How do we know what to "discard" in martial arts?

Those that discard show that they do not know how something is supposed to to used. Much of this goes back to how many arts were taught. By that I mean the deceptive training that does not show the real purpose of techniques. Kata is the source of knowledge of traditional arts. Yet extremely few martial artists ever have the luck of ever training with someone that knows these things. Even fewer actually are taught what is hidden in the Kata. There is a saying in Karate that there are no blocks. Many people have and never will get past the thinking that what you see is what you get. If the see what looks like a block to them it is. If they see what looks like a kick then to them that is what it is. If someone drops to one knee while extending both fist forward so that they cross, to them it is a block for a front kick. bottom line here is 99.9% of all people that either study traditional martial arts or have watched them have seen what it shown, not how it would actually be applied by the old masters. It amazes me how many people assume that if they see someone do an X block while dropping to one knee, they believe that it is a block for a kick. I can;t imagine the old masters dropping to their knee to block a kick. It makes not sense. do people actually believe that the old masters were to dumb to know what is practical and what is not? They obviously have not thought this through the logic alone should show that most of us are missing something of major importance. The martial arts would not have survived the centuries of them being practiced and used in life or death fights if it was flawed as many people believe. So, either ever generation of traditional martial arts styles do work, or we are thinking wrong and practicing things not as they were intended to be used.

So my answer is simply this, If you think something does not work, then the problem is one of the following:

A) You are trying to use the technique in a way that was not what the originators of the Kata meant for it to be used.

B) You are practicing the technique incorrectly.

*** Note: both of the things above are due to either incorrect training from your instructor, or from him not teaching the technique correctly or not teaching the real applications. no instructor can teach something they do not know.

Most instructors are not highly knowledgeable about the style they teach. They either were not taught intentionally everything that they should have learned, OR they left before it was to be taught to them.

EDIT: For those that don't know what the so called X block while dropping to one knee is, It is actually a throw. but even telling you this, unless someone actually shows you how it would be used as a throw, I doubt you would ever figure out how it is supposed to be done. and that is exactly why the Kata were made to hide the real applications. They allow you to develop your physical skills and serve as a guideline to how the real art was to be used. They also preserved the real applications forever as long as the Kata are not changed. Someone could learn the Kata of their style and pass them on for generations, without teaching the real bunkai / Applications. Even after several generations a student would learn the Kata. Then someone that knows the hidden applications could, if they choose to, teach them what the applications should be. for example, I was taught many traditional Kata. In 1975 when I reached black belt, I knew 19 Kata from that style and a total of 32 Kata. Although I knew the Kata well, I had never been taught the real applications. but I was lucky enough to have instructors that told me that there were hidden applications in the Kata. I kept training in search of these hidden applications. It was not until the mid 1990's that I began to meet people that taught me the hidden applications. They also taught me some keys that can be used to unlock other hidden applications. After all of this I discovered that all for my early instructors had taught me good Kata, but did not know the hidden applications themselves.

....

Excellent discussion.

I'd just add--or perhaps supplement to--a couple of thoughts.

Virtually every technique "works"--in the right setting by the right practitioner.

Still, for instance: My son's 5'2" tall. He's a purple belt in BJJ. There are simply some techniques (those that benefit from long legs) that don't work as well for him as for others. The techniques are fine, but for him--even if executed perfectly--they're probably not the best choices, particularly when he's competing against someone half a foot taller.

In boxing and MMA, some people (whether it's due to personality or they way they've been taught, or whatever) tend to be more aggressive. Others tend to be counter-punchers. In such a setting, some techniques may be more effective for one fighter than another.

So the term "discard" may be a bit extreme or harsh. But for many people, it makes sense to selectively choose techniques that do work well for that person (and often for that person versus a specific competitor) and to--if not discard, then--choose not to employ certain other techniques.

Hope that helps.

Well, there are extremes. A white belt should never be so arrogant as to discard anything. And on the other extreme, folks with disabilities (many of you have seen the many videos I've posted of practitioners in various styles who have no arms, no legs, who are blind, etc), and so these folks can categorically remove things (eg, no arms means... no punching).

But I think most of us fall in the middle. And this is dangerous, I think.

The weak-minded will start to get a feel that if they can't do something, they rely on St Lee's mantra of discard what doesn't work. Bullshit, in my opinion. That which doesn't work must be established by the instructor, not the lazy, arrogant student who quits at the thought of working hard to learn something.

I wonder exactly what is it that folks are discarding? I can't do roundhouses very well, as that tears away at my hips due to some physiological problems I'm having. But I can, and will, do them at a lower height than might be called for in a form. And if in a need to use it in self-defense and I am incapable of doing something - perhaps, because I'm injured or inexperienced with a technique - I'll find another technique to use instead. So I won't discard it.

I see people discarding defensive things - like high falls. To them, I say, "Go ahead. Let me know how that's working for ya."

Like any carpenter, the more tools removed from the toolbox, the more you have to rely on fewer tools, and often, the wrong tools, to get the job done.

So to answer your question, you know what to discard when your instructor tells you what to discard. Letting the student determine that would be like letting the fox guard the hen house.

My Wing Chun training is so heavily influenced by JKD. In my opinion, those theories work. How you would know if one technique didn't work is that feeling you get when something isn't right. That's what happens with me and every time I learn a new technique in Wing Chun I think of taking what's useful and discarding the rest. I also think, "hm, would this actually work in a street fight?" When you said "There are many things in my style I don't understand yet, but considering taking what I do, and dismissing the rest, and possibly moving onto another style to do the same, seems foolish to me.", here is what I think. Some martial arts today are, I guess you could say, "not well rounded". You have pure striking arts like Boxing and pure grappling arts like Wrestling and honestly enough, in my opinion, they're not enough. This is where you need to take what works for you and discard what you think is useless. Fill in the gaps. Jeet Kune Do isn't meant to add. You absorb. I have a little background in Boxing when I used to go to the gym with my cousin sometimes plus of what he would teach me. In my Wing Chun, you could say there's some Boxing elements but I didn't add, I absorbed. I kept it with me. I filled in the gaps. You know what i'm saying? I hope I helped you out a little. You asked a great question by the way too.

One need only take those techniques and applications of the same that are well suited for them personally according to their own body mechanics and abilities.

Many sifus whom this one has had the privilege to know have expressed that most students will end up have three or so "favorite" techniques that work well for them and that they develop to any high degree.

This has also been noted among Korean stylist who will have some kicking techniques that work very well for them and some that do not.

One can see the same in western boxers with some have speed and motion and some wanting to put their forehead on their opponents chest and simply slug it out (an Ali as compared to a Joe Frazier).

It is wise to study the basics of ones style and to learn the theory of movement, response, etc. while adapting the same to ones own abilities.

An example might come from Aikido wherein some of the atemi/strikes are not realistic in this modern era and age however, learning such and practicing with them helps one learn timing, distance (ma ai), response and movement. Enabling such, they become very worthwhile even though they might never be seen in an altercation in the street.

be well

That was just a general way of putting it. The way Bruce Lee saw it, and I agree but I am biased, anything you do must conform to his basic standards (some may only apply loosely at times). Longest weapon-nearest target, most economical movement, most simple (or direct some may say) and ALWAYS be hitting. Bruce would take any strike or kick and see how it could be broken down to the most simple form with the same or better result with the least effort on your part. People always assume simple is the same as easy it is not. At the end of each strike or kick you must be in a position to continue the attack. Bruce wanted no passive movements which was much easier for him compared to the average or even advanced practitioner. Even a sloppy looping strike may work but it is not most efficient in terms of the speed and the attackers stamina therefore would be excluded and thrown out.

All strikes and kicks also needed to adhere to Bruce Lees position on the proper form of hitting and kicking (vertical fist, elbows down etc) and most all hits or kicks power coming from your core not your arm or leg. So that statement Bruce Lee made was just a small part of the entire idea.

This is Based on instruction from 1st & 2nd generation students of Bruce Lee.

There was one occasion when Guro Dan Inosanto was teaching us some Silat techniques. Guro Inosanto explained that the majority of Indonesians are small people, and a lot of the techniques are based on fighting someone the same size as you. Guro Inosanto explained that some of the Silat techniques will not work for a bigger opponent if you are a small guy. He made it clear that he does not want to imply that Silat is not a good martial art, but to use judgment in the techniques you are going to apply.

I train in Kajukenbo, I am supposed to learn to do a bit of everything. I am a small guy. I never liked the Judo throws we had to do, I preferred the Escrima style armlocks to take down someone. But that's just me. Being a smaller guy, I used to be real fast back in the 1980's, so I spent a lot of time developing hand speed. I was never that flexible, so I couldn't do those high kicks and jump kicks that well. But there were other students who could do them well.

I think what he meant was "for you" that's what he was all about. Not everything is going to work for every person. Some people just are not built to perform flying 600 degree upside down crescent kicks in 5 directions before they hit the ground. Yet there are plenty of schools/arts that teach these things.

Bruce didn't have the understanding of the TMA that everyone assumes he did. Dan Inosanto even said so once in an interview. Bruce was not concerned so much with mastering the art/style of Wing Chun for example, as much as he was concerned about fighting/self defense, so according to Dan, there are many people who are probably better "at wing chun" than Bruce was...that doesn't mean they'd beat him in a fight.

When Bruce came over here he was young and full of fire, and hadn't even completed the entire Wing Chun curriculum. Much of his knowledge of other arts came from meetings, trading ideas, reading books...etc.

Look at the social climate back then...it was all very secretive (I remember Chuck Sullivan saying Ed Parker made them actually sign an agreement to not teach anyone other than their immediate family). Most Asian cultures kept to themselves, it was almost unheard of for a Japanese person to learn Kung fu, or a Chinese person to learn Judo. So is it really so far fetched to think that some of them watered down what they taught in those early years? I think this is probably one of the reasons there are still to this day so many people who believe in "literal" karate...ippon kumite style. Because they were never taught differently. This would likely be the karate (for instance) that Bruce was introduced to, fixed immobile stances, forms...etc. When taken literally are quite useless....thus I think this is where Bruce's (and Parkers) ideas came from. Things are much more open now days (in no small part due to Seiyu Oyata), and of course there have probably always been exceptions to the rule (those that taught the true art)...so more people are aware that your chudan uke can be a wrist lock, a trap, a block, even a throw.

I like to use the Judo analogy. Every high ranking Judoka (dan) knows the entire curriculum of the art....but nobody actually chooses to use every single throw/pin they know in their personal style, but that doesn't mean you should discard it completely because you should allow your students the same choices you had. Similarly a karate-ka may know 30 kata, but chances are he/she has a few that they study more deeply than the rest.

There is no such thing as it doesn't work. If it doesn't work you must look within yourself. You are not doing something correctly.

The only exception to this is some pressure points do not work on all people. This is why your entire self defense is not built only on pressure point and that you must know how to transition from one technique to another.

Example:

In boxing the Philly Shell defense is not popular. Most people that have tried to use it were easily picked apart by other fighters. But that doesn't mean it should be discarded. We all have seen fighters such as Sweet P Whittaker and Floyd Money Mayweather employ the Philly Shell defense and be very successful with it. The fact is these guys had developed better skills using that technique and other fighters weren't as skilled using those techniques.

Personal example:

My 1st art was judo. Of course I had my favorite techniques. I could beat practically anyone with the same 2 or 3 throws. But should that mean I should discard the rest as they didn't work? No! I didn't spend as much time practicing them and didn't have confidence in using them. One day my sensei told me and our entire dojo that we could no longer use our favorite techniques when fighting. He sad that sure we can win with our favorite, but if that is all you do others will prepare t defend against you using just those techniques. You have to get better using other techniques. For some of us including me were told that we could only use one of about 3 other throws and were told which ones. Others were allowed to choose any throw other than their favorite. Of course my sensei chose the 3 throws that I liked the least. However, because of this I was forced to get better at using those techniques. We all became better judoka because of of our sensei forcing us away from our favorite throws. Then we weren't so predictable. The techniques that weren't working for us weren't working because we didn't work them. After learning to work them we gained confidence in them and readily employed using them.

When I started out in martial arts I couldn't make 90% of my techniques work. The 10% I could work were mediocre at best but I could see that I was going with that somewhere with some practice. My teacher told me to 'stick the things I could not work in the back of my head and keep them there'. This was good advice because even after 20 years of constant training I still find things I tucked away years ago and all in a sudden they work. Imagine that!

Martial arts builds on itself. You start with basic techniques and build on that. As you refine your techniques you have foundation for more intricate techniques that take more and more finesse. I could never see how some or that really pretzely stuff worked when I was a white belt. How were you ever supposed to do this to a struggling opponent? Now I understand that while struggling they literally hand you their limbs for you to tie them up until they look like a pretzel until they can not move. To understand this it took years of learning to understand myself first and then understand my opponent.

Haste makes waste. I could have easily discarded the 90% of my techniques that seemed impossible and robbed myself of some really good stuff. I still tuck things away in the back of my head and every time I train I find new pieces that go with some thing or another and on a good day I find the last missing piece and learned a fun new way to hurt somebody,

Understanding what techniques work when is part of learning martial arts and I always cringe when I see questions like 'what technique works best'. Even the most basic techniques are limited. That's why you have many techniques. If there was only a few working ones/best why learn so many to confuse the issues? Confusion on a battlefield means death. Questions like that shows a lack of knowledge that there is no one technique or combination of techniques that work for and on everybody every time. Body build ratio between two people changes the center point of balance and therefore matters and changes what to apply. A technique is not just one person hitting another it really is two people and understanding both people determines what technique. If you misjudge your opponent you more than likely will make a mistake and lose.

Martial arts is for the average person. Some of your opponents will be stronger, taller shorter etc. I am a small person so the majority of my opponents are taller and stronger. I am also a teacher and because I am a small person and not very strong there are techniques that do not work for me so well because my opponents are usually taller and stronger. I also have kids who really vary in strength and body build and so I still teach those techniques and I explain what makes them work and why they do not work so well for me because of leverage etc.but my bigger sons can go to town with that stuff it is really cool. So throwing that out would be silly too.

So no, I have to agree, I have yet to see a bad technique that needs to be thrown out because it does not work from a good traditional martial arts lineage.