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! 

Sideways

 Here is one of those topics in martial training that tends to be divisive, although it really doesn't need to be. See, in the traditional arts there is often a lot of emphasis on practicing any and all techniques on both sides equally, with the declared ideal of becoming ambidextrous in application. Let me state it right here -  I don't think you can ever become truly ambidextrous from training, no matter how many sinawali patterns you happen to learn...however, becoming bilaterally functional is another thing. 

But, let's take a step back. For the opponents of the idea of bilateral training, since most of us are not professionals in the field and don't have all the time in the world to only focus on training, the limited time we do have on disposal ought to be dedicated to developing the best possibly performance ability on the preferred side. Interestingly, the professionals, who can and do dedicate their lives to training, for the most part also firmly belong to this camp. After all, how many boxers do you know who can switch stances fluidly and box equally well on both sides? It brings to memory an old interview of Bill "Superfoot" Wallace, the legendary full contact champion, who only kicked with his left foot. Namely, asked about that he said that faced with a choice of having two good legs (if not mediocre) or one that is unstoppably phenomenal, he chose the later. And from the standpoint of a competitor whose belt is on the line, it makes sense. After all, symmetry is not even natural, right?

Hmmm...

But, what about those of us who aren't high level competitors, so no big money or titles on the line? Plus, the self-defense oriented community resorts to the argument of defending when your strong/dominant side is injured. And before some of you laugh an point that if the opponent is good enough to eliminate our string side option, the other will be a joke, let me point out that not all injuries are incurred in an encounter as such. For example, I am currently boasting a bad case of tendinitis in my right wrist, unrelated to training, and I'd rather train with my left than not at all. 

That said, it is not even the main benefit I see in the bilateral approach. The biggest advantage there is to it, lies in the fact that such endeavor shows strong benefits to the maintenance and improvement of the overall neural and cognitive systems. Creating new neural pathways, firing synapses etc, it all has long term good effects on human health and functioning. 

Since the work on the non-dominant side essentially stimulates the "opposite" side of the brain, typically related to creativity and intuitive thinking, this might even enhance one's ability to find new solutions to the problems faced. The maintenance of the neural and cognitive networks as also VERY important in the advanced age, to prevent dementia and other degenerative issues. 

However, we don't even have to go into brain science to see other, possibly more evident upsides. Depending on the chosen training discipline, training exclusively on one side may lead to an unbalanced muscular development (particularly when training with heavy implements/weapons), which in turn results in problems with posture and movement patterns, further loading the compensatory joints and movements, and the injuries that will stem from that. 

By the way, if you also include regular conditioning work in your training process, such as weight lifting, roadwork, intervals and so on, would you approach that work with emphasis on the dominant side only? Yeah, I though so...

There is a kind of a third way, too! Years ago, I talked to a pencak silat instructor about this subject, nudged by his "don't care" attitude about whether the jurus of his system (forms) should be practiced in the mirror image as well, since they are not symmetrical on their own. His response was that that a practitioner could develop two different sets of responses for the attack coming on similar lines but from two different sides. I found it awkward at the time, but later it started making sense. Again, going back to weapon-based systems, you just have to work this way! Well, unless you switch the tool between the two hands or grips to deal with the stimuli from left or right. 

In conclusion, I'm afraid there is till no definitive answer to the debate, but hopefully you will find some information here that will help you organize your training better, according to your own needs and priorities. 

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?

Thinking in the...Black Box

 

You ever find that some things in your life and doings are inexplicable, almost mysterious? I sure do. One of such conundrums is the fact that I have been a real fan of work and instructional material of one Mark Hatmaker for almost 25 years now, and despite his prolific output to my liking, I don’t have any of it reviewed here. How did it happen is beyond me… Although, I once did a thorough review of his Outer Limits Drills video for the Raven Calling magazine, it is about time to rectify the situation on this blog.

To that end, instead of tackling a single product, I would like to point your attention to his Black Box Project. If you’d prefer reading what the author himself has to say about it, check out the overview at his website. But, here is my summary:

Back Box is a series of DVDs from his RAW library, issued monthly, that addresses the grey area of combat methods – the approach that relies as much on the athletic physical attributes required in modern sports as it does on the “old school” technical work that is both ring/mat proven and street savvy. In broad strokes, the material presented belongs to the categories of standup striking, upright and ground grappling, weaponry work (what Hatmaker call frontier tools, i.e. tomahawk and trade knives), and physical preparation.

The interesting part is, however, that he did a huge amount of research to find, test, filter and apply predominantly the training methods used by the yesteryear generations of folks who had to use it in real life, and did not have access to the facilities and gear that modern professional fighters do. In other words, what you will find is the stuff that will work for common people like you and I, who have daily jobs and limited financial resources to invest in enhancing your fight game. On top of that, he focuses on the type of training that minimizes the risk of injury typically caused by following professional regimes without the professional support of coaches, massage therapists, nutritional supplementation etc. Plus, there is a cool addition of written outline of contents in each DVD, along with suggestions on how to conduct the training, delivered either in hardcopy or electronic format with each volume.

Now, as you could see, the production style is of the homemade tradition, which might seem lo-fi to some viewers, but I actually like it for its authentic feel. The sheer quality of the material is further enhanced by Hatmaker’s excellent presentation. In line with the values of the old-timers, Hatmaker is a rather eloquent gentleman, well read and able to articulate his thoughts and advice very nicely. To get a taste of his worth in this domain, I wholeheartedly recommend that you pay a visit (or several) to either his audio podcast or written blog (or both) according to your preferences.

After several months into his material, I can honestly attest that Hatmaker’s Black Box stuff is excellent! The combative techniques and tactics presented make a lot of sense, and with a little work can be integrated in any existing program that you may be partaking in. And while that portion is top notch, to me the physical training (culture) material contained in the Unleaded sub-system of the Black Box has been a real blessing! It has enabled me to get rid of some nagging injuries and discomforts that had been hindering my daily training for a while, while also boosting my performance ability in other areas.

As if all of the above was not enough, Mark happens to be a true gentleman and enjoyable fellow to converse with, and inspires people to do good work and live good life in the best way possible – leading by example. All in all, digging into his offerings might turn out to be one of the best investments (time, money and effort) you could possibly make.

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.

Strained training

 A couple of months ago I posted a short video clip on the Astig Lameco group on Facebook, showing one of the possible solutions for a common problem of many novice practitioners, i.e. losing the integrity of the combat stance after a few seconds of dynamic footwork. It showed me doing liner shuffling footwork in a skateboarding park, with one of those low, straight rails between my feet, on a mid-calf level. It caused some great reactions and comments, saying what a great way it is to address the issue.

However, it is nothing new or spectacular. In the coaching practice this approach to training is known as the method of constraints and affordances, and in a nutshell it entails the creation of such training environment that would either prevent the practitioner from making a mistake, or facilitate his achieving the desired outcome, respectively. In this post I will illustrate the former approach. 

We have all been in a situation, either as an instructor or the student, to keep pointing to the same mistake, but to no avail, since it keeps rearing its ugly head time and again. Instead of giving up on the issue or continuing with more of the same in terms of trying to fix it, there is a different, wordless way of dealing with it. How about putting the trainee in a situation where he has no choice but do what you ask of him?

Let's take a very widespread boxing mistake - flaring elbow when executing a jab. In other words, instead of firing the punch down the straight line, there is power leaking because of the crooked trajectory of the elbow during the execution. Here is the visual depiction:

the guard position

mid-phase with elbow sticking out

final phase

The problem with this technique is that if the distance is suddenly shortened in the middle phase of the punch, it will lose so much power that the effect will be negligible. So, the coach has been harping about it constantly, even tried showing the trainee some video footage of his faulty mechanics, but it has all been futile. Well, if we constrain the spatial options that allow for the mistake to be made, it should elicit proper execution from the practitioner. 

In this case, it is done as simply as putting the trainee next to a wall, his lead shoulder almost touching it. And then have him or her doing the technique, first slowly and then faster. 

the guard position

mid-phase, this time without wandering elbow

final phase

That is it! It will take a bit of perseverance, but lot less frustration to get where you want to go. 

The nice thing is that constraints are not limited to technical training. You can develop tactical solutions this way (eg. by limiting the available technical options during sparring; always starting the drill or sparring round from a position that you want to emphasize; taking a limb out of the equation by tying it etc.), as well as many other aspects of combative training. Basically, you start with the problem and reverse-engineer the solution by seeking to see how to disable the undesirable occurrence. 

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?

Prepping properly

On the coattails of my last post, and a couple other ones, how do you prepare beforehand, in order to maximize the benefits from online lessons? Having given it some thought, I decided to take a two-pronged approach: from student's and instructor's perspective. Clearly, though, the two really go hand-in-hand and are complementary. 

As a student, if you do not have prior knowledge of the instructor's teaching style or his material, try to find some info, maybe even address him or her directly with any meaningful questions, if you believe the answers might help you come to the event with improved attitude. If the host allows for the recording of the event for later viewing, go for it! However, regardless of whether they do or don't allow it, have a notebook and pencil(s) within reach, I cannot stress this enough! Having it within easy reach enables you to jot down any instructions or comments that seem particularly significant and/or interesting, since written notes are easier to revisit and reference than video. Possibly even more important is that you can write down any questions that pop to your mind during the class, so you can ask them later, without interrupting the flow of the lesson. 

Mandatory!

Next, typically you will find yourself in one of two situations for the duration of the class - either watching or partaking in the activity. I have done both, and here is some advice... If you are "just" watching (for whatever reason - family issues, time of the day, space etc.) make sure to pay attention to how the participating members are doing. As you listen and look at the instruction, try to see who does a good job of it and who doesn't...and then try to analyze and figure out what the differences are and why, maybe also how the performance should be improved. Essentially, you are trying to think from the instructor's perspective here, thus reinforcing the information you are seeking to retain. Trying to explain something to someone else necessarily strengthens your own understanding of the topic as well. 

If you are the instructor conducting the session, there are some steps that should be taken in order to ensure the class flows more easily and enhance students' understanding of the concepts and principles taught. First and foremost, picking the right subject to work on can make a big difference. Namely, some things are much easier to cover and explain without a partner than some others. For example, developing physical attributes or polishing one's jab or hook in boxing makes more sense when done solo, than working on clinch techniques and tactics. In BJJ, work from the bottom may suffer less in similar circumstances than top game of takedowns. In armed combatives, such as arnis and eskrima, footwork and striking mechanics will suffer much less from solo presentation than disarming or counter for counter drills. So, with presence/absence of partners in mind, think about whether you will need any additional equipment to aid the teaching. If you believe there are some items that would prove helpful, be sure to notify the students about having it ready as well. 

Following that, write down at least a rough outline of the presentation. Even more so than in the real world, fumbling around while trying to think what to do next is plain bad in an online presentation. Besides, when you have a plan, you can spend the first 3-5 minutes of the class giving the overview to the participants, so they may have some context in which to fit your instruction, and it will also lead to more useful and specific questions from them. It is always a very nice touch if the said overview can be sent to the participants either before or during/after the session. 

Finally, if in anyway possible, strive to earmark the final 10 or so minutes of the session as the Q&A portion. The kind of questions you get will tell you a lot about the degree of success with your teaching and student's understanding of it. Some of those questions and suggestions might even provide inspiration for future classes, be it in terms of content of manner of presentation. After all, if you care at all about the students taking your lessons, feedback is a must have aspect. 

I truly hope this gives some useful insights into the issue of online teaching and learning, so that everybody involved may enjoy the process more. Also, if you have any other advice, I would love to hear it! 

Being a lone rider

Training by yourself is all the rage these days, obviously, so everybody and their brother is casting their vote on what to do in isolated conditions. Now, I have already written about it (exactly five years ago!), and some of the more obvious aspects or approaches to solo training have seen their fair share of treatment here. Now, there is another way to train solo, and quite controversial one, too.

Say what!?

I’m talking about formal practice, i.e. kata, hyung, jurus, taolu…depending on the geographical origin of your chosen martial practice. The controversy arises, of course, in view of the value of such practice. Some traditionalists will swear by it and claim it the ultimate supreme training method; the modern day, sparring oriented systems, such as MMA or various (so called) reality-based defense methods will think of it as a bad joke.

Now, a lot has been written and said about the actual meaning, or original purpose of these forms, so I will not delve into it here. Suffices to say that, as some may expect from me, the point is not so much in what you do, but rather how you do it. And there are some glaringly different approaches!

First, let me stir some commotion – (kick)boxers do katas, too. In essence, whenever there is a standardized set of techniques strung together to be performed as a sequence, you get a formal exercise. In boxing, one of those might be jab-cross-front hook; in kickboxing jab-cross-roundhouse kick; in Thai boxing they can get quite elaborate; in savate there are standard combos performed when testing for grades, just like in many traditional Asian arts.

savate is French after all

However, it is immediately evident how these formal exercises are practiced in said systems. Let’s just go back to that basic boxing combo – all three punches might be done to the head…or, head-body-head…or head-body-body…or body-head-head…or you-get-the-picture. Next, add the footwork variables, as in stepping: all advancing; all retreating; advance-advance-retreat etc. All of a sudden a single formal exercise yields a mind-numbing number of possibilities in application.

In most Asian arts, as practiced today, forms tend to be some kind of pictures to be added to your album. Basically static in presentation, even with predefined rhythm in performance. Yes, even so there could be some merit in doing them, to work on your breathing, focus, stamina and so on. I mean, in the circumstances of home quarantine that may be enough… But why not take it a step further and break them apart, maybe even assembling techniques in a different order altogether? Kind of like Legos! You can follow the instructions, but you can also make your own ideas.

Lgo action!

The only traditional art (as far as I know) that nurtures this approach as an integral part of its teaching is silat with its pecahan method. Admittedly, there are schools out there who also work on bunkai, along with their kata, but those are also frequently fossilized and done by numbers. Indeed, there are always those thinking out of the box, such as Iain Abernethy or Gavin Mulholland, but everybody could, and should, try this approach, at least once in a while.

Finally, there is another very important aspect of traditional forms that I find interesting, but, alas, it is not often paid attention to. It has to do with finer mechanical points of technical development, but instead of trying to explain it in writing, take a look at this brief but good demonstration:

In conclusion, although nothing beats working with good instructors and training partners, there is still so much work to on your own that you should never be caught idle of bored!

Basically fundamental

I was asked on several occasions if I had ever gone to coach a training session without knowing what I would do? In short, the answer is - no! Admittedly, I have appeared in sessions without previously planning the class, more than once. So, how come the answer to the question was negative? Quite simply, there is a super important aspect of training that you can always revisit without feeling guilty... As the matter of fact, if you are not training every day, and making it part of that daily training, you are probably in need of more. It is called - BASICS!

If a man of Virgil Hunter's caliber, coaching champions, stresses the importance of fundamental techniques and tactics, who am I to dispute it? After all, he works with champions and challengers in a tough world of professional boxing, where the failure to train properly is very costly in so many ways.

Now, some may argue that the entire technical arsenal of boxing is rather basic in general, and that other combative systems operate in a more diverse circumstances, hence demanding more variety in training, too. Say, weapon based methods would be like that, right? Well, not exactly. Namely, while the challenges that the practitioners of non-sportive approaches to combat may be of wider scope, effective responses to them are, nonetheless, based on a limited set of mechanical and tactical principles that are best adopted through the diligent practice of those system's basics.

Interestingly enough, most advanced practitioners, and particularly those good in actual fighting, enjoy the constant focus on fundamentals, because they tend to always find new applications and variations of those underlying principles. And it is exactly those novel expressions and applications that make "new and advanced" techniques, but are only possible owing to the incessant drilling of foundations. My main FMA instructor Roger Agbulos keeps repeating his mantra of "advanced techniques being fundamentals done really well", and when you get to spar him, the deep trueness of this sentiment becomes very obvious.

Besides, this attitude is not limited to martial endeavors either. Legendary NFL coach Vince Lombardi is famous for starting the 1961 season with Green Bay Packers by gathering the team and saying: "Gentlemen...this is a football!" Another legendary coach, this time from basketball, John Wooden, would even go so far to teach his players how to put on their socks and tie their shoes.

Finally, there is one important distinction we ought to have in mind. When I rant about fundamentals here, it does not mean the disciplinary methods, i.e. customs and protocols aimed at teaching the students proper etiquette and conduct during classes (not that this is unimportant), but rather the aforementioned tenets and principles that form the technical and tactical groundwork of any given system. And with that in mind, the best way to get to the advanced levels of training is to find joy and pleasure in working on the basics.

In the long term, it is not about how soon you can skip to the next phase, but rather how long you can stay at the same and find it beneficial. 

More limits

This is sort of a continuation of the train of thought discussed in the previous post on constraints and affordances. Over there I talked most of all about various physical constraints in training, which should, hopefully, make us develop some desired skills and abilities that otherwise would be left underdeveloped.

Another approach to the same tool would be the selection of technical or/and tactical tools to be "banned" in drills or sparring sessions, so that the only desired responses would be elicited in trainees' performance. In this regard there are no limits to how you limit your options (yes, I wrote that deliberately), depending on what you are trying to achieve. Say, in a boxing session allow the use of hooks only (technical limitation), or just lateral footwork (tactical). In a grappling session allow only sweeps from guard (technical), or award points only for getting the opponents back (tactical).

Of course, the ideas and approaches from this and previous post can be combined according to needs and training goals, but you may include other insights as well, if that fits your purpose. The bottom line is - be aware and perceptive of the needs and possible shortcomings in your training, be selective with your criteria for adding one training method or another to your coaching toolbox, see if you can accomplish more by doing less in training, either by limiting stimuli or responses. 

Through constraints to freedom

This may seem as a bit of a blast from the past, if you have been following this blog for a while. Namely, some years ago I addressed the issue of adaptability being one of the most important attributes of a good fighter, and what it meant, but this time I would like to address some of the more specific ways to approach this subject in your training. Now, what I am to offer may seem counter intuitive at the first glance, but it is a method of training that has been widely use for a long time and with good results, so bear with me.

If you read the linked article, you will see that I believe in a strong foundational skill set and then incessantly working on developing the ability to respond to the new challenges through exposure to specific situations and circumstances. In doing just that I have noted a natural tendency among the trainees, which in the long-term could hamper their progress in trying to accomplish this goal. What emerges as a typical reaction to such drills is the attempt to extract yourself from the challenging conditions and find the way, as soon as possible, to put your best game to use. An example would be working heavily on your positional escapes on the ground, so you can immediately get back on your feet and start striking the opponent. However, in the transition process you might miss on a number of opportunities to inflict some damage, either by blows or joint locks or whatever, somewhere between those basic situations, i.e. lying down and standing up.

So, how do we learn to recognize opportunities in this "grey area" ? In the coaching science there is a method termed constraints and affordances and it entails limiting the options that trainees have on disposal in dealing with the demands of the drill/situation. That way, they are forced to use other tools, specifically those that previously had not been fully developed and adopted. Here is how the above "transition" scenario is typically addressed in silat classes.

The constraints-led method, however, is not the exclusive domain of traditional/exotic martial arts. Here is the insight into how it could be applied in boxing, to improve the in-fighting prowess among the boxers who typically rely on their footwork and/or longer reach in regular sparring bouts or matches.

In grappling this approach is exemplified in starting all your rolling session from a certain position, the one that is your weak link, maybe spending entire training period doing that; in RBSD/combatives it may be working out of the cornered position; armed systems would stress the use of the "other" hand and so on.

The main challenge in this kind of work is having to face the inner voices that come from one's ego when being forced to step out of the comfort zone. Therefore, make sure to resist the urge to rationalize the weak performances and seek excuses for going back to your feel-good practices. The only way to make breakthroughs in your performance is to "embrace the suck" and keep your eyes on the prize. After all, it is better to suck and be frustrated in training than to suffer in an actual arena of combat, be it urban streets, military battlefield or sport tournament. 

Fit for seminar frenzy, part 2

In the previous post we touched upon some of the broad categories of martial art seminars you may consider attending during the summer. Regardless of which of those types you may end up partaking in, ultimately the value of the event will heavily hinge on one fundamental factor – the instructor(s) conducting it. Sometimes, of course, you will know much, if anything, about the person in charge of your training there; sometimes you will be more or less familiar with their background and qualification/biography, but without any real insight into how they teach; and there are also those you feel very familiar with, due to having “tasted” their approach through videos, books etc. As you may have concluded by now, we are talking about seeing someone for the first time, and the impressions there will decide whether a trainee will repeatedly attend seminars by the same instructor.

There are many qualities a good instructors should have, some more important than others, depending on the circumstances. Since we’re talking seminars here, not regular classes, I will focus on some of the factors I look for. Obviously, but should not be taken for granted, the instructor ought to be highly skilled, with thorough understanding of what makes his or her skill good, and how to develop it; next, there should be some sort of teaching curriculum in place, so that the material would be presented in a logical and understandable manner; then, the teacher should be able to effectively communicate with the trainees; and finally, there is the need for a keen eye to notice the possible difficulties among the students, especially if there are common ones.

Philippe Choisy

Personally, what I expect from a good seminar is to get at least a glimpse of the teaching/training methodology, and hopefully even a solid insight, should the instructor be so inclined to discuss it. Namely, if I like the material enough there is the natural tendency to include some or all of it in my own training and teaching, in which case it is good to know what is the most efficient sequence and progression in doing it.

Now, depending of your interest and priorities in training, there may be some people out there whose programs are especially attractive and enticing. It is therefore normal that they would be heading your list of people to check out this summer, if possible…just make sure that your curiosity is not entirely based on Youtube demo highlights or similar sources, but rather that there is some specific reason behind it. My list of Top-something instructors to learn from has emerged spontaneously over the years, and might be, conditionally, split in two categories: armed and unarmed. So, just for fun, here are some of them, listed in alphabetical order:

Unarmed:        Philippe Choisy                       Armed:            Scott Babb

Rich Dimitri                                                    Craig Douglas

                        Antonio Faeda                                                 Nigel February

                        Chris Haueter                                                  Varg Freeborn

                        Rodney King                                                   Maija Soderholm

                        Rory Miller                                                     Tom Sotis

Varg Freeborn

Evidently, some of them have already been mentioned on this blog, some not (yet). Now, this list may also seem a bit all over the place, but in my mind there is a common thread that makes them all pieces that could fit the same puzzle, but to which degree…it remains to be seen. Naturally, this list is fluctuating, the names are changing occasionally (after all, a dozen was a random number in the first place…I would need to add Hock Hochheim, Mikhail Ryazanov, Robert Paturel and many others), and it also does not mean I won’t attend any other seminars that pop up until these are “ticked” as done.

In conclusion, stay hungry for new knowledge, go learn new stuff from interesting people, but try to make informed choices and decisions in order to make the experience as fulfilling as possible. 

Quick like

We all know that nowadays no matter what you do, main aspect of the work is the emphasis on marketing, for better or for worse. Since we live in the era when image is everything and packaging worth more than contents, it is refreshing to stumble over no-frills, lo-tech source of solid info. In my post on Roger Agbulos I mentioned the similarities in methodology between boxing and his approach to eskrima.

Well, evidently there are others who work along the similar lines (which is no wonder in this particular case, but let's keep it short and quick)... Without further ado, I would like to recommend the interesting Youtube channel of Mr. Billy Bosson. So, if you are so inclined, take a look at what he has to offer at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9YGJkPYuKdhzw7E_KmM2