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!

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. 

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.