How technical is your training?

Would you describe your martial arts training as technically based, or something else? If not based on technical things ie; physics, anatomy, bio-mechanics, how is it trained? Rote? Meta-physical? Other?

Do you see a need for technical understanding in your training?

What category does 'do it like this' fall under?

Rote, with no explanation? Little or none, I would think.

So...the only way to transmit 'technical' knowledge is verbally?

Harlan,

I wouldn't say that the only way to transmit technical knowledge is verbally, since were not talking grand, moral concepts presented through parables. But it is definitely part of the explanation.

If you were given a concept...verbally. Shown said concept in broken down pieces. Given some hints on what your body should being doing and perhaps feel like while performing a technique that encompasses the concept. And then shown the application of the concept or principle....then you got yourself a bonafide explanation of what is being done.

There is a difference between someone just showing and expecting you to follow and later get "it" as opposed to someone teaching and working through the problems "you" have in being able to understand and perfrom what is being shown.

In other words, don't copy the look of something, copy the mechanics of what is being done, and the "look" will take care of itself. Verbal explanations help with understanding the idea behind the movement.

Well, then, I guess it's technical. But 'talk-talk' about physics, anatomy, etc. of why and how something works is, to my mind, more of an add-on.

The way the initial question was phrased, the options seem to be 'technical' vs. rote and mystical (both considered non-technical). But, the characteristic aspect of physical/non-verbal learning was not really addressed.

Perhaps the amount of technical knowledge absorbed by the student is very dependent on the extent to which said student is able to self-analyse. Personally, I've always been very good at analysing both my technique and that of others, so when technique is explained to me systematically I can pick it up pretty quickly and "feel" my technique to see where it is going wrong. I've definitely noticed that other people I train with aren't as able to pick up on what they are doing wrong.

Sup...you are one of the lucky ones!

Harlan, I think of it as less an add-on, but more a necessary accessory. Descriptions about how and where to generate power...anatomical references are there hopefully for visualization cues to help the student along. And sometimes it won't sink in 'till later.

As an example...and this is just coming from the style I practice rather than being a set in stone, pan-MA technique. When we punch doing a right straight from an orthodox, left foot in-front stance, the right supporting foot comes off the ground...kicks off the ground so you are on the ball of your foot. There is also the requisite hip twist that any and all striking styles basically do.

The beginning student within our system will generally just twist the hip and then bring the rear foot forward as a consequence of the hip movement. To the casual observer this is what is happening...but it is fundamentally wrong and will lead to attenuated power and less follow through later on. This will also prove problematic when showing the hooks and uppers that can be set up after the right cross using this initial movement of torquing the hip by that kick off of the back foot.

What should be happening is the rear leg kicks off the ground, propelling the hip in its movement, not the hip moving the leg. Looks basically the same, but is not the same. Without explanations, I think the rote learning curve would be a lot longer.

Butterfly put it best. It's about having anatomical reference to your targets, and understanding how you generate power. There are a few other areas where technical knowledge applies, but the main thing is understanding what you are doing, and why you are doing it for situation.

Quote:

---

Well, then, I guess it's technical. But 'talk-talk' about physics, anatomy, etc. of why and how something works is, to my mind, more of an add-on.

The way the initial question was phrased, the options seem to be 'technical' vs. rote and mystical (both considered non-technical). But, the characteristic aspect of physical/non-verbal learning was not really addressed.

---

Harlan -

I guess I don't see how the contextual information about a given technique can be addressed without explanation. How do you apply it? When do you apply it? How is it set up? What are likely defenses or responses from the opponent? Etc.

I consider these to be key questions in regards to making the move functional. Lack of context and detail can reduce the viability of the technique greatly, IMHO.