10

I noticed when this question was asked: What's the real difference between Ikkyo omote and Nikkyo omote?. That the asker created a tag for ikkyo and nikyo.

Do people want to tag individual techniques on questions, or just leave them generic for whatever discipline they fall under (such as Aikido)?

| |
12

I think Discipline-level tags would be specific enough. Otherwise the amount of tags could end up being a flood to try and sort through.

Though we might want to have something like, joint locks, throws, arm strikes, leg strikes, etc, for generic technique types.

| |
  • This coupled with the style name is likely going to be the best bet. Plus, different styles can have different names for the same technique which would create even more tag flood. – anonymous Jan 31 '12 at 22:38
  • yea, it will get out of hand if we have a tag for every technique, each art will have 100's. – Patricia Feb 1 '12 at 14:40
10

I like the idea of having broad classifications of techniques in English with aliases for other languages. Perhaps at the level of kicking, joint locks, throws, etc.

The problem with terms such as, particularly, ikkyo and nikyo is that these are not just Japanese but Aikido-specific ("first technique" and "second technique"). If we want to get to that level of granularity, I feel that it is going to create an overwhelming number of tags and it isn't going to be clear what overlaps with what.

| |
5

I agree that broad categories (kicking or even striking) should be in place.

The problem with technique specific tags becomes one of sorting: both Judo and the Bujinkan have techniques that share names, but with completely different methods. So if one A proposes a tag for osoto-gari (for example... I believe this is one of the ones that differs, but can't recall off the top of my head), intending it to be for Judo, and I assume it's the technique for the Bujinkan, then we're using the same tag for different meanings... Then there becomes the added further problem of various arts having different names for the same technique, which become tag synonyms, further confusing the issue...

Broad categories seem to be the better argument in this case...

| |
2

I vote for the more generic tags. If this was a dedicated Aikido forum, then distinctions to the level proposed in the referenced question would be appropriate. This is a broader forum, so go with the broader concept tags.

| |
0

might be useful to have tags per technique as many are cross discipline and can be a good way to find everything related to something you are interested in (ie, often youtube I tend to look for a technique rather than a class of technique because I want to zero in on something). Only problem is some techniques have multiple names.

| |
0

People seem to concur that using kicking and punching is fine, but why must we be forced to use the english names for techniques that didn't originate anywhere near the english speaking world?

  • for many practitioners part of your martial arts training is to know the name of your technique in Japanese/Chinese/Korean/etc. I far prefer to use tsuki or zuki for punch, and geri for kick. These terms can be very precise, and have been in use for ceturies so they are well established.
  • in some cases the traditional name of the technique can be a lot more concise and exact: shuto for knife-hand, tetsui for hammer fist, koken for bent wrist strike.

With some sensible synonyms like zuki->tsuki, there is no reason why we cannot tag individual techniques. Instead we should be focussing on avoiding imprecise tags (like the ikkyo/nikyo example in the question), and irrelevant tags (like adding chudan or jodan to a question about punching technique (tsuki waza) unless that question is about punching specifically to the head or chest).

| |
  • 3
    1) You wouldn't be "forced," they could potentially be synonyms. 2) Precision is what titles and descriptions are for, finding things is what tags are for 3) Let's take tsuki for "punch": I don't practice a Japanese art, I practice a Korean art. So you call it tsuki, I call it chirugi, and the muay thai practitioners call chok. Knowing the Japanese term is part of your martial art, but knowing the Japanese term is not part of mine. It makes it more difficult to find anything on a predominantly English wiki, where "punch" is an easy reference tag after which I can get specific. – David H. Clements Feb 1 '12 at 6:37
  • 1
    @David your point about the tsuki is a good one and could prevent someone cross referencing techniques across styles. Possibly translations like this could be addressed in the FAQ? – slugster Feb 1 '12 at 6:48
0

Depending on the question I think you should have the chance to tag for a precise technique.

I should note, though, that Aikido and other MAs have only a few techniques, while other arts have hundreds. So it definitely make less sense for the latter to have specific tags.

(oh, I am the asker of that question)

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .