Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

chicken or the egg?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    abandon your dualistic thinking in order to reach supreme enlightenment!

    i hate people who classify shit like this. nobody cares how many techniques you have. considering the many directions in which our joints can rotate, the possibilities are endless. it's a miracle that we can unconsciously solve problems involving so many dimensions instantaneously so that we can move at all.

    Comment


      #17
      "IMO, "princples" are transferable to different situations, but "techniques" are not. If you use the correct princple, but a flawed technique you still have a chance, but if you use a picture perfect technqiue in the wrong situation and get killed."

      Punisher,

      I....agree, marginally. I do feel that you have some vague assertions there. not to insult.

      principles are not 'transferable', they are ever present. It is conformance or alignment to the principles that varies. Human error, in other words.

      a technique cannot be picture perfect and fail. It must conform to principle to be 'perfect'( i.e. work). if it fails, it is because it has violated proper principles of operation.

      being that techniques are processes, the concept of technique existing separately from principle ( governing elements of process) is not possible.

      Peace.

      Comment


        #18
        We're not worried about how many techniques anyone has, just simply trying to define what a technique is in a concise way.
        "Pussyhole"

        Comment


          #19
          A principle is to your MA as a law is to science, all things should adhere to it.
          This is not to say that the priciple cannot be bent.
          "Pussyhole"

          Comment


            #20
            hate people who classify shit like this. nobody cares how many techniques you have. considering the many directions in which our joints can rotate, the possibilities are endless. it's a miracle that we can unconsciously solve problems involving so many dimensions instantaneously so that we can move at all.

            lay off the inhalants.

            Comment


              #21
              "A principle is to your MA as a law is to science, all things should adhere to it.
              This is not to say that the priciple cannot be bent."

              I would take that a step further and say that ma principles are the laws of science, or physics. IMO, many 'techniques' that are attempted inherently violate the laws of physics, as suffer commesurately.

              I have done a fair amount of study on martial arts. I particularily enjoy relating 'old school' poems and instructions to modern day science at a very basic level. without fail, i have found that all passages or advice of value is firmly rooted in physics/science.

              i think that usually these passages are often highly misunderstood, hence all the friction about CMA theory and application.

              CMA develop processes that are based on the observable laws of physics.

              in IndoMa, there is the base, angle, and lever formula/principle. This is an insruction which contains principles of proper leverage for throws. the associative imagery for this 'technique' is an expanding triangle that creates a spiral energy. Optimally, this can cause serious internal damage to your opponent.

              feinting, or deception, is attacking the awareness. this is also called 'mindboxing'. it is a scientific manipulation of the opponent's perception. It is 'based' on psychology, Gestalt i think ( could very be wrong). you would be surprised how this principle can be utilized...lol

              'surprised'....lol....i crack me up.

              Peace.

              Comment


                #22
                "Every step is a kick - every punch is a throw. Every kick is a step - every throw is a punch"

                A pitcher throws from the mound, like a boxer throws an over-hand right, like a Judoka throws with Tai-otoshi, like a Tai Chi Player moves through Brush-knee-twist-step. Each application has its own specific contextual intent, but it's basically the same movement pattern.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Here is a shit disturber for you:
                  What came first the technique or the principle ?

                  Comment


                    #24
                    My 2 cents, not thought through, maybe inconsistent themselves:
                    There are

                    Laws,
                    the underlying facts that apply to everyone and everything, like it or not.
                    Physics, anatomy, human psychology etc (of course this doesn`t mean anatomy or stress behaviour is strictly the same for everyone).
                    They exist regardless of what people think about them (perception). Just because you believe you can fly doesn`t mean you can.
                    "Systems of training" (think I prefer this to "style", "system" or whatever) have their own (biased) interpretations of the laws (the world of underlying facts), their "world view".

                    Objectives
                    Even if what is usually called a "fight" (various scenarios/views) is brief, there are long term and short term objectives, the latter derived from the first if things are supposed to make sense. Long term e.g. staying out of prison, avoiding future mischief, going down in history as a hero, becoming popular with the crowd in a tournament circuit. Short term e.g. reaching a submission, punishing severely (as a future deterrent), trying to kick as much and as spectaculary as possible.

                    Principles
                    are guidelines how to achieve long term or short term objectives. It may be "position before submission", "center line should be occupied", "kicks are preferable", "forward pressure is generally useful", "neck cranks are taboo", whatever.

                    Techniques
                    are the action. Whether physical or mental, whether simple or combined. What you do, how you do it. How to clinch, jab, distract, boxing combos, stare down, power sourcing etc..

                    Everyone, trained or not, has objectives, follows principles and uses techniques.
                    Consciously or subconsciously - that`s irrelevant for definition.
                    The question is how good they are.
                    How well is it adapted to the laws (how functional is the model of the laws, how well does it use them to achieve objectives), how well they fit together. Major inconsistencies on particular levels or between different levels lead to ineffiency and failure.

                    P.S.:
                    Imo the purpose of training includes all of the above and as training methods that I find useful ingrain techniques, principles and build the required attributes together, I don`t see how "style" can be reduced to techniques. Substracting training methods leaves only a dead body. A "system of training" may incorporate different distinct "fighting styles", though (e.g. southpaw counter boxer in western boxing), which become "individual fighting styles" when performed/interpreted by a particular practitioner.

                    Then again, who cares? I don`t get the fuss about principles, styles and stuff.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      What I wrote is a principle regarding techniques. Techniques are a distraction from, and an abstraction of principles.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        'mindboxing' I would take it almost literally to psychologicaly attacking your opponents mind. Not just by feinting, deception and attacking his awarness/distracting, attacking by fright and intimidation (a.s.o. a number of other means not mention) but beyond that into the metaphysical.

                        (Sorry for any typo I'm trying to eat and type at the same time.)
                        Ghost of Charles Dickens

                        Comment


                          #27
                          No one wantes to answer my question ?
                          What came first the technique or the principle ?

                          Comment


                            #28
                            technique.

                            some guy went..hey this punch works real well...and then said ....hmm..how can i get more punches that work like this.

                            no one goes..i want to control center line! and then figures out why and how he's gonna make it work.
                            Punches in bunches and kicks kicks kicks!

                            Comment


                              #29
                              old CMA books describe that certain families were good at certain techniques. One good at kicking, one good at palms, etc. no mention of principles until people stopped beating on each other and began talking too much.
                              Punches in bunches and kicks kicks kicks!

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Give that man a CIGAR !!!!

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X