Thread: Theory of Manageability
7/18/2008 6:02am, #1
Theory of Manageability
Many newcomers to this site often point out that Instructor X can do technique Y, so it must work.
What is not taken into account (usually because they want to also be an uber badass like their sensei) is the Manageability of the technique.
The (my) Theory of Manageability needs to be applied to each technique before someone decides to say "Well sensei can do it, why cant it be done?"
Heres the criteria.
1) How easy is it for the general population to learn? (i.e.how flexible must you be, what is the surface area of the proper target)
2) How practicable is it against a live, resisting opponent?
3) What are the chances of it being succesful? (use video documentation of it)
Lets look at the axe vs the right hook.
The Axe Kick
1) The biomechanics of the kick are easily learned (lift your leg up, swing your leg down). But to gain a proper height to use this technique on a proper target (the collarbone, head ) you must be very flexible. Not to mention your height vs your opponents height. It takes a much longer time to get proficient with this kick.
2) This technique is practicable in a live sparring session against a resiting opponent.
3) There are very few documented (video) cases of the use of this technique in a real life scenario. (As compared to the right hook) However the cases that are out there do not show any real damage being done by this technique , even when performed properly.
The right Hook.
1) Easily learned. Flexibility isnt a factor, nor as a general rule the size of the opponent. The hooks target area is easily struck (ribs, jaw) and time to proficiency is fairly short.
2) This technique is practicable ina live sparring session.
3) The are many documented cases (not just in Pro sports but in street scenario videos) of the average, untrained person throwing a variation of this technique with outstanding results.
Using these criteria (there are other sub criteria me must take into account) the right hook is the better bet for SD.
7/18/2008 6:58am, #2
If we're taking of SD applications, one of your categories could maybe be Vulnerability; like how off-balance it leaves you, how susceptible to counter-attack/takedown/surprise buttsecks the technique leaves you.
Obviously, the right hook wins there, too.Where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.
7/18/2008 7:09am, #3
yes sochin, thanks for that really interesting contribution.
oldman34, i think we both know who really came up with this theory, next time you steal my idea at least thank me, ok?
7/18/2008 7:37am, #4
Saying right out front that there are people who simply make such techniques work (when you picked axe kick, I thought of Andy Hug), I still think your overall thesis is right on the money. I would like to hear (or read, since I don't actually hear voices all that often) how you would then structure further learning. As in, how far would you carry your premise?
For instance, if you accept that punches are all mid to upper body, close range techniques, would you confine learning to one or two high percentage techniques per target area, like the so-called British forces "six moves" training and leave it at that? Would these form the base of the training, with higher skill techniques following later? Would you incorporate them early, to give them a chance to become as natural as Mr Hug made his axe kick?
7/18/2008 10:59am, #5
Why do there have to be advanced techniques at all?It seems to me that the Sanjuriu Martial Art is not in guestion, but, rather the character of Mr. Galt.
7/18/2008 1:20pm, #6
I was thinking of Andy Hug too.
*side note * Dont hate the player Lebell, hate the dutch.
The theory applies to all combat sports and SD. There is very litttle distinction since we know that t3h d34dly techniques most often fail.
To limit the number of techniques would be near to impossible, so we must look back at the techniques we have already pressure tested and start with those as a base.
For example, we know that standard boxing techniques work. Punch, jab, cross, hook, and covering up when a puch is thrown at you.
I feel personally that only a side kick, front kick, round kick and a stomp are the best viable kicking techniques as far as the theory goes.
So if anyone has a technique x vs technique y question, then lets hear it and see how the theory (still in a wrok in progress mode) works.
7/18/2008 1:38pm, #7
Originally Posted by MrGalt
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
Rorion: "After doing three-hundred push-ups in a row for a few days, my father Helio was ready...and there is my father Helio meeting his opponent...here you see them starting to fight...the opponent has great conditioning and skill according to a third-party source we won't reveal and we know my father Helio will win...well, he pulled guard because he couldn't take him down...uh-oh, it's a dry-hump draw. LOL!"
7/18/2008 8:45pm, #8
- Join Date
- May 2005
- São Paulo, Brasil.
Are you guys really just realizing this now?
7/18/2008 10:38pm, #9
Originally Posted by oldman34
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- South Korea
For example, 540 hook kick vs right cross. Obvious winner. But does it really say anything? I don't even think that it says that the right cross is "better" just because it wins the comparison. You could do the same thing for right hook vs right cross. There is no clear winner, as either could be conceivably used in a variety of situations. The thing is, regardless of which technique wins, you could still invent a scenario in which the 540 hook kick could possibly be used. When you look at it like that, this really just becomes an exercise in "high percentage vs low percentage", does it not?
7/19/2008 2:31am, #10
Oldman - as much as I applaud you for making a thread without the f word, you're just making this more complex than it should be (and its not exactly an original subject).
Its about % moves for individuals who train in an alive manner. The end.