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. 

Kaleidoscopic view

 A week ago I had a great pleasure of being interviewed by guro Tom Edison Pena of the FMA Discussion crew. During the chat, besides an overview of my background and journey in the martial arts, we touched upon several training related subjects. It mostly presents my views about the role of the instructor(s) in conducting the training for the adequate results and with proper approach. 

Some of you may be already familiar with some of the things stated here, but if you would prefer to watch and listen to me go on about various topics, check it out.

Here is a rough outline of the contents:

03.55 - Early beginnings and first steps in MA

14:00 - Physical attributes in technical development

22:05 - Starting RMA and learning perspectives

24:15 - Introduction proper to FMA

29:55 - Encounter with Lameco eskrima and doing long-distance learning

40:20 - Appreciating unpaid instruction

41:10 - Teaching as a learning tool

42:48 - Validity of training approaches

45:03 - Contextual functionalist

47:05 - Stint in MMA; on competition in general

53:30 - Role of luck

56:20 - Alex Zhelezniak and ACT system

57:40 - Teaching/Coaching methodologies

59:40 - Curriculum shortcomings

1:02:50 - Instructors vs Coaches

1:07:00 - Meeting Luis Preto and learning Jogo do Pau

1:11:15 - Tactics as a decision making process

1:12:15 - Mindset foundation for training

1:13:45 - Benefiting from Internet communication

1:18:00 - Importance of cultural and historical background

1:19:30 - Role of "flow" drills

1:23:45 - Forms pros and cons

1:30:50 - Differences between good athletes and coaches

1:33:05 - Sending students elsewhere for their sake or group sake

1:40:54 - Private vs group class

1:41:55 - Some recommended online FMA programs

1:47:54 - Importance of fundamentals and creative application

1:49:57 - Main requirements for teachers/instructors

1:51:35 - Need for education

1:55:40 - Craft before art

1:59:00 - FMA as a community?

Having done the interview, I believe there will be more articles on certain subjects mentioned, because as great as my host was, the boundaries of the format and flow of the conversation didn't necessarily get the fully fair insights into some of those. 

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!

Which ride to take?

Earlier I already have written about the place of acurriculum, mostly in RMA, but in this post I’d like to elaborate on what, in my hobble opinion, should be the contents of work in a martial art group/club.

The longer I train, the more I am convinced that all good schools, regardless of the system they teach, have one important thing in common – training methodology taking precedence over technical curriculum. “Why is that?” you may ask. Well, there a plenty reason, but let’s address a few of them, one at the time.

Who's got better argument?

First of all, in its nature the training methodology is a sort of a process, as is the act of continual training itself, while the curriculum is more of a set of “things”. Probably the main implication of this difference is that the methodology is directed outwards, moving things, i.e. concerned about the result of the process. The curriculum, on the other hand, tends to be more about keeping things in place, or looking to achieve stability.

Secondly, the proper methodology strives to facilitate learning, but the curriculum is focused on facilitating teaching. Now, this may sound as a mere difference in wording, but it is actually very important! Namely, if you are a martial arts instructor (an honest and passionate one), your chief focus should be the benefit of your students, or their command of the knowledge and skills you are trying to impart. In other words, that they are able to learn to their maximum capacity, and also as quickly and thoroughly as possible. In opposition to that would be your own comfort, i.e. not having think too much about how to run each individual class – heck, it’s so much easier to just run things by numbers and tick them off the list!

Next, a methodology is usually assessed in qualitative terms, as good or bad/effective or ineffective; while a curriculum gravitates to being evaluated in quantitative terms – large or small, expansive or streamlined etc. Sure, it could sound as mixing apples and oranges, but it entails one more distinction I’ll touch upon…

Finally, the two different emphases we are debating here often (please note – I said “often”, not “without exception”) end up having different goal. On one hand, developing a methodology is an attempt at developing certain objective (tangible) level of performance in the trainee (think wrestling, boxing, MMA...)

It seems to be working!

On the other, in way too many schools the curriculum is in place for the sake of developing certain desired appearance in the practitioner (think kata/forms in most traditional styles). Stemming from that is the occurrence of good coaches/instructors modeling the methodology after their athletes/trainees (having them understand what they do), and lazy ones modeling their students to suit the curriculum (imitate what they see). 

It seems...aesthetically pleasing(?)

Naturally, it is possible to have both the curriculum and methodology of teaching it, the two are not entirely exclusive, my point here is which side of the continuum one should be stressing in their training.

That is it for now. In the future, I will be addressing some of the feats of a good training methodology and the attributes it develops in the trainees.