Old news

There is this thing I have been hearing more frequently lately, although this kind of topic has been around since forever, but probably I haven’t been paying attention. Maybe the “tipping point” was a conversation my wife had with a renowned taekwondo coach here, and who happens to be an “ancient” friend of mine, i.e. we started training TKD together back in 1991. Long story short, he said we trained differently back then, and the modern-day Olympic training and trainees are different, too. So, after that the old school vs. new school duality began popping up more often. I gave the subject some thought, and you will read about my conclusions here, but I would love to hear/read about your thoughts, either in comments or elsewhere.

The first aspect that crossed my mind was that the main difference is in training methods, which should be improving with time, especially when there is a sport modality to a martial art in question. That involves technological advancements as well, with regards to training equipment, protective gear, electronic scoring etc. The changes in competition rules can have major impact to the tactical and technical emphasis and development of a system. With all of the above, the “new school” should be better, right?

However, if that is the case, how come some older practitioners end up often having the upper hand in sparring or fighting the younger ones, even when they do not necessarily embrace all the innovations? We all have seen it happen in both striking systems (boxing, kickboxing, weapon arts) and grappling methods (BJJ, wrestling, judo). Sure, experience will play a significant role, but if that was a decisive factor, then the attributes of youth (cardio, speed, strength) would take a back seat, so the older the exponent would only get better with age…but things are not so linear.

In my own view the advantage of the “new school” IS in the enhanced training methods, there is simply no way around it, but the advantage of the “old school” must be the attitude of its representatives. In simple terms, in the yesteryear we did not take the availability of good instruction (if any at all) for granted. That means that the percentage of members in any martial art program who were highly passionate about it and therefore ready for sacrifice and commitment, was notably higher. As a result, there were fewer dropouts and higher percentage of good exponents coming out of most schools/clubs that were existing at the time.

For example, there were no TKD clubs in my town, so I had to travel 20 miles to the capital city 4-5 times a week for training…and I did it for 4 years, before opening my own club back home. Most guys in that original group were commuters as well, and we all noted that in our own clubs afterwards the people who lived closest to the gym were also the flakiest about training. I did the same with some other arts I tried, and with similar results.

Another thing is the proliferation of all kinds of martial arts through the internet media. Nowadays, any initially interested person can easily get lost in a gazillion Youtube videos, and then be overly picky about what they want to train, even without any understanding whatsoever. I have met quite a few youth who will not train anything else but ________ (fill in the blank) thing they saw somewhere on the Internet, but even without training will gladly offer their unsolicited opinion all those other systems they won’t train in.

Interestingly enough, many of my “fellow old-timers” see the massive presence of Youtube as both sides of the curse/blessing coin. Namely, if one has already gained some experience in actual hands-on training, it can be a valuable source of further information and inspiration in personal advancement. But, if at issue is someone whose entire “expertise” stems from hours of watching those same videos, it could lead to many misunderstandings and delusions.

So, where does it leave us? I honestly don’t know. As it seems, the survival of good fighting methods and schools, or their evolution, depends on the new generation practitioners able to cultivate old generation’s mindset while maintaining their own era’s advantages.

Fit for seminar frenzy, part 1

As usually is the case with approaching summer, many practitioners from martial art circles are planning for some of the seminars they are going to attend during the season. Are you properly prepared for the events you are aiming at? And by being properly prepared I don not mean physical fitness (not for the purposes of this post, anyway), but rather in terms of making sure you get the most benefit from the experience.

In broadest strokes, there are two wide categories of seminars you may want to attend, depending on what you seek to find there: 1. trying a new/different art or system for the first time; or 2. trying a new instructor or new material in the system you are already training in. Whichever of these two cases may be at hand, you will be exposed to one of the two possible approaches to what is being presented, and these could have great impact on whether you will be happy about the experience afterward.

Learning new techniques and tactics is one of the two avenues. As it seems to me, this is also the prevailing approach, for several reasons. For example, it is suitable for catering to all levels of practitioners, both beginners and advanced. To the former it gives a view of bigger picture, thus possibly helping them better understand the journey they have undertaken; to the latter it can offer some "refreshment" and boost some new enthusiasm into their training. The techniques/tactics approach also suits the people from other arts well, as it can provide (depending on the instructor) relevant insight into the nature and dynamics of the system displayed at the seminar.

Learning about the different methodology of training is the other way. Seminars of this sort are probably more appropriate for experienced trainees, as they have the necessary background to understand and appreciate the information. Also, this approach is better suited for the practitioners from the same or related/similar systems, who would like to see how other instructors treat same subjects. You can profit from them even if you are from an unrelated system, nevertheless, if you are able to analyze the material in terms of principles and concepts, not necessarily taking it at the face value.

Both approaches are good and valuable if you know how to appreciate them. I remember, back in my taekwondo days, as a red/brown belt, attending the seminar conducted by a top-caliber competitor, multiple European champion, world and Olympic medalist, and failing to fully recognize the worth of what was shown. Namely, prior to the event I had expected to learn the new techniques, combos, tactics...while he actually spent the weekend detailing his method of training for the best results. It only dawned on me a couple years later, as I started coaching competitors myself. Therefore, it would be ideal if you knew upfront what you are looking for, as it would help you make the right choice of the seminars you wish to join.

In either case, you would be well advised to take ample notes both during and after the event. What I like to do is write a short title and description for every activity taught, and then fill in with additional, more detailed description at the end of the day (ideally within an hour after the end of the session). My experience is that this greatly help the retention of the information. By all means, ask questions, but make sure they are relevant to the teachings of the day, in order for everyone involved to gain some benefits from the answers. Please, refrain form asking for instructor's opinions of other styles and/or instructors, as well as from offering your own unsolicited opinions and views, particularly if they are argumentative in nature. These are better left for later, if there is the opportunity to hang out with the instructor in an informal environment.

How about filming the seminar? I am not against it, but it seems that the written notes yield better results. This may be due to the inclination to rely on the footage as the means of memorization and recall, consequently paying less attention to the instruction at the very moment it is being offered. Besides, having to come up with more details and clarifications following the training forces you to go through the exercises and rills at least once more in your mind, while it is still fresh, hence further reinforcing the process of memorization. 

Challenges in training - intent.

Recently I have offered some criticism on a video clip that a friend had posted online, dealing with empty handed work against knife in Russian Systema. Of course, some people did not agree with my point of view, some did, but in the process I have noticed something that I am going to discuss here. Namely, while most comments about martial art demos, either live or on video, are geared towards the performance of the defender/trainee, I usually tend to pay attention to the attacker/feeder. The way I see it, it is the latter’s approach to work that will directly impact the overall quality of the work in training.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=418282055827

If you have done any serious reflection on how you (or other) drill and practice their material in training, it should be clear that practitioners cannot really grow much further in their work than the level of challenge presented in training. In view of drills, critics frequently address the points such as the speed and force of the attack, implying that anything but full-speed, full contact work is meaningless. I strongly disagree with such attitude, especially in certain domains and certain levels of training. The slow and/or soft work definitely has its merits, as long as it is done in proper context.

OK, this is where we reach the guiding theme of this post – INTENT. That, in my humble opinion, is the decisive element in drilling, if it is meant to prepare one for actual, live combative performance, be it in the sportive arena or in the streets and back alleys. Basically, the intent boils down to actually trying to connect, i.e. place, the technique one is feeding. In case of striking it means connecting the tool and the target, while in grappling it would mean obtaining the dictated position.

We see therefore, that full speed attacks, if kept short, or missing the target “for the sake of security” are just as prone to ingrain bad habits and grow illusions in training (maybe even more so) than slow ones. Rory Miller in his Book “Drills” (highly recommended) observes that every drill has a built in flaw that acts as a safeguard of sorts, and adds that the flaw of timing (doing the drill slowly) may be the least detrimental, because nobody is really inclined to act slowly, due to such training, in a realistic combat situation. Of course, the main tendency to screw up the value of slow training is one side speeding up (usually the defender), which enables them to do stuff that would not be doable in the real time, on the account of not being able to be that much faster then the attacker. This for example happens rather frequently in the Systema circles.

Honesty, then, is the best policy when doing the slow work. If approached in that manner it offers a lot of good things. Probably among the most important ones is finding new possibilities to experiment with later at more intensity, in order to find out whether those could be included among the probable repertoire of responses (please, see thispost).

The same objections stand for one-step sparring in karate and taekwondo, or all those cyclic drills found in arnis/eskrima (hubud, sumbrada etc.), and which even happen to be the staple of some schools and styles. The very nature of those drills is such that they contain possible bad habits, and if done without proper intent from both participants, than there will be no good habits to compensate. How often have you seen people do hubad and sumbrada in a way that looks like patty-cake sort of exchange? Unfortunately, more often than not – both actors standing in place, attacking from a wrong distance (the neuralgic point of one-step sparring practices), not even seeking to place the technique, reckless in defense… Now add actual intent to that drill, even at slow or medium tempo and lo and behold – they start moving around, realigning to keep the proper posture, being attentive of their defensive techniques etc.

The intent reminds one of the actual purpose of the work and the context in which the drilled material is likely to be applied. It brings to mind an excellent observation by Charles Staley, in his book “The Science of Martial Art Training”, saying: “[…] without the bigger picture in mind, someone is not really training, but rather, simply exercising. This distinction reveals the significant differences between an athlete (in our case fighter – D.M.) and a fitness enthusiast”.

In conclusion, be sure to which category you wish to belong (refer back to this post for assistance), and train accordingly, with the right INTENT.