Shortcut fallacy

We all know there are no shortcuts to becoming good in gaining any skill, especially if it also entails the aspect of making split-second decisions about which skill to use and how. And still, we see people incessantly seeking the way to "get there faster". What's up with that?

Well, it is a natural striving - wishing to achieve more results with less effort. As the mater of fact, that would be some kind of definition of  efficiency, right? So, what is the problem then? The problem is that, for some reason, the field of martial arts/combatives is plagued by the mystical notions of "secret techniques", various "super powers and supernatural abilities". They funny thing about those is not that they are essentially snake oil related product, but even more so that fact that those looking for something along those lines end up taking the longer and rather winding road, just to get nowhere in the end. Unless the point is exactly in taking the road, i.e. the quest itself. In that case, more power to them.

However, if you are searching for the efficiency, then you better set your sights on the best training methods, instead of any particular techniques and/or tools. We have seen time and time again that some schools end up having better performing students that others, even if using more or less the same tools and under similar circumstances (rules, belief systems etc). Moreover, I have seen how the same individual could change for better or for worse when going from one training methodology to another.

So, how do you know what is the right training approach for you? Well, it starts with defining as clear an understanding of what are you training for; how much are you ready to sacrifice; does your idea(l) fit your physical and psychological profile etc. I have already addressed some of those subjects in this blog, so go back and dig around a little.

Just understand on thing - once you embark on the chosen road, you still have to go over it in full...no shortcuts.

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.

On your own

This is by no means the first or the least treatise on the subject of solo training in martial arts, combatives etc, nor is it an attempt to be the ultimate take on it. Like always, it is a personal standpoint, but based on some experience, both as a trainee/student and the trainer/instructor.

Let me get out the obvious right at the start – yes, the solo training has its place (and an important one) in one’s study of fighting system(s). As an instructor I am always surprised when a student asks: “What can I do on my own, at home, to be able and improve faster”? Of course, then they get surprised by my answer – work on your physical fitness. While it may not be completely obvious to some people, especially beginners, there are certainly reasons for such a response. Now, how to approach it can be done one way or another, but that is probably not even the main concern.

I may be in the minority of people who see things this way, but as a student, it always bothers me when a large chunk of a training session is devoted to calistenics, running and other kinds of conditioning. See, if I am paying for martial art instruction, then I’d rather have that time to work on the technical material – first, because you don’t have the willing training partner  on every corner outside the club/group; second because I would rather have an instructor watching over and correcting my technical mistakes in combative performance than regarding my pushups or pullups. Naturally, some technical elements in certain systems are a good physical workout on their own when repeated, and that is completely fine with me.

The other side of the coin would be my being baffled, as an instructor, on how a lot of trainees almost exclusively believe a training session was “awesome” only of they had sweated profusely in it. I guess that most of them just see it as another way of recreational activity…and that is completely fine, but that is not the kind of “clientele” I look for.

As stated above, the main concern is not why and how here, but rather will. Many a person I know simply lack the willpower and self-discipline to train on their own, especially when it means doing something “uninteresting” and tough as conditioning. Yet, I have seen it time and time aging – a little strength, flexibility and stamina will have terrific impact on a person’s technical performance as well. But then again, it requires being passionate about one’s chosen activity.

                                                            For example...

If you insist on working on your “discipline specific” contents during your solo sessions, it can be done, too. But be warned – that kind of think only makes sense after some time spent within the training system of choice, and for a couple of reasons. First, at the early stages you really need some immediate feedback, either from the instructor or the training partner, and my friend Luis Preto harped on the issue quite eloquently. The second is, making that kind of training really pertinent will often require some kind of equipment, and that in turn will require some investment and probably a degree ingenuity to come up with your own design. And if you are not one of those DIY enthusiasts, it means, again, you need to be passionate about it. But if you are, it could take you a long way.

Ingenuity at work

 Ultimately, in order to extract maximum from your solo training efforts, you ought to be willing to push yourself beyond the comfort zone, and to do it in an intelligent manner… No big deal, right?

Random attributes - adaptability

Let me say right away, the term "random" in the title simply means that I will be randomly addressing the subject of some attributes in the development of one's fighting prowess. Obviously, some of them will be physical, some mental etc, and while I have no intention of ranking them by any particular criteria, it seems fitting to start off with adaptability, as that one (as I see it) seems to be the "central governor" and really is the key of whether other attributes you have will serve you right.

The funny thing is that although it may seem at the first glance that having a high degree of adaptability makes somebody able to operate well in most situations, I believe it is more specific than a lot of people would think. Namely, although some underlying psychological mechanisms and physiological processes are certainly same over a wide span of situations, the very fact that it is possible to train in order to develop one's adaptability indicates it will be improved over the range of trained stimuli and encountered environments/situations. For example, being easily adaptable to temperature changes does not necessarily entail having no problems adapting to a ground fight if you are only trained in some sort of kick-boxing system, or adapting to the new working environment.

That said, let's get to the main point. Really, the bottom line is that if you want to improve you adaptability in fighting, you simply have to expose yourself to as many related challenges as possible. Now, simple does not mean it is easy, right? In seeking to be functional in various phases and ranges of combat, you need to address all of their pertinent challenges and problems, and there are different ways to do it. First, while it is easy to fall into the trap of "ultimate universal fighter" and thing you need to train everything (or dismiss the point of training altogether as you will never have enough time to do it all), it is more rational to ponder on the specific demands of your specific situation. You know, the commando underwater scuba fighting may sound cool, what is the probability of you ever ending up in that kind of situation? So, do not miss the tree for the wood, and focus on what is most likely for you...if time and energy permits, you can then expand the proverbial "toolbox". After all, having a laser cutter is nice, but you won't need it as a carpenter or a shoemaker, or a mason. A hammer on the other hand...

Can you even fit it all into your box?

Having many tools may also be counter-productive. See, sometimes they cannot all be squeezed into the toolbox you have, i.e. if you do not train properly in the utilization, some "gear" will just clutter and eat up your valuable space. So again, be very about what you take and where do you put it.

OK, so you have identified your needs. How do you choose proper tools for those tasks? Now, there may be (again) more than one way to address this issue, but here's my take. Everybody will have some sort of preference when it comes to how we tend to fight (if able to choose in the first place). see what it is, and by that I mean train and REALLY strive to be objective about what your natural good attributes are, and then build on those. Do not base your decision on how you would like to look like in a fight. Also, yes - I am all for  working on your weaknesses, yet... Neglecting your "holes" is risky, but disregarding your strengths is plain stupid.

The way I see it, set up a nice, strong "game" based on your natural preferences, and then work to "plug the holes", so the water keeps flowing where you want it. To be less metaphorical - develop some strong combative aspects and then seek to find the way to tackle the weaknesses in such a way to support your strong aspects. For example, if you are really good in the standup striking range, your main grappling focus should be on defending the takedown, escaping the ground holds and getting back up on your feet, not hunting for the submission of some sort. Vice versa, if you forte is clinch, then you really need to develop good distance bridging approach, not working on your high kicks.

If you do it right, all your tools come together to form a sturdy structure, instead of just being a heap of unrelated pieces of material. In other words, if you have a right training methodology (engineering), it will be easier to find out which peaces fit together and how to make them into formation (building).

Clutter

Structure

Once you have some kind of structure in place, you will need occasional work on it - cleaning, renovations, redesigning etc. However, the main thing about the adaptability is that once you have your "residence" you just need to modify it depending on the situation, not change it altogether.

Bothers, part 1

Hello! It's been a while...and not for the lack of topics or even time. Yet, there has been some inner turmoil, pondering and soul searching on my part, among other thing, for the sake of keeping my written material relevant and fairly reflective of my true attitude and stand on various subjects. It made me choose today's topic over some others, more technical and concrete.

Let me ask you something - what bothers you most as an instructor? Is it untalented students? Slackers? Is it parents? (A very BIG concern if you teach kids). Maybe infrastructure issues, rent prices..? Let me tell you what is my pet peeve - asking and answering stupid questions!

I am also very encouraging about asking questions, no matter what they are. However, I really do not have much patience with the people who do not pay any attention to what the instructor does, and then ask about what was said just five seconds ago. Naturally, not everybody is at their most focused whenever they come to train, for all kinds of reasons, and that's fine. I understand that and do not frown upon it, as long as it does not interfere too much with everybody else's training. Yet, there are people who never listen to what your are saying or look at what your are doing, session after session...and also tend to ask bursts of question, usually either unrelated to the subject matter, or already answered. Frequently, they will ask the same thing more than once during a class because they were so inattentive that they forgot about having already asked.

Another type of irritating occurrence is when someone asks a question and want to hear the specific, predetermined answer. If not, they will ask again...and again. Sometimes, if you persevere in giving the "unsuitable" answer they will leave, an those are my preferred ones. But there those, much harder to deal with, who will keep coming back and actually trying to change your mind about it. at this point, I wonder why do they ask, if my stance/opinion is obviously not what matters? Maybe because they care? But then, do they care about making me understand, or just proving their point?

OK, so, how do we deal with those? In training, I usually tend to work with those types personally during a session, and the reasons are two-fold. First, because it spares the practitioners who are there to work from having to deal with the wining and unstoppable effort to debate a point. That way, people who are willing to work on what has been presented can do it in a more constructive and supportive atmosphere, so the possible questions that may follow will hopefully be more pertinent and asked with some understanding.

Second, sometimes it allows me to create the conditions (thinks constraints and affordances methodology) that will force the student to understand the message. If nothing else, it enables me to start asking them questions in return about what we just did, and so they have to think about the answer instead of just blurting out some words that sound cool to them. And no, it does not always work :-)

The point is, when is it enough? When, if ever, do you give up on such a student and either ask them to leave, or simply stop paying attention, while focusing on those who deserve it more? Honestly, I do not have an exact answer. I approach the whole thing on a "case to case" basis and monitor how the things are unfolding. And then, depending on the situation, I will proceed one way or the other. 

Sincerity

I have been writing already about the need to discern why are you learning/studying martial arts. But that question does not apply just to the students...If you are teaching martial arts, you have to ask yourself - "Why am I doing this"? What is at all about for you?

See, the thing is, unlike the motives to learn, not every motive to teach is legitimate. And I don't mind people making money from it. No, that is perfectly OK with me, as long as the teacher/instructor is honest about his offer and treats his clientele with due respect. Also, the fact that one may not be charging at all for their instruction does not make them worthy of the teacher title.

My guess is I am not alone in being sick of the types who are looking for some self-aggrandizing experience from teaching, harassing and humiliating their students in the process, all under the excuse of "instilling discipline" or something along those lines. Of course, discipline in itself is not a bad thing, but as long as it is conducive to the better learning and more efficient training process. If, on the other hand, it is a pretense for setting up some sort of unnecessary hierarchy with the sole purpose of blowing the instructor's ego out of proportion and nipping any healthy critical approach and inquisitiveness among the students in the bud... Well, sorry for putting it out bluntly, but then your an asshole and have no business teaching people.

Really? Or is there something more to it...

So what then is the central tenet that "makes it or breaks it" in my opinion? Well, like the title of the post says, it is all about sincerity! And by that I mean the approach to imparting the knowledge on your students.I have been blessed in my martial arts "career" to cross paths and learn from several great teachers, and they all had one thing in common - sincerely doing everything they could to make the student understand and truly learn what they were trying to teach.

Naturally, not all of them have the same teaching methodologies (if they have one in the first place) or philosophy of what they are doing, but they for each and every one of them student comes first! I have seen time and time again Alex Kostic of Homo Ludens Systema inspire awe in people by the way he moves, by the things he says and their eyes going bright for the new insight and another piece of the puzzle finally  falling into place. I have been astonished by Astig Lameco founder, guro Roger Agbulos' ability to captivate the students by the sheer joy of teaching and lighting the fire of desire to train hard and smart, to look for what works and put it all to test. I have been flabbergasted by Mikhail Grudev's managing to overcome the impending linguistic barriers and go out of his way to help the students get the point and have fun while working hard. I have had the privilege of undergoing some intensive training under Jogo do Pau's Luis Preto and admire his keen eye and uncanny capacity to immediately adapt the drill or the exercise to elicit the desired response in the student and make difficult things easier to comprehend.

Quite true

Another high point was seeing master Jon Escudero of LSAI putting his students in the spotlight when demonstrating his system, thus at the same time portraying the effectiveness of the style and his own effectiveness as a teacher. And then there is Steve Maxwell's leading by example and teaching you how to teach yourself; and Daniel Lamac of Koredas eskrima giving it all out without reserve; and Dave Gould of Lameco; Kevin Secours of Combat Systema; Bruno Cancho; Dima Hakimov, and...so on. 

Yes, a good curriculum is helpful, excellent methodology is most welcome. And yet, if you are not teaching for the sake of your students, with no heart in it, but with another agenda that actually has nothing to do with actual teaching...well, do yourself and the world a favor and just leave it.

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?