Rules for main forums
- Be nice
- No advertisement
- No events
- No fundraisers
- No topics asking for votes
- Only posts related to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu
Techniques or concepts, what the most useful ?
6 year(s) ago • 3639 views • 37 replies
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
At the beginning, we all learn techniques, a lot of techniques... More than my brain can memorize and it's always a lot of steps to achieve one technique. I was lucky because earlier in my journey, my professor, Christian DERVAL (RIP) teached some concepts and it mean a lot for me. Then, I met my friend Braulio ESTIMA who use a lot of concepts and metaphors. It helps me a lot and I'm using it still. On my way, I catched more concept and invented one, KTFT, it mean Keep The Family Together and it works for defense and attacks. I shared it a lot during my journey and it seems, it helps some people. If you're interested, I wrote an article about it on the very good website BJEE.
https://www.bjjee.com/art[...]r-concept/
And you, why do you think ? what the most effective to progress ? Collect hundred of techniques or few powerfull concepts ?
https://www.bjjee.com/art[...]r-concept/
And you, why do you think ? what the most effective to progress ? Collect hundred of techniques or few powerfull concepts ?
Edited 6 year(s) ago
![Slideyfoot [jun]](userimg/5e25cf311adfd.jpg){kind=small}
SJBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
I've seen a lot of people promote the idea of concept rather than technique, but I'm not yet convinced. I tend to think that even if you want to teach a concept, you have to first build up a large framework of techniques in order to apply that concept properly. It could also be a matter of learning style: in the one Danaher DVD set I've picked up, due to getting it as a xmas present (I try to avoid BJJ Fanatics, as the marketing is horrible and the content is insanely overpriced), Danaher distinguishes between conceptual learning and what he calls the 'algorithmic' approach, where it's lots of technique.
Personally, I definitely prefer the latter for my own learning, it's also the way I generally teach. I have occasionally tried to throw in some concepts, but they are invariably tied into technique. Saying that, there are certainly some general principles you can apply broadly in BJJ: e.g., "keep your elbows in", Christian's "head over butt" for passing (made a big difference to my passing game), Danaher's point on open guard that the more connected you are to them the more you can extend your legs, etc.
Personally, I definitely prefer the latter for my own learning, it's also the way I generally teach. I have occasionally tried to throw in some concepts, but they are invariably tied into technique. Saying that, there are certainly some general principles you can apply broadly in BJJ: e.g., "keep your elbows in", Christian's "head over butt" for passing (made a big difference to my passing game), Danaher's point on open guard that the more connected you are to them the more you can extend your legs, etc.
DBBlack beltVerified
6 year(s) ago
I think it depends what level of practitioner we're talking about in terms of which will make better progress.
For a day 1 student I'd say the small handful of techniques they'll see the first night won't be of much consequence. Until they've practiced a given technique enough times to really "get" it, it's just exposure to the fact that a given technique can be done. However, they generally grok concepts like "control the space between your elbows and ribs" fairly immediately, especially if you give them a memorable metaphor like "be a T-Rex".
For a 10 year brown belt who's grappling well but missing "black belt details" as it's often been phrased to me, there's no substitute for the nuanced discussions of specific techniques.
I think anyone who focuses on one to the exclusion of the other is going to progress slower than someone who has a mix of the two.
For a day 1 student I'd say the small handful of techniques they'll see the first night won't be of much consequence. Until they've practiced a given technique enough times to really "get" it, it's just exposure to the fact that a given technique can be done. However, they generally grok concepts like "control the space between your elbows and ribs" fairly immediately, especially if you give them a memorable metaphor like "be a T-Rex".
For a 10 year brown belt who's grappling well but missing "black belt details" as it's often been phrased to me, there's no substitute for the nuanced discussions of specific techniques.
I think anyone who focuses on one to the exclusion of the other is going to progress slower than someone who has a mix of the two.
HBBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
I agree with Can that u can talk about concepts a ton, but without knowing solid technique, it’ll be hard to put it together.
WMBlack belt 5th degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
Look, you either grab fingers or you don't.
As for me, anything legal, is not illegal.
As for me, anything legal, is not illegal.
ALBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
You need both. Concepts by themselves are meaningless unless you show a couple of techniques that demonstrate the application of a concept in action....
On the other hand, the more techniques you have to choose between, the slower your reactions will become (Hick's Law).
Understanding the core concept underlying a family of techniques or movements helps cut through the confusion and lets you find "which one" is the right move for the instant. In the beginning, most people thrive on learning a few techniques from each major position. Then they begin to actually understand the concepts that make those techniques work. As we gain experience over the years, individual techniques are less and less important and replaced by understanding how the body moves on an innate level (via concepts). That's what creates the "flow" that higher belts have. We aren't picking techniques in mid-roll, we understand conceptually how our bodies and our opponent's bodies move, and kinesthetically "feel" where we need to go.
On the other hand, the more techniques you have to choose between, the slower your reactions will become (Hick's Law).
Understanding the core concept underlying a family of techniques or movements helps cut through the confusion and lets you find "which one" is the right move for the instant. In the beginning, most people thrive on learning a few techniques from each major position. Then they begin to actually understand the concepts that make those techniques work. As we gain experience over the years, individual techniques are less and less important and replaced by understanding how the body moves on an innate level (via concepts). That's what creates the "flow" that higher belts have. We aren't picking techniques in mid-roll, we understand conceptually how our bodies and our opponent's bodies move, and kinesthetically "feel" where we need to go.
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
Majority of concepts works on day 1 if you explain it correctly. Using metaphors, jokes and common sense to do it helps of course. T-Rex and head on the but are definitely good example for that :-)
You have to use the same explanation for a white belt, a black belt, a child or an adult, that the beauty of concepts. If you are able to rely concepts between them then techniques appears, like magic ;-)
Of course, details are very, very important and I share a lot of details when I teach. Some details, I discover was because of my concepts knowledge.
You have to use the same explanation for a white belt, a black belt, a child or an adult, that the beauty of concepts. If you are able to rely concepts between them then techniques appears, like magic ;-)
Of course, details are very, very important and I share a lot of details when I teach. Some details, I discover was because of my concepts knowledge.
Edited 6 year(s) ago
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
I tend to think that even if you want to teach a concept, you have to first build up a large framework of techniques in order to apply that concept properly.
I'm agree with you. You need to explain the concepts by relying it with techniques for understandable returns. Then, the concepts will help you more effectively. You can teach the concept during sparring, it works good too.
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
without knowing solid technique, it’ll be hard to put it together.
You're right, it helps a lot ! And vice versa ;-)
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
I think anyone who focuses on one to the exclusion of the other is going to progress slower than someone who has a mix of the two.
Completely true, you need balance in everything. But for me, you need concepts to learn more deeply why a technique works and rely it with other techniques.
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
You need both. Concepts by themselves are meaningless unless you show a couple of techniques that demonstrate the application of a concept in action...
You're right.
BWBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
Techniques provide the context for understanding concepts and concepts provide deeper understanding as to why the techniques are effective or how to apply them more effectively
AMBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
You definitely need both. I think beginners need to learn solid techniques and before they're able to fully digest overall concepts. I also feel that the more experience you gain, the less you need to work on techniques and can begin experimenting with concepts/patterns.
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
Techniques provide the context for understanding concepts and concepts provide deeper understanding as to why the techniques are effective or how to apply them more effectively
Well said !
LMBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
You definitely need both. I think beginners need to learn solid techniques and before they're able to fully digest overall concepts. I also feel that the more experience you gain, the less you need to work on techniques and can begin experimenting with concepts/patterns.
I'm agree with you and I think that beginners can use concept from the start of training. It helps for understanding and like you said, it helps you to go deeper with experience.
AKPurple beltVerified
6 year(s) ago
I'm much more interested in concepts for myself.
Without concepts, how do you even know which techniques you want to learn? I see a lot of people who just do the same style of BJJ as their instructor, blissfully unaware that there are other options. By the time they realise they might prefer to do something different, they are essentially locked into the style because the opportunity to compete in the lower divisions (i.e. white belt, novice and beginner) has gone and trying to start over from scratch at blue / intermediate is a big ask. Funnelling is a massive part of BJJ so if you're just going from technique to technique to technique then your probably spending a lot of time on stuff that is deep into funnels that you just don't want to go down.
In summary, understand the concepts so you know what style of BJJ you want to do. Then learn the techniques that enable that style. That's my opinion.
Without concepts, how do you even know which techniques you want to learn? I see a lot of people who just do the same style of BJJ as their instructor, blissfully unaware that there are other options. By the time they realise they might prefer to do something different, they are essentially locked into the style because the opportunity to compete in the lower divisions (i.e. white belt, novice and beginner) has gone and trying to start over from scratch at blue / intermediate is a big ask. Funnelling is a massive part of BJJ so if you're just going from technique to technique to technique then your probably spending a lot of time on stuff that is deep into funnels that you just don't want to go down.
In summary, understand the concepts so you know what style of BJJ you want to do. Then learn the techniques that enable that style. That's my opinion.
BBBlack belt 3rd degreeVerified
6 year(s) ago
I say concept everyday over technique!
In my gym I run a beginners course for 35+ year olds. It's 8 weeks long, twice a week.
For the first 4 weeks I only cover top/bottom with the main focus on bottom and it consists of almost only drills where the bottom person keeps their elbows close to their hips and keeps their back off the floor. Those rounds are isolation drills so both sides are limited to what they can do in the rounds. The bottom person is not supposed to escape at all, rather get used to the idea of being on bottom and being safe on bottom, i.e. keeping their elbows glued to their hips.
Then I progressively add on what they can do in those rounds.
For the first two weeks there is no free sparring at the end of class, but more than half of each class are rounds where they do controlled sparring.
In those first 4 weeks I don't teach them a single escape from bottom, I only show them 3 options for escaping: pulling guard, go to turtle, turn-over.
In the last 4 weeks of the course I teach guard/guardpass. For guard I have some techinqes like sweeps, but mostly controlled sparring which benefit both sides.
Those controlled sparring rounds are grip-fighting rounds and I don't show them a single guardpass, the only thing I show them for guardpasses are the grip fighting rounds and I keep the main focus on controlling your opponents knees.
What they get out of this is understanding what you need to do to escape from bottom or what to do to prevent someone escaping. And what you need to do to pass the guard or prevent someone from passing your guard.
By doing this there's only a handful of things to remember from the course and more than half of the time you spent drilling those things against a resisting opponent, rather then seeing a bunch of techniques every week and then you don't remember most of them anyway.
In my gym I run a beginners course for 35+ year olds. It's 8 weeks long, twice a week.
For the first 4 weeks I only cover top/bottom with the main focus on bottom and it consists of almost only drills where the bottom person keeps their elbows close to their hips and keeps their back off the floor. Those rounds are isolation drills so both sides are limited to what they can do in the rounds. The bottom person is not supposed to escape at all, rather get used to the idea of being on bottom and being safe on bottom, i.e. keeping their elbows glued to their hips.
Then I progressively add on what they can do in those rounds.
For the first two weeks there is no free sparring at the end of class, but more than half of each class are rounds where they do controlled sparring.
In those first 4 weeks I don't teach them a single escape from bottom, I only show them 3 options for escaping: pulling guard, go to turtle, turn-over.
In the last 4 weeks of the course I teach guard/guardpass. For guard I have some techinqes like sweeps, but mostly controlled sparring which benefit both sides.
Those controlled sparring rounds are grip-fighting rounds and I don't show them a single guardpass, the only thing I show them for guardpasses are the grip fighting rounds and I keep the main focus on controlling your opponents knees.
What they get out of this is understanding what you need to do to escape from bottom or what to do to prevent someone escaping. And what you need to do to pass the guard or prevent someone from passing your guard.
By doing this there's only a handful of things to remember from the course and more than half of the time you spent drilling those things against a resisting opponent, rather then seeing a bunch of techniques every week and then you don't remember most of them anyway.
Edited 6 year(s) ago
TPBlack beltVerified
6 year(s) ago
Bjarni: blah blah blah
Very interesting. We also run a separate "Beginners' course" (common around here, about the same length, I think 8-9 weeks, all ages 16+) and when I came on board with a buddy we wanted to almost completely revamp the curriculum, moving from a mish-mash of "fundamental techniques" to something more conceptuals and useful in practice.
It's challenging to balance it so (in such a short time) that it offers enough familiarity with the "basic" positions & techniques (I think one has to know what a triangle, armbar, kimura etc. are after the course, so they understand at least getting caught by them), while also actually making the participants aware of the basic principles of what they should generally be doing and aim for most of the time.
There was a big disconnect to the latter earlier; for example, fresh people out of the course would let sparring partners take full side control if their legs were passed, crossface and the whole shebang, since they were taught an escape from that position. Similarly their open guard was non-existent, zero grip fighting, just laying flat on their back and hoping that the passer steps in to enter half of full guard. The whole stand up was covered in 1 class I think, which back when I started, made me terrified of stand-up exchanges for a long time after moving to the regular training group (just waiting there to be thrown or taken down otherwise; we always start standing when it's not positional sparring).
Also, a lot of people just want to try out something new, so they take the Beginner's course, usually even like it a lot, but the decide they don't want to commit to paying for a longer tuition. (However, these courses for different martial arts create a major income for the academy.) It is also important to give these people something useful in situations other than grappling sparring with other practitioners.
I have found a lot of value in the approach of your classes and would like to experience how this 35+ y.o. beginners' course is run in practice. :D
It's challenging to balance it so (in such a short time) that it offers enough familiarity with the "basic" positions & techniques (I think one has to know what a triangle, armbar, kimura etc. are after the course, so they understand at least getting caught by them), while also actually making the participants aware of the basic principles of what they should generally be doing and aim for most of the time.
There was a big disconnect to the latter earlier; for example, fresh people out of the course would let sparring partners take full side control if their legs were passed, crossface and the whole shebang, since they were taught an escape from that position. Similarly their open guard was non-existent, zero grip fighting, just laying flat on their back and hoping that the passer steps in to enter half of full guard. The whole stand up was covered in 1 class I think, which back when I started, made me terrified of stand-up exchanges for a long time after moving to the regular training group (just waiting there to be thrown or taken down otherwise; we always start standing when it's not positional sparring).
Also, a lot of people just want to try out something new, so they take the Beginner's course, usually even like it a lot, but the decide they don't want to commit to paying for a longer tuition. (However, these courses for different martial arts create a major income for the academy.) It is also important to give these people something useful in situations other than grappling sparring with other practitioners.
I have found a lot of value in the approach of your classes and would like to experience how this 35+ y.o. beginners' course is run in practice. :D
Edited 6 year(s) ago
KOBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Great question, and I believe they are equal. Technique first, then concepts.
https://lawsofux.com/hicks-law/
https://lawsofux.com/hicks-law/
JJBlack beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Concepts allow you to do things without thinking...without responding and reacting like a robot.
Once you conceptually understand things in a certain way you will do certain technical things without thinking about doing any given technique.
You will create things from any position without having to have drilled countless hours in every given scenario possible.
The best example would be say balance. Balance is a very conceptual non technical thing. Balance in brief can be described as Posture, Post Awareness and Weight distribution.
I can teach someone how to do a couple sweeps against a standing opponent and grounded with the addition of an ankle pick 1 on 1 for an hour and do this over 2 sessions them attacking and defending these "techniques" with conceptual thinking and they will start to naturally instinctually gain better balance awareness and the use of those sweeps over just 2 sessions than some people who have trained a year just drilling whatever their daily technique is. Someone with just 1 or 2 sessions will become harder to sweep than some people who have trained for 1 or 2 years.
If you train like a robot you will think like a robot. Robots are easy to defeat. They problem solve like they have the hardware of a 20 year old computer instead of a modern one.
Once you conceptually understand things in a certain way you will do certain technical things without thinking about doing any given technique.
You will create things from any position without having to have drilled countless hours in every given scenario possible.
The best example would be say balance. Balance is a very conceptual non technical thing. Balance in brief can be described as Posture, Post Awareness and Weight distribution.
I can teach someone how to do a couple sweeps against a standing opponent and grounded with the addition of an ankle pick 1 on 1 for an hour and do this over 2 sessions them attacking and defending these "techniques" with conceptual thinking and they will start to naturally instinctually gain better balance awareness and the use of those sweeps over just 2 sessions than some people who have trained a year just drilling whatever their daily technique is. Someone with just 1 or 2 sessions will become harder to sweep than some people who have trained for 1 or 2 years.
If you train like a robot you will think like a robot. Robots are easy to defeat. They problem solve like they have the hardware of a 20 year old computer instead of a modern one.
Edited 5 year(s) ago
SLBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Concept over technique. All day. Albeit a personal preference - I also see much faster development in students this way.
Understanding the concept behind a section of this sport (passing, sweeping, chokes etc) will enable you to develop technique around your body type, mindset and ability (long, short, fat, athletic, passive, aggressive etc).
Techniques become easier once a concept is grasped. I also see a shift in people’s game once they are afforded autonomy as a grappler - something that concepts encourage IMO.
Understanding the concept behind a section of this sport (passing, sweeping, chokes etc) will enable you to develop technique around your body type, mindset and ability (long, short, fat, athletic, passive, aggressive etc).
Techniques become easier once a concept is grasped. I also see a shift in people’s game once they are afforded autonomy as a grappler - something that concepts encourage IMO.
BMBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
I think it's tough to have one without the other.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Please everyone in the thread:
Define "technique", define "concept" before starting debate :)
Define "technique", define "concept" before starting debate :)
SLBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Technique: the ‘move’.
Concept: the steps in the run up to that ‘move’. The theory. The approach. The underlying principles.
Damn I hate saying move. It makes me think of Tekken.
Concept: the steps in the run up to that ‘move’. The theory. The approach. The underlying principles.
Damn I hate saying move. It makes me think of Tekken.
JMBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Well, BOTH are important. You can develop a grappler by only doing one BUT it'd be slower than doing both. Balance between how much of one and how much of other is best will shift on your journey back and forth depending on where along the way you are and who you are.
FFBlack belt 2nd degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
Please everyone in the thread: Define 'technique', define 'concept' before starting debate :)
Would you look at that, somebody pulled out of oblivion a one year old thread on one of my favourite topics.
I jumped on the "conceptual training" train when I was a brown belt and I started to teach (or to try teaching something, more accurately). As a purple belt I was trying to understand more how the microdrilling things work (Mendes brothers, Lloyd Irvin) but then I got hooked up on Kit Dale theories, I met again Octavio Couto, I had Kit in my gym for a weekend and I started to really get interested in this conceptual thingy thing.
The first barrier here is language and nomenclature, since, to quote Steve (and Steve please forgive me for being direct) "Technique: the ‘move’. Concept: the steps in the run up to that ‘move’. The theory. The approach. The underlying principles." is not really a definition of technique or concept. Plus in the years I witnessed people (and trainers or coaches or people claiming to be on) make a real mess of using in creative ways, terms such concept, principle, strategy, techniques and so on. Plus, CONTEXT ffs.
So we have, in our context and with increasing level of resolution:
STRATEGY: a plan of actions to move in one direction rather than another one, to achieve a goal. It includes possible shortcuts or deviations, it prioritizes one goal rather another one.
CONCEPT: a concept is a very general and abstract idea of something. A concept needs context to be understood. If I draw a line and a circle on top of the line, context can make of this very simple drawing either the concept of a tree, or the concept of a lolly pop.
HEURISTIC: a general approach to solve a problem that is not always perfect but it does give an immediate short-term solution. A rule of thumb.
TECHNIQUE: a technique is (in martial arts context) a more or less expanded set of fixed moves you do to achieve a goal.
And this is also the order of things in teaching.
Example.
Perfect example of STRATEGY: the 4 golden rules of Chris Haueter.
CONCEPT: an easy example I very very often use is, guard passing means that you pass the line of their knees and you put a control the chest. A more detailed concept, increasing the resolution of the context, would be: you can go around that line, or through. You can pass that line and control the chest (toreando, leg drag) or you can control the chest and pass the line (sao paulo pass, body lock pass).
HEURISTIC: if you go around the knee line, have their knees pointing away from you and pass on the other direction. If you go through, have an underhook on the opposite side of your pass. And so on.
Between concepts and heuristics, we have the gamification of the action where we play with certain boundaries in order to discover ways of solving this problem. (I might add, starting from the end and increasing complexity).
The TECHNIQUE will emerge from this: a set of move that has been discovered having more success than other sets of moves because it creates a certain degree of predictability. But now the technique is not robotic because it has its own context in a strategy and understanding the concepts and heuristics behind, allows major degree of improvisation and customization.
If only my path down this road would have not been severely slowed down in the last 14 months...
I jumped on the "conceptual training" train when I was a brown belt and I started to teach (or to try teaching something, more accurately). As a purple belt I was trying to understand more how the microdrilling things work (Mendes brothers, Lloyd Irvin) but then I got hooked up on Kit Dale theories, I met again Octavio Couto, I had Kit in my gym for a weekend and I started to really get interested in this conceptual thingy thing.
The first barrier here is language and nomenclature, since, to quote Steve (and Steve please forgive me for being direct) "Technique: the ‘move’. Concept: the steps in the run up to that ‘move’. The theory. The approach. The underlying principles." is not really a definition of technique or concept. Plus in the years I witnessed people (and trainers or coaches or people claiming to be on) make a real mess of using in creative ways, terms such concept, principle, strategy, techniques and so on. Plus, CONTEXT ffs.
So we have, in our context and with increasing level of resolution:
STRATEGY: a plan of actions to move in one direction rather than another one, to achieve a goal. It includes possible shortcuts or deviations, it prioritizes one goal rather another one.
CONCEPT: a concept is a very general and abstract idea of something. A concept needs context to be understood. If I draw a line and a circle on top of the line, context can make of this very simple drawing either the concept of a tree, or the concept of a lolly pop.
HEURISTIC: a general approach to solve a problem that is not always perfect but it does give an immediate short-term solution. A rule of thumb.
TECHNIQUE: a technique is (in martial arts context) a more or less expanded set of fixed moves you do to achieve a goal.
And this is also the order of things in teaching.
Example.
Perfect example of STRATEGY: the 4 golden rules of Chris Haueter.
CONCEPT: an easy example I very very often use is, guard passing means that you pass the line of their knees and you put a control the chest. A more detailed concept, increasing the resolution of the context, would be: you can go around that line, or through. You can pass that line and control the chest (toreando, leg drag) or you can control the chest and pass the line (sao paulo pass, body lock pass).
HEURISTIC: if you go around the knee line, have their knees pointing away from you and pass on the other direction. If you go through, have an underhook on the opposite side of your pass. And so on.
Between concepts and heuristics, we have the gamification of the action where we play with certain boundaries in order to discover ways of solving this problem. (I might add, starting from the end and increasing complexity).
The TECHNIQUE will emerge from this: a set of move that has been discovered having more success than other sets of moves because it creates a certain degree of predictability. But now the technique is not robotic because it has its own context in a strategy and understanding the concepts and heuristics behind, allows major degree of improvisation and customization.
If only my path down this road would have not been severely slowed down in the last 14 months...
SLBrown beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Would you look at that, somebody pulled out of oblivion a one year old thread on one of my favourite topics. I jumped on the 'conceptual training' train when I was a brown belt and I started to teach (or to try teaching something, more accurately). As a purple belt I was trying to understand more how the microdrilling things work (Mendes brothers, Lloyd Irvin) but then I got hooked up on Kit Dale theories, I met again Octavio Couto, I had Kit in my gym for a weekend and I started to really get interested in this conceptual thingy thing. The first barrier here is language and nomenclature, since, to quote Steve (and Steve please forgive me for being direct) 'Technique: the ‘move’. Concept: the steps in the run up to that ‘move’. The theory. The approach. The underlying principles.' is not really a definition of technique or concept. Plus in the years I witnessed people (and trainers or coaches or people claiming to be on) make a real mess of using in creative ways, terms such concept, principle, strategy, techniques and so on. Plus, CONTEXT ffs. So we have, in our context and with increasing level of resolution: STRATEGY: a plan of actions to move in one direction rather than another one, to achieve a goal. It includes possible shortcuts or deviations, it prioritizes one goal rather another one. CONCEPT: a concept is a very general and abstract idea of something. A concept needs context to be understood. If I draw a line and a circle on top of the line, context can make of this very simple drawing either the concept of a tree, or the concept of a lolly pop. HEURISTIC: a general approach to solve a problem that is not always perfect but it does give an immediate short-term solution. A rule of thumb. TECHNIQUE: a technique is (in martial arts context) a more or less expanded set of fixed moves you do to achieve a goal. And this is also the order of things in teaching. Example. Perfect example of STRATEGY: the 4 golden rules of Chris Haueter. CONCEPT: an easy example I very very often use is, guard passing means that you pass the line of their knees and you put a control the chest. A more detailed concept, increasing the resolution of the context, would be: you can go around that line, or through. You can pass that line and control the chest (toreando, leg drag) or you can control the chest and pass the line (sao paulo pass, body lock pass). HEURISTIC: if you go around the knee line, have their knees pointing away from you and pass on the other direction. If you go through, have an underhook on the opposite side of your pass. And so on. Between concepts and heuristics, we have the gamification of the action where we play with certain boundaries in order to discover ways of solving this problem. (I might add, starting from the end and increasing complexity). The TECHNIQUE will emerge from this: a set of move that has been discovered having more success than other sets of moves because it creates a certain degree of predictability. But now the technique is not robotic because it has its own context in a strategy and understanding the concepts and heuristics behind, allows major degree of improvisation and customization. If only my path down this road would have not been severely slowed down in the last 14 months...
You can be as direct as you like if you give quality information like this haha.
JJBlack beltVerified
5 year(s) ago
Please everyone in the thread: Define 'technique', define 'concept' before starting debate :)
It's all about what your processing in your brain as your moving your body.
It is the neural pathways that you are using and developing.
It is the fabric that holds everything together so you can access and gather information and then relay that information to your body for your body to them preform the next movements necessary.
If you are tying together mostly techniques then your brain is basically searching through a labyrinth of information and trying to connect it all together.
If you are tying together mostly concepts then your brain is basically just connecting the dots through a more spider web like system where everything is connected.
You will always have some techniques that slow down your processing speed by thinking in step 1, 2 3 etc... but you want it to be mostly concepts.
When a technique doesn't work you may find yourself lost inside the labyrinth wondering where to go and what do.
You never feel this way with concepts. You move on to the next.
It is literally going to impact the speed and efficiency of everything you do.
It is the neural pathways that you are using and developing.
It is the fabric that holds everything together so you can access and gather information and then relay that information to your body for your body to them preform the next movements necessary.
If you are tying together mostly techniques then your brain is basically searching through a labyrinth of information and trying to connect it all together.
If you are tying together mostly concepts then your brain is basically just connecting the dots through a more spider web like system where everything is connected.
You will always have some techniques that slow down your processing speed by thinking in step 1, 2 3 etc... but you want it to be mostly concepts.
When a technique doesn't work you may find yourself lost inside the labyrinth wondering where to go and what do.
You never feel this way with concepts. You move on to the next.
It is literally going to impact the speed and efficiency of everything you do.
RBlack belt 1st degreeVerified
5 year(s) ago
What a great thread. Techniques are obviously a crucial part of the learning process, but understanding *why* they work will take you further and allow the student to "ad lib" or adapt on the fly to scenarios or positions that don't fall into their technical wheelhouse. I love the breakdown provided on heuristics, concepts, techniques, etc. Very well explained.
