Training Progress

[Mike Brewer]

Since activity is dying out in all but the political areas of the board, I thought it might be time to get back to raw basics. In this thread, I'd like to look at some of the things that can take our training farther, and some of the things that hold it back. Before I get going, let me stress two things:

1. Although this is in the JKD forum, I want to encourage all students of all styles to participate. It has long been a JKD "tradition" to steal good material from wherever we can, so the more non-JKD people can contribute here, the bigger and deeper the pool of knowledge is.

2. Since some systems have different ways of discerning a combative method from a self-improvement pursuit (ie Do and Jutsu, etc.) what I am talking about here is fighting ability. Whether it's competitive, such as Judo, MMA, boxing, wrestling, or some such endeavor or whether it's about self-protection in the real world, what I want to concern ourselves with in this thread is what makes us better able to fight and win against other people. LEt's do what we can to keep the discussion on track.

Now, with the disclaimers out of the way, I have a few hypotheses and I'd like you guys to shoot these things full of holes or support them in any way you see fit.

The first is that to be truly effective and relevant in a continuous timeline, martial training has to evolve. It has to take into consideration what trends and methods are dominant in a given time - the present - and it needs to be able to some degree to predict what will be improtant tomorrow. Once these things are discovered, it must adapt to those considerations. One cannot sit still and train what is "liked" over what is "necessary" if effectiveness is a concern.

Second, that training from a beginning level to an advanced level requires progression. I've used the model in the past that a skill must first be mechanically learned, then practiced until mechanical correctness is achieved. Then it must be refined until mechanical and technical "mastery" are dependable. Then it must be functionalized through gradual and increasingly realistic amounts of pressure. Often, you see arts take things through those first three steps and then stop before the final, most important one. For functional fighting ability, we need to replicate fighting as best we can and apply what we have technically mastered to the event. My theory on why many people are so bad at fighting is because they try to shortcut the process and go straight to the "realistic pressure" part without first having anything technically mastered yet. It isn't a set of ingredients to be combined in any way one sees fit, but rather, as the name implies, a progression of events that must (or at least should) take place in chronological order for the best effect.

Third, when new tools are added, they do not get added at the current level. They have to be added into the mix from the bottom up. In other words, if you're a world class boxer and you want to learn kicking, you don't just start throwing kicks in sparring. You have to learn them, practice them, and achive technical mastery of them before gradually adding them in under progressive pressure.

Fourth, Michael Wright said somewhere else that you don't learn to be a fighter on your own terms. I found that statement all at once true and repugnant. Most of us do this because we want to, because we like it. In that respect, we submit ourselves to the process and it is "on our terms." We choose what to study and what to train, and we can walk away any time we like. But there's no denying he's 100% correct when he says that it requires facing things we don't necessarily want to face, and overcoming things we may well not have ever had the tools or understanding to overcome. Thus, my fourth hypothesis is that good training requires a certain degree of exploration into the unknown. We have to risk ourselves, our confidence, our safety to go out and pursue the ability we seek. In that, we may run into challenges we're not equipped to overcome. But there's no way to know that unless we seek it out. So, Item #4 is that a good training progression must include the active seeking of conflict and obstacles. The results and findings of that seeking must then be accepted and incorporated, whether we like them or not.

Fifth, and I expect this will be one of the more controversial points, I believe that at some level, martial artist must learn that the most important part of their training really is setting up the fight so that it's won in advance. I said earlier that this thread applied equally to competitive fighting as real-world fighting, and so that statement might be seen as wrong, but consider: Boxers have managers who try to negotiate everything they can to the advantage of their fighter. Angelo Dundee used to talk about how when he managed Muhammad Ali or Sugar Ray Leonard, he'd try to make sure the ring padding was a little thinner, the canvas stretched a little tighter, the ropes strung a little looser, and the ring a little larger so that all those things added to the advantages his fighter would enjoy. One could also argue that training specifically for a known opponent in competition does exactly this. Speaking purely pragmatically, negotiating a payday in advance that's guaranteed whether you win or lose is also a "win" in my book. As for streetfighting, however, it often means learning not to stand out. It means having friends that have trained with you and know what your danger cues are. It can mean a lot of things, but in the end, you almost never see a 50 year old that talks about how the essence of fighting is athleticism. By then, there's almost always a realization that fighting is really about winning before you ever start.

My good friend and instructor Brad Garrison has often said it thus:

"Don't make a habit of losing."

That's misunderstood more often than not. What he means is that we very often think about fighting as "what's happening in the fight," and we forget all the little tactical and strategic losses that led up to it. For example, we park our car off in a dark corner of the lot under the broken light. We pay no mind to the panel van slowly driving up from the other direction that parks next to us. We get out and lock the doors so we can't get back in quickly, and then we stuff our keys down in our pockets so it'll take longer to retrieve them. We don't bother to have our cell phone on us - it's locked in the car. When the guys step out of the van and approach, we begin to negotiate and we assume they'll listen to reason. When one of them pulls a knife and asks for our money, we give it to him and negotiate some more. When he decides to attack us - that our wallet wasn't enough - we realize we're "in a fight" and now we hope our "training" will save us. The fact is, we lost 7 consecutive engagements prior to that final even taking place. We made losing a habit, because we didn't pay any attention ot the decisions made up to the event.

I think there's a lot of wisdom in that philosophy, and I think it's something that can be applied to our training methods and progressions with equal validity.

Any thoughts?

[Ghost]

Ill write something in a bit mike but what does this:
a good training progression must include the active seeking of conflict and obstacles.

mean? can you elaborate a little bit.?

[Mike Brewer]

Aye!
What I mean is that you must always seek those things that make you uncomfortable, scared, uneasy, etc. if you're going to improve. For example, a fighter who is great on his feet but sucks on the ground is going to need to consciously seek out the groung fighting aspect. He's bad at it, and it makes him uncomfortable. As such, the normal human response is to avoid discomfort, but as a fighter, we have to seek it and overcome it. Likewise, let's say a fella is a great technician, but he's a fat, out of shape slob. It's scary to him, uncomfortable, painful, etc., to do what it's going to take to get into fighting shape, but that's exactly what he has to do.

With regards to conflict, we have to test ourselves against resistance. We can't trust cooperation to forge and temper our skills, so we have to constantly try them and refine them through opposition - conflict. I want to pull off the jab, and my opponent doesn't want me to. We're conflicted, and it's up to me to overcome that conflict.

The training progression itself must plan for this and force it on the student in order to overcome that human urge to avoid discomfort. It's why Michael was right to suggest that becoming a fighter doesn't happen on one's own terms.

Make sense?

[g-bells]

Great Post!!!

I would add and it may be in there andi may have missed it , but to train with as many different people and styles as possible because it will only better prepare oneself for the unexpected

[eXcessiveForce]

One of the most important things in the training process is the willingness to share information readily.

What I mean by this is, if I'm picking my sparring partner apart, I need to let him try to figure it out, but after a time of him not adapting I need to tell him how I'm doing it. I need to tell him what his tells are, his preparatory moves, the patterns I'm reading.

I need to tell him the defenses to my attacks, And at times I even need to share my weaknesses, holes, or strategy.

In so doing, I strengthen my partner and take way my edge, this forces me to adapt and to improve.

I need to share everything I've got, even when it means that my training partners or even students may surpass my ability.

Having had an instructor who once told me "I'll always be better because I'm not going to show you everything I know" this path leads to a dead end. Full of stagnation and ego.


The second things is EGO has no place in training. It is destructive and keeps people from sharing and improving their training as a whole.

Third, the mistake of discounting techniques because they fail inside your training group. Techniques get tossed so quickly because they lose effectiveness when you train with the same people every day. Eventually it may become so hard to pull off a technique that it is discarded completely even though it still works well outside of the training group

[eXcessiveForce]

as for the progression, specifically stand up,

It is my believe that hands should be trained and put into a sparring training environment first, this should be trained while kicks are being trained for technique. Then kicks can be added to the sparring. If kicks are added too soon hand development falls behind.

Also I believe sparring should start in a technical manner, and progress towards more realistic sparring.

[Michael Wright]

Just three quick thoughts:

1. Establish an athletic base. Even if someone’s sole interest is self-protection, teach them how to move, hit, and endure from day one. Taking someone with an athletic base and adding the concepts of self-protection is an easy job.

2. Functionality from day one. A base level of skill does not have to be taught or established by using drills that serve no end goal. The basics can be taught in an alive way that will benefit the student in combat.

3. Tailor your instruction to the individual in front of you, don’t sheep dip them with routines that they clearly don’t need or benefit from. Understand the person’s needs and their environment - the way you teach a window cleaner should be very different to the way you teach a soldier. If it isn’t, you shouldn’t be teaching.

Just to also offer my thoughts on G-Bells notion of learning as many arts as possible, so you will be better prepared. I don’t necessarily think that is true. All arts have a common thread, choose an art or a small number of arts that cover the common thread effectively. I would rather spend 10 years of my life in Muay Thai, than six months each in 20 other arts.

[Mike Brewer]

Michael,
To provoke some discussion on an idea we both view as important, can you expand on what you mean by "Functionality?" The reason I ask such an obvious and apparent question is that to some people, it's purely functional to look at punches in the air for a month or two in order to make sure that technique is right before hitting something like a focus mitt. I'd be willing to bet that you see such things the same way I do, but the term functionality is lost on a lot of folks who aren't sure (or aren't experienced enough) to know better. Care to attempt a deeper definition?

[Michael Wright]

I’ll use a really simple example, something I teach in my very first lesson to people.

Lesson number one – a jab. After running through the essentials of hands up, elbows in, chin down I will show the very basic mechanics of the jab. It doesn’t have to look great, it takes years to get what I would call a great jab. As long as they have a basic structure and understand the rudemintaries of the technique, then I jump into what I would call functional training:

I put a good head guard on, and a gum shield (just in case) put my hands up and start to move around in front of the student. I tell them to move with me and extend their jab and hit the top portion of the head guard. As we move around they will start to find rudimentary footwork naturally, without even knowing it. I will be constantly talking to them and coaching them telling them to step in, move their head, keep their hands up, stretch the jab out, now try doubling it, try going low to my stomach…it depends how fast they pick things up. I will also keep my head moving, as their success rate improves I will become a bit more tricky, if I see big gaps I may tap them with a glove, but all at a nice, relaxed safe pace.

The point is this. I could ask them to do this in the air, and say all the same things. I could ask them to hit a focus mitt, and say all the same things. I believe from day one, they should have an alive, moving human being in front of them. They are getting used to hitting someone in the head from day one, they are getting their fighting measure, range, rhythm, timing, distance, footwork. Technique wise all they are doing is a jab, but in just one hour you have set a functional foundation of so much more.

If you put a head guard on that person at the end of the first lesson, and put them in front of someone who has been hitting air or a focus mitt and told them to spar lead hand only, I’m pretty confident what the result would be. I’m not endorsing that literally by the way, just hypothetical; you shouldn’t go from zero to sparring. But you also don’t have to spend 3 months in front of a mirror punching air or six months punching focus mitts before you work with another human being. Functionality, no matter how basic, can start from day one.

I appreciate that’s not rocket science, in truth any Boxing coach would be reading this going “yeah? Durr.” But for some reason martial artists want to build a load of tunnel, so it takes longer to get to the light.

[Mike Brewer]

But for some reason martial artists want to build a load of tunnel, so it takes longer to get to the light.

And there's the point I was hoping you'd make! Sometimes (if not all the time) functionality is really about making things more simple, and more "like reality." In other words, if it can be trained with a human being, then do so! One of the great diseases in any fighting method is the desire to "over equip" the training. Specialty bags, spring loaded dummies, and all other manner of simulating a person take over, and people forget that standing right there next to them is the real deal. I don't know if you recall the old,old days of Vunak's training, but he nearly always used to teach the jab in those 3 count drills? The student would throw a jab at a moving, breathing person, and then he'd parry a counter jab before countering again himself. This was generally before any focus mitts or anything. I love that method, and I'm still a big fan.

Chances are, if you look at any technique from any system that's actually designed to be used against another person, the simplest, most practical, and best way to train it is against another person. That said, while equipment training like focus mitts and bagwork are important, they are supplementals. And even then, they should carry with them some level of spontaneity. A mitt holder should not be standing around calling for combinations, but moving and hitting back and faking like an opponent would. A bag should represent a person, and the footwork of the hitter should adapt to the bag the way it would an opponent.

Great post Michael, and excellent advice!

[g-bells]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

Just three quick thoughts:

1. Establish an athletic base. Even if someone’s sole interest is self-protection, teach them how to move, hit, and endure from day one. Taking someone with an athletic base and adding the concepts of self-protection is an easy job.

2. Functionality from day one. A base level of skill does not have to be taught or established by using drills that serve no end goal. The basics can be taught in an alive way that will benefit the student in combat.

3. Tailor your instruction to the individual in front of you, don’t sheep dip them with routines that they clearly don’t need or benefit from. Understand the person’s needs and their environment - the way you teach a window cleaner should be very different to the way you teach a soldier. If it isn’t, you shouldn’t be teaching.

Just to also offer my thoughts on G-Bells notion of learning as many arts as possible, so you will be better prepared. I don’t necessarily think that is true. All arts have a common thread, choose an art or a small number of arts that cover the common thread effectively. I would rather spend 10 years of my life in Muay Thai, than six months each in 20 other arts.

mr Wright,

I did'nt mean to train in many arts, i meant to train with or spar with many different people because everyone brings something different to the table be it size,speed,movements,structures etc...

sorry i was'nt clearer

[Michael Wright]

I have just re-read your post and I apologise, I do see the point you were making now.

And we really need to drop this Mr Wright thing....

[g-bells]

no need to appologise sir

[Tant01]

Originally Posted by Michael Wright

I have just re-read your post and I apologise, I do see the point you were making now.

And we really need to drop this Mr Wright thing....

Hehehe... It's a formal courtesy. Cut us some slack and accept the respectful address.

You are clearly an authority figure here...

[Michael Wright]

We've had this conversation before Tant, you know my views on titles and authority, you're trying to get a rise out of me!

....but hey, best not argue with a Moderator eh?