Technical Excellence
Ultimately, the test for a worthwhile system is the strength of its techniques. Some systems informally define their techniques, others carefully organize and count them. But having a collection of “techniques” does not guarantee these tools will work. Chongdo uses a three part test to verify the strength of a technique (whatever that technique is), evaluating them in terms of Efficiency, Speed, and the Technique itself.
Efficiency
The first goal for any technique is Efficiency. In other words, it has to work. At that, it has to work simply.
A survival technique can be handy to know but if it does not work, or is inefficient, then it does no good. For example, one popular survival technique is the use of a solar still to pull condensed water out of the air. You may have even learned this method or seen it demonstrated: a hole is dug in the ground; a container is placed at the bottom of the hole. A plastic sheet with a small perforation is stretched over the top, with a slight weight on top... and so on. By the next morning, water and dew collects on the plastic sheet and runs toward the center; this moisture organizes itself into water and drips through the perforation into the container. You now have reasonaby fresh and clean water to drink.
The reality is that this technique is inefficient. The amount of water you lose digging the hole is significantly more than the small pool of water your container may collect. As you construct more solar stills, you lose more water through perspiration. In all, it’s a great idea that just does not work.
In hand-to-hand fighting, efficiency is also a life-saver. A simple, direct technique tends to be substantially more reliable than an exotic, complex, multi-step technique. Our techniques must be brutal and effective, as this works better than the elaborate, flowery techniques of many other systems. This is not to say that these elaborate techniques do not work... just that they take longer to execute to achieve similar ends.
If it does not work, we do not rely on it. If there is a simpler way to do it, we will prefer that way.
Speed
The speed at which a technique can be employed is critical to its success. A technique may be efficient, but if it is not applied quickly, it can fail you when you need it most.
There can be two ways to do something efficiently: we may very well teach both methods. But if you are able to execute one faster than another, you will probably tend to rely more on that method. For example, in firearms training, we teach both the isosceles and the Weaver stances. Both work equally well in most cases; however, students tend to strongly prefer one over the other (for whatever reasons). As a result, a student who prefers one over the other will likely use that one more and modify as needed.
While the benefits of speed are fairly obvious, they are of secondary importance to efficiency. No matter how quickly you do a technique, if it does not work, it will not help you. First, find which techniques work best for you; then, and only then, work on increasing your speed at using them.
Technique
Very often, the rules change unpredictably. Technique is the ability to use a tactic cleanly and systematically. In other words, the person with a “vague sense of how to do something” is at a disadvantage compared to the person who can break the motions down into discrete, clean steps. For example, this becomes evident in tournament fighting. It is common to spot individuals who can execute clean precise movements by themselves. Yet, when put against a skilled fighter, you often see them begin lunging, flailing, and running slipshod in front of the other opponent. It does not take significant experience for a person to predict who will likely win: the one struggling to execute, or the one still in command of his technique.
For us, the process behind how you do a technique ranks third as a priority in tactical planning. Efficiency requires that your technique work. Speed means that you need to do it quickly. But after that, you need to do the Technique cleanly. Certainly there are right ways and wrong ways to any task; but there are often better ways to do something the right way.