Wrong direction?

 Sometimes I can't help noticing that we live in a world where everything is quantified, so the notions of success and achievement are based on measurements, typically in an attempt to be (quasi)scientific in one's approach to training. While such a view has some value in certain domains, particularly in a professional sport field, I believe that in some other practices it might be (at least occasionally) harmful. 

Even in a very streamlined sport of weight lifting, for example, there are so many factors involved (sleep, mood, state of health etc.) that it would be ill-advised to focus on the numbers as the sole indicator of progress. More than once have I seen a lifter miserable after a good session, because they failed to reach a goal that was a number on the paper (or the screen). How do you quantify quality or pleasure?

Things get even more complex in an oppositional skill based arena that is martial arts and combat sports. For a lot of people involved in these, there is this idea of making progress by "getting to the next level", which entails learning advanced techniques and/or more new maneuvers. You see it everywhere, from the modern BJJ and MMA gyms and their new tricks of the trade, to the traditional schools, where the new belt means new forms and techniques. We always strive to get to a new step and climb higher on the chosen ladder of success. 

But what if that is a wrong viewpoint? After all, they say that advanced techniques are the basics done really well, right? Wouldn't that mean we ought to get deeper, not higher? Hey, even the Earth's structure prefers depths to heights!

So, let me try and provide some answers to the above questions. I happen to be a proponent of the basics done well school of thought, because the concept of deep skill is the foundation for the execution of advanced tactics and strategies. In other words, with an excellent command of a finite set of skills/techniques, one has the confidence and cognitive resources to use them in solving the changing demands of a dynamic combative situation. A classic example may be the legendary Bill "Superfoot" Wallace, who decided to train his kicking techniques only with the left foot, but make it so good that his opponents had difficulties dealing with it, despite knowing what to expect. Or Rickson Gracie rolling each participant in a seminar and submitting them all with the same technique! 

Therefore, with a proper learning and training process it is possible to develop required attributes, thus being able to overcome most challenges faced in the process of training and/or application. I know, we are constantly exposed to so much novelties in training and bombarded with all kinds of (dis)information, so it can be really hard to keep it at bay while maintaining focus. Yet, we are often reminded that "Jack of all trades is a master of none..."

"...but often better than the master of one!", however! Wait, what? Aren't I contradicting myself? Well, not really. See, IMHO, one needs to be a comprehensivist in terms of areas of competence, but then a deep diver in each of them. Naturally, the number of those areas of competence will depend on your purpose in training - sport, cultural study, recreation etc. Let's say you are a MMA practitioner with competitive inclination: you would need to develop some functional skillset in standup/striking range, clinch/wrestling and the ground/grappling game. Now, if you have previous background in one of the disciplines that are typically perceived as "main ingredients" of MMA (i.e. (kick/Thai)boxing, wrestling, judo, sambo, BJJ), it could be possible and maybe even recommended to build a strategic approach of taking the fight to your area of expertise, with solid defense in all the others.

Let's see what the deep dive consist of, then. The first thing would be to identify a finite set of techniques and tactics that make the functional foundation within that area and then work on truly internalizing and integrating them, to a degree that we could improvise and play with them at will. For example: in the standup game - jab, cross, front hook, low kick and (maybe) front kick, corresponding parries and defenses; in the clinch game - a couple of controls and takedown from wrestling (underhook, weezer, single leg), head/neck control and a couple of elbow and knee strikes from Thai-boxing, takedown defense/sprawl; on the ground - essential positional control, 2-3 escapes for each position, 2-3 submissions from each position, a couple of fundamental sweeps/reversals, and fundamental ground and pound options. 

Huh, it is still quite a bit... But, if you get deeply skilled in those, there will almost certainly be no need for jumping or spinning kicks and backfists, scissor throws and suplexes, berimbolos and lasso guard or calf slicers. Leave those to the folks specializing (i.e. deep diving) in those singular disciplines.

If your aim is on the pavement arena of self-protection, you will also want to address hand held weapons (impact and edged...firearms if it fits your legal environment), with emphasis on access and deployment, along with a couple of low-risk and effective techniques/strikes, while discarding the twirling and flipping stuff. (There are quite a few reviews of the applicable instructional volumes on this blog). When it comes to defense, focus on control over disarming. While on the subject of street self-defense, if you try running a couple of scenarios that involve multiple attackers, it will quickly become obvious which physical techniques and tactics are to be prioritized (footwork, standing wrestling, straight punches, low line kicking). 

Thanks to the easy access to video footage of all kinds of physical situations, it is relatively easy to figure out what are the technical and tactical tools that should be prioritized, so-called high percentage ones, in order to avoid straying away from your training mission. 

After that, all you need is to dig in...deep! 

Self inflicted violence

 Nobody likes getting bad news, even when they are not directly related to themselves. Sometimes such news wake up and put to the forefront those hard questions that we often seek to ignore or sweep under the proverbial rug. This time, it was the report of BJJ and MMA legend Rickson Gracie being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. And being that in this regard he joins other legends in the domain of combat activities, most notably Muhammad Ali, but other greats such as Freddy Roach as well, it made one of "those" questions resurface again...

I learned about this case via a report/commentary by Rodney King, who has already been featured a couple of times on this blog. His view of the situation (as shared on Facebook) is sobering because he also speaks from his own experience, which clearly shows that at issue is not an isolated case, or even a string of unrelated cases. These facts make the above question that much more uncomfortable to ponder. 

If take a stroll through my older posts, you will easily find out that dealing with injuries is one of the topics that are taken as important here, because they have at least a two-fold harmful effect - inhibiting further training; and essentially attaining a counter effect to that training, i.e. they makes us more vulnerable that being healthy and untrained. But, those are just the physical injuries. As a matter of fact, with regards to martial arts and combative training, if taken from the functional fighting perspective, they come with the territory, as a manner of speaking. Even when growing into chronic issues, such as arthritis, rheumatism etc, I am frequently inclined to think that it is worth the benefits one can reap from training. 

However, the neurological problems and conditions that may stem from them are a different can of worms. First, there is a huge quantitative difference in terms of the deterioration in quality of life, between various orthopedic issues on the one side and Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, or ALS on the other. The degree of a person's functionality in living their lives is simply beyond comparison. Second, and directly connected to the last comment, is how it affects our immediate social environment, i.e. the closest family and friends. Exactly...all of a sudden we don't just bear the responsibility for ourselves, as you can't simply say "it's my life". Because it is someone else's too. 

So, how do we tackle the problem? How does one stay active within his or her chosen field, especially when it is a true passion, while being more responsible in a long-term? Is it even possible to train in a way that is simultaneously geared toward functional effectiveness and personal preservation? The easy answer is - yes! But it is necessarily simple to achieve. Namely, there are many factors at work here, and a proper training environment needs to juggle many of them at any given moment. But that fact is by no means an excuse to neglect it.

The solution probably boils down to a good training methodology, depending on an individual's motives for and needs in the learning/training process. In your search for the good foundation, you might even start with some of the articles on this blog, and see how those suggestions apply to your current training situation. Or, you could go and consult any of those resources from Rodney King, because he has literally dedicated decades of his life and work to developing a paradigm that would successfully avoid or solve the problem we are discussing. 

Ultimately, from this perspective, it is not so much the question of what you do in your practice, but rather how you do it. Therefore, should you choose to keep following the same road, at least try to do it in the best vehicle available. 

Jumping ship?

 

No one has all the answers, right? After all, this is why we cross train. And, nowadays cross-training has become accepted so much that is almost kind of a norm. Although some thirty years ago it was seen by many as the expression of humanity’s lowest impulses, MMA has become possibly the most popular combat sport of our time, especially in terms of the mainstream media exposure. It may even be fair to say that the success of MMA has brought more attention back to the traditional Olympic fighting events such as judo, boxing and wrestling.

So, the revolution that Bruce Lee was preaching almost six decades ago is now a common state of affairs…or is it?

There is a segment of training in martial arts and related disciplines that exhibits much more conservative attitude, and no, I do not have ultra-traditional arts and systems in mind. As much as training in several different methods is widely accepted, there is still a lot of frowning upon the attempt to train simultaneously in two (or more) different schools of the same system or style. For some reason, if a person wanted to train in two different BJJ or karate schools, and just the same for two schools of the same kung fu system, or even two boxing clubs, they are deemed disloyal, back-stabbing, untrustworthy kind of character.

While I might understand the sentiment if at issue is a competitor jumping ship, it doesn’t make sense when talking about a serious enthusiast who may not be focused on competition. What is wrong if someone wants to see how different instructors and coaches treat the same situations? On top of it, for the most part it is completely OK to attend seminars of instructors from other lineages, but training regularly in different schools is a no-no.

Granted, at lower, beginning levels of training such practice may be counterproductive, as the trainee could focus on collecting techniques and tricks instead of focusing on developing strong fundamental principles, but after a few years? As a thought experiment, let’s say you have 8+ years in BJJ, with a lot of money and time at disposal. And you happen to be equally close to the schools run by Marcelo Garcia, John Danaher and Mario Sperry, who all have classes on different days and times. What is wrong by visiting each (or two of them) two or three times a week, as opposed to staying with just one four times a week?

Or, being a boxer of 10 years, and having both Teddy Atlas and Freddy Roach within reach, with a similar set of circumstances as above. Would you tap the knowledge source of both, or chose one to follow?

It bears saying that sometimes two instructors will have approaches that really do not fit, or even contradict each other, and in such case it is definitely better to opt for one. However, if one is looking to get as well rounder view of a discipline as possible, it only makes sense to learn from more than one source. Especially so if you are, or strive to be, an instructor yourself at some point.

Or maybe the whole “problem” is endemic to the place(s) that I have been frequenting, while entirely non-existent elsewhere?

Basically rewinding

 I started this year with a big step back. But not a drawback by any means. The idea is to boil the big chunk of my practice time down to the bare basics and work on it in earnest, in a fully deliberate manner for a while. How long will that while last...remains to be seen. Yeah, there is still ongoing work on the new material as part of the already undertaken studies, but at the moment there will be no new systems or arts introduced. 

So, what are the basics at hand? In terms of empty handed work it means a handful of ground maneuvers/exercises that are applicable to grappling (front, back and sideways rolls, shrimping, getting off the ground and engaging it); jab and cross; front knee kick and oblique stomp kick. When it comes to weapons work, just the forehand and backhand diagonal and horizontal strikes with stick; three thrusting and three cutting angles with a knife. 

That is it. When working on them in a solo regime, I'm using a "pyramidal" approach - a set of very slow and deliberate reps, a set of semi-fast reps, a set of max-speed reps, a set of mid-speed, another set of very slow and deliberate ones. Then do the whole thing 2-4 times. 

Is it tedious? Sure. But, what I do in order to combat the possible boredom and maintain focus is pick a visual target (or a physical one) and stay on it, because it provides feedback about the trajectory of hte technique, distance, structure etc. 

It takes commitment and discipline to do it, but it is worthwhile. Namely, I have noted certain wrinkles in my performance that have crept up over time, and now they are being ironed out. If you are like me and subscribe to the "advanced techniques are basics done really well" school of thought, then it is not hard to understand the satisfaction of improving those fundamentals, for the greater benefit down the line. Not to mention that sometimes KISS-ing is just so refreshing.

Lonely path

 ...can be, and often is hard. But if it is what makes you who you are, you have to follow it. The pandemic situation is unfortunately still a relevant factor in our training, after more than a year, which means that solo training is still a VERY important aspect. Although, it always is, anyway. As guro Roger Agbulos pointed out during one of his Zoom training sessions, even before the lockdowns and other hindrances, 80% of his training was done solo, anyway. I have already written about it, so today I'd like to offer a couple of ways to maybe freshen it up by introducing new ways of working on your own.

To begin with, you may consider taking certain exercising ideas and applying them in different planes. For example, most BJJ solo drills are done on the floor, but what if you tried to work on chaining various movements in different positions? Possibly, something of this could come up...

OK, once you are comfortable with that, or simply wishing to add more ingredients to the mix, it could be a simple piece of training gear such as a ball. Following is a clip of my friend Vasilis from Athens, Greece, showing some interesting ways of expanding your training. 

Finally, should you be looking for a way to make the training more reactive and spontaneous, using a pendulum could be the answer. In the following example guro Jay Pugao of Visayan Corto Cadena system of arnis/eskrima is demonstrating it with empty handed applications, i.e. punching, but this type of training can be done just as well with various impact or bladed weapons. 

As always, what you get out of these modes of training depends on what you put in. Granted, there is no way to adequately replace partner training, but it should not be the excuse for failing to train at all. With a little imagination and a lot of drive, you can end up attaining good results, especially with proper mindset

Go with the...flow!

 Asked what are the characteristics of a high-level martial art exponent, several typical responses come to mind - ease of movement, grace of execution, thinking ahead of the opponent etc. - but when they are all integrated it would be fair to say that when they are at their top game, such expert practitioners all seem to possess and exhibit flow in performance. However, this very notion may prove to be rather tricky in its meaning. Also, there is no consensus regarding if it is possible to be trained. 

Interestingly enough, some martial systems emphasize flow as their prime goal and desired result of training but may have very different ways in seeking to achieve it. Let's take the example of grappling arts such as aikido and BJJ: the former strives to develop flow as a component of its technical base and seeks to train it through relaxed and soft execution of specific techniques through high repetitions; the latter perceives flow as the result of having all other technical components in order, and tends to come at it through sparring, i.e. free rolling. 

If you have had the opportunity to try or at least see both approaches in action, you may have noticed that their understanding of what, or better yet - how, flow is is not exactly the same. In aikido it is seen as good if the whole sequence of moves and techniques runs seamlessly as one long, uninterrupted statement, even speech. But, when reading a well written article/book, or listening to an engaging speaker, you have certainly noticed full stops at the end of sentences and heard pauses at varying times in the speech. In a conversation, this is even more obvious. This is why BJJ sparring seems more natural, with its transitions, isolations, positional escapes and finally submissions - this is how a natural conversation may be represented visually. 

But, what with the striking arts? Obviously, there is high value placed on the flow in those as well, but again, the approaches frequently differ. Filipino martial arts are known for professing their preference for the flow as a supremely important aspect, but quite often it is attempted in practice in a manner similar to aikido...artificially, devoid of context, via so-called flow drills. Here is an example...

What technical attributes do you see being drilled properly here? Stance, biomechanical structure, distance, footwork..? Not exactly the most brilliant display. That said, the drill itself isn't necessarily faulty, be it sumbrada, hubad or whatever. With proper energy and intent, all those other things would fall into place. As an example, seek instruction from Roger Agbulos, either seminar or classes, to see how hubad, when well done, tend to resemble wrestling's pummeling drills. 

Over the years of my training with Alex Kostic, we came at a notion of "punctuated flow", as a term that may better represent a genuine state of performance in actual fights. To most of us, seeing a good boxer doing his craft would be a great visual representation. The following clip shows some of those, but I especially like the portion starting at 1:38, because it is a great parallel to giving a good speech, as mentioned earlier, with its pauses between well connected phrases and sentences. 

See what I mean? Now, some people may argue that flow is a mental state that cannot really be trained. I will readily agree that with some practitioners it is more innate and easier to attain, but it can be trained for sure. There are many factors involved in an adequate training methodology, but let me point to an important one to begin with. First, the trainees should be working on longer series of technical maneuvers and looking for fluid performance, but the thing is they should be aware of the purpose of each individual component, while facing progressive resistance and increasing demands in doing, so. Why? Well, once you know what are you doing and why, it is much easier to have proper intent behind your actions. Whoever has seen a Thai boxing fight knows that most exchanges are short and crisp, done explosively, and yet, in most schools you will find many strings of long combos, such as this one:

The point there is that the person practicing the drill knows the purpose and function of their individual techniques and their possible combinations, which enables practitioners to take them apart and reassemble them in different ways, according to the context and circumstances of the fight. Like learning foreign languages - you may and should learn entire phrases and expressions, but also need to know meaning of individual words and rules of linking them when expressing new meaning. Here, meaning is intent...without you can throw together any words you like in any order you want, but they might end up sounding like gibberish. 

And we all like being well understood, right?

Rocky road to ranking

 Over the past few months I have attended a couple of ranking exams in martial arts, performed online. Back in the 1990's, when I first became aware of various long-distance learning/training programs, done via VHS, I was wondering how much sense did it make. On the one hand, it seemed to me that the logistics were a serious challenge, but on the other - there were plenty of embarrassing tests conducted and ranks awarded in the direct, face to face situations. 

Over time, I came to the conclusion that it boils down to the seriousness of the system/organization and integrity of the instructors who do the testing. I remember deliberately postponing my black belt test in Taekwondo, so that I could take it under a Korean instructor known for strict standards. After spending almost an hour doing the required techniques, forms, breaking and sparring, the whole experience had much more meaning, especially having in mind that he actually failed three candidates out of dozen or so that day. 

Later, when I got involved with different, less formal systems, the entire notion of belts and ranks seemed redundant and needless. But is it so?

Means to an end, or goal itself?

Obviously, when a person is into training for the passion and for the joy of the activity itself, the rank is something of a side-effect, if considered at all. I liked the practice of some instructors I trained under, who would occasionally award ranks, completely announced, on unsuspecting students, based on their regular effort, performance and achievement, without extrinsic motivation. 

However, it took some time for me to understand that there are people who start in martial arts with what I would consider "laughable" aims of chasing belts, but actually grow into training and develop more of intrinsic goals, be it the level of performance, technical performance, discipline and character building, competitive success etc. 

Having children in training is particularly susceptible to this kind of approach, in the terms of valid strategy, although it is certainly not the only one proven to be available. Still, training kids also tends to be the environment where the rank can be rendered meaningless. I mean, with all due respect, what exactly is the rationale behind 6-year-old black belts?

???

Naturally, there will always be schools and instructors reputed as diploma mills, but let's not get bogged in that discussion. Instead, here are some reasons I see as relevant for conducting actual testing for rank. 

First, there are some fighting arts (iai-do, kenjutsu, many kung fu styles...) that simply do not include any kind of external pressure on the practitioners, aside from the possible tough instructor, and preparing for the test could provide that extra edge in their training. 

Next, sometimes the school or training group is affiliated with an instructor that is only able to visit periodically, and testing (usually attached to a seminar) is the only way to gain pertinent insight into someone's level, hence the rank actually serving as feedback for them to evaluate their effort thus far.

Finally, in case of rank tests that are open for public, it can be a good opportunity for the school to show and/or confirm its standards and legitimacy their trainees' work in the world where there is too much marketing and advertising, with scarcity of tangible evidence of quality. Typically, BJJ schools are a good example of how ranking and belts can be meaningful and worthy of respect. 

In the end, let's go back to the beginning. The online tests that I attended were well done - the instructors were demanding and helpful at the same time, while the candidates had taken it seriously and were well prepared to go through almost two-hour event, in order to demonstrate being worthy of the rank. Again, it boils down to the integrity of the entity presenting the ranks, and when that criterion is up to level, the quality of its representatives is almost guaranteed.