A question I get alot - How do you validate a technique?

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!

Moderator: Dave Young

A question I get alot - How do you validate a technique?

Postby Dave Young » Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:55 pm

A question I get a few times a week in my travels.

And a question that raises many eyebrows and provokes thought and even in some cases frustration and anger.

How do you validate your techniques: Well first lets talk about what this means;

The definition of validation alone's means to certify, and or confirm a specific act or confirmation of;...usually by a authorizing body.

This definition greatly raises questions because everyone is on a different rating or measuring scale to do this. In order to validate something there are a few things you need;

Complete knowledge of technique being taught and then being applied
Experience in the topic or technique
Have you used this before and did it work because it worked or it worked because you did something (which in most cases we find this to be the answer).
Is it field proven...
OPEN MIND
Just to name a few

A technique executed one time by a person and results in working for them, only means this was a one time occurrence; This is why a technique is studied and researched for a year or two, then examined for application success, exploring the what if's or Oh NO's, methods of instruction...before we bring a technique into our programs just as an example.

We have found that MANY techniques look great on paper or when one performs them without resistance, on videos, and WOW wonderful on power point. All because you can control the variables.

If we were fixing a car, then we would have books of the engine's blue prints, engine designs, measuring tools and other devices are made to help us, basically a set of instructions and directions.

When a technique is developed we DO NOT HAVE THESE. What we get are:

A person is choking you with both hands - what do you do?
A person is attacking you with a knife - what do you do?
A person is pointing a gun at you and robbing you - what do you do?

After we get the problem - BEFORE a response can be provided we need to know a few other things such as;
All of which we have talked about before.....
Height/Weight of attacker
Are we standing or on the ground
Open or narrow place
Number of attackers
Climate (usually because if dictate clothing worn)
Again to name a few
So how exactly does one go and get a technique validated? Usually through time and the execution by others; once the technique if learned and then completed under various circumstances all resulting in winning, both positive survival outcomes.

As professionals we try to use:

High Level Simulations; This can only be done through replicating the all of the known variables we mentioned before and not telling the student ANYTHING other then you are:

Being choked by a person using both hands - what do you do?
A person is attacking you with a knife - what do you do?
A person is pointing a gun at you and robbing you - what do you do?

Then through a positive and professional debriefing can this validation take place, and is different for many. This has taken us many years to learn and complete.

What are some of your own thoughts?
Dave
Stay Safe, Stay Strong, STAY ALIVE!
Dave Young
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Around the World

Postby Stryke » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:48 am

Hi Dave , surprised theres been no takers , I left it for a while hoping others would have better insight .

I think your approach is very strong .

testing and evaluating should be an on going process .

On a tangent though , I see this as a place where the researched traditionalist( I know labels :roll: ) has an advantage over the accumulater , they already have a template of proven techniques , someone has done that job for them and codified a approach/system .

However as we know many of these things just dont work the way they`ve been passed on in many instances .

But having the said techniques , one then only has to test and improve them , to put them through the gauntlet , and most importantly not become only a student of the art but a researcher of violence .

through this one cannot only acheive better functionality IMHO , but also breathe some life back into there arts .

One should be prepared to throw out there assumptions and let things evolve and reveal themselves .

I havent been et down by this approach yet , and still belive the forms on there gross motor level , and strategic positioning level to be very sound .

then with the help of many sources on can have the best of both worlds (if they permit themselves)

some thoughts

Marcus
Stryke
 

Postby Dave Young » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:47 pm

Stryke wrote:Hi Dave , surprised theres been no takers , I left it for a while hoping others would have better insight .

I think your approach is very strong .

testing and evaluating should be an on going process .

One should be prepared to throw out there assumptions and let things evolve and reveal themselves .

I havent been et down by this approach yet , and still belive the forms on there gross motor level , and strategic positioning level to be very sound .

then with the help of many sources on can have the best of both worlds (if they permit themselves)

some thoughts

Marcus

-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcus,

Thanks again for your comments. As far as others posting I guess it is what you feel comfortable doing or saying that makes the difference with many.

I agree with you comments about being a strong confirmation process....Anything that evolves around a human life should.

Without a hard stance on what works and doesn't can be directly responsible for costing someone their life, or be the reaons another may get seriously hurt, injured or die. At times I do not feel we take a hard enough stance.

It is a shame when personal opinion can over ride professional fact...It was once said that "In a society that that never stands in the arena of battle, but criticizes the warriors who fight the fight in the arena, who sacrifice their lives, only allows spectators to view the battle from "an unrealistic arena," that is safe to evaluate and make rational decisions from irrational situations, and not from the battle field in which the wars are fought and won or in some cases lost!

This statement is very common in our circles. I listen to people talk when watching a fight on TV, making comments on what they would have done and not have done. Just think of it, if mental telepathy was a common trait then these skills could actually be applied and mean something! Then all of the coach warriors may be closer to being correct...I said closer but still far from the reality of the arena......

Thanks again Marcus for your thoughts.
Dave
Stay Safe, Stay Strong, STAY ALIVE!
Dave Young
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Around the World

Postby Stryke » Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:19 am

Hey Dave , The whole area of testing is really the modern overlap IMHO

I`ve gotten a lot from doing stuff like Tony Blaurs Night of the living dead drills , and even from more sportive MMA style testing .

both these groups are very different but what puts them ahead of the rote learning/acceptance curve is there focus on testing .


Protective equipment and simulations etc , not any of it has to contradict stylistic information , in fact it should reveal the strength of understanding , or open the doorway to effective application .
Stryke
 

Testing

Postby Dave Young » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:34 am

Stryke wrote:Hey Dave , The whole area of testing is really the modern overlap IMHO
-------------------------------------------------------------
This is what we have found that seperates the professionals from the practioners or recreational players.

Testing that is short, or not complete enough, or does not judge the students ability to preform in the environment they will be required to perform in; is not testing - but onc's personal opinion with many blanks left out of the equation....


----------------------------------------------------------
I`ve gotten a lot from doing stuff like Tony Blaurs Night of the living dead drills , and even from more sportive MMA style testing .
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thoses are good ways of using them to help build student strenghts and identify weaknesses. We have learned that through the years the type of equipment you wear in training can at many times build a false sense of power or breed improper techniques.

Example: You are building up a student and doing drills that have them hitting an attacker. But the training equipment you are wearing does not allow or enable you to strike with the effective striking power you will need in real life. So you go through the motions building muscle memory that is wrong....many time in a fight the body will resort to memory from training and if it was not done in trainnig you will never pull it out properly when needed.

This is very harmful in many ways from both the technique and tacticial stand point. Especially since some techniques require the attacker to respond a certian way when hit (as an example). If your training does not cross the line at some point to the reality side of things then it is only training...it maybe training at their very best - but again only training.

------------------------------------------------------------
both these groups are very different but what puts them ahead of the rote learning/acceptance curve is there focus on testing .

Protective equipment and simulations etc , not any of it has to contradict stylistic information , in fact it should reveal the strength of understanding , or open the doorway to effective application .

-----------------------------------------------------------
We try to use 4 methods of testing out a student on a technique;

1. Written tests to evaluate their memory for performance;
2. Closed skill testing to test their on hand knowledge of the technique being taught;
3. Open skill testing to check their application for proficiency; (Survival level of proficiency)
4. Live confrontations testing to judge their skill level under stress and unknowing circumstances

Then if they have passed these various stages successfully then they can test the next technique.

[/b]
Dave
Stay Safe, Stay Strong, STAY ALIVE!
Dave Young
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Around the World


Return to Realist Training

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest