The Effect of "Alive" Training on TMA

[Aikiguy]

I brought this up in someone else's thread and decided I'd like to get more opinions on it ... (instead of hijacking the one it was originally on)

One of the biggest criticisms I've heard about TMA (karate and TKD, specifically) is that, in many cases, it has problems working against resisting opponents - not because of the style necessarily, but because of the training and the lack of "aliveness" that has developed over the last few decades. My experience with aikido gives me the same impression.

My question is: If TMA were to incorporate aliveness on a broad scale to address this issue ... by how much would they change? Would they generally look the same, but simply have a more rigorous training program? (All these arts were originally designed for self defense ... ) Would each art slowly start to resemble one another? Would we just end up with Boxing and BJJ?

I'd like your thoughts ... thanks!

[Patrick G.]

to be honest with you, I think it would evolve to what you see today in MMA....MMA is the evolution of the traditional arts...

EXAMPLE: you step in the ring with a seasoned MMA'ist...you take a couple of jabs to the face and realize that you need to keep your guard up high in order to protect yourself (the "traditional" wing chun arm climbing techniques aren't working!)..you lose the match, but you learn a couple of things about how to punch effectively and move effectively...

You train and learn how to throw effective punches: jabs, crosses, hooks, uppercuts..you combine therse combos and your new "on-guard" stance with your tradtional techiques and are ready for another fight...

This time, you are doing much better against the MMA'ist, but his kicks and knees are just too quick and hurt like sh%t!... you realize that there are more ways to kick effectively and to use your whole body as a weapon...so you train more and more with these new techniques...you start to incorporate them into your "tradional" style, but already you are subconsciously throwing out the less "effective" techniques for the better ones...

You are ready for another fight with the MMA'ist...you are holding your ground and doing real good, but suddenly, the guy takes you to the ground and your at a lost as to what to do...you lose, but you gain a better respect for the ground game...so you train more and incorporate more...

Now, this time, up against the same MMA'ist, you are ready as much as you've ever been...you fight with all your heart, and you win!

This is a broad generalization, but it's a quick example of how a person can and will adapt when faced with adversity...whether you are a wing chun man, a Judo man, a Tae Kwon Do man, etc... when you are open and willing to adapt, you "style" will resemble more and more like "no style"...and before you realize it, u will become a MMA'ist! (or a JKD man, however you want to look at it)...

[gabbah]

But "aliveness" does not mean all arts will have to allow punches to the head (in training), does it?

[treehugger]

Originally Posted by gabbah

But "aliveness" does not mean all arts will have to allow punches to the head (in training), does it?

If you want to be an effective striker (with fists), then yes it means exactly that. You will have to spar, likely with headgear on. If you wanted to be a great hitter in baseball, you could work with a swing coach for years and achieve the perfect smooth swing, but it will not work until you get used to the 90mph fastballs that will be hurtling at you, same idea. You can punch a bag as much as you want, but when the bag starts ducking, weaving, and hitting back, things change.

[gabbah]

"Boards don't fight back".

Well, my own training is kickboxing where you are allowed to attack the whole body with punches and kicks. Is it "alive"? Why does the term "alive" only include punching to the head and not takedowns, ground n' pound, submissions?
Does "alive" try to be the same as "realistic"?

I think "alive" only means that you should go "all out" with the things you are training. For instance, instead of doing katas, you should sparr an opponent, even if the rules say no striking to the head.
Boxing only allows attacks on the upper body, but it's still considered to be "alive" when you sparr in boxing.
Sometimes I train with only punches to the body, sometimes only kicks to the whole body, sometimes only boxing. I would say all of that is "alive", but it's restricted. The isolation of the different parts can bring benefits, as long as the training of each part "alive".

Maybe I have totally missed the meaning of the term "alive"?

Please discuss.

[treehugger]

Originally Posted by gabbah

"Boards don't fight back".

Well, my own training is kickboxing where you are allowed to attack the whole body with punches and kicks. Is it "alive"? Why does the term "alive" only include punching to the head and not takedowns, ground n' pound, submissions?
Does "alive" try to be the same as "realistic"?

I think "alive" only means that you should go "all out" with the things you are training. For instance, instead of doing katas, you should sparr an opponent, even if the rules say no striking to the head.
Boxing only allows attacks on the upper body, but it's still considered to be "alive" when you sparr in boxing.
Sometimes I train with only punches to the body, sometimes only kicks to the whole body, sometimes only boxing. I would say all of that is "alive", but it's restricted. The isolation of the different parts can bring benefits, as long as the training of each part "alive".

Maybe I have totally missed the meaning of the term "alive"?

Please discuss.

No, you have it right. Your first post mentioned punches to the head, which is why I gave the boxing analogy. Aliveness translates to kicking, clinching, elbows, knees, grappling etc. However, it is a bit different when you individualize the techniques as you do. For instance, a traditional boxing stance is not recommended in MMA, as your front leg is ripe for a low kick and you are extremely vulnerable to takedown. Most mma types will resort to 'dirty boxing' which is more of a freestyle form of throwing the mitts, as opposed to using the normal footwork associated with boxing. I guess it is open to debate whether techniques can be as effective trained separately, as long as they are trained alive. Personally I think that it is good to experience sparring where your opponent can throw anything at you at any given time, punch/kick/takedown/sub at least some of the time.

[gabbah]

Well, the rules in kickboxing (not muay thai) don't allow knees or clinching. So we sparr with boxing and kicks. Is it alive then? We may sparr hard, but since it doesn't have knees, clinching or takedown there certainly are aspects missing from a stand up fight point of view. Same thing with the training in any boxing gym.
So still I'm not sure we have the same view of the term "alive". You seem to have the view that if you train for stand up fight, you must allow for all possible attacks. With that definition, for instance boxing will not be "alive".

And just to make things clear, we train a lot with "full" sparring (kicks and punches to the whole body for us). Sometimes we isolate though as I descibed before.

[treehugger]

Originally Posted by gabbah

Well, the rules in kickboxing (not muay thai) don't allow knees or clinching. So we sparr with boxing and kicks. Is it alive then? We may sparr hard, but since it doesn't have knees, clinching or takedown there certainly are aspects missing from a stand up fight point of view. Same thing with the training in any boxing gym.
So still I'm not sure we have the same view of the term "alive". You seem to have the view that if you train for stand up fight, you must allow for all possible attacks. With that definition, for instance boxing will not be "alive".

And just to make things clear, we train a lot with "full" sparring (kicks and punches to the whole body for us). Sometimes we isolate though as I descibed before.

Absolutely, I agree that you are training alive. Any time you are training against a fully resisting opponent at full speed/power it is alive training regardless of the style.

[gabbah]

Originally Posted by treehugger

Absolutely, I agree that you are training alive. Any time you are training against a fully resisting opponent at full speed/power it is alive training regardless of the style.

Well, in that case TKD should be able to train "alive", simply by sparring full out (resisting opponent) with the attacks allowed for that style, even if it's no kicks below the waist and no punches to the head? (I'm asking because you insisted on that it has to be punches to the head at the beginning of this coversation, but maybe I misunderstood you.).

I'm just trying to define the term "alive".

[treehugger]

Why don't you check out this link. I believe this is the group that coined the term, and therefore will do a much better job of explaining it than I can.

http://www.straightblastgym.com/

[Aikiguy]

Originally Posted by gabbah

Well, in that case TKD should be able to train "alive", simply by sparring full out (resisting opponent) with the attacks allowed for that style, even if it's no kicks below the waist and no punches to the head? (I'm asking because you insisted on that it has to be punches to the head at the beginning of this coversation, but maybe I misunderstood you.).

I'm just trying to define the term "alive".

I think an art can be trained in an alive manner, yet still not be well rounded. I may be stepping on some toes, but take BJJ for example. It has a particular focus and range in which it excels. The way most practitioners train in it makes it work very well; however, it has been integrated by some schools with other arts like boxing or MT, also taught with aliveness, to make a fighting form that is also complete. (Or, as complete as is realistically possible.)

So, I think there are two independent yet equally important aspects - aliveness and completeness. I could also be completely misunderstanding the concept of aliveness too, though

[gabbah]

Originally Posted by Aikiguy

So, I think there are two independent yet equally important aspects - aliveness and completeness. I could also be completely misunderstanding the concept of aliveness too, though

Yeah this was what I was trying to get at I think... You formulated it for me.
I was wondering if "aliveness" is also "completeness". My understanding was that it is not. And that would mean that you can train TKD in an "alive" way without being complete.
Im still reading stuff on the site...

[JkD187]

Originally Posted by gabbah

Yeah this was what I was trying to get at I think... You formulated it for me.
I was wondering if "aliveness" is also "completeness". My understanding was that it is not. And that would mean that you can train TKD in an "alive" way without being complete.
Im still reading stuff on the site...

I train with SBG so ill share what i believe to be aliveness.Aliveness means that what you do has timing energy(resistance) and motion.If your boxing and your standing there in place not using any footwork...then what you are doing is not alive.If you practice a lockflow...with no resistance then its not alive.It needs all three elements to be alive....if its missing any of the three its not alive.Progressive resistance is a big part of Aliveness as well.Progressive resistance is known to us as the I method.For more on aliveness and the I method check out www.roninathletics.com

[gabbah]

Originally Posted by JkD187

I train with SBG so ill share what i believe to be aliveness.Aliveness means that what you do has timing energy(resistance) and motion.If your boxing and your standing there in place not using any footwork...then what you are doing is not alive.If you practice a lockflow...with no resistance then its not alive.It needs all three elements to be alive....if its missing any of the three its not alive.Progressive resistance is a big part of Aliveness as well.Progressive resistance is known to us as the I method.For more on aliveness and the I method check out www.roninathletics.com

Ok, so if we define "what you do" as "hard sparring with kicking and punching to the upper body but not head", and this was practiced with timing energy(resistance) and motion, it could be called "alive"?
That is by no means "complete", but it is "alive", is it not?

[Aikiguy]

Funny how this thread went off in a different direction than I had hoped, but is still just as interesting

To supplement the original question - or maybe simplify it:

Some gyms have found an "ideal system", in the sense that it seems to work against other arts very well, it can be trained effectively, and it can evolve if necessary. Many times this system involves boxing, MT, wrestling, and BJJ. Is this it? Or, can any art maintain its cultural and physical identity yet at the same time be alive and equally applicable?

(Example: Suppose a Ba Gua guy decided to up his striking game a bit. Would the end result be a more effective, direct, "alive" Ba Gua, or would he end up with boxing / MT after a while?)