what doesn't?"

Unless you take every techqnique known to man, then go out onto the street and keep starting fights until you have pressur tested everything, then you're never going to know. The other thing a well its, what works for you, might not work for someoen else.  

PASmith
PASmith's picture

'why are we bothering with spinning kicks?'

Because they look cool and are fun (meaning they draw people in and keep them training), need great bodily control and dexterity to perform (which to my mind are noble goals in their own right), promote physical fitness and flexibility (because they are harder to do if you aren't both of those things) and if they land carry crazy power. :)

For me my martial arts need to maintain the balance of things that are practical with the things that may not be practical but offer other benefits I also desire (some of which can be more important to a 40 year old man like me). The feeling I get landing a jump spin back kick that bends my Thai bag is sufficient reason for me to keep it in my toolbox and would also give me reason to teach it to others. The older I get the less "practicality" becomes the defining factor I look for in a technique or training method to be honest (but never totally forgotton).

JWT
JWT's picture

Paul_D wrote:

The ovious question if you want to teach "functional techniques that would work in a "real life street fight" " is "How do you know what works and what doesn't?"

Unless you take every techqnique known to man, then go out onto the street and keep starting fights until you have pressur tested everything, then you're never going to know. The other thing a well its, what works for you, might not work for someoen else.

All training involves compromises, but there are very good ways of pressure testing technqiues and tactics for self defence that don't involve actually being in violent situations outside the dojo.

Th0mas
Th0mas's picture
JWT wrote:
All training involves compromises, but there are very good ways of pressure testing technqiues and tactics for self defence that don't involve actually being in violent situations outside the dojo.
He he.. not everyone has your facilities John. 
Paul_D wrote:
The ovious question if you want to teach "functional techniques that would work in a "real life street fight" " is "How do you know what works and what doesn't?" Unless you take every techqnique known to man, then go out onto the street and keep starting fights until you have pressur tested everything, then you're never going to know. The other thing a well its, what works for you, might not work for someoen else.
This is always going to be a problem with any martial art syllabus that caters for a wide variety of scenarios and fighting applications. There is nobody who will have pressure tested all techniques in all situations - even covering a small subset would potentially put you on the Sociopath spectrum. Sporting endevours in the ring or cage only cover the narrow competion scope and invariably are limited to the in-fight strategies and "game-play" to outthink and out-compete your 1 on 1 opponent. The whole pre-emptive - pre fight thing is just not included in the sporting context. As has been discussed on many occations on these forums, understanding the tactical and application principles of " a real street fight" is what you train to do, what you actually use is wholely dependent on the situation. Learning effective self-protection is not an exercise in collecting techniques, 99.9% of which will not be relevent on the rare occation you actually have to defend yourself.So by its very nature training regimes are an abstraction to facilitate learning principles which give you the knowledge to be able to apply the right technique (from your personal "go-to" bag of tools) at the right time for the right situation.  Taking Oi-Tzuki as a case in point; It is given a name and packaged as a single "thing" when in fact it is a number of fighting principles that happen to be wrapped together. so at short range they are: Stepping forward increases the proportion of your body mass which can be applied to a strike; Use hikite as a datum, grab, control and unbalance by pulling and twisting in more than one direction, facilitated by dropping your body weight; Once gripped, keep unbalancing opponent by shoving forward whilst holding them down; Punching some-one in the back of the head or jaw is likely to incapacitate them.  These separate principles are all effective ways in which we fight - they are not only applicable within the narrow defined description of Oi-Tzuki, but in fact transcend the label or codification given by a tradtional martial art. You could be using some or all of these with Shuto-Kokutsu-dachi, or Empi-Kiba-dachi. So the question is not about functional techniques but fighting principles and there are significantly less of those to learn and practice. Cheers Tom
DaveB
DaveB's picture

Well said Tom

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

The whole goal of effective technique, is that you don't need to remember it.

Gary Chamberlain
Gary Chamberlain's picture

Absolutely right.

There's a certain type of martial artist that has googled all there is to know. All the styles, all the variations, all the applications. They can tell you why 'x' is better than 'y' for 'z' situation, who said what, and why 'a' & 'b' won't work because Funakoshi said so 100 years ago etc. But they're usually the ones who forget to practise something until it flows. And sweat. As they don't train properly they never build up any faith in what they're doing, so they hop around from style to style hoping for something that works like a dream after they've been shown it a few times.  We can only feel sorry for them. Gary
jeffc
jeffc's picture

Gary Chamberlain wrote:

Absolutely right.

There's a certain type of martial artist that has googled all there is to know. All the styles, all the variations, all the applications. They can tell you why 'x' is better than 'y' for 'z' situation, who said what, and why 'a' & 'b' won't work because Funakoshi said so 100 years ago etc. But they're usually the ones who forget to practise something until it flows. And sweat. As they don't train properly they never build up any faith in what they're doing, so they hop around from style to style hoping for something that works like a dream after they've been shown it a few times.  We can only feel sorry for them. Gary

Great point Gary. 

Regards

Jeff