All techniques seem to fall into three basic categories:
1) Can work (i.e. end a fight), but requires a great deal of practice in order to accomplish (this goes for all arts, be them dead or alive).
2) Works, doesn't require a lot of practice (just about anybody can do it, for example a sucker punch, or ball-kick, or teh deadly eye gouge), but is rarely a fight winner (although it can be in the right circumstances).
3) A combo of 1 and 2, where the move can decisively end a fight, isn't that hard to learn how to do, but is difficult to apply effectively (punching someone in the throat is the best I can think of).
The fundamental problem with technique discussion, regardless of how the technique is trained or performed, is that those watching the technique (and ruling it ineffective because of blah blah blah reason) usually have not had the technique done to them right, or can not duplicate the technique. The standing wrist lock that makes a person flip over is a great one. Usually, video of it from aikido schools and the like shows it done with a (presumably) compliant person jumping into the flip and is thus derided as worthless/bad/not realistic/bullshit/etc. However, I did see footage of it done (on Cops a few years ago, so no I can't post a link to it) of a cop using it, flip and all, to take down a person who threw a punch at him during a traffic stop. The attacker didn't seem drunk or high and none too compliant, just pissed off, and they didn't say where the cop learned the move, but the move worked just like it was shown in aikido videos.
Long story short, I think the worth of a technique depends on the goals of the person training them. If they are seriously looking for techniques that work quickly, aren't "pretty," and want to compete, then looking for schools that focus on #2 version is probably right for them. People looking for exercise with a bit of self-defense tossed in may be well satisfied by version #3. People looking for other things (culture, the art side of fighting and less combat early on) where immediate self-defense is not a primary concern may go for #1.
I have gotten out of the habit of saying "That wont work" I now say, "That wont work for me." Big difference in the attitude.
I dont let the fact that it wont work for me, keep me from trying to make it work, but about the umpteenth time it fails for me, then I back off training that technique.
Like you said, there are counters to everything, and they are easy to see in a slo-mo setting where the technique is being taught for the first time. Do the same technique at a decent speed and the "loopholes" Mr. That Wont Work sees, will quickly disappear.
BTW what "dead drilling" are they talking about in your BJJ class? TKD is full of "dead" drills.
"dead drilling" in BJJ implies well...compliant drilling to get down the technique.
Originally Posted by oldman34
For example: Begin with opponent in your guard. Grip cuffs, shrimp back, throw on armbar. Repeat 3 times. Now go for the armbar, opponent counters you throw on triangle. Repeat 3 times. Now opponent counters triangle, transition back to armbar. 3 times. Switch partners.
Knowing is not enough, you must apply...
...Willing is not enough you must do
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO