There are divisions to
this.
Principles are the big
things. Principles are the things
(usually physics) that make other things work. Principles apply to everything.
‘Maximize leverage’ is a
principle. Poor leverage will make
locks fail and takedowns fail and significantly weaken strikes. Good leverage (and good leverage for
strikes includes using a stick) makes everything better. It’s just physics.
Range is a principle—you
can’t hit something you can’t reach.
But teaching range poorly (e.g. this is good range for hand strikes but too close for
kicks and that is good range for kicks but too far away for
hands) is an easily-inherited lack of understanding and creativity. Jack Dempsey
proved you can knock someone out with a jab from well out of punching
range. There are kicks that work
very effectively at clinch range.
There are power generation systems that require no more distance than
what you can get with your fingers touching the threat, and there are ways to
use some of those on the ground.
There are more principles,
but not that many (at least that I’ve identified). Simple, universal.
Like many things, there is a big gap between knowing them and understanding
them. I’m coming too believe that
it is easy to know something and at some level you can teach just from
knowledge. But the stuff you apply
instinctively under stress is only the stuff that you understand.
Thought during the drive
yesterday. Things must have either
eased off or tightened up, since I’m thinking about writing almost
constantly. Details. I know there
is enough material in details for a book, but I doubt that I’m consciously
aware of a tenth.
Details are the little
things. Not big universals like principles. More specific, maybe more limited, but
the tricks we all do to make things work.
Like the ulnar
rotation. You smack into a bicep
or under the jaw with the flat of your forearm and then rotate and dig the ulna
into the target. Or the sawing action. No idea why pushing directly against
certain points won’t work but when you saw your forearm it moves much bigger
people.
And some little details
make things fail. When (as many
do) you apply a wristlock with some of your fingers actually on the joint, you
are in your own way. You support
the joint, just like a splint.
And some things I’m not
sure are details, maybe a nuances: You should be able to tell the orientation
of your blade by the feel of the handle.
If you can’t see or feel where the elbow joint is, the little finger
will tell you where to put pressure.
Stuff like that.
Something to let stew for
awhile.
5 comments:
I’m coming too believe that it is easy to know something and at some level you can teach just from knowledge. But the stuff you apply instinctively under stress is only the stuff that you understand.
Yes!
For some reason I always thought someone could details some of the principles you speak about. Call it the Principles Of Effective Movement (P.O.E.M) with the tag line, because when it is done right, it is poetry in motion.
Oh yeah, it's because I'm a dork.
:-)
Bloom's Taxonomy
The sawing bit: We've used a rolling action of the edge of the hand to the same effect. I feel it causes rotation in places that can't effectively resist that rotation, which provides you with a much more effective lock.
The sawing motion with the forearm is a much better way of doing things, due to the whole chemical cocktail bit.
Food for thought: principles describe classes of affordances that can be exploited.
Post a Comment