I guess that's my point....Why do most people refer to being technical as not using any of their attributes.
The bottom line is that if you put technical skill on physical attributes, you're being disingenuous because NO ONE MEANS THAT.
For me someone who has the ability to combine there attributes such as strength, speed, and explosiveness and has both the knowledge and skill of when to properly use those attributes effectively all while not using excess energy and can execute the techniques they know with proper timing and leverage would be considered 100% technical to me.
This is because they know how to use everything in their arsenal effectively and they know who to use what they have and know as a whole.
I describe someone as being technical when they execute techniques with a high degree of skill and precision. Also, when they have a detailed grasp of the mechanics of said techniques and can explain them.
Aesopian would be a good example of this.
You are correct. Being technical doesn't necessarily mean not using your attributes at all, but more not relying solely on them to overpower a lack of knowledge. Personally I'm a short, stocky guy with lots of power. But the power does me no good when I fight someone who has height, flexibility, and reach on me because I can't reach them. That's when technical skill comes in - I use footwork and technique to parry their attacks and create openings so that I can hit them. That's one of the reasons to study MA - to help even the playinig field against bigger stronger opponents. And when you get someone who has innate physical ability and then learns good technique on top of that, they tend to be VERY good fighters because they have the best of both worlds.
Originally Posted by jasculs
Yes...but I'm not sure if you are reading into my definition (and I'm not saying your wrong). I'm not saying that for someone to be "completely" technical they need to "always" use their attributes.....I'm say they should know exactly when and when not to use their attributes as to be able perform at an optimal level all while using the energy they have effeciently.
Originally Posted by Osiris
Because as far as many peoples definition of being technical with not using their attributes to enhance their correctly performed techniques....These "technical" people are not always the best and are not always the most proficient. But the ironic thing is, that most people strive to be technical in that sense of the definition.
But a well trained technical person can often beat a mediocre person who relies only on size and strength. Otherwise MA would just be about brute strength and the bigger guy would always win. The best fighters will be the people with both at their disposal, but for the rest of us technical skill will bring us to a higher level of skill than our physical attributes alone.
Originally Posted by jasculs
The ability to combine technique with natural attributes is definitely a skill, but more a function of experience than an actual technique.
A few people brought up a good point about using your mind, and thinking ahead in the fight, and using techniques to set up other techniques down the road. I think this definitely fits the description of a technical fighter also.
The ability to combine technique with natural attributes is definitely a skill, but more a function of experience than an actual technique
Yes...but wouldn't you say the more experienced you get the more of a chance you have have becoming more "technical".
Originally Posted by Mikey Triangles
Your point is definitely taken...Maybe we should come up with a term for the grappler who is complete in a sense. I guess as for myself being an instructor I don't want my students to fall into the "technical" definition that the masses have because I don't think it will 100% benefit them.
I agree. Its not about denying other traits, but skewing towards technique. I do think its incorrect however to factor these traits into technicality. Thats just as bad, terminology wise.
Maybe I'm thinking no in terms a "technical" grappler, but a "complete" one. Does that make sense? I'm not sure.
I agree 100%. Nothing annoys me more than a blue belt with no fight and no heart wondering why he's losing.
Well, I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that BJJ was always touted as the MA that was so effective that the weaker man could defeat the stronger man. This sort of implies that during the development of the MA, the techniques were fine tuned so that little strength was required.
So when people are striving to be "technical", they are trying to rely solely on technique, and not to use strength to force the technique to work.
What I think is actually the case is that during the development of the MA, the techniques were fine tuned so that the weaker man could be put in a position so that his limited strength has the most impact on the stronger man. This doesn't say that the technique doesn't require strength, it just makes the absolute most out of the strength being applied.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO