"Principle base" training vs. "Technique base" training

[YouKnowWho]

Many people believe that the "principle base" traing is superior than the "technique base" training. If you train one "abstract principle", you can apply it onto many different "concrete techniques". I have some problem by using this approach. Both hook punch and roundhouse kick may use the same "principle" - spin your limb, but I find out that my hook punch training won't help my roundhouse kick training.

I try to find an example that's pure "principle base" training. Can someone suggest such clip here?

Will you consider the following 2 men drill as "principle base" training or "technique base" training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik

[Hardwork108]

Many people believe that the "principle base" traing is superior than the "technique base" training. If you train one "abstract principle", you can apply it onto many different "concrete techniques". I have some problem by using this approach. Both hook punch and roundhouse kick may use the same "principle" - spin your limb, but I find out that my hook punch training won't help my roundhouse kick training.

My understanding of principle based training is different from what you described above. For example, in Wing Chun we face the opponent as we attack. That is a guiding principle, the same as not dealing with force using force, but to accept it and/or absorb it. Of course, those principles are not good if we do not have techniques that apply to those situations, and these techniques have to be drilled thousands of times to make them potent.


I try to find an example that's pure "principle base" training. Can someone suggest such clip here?

Will you consider the following 2 men drill as "principle base" training or "technique base" training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik

At the moment I am not able to see that clip on my computer.:(

[mooyingmantis]

Many people believe that the "principle base" traing is superior than the "technique base" training. If you train one "abstract principle", you can apply it onto many different "concrete techniques". I have some problem by using this approach. Both hook punch and roundhouse kick may use the same "principle" - spin your limb, but I find out that my hook punch training won't help my roundhouse kick training.

I try to find an example that's pure "principle base" training. Can someone suggest such clip here?

Will you consider the following 2 men drill as "principle base" training or "technique base" training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik

John,
Good topic for discussion!
I think you always need a mix of the two. The principle is the paradigm upon which the techniques are built. The problem comes when one limits them-self to following the techniques blindly. Within any technique there must be a means of deviating from the course if things do not go as planned. How one deviates is guided by the underlying principle.

[ShaolinDan]

I don't think it's possible to train principles without techniques...you couldn't do anything without violating the rule, but I guess you can shift what you emphasize.

The closest I've ever come to training principles without techniques was as a little kid. My dad (who was self-taught) used to teach/practice/play/fight with me a few nights a week.

He taught me 'use your opponent's momentum against him.' He cared more about the principle than the technique, it just had to work. But even without names for most of them, there were still certain moves which became part of my repertoire (which were part of his). (And even then there were still a half-dozen or so wrestling holds with 'real' names.)

Know the general from the particular, and know the particular from the general...it's a two-way road.

My teacher has a principles over technique emphasis in his eagle claw chin na instruction(in all of it really). We only learn about 50 of the 108 specific locking techniques. From there we're expected to have the tools to come up with the rest (and more). But yeah, there's no way to have zero techniques I think.

[RenDaHai]

The purpose of training techniques is to make you gradually understand the principles. The principles are formless and can't quite be trained specifically, just from going free style.

So you train technique and aim towards understanding the principles during those techniques, then you gradually move from form to formlessness.

You can talk about the principles in theory and thats a good thing to do while training. But it would be very difficult to train them specifically since understanding them comes from definate technique.

[Syn7]

Will you consider the following 2 men drill as "principle base" training or "technique base" training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik

i cant tell coz they are only doing one thing... based just on this i would have to say technique based... since they are simply taking turns trying a certain technique on eachother as opposed to taking a principle and rolling with it... but whos to say some principle wasnt the inspiration for the cat that created the technique...

[mooyingmantis]

ShaolinDan,
Master Michael Lamonica of Hakko Denshin Ryu taught the same way. One was expected to learn the waza method of tekagami (hand mirror), then develop various henka (variations) based upon the principle found in the waza. Though only a few waza were required for shodan, it was required of the student to develop numerous henka to demonstrate for the shodan test.

[ShaolinDan]

Oh. Well, I don't think my Shifu is actually going to make anyone show him the other 58 specific techniques(hope not!)...he'll just want us to show that we can improvise on the fly.

[SPJ]

"functional training" is da best.

Principles are a list of guidelines or requirements.

principles are meaningless by itself.

there are thousands and thousands of techniques.

we may group techniques into functions or purposes.

so we only train a few techniques that share the same or similar function or purpose.

under those tenets or contents or conditions for the function to work

principles take their meaning or place.

so we do functional training

and principles are guides or requirements for a certain function to work.

:)

[-N-]

Will you consider the following 2 men drill as "principle base" training or "technique base" training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzEnT5pKvik
Technique based, and showing the principles of:

bridge/control
high/low
push/pull

[-N-]

Can someone share some clip about "principle base" training?

That might end up being a video of just the teacher lecturing the student :)

Ok, principle based could be something like, "when sparring a big guy, use hit and run tactics". Then the video would be just free sparring with whatever techniques the person wanted, but he would need to maneuver and hit and run.

[ShaolinDan]

I was thinking something like try to get one's opponent off the mat or on the ground...start in clinch, no leg techniques or strikes, just push, pull, twist, etc. But maybe it would only be principle based with someone who was new to it...eventually a person develops techniques...really everything in martial arts (everything) plays off everything else, it's all inter-dependent.

[-N-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN-tFPZeqBc

Ok, principles in this video:

- use continuous hand and foot combinations, no one-sie two-sie shots
- when you close, go all the way in to be able to have body contact
- when you escape, cover your escape with attacking motions
- gauge your distance so that you are able to attack right away after avoiding
- use kicks and leg checks to counter kicks
- use upper lower scissoring on takedowns
- if you have body contact, try to take the other person's back/try not to let the other person have your back

[YouKnowWho]

We may talk about different level of "principle" here.

- If you lose, run like hell (high level principle).
- push your opponent's head down, and sweep his feet off, he will fall (middle level principle).
- A punch on the face hurt (low level principle).

Does "principle base" training = free sparring? I'm all for free sparring, but can a boxer suddently develop his "hip throw" by using the free sparring format?

IMO, the free sparring is to "test" your skill and not to "develop" your skill.

[ShaolinDan]

Maybe it's not what you do on the outside that counts, when it comes to principles. Principles let you develop your techniques, there's no way to demonstrate or use principles without techniques. I think it's maybe visible in the learning process more than any particular practice. But really I just think it's a kind of moot point...

[TenTigers]

an example would be, "jow sao" -running hand.
Learn a few techniques to understand the principle;
your opponent paks your straight punch, run to hook punch.
your opponent blocks your hook punch, run to uppercut.
your opponent blocks your uppercut, roll over to gwa choy.
then "run" with it. pun intended.
do you have to learn a hundred more technique variations to be able to get the idea?
no. now you are collecting. wasted time and effort.
sure, you need to learn several variations to understand the most efficient methods of movement, but after that, it should be self-explanatory.
(if it isn't...take up bowling...)

[Yum Cha]

The purpose of training techniques is to make you gradually understand the principles. The principles are formless and can't quite be trained specifically, just from going free style.

So you train technique and aim towards understanding the principles during those techniques, then you gradually move from form to formlessness.

You can talk about the principles in theory and thats a good thing to do while training. But it would be very difficult to train them specifically since understanding them comes from definate technique.

My thinking runs like RenDa's.

You start with techniques, and from there you discover the principles. Yourself. Maybe even your own interpretation.....

Once you get that, it unleashes all sorts of good stuff, formlessness is one word. Flexibility, innovation, adaptability, sensitivity....those also come to mind.

People are always more interested in principles because they see it is higher knowledge. One reason why is because you have to figure them out yourself. With guidance, of course.

[ginosifu]

I think that Principle and Technique are two sides of the same coin (sorta kinda).

Principles are the the theory that drive each technique. Techniques without theory or principle behind them are just brawling. I don't think you can chose to use one without the other. Lets take YouKnowWho's Round Punch and explain what I mean:

#1. Swing your arm from your shoulder at the opponents head. Keep your arm lose like a rope with a rock at the end of it. Speed and momentum are the keys to power in this technique.

#2. Keep your elbows bent (in a guard) so that your fist is pointed upward toward the opponents head. Bend your knees, then drive off of your legs, hips and knees and swing your fist (Keep your elbow pointed down) at the opponents head. Body / Leg power are the keys to this technique.

#3. Swing aimlessly trying for that homerun knockout punch. Swing without reguard for position or posture, just try and whack the opponent. For the non martial artist this is all you know, Brawling.

All of these swing laterally, all of these are circular. Principle or theory (or lack there of) define each of these. Is it possible to use technique without principle, Yes. Is it better to use principle behind each technique, my opinion is Yes.

ginosifu

[sanjuro_ronin]

You really can't have one without the other, can you?
The point is which is what makes the system, how is the system defined?
Principle based systems "don't care" what technique you use as long as it adheres to the core principles of the system.
Systems that teach you a technique and say it must be done this way and that way and then YOU figure out how to apply it, those are "technique" based systems.
EX:
Technique based system:
Round kick - this is how you do a round kick *insert example here*
Spar and find out how it works best for you.

Principle based system:
We work on the outside of the opponent, his "blind side" and as such, we prefer to use the round kick this way, inline with our principle of being on the "outside" and "in his blind spot".

[MightyB]

Good Technique leads to comprehension of the principles. For example - in throwing arts, you learn the technical aspects of the various throws, and then after you internalize the proper way - you then modify the throw based on it's principles to work for you.

[YouKnowWho]

So how do you train pure "principle"?

- solo form?
- solo drill?
- sparring?

It seems to me that the moment you do 2 men drill, since your move is defined, you are not training principle. "Run your opponent down" is a principle. You can use many techniques to achieve that principle. No matter which technique that you use, when you train it (single leg for example), you are trining "technique" and "principle" at the same time. In other words, a pure "principle" training method does not exist. Do people agree with me on this?

Someone said in another thread that Bagua circle walking is "principle" training because it can "prepare" your body to do many tasks. By using that definition, a "horse stance" traing can also be called "principle" training, and it may apply on "push up" and "sit up" as well.

[MightyB]

In other words, a pure "principle" training method does not exist. Do people agree with me on this?


You're probably right in saying Principle can't exist without technique. I'm sure even Yi Quan teaches techniques and that's about as "Principle over technique Based" as you can get.

[Hardwork108]

We may talk about different level of "principle" here.

- If you lose, run like hell (high level principle).
- push your opponent's head down, and sweep his feet off, he will fall (middle level principle).
- A punch on the face hurt (low level principle).

Does "principle base" training = free sparring? I'm all for free sparring, but can a boxer suddently develop his "hip throw" by using the free sparring format?

IMO, the free sparring is to "test" your skill and not to "develop" your skill.

:)

That is how I look at it, and I agree 100%. Free sparring is just another aspect/stage of learning to fight and it is not the beginning and the end of MA training, like some people try to sell it in this forum.

[ginosifu]

YouKnowWho;
When practicing your hip throw or knee seizing throw are you not able to get your technique off using a principle or theory? When you are drilling with a partner, do you feel that it is difficult to follow principle? Looking at any throw, from any system has a theory about how to apply their way.

Look at the knee seizing clip you put up. No matter how hard or how easy it is to get your technique off, you are still using the principle behind the move. Let me explain:

Knee Seizing = Uses Yin and Yang to unbalance the opponent. Your upper hand is driving the face / head downward and backward (Yin). You lower hand is taking his leg forward and upward (Yang). No matter what happens, whether you get the technique off or not.... you still used Shuai Chiao principle to attempt this move.

Almost every system around the world has a hip throw. Each system may or may not use different theory to apply this move. The only other way you can express a hip throw is thru brawling.... yes even a bar room brawler can hip throw anyone without any training. To pull someone over your hip is a natural / instinctual movement that can just feel "natural" to do. However, without theory or principle behind the movement it still is only brawling.

John... you've been doing SC so long that principles / theorys are so natural, you may not know you're doing them cause they come off without you thinking about it. I'm not sure why you feel that principle goes out the door when you drill with a partner?

ginosifu

[-N-]

Many people believe that the "principle base" traing is superior than the "technique base" training.
So who are these people, and what are they calling "principle based" training?

[YouKnowWho]

So who are these people, and what are they calling "principle based" training?

Quote from someone's post, "Being Principle based the actual applications are infinite".

[SPJ]

I think we do have to learn some technques first.

as long as you are good at what you do or skillful

principles or no principles are not important.

principles are just guides to help us understand what we do.

principles are also requirements that need to be addressed when we practice.

---

:)

[Josh Oakley]

I gotta disagree with you, SPJ. There is a benefit to being based in sound principles. You might have 100 techniques down pat, but there's no guaranteeing that an assailant will knowthe right ways to strike at you so that you can pull them off correctly.

In fact, you can pretty much bank on it. This is one thing I don't like about Kempo's eight million ways to deal with a step-through punch.

Principles need to be trained in a dynamic and changing environment. That way, in a fight, you will fall back on them.

[KC Elbows]

I gotta disagree with you, SPJ. There is a benefit to being based in sound principles. You might have 100 techniques down pat, but there's no guaranteeing that an assailant will knowthe right ways to strike at you so that you can pull them off correctly.

I lean techniques based, and I think the main thing is that a system that is well designed has certain integral things that set up much of the situation needed for the more specific moves. Using bjj as an example, the guards are simple, but remove them, and I would imagine a number of the other techniques will not find much chance to occur against a skilled opponent.

So the principles are defined in the techniques, with certain techniques holding specific roles that enable or play off of other techniques, you can know the principles but not the role of each major technique in fulfilling the principles, but if you know what the major techniques fulfill, then you know the principles


In fact, you can pretty much bank on it. This is one thing I don't like about Kempo's eight million ways to deal with a step-through punch.

Making everything an infinite number of defenses to step through punch gets the same end effect. Some techniques are not defenses to step through punch, but if the principle is all that is concerned, and there are no concrete applications, they can potentially all be defenses to step through punches, but they cannot all be equally useful ones.

If you charted all the possible applications for each step in a principle based assessment of a form, you would have an insane number of applications, but if you only included which applications that step was best at exemplifying frequently, it seems likely you'd end up with one list with points that were used in varying ways, and points that were specific.


Principles need to be trained in a dynamic and changing environment. That way, in a fight, you will fall back on them.

A portion of what has worked will be your techniques, all fighters bring their bread and butter techniques with them, They should be flexible and do their best when unforeseen circumstances arise, but where they have time and again entrained a working technique that brings good effect, they will use it.

I'm not arguing against principles, just that they are encased in the techniques, and past a certain level, a serious practitioner must entrain them to really understand them.

[YouKnowWho]

Assuming you can map one principle into infinite number of techniques can only be true in theory. In reality, your body can only do certain thing that you have done over and over in your past. If you have never train your left side kick (technique), even your principle may map into your left side kick, you still won't be able to do it.

[-N-]

If you have never train your left side kick (technique), even your principle may map into your left side kick, you still won't be able to do it.
But you can become a master at arguing on the internet :)

[Yum Cha]

I think there are high and low principles...

I think every art has principles, just some are more unique than others, some are more common.

I'd hazard to suggest Pak Mei is a principle based art, at the ultimate level.

[SPJ]

principles live or become alive with good techniques

if you suck at your techniques, principles will not save your arse.

we may talk about principles all day long.

or we may just practice techniques over and over and gain proficiency in them.

----

you may read and recite all principles

or you may just move your hands and steps and practice away your techniques

---

once you are good at your techniques

principles just bring out your understanding of your techniques more

---

[Iron_Eagle_76]

My breakdown in my class goes in pretty much three phases:

1. Basics-Punches, Kicks, Knees, Elbows, Animal Techs, all forms of strikes are thrown in the air, with a breakdown of how, what, and why these are done.

2. Circuit Training-Bag work, mitt work, kick shield, ect so the student can hit an actual target with full power and mobility.

3. Sparring- Working and executing the technique on a resisting opponent that is trying to hit them back.

Also, I consider two man drills, and one and two step sparring in the third phase as it is sparring, just at a lighter, more controlled pace. For thows, takedowns, and submissions, I use a similiar breakdown with rolling and randori being the final phase.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Techniques teach the principals.

Ultimately, they are one and the same.

[SPJ]

techniques are like the body

principles are like the souls

or something like that.

:)

[mickey]

Greetings,

There was this old master who was observing a fighter's techniques. the old master asked if the fighter would try his best techniques on him. The fighter complied and whacked the old master with a picture perfect left hook, knocking the old master out. The old master came to and said, "Your punch was good, but lacking in principles." The fighter asked for guidance and the old master proceeded to provide the fighter with principles. The fighter listened astutely. When the old master finished his discourse, he asked the student to show his understanding of the principles he shared. The student went over to the master and whacked him with a picture perfect left hook, identical to the previous one, knocking the old master out. When the old master came to, he said, "You are my BEST student!!"


mickey

[SPJ]

yes. doing is one thing

knowing is another

so know what you do

or do what you know

etc etc.

:D

[YouKnowWho]

Greetings,

There was this old master who was observing a fighter's techniques. the old master asked if the fighter would try his best techniques on him. The fighter complied and whacked the old master with a picture perfect left hook, knocking the old master out. The old master came to and said, "Your punch was good, but lacking in principles." The fighter asked for guidance and the old master proceeded to provide the fighter with principles. The fighter listened astutely. When the old master finished his discourse, he asked the student to show his understanding of the principles he shared. The student went over to the master and whacked him with a picture perfect left hook, identical to the previous one, knocking the old master out. When the old master came to, he said, "You are my BEST student!!"


mickey

That's a good story. I had never met a single person in my life who claimed principle this and principle that and had combat skill at the same time.

Someone swings his sword and chop your head off, while your head is flying off your body, your head can't care less what "principle" that your opponent used to send you to heaven.

[SPJ]

off topic a bit

yes. there are differences even thou you all lose your heads.

in song dynasty, judge bao was kai feng fu yin or kai feng the capital chief police/judge.

there were dog head za

tiger head za

dragon head za.

if you were royalties, you got to use dragon head za.

---

;)

[SPJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Xqbv9liNpk&feature=related

chen shi mei passed the exam and married a princess

but he had a wife already.

so he was beheaded.

the principle is

if you do the crime, you serve the time. royalty or civilian alike.

---

back to regular discussion.

[GojuRyuMaster]

I prefer to say that "techniques are EXAMPLES of principles". That helps build the idea that you should not be locked into ONLY the techniques and applications that you are shown. Knowing your principles well helps you to learn and play to grow beyond what you are explicitly shown.


Techniques teach the principals.

Ultimately, they are one and the same.

[GojuRyuMaster]

I completely agree.

Just about every art shares the principle of "defend the self, control the attacker".

Where we get into "unique principles" (which really are like preferences), is in the areas of "how" to defend the self (dodge, parry or both), and "how" to control the attacker (pummel, throw, choke, kick).



I think every art has principles, just some are more unique than others, some are more common.

[SPJ]

principles and apps/techniques are 2 way street.

we find common things among techniques and summarize them as principles.

we derive principles from techniques. (one way)

based on principles, we may derive/vary more techniques. (the other way)

for each principle or technique, we derive tactics and strategy.

---

----

[GojuRyuMaster]

SPJ,

I certainly can't argue that this is what commonly happens, however, I propose that it is not the most efficient or effective way to teach most information.

If you think of many subjects outside of martial arts, you'll see that typically it's more efficient to lead with the "who, what, when, where, and why" before you demonstrate the "how".

Without the context to support the "technique", many people run off and collect or change things because they don't understand why things are the way they are in the first place.

Slightly related, I recently read a book for educators that talks about "backwards planning", which is simply 1) knowing your goal(s), 2) determining methods to assess when the students understand the material, and 3) (LASTLY) devloping exercises for teaching/learning the material.

I feel that leading with principle gives students the necessary context and helps to avoid people going off in strange and unnecessary directions in thier martial arts training.

Just my opinion and based on my experience on both sides of this discussion.




principles and apps/techniques are 2 way street.

we find common things among techniques and summarize them as principles.

we derive principles from techniques. (one way)

based on principles, we may derive/vary more techniques. (the other way)

for each principle or technique, we derive tactics and strategy.

---

----