Stylish issues

 I had a brief but still interesting chat the other day, with a person who isn't really a practitioner, but kind of sidelines fan of martial arts. Fortunately, although the talk was about the value of various martial systems and styles, the said person was above the petty fandom idolization of any particular exponents or their styles, so the discussion was not a bother. The main insight for me came from their observation that in the end Bruce Lee was right that "it is not about the styles, but about fighters", because we have seen representatives (declarative) of several different disciplines having had success in MMA. 

After that, my collocutor was left with a question of why then we still have so many systems and schools? Now, if you have been my follower for a while, you may remember that there are some recommended resources that will answer this question much better than I could within the confines of a blog post. Still, there are, in my view two main components to this - one, historical and social circumstances as they relate to the origin; two, personal motive for being involved with the practice. 

Now, of course, the great Bruce Lee repeatedly emphasized that his practice was all about truth in combat, hence the approach to training, readiness to experiment etc. Naturally, it sounds perfectly sensible, and with the expansion of MMA, it also seems quite evident. This also why some exponents are able to be successful in the situations of being pressure-tested outside the typical framework of their chosen methodologies. That said ,however, it is more often the case of exception, rather than the rule. So, what makes people get emotionally invested in fiery debates about the virtues or shortcomings of their schools of thought, when it comes to fighting?

My experience in dealing with many of those over decades, especially if they have never tried stepping outside the aforementioned stylistic boundaries, is that even if they resort to quoting Lee, it is with a different agenda. Namely, they simply are not in quest for the truth in combat. And, like I've stated so many times, it is OK...as long as they are honest with themselves about it. 

Different folks are into it for different reasons, but quite often they are unaware of choosing to pursue the illusion and live in fantasy, at least from the standpoint of sheer combative effectiveness. In the realm of training for weaponry use it is probably even more characteristic than in the empty-handed systems (although, just the matter of degree). Essentially, it tends to slip into the domain of LARPing, without being called that.

Now, I am absolutely not against LARP and Cosplay. Heck, it gets people outside and moving, while enjoying it. Plus, they are utterly straightforward about living their fantasy. But when a person who does some kind of "traditional" stuff, whether ninjutsy, aikido, kung fu, FMA, RMA, or capoeira, two hours a week on a recreational basis, goes on a rant about just how deadly and lethal it is...ugh, I'd rather not delve into that. Interestingly though, they tend to be offended when compared to LARPers. Go figure...

Lucky draw

 As some of you may know I have been running a sort of intermittent series on the methods of knife use in self defense, according to the approach of reverse grip with edge-in configuration, aka RGEI. Since that first article that dealt with the WHYs of the whole thing, there have been a couple more about the HOWs. Obviously, I liked those quite a bit, but this time the focus is on the gentleman and his video that first got me aware of this characteristic mode of utilizing the tool at hand for the purposes of managing physical conflict.

The gentleman is the one and only James A. Keating, the founder and director of Comtech. To say that Mr. Keating is a progressive-minded practitioner of martial disciplines and combative methods would be a huge understatement, at the very least. I have been following his work for almost 25 years now (whoa, it even took me by surprise!), and his body of knowledge put to public never fails to be incredibly inspiring. I can't even begin to grasp his influence on the people who have had the opportunity to work with him in person. The sort of forward thinking in the relentless pursuit of ever broadening and deepening understanding of one's chosen field of study is always admirable, particularly when done in a such a comprehensive and non judgmental manner, as is the case here. 

It is no wonder then that he was the first (to my knowledge, anyway) to propagate the RGEI style of knife combat and present it in an excellent video instructional. The testimony to his being ahead of times is that it first came out on VHS! Now, this volume was/is available in two versions actually. My first exposure was via the tape distributed by the now defunct Paladin Press (ugh, I will never get over it), titled transparently as Reverse Grip Knife Fighting.

 

At issue is the same material as originally published by Keating himself, just with an additional intro that talks about the type of knives best suited for the method of work as taught in the video, and their availability. The instructional portion, however, is the same as in the case of Comtech production, titled Drawpoint, which is the moniker I normally use when referring to this system. 

The first thing that struck me here was the author's emphasis on the method of carry and deployment of the knife. It is safe to say that prior to that I had seen knife fighting as most other people do - a situation that somehow magically got to the point of facing an opponent with the blade already in and in a fighting stance, with no sense whatsoever about what had preceded it. And Keating does a great job explaining all the pertinent factors about this topic, while pointing out that in the close quarters combat, which is where the RGEI is primarily meant to be applied, the speed of reacting and drawing the weapon plays the main role. 

In line with the subtitle of the Drawpoint video, i.e. Knife Fighting Fundamentals, from the deployment we go to learning two basic strikes/offensive techniques (yes, just TWO), but they are worked in such a way that you will thorough understand the mechanics of delivery, footwork to make them doable, applications to make the functional across various situations...in other words, the honest work on integrating the tool and usage method, and fostering actual skill. 

But, it doesn't stop there! Remember how I mentioned the emphasis on deployment? Well, Keating goes into some innovative drills that should really hone both the speed, timing, perception and accuracy in drawing the blade and putting it to proper use in a self-protection scenario. And this is probably where the material truly shines, because although several other instructors have formulated their own take on the methods of RGEI use, none have gone anywhere near Keating's approach in terms of developing those attributes. 

As you have probably noted from the above picture, the Drawpoint system is presented in a set of three videos, but the second and third are concerned with the reverse grip EDGE-OUT configuration. For that reason, I decided not to review them here. That said, the first volume is really a standalone instructional package, and as such is sufficient in providing the necessary information that will take you a long way in search for the solutions to the problems commonly faced in the real world (think high percentage here), whether it is opposing humans or aggressive animals in similar predicaments. 

In conclusion, if you have somehow managed to let James Keating fly under your radar, this is a great way to get introduced to his (astonishing) body of work; if you know the man for his other stuff, this is an excellent to see him at his most straightforward combative mode.

Being legit

It is interesting that in this day and age there are still so many folks training in combative programs, or even worse - teaching them, who are still so narrow-sighted in view (hehe, put not intended, but I like it) of all the facets of self protection. Pretty much, most of my post here are also aimed at the physical performance aspect of the phenomenon, but even from the early days/years I talked about the neglected-yet-crucial dimensions that will rule the phases during and after the conflict event. On top of that, there has been mention of several other resources that dedicate a lot of attention to those topics, and with much more thorough approach. And still, it is stunning to all those who go at it with a gung-ho attitude, and later meet the consequences to the chagrin of their close ones or those like-minded.  

Well, at this point I'd like to point your attention to an excellent book that paints the picture in very vivid colors, with great attention to relevant legal aspects of one's actions during physical conflict, but without the legalese blizzard that will obscure the point. Marc MacYoung is a long time stalwart of the realistic approach to self-defense and was among the first to champion the cause of taking a holistic view of the problem. He joined forces with Jenna Meek to put together a brilliant book, aptly titled What You Don't Know Can Kill You.

The goal of the book is helping the interested parties avoiding ruin in the case of physical confrontation that involves use of force, whether it means ending up dead or alive but locked up. Now, I don't know if in some parts of the currently "civilized" (read, institution-governed) world the adage of "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" was a solid rule of thumb sooner than more than 50 years ago, but nowadays it is certainly severely shallow, at best. 

The authors use a series of chapters filled with very plausible scenarios and real life cases to portray the various sides of the phenomenon at hand. They cover the gamut of potential issues that may/will arise out of the use of force in defense of self, thus shedding light on many corners of our training and preparation that have previously been either unclear or entirely unseen. 

That said, they are very honest in their treatment and do not offer ready made solutions to what are often complex, multi-layered problems. Although at first sight it may seem that getting involved into analysis of this sort may lead to lack of decisiveness, therefore slowing down reaction and undermining one's confidence, this needs not be the case. Namely, throughout the book the authors point out to how training and preparation may be updated, modified or adapted in order to develop better procedures, and consequently act with more confidence if the need presents itself. 

Yes, it will require that readers/trainees take an honest look at what they have been doing so far, apply the newly acquired criteria when evaluating what they see, then invest effort in improving their training further on, but ultimately - they (and their clients) will be glad they did. 

Tech support

 Very recently I've had the privilege of taking part in an FMA Discussion podcast with a group of fellow Astig Lameco practitioners, including the method founder Roger Agbulos. We had such a great time and so much fun that time flew, but the discussion touched on several topics that might be of interest, if you have time to take a look and have a listen. 

Be as it may, quite lot of time was spent in effort to shed light on certain more or less specific aspects of technique, meaning how it is trained for combative effect. While there are numerous elements that comprise a well performed technique, it seems that to a lot of people it still boils down to a set of biomechanical building blocks that, if sequenced properly, should yield desired result. Since another prominent subject in the conversation was solo training, several listeners believed it focused on the said approach to technique. 

After all, isn't that exactly what it is meant when experts of all sorts offer opinions and advice on the proper and improper way of doing pretty much anything?

Well, not exactly. Naturally, if one's approach and interest in doing martial arts lies in some sort of aesthetic, artistic, meditative exercise and/or performance (kata, choreographed demos etc.), then the above mentioned view is pretty good. 

However, if you are in the category of practitioners who look for the functional use of technical arsenal in the circumstances of working against a non-complient partner/opponent (whether in competition, sparring of a real fight), thing tend to require attention toward several other dimensions. Yes, the mechanics of delivery are still important - including speed, power, strengths etc. - but there additional elements of the equation, such as timing, distance management, efficiency, intent and so on. And then, there is the avenue of tactics, strategy and other avenues of taking the other person into account. I have particular affinity toward the definition of technique as used by the authors of a book reviewed here: 

…both an accurate movement pattern as well as successful application in an Unscripted Training or Play Learning environment. Correct Execution does not mean a person can simply successfully mimic what a movement pattern looks like, it means that they can use the movement pattern effectively and also achieve its intended outcome…

See, it is the intended outcome that happens to be the key phrase here. That is why I said, during the discussion, that Astig works through the outcome based methodology, using the reverse engineering approach in identifying what makes a good technique, necessary physical attributes, and adequate training methods to develop all those. And this is why the impact of good instruction and feedback is especially important, even if you are working on your own. 

So...do your best to find it. 

True aim of AMOK!

 If you have been around this blog for any length of time, you have probably noticed that most reviews of educational materials have related to the books and instructional DVD/video formats. Today, however, I’d like to step into the 21^st century and point to an excellent online source of brilliant combative instruction.

For the readers who share my affinity for the functional skill and sound training methodology, over the flashy maneuvers and technique-collecting approach, the work of Tom Sotis ought to be among the go-to references. Simply put, he spent 30+ years of dedicated training with unwavering focus on providing to his trainees/clients the best and most reliable information and skill to be developed. That said, the more I learn about the man and his work, the more I am impressed with his sheer honesty about the process of training and utmost disregard for the whole noise of peripheral phenomena of martial arts, such as ranking, titles, power over organizations and people etc. As the matter of fact, that is probably exactly what enabled him to put so much effort and thought into the development of his excellent methods.

The results are formulated under the banner of AMOK! And available to the interested parties on Tom’s website Amok! Global. For what is possibly the most affordable fee anywhere, you get access to the main body of the knowledge that Sotis has distilled into two categories:

-          Core skills;

-          Methodology.

That way, not only do you learn what the people that he has taught in more than 30 countries over the course of more than 30 years have learned (what he teaches), but also how did they develop it into a working set of skills (how he teaches). In approaching training from these angles, an encompassing and thorough understanding is obtained with regards to the technical performance and tactical decision making, but also the proper focus on all the right components that will accelerate your progress on the functional path. Attacks, counters, grabs, disarms; training, practicing, sparring methods and configurations…it’s all there!

Although the core skills and methodology are conceived in a manner that integrates the instruction of all necessary elements of combative capability, for those who want to go into more detail and depth regarding some of those elements, there are specific focus courses available on the topics of Footwork, Handling, Faking, Striking, Countering and so on.

The common feature of all his instruction is the presentation in the bite-sized video clips, shown in appropriate order. Sotis uses whiteboard presentations where applicable, speaks clearly and informatively, without fluff and unnecessary ornamentation. Some of the clips are actually under two minutes of length, and I find it great for a couple of reasons. One, it forces the instructor to be as clear and efficient as possible in conveying his message; two, it makes it easier for the viewers to rewind and dial in the exact part they need to see/hear; three, it keeps tracking of the material you have covered much simpler; four, finding the exact topic you want is effortless.

It bears saying that in AMOK! they use knife as the central tool of instruction, for the reasons very well explained and argued for in the course, but the material is easily adapted to (m)any other tools you may use, or to the empty-handed application as well.

Ultimately, even if you have no interest of becoming and adept of AMOK! or even adopting the methodology into your training, it will still offer an excellent lens for filtering your own training approaches, thus helping you stay on the right path, as long as the desired destination is truth in combat. 

 

TV time to timing

 Have you ever spent some time in front of TV or Youtube and later reprimanded yourself for not having spent that time training? Yeah, sounds familiar... But let's see if that time itself could be made into training. As the matter of fact, one of the tougher aspects of fighting to develop on your own, through solo training is timing, i.e. faster reaction. 

Well, the next time you are in front of the screen, try using it as the "feeder"! Prior to starting this session, pick at least two elements you will be working on - different types of footwork, different combos, maybe just two different individual techniques/maneuvers, or work on the same thing but switch sides...whatever needs to be addressed in terms of reaction time. Once that is set, things are simple - just do the switch every time there is a new shot in the video! For those unfamiliar with film work terms, every time the lens of the camera closes, it is the end of the shot. In other words, every single time you see a new view on the screen, that is it. If you are more of a comic-book type, see what is the parallel with a new picture/frame in the story. 

If you really want to go for intensity, music clips and various ads are excellent, because they are rather quickly paced. As an example, there is 40+ shot changes in the first one minute of this video:

Naturally, if you don't dig this kind of music (shame on you!), just pick your favorite type. Ads also lend themselves really nice for the same purpose. Say, the first one in the following compilation has 8 different shots in the 30 seconds that it lasts...and it is not the busiest one of them!

So, next time, turn the guilty pleasures into satisfying pleasures, or start looking at the commercials as the most useful portion of your time in front of the screen, instead of the most annoying. 

Jumping ship?

 

No one has all the answers, right? After all, this is why we cross train. And, nowadays cross-training has become accepted so much that is almost kind of a norm. Although some thirty years ago it was seen by many as the expression of humanity’s lowest impulses, MMA has become possibly the most popular combat sport of our time, especially in terms of the mainstream media exposure. It may even be fair to say that the success of MMA has brought more attention back to the traditional Olympic fighting events such as judo, boxing and wrestling.

So, the revolution that Bruce Lee was preaching almost six decades ago is now a common state of affairs…or is it?

There is a segment of training in martial arts and related disciplines that exhibits much more conservative attitude, and no, I do not have ultra-traditional arts and systems in mind. As much as training in several different methods is widely accepted, there is still a lot of frowning upon the attempt to train simultaneously in two (or more) different schools of the same system or style. For some reason, if a person wanted to train in two different BJJ or karate schools, and just the same for two schools of the same kung fu system, or even two boxing clubs, they are deemed disloyal, back-stabbing, untrustworthy kind of character.

While I might understand the sentiment if at issue is a competitor jumping ship, it doesn’t make sense when talking about a serious enthusiast who may not be focused on competition. What is wrong if someone wants to see how different instructors and coaches treat the same situations? On top of it, for the most part it is completely OK to attend seminars of instructors from other lineages, but training regularly in different schools is a no-no.

Granted, at lower, beginning levels of training such practice may be counterproductive, as the trainee could focus on collecting techniques and tricks instead of focusing on developing strong fundamental principles, but after a few years? As a thought experiment, let’s say you have 8+ years in BJJ, with a lot of money and time at disposal. And you happen to be equally close to the schools run by Marcelo Garcia, John Danaher and Mario Sperry, who all have classes on different days and times. What is wrong by visiting each (or two of them) two or three times a week, as opposed to staying with just one four times a week?

Or, being a boxer of 10 years, and having both Teddy Atlas and Freddy Roach within reach, with a similar set of circumstances as above. Would you tap the knowledge source of both, or chose one to follow?

It bears saying that sometimes two instructors will have approaches that really do not fit, or even contradict each other, and in such case it is definitely better to opt for one. However, if one is looking to get as well rounder view of a discipline as possible, it only makes sense to learn from more than one source. Especially so if you are, or strive to be, an instructor yourself at some point.

Or maybe the whole “problem” is endemic to the place(s) that I have been frequenting, while entirely non-existent elsewhere?