Celebration!

As you all probably know, one of my closest friends and biggest influences in the field of martial arts (and beyond) is Alex Kostic. Today is his round number birthday, and to celebrate it, I decided to share an instructional video we did a few years ago. Although his teaching methodology is always improving, this still represents a fairly good introduction to the way Alex dissects certain topics in training. 

Hope you will enjoy it!

Class is in session!

This is a special opportunity! A bit over a year ago Alex Kostic decided to shoot a series of instructional videos (with your truly assisting) to start a Patreon page, but ultimately dropped the idea. However, I talked him into making it available at a nominal fee of $5 per lesson, so that the folks could see the current state of his teaching. 

So, here are the three foundational lessons on structure breaking, as well as defending against kicks and grabs, approximately 10 minutes long each. All the videos are intended for online viewing, and upon payment, you should be redirected to the URL, or receive the link. In case of any problems, message me for the solution. 

KICK DEFENSE

GRAB DEFENSE

STRUCTURE BREAKING 

Besides those, we decided to also offer Alex's first instructional video from almost 20 years ago, which was published on DVD, but has been unavailable for a long time. It is an overview of the scope of training we did at the time, with emphasis on biomechanics of motion and their application over that spectrum. It is a full length vintage value video of 80+ minutes!

In the end, all customers who buy any of these videos by December 12, 2023 will have a 20% discount on the next batch.
Happy holidays! 

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.

Changing views

 There is this thing of viewing, i.e. quantifying, one's training from one of two main vantage points - in term of hours spent, or years invested. It probably obvious that those two outlooks are nor really mutually exclusive, but rather complementary. Especially since both require certain level of commitment from the practitioner... Quite recently, the good folks from the FMA Discussion community had a very nice debate on the topic of hours vs. years, and it yielded an excellent episode of their podcast. 

All three participants in the talk were able to really nicely present their points of view and arguments relating to the subject, with a lot of excellent insights. I especially liked how they underlined that when things take their natural course, the hours will eventually turn into years. It really resonated with me, because it immediately reminded of how my path with Alex Kostic unfolded. Namely, when he first started teaching Systema as a guest instructor in the club/group where I was a member, it was only natural that my tendency was to squeeze in as many hours as possible with Alex whenever he was around (he was still based in Canada back then). Those hours contributed to our building a great relationship and ultimately into years spent training and researching together. 

Be as it may, at one point during the above program, the host asked the question that I had sent, whether if we take the look at the training time through the lens of hours, does it matter how far apart those hours are? While the answers were good, I may not have formulated the question adequately. Although, Mr. Steve Grody had already brought up what seems to me to be the central point - consistency.

So, here is my attempt to be a bit more specific. Let's say a person has 50 hours per year available for training. Would it be more effective then to train for one hour every week, or attend five seminars of 10 hours each throughout that year (thus, 10-12 weeks between training sessions)? Essentially, if there is absolutely no other training done outside those hours, it only makes sense that weekly hour-long sessions would be preferable, primarily for the sake of regular feedback regarding one's performance. Regardless of what kind of performance we're talking about here - forms, techniques, drills, sparring - consistent shorter sessions will take the cake over occasional longer ones.

 On the other hand, if we talk about 50 hours of INSTRUCTION, not all training, then the seminars with regular practice sessions between them may be the right way to go, particularly of otherwise we have limited access to the qualified instructors. After all, this how many arts and systems were able to spread around the world. Still, if regular instruction is available, weekly learning slots with reinforcing practice sessions on other days of the week would win, for the reasons mentioned above. 

It bear saying, nonetheless, that certain situations will naturally gravitate to one of the two vantage points. Say, a fight camp 6-8 weeks prior to a competition clearly goes towards the emphasis on hours spent over the period. Alternatively, in some systems require age limits for certain ranks, so the hours on those years may not be decisive. 

The bottom line is that it is how learning works - effort over time. The intensity and regularity are the fundamental factors here, and if those an be balanced, it is really an optimal situation. And again, if the commitment and discipline are there - the hours will definitely turn into years. 

Digging for nuggets

Every fighting system out there has a certain pool of techniques, some specific, some very similar to those in other systems. Sometimes, the entire difference between two such martial schools is not even the mechanics of their techniques, but rather their application. That said, even within the system there could be more than one possible expressions of a chosen move, hence the emergence of individual practitioners' personal styles.

How does one learn about various possibilities with a particular movement? Obviously, the easiest way is to be shown, by the instructor or a fellow practitioner. The problem with such an approach is that quite frequently those shown applications tend to become the accepted "only true" ones, while other options, even if stumbled upon, are discarded as "not right". That happens to be a common occurrence with interpreting the individual techniques from karate kata. Sometimes two or more practitioners will learn differing bunkai of the same kata, end then sink into the heated debate about whose is the proper one.

The other angle is to do your on research, investigation and experimentation. The advantage of this approach is that the discoveries could be more authentic for the practitioner and better accommodating their personal physical attributes and mental aptitude etc. Also, these are usually better remembered and understood in the long term. The disadvantage, however, is that some people may get lost in the quest for the sheer quantity, thus losing sight of the need to seek the functionally best applications. Well,,,if one is training for the functional goals in the first place.

Namely, a lot of things are possible, but in our training we should do enough drilling and testing to figure out which of those are also more likely and probable.

Take a look at an exercise I did with my friend Daniel from Germany. You'll see that the first move this two-piece combo is treated in the following order:

- as an elbow strike;

- as a punch defense;

- as a grab defense/release. 

Naturally, the effectiveness of each particular application will depend on the proper distance and timing, as those elements are the key factors. Unfortunately, they are often forgotten about, and the problem is sought in improving the mechanics. Sometimes, the mechanics will turn out to be fine, and the technique/application will be discarded undeservedly. 

Certain martial systems have this sort of research as an integral part of their methodology, Such is the example of pecahan in pencak silat, where the sequence of moves is take apart in order to thoroughly analyze its elements, and then put back together with new understanding and new views on what could be done with it. This is the simplified explanation, but you get the gist of it. The following clip of Rita Suwanda offers a nice example. 

To conclude - if you seek a deeper and broader understanding of you chosen discipline, then don;t just take things at their face value. Do your work and be critical about the results, and over time it will bring ripe fruits of your labor. 

Hidden in plain sight

Isn’t it strange how people will occasionally pick a single aspect of a phenomenon to interpret as its essence, and then mock or argue another person for doing the exact same thing, only with a different aspect? We have all seen (maybe even been part) of those endless arguments over minuscule details in martial arts – is the hand held horizontally or vertically when punching; is the front foot in this or that stance held at the angle of 35 or 38 degrees; the supporting leg carries 55% or 60% of the weight..? Some training approaches, such as those common in Russian martial arts universe, don’t get stuck so much with the technical details, being declaratively based on principles, and will see the above debates as childish and the waste of time.

However, some of those schools will embrace one (or a couple) of those principles and concepts as their staple, other schools another one or few, and lo and behold – the debates and bickering are raging again! For example, on one end of the spectrum one may find schools that are almost entirely devoted to the work on the psychological and emotional equilibrium, breathing, maintaining composure and so on, in hope of being able to take advantage of such mental state and come up with physical solutions on the spot, in case of an unfortunate situation when they may need them. The other far end holds the belief that if the practitioners have a firm grasp of the mechanical principles, steeped in scientific foundations, it will in turn instill the deep sense of confidence and calmness, hence the ability to deal with the same potential calamities with efficiency. There are, of course the schools and methods that find themselves somewhere along the middle portion of the continuum, in hope of getting the best of both worlds. Interestingly enough, all those training avenues share the same problems.

Admittedly, I had spent time in both camps, and got something useful from each. Still, there was a missing element, and unfortunately either approach tends to be condescending on the exact portion of the fighting world that may hold the answer. But, let us see the main challenge first.

In their (often earnest) quest for the sound combative effect, so many of those schools and their practitioners spend their entire time and effort working on themselves, i.e. how to improve their own perceived efficiency and effectiveness in combat. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with such goal, but it is just one side of the equation. Years ago, I learned about the training dichotomy used in certain JKD circles, and it presents two different, and at the same time complementary, vantage points – self preservation and self perfection.

If I have managed to get my point across with any success, it is clear that the problem of most RMA systems is the almost exclusive dedication to the latter part. Having that in mind, they work for the most part in the learning/discovery environment, with slow movement and drills, but rarely in the practicing and functionalization mode, with resisting partners who are actively looking to hinder the attempted actions. Even when working with some commitment and considerable energy, they usually lack the intention. The related aspects of this problem have been already discussed on this blog, so I will move the part that seeks the solution.

Again, if you read the description of the challenge in the previous paragraph, some sort of criteria for the “cure” starts emerging – resisting partners (NOTE: we are still talking training partners, not opponents or enemies), effort to hinder the action, in order to actually take over the advantageous position. I don’t know about you, but it sounds very much like sports to me. That said, it bears saying right here: I do not think it is necessary to compete and get involved with the entire dominance/hierarchical paradigm. Adding that segment of training methodology to your work is very much needed. Finding the right balance should enable the trainees to reap the benefits of such training, without getting bogged down with the injuries, frustration, overexertion and other maladies often associated with serious competitive training.

Be the fulcrum - hold balance

Why is sportive approach useful? Well, it puts you in touch with the fundamental part of any combative training – the other. And I mean it in more than a simple prop, something to deal with or an object for your techniques/action. The training partner is not just the helper (as important as that role is), but also the measure of your training, pushing you toward your goal, maybe even challenging and redefining that goal.

In the end, don’t be superficial on a different surface, but believe you are better than those who are unable to dig deeper on another. Look for the building blocks of any training methodology, past the visual, technical and/or ideological differences; avoid becoming entangled in the terminology and go for the substance… It can only help you grow in training.

Take it slow

It isn’t really a novelty by any means that the need to do some training at real time speed and with increased pressure has becoming emphasized more and more over the past few years, in the martial art circles. As the matter of fact, yours truly had already written about it. Yet, in the Russian Martial Art circles, particularly various Systema styles and schools, this approach is relatively fresh, and some practitioners have even suddenly started dismissing the slow paced training altogether. Well, to fix something it does not simply suffice doing the opposite thing.

Of course there is a time and place for the slow training! When one tries to figure out which approach to training is better, it can only be done in relation to the function and the desired outcome of the training session(s). That said, let us make an important distinction here…

Just like many other activities that entail performance of a complex set of motor actions (not to mention the tactical aspect), the training process essentially boils down to two segments:

1.     Learning

2.     Practicing

The former category is impossible without the heavy engagement of the cognitive apparatus, i.e. the process is highly analytical, hence requiring time to be done properly. If at issue is a completely new skill, unrelated to the previously acquired ones, in this phase the practitioner may end up a training session without even breaking sweat, but feeling certain mental saturation instead. 

As we all know, learning a skill properly from the get go is important because the mistakes are much harder to correct if already “ingrained”, which only reiterates the necessity for the slow and methodical approach at the learning stage.

However, I feel it is very important to not dwell in the slow stage for too long. Namely, a number of people may enjoy staying there longer because it enables the sense of accomplishment to really sink in, but down the line it just delays the frustration that only seems to escalate once you try to things in the “real time” and under pressure – all of a sudden the skill you thought you had mastered seems inadequate again. It is only natural and requires simply practicing it now, under these new conditions, but no… Quite a lot of practitioners (and sadly, their coaches/instructors) will resort back to the slow practice, believing that it will somehow magically “translate” into performance under in different circumstances. I am sorry to break it to you, but it does not work that way.

Duke it out!

In the Filipino martial arts there is a saying that “slow is smooth, smooth is fast” but the later part is only true if actually done fast. The bottom line is, both slow and fast approaches have their place in training, ideally, in a way that would enable them to complement each other and thus improve the overall results.

Naturally, there is a process in bringing things up to speed, including the methods of reducing the number of factors to deal with in training, many kinds of drills, gradual increase in resistance and speed etc, and this is the time to sweat it out. Those, nevertheless, are not the subject of this post, and some have been touched upon already in this blog, some others will be in the future. Just make sure to keep the goal in mind while enjoying the process.

Desired "product"

First, sorry for the long hiatus. Don't know if I'm going to be able and do this as often as I would like in the mid-term future, so you better cherish what you get :-)

As you know, if you have been tracking my last few posts, that is, one of my constant inquires that permeates all other aspect of training is the search for the ways to improve the training process and methodology. However, thing cannot be really improved if one has no idea of what the desired outcome is, so let me address this issue here.

Quite often, when discussing the training systems in combat arts, it is taken more or less for granted that the criteria for success is the effective and efficient application of the said system in pressure testing and ultimately a real life altercation. While there is nothing wrong essentially with such view, there seems to be an omission in the sense that the focus is somehow shifted, i.e. what is often forgotten is that the effectiveness of a system is always demonstrated (expressed, if you so prefer) by its practitioner. So with that in mind, whet would be the essential qualities you would like to develop in your trainees? Bear in mind, I am not asking about the character and physical traits you like to see in the potential students when the come for the first time - no, what do you hope to achieve with them after they undergo some training with you?

So, what we are dealing with here is the matter of having an end goal in mind, and then diagnosing the particular needs in each student, aiming to reach the overarching goal. Without further ado, I will get to the point - if we are trying to prepare someone to deal with the ever changing demands of a combative equation, probably the most valuable quality to look for is adaptability. Yeah, some of you might point out (and rightfully so) that it would also be a valuable characteristic of a fighting system itself, but honestly, the two go hand in hand, and personally I believe it is more important to have/cultivate adaptability as a personal trait, and have the training methodology and system of tools and tactics support it.

It would be hard to say this more succinctly than my friend Jon Escudero of LSAI did, so I will simply quote him: "My goal is to let the system run silently in the background. The student does what he does because it supports his intent and goal, not because it is obligated by the system".

That said, we can now approach the issue of how to develop that attribute in a practitioner. I believe there are two closely related avenues to follow in pursuing the goal:
1. weaponizing the body;
2. dynamizing the structure

When it comes to the former, weaponizing the body (sorry, but the term was already out there, and I just could not come up with a better one), it would entail awakening the student's awareness of the potential of using various body parts to achieve certain effect in combat, plus working to maximize that potential.

No, not like that!

Naturally, various fighting systems have different takes on what are the worthy considerations in this regard and how far to go in developing any of those perceived assets. Possibly the prevailing problem here is that the schools of thought tend to revolve around the particular body parts and techniques per se, instead of looking at the bigger picture and identifying how some of any of those tools fit the individual person training in the system. Therefore, we end up having grappling systems, striking systems etc, while it may be more productive to think of grappling/striking options. 

Like pointed, whatever the arsenal it cannot be put to any effective use without some sort of delivery structure, and since we are discussing close combat, it means the biomechanical structure of an exponent. Again, the term "good/proper/correct structure" has become almost overused, and it resulted in the focus being on the trainee looked at in isolation...you know the "keep your head like this, your arms like that etc." approach. It then leads to having an image of THE correct structure in our head. But since our main concern is fighting another person (or more of them), they have to be taken into account. Without going into microscopic detail and countless examples, it suffices to say that one's structure (ideally) has to facilitate dealing with the force coming from the opposition as well as our own force production. See, it now looks more like a movie, not a still image!

To achieve that, our idea of structure should be of a dynamic and moving interrelation of all elements at hand, in any particular situation. It definitely should not be perceived as some "ideal" position... Namely, it most often actually means ideological, almost carved in stone, and how that helps adaptability?

Alex Kostic - ever evolving!

First, sorry for the delay! I did not think it would take me this long to get to this installment…

So, as promised – a word or two about the highlights (for me) of the teaching that Alex Kostic presented during his annual “Training Above the Clouds” event, in June this year.

The main thing you need to know, especially if you have trained with Alex before but not recently, is that currently his focus is almost entirely on the mass fighting scenario in combat. The reasons are multi-fold and not my topic today, but this shift in Alex’s work lead to some interesting observations and conclusions/methods of training. Oh, and a cool new “label” for the whole approach – Wolf Pack Fighting.

Probably the technical chief aspect of fighting multiple adversaries (no tactical layers here! The entire thing is based more on the Russian cultural heritage, i.e. being in a circle of attackers and letting loose[1].) is the specific demand on one’s mode of movement and power generation. Specifically, it means that this kind of highly asymmetrical situation does not allow for the laser-focus approach to maximum technical efficiency and polishing. Instead, you have to move with authority and amplitude, nut not in an entirely haphazard manner.

When being attacked from all over the place and in full speed, there is simply no time to process the incoming information according to a typical OODA  protocol, so you have to act decisively and powerfully. And this is where the principle of individual frame full release comes into play! In short, it refers to making every move count and exude enough power to either knock one of the attackers out or hurt them enough to strike fear and hesitation in coming after you again. As you may have guessed, it does not work in slow motion…

The central mechanical element that makes it possible, and differing largely from most widespread RMA schools today, is the vertical component of all the striking and movement techniques. Namely, this is what will add both power to one’s hits and stability to their movement. That in turn requires loose articulation in the joints, even with short and explosive motions.

Now, while this kind of work may look crude and unpolished to an observer used to highly developed symmetrical combat systems, it dies not mean it is not technical. I took a close look at the people attending the camp, and everybody had to experience all those difficulties and confusion of facing the task of developing a new technical skill. Not to mention the phase of putting the individual moves/frames in succession and stringing them together…and then under pressure of being under the attack of a bunch of people around you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBoLKmMMMKA

Speaking of possibly having tried Alex’s work before, the notion of the individual frame full release dovetails really nicely with his punctuated flow concept. The difference is, as I understand it, that the latter relates more to the outer perspective, i.e. how things look when seen from the side, while the former is the “inner description”, or how things feel when done properly.

Last, but not the least, aside from bringing confusion and puzzled experience when learning the moves, the result of doing them in the real time and with full release is a special feeling of exuberance and…well, release. Hard to argue with things you have developed and experienced on your own, even if through the process of guided discovery, as this camp may be described.

---

[1] Heavily influenced by the traditional Russian martial school of Skobar, headed by Andrei Gruntovski of St. Petersburg. 

Lessons learned from teaching

As I got back from Madrid, where I conducted a Systema seminar less than a month after the previous one in Belgium, it was time to summarize the thoughts and conclusions drawn. As I have pointed earlier, for me, teaching is a wonderful learning experience. Especially so when you are able to intersperse regular training in your group/club with occasional seminar or two.

Spanish batch

What seems like the biggest difference in approach is that in one's group it makes more sense to go with a relaxed and not to tightly structured sessions, as knowing the people and feeling their mood allows for a more intuitive approach. It does not mean going with a totally haphazard manner, though. The point is that since the majority of club members are around most of the time (at least they should be), sooner or alter they will be exposed to all parts of the curriculum (if you have one) and learn all the fundamental stuff you have to offer.

In seminars, on the other hand, the presentation must be better structured, no matter the chosen topic, so that the attendees can put thing into perspective. In my case, it means showing the entire (or as much as possible) progression in developing some skill, thus hopefully helping the information retention with the participants. Obviously, it can mean several things.

First, mechanical fundamentals of the skill you are teaching. Preferably, you will do it in a "chronological" manner, i.e. following the logic of "what they need to know first, and then next, etc". For example, blocking an attackers strike with stick with your own will be weak if you do not know how to grip the implement; kicking someone in the head does not make much sense if you do not know how to do a low kick, and so on.

Next, adding the external force to the drill. Essentially it means some form of resistance on either side. In doing a takedown, the opponent will try to prevent the fall; in executing a punch or kick, the partner will be moving... On defense, you may first learn the rolls and breakfalls on your own, to be followed by a partner pushing you.

Finally, add the emotional content. This is a very important aspect, and many people/schools fail to do it. IN line with the above examples, you will be looking for a takedown while the opponent is punching you; same with striking; or instead of being pushed into rolls and falls - you are kicked etc. This is where sparring becomes essential, but it does not stop there, nor is it the only way to achieve the desired outcome.

The bottom line is - train with aliveness (yeah, get acquainted with Matt Thornton's work if you have not so far), but go both symmetrical and asymmetrical with it (read my own previous posts if you have not :-)

Again, back to the class vs. seminar issue. The last mentioned part of the progression is easier to realize in the club setting. simply, in seminars there are way too many factors that have to be taken into account - logistics (protective equipment, space, weapon facsimiles...), matching people's level and experience, monitoring so many people at once, so on and so forth.

Naturally, some domains of fighting are easier to govern as you go further. It is obviously less risky to go run people through the full scope of resistance in grappling then (kick)boxing, wrestling than stick fighting... But that is probably the subject to be discussed at another point in time.

Updates and expectations

Later this month I will be conducting a seminar in Belgium, and then another one four weeks later in Spain. It's been a while since I have done seminars abroad, so there are several things I look forward to.

First, seeing some old friends and making new ones. Honestly, at this point of my "career" in martial arts, it is probably the main good thing about going to seminars. Of course, learning something new is always exciting (btw, there is a LOT to learn from teaching such events, if you pay attention), as is seeing new places and trying new cuisines and stuff, but it is the specific energy of the gathering that distinguishes these get-togethers from other communal instances. I guess it is due to the shared passion for something that not too many "ordinary" people understand...

vandenbroeckmarc1@telenet.be

Next,  over the years I have adapted and changed (hopefully grown) as a an instructor, and presenting a seminar is always a nice testing ground for your technical skills and teaching "chops". Getting away from the comfort zone of one's own training group/club provides the new and different energy to work with and plethora of valuable insights. Teaching in a condensed block fashion also requires a different kind of focus and communication approach, so again - fresh perspective on my own understanding of the material. Not to mention the questions coming from the participants...

All in all - I expect have a blast, and promise to share the impressions and some footage with my faithful readers :-)

Systema mittology (and lack thereof)

In most martial art circles nowadays, Russian Systema is considered to be from the category of modern systems, although they will sometimes claim centuries old historical roots. Still, even so, the majority of systema schools around the world will also advertise themselves as modern, science-based etc.

Having that in mind, there is one striking feature in the training process in the grand majority of most “classical” schools, and is the conspicuous absence of training equipment involved. Some of the will occasionally reach for some boxing gloves and/or headgear for (rather rare) occurrences of pressure testing (with a few honorable exceptions that make it a regular feature of their programs), but that is pretty much it.

There is a piece of training equipment that is very versatile in it possible applications, that I really fail to fathom how come it is not in common use – a good old-fashioned focus mitt! Sure, striking practice with a live, breathing partner is indispensable, but it does lack in some areas, such as hitting the head, groin area and hard kicks to legs from certain angles for example.

Shapes, colors, sizes...

Another point is, even with punches to the body, one’s progress in developing the power in punches and testing it is more or less limited by their partners’ ability to take those same hits, especially in dynamic circumstances and drilling on the move. Again, some sort of striking target offers a quick remedy for those impediments.

Ok, in this clip we see the trainees working punching combos on focus mitts. The catch is that they are working from a kneeling position on the ground, as it forces them to really work the mechanics of punching that relate primarily to the upper body, since they cannot “dig in” hard and push from the feet. Also, it aims to open their mind in view of all the options of WHEN to strike, i.e. not missing the opportunity to hit a good target just because you’re not in your most comfortable zone.

It kinda lays the foundation (well, at least one aspect of it) for the next type of drill.

Here, the trainee is instructed to hit the target as often as possible in a more chaotic situation. Namely, the third participant works on his or her structure breaking options and takedowns, while the striker does not oppose it. Instead, they have to go with the flow, engage the ground as subtly as possible and get up again immediately, while striking the mitt at all times and from any position.

This one would be much harder to do safely with targeting people, especially if also trying to hit with some tangible force. Again, while it is necessary to be hitting people (and get used to being hit as well), there is nothing wrong with making things more “fun” with the simple introduction of some simple equipment.

p.s.

The prevailing majority of guys in the videos are beginner with 1-3 months of training experience, so don’t be too harsh in judging their performance ;-) 

Knowing where you're going

Don’t know about you, but the facet of martial art training that has always raised most questions with me, and to this day many are not fully satisfactorily answered, is how to make the transition from learning the technical material to applying it in real time?

Hmmm?

Obviously, this is only pertinent to those who are actually looking to have a functional grasp of their training, i.e. seeing it as something that should provide a set of tools that enable one to attain a certain goal. I know, I know, many will say “it about the journey, not the destination”… To a degree, it makes sense to me, otherwise I would not have been doing this for 25 years already. Still, I also believe it is essential that the journey should produce some “residual effect” along the way, or maybe useful “side effect”.

Many fighting systems and/or sports, over the course of their development (evolution?), have come up with more or less firm definition of what they are trying to accomplish, i.e. what is the end-goal of the training, performance wise. Specifically, what they want their practitioners to be able of doing. Of course, when these goals are set, it is somewhat simpler to develop the training progression and methodology for achieving it. Please note that I said simpler, which is not necessarily easy.

It seems that the common thread with all those schools and systems is having in place some sort of test to filter the effects of the training through. After all, how else could one say if the current teaching and training methods are appropriate for reaching the desired goal. 

Easier to hit the target when there is one

Unfortunately, some of the systems that seemed to have a lot of potential and be very promising, fail to form a clear definition of what it is they are working on, and as a consequence – they stray away from their “original”, declarative aim. I have been seeing it happen to the world of Systema (not the only one out there, but it is the one I am very much involved with), which saddens me, because not so long ago, it seemed to have been going in the right direction. IMHO, anyway… On the other hand, it may be just a temporary occurrence, because depending on whatever ends up being the definition, the general emphasis in work might be spot on.

The good thing about Systema is that there is always some pluralism understood, so the definition may differ from one camp to another, so the modus operandi will be in accordance to it. For the “uninitiated” it may present another problem, because they will tend to generalize the whole shebang, based on assumptions acquired from seeing/trying one school. Anyways…

The point is, when you do have a solid, well put definition (“wanna be awesome at kickin’ butt” is not a well developed definition, btw, not even by a long shot), you can start experimenting with the specific kinds of drills and exercises that will lead you towards the goal. So far, one thing that I have found out, and many people are somehow managing to miss it, is that not only does each drill have to develop some kind of required ability, but it will inadvertently develop some bad habits. If there is an exercise and training method that is 100% “surefire”, I have not seen it yet.

As a result, you will need other training segments to mend that problems developed or address the things neglected in the previous methods etc.

Just as an example (common in Systema), training the responses to close-quarter knife threats, or holdups in other words, is necessary, but the bad habit developed in the high-repetitions training of this sort is allowing the attacker to enter the distance that permits them to deploy that tactics they are using. The same thing goes for many courses that work on the releases from grabs and holds.

Another common problem, often seen in other martial arts, is working against the attacker that runs and initiates the assault from a distance of almost 10 feet, or along those lines. Yes, that will happen, but you also have to treat the confined space situations, too.

OK, by now you should understand the problem. In some schools, they will try to alleviate it by having a big “toolbox”, i.e. the whole gamut of drills and scenarios, and while it is a part of the answer, there are some criteria to be observed when choosing the exercises, and even more so when deciding on how to order them in training.

Keep in mind that essentially, all our work in combative training revolves around two desired adaptations – increasing responsiveness to some stimuli and diminishing responsiveness (increasing resistance if you like) to other stimuli. The examples of the above may include an increased sensitivity to opponent’s shifting his balance center and taking advantage of it; or learning to cope with (receiving) strikes without yielding our structure. So, we need at least two general pathways in training, to elicit adequate responses.

While not claiming to have a foolproof answer, I honestly think there are some pretty good guidelines I can offer. Having had the opportunity to teach many kinds of subjects (languages in a school setting, bass guitar in 1 on 1 setting, martial arts in groups or individually etc.), some common threads have emerged. First, we need to decide on the importance of the desired abilities and then prioritize. In other words, work on them chronologically – first things first. Of course, sometimes there will be mechanical priorities, which means some things will need to be “under the belt” as they form the physical prowess to then work on other skills.

Common sense, right?

However, as soon as the practitioner starts developing some level of command, we need to add the exercises and/or circumstances to (preferably) prevent the development of accompanying problems or at least make them glaringly obvious, so they do not slip by unnoticed and be left untreated. We then move on to the next segment and recycle the process. While this may sound simplistic, in my view it is the foundation that has to be laid, or else, the training will be jumping all over the place and end up achieving nothing.

Also, the above approach will still require a lot of hard work on the instructor’s part, as one will have to constantly be watching out for the potential potentials and their remedies, ideally with each individual trainee. It will in turn demand a built in “tools” for reappraisal and “re-tuning” of the training process, and it is again instructors duty to either adopt some or develop his/her own means of doing it.

In the end…there is no end! Even the best schools and teachers will always be changing and evolving their curricula and teaching progressions. That is what makes them good. But, only when they have their sights firmly on the defined goal, because only then will the changes be meaningful and progressive.