Simple techniques vs complex strategies

Got a question for you all. In your opinion which is better, to have a small amount of simple techniques and a lot of practical training, or to have a lot of complex strategies but with far less particle training. Reason I ask is this. In my years of training I am not purely a kung fu guy. I have done Korean karate and Japanese's JJ for a long time, and have done cross training in grappling boxing and others.

I remember a while back telling my older brother I was doing a little ...... kung fu system, and he was like with all these strategies what if you get in a fight with some tough guy and just get your ass kicked. My brother is an animal not tall, but like 210 solid ,crazy ,has had lots of violent fights, even KOed a famous NFL football player with a wrestling LD. Few sane people trained or not would want to face my brother in a fight.

If any of you have ever been in any real fights, analyze the techniques you used. Pretty simple right? Good example is the old school UFC matches. Anyone remember a fighter named Keith Hackney? He was a Kempo Karate guy that won two fights and did well against Royce Gracie. His first fight was against a 600 pound sumo fighter. Did he use Karate in his fight? He did, he used a back fist, hammer fist, palm heal strike, some low kicks and some footwork. Did it look anything like a scene in a BloodSport type movie? Not at all. In his second fight was similar. He used some low kicks, a sweep[when being choked], some hook punches to the groin and a finger choke, but all in all it looked really simple.

I like the expression KISS, keep it simple stupid. I do forms and weapons forms, love them but my core fighting techniques are pretty simple. I also hit pads, do strength training[traditional] and spar, do two man drills...... I think the important point of all these fancy mystical training methods is conditioning. Look at Kyokushin karate guys, they don't hide secrets, how many kung fu guys want to fight a good Kyokushin fighter?

I've never learned highly complex strategies. So I cant comment. As to complex or fine motor skill techniques. Ive seen some pulled off. But mostly it is basic techniques and keep hitting until you win. Now, in sparring maybe Ive used some things that might be considered by some as complex strategy. But it was mostly fakes and set ups. But it was not like I could always use that. Most of us work with the same people over and over. They learn you and you them. And they often keep getting you with that one thing they do great. They own it and know you and when to get you with it.

In general I would say gross motor skills and aggressive intent.

Now Hackney. He learned his Kenpo via Tom Saviano who was a student of John McSweeney. John was a student of Ed Parker but also James Wing Woo. John was heavily influenced by JWW's kung fu strikes. But John was also a bare bones kind of guy and kept it basic gross motor skills for the most part drawing from JWW's strikes for the most part. He possibly modified some of those. Hackney appears to have utilized a little more of the Kenpo he learned and was simply a better fighter than John likely ever was or could have been and could utilize more in a fight. John is who brought Kenpo to Europe. Most specifically Ireland. He was not highly learned or a fan of Parkers many different later versions. But that of Chows Kenpo. Although he was the first Black belt in Parkers first Kenpo revision he did not learn that. It was an organizational shift and John was not around for the change. He was off to Ireland. So he had that, JWW stuff. Judo and boxing and that's what he brought to Ireland.


Your brother is probably hard as nails tough. I know the types. Man I hate being the little guy because Midgets never start with me.

I would also suggest the GJJ appears fairly gross motor until the higher belts. Helio was very talented in his understanding of grappling.

Some very interesting points there BB. What system of martial arts have you done? It is interesting the Gracie JJ in the early 90s promoted their system as the best for self defense and fighting and that 99% of fights go to the ground. In my experience about 50 % of fights go to the ground. Also seems [specially these days] the BJJ is geared towards competition not self defense. Blue belt bjj curriculum is more than enough to deal with any guy on the street on the ground in a one on one fight. What about all the other possibilities of things that can happen in real life. But yeah I think most of the bjj you would use in real life is basic.

Boxing. ITF. Isshin Ryu. Shaolin Kempo. Freestyle wrestling. Stuff I learned from guys in other arts along the way but that would have been single move type stuff.

I never considered street wrestling fighting because almost everyone did it back then. More times than I can recall. I guess some of it might have been. Almost all my street fights stayed standing unless I went down or the other guy did. Lots of people fought in the early 80's here still but the 70's were way worse I heard. They still fight here. Every day. We are a violent county. But I think we get along mostly. The races mix fairly well but Rochester was one of the first multi race cities. The PR's here are mostly the punks. Cant stand the male kids. The girls are sweet mostly. Nice. I like them and the older PR's. Most of the other colors are good people. Whites. 50/50. Often the ones I hate the most. The ones I fought the most too. But ive done PR's and Blacks too.

Dude Im pushing 50 like you. I don't brawl anymore if I can avoid it. 32 was my last fight. I was wired for a week after and said, That's it. Constant worry about going to jail after that one. No thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiz cool c

In your opinion which is better, to have a small amount of simple techniques and a lot of practical training, or to have a lot of complex strategies but with far less particle training?

---

Wiz,

Obviously, to have a small amount of simple techniques and a lot of practical training is better.

I put my money on John Wang as being the baddest boy on this block . He is also head and shoulders smarter than 99.9 percent of us here. Genius level.

Blades ? Gene ! You are not even close to his level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveLau

Wiz,

Obviously, to have a small amount of simple techniques and a lot of practical training is better.

---

I agree, but you would be surprised there are still many people out there who expect kung fu fighting to look like a Shaw Brothers film fight scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boxerbilly

Dude Im pushing 50 like you. I don't brawl anymore if I can avoid it. 32 was my last fight. I was wired for a week after and said, That's it. Constant worry about going to jail after that one. No thanks.

---

I agree fighting is stupid, I just cant accept a stranger getting physical with me, and I got a bit of a temper. I would be happy if I never have another fight in my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiz cool c

I agree, but you would be surprised there are still many people out there who expect kung fu fighting to look like a Shaw Brothers film fight scene.

---

People who think like that are stupid, plain and simple. It's the same as people expecting gun fights to look like Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns or a John Woo 'bullet ballet'. "Why couldn't you have just shot the gun out of his hand? Why'd you have to kill him?" Or that a car chase goes like Dukes of Hazzard. Or courtroom cases to look like those in Law and Order: SVU. Movies and TV shows are for entertainment, period. If they showed exactly how real fights (and other things) looked like onscreen, 9/10 of the time people would say, "What a ripoff. BORING."

I know from personal experience that when fight or flight kicks in, it's the gross motor skills that come out. Much faster even than in competition. In competitive matches I effectively pulled off things I would never even attempt on the street, because they are totally different environments and situations. The more ingrained into your nervous system something is, the more natural the response will be. And that means simple, or simpler. I'm not some badass, either, just my personal experiences/observations.

Complex skills are great for stimulating new neural pathways for the brain and body, and to keep things interesting/fun.

Edit:
I also recently posted about a couple of large-scale brawls/riots I witnessed that broke out at MA events in the "Busted MMA Fighters and Fights" thread in the MMA sub-forum. None of the MAists involved in those did anything fancy or complex. And some of those involved were big names in the MA world at the time.

Hollywood used to make it real. Old cowboy bar punch ups are pretty close. They got how guns fights more or less looked about right to.

Perry Mason but not so much anymore, lol. The good old days.

They used to spend 100 grand an episode for that show. It was very good production values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiz cool c

I like the expression KISS, keep it simple stupid. I do forms and weapons forms, love them but my core fighting techniques are pretty simple. I also hit pads, do strength training[traditional] and spar, do two man drills...... I think the important point of all these fancy mystical training methods is conditioning. Look at Kyokushin karate guys, they don't hide secrets, how many kung fu guys want to fight a good Kyokushin fighter?

---

I've done plenty of sparring with good Kyokushin fighters. They say "the secrets are on the floor." I agree.
If people aren't spending a lot of time training the practical fundamentals of their system, they are doing it wrong.

simplicity is often most effective when making violence.

Convoluted pathways towards a punch in the head are weird to me.

Simplicity =/= easy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiz cool c

In your opinion which is better, to have a small amount of simple techniques and a lot of practical training, or to have a lot of complex strategies but with far less particle training.

---

No matter what you have, a lot of practical training is the most important thing.

As far as application's that come as a second nature from exercise + repetition, muscle memory, etc. From Chen Tai Chi/ Silk Reeling. One of the very first martial application's I learned, have applied in push hands and sparring, and am able to apply if I am off to a 45 degree angle from an assailant. The "Combined Outward and Inward Reeling." Opponent punches, you deflect by controlling their elbow and wrist joints. Option is a chin-na joint lock or more of a push/strike into opponent. The point is you are now in control for that instant. Sorry if I do not have the Chinese name for the technique at the moment. I tried watching one of my teacher's dvd's but the remote for my dvd player is broken. (Haven't watched my TV in years now.) The technique pops up in Chen style forms all over the place but is usually one of the steps in a movement such as "Buddha's Warrior Attendant Pounds Mortar."

Are these silk reeling techniques from Chen Tai Chi easy? Not as easy as learning the kick-boxing/ sparring combination's of Jab/Reverse/Hook/Upper-cut. It is easier to correct bad form in a punch by a regimen of punching bags and surfaces, teacher's instruction and knuckle push-ups. Keeping elbows tucked down and paying attention to min-ute body mechanics is tougher for a beginner, as is the case with the silk reeling exercises. One can efficiently learn Jab/Reverse/Hook/ Upper-cut in one beginner's session. The silk reeling will take a few tries because of the body mechanic details, although I would place some of the application's from the silk reeling as both effective, proficient, and even simple once mechanics are in place/ have been trained (simple, but practice). Not everybody wants to learn that way though (mechanics of silk reeling), because for the majority of Westerners it doesn't "click" with them.

As a writer, I revel in the complex. There's just more intellectual challenge there. Plus I'm not physically that big, so the simple stuff is easily overpowered by bigger fighters doing the same simple stuff. That's frustrating. But as a general rule of thumb, I like to train complex and apply simply. Does that make sense? I could offer a more complex explanation but I feel it best to keep this simple. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boxerbilly

Blades ? Gene ! You are not even close to his level.

---

Wait...what? How did I get drawn into this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneChing

As a writer, I revel in the complex. There's just more intellectual challenge there. Plus I'm not physically that big, so the simple stuff is easily overpowered by bigger fighters doing the same simple stuff. That's frustrating. But as a general rule of thumb, I like to train complex and apply simply. Does that make sense? I could offer a more complex explanation but I feel it best to keep this simple. :p




Wait...what? How did I get drawn into this?

---

If you train TCMA, you are training in complex stuff. Then tightening it up in application and delivering it simply.
So, yes, it makes sense. :p

The movements of Kung Fu are complex for sure. What I mean here is applying them in fighting. In my own opinion they become very simple in real applications both in theory and technique. For example, all the complex stances done in forms and basics, in reality the concept is to keep balance and remain on you feet. All the intricate hand movements, wind up looking like boxing when used in sparring and even fighting, with the exception that open hand strikes and targeting illegal areas in a real life encounter.

So why do all these fancy movements if it boils down to simple concepts and movements in reality? I think that they are all training the attributes. If you can do complex stances and footwork than simple shuffles become much easier etc.. The thing is should a form teach 15 to 20 different fighting strategies or a few simple concepts? I Have seen both ways of training and theories.