Principles vs. Techniques

[Rick Wilson]

Principles vs. Techniques:

I believe in principles over techniques.

There are styles that have thousands of techniques. Really they are just codifying various was to apply various principles.

The problems come when those learning the thousands of techniques fail to understand that they are merely just various applications and believe they should be memorizing the thousands of techniques.

My friend Rick Bottomley and I work the same way. We are always trying to see the underlying principles behind what someone is showing us. IF, it is an application of a principle, or built off of a principle we are already aware of, then we “know” how to do the application we are being shown.

I was at a seminar doing some double stick work. I had worked single stick but never double stick. However, the drill we were doing was (to me) to same as some empty hand principles I work all the time. (All the FMA may now nod your heads and say of course). Anyway my partner was having difficulty and stopped. I helped him out and he said I must do this all the time. I said no I’ve never done this before –he looked a little sheepish and said he trained in it all the time.

The point I wanted to make here was that he was trying to simply copy the moves rather than understanding what the principles were. (The moves were very rich with them.)

Kata is the same way. If one simply copies the moves then that is all they are. If however, you look deeper for the principles you receive the gift that keeps on giving.

Rick Bottomley’s Example: Joint locks. The principle behind a joint lock is very simple. You put pressure on the extension of the limb to be locked and pressure on the joint. Now simply draw a circle with those two pressures so that the joint is manoeuvred in a direction it is not supposed to bend or that over extends it.

Take the first joint on the end of a finger. Place your index finger on the side of the joint and your thumb on the tip of your finger. Now draw a circle with your index finger and thumb so that the joint is bent sideways. Pain ensues.

Now do the same at the second joint and the last one.

Place your thumb on the last joint of your second finer and you fingers on the underside of your wrist. Press the thumb forward while your fingers pull (drawing a circle. There is a wrist lock.

Grab your partner’s wrist and place your forearm on the back of his elbow. Press on your forearm and pull on your hand drawing a circle = elbow lock.

I am sure you can figure out a shoulder lock from here.

Now someone grabs you from the side by your collar. Your pin his hand with your chin while placing your forearm on the back of his elbow. Use the pinned hand and your forearm to draw a circle locking the elbow.

Someone places their hand on your chest fingers pointing up. You grab their elbow. Lean forward to use your chest to press the top of their hand backwards. Pull on the elbow which actually moves the bottom of their wrist in the opposite direction (in towards you) thus drawing the circle and locking the wrist.

These may seem like different techniques but they are just different expressions of the same principle.

This will works the same on toes and ankles and knees etc.

The principle is moving the extension one way and the joint the other direction in a manner the joint was not intended to move or to over extend it. This is all any joint lock is.

The circle can spiral to add pain and breakage but it is basically the same.

Once you understand this principle if you can gain control over those two points on a joint you can lock it or break it. The various configuration through which this can be done are almost endless (thus the thousands of techniques). And sometimes you need to see variations to keep your mind open on the many ways this can be accomplished, but once you have this principle you can always lock a joint.

When looking at an application look for the principles involved and you will be able to carry them over.

The principles within kata are the same. If you just do movements you will miss them.

To me this is what people really mean when they say Kata can be spontaneously applied in some application the person has not actually done before. This was a person who studied and understood the principle he was performing and found and application to express it.

[maxwell ainley]

Rick, very good thought...

A well respected wado-ryu sensei mentioned in some writings a few years ago ,how we would travel the length and breadth of the country to learn another technique ,or a sequence to a kata etc ,that really summed up our mentality ,we were not quite ready for principles at the time ,it was one big bandwagon or quest for more and more technique .
funakoshi sensei offered this advice pick out a technique make it your own before rushing to the next ,obviously by making it ones own ,the passage brings one closer to the principle that it rests upon ,he spent ten years alone to the nai-hanchi series .
Friends ex students just could not get their head around my spending all time to sanchin " a common question fired at me just what are you trying to do" Well a reason was to understand or attempt to grasp the principles behind sanchin ,they were progressing through the ranks leaving me trailing miles behind ,they were kidding themselves on .

Real progress rests upon a firm grasp of principle ,the principle/technique must be internalized ,this is really what funakoshi sensei points to .Allthough the principle at that time is slghtly trailing to technique ,grasping the principle ,then holding the principle is next ;I go into this in the puzzle principle .
I can tell if some one as temporary dropped the principle ...
Uechi-ryu is rich in principles as we know " my statement rings true here by slowing down more is seen less is missed the more you rush the less you see " this seeing is part of the puzzle ,but as i said in puzzle mode2 its balanced all round sense seeing. Rick I have studied hundreds of people maybe thousands even over the years and no one as come close to balanced seeing ,
"Max what are you doing with that one technique ?"
The way I nterpretate is that the whole of principle rest upon the "all- inclusive principle " now with out knowledge and understanding of this principle we learn piece meal .
max.

[Halford]

It is easy to become lopsided about all this. Techniques without principles and principles without techniques are equally disastrous for those who really wish to be martial artists. Keeping a balance, based on experience, is important. We have the person who can do marvelous techniques but can't teach them, explain them, or correlate them,while we have others who can expound on theories, drills, diagrams, exercises, history,etc. but can't punch their way out of a wet paper bag(which is not as easy as people think,by the way). The example of the single stick in FMA is interesting,indeed. The manuevers with empty-hands that were mentioned as helping in the double stick methods are also interesting. If you look at all three components of arnis,escrima, kali,etc. you will find that the solo baston, the doble baston, and the espada y daga all are the same,with some few exceptions when you grasp the principles of each,which to most persons, seem different and diverse, not related. The principle here is understanding what you know. Most people know a lot but do not understand what they know! If you can take a small detail and relate it to the greater whole, then you have some understanding! I do not want to belabor these points right now but will let you try to digest them if you can. Thanks for your time. Halford at http://arnis.homestead.com

[2Green]

But...all techniques are expressions of principles, are they not?
If you learn a technique, not understanding the underlying principle, then it is just a technique...and perhaps, not a most effective one.
But if you understand a principle, and seek it and apply it in all appropriate techniques, does that not make the principle the dominant, most important factor?
I see principles as the basis, and techniques the expression.

NM

[Halford]

If you look at how people dine and eat and all the table manners,etc. then what do you really see and understand. Eating and dining(selecting wines,for example, or the art of cooking,etc.) are similar to martial arts. If you dwell on recipes,correct temperatures, fuels to use, and styles of cooking, you may never get around to eat. Of course, in this day and age of fast foods not much is given to actual PREPARATION! Techniques in martial arts prepare you and from their you can speculate. Of course, nothing is ever as it seems,as you know. Halford

[maxwell ainley]

The principle of Shu Ha Ri for example a rite of passage in progress in karate etc ,

If we train study sanchin at the shu level we mostly see experience the techniques ,the hurdels pitfalls etc involved in just learning ,we may hear of principle etc ,for starters how we are learning .
The principle of learning can take us on to Ha level ,but Shu level is were we can if we wish become involved with the principles behind each specific technique .at this point our technique might have the tunnel vision attached to it ,and we possibly could resist coming out of tunnel vision ,a slight grasp of a specific principle can work wonders on that tunnel vision .

In my apprenticeship as bricklayer/mason I was shown a technique with the trowel ,thats mostly been lost or neglected ;the cutting edge of the trowel was worn perfectly straight .
The principle behind it was a perfectly straight wall ,the blade its self acted as a mini straight edge it cut ,touched between top arris and bottom arris of a brick or masonery material ,

Also working blind is a common fault in building ,incorrect use of the principle of pythageras 3 . 4. 5. this creates mass problems at all levels of operation s .

When we start to understand principle we also start to not work blindly .
max.

[Halford]

The Early Greek Philosophers,or rather, the Greek Philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had a great influence on Western Thinking that still persists today. Be that as it may, this dilemma often rears its head in martial arts in a slightly different way: namely, students tend to separate the Teachings from the Teacher or the Message from the Messenger. Thus we get this belief that the teachings are separate from the Teacher(s) and this carries over into the belief that the principles are different from the techniques! Of course, I realize that most of you will not agree with this for various reasons,one being that the mind,or if you much prefer,the brain, operates in this binary fashion:either-or;plus-minus;yes-no,etc.etc. This is called Aristotelian Thinking in some circles and relates somewhat to the structure of language, that is, one's native tongue or first language,etc. I welcome more comment on this. Thanks for your time. Halford

[2Green]

Write this down:
"The Birth of a New Physics": L Bernard Cohen, Norton Publications, ISBN# 0-393-30045-5

"The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought": Thomas S. Kuhn, Harvard University Press, ISBN# 0-674-17103-9

These books will provide any non-technical but basically literate person with a solid insight into Halford's assertion.
And, they make fascinating reading, since they bear directly on why we think as we do. I also recommend "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".

However, Halford, I disagree with a couple of your views.
Firstly, I don't get the connection between "the Teaching is separate from the Teacher", and "this carries over onto the belief that the principles are different from the techniques."

Whenever the teaching is separated from the teacher, it becomes dogma. This is how I define the term. Teachers teaching by rote only what they have heard, whether they believe it or not.

Secondly, the brain does not operate in binary fashion, unless that "brain" is a digital computer.
The brain operates holistically, using many varying states of emotion, intellect, logic, experience and intuition to embrace a problem.

Computers are like the early flapping-wing contraptions that man thought would equal birds in flight; it was not until man abandonded that model that he was successful.
Now we surpass the birds, but by a totally different method of flight. So it will be with computers.
Right now, binary and fuzzy-logic circuits are all we have, and they perform great feats, but don't be fooled into thinking that that's how your brain works; you are doing it a great disservice!

Finally, whenever you hear a person say "you know there are TWO kinds of people in this world..." then you are confronting binary thinking. It's not pretty.

NM

[Halford]

I did not assert that the Teaching is different from the Teacher or vice versa but said that essentially emphasizing principles over techniques is similar to such a process of separation.....Or, that the message somehow exists apart from the messenger....I am saying that you really can't separate principle from technique or technique from principle.....though it may not look like it. I am merely questioning earlier assertions made about practice or technique and principles or concepts. From one point of view, these seem opposed to one another if you read it that principle is much more important than technique,etc. It's like asking, which is more important: your left eye or your right eye;your left hand or your right hand? I used earlier the thing about eating. No matter what technique you use in chewing it follows the principle of chewing! No matter what style or system of chewing you engage in, you still chew! Fletcherists take note! Whether it is 32 chews per mouthful or less or more .....Halford

[Halford]

The thinking process is binary and most emotions and emotional responses are also binary: we feel pain or pleasure,we feel hate or love, we feel sad or happy,etc. etc. The intermediate or varying degrees of these states are seldom perceived until something gross happens. When the blade is pressed tip-wise against the flesh only a slight sensation is experienced but when stuck with full-force, blood gushes out.....or whatever. Actually, we are talking much the same thing but in different dimensions, maybe. Emotions are faster than intellect,while instincts, which man has few of, are operating at a different level and speed. The emotional and mental functions are often confused in modern man. But I don't want to get into all that right now. Have to dash, but keep up the good work.

[Halford]

Most people think in dualistic terms as our Western languages tend to have a subject and predicate. this makes them dualistic and it can be found, as I said before, in the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies and this dichotomy of theory and practice becomes part and parcel of all such discussions as a result,at least historically. Anyway, go back to the assertion by Rick Wilson at the beginning which is what brought me into this discussion. His position will, if carried to its logical conclusion mean simply that Principle is opposed to technique! Remember, I said logical conclusion.....so that it becomes principle vs technique or technique vs. principle. If you look at JKD you will find two schools usually mentioned:the original and the conceptual.....let'snot mention the renegade right now! Again, a dualistic approach to JKD,a dichotomy,etc. Well, I hope this clarifies a few things. It is sort of like the chicken and the egg problem:which came first? Did principle exist first or did technique and you can find varied opinions on all this.

[2Green]

I maintain that techniques are expressions of principles. If they are not, then they contain nothing.
Which came first? Simple.
People discovered principles, then developed techniques to express them.
My feeling is that you need to think this through.
I don't mean is in a condescending tone, please don't take it like that. I'm NOT an intellectual!
But I understand process, and I believe you're looking for an honest answer to an honest question.


NM

[Rick Wilson]

Hi all:

2Green has actually picked up more of my intent, or perhaps we are back to a misunderstanding of terms.

To me principles are the basis of any art. Techniques are physical expressions of the application of martial arts and the physical demonstration, and illustration, of the principles in practical use.

The point of my post was that if you understand the principles you will be able to bring them into application anytime they are available.

YES, we require the demonstration of principles to learn them and this requires a demonstration of the applications = techniques.

However, we find people who learn lock one and lock two and believe they have learned two distinctly different things. When presented with an opportunity that fits the principle but not the same circumstances of lock one or two, they cannot apply a lock. Why? Because they failed to understand the underlying principle.

When ever learning a technique or a thousand techniques you must look deep to find the principles or really you have only prepared yourself for one to a thousand situations. What about the 1001st situation.

Worse yet, those who do not learn the principles and do not work with the intensity that allows failure when a technique is not done correctly (read a principle is not applied correctly) they will lose the underlying principles and have mere hollow movements left.

Again I relate this to what I do. Very often you hear a Karate practitioner state that he no longer believes in Kata because they are merely worthless dances. This is a person who has either not been trained properly or has not learned what he has been taught properly. That person does a hollow Kata or one devoid of principles.

So I agree that techniques are required to illustrate principles and that techniques are required to keep your mind open on how to apply principles but I to me principles are the most important.

Can I demonstrate the application of a principle without showing you a “technique” – no.

"You may train for a long time, but if you merely move your hands and feet and jump up and down like a puppet, learning karate is not very different from learning a dance. You will never have reached the heart of the matter; you will have failed to grasp the quintessence of karate-do." - Gichin Funakoshi

[Halford]

YOU KNOW THE TECHNIQUES no matter how many principles you know or understand! That is the dilemma! By separating principles and techniques, which most of us do at some time or other, we really dont' get very far. But if you can relate one technique to a principle, then perhaps you can understand. Small details, despite what most think, are still important when it comes to understanding and you obtain the small details by practicing techniques,no matter how inclusive or lofty principles are. Remember, laws and principles are not necessarily the same thing.

[Rick Wilson]

Hi Halford:

I think this may come done to a slight variation in what we mean by techniques.

You see, from my definition of technique and principle, there is no valid “technique” that does not express principles. A technique to me is simply an application: You do this and I respond with this. I put a goose neck / figure four on like this from this position etc.

Principle to me is the underlying “science”, if you will, that makes the technique work.

We cannot practice the application of principles without practicing a technique.

Are we talking about the same thing when we say technique and principle?