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

[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.