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.
