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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=RD’S Alias - 1A;1078603]Techniques teach the principals.
Ultimately, they are one and the same.[/QUOTE]
Shared Principles and “Preferences”
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).
[QUOTE=Yum Cha;1077499]
I think every art has principles, just some are more unique than others, some are more common.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=SPJ;1080073]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.
----[/QUOTE]