Training Progress

[g-bells]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

It's better than some of the names they call you when you're not looking, Michael!

i thought when i told you that it was a secret?

[Ghost]

imo its still the same, the way to stay combative as you age is to stay as fit and mobile as possible.

training techniques may change but the underlying factor is still fitness and mobility.
And again id state its the most overlooked aspect for most martial artists and i love Michaels' points about hiding behind street moves and so on. so very very true.

[g-bells]

i agree, when i turned 30 my knees started to really hurt me, i had to quit running. since then i started jkd and have put in some really hard work and i can say now my knees don't hurt that much, can run again and i do believe to stay active is to not let those aches and pains slow you down. yes, you do need to back off at times, like squating but if you give in you lose it

just my own oppinion though

[Mike Brewer]

i love Michaels' points about hiding behind street moves and so on. so very very true.

I wholeheartedly agree. I remember having knock-down drag-out arguments with people right here on this board that thought it was blasphemous and insulting in the extreme to even advocate MMA, Boxing, and Wrestling as acceptable supplements to a street-geared training method. I've always believed that it's the very best way to test what you have against serious, capable resistance, and I still believe that. It's also a wonderful way to experience the need for fitness.

Unless you're willing to get in with someone who means to stop you and try to work out what you can and can't do, it's all theory. No matter how much sparring you've done with your own students and partners, it's just not the same as a competitive bout against a well-prepared adversary.

[Tant01]

My buddy Glen is a doorman up here at our local dive. He dominates by his his sheer mass and attitude. He has no formal "martial" training at all. He doesn't pack a weapon. He's ejected and or detained uncounted aggressive drunks, he's dealt with the grudges and revenge seekers, death threats and vandalism...

He probably couldn't box two rounds or wrestle someone his own size for more than a minute.

He's been a bouncer there for events for the last fifteen years... He does it well. Never been injured though many have tried to hurt him.

How realistic or necessary is fitness or skill for a guy like him?

I wonder...? (really)

[Michael Wright]

Good point. Doorwork can certainly be a legitimate way to learn how to fight, its a "route one" approach. I know people like your buddy too Tant, never had a day's training in their lives, but have successfully handled many many fights.

However, all the points I was making about an athletic base and so on, are for people who would come to me to train to be a martial artist. You friend Glen, with his mass, attitude and 15 years of fight experience, ain't gonna need to learn anything from me anyway.

Its like a soldier coming to with armed with an SA-80 rifle, a 9mm, and a 12 inch knife and saying "teach me wrist locks". I'd just say, whats the point - you are already where you need to be.

[eXcessiveForce]

I think something that may be equally important as fitness especially as we age is the element of surprise and the ability to read body language. the fact is most people expect that when they try to take your head off with a punch that they are actually going to hit something. Additionally most people expect the reaction to happen after the technique is nearly to the target.

By training you can disrupt the process. all of a sudden you are out of the way and hitting them simply because you could anticipate the attack and already knew what to do.


While I think MMA can be a decent tool to augment your SD training, I also think it can lead to a training fallacy. The idea that everyone you come up against is a trained fighter, at the peak of their game. That just doesn't mirror reality very well in my opinion. However it is also a good idea to train to handle such a threat because it will make dealing with lesser threats easier.

[Mike Brewer]

I think that bridges an important gap.

Michael, we're all in agreement that very little is as delusional as the "street meanies" that cling to the invincibility of eye pokes and whatnot as the skeleton key to "real fighting."

BUT...

Could it be that the revulsion such people create can make us swing in the opposite direction to an unhealthy degree? Could it be that the current trend is to neglect non-competitive tools and skills altogether in favor of MMA and Boxing type tools?

I think we have to guard carefully against making mass judgements about one side or the other. There's some real validity to the street wannabes' arguments (even if they themselves have none ). There's also a lot to the athletics' side as well. Dismissing either is unhealthy.

If a guy with no training at all can "win" every bar fight he's ever in, then we should drag out whatever lessons from that we can. Be they mindset related, attitude related, or something less tangible, like learning what to look for and how to anticipate. Sometimes it's tactics, like being able to work with fellow bouncers. Those things carry a lot of value in all of the places that MMA and other sports don't. Conversely, I think we can all agree that an average MMA athlete is going to kick the rabbit shit out of an average bojncer if the conditions are right. So from that side, we draw out what we can use as well - such as conditioning, technical skill, precision, etc.

The thing is, it would be hard to argue that Tant01's friend wouldn't be better if he learned some fighting skills to go along wit hwhat he already has. He's effective, sure. But he could be even more capable with additional training. Similarly, an MMA athlete or boxer would be better equipped to deal with non-sportive fighting is he/she learned some street-geared tools and ideas.

I hate to sound like Liberty trying to sound like Bruce Lee here (sorry Lib ) but we really do need to look at all the possible sources for good information and...ulp...use what is useful from each.

[Ghost]

Thing is as soon as you pick on one area like this you get examples of those that dont need it. I also dont like the idea that because it suits one person and they can get away with it, and in my opinion it is getting away with it, that we can then generalize for everyone else. "well big dave cant run for shit but he can beat up people so why do we need to run"

Tant01 in your example if that guy added in 20 mins of intense cardio a day do you think his ability would go up or down?
And do you think most people would benefit from 20 mins of intense cardio a day or more?
Thats my point.

I think for street self defense purposes you would ideally be able to really bang for a good 2 mins. That would be sensible.

[Michael Wright]

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

I think that bridges an important gap.

Michael, we're all in agreement that very little is as delusional as the "street meanies" that cling to the invincibility of eye pokes and whatnot as the skeleton key to "real fighting."

BUT...

Could it be that the revulsion such people create can make us swing in the opposite direction to an unhealthy degree? Could it be that the current trend is to neglect non-competitive tools and skills altogether in favor of MMA and Boxing type tools?

I think we have to guard carefully against making mass judgements about one side or the other. There's some real validity to the street wannabes' arguments (even if they themselves have none ). There's also a lot to the athletics' side as well. Dismissing either is unhealthy.

Agreed Mike. And since I maybe dragged this great thread down an athletic focus, how about we swing the discussions back the other way.

Make no mistake, self-protection is very close to my heart. So I would be interested in people's views if I provoke some discussion along the following lines:

There are lots of guys, certainly here in the UK, who worked the doors for years and had a lot of fights. Those guys now tend to advertise classes, seminars, DVDs etc offering instruction in "real world self-defence". Now one could argue that the reason those guys were successful in their fights is because that was their job, they did it for years and got real good at it. Therefore, how can they "teach" me how to do that? Can you really teach someone how to fight through concepts, scenarios and techniques? Or to put it a more simple way here is my (age old) question:

Do you believe that self-protection is something that can be taught? Or do you simply have to go through the mill and come out the other side, before you can profess to have any ability?

[Mike Brewer]

I wouldn't have been a teacher for so long if I thought it couldn't be taught.

I think that the key - as you, Ghost, and certainly many others have said before - is to make the decision about what kind of self-protection you need and then train to that end. For example, there's another thread that's died on the vine in the Urban Combatives forum on I call modelling. It's the process of establishing what a student needs, and then constructing a progression that gets him there with the highest possible degree of practicality and applicability. It's different for everyone and it's labor intensive, which is why hardly anyone ever does it. But in organizations where immediate results are required (Like the Military, Law Enforcement Organizations, etc) it is the standard operating procedure. It can be something as simple as a "Task, Conditions, Standards" statement that gives you an idea for what has to be done, under what conditions, and to what standard of performance or it can be more detailed than that.

If, for example, you're a 50 year-old that's never had any experience in martial arts or sports, but you've just taken a door to door sales job in downtown Detroit, your needs might be remarkably different from a high school kid dealing with a bully problem. The attribute pool you have to draw from is going to be different, as will the tools you might choose. In either case, however, we have to consider:

• What type of threat am I most likely to face?
• What tools do I have at my disposal right now?
• What tools will the bad guy(s) have?
• What tools should I have to increase my chances?
• What works to my advantage in my training?
• What works against me, or to my disadvantage?
• How can I reduce my vulnerabilities and butress my strengths?

All of the common logic of "Don't go to bad neighborhoods" would be out the window for the fellow who has to go door to door in Detroit, for example. It's just not realistic for him. That's a vulnerability. In Detroit, firearms are the most common tools used to attack people, followed by knives. That tells you what the bad guy has. Group attacks were more common in muggings and random violence than were single assailants last year, so that tells you what you're likely to face: weapons and groups in bad neighborhoods. That starts to paint a picture for the kind of arts that you might want to start this guy on. I'd suggest that looking at the situation objectively, wrestling (for example) would not be anyone's first pick. The resulting training progression should address all of the other questions effectively.

If you're an instructor doing this, it's hard because you either have to be good at everything, or you have to be willing to refer people to other instructors when it looks like someone else might be a better fit. I have talked before about referring people who really want to learn to use knives, but I also tend to refer people who want to learn MMA, because I'm not all that interested in teaching it anymore. Students need an instructor that has a passion for what they teach, so I have no problem sending them to someone who fits the bill.

I think in some ways, people have lost the idea that sparring can be used by anyone and everyone (including those who want to learn firearms) to add realism and resistance. I used to go to great lengths to engineer scenarios for my students to spar under that would simulate all of the dirty, nasty aspects of real world encounters. We'd add crowds, obstacles, darkness, weapons, bystanders, and all sorts of other factors including the verbal exchanges and de-escalation phase. As some of you are aware, I worked a lot of doors from 1997 on up through about 2003 with some scattered part-time gigs on either end. I got a pretty good feel for what happens in the bars during that time, and I didn't hesitate to break that down and add the relevant material to my classes. More than once, I'd take the senior students out for drinks and a good time, wait til they were a little buzzed, and drag them all back to the school for "drunk practice in street clothes." That kind of thing wasn't for the masses, but my core group got the treatment more than once.

In that respect, it's all about familiarization. Michael, now that you're focusing on your boxing, you've no doubt seen a coach or two that has his fighters hit the bag for an interval and then spin around to get a little dizzy? For the uninitiated, a lot of coaches do this to familiarize the fighters with what it feels like to throw punches after taking a hard shot. Familiarity rules.

So to take the long route around your question and get back to it:

Yes, it can be taught. But effectively teaching it is a matter of clearly defining the tasks that need your focus and the conditions under which they are likely to be required. Then, you have to set the standard of performance. Are you trying to beat up the other guy? Are you trying to win in the eyes of a panel of judges? Are you trying to create an opening and get away? It's important to know this, because if you're training to escape, but all you ever do is spar in timed, three or five-minute rounds, what are you reinforcing?

As with so many things, this is far more "student-based" than "system-based." The correct prescription is far more reliant on what the student needs than any other factor.

[Michael Wright]

Great post Mike. Its easy to see why you teach who you teach.

Originally Posted by Mike Brewer

Michael, now that you're focusing on your boxing, you've no doubt seen a coach or two that has his fighters hit the bag for an interval and then spin around to get a little dizzy? For the uninitiated, a lot of coaches do this to familiarize the fighters with what it feels like to throw punches after taking a hard shot.

....you know, maybe I'm at the wrong gym, but I've never seen that. My coach just puts me in the ring and goes to work on me!

[Mike Brewer]

I guess the really old school coaches produce the same effect by just slobberknocking you!

Same result, I guess, with the added perk of brain damage and concussions!

[Michael Wright]

Well, you can't make an omlette without...erm....you know like....umm.......what was the question??

[Mike Brewer]

As a sidebar, you ought to try the "dizzy drill" with some boxing students on the heavy bag. It's hysterical in every way. First, because you get to see a bunch of elite athletes spinning around like little kids, and then you get to see them missing a stationary heavy bag with their hardest shots and falling on their faces. When I do the drill, it's a 30 second punching interval and a 10 second spin interval. Lather, rinse, and repeat four times, then let them go throw up.