Chad W. Getz

This is one of those threads I wouldn't mind seeing at the top of the list for a long time to come and about 10 pages long or so.

If you learned somthing or had something special happen at one of your classes/training/work-outs that may help others, we can place it here. Example, if you know hubud for 5 years, but you just learned a new application of it out of chi sao, or you learned how to make a pak sao work out of a clinch, or a gunting while you were grappling or whatever. A straight blast application, a stop kick, etc., etc.

__________________
Chad W. Getz
Full Contact Hawaii - http://www.fullcontacthi.com
Stickfighting Digest - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stickfighting

The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up. The clinching arts imply the clinch can stop the striker from striking, and the grappler from taking it to the ground. The weapon arts imply the they can stop the unarmed man. A complete martial art implies any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere.

---

Chop Wisby

this may not be what you had in mind; but here's an idea about training/teaching:

adult ma students need to learn a set of basic techniques that will give them a baseline of functionality in fairly short order, as if you knew they HAD to fight in combat within, say, a year (or less);

but while they are learning these, they also need to begin to be shown the underlying principles that will allow them to progress to a higher skill level over the long haul;

as an analogy, adult reading or typing students have to learn "sight words" that they must automatically recognize; e.g.: and, or, the, a, but, of, for, etc.;

also, they must obviously learn the underlying principles that will allow them to actually read or type. a portion, then, is memorization/programming; but for true mastery, the principles are needed.

i hope this makes some kind of sense.

---

Chop Wisby

bttt

---

Chop Wisby

hello?

---

Chop Wisby

somebody must have some comments; the companion thread on the jkd forum has been fairly active.

---

Chad W. Getz

Regarding a question about since drills don't look like sparring, why don't people just spar: I replied, then someone else, then me again:

> Drills "vs" Sparring
> Teacher ''vs'' Fighter
>
> A recent thread held a debate over the usefulness of timing
> drills. "If sparring is closer to real fighting, why not simply
> spar?" ran the argument against drills.
>
> I think we can add clarity to the question "are timing drills useful"
> by asking "useful to whom?" In examining virtually every human
> attribute you can place people into what statisticians call a "bell
> curve" model. This is a graph with a bell-like shape into which the
> vast majority of people fall into the large "average" range in the
> middle and lesser numbers of "below average" and "above average" at
> either end.
>
> Just as we are born with a certain potential for height or IQ, I
> believe we are all born with certain potential levels of various
> attributes that will place us along different points of a bell curve
> depending on the attribute.
>
> At one end of the "musical skills" bell curve (to use an extreme
> example for the sake of clarity) you have someone like Mozart who was
> performing the piano publicly at the age of three and writing his
> first symphony at the age of six. Towards the other end of the
> musical skills bell curve you have someone like myself, who could
> clear a room just as quickly with a violin as with a sword.
>
> At the extreme opposite end from a Mozart you would have
> someone with dysmusia which is to music what dyslexia is to reading.
> Near one end of the bell curve you have someone (like myself) who
> would need many months practicing basic scales and exercises before
> listening to that person's performance would not be a painful
> experience and at the other you have someone who learns his scales in
> a day and thereafter can play back a complex piece of music after
> hearing it just once. I call those people at the extreme above
> average end of the bell curve for any attribute "naturals".
>
> I think drills on a basic level are designed to help the average
> person through much repetition acquire the skills that come so easily
> to the "natural." People like Mozart are rare, yet professional
> orchestras are filled with people who can play his music.
>
> I believe there are people born who are "naturals" in the field of
> fighting (my guess is about 10% of the population is born with ).
> They are born with aggressive strong-willed personalities, are
> naturally courageous and decisive, have a high pain tolerance, are
> self disciplined, have excellent timing and an instinctive confidence
> in what their bodies are capable of. A "natural" fighter does not
> need to spend as much time in drills as a fighter born with average
> or below average attributes.
>
> Notice I said "as much time" not "no time". Let's compare training to
> fight with learning to swim. Take some kids and give them their first
> swim lesson by dropping them into the deep end of the pool and
> the "natural swimmers" will happily dog paddle around having a great
> time. The "average swimmers" will dog paddle to the sides holding on
> until they gain enough confidence to make short trips out from the
> side and back.
>
> The "below average" swimmers will sink like a stone, have to be
> rescued, and refuse to come back for their next lesson. One mistake a
> swimming instructor could make would be to leave the "naturals"
> dog paddling at the deep end and bring everyone else to the shallow
> ends to learn basic strokes. Give the average kids a few weeks of
> training in the Australian crawl and they will beat the naturals in a
> race across the pool.
>
> In this case an average swimmer using a superior technology (the crawl
> stroke) and more organized training can beat a natural swimmer using
> an inferior technology (the dog paddle) and little training. Let
> everyone train for the same amount of time in the crawl and the
> advantage will return to the ''naturals''.
>
> However, another mistake our swimming instructor could make would be
> to bring all the kids to the shallow end of the pool and keep them
> there forever doing basic drills. If the teacher keeps all his
> students too long just doing drlls he runs the risk of frustrating
> the naturals and boring the average kids. This teacher may loose all
> his ''naturals'' and most of his ''average'' kids to the first "no
> rules" pool that opens up nearby.
>
> I believe the ability of naturals to survive and even thrive at the
> ''deep end of the pool'' from day one may lead many naturals to
> mistake ''what works for me'' for ''what works''. That may be one of
> the reasons why a great fighter fails to produce students equal to
> himself. To learn boxing from Mohamed Ali would be cool, but how
> useful would it be when he tells you; ''Just stay exactly at the edge
> of his range and when he punches snap your head back just enough for
> him to miss. It's easy, I do it all the time.'' Imagine a student
> of ''Ali Style'' boxing telling you ''Ali proved that you don't need
> to keep your guard up while boxing at range.''
>
> I would suggest to you that all Ali proved was that Ali had the
> attributes to break the rules, which has no bearing on whether you
> can break the rules unless you are another ''natural''. And even
> being a ''natural'' may not be enough to be another Ali. Imagine Ali
> teaching Mike Tyson how to box;' 'Mike, the jab will be your most
> important punch''.
>
> Here is the bad news guys, to be another Ali or another Tyson or
> another Bruce Lee you have to already be another Ali or Tyson or Lee
> before you walk in the school door. Thai Boxing's Master Chai is
> inhumanly fast. One of his students told me someone tried to figure
> out why so a sample muscle biopsy was done on him. The results showed
> that he had an unusually high ratio of fast twitch to slow twitch
> muscle fibers. While training under Mater Chai will make you a better
> Thai boxer you probably will never get as fast as he is unless you
> walk in the door with the same muscle fiber makeup as he has.
> All this brings me back to the subject of drills.
>
> One thing I have noticed about the natural fighters I have had as
> students is their good sense of timing. Once you teach them
> the ''how'' of a technique they seem to have an instinctive sense
> of ''when''. This is something that drills are designed to teach. If
> basic strikes are your letters and combinations of strikes are your
> words, then drills are sample sentences designed to show you the
> rules of grammar.
>
> The ''natural'' fighter may not have to spend as much time on basic
> drills as everyone else, but you will see elite athletes, who are
> mostly ''naturals'', practicing their own sets of drills when
> competing against other naturals on an elite level. Now however,
> instead of teaching basic skills the drills are looking
> to make incremental improvements in an otherwise excellent
> performance.
>
> While engaging in basic drills for too long is a waste of time for the
> natural, having the average person engage in advanced drills before
> he is ready would be equally frustrating.
>
> What is an advanced drill? Imagine Mohamed Ali training "Ali Jr.'' Ali
> would have him do 1,000 jabs as a warm up for speed and endurance in
> his main weapon. He would have "Jr.'' practice staying just at the
> edge of his opponent's reach through footwork and learn to avoid an
> attack solely through a subtle shifting of distance. Once Jr. had
> mastered that drill and did not need to rely on his arms to block at
> range, it would make sense for him to drop his hands for brief
> periods while at range to rest his arms so that his jabs in round ten
> are just as fast as they were in round one.
>
> I think that both the "natural" and the "average" fighter can make a
> mistake concerning drills. The natural fighter may say of basic
> drills "These drill aren't right. You don't really need them." And
> the average fighter may say of advanced drills "These drills aren't
> right. You can't really pull them off in a fight."
>
> Match the right drill with the fighter it was designed for and they
> will change their minds concerning drills.

__________________
Chad W. Getz
Full Contact Hawaii - http://www.fullcontacthi.com
Stickfighting Digest - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stickfighting

The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up. The clinching arts imply the clinch can stop the striker from striking, and the grappler from taking it to the ground. The weapon arts imply the they can stop the unarmed man. A complete martial art implies any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere.

---

Chad W. Getz

My reply:

I think people mis-interpret the drills. I know that right after you spar
full contact, you don't really want to waste time jumping into some little
technical drills, you want to find out what you did wrong, and think about
how to correct it. But, I think people should do drills. It's now that we
have gear, we can do our drills with the right energy. For example instead
of practicing the windmill block(I think this is what most people call when
someone throws a straight punch to the face and you deflect it with your
left hand and put up your right shield, than pak sao with a straight punch
repeating the whole process-we called it something else)anyway, instead of
just doing it without really trying to hit each other, lets put on the Macho
headgear with facecage, put on some grappling gloves and move around. Now
have the guy really try and hit your face, and you really try to do your
techniques. This way you learn how the techniques are supposed to be done
against the fight energy.

>>I know that right after you spar
>>full contact, you don't really want to waste time jumping into some little
>>technical drills, you want to find out what you did wrong, and think about
>>how to correct it.

What I mean by this is that your mindframe and set is totally not "hmmm, I
think I need to work on my hubud drill" the exact moment you come out of a
real contact fight. Not that drills are a waste of time, but that it is
probably the farthest thing from most people's mind at that moment. I can
not make a definite say of "yes" drills are good, or "no" drills are bad,
yet. Actually I feel that drills are good. If you use the proper energy
which would be some real energies taken right out of a fight. But, more so
in the smaller, more technical sort of drills. I can not put it in the "no"
book, because I can not say for sure or not, if it helped my fighting skills
to what it is today. But I can not say yes, because it is something in
which I don't pay alot of attention to, but maybe that is because I have
paid attention to it for 5 years already. Yes, I know that fighting and
changing the way I train has affected my fighting over 100% from before.
And I know that everytime I fight or train realistically, it does make me
that much better in a fight.


Another guy stated:

I think the post was on point! Especially the emphasis on drills training
"attributes" vs. training "techniques". I've talked to several people
who'll blow a drill out of the water as "unrealistic" when they can't "pull
off" that particular technique after "mastering" the drill. The problem
with that thought process is several-fold:

1. If you're expecting the drill to teach you HOW to execute a technique
you've most likely misunderstood the purpose of the drill (like many
misunderstand the moves in kata). Just like repeating a technique over and
over again hopefully will teach "muscle memory" for the "how" of the
technique--repeating the drill will hopefully teach muscle memory too, but
also visual and tactile cues to give you a better concept of the "when" and
the follow up.

2. I really don't know when you "master" a drill, so I'm a bit skeptical
when someone has practiced (not even continuously) a drill for a couple of
months and think they've gotten all that they can from it. I still recall
Joe trying to teach me hubad and don't even get me STARTED with the stick
drills! Initially, and rightfully so in my opinion, it was pretty much just
a series of moves (I'd ask the occasional question but my brain was pretty
much on overload). Once I had some proficiency at the moves, the deeper
explanations came and I found them valuable to my learning. Since we parted
company, I've learned maybe two new drills...but that's not to say I haven't
learned anything "new". Different ways of looking at the drills, practicing
with more "aliveness", contact, etc., teaches different lessons.

3. Finally, as the point was eloquently made in the post, if you're intent
is to be able to execute the technique in a conflict...you can't devote all
of your time to practicing it in a "drill" environment. Since we can't
(legally or ethically) go around starting fights to practice, sparring
(sometimes hard) seems to be a good vehicle to get closer to your goal. If
you recall when you started learning most techniques/drills, you (or at
least I) could barely pull the technique off or "find the technique" in the
DRILL...so it was painfully obvious that I wouldn't be able to do it in a
fight (unless my opponent presented me his hand and said "Sankyo, please").
As I got more proficient, I felt comfortable enough to try it in sparring
with limited but improving success.

Well, I've rambled enough...just one closing shot--if anyone is thinking
techniques will look as sexy as they do in drills (or worse yet, as they do
in movies) in a fight, you're sure to be disappointed. While you may get a
"Hollywood" in occasionally...you can expect ugly-fest most of the time
which emphasizes the need to train attributes (helps you adapt). Remember,
there are no retakes or "start-overs" in a fight.

__________________
Chad W. Getz
Full Contact Hawaii - http://www.fullcontacthi.com
Stickfighting Digest - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stickfighting

The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up. The clinching arts imply the clinch can stop the striker from striking, and the grappler from taking it to the ground. The weapon arts imply the they can stop the unarmed man. A complete martial art implies any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere.

---

Chad W. Getz

He says in reply to my post

I'm feeling you on the "energy" point, Chad, but the connotation of "wasting
time" is one I'd steer clear of. In sports, as well as forms of mortal
combat (i.e., in the current military sense), drills and rehearsals have
been proven to enhance a player's/soldier's performance under stress. I
think one of the reasons we (martial artists) sometimes doubt the need for
our drills is because what the drill is teaching isn't readily apparent.

No one would question a basketball coach that wanted a player to shoot 200
jumpers a day, even though its a different experience with a defender
guarding you because the act of shooting is a core skill that must be
developed to score. I'm sure you COULD learn to play by simply jumping into
the game...but without practicing on your own, it would take considerably
longer.

Likewise, Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen responsible for combat
operations continuously conduct training exercises and rehearsals prior to
operations. The fact that the combat in question is lethal, precludes
"live" force on force training (we use MILES gear and other tools to
simulate--"live" in this since refers to people shooting live ammunition at
each other for training purposes). That doesn't negate the need to conduct
these "drills" just because you can't re-create a combat environment.
Rather we replicate the environment to the best of our ability and train the
key or cores skills required for success. With that in mind, what would
make a martial artist, especially in today's society where the skills we
hone are not a requirement for daily survival like they were for our
predecessors, think that we can learn AND develop our skills to the fullest
without working on the "details?" Under stress, you'll do what you've
trained to do (how well you've trained it is a related, but separate
discussion). Without training, aren't you "wasting" a bit of your time
trying to run before you walk by just flailing in the dark (not in all
cases, but I'd argue in most) until the "lights come on?" I'm not saying
you don't learn anything from getting into heavier contact. There are
numerous street fighters that have no "formal" training, but are very
dangerous because of their experiences. However, you can make more
efficient use of that time (and those bruises, and strains) by working "your
game" with energy and contact as opposed to trying to figure out what the
game's all about.

Just a thought...what say you?

__________________
Chad W. Getz
Full Contact Hawaii - http://www.fullcontacthi.com
Stickfighting Digest - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stickfighting

The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up. The clinching arts imply the clinch can stop the striker from striking, and the grappler from taking it to the ground. The weapon arts imply the they can stop the unarmed man. A complete martial art implies any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere.

---

Chad W. Getz

I respond:

Good points Rick, and that is why I can't put it in the "no" category yet.
I'm hell-bent on finding out though. Like I stated, I don't think that
drills are useless, I just think that they are miss-understood, and a little
past due. Just as the regular hubud flowers into many many
variations...I'll show you one day, I think drills and people's overall
understanding of it need to evolve. IMO, the wrong kind of drills are
directly being taught and given too much importance. While it may, or may
not, build attributes...how can we tell for sure?...it doesn't build
attributes directly addressing the whole of fighting. It may build
attributes related to smaller parts of the whole, which, yes, in the long
run, is just as important as the greater whole, but...again it causes a
misunderstanding from the beginning about drills. I understood your
analogy, but I think the Military drills as you described it would be fairly
accurate on relation to combat...but, those drills to military war is not
really comparable to some of the drills that I am speaking about in
relationship to hand-to-hand. I agree that certain drills have it's time
and place, I just feel that it is introduced at the wrong place and time in
training with mis-directed importance placed on it. Yes, I feel now that
certain ones do have their importance, just that people don't teach it as
such. I'd be fairly accurate as to say that I can work the hubud with
someone while I am blindfolded and get my moves in to trap up.

Some drills that I see as relevant to fighting, but why I don't think it is
being taught properly. Hubud is trained to "isolate a certain energy" and
get you familiar with it. Well that's fine, but the energies that happen in
hubud, don't happen in a fight. People train the hubud for locks and traps
and tie-ups, but most people don't realize that trapping range is only a
transitional range to something closer or on your way back out. That is
where the set up for unrealistic set up trapping comes from. People that
think they are going to stand around in trapping range and kick someone's
butt. The same goes for chi sao. And the windmill drill described in
digest #60 or 61.

If drills are supposed to give us a certain energy of a fight, why not take
an energy that really happens in a fight. I've got a few ideas that I've
been working on, Rick, that we haven't had the chance to gover yet...but
later. Now I still understand that the finer point drills train certain
attributes of a finer energy, but instead of starting with that energy, why
not teach the student his gross motor skills before teaching his finer
points of combat with the "finer energy" drills. I think that working the
hubud can bring out the finer points of trapping to enter the clinch, but I
think someone that has put time in entering against someone that his trying
to take his head off. Wouldn't this "drill" teach you how to deal with the
proper energies in a fight.

Another problem I see with drills the way it is commonly taught, is the lack
of training the all important attribute of timing and distance. Every
belief that I ever had of distance and timing changed the first day I
stickfought. And so did all my "live hand application. Me...the guy that
had always set the example of body mechanics to the new students. New
students were encouraged to work out with me if they wanted to do some
training. Boy, am I glad I decided to get into full contact stickfighting.
Now there are no fallacies, no egos, no fooling anyone, especially myself.
So I was happy and I knew I could teach a FMA class and make fairly good
money off of it if I taught it that way. Not real. But, because I had
experienced something, I could either adapt and deal with the truth, which
is what "was", not what it should be or continue fooling myself and living
in another world. Truth is what IS.

Remember drills were created for warriors to train safely. Not to create
warriors. However now that we have protective equipment, we can create
warriors with the proper drills which involve the proper energy, the proper
distance, and the proper timing. Protective equipment will aid us to start
walking until our skills are what we rely on to protect us, not the "proper
energy" or the protective gear.

Just my opinion, though. Opinions and ideas are easier to change then
Beliefs.

__________________
Chad W. Getz
Full Contact Hawaii - http://www.fullcontacthi.com
Stickfighting Digest - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stickfighting

The grappling arts imply most fights end up on the ground. The striking arts imply all fights start standing up. The clinching arts imply the clinch can stop the striker from striking, and the grappler from taking it to the ground. The weapon arts imply the they can stop the unarmed man. A complete martial art implies any fight can go anywhere...be ready and able to go everywhere.

---

Chop Wisby

good posts, chad w. getz;

anybody else going to add to this thread?

---

Kyoshu

In training we tend to focus in ending the encounter ASAP, as opposed to getting into long "he does this, so I do this" routines. We still spend time doing them when he pair up, but when sparring with sticks, knives or just empty hand, we try to train our students on looking for the best way to end a confrontation.

Kyoshu

---

Kevin

One of the things I like to do when I have no one to play with is to do my bag work and karenza (shadowboxing) while wearing my stickfighting headgear and gloves.... trying to reproduce the same conditions that are there when you spar. Wearing the Doce Pares headgear (...that's what I use) helps you get used to moving with that extra weight on your head, and practicing with the gloves helps you get a feel for striking with the gloves on (particularly useful in the grip department). Seemed like a good idea to me...

~Kev

---

Scytale

Kevin, I know what you are talking about here but it has been a great internal debate for me. Since my friends and I started full contact (empty hand, no sticks just yet), I've been thinking about doing some of my training with the 16oz gloves, headgear, etc. But so far I feel that would be 'training for the game' instead of for the fight. That's one of the big reasons I got out of TKD. The sparring really encouraged people to develop bad habits because they worked within the rules. Full contact isn't like that, of course, but I still feel training with the sparring gear on is training to spar not training to fight.

Of course, this is my opinion only and I'm not disparaging anyone else's decision to do this. I'm just looking for other thoughts on the matter.

__________________
[^-^] Bryan Creel
[^-^] shadow_of_the_dawn@yahoo.com

---

Kevin

Hi Bryan,

I spar to better be able to defend myself, and I train with the gear on to better be able to spar. So... therefore (he said to himself ) I train with the gear on to better be prepared for the street.

Least that is my thinking anyway.

This type of training is not that different from the resistance training that alot of other athletes do which does not duplicate the actions of their chosen sport. For example, some track athletes run with sleds, and some swimmers swim in those training lanes which have a water current flowing against them. There are even some martial atheletes who shadowbox while holding light dumbells(not that different from wearing 16 oz gloves). The idea being is to make your training harder so your performance is easier.

Even though... the amount of "gear on" bag and karenza work I do is but a small percentage of my total training. Just a segment of my training, not my focus.

Good point though... I gave it some thought when thinking about including this type of training.

Take care...
~Kev

---

gungfuhero

I think that you can liken drills to weight training. When you actually apply the strength you've gained it is rarely in the form of a bench press or a squat or a incline press. However, the strength you gain in those exercises, which occur in the ideal situation, can be applied to less than perfect and sometimes rather disagreable situations. Drills are no substitute for sparring, but they are a great method of preparing you for sparring which ultimately is only a means to an end.

example: I've never had hubad come out in sparring as it occurs in the drill, but being able to parry, disolve, and attack comes up all the time. In my opinion, the specific techniques and order they happen in the drill is less important than the concepts they teach and the attributes they build.

my $0.02

---