Theory of Manageability

[poker]

Is this really a "test two techniques under the theory and see which one wins" kind of thing? Or is it more meant to be applied to a single technique as one comes across it? It just seems to me that you could apply all sorts of "vs" situations, but they wouldn't really prove or say anything.

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?

Erm I think right cross usually beats right hook in most scenarios, and if both fighters throw at the same time the cross pwns. Right hook only relevant in in fighting or as thrown by southpaws and sluggers.

[Arctos1964]

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.

Why do there have to be advanced techniques at all?

I largely agree with you and Mr Galt. My question has more to do with how you decide which technique(s) to incorporate. Would you use long/medium/close range as a base or some other criteria (two kicks, three punches, one throw, one choke kind of thing)?

In my opinion, advanced techniques arise from a specific need. As an example, the recently mentioned and much maligned tornado kick. It looks and is flashy but if you break it down, it makes perfect sense for use by a fighter with shorter leg reach to get within striking range. The turn imparts rotational momentun to deflect a kick, the raised leg blocks a follow-up and then the kick all in a flow.

Do individual types need to taken into account? For example, I'm pretty tall and heavy and can side kick at head height out to around seven feet horizontal distance. What works for me probably won't work for a 5' 5" fighter.

Now, to be clear, I think that making this a technique vs technique thread would be a disservice. I like the basic premise of your theory; I am trying to pry more detail out of you.

[oldman34]

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.

Yes, but how do you base the percentage?
Why train a 360 jump spin hook, when a simple front kick would suffice?
It makes it easier to explain why something is better, to the newb/ninjars who show up here.

[Happy Panda]

Why train a 360 jump spin hook, when a simple front kick would suffice?

I guess this might not apply since your theory is apparently only for SD, but against a trained martial artist (sparring, MMA fight, grappling, whatever) I think it's good to have a few obscure techniques. Most people are only used to defending against the common, high percentage stuff in training, so when you start doing weird **** you could catch them off guard.

Even if they just back away from your 360 jump spin hook kick and nothing happens, they're now at least a little wary of whatever other tricks you've got up your sleeve.

[M.C.]

See this is what I think you don't understand or want to acknowledge or what ever.

You don't do a 360° heelhock or a tornado as a technique just for the pure fun of rotating. It is a TRAINING for when you try a technique and your opponent moves backwards or leans back and is about to come forward again. You then are able to just keep on spinning and knock him out when he thinks he is save and you can't kick any more.
Every trainer will tell you that spinning before and attack is wrong and stupid but when you are committed to a technique and he evades you, you have to go on from there and this is where your 360° heelhock or what ever comes in. Make use of the motion you have instead of forcefully stopping it and land for example in an angle towards your opponent, maybe facing him with your back.
Those moves are "comeback" moves and therefore are low percentage, because you should land a hit with an other technique in the first place and you have to adapt to your own and your opponents movement and time all that. This is why they are low percentage.

[jdinca]

Yes, but how do you base the percentage?
Why train a 360 jump spin hook, when a simple front kick would suffice?
It makes it easier to explain why something is better, to the newb/ninjars who show up here.

How's about adjusting the percentage of what you train based on the effectiveness of what you're doing? I've done many thousands of front kicks but only a few hundred jump spinning kicks.

When you're looking at percentage of effectiveness, I think it's also important to take the abilities of the practitioner into account. I can't do a decent jump spinning kick to save my life, so I will most likely never do one in a real situation. I just don't have the physical ability to do it well, no matter how much I practice. There are those in our school however, who are highly effective at the jump spinning kicks and I definitely wouldn't want to be hit by one.

What has a wider range of applications, a simple folding knife, or a good Leatherman? The folding knife is good for a great many things but the Leatherman is good for a great many more, even though it has tools that are used less frequently than others. I see martial arts as being very similar. Focus on what you use the most but don't discard things you may need to use in the future and have as many tools at your disposal as possible, as long as you're effective at using them.

[It is Fake]

Those moves are "comeback" moves and therefore are low percentage,

Depends on who throws them.

We all know that there are schools that teach them as full on techniques not secondary or "comeback" techniques.

[M.C.]

Depends on who throws them.

We all know that there are schools that teach them as full on techniques not secondary or "comeback" techniques.

Then they are wrong/stupid. (Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't understand that)

I had the opportunity to train with some of the best competition and technique trainers that German TKD has to offer and they stress those points all the time and success proves them right.

[It is Fake]

Then they are wrong/stupid. (Unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't understand that)

No that is your opinion.

I had the opportunity to train with some of the best competition and technique trainers that German TKD has to offer and they stress those points all the time and success proves them right.

Hmm okay. I never questioned your training but...*shrugs shoulder*



Notice:
YouTube - "Kyokushin Karate"　KO　(back spin & other kick)

[M.C.]

Hmm okay. I never questioned your training but...*shrugs shoulder*

I was just pointing out that it is important to have good instructors and that I was lucky enough to have them, nothing more, nothing less.