Hey, do you have the iPhone 6 yet?

Is your TV High-Def?

What about 3-D?

Have you heard about the latest game console?

Have you seen the super-secret death-move that is being taught by an ex-Green Beret?

We humans love our toys, we adore our gadgets, we go gaga over the new and the novel. Even if the newness and novelty is just a few tweaks here and there on screen size, or one additional bell or whistle that may not in fact add much utility to the product while definitely adding to the sticker price, we just love 'em.

This idea that the newer must be better has been called "being stuck on the hedonic treadmill" by psychologists and neomania by philosopher Nassim Nicholas Taleb (I prefer his term). Before we go any further, yes, without a doubt sometimes a new innovation on an existing product or idea is indeed better, but more often than not this "better" is merely marginal or better by degree.

For example, just how much "better" is a phone call on today's version of the iPhone compared to earlier versions? You could make the call on both phones, you could hear who you were calling-the differences were/are additions to the phone, not so much the phone-function itself. Apple sort of Swiss-Army Knifed an already functional product with a technical corkscrew here and there that you may not have necessarily known that you "needed' but now that you have that "corkscrew app" you can't imagine life without it.

To be clear, this is not an anti-technology rant. I like and enjoy luxuries and technological pleasures myself we're just illustrating an idea. The idea that new does not necessarily mean better, it just means, well, new. And the flip-side of this neomania is that we don't pursue new willy-nilly, we're somewhat domain-specific when it comes to our pursuit of novelty.

An example, cribbed from Taleb's work: someone may proudly show off their new flat-screen high-definition TV lovingly placed on the wall that will make watching Star Wars even Star Warsier, but the oil painting proudly mounted over the mantle remains unchanged. It forever portrays the fox hunt, and the owner feels no burden to go modern.

Let's get this neomania into our bumps and bruises world of combat. We all know a certain contingent of martial arts and combat sciences thrives on a "secret never before revealed, just discovered in a special ops covert operation" mindset. Many claims/books/articles/videos you-name-the-medium-it's-been-proclaimed tout the new. And sometimes, there is indeed something new, but just as with the iPhone, more often than not the new is merely some marginal tweak, or some new bell or whistle added to tart up what was already a phone.

If we are objectively honest with ourselves, there are only so many ways to punch, kick, knee, elbow, choke, snap, drop another human being.

If we continue on this honest path, we must realize that human beings have been punching, kicking, kneeing, elbowing, choking, snapping, dropping other human beings since before the dawn of civilization.

With that said, much of what we find in combat arts/sciences is more akin to the oil painting over the mantle than the just out of the box Hi-Def TV.

Look at boxing manuals from a century ago and you will see jabs, crosses, hooks-look at boxing today and you will see jabs, crosses, and hooks.

Look at the wrestling images depicted in the Beni Hassan temple in Egypt thousands of years ago and we see postures and technique familiar to the average UFC fan.

What we learn from looking at the history of combat is that more often than not, what's new is more than likely something old being re-packaged, re-sold to us.

If we look to what wins fights whether they be in the ring, the cage, or on the street-the video evidence shows us time and again that it will not be something that you had never heard of. The video evidence in any of these arenas (sport and street) tells a story of remarkable sameness. The stats tell a tale of punches, kicks, elbows, knees, takedowns, grappling positons and submissions that all of us know at this point. (Well, not necessarily know, but can recognize and name. Knowing and doing is different from recognizing and labeling.)

I offer this discussion of contrasting the old and the new not to put a halt on looking for the new in general. The new that matters will come to us in novel and subtle ways of applying what has served tried-and-true warriors centuries past to now. The thinking martial artist will find the new in a slight re-tooling of footwork, a subtle variation on drilling an overhand, a "new" tweak on explosive conditioning that improves a double-leg, that sort of thing.

This sort of search for the new in marginal improvements on existing tactics and strategy is where you will reap your greatest rewards. The search for the "super-secret-never-before-revealed" will more often than not result in nothing more new than new disappointment.