Re: "IP/IT/IS" vs technique?
Ellis, a "technique" is nothing more than a way to define something within a certain amount of resolution of observation.
You could take a so-called technique such as ikkyo, and if you begin breaking it down into smaller and smaller increments, there are countless "techniques" within ikkyo.
Calling something ikkyo is just a way to frame certain sets of movements. It's like learning to play a major scale in music on an instrument. And within learning that one scale you could focus on countless other "techniques" such as breathing, posture, timing, position of the instrument, listening to the instrument in the room - which will take you into more subsets - you can listen to the reverberation, early reflections, tonal resonance of the instrument and the room. Zoom further in, and listen to the sound of the instrument in your body, the vibrations. And then the vibrations of each note, and how they change.
And even though someone might be able to say that they are doing ikkyo or playing a major scale, I challenge you to actually put your finger on where that actual "technique" resides. It only exists as a reference point of agreement. And where does ikkyo begin and where does it end.
George Ledyard brought up a great point recently about so many people not even being able to do the first step of a "technique" correctly. He could walk right in and bop them on the nose. And his point was that if he can do that, then the nage he's bopping knows 200 techniques that that nage can't even do.
A technique is a reference point. An artificial construct. Nothing more. Techniques in and of themselves do not exist. You can't tell me where ikkyo begins and where it ends any more than you can accurately tell me the length of the coastline of England.
Last edited by Dan Richards : 10-17-2013 at 01:34 AM.