Weapoms training?

[Guest]

Who thinks that training with the stick and knife etc. (like the Inosanto JKD) really does help develop your unarmed fighting? Can you give reasons for your answers please?

[StraightBlaster]

well, one part of it is that weapons move much faster and cause more damge/pain(if your actually stick sparring)

After allot of stick sparring, empty hands seem slow and not very damaging.

Basicly stick sparring is harder then boxing, so boxing is easier when you go back to it.

[Brokenmace]

Precisely. It also helps with distancing and blade awareness (you never know when some one has a knife; they only look empty handed). And as Vunak has said, it brings out the cat-like movements in a man (to paraphrase). This is better than the sometimes sluggish circling inside a ring.

Also, some of the drills in Kali help develop empty-hand sensitivity. I know, I know "Wing Chun trapping doesn't work" or some other such nonsense. Guess what: it doesn't need to. No one I know was every after execution of complex 5-step traps. They are after the hit. Sensitivity drills help you understand what your arms are doing so when there is an obstruction you can deal with it. Stick training helps with this, in my experience.

Later.

[doubleouch]

Here is a quote from Matt Thornton that touches on the subject. I have heard people say before that training with sticks makes punches look like they are coming at you in slow motion etc. I don't buy it. It doesn't make real sense when you stop and think about it. If you want to learn to defend punches work with sticks?
"There are more "myths" and silly ideas spread in JKD circles then you could shake a Guru certificate at.
First off the idea of training the drills long associated with the FMA such as hubud, sombrada etc, primarily for the "empty hand attributes" makes absolutely no sense when you stop to think about it. What do you think will develop better attributes for empty hand fighting...attributes such as timing, footwork, spatial relationships, flow, rhythm, etc. . . .actually sparring against an "ALIVE" opponent, and , or doing yet another meaningless variation on a dead pattern drill such as box pattern. You don't have to be a genius to figure it out...and yet instructor after instructor, person after person...we constantly hear the same rhetoric about "attributes" and self preservation vs self perfection....etc. "
Also you must re think the notion that there is a difference between being a good "technician" and being a good "fighter". Have you ever heard a Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Instructor say to another "that black belt is a really good technician...but he just cant beat the purple belts in sparring."? Being a good technician in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu means you have a good groundgame in sparring. Not having a good groundgame in sparring means you are not a good technician! Fighting of all sorts, and ranges is the same. The idea that you can be a good technician without being a good fighter is another in a long line of myths that I hope you all come to question.
It's never disrespectful to question the answers, but it's cowardly not to speak the truth for risk of offending the long held JKD myths."

[Brokenmace]

Here I have to question Mr. Thornton's own conclusions. For whatever reason, my experience training in Kali has in fact made me a sharper empty-hand sparrer. Hubud has improved my flow and sensitivity. You can say it hasn't, and I'd simply have to disagree with you. There is no basis for reaching a consensus here. There is just contradiction, unfortunately.

I'd have to agree that drills do nothing for my timing, footwork, or rhythm, though; that is the realm of sparring alone, most likely.

Kali doesn't need myths to survive. It is fun and interesting on its own. Besides, there are certain spatial relationships that come into play when wielding any particular object other than your hands that being ignorant about endangers one in sparring. Especially the way the Dog Brothers do it! The Kali drills help with the development of spatial coordination. I've never heard, seen, or (most importantly) experienced anything that puts this into question.

As for reaction time, it is merely a psychosomatic response to prior stimuli. When you've been training a while with a knife, and someone throws a punch, your pace remains that of a knife-fighter. At least, this is what I have experienced and observed. This is a good thing, since someone on the street may easily have a knife without your knowledge.

I've never experienced this magical slow-motion bit, but I do know that survival stress increases the optical processing speed of the brain. A brandished knife may impart this effect. If it does, the effect may be "wired" into a fighter, who then translates this effect into any combative situation. When the optical nerves are sped up in this way, things appear to happen at a slower rate. Whether this can be "wired" is up for debate and would make an interesting clinical study.

Logic (faulty or not) can be used to justify, refute, or modify any number of past conclusions in practically any way according to the rhetorical skill of the logician. This makes conclusions in articles, books, and speeches little more than theoretical chop suey until the conclusions are observed in action. I rely on personal experience in this matter, and my experience has borne out my own prior conclusions.

I'd also like to know how a student progresses without being shown drills, patterns, or techniques which he can string together and then branched off from without getting hopelessly confused. I've never seen anyone who can be taught simply by getting the crap beat out of them with no other instruction. After all, anything not done at full blast can be described as a "dead pattern" since movements can easily be deduced at slow speed. A straightblast itself is a pattern. I wouldn't bother with an instructor who only seems to derive a malicious glea from pummeling me without explaining the hows and whys. Surely I'm missing something. Surely they teach you basic building blocks before forcing you into a sparring match?

Please explain.

Respect.

[StraightBlaster]

Stick training does make punches seem to move slow, because punches move much slower then the tip of a stick. When you learn to react to stimuli of a certain speed, when you turn down the speed it becomes easier.

If you can keep your cool and defend against a guy trying to knock you out with a big stick then someone trying to knock you out with punches would be much easier to deal with because punches are easier to deal with. You are turning down the difficulty.

This is how stick fighting helps your empty hand fighting.

And its not "If you want to learn to defend punches work with sticks". Improving empty hand skills is just a byproduct of stick fighting. You work with sticks because you want to be able to fight with and against weapons.

Notice i'm not talking about hubud, sumbrada, sinawalli or any of that stuff, just sparring.

[Brokenmace]

Drills have there place, though. While I agree that the most benefit comes from experience in sparring, you still need to know how to spar before you start.

I wouldn't spar with someone who hasn't learned to respect his weapons and the various means of their application. It would be both dangerous and a waste of time.

If you didn't understand basketball, and some one forced you out onto the court to play a one-on-one against Michael Jordan, not only would you not stand a chance, you wouldn't want to come back for more after your humiliation. At least, not without learning the basics. Drills prepare you for the real game.

Even wrestling coaches show locks and footwork before forcing you to roll on the matt. And in order to get good at a lock you must isolate it. To do that is to drill. They do this even in BJJ training.

I'm not saying there are strict rules in stick fighting. But figuring out the "best" way on your own is slower if you drop drills from your training entirely.

[Jerry Wetzel]

Hello,

In reply to the the initial question, I believe any type of fighting has some merit providing you're really fighting (sparring). I believe, and has seen from my students' progress, that there is no better training for the event than the event itself (who said that?) This does not necessarily mean you have to spar hard all the time, just if you want to improve your empty hand game.....work empty hands.
I believe stick fighting, if done with real contact, can improve your empty hand game by building pain tolerance, helping to deal with the adrenalin, or building tenacity. Beyond that, if you develop good reflexes in relation to a stick, you get good at stick fighting.PERIOD. I agree with Straighblaster on this point "....work stick because you want to be able to fight with and against weapons."
As far as stick fighting being harder than boxing.....can't say I agree with that point.
Brokenmace, to whom are you referring with regard to people training without using drills?
There seems to be some confusion as to what a dead pattern is:
" After all, anything not done at full blast can be described as a "dead pattern" since movements can easily be deduced at slow speed. A straightblast itself is a pattern. I wouldn't bother with an instructor who only seems to derive a malicious glea from pummeling me without explaining the hows and whys. Surely I'm missing something. Surely they teach you basic building blocks before forcing you into a sparring match?

Please explain."

Techniques not done at full blast is sometimes referred to as "progressive resistance". Slowing down your sparring or isolating techniques are two examples of this. A "dead pattern" involves a predictable sequence of techniques performed by two people intentionally choreographed to repeat in a set "pattern". Sort of like a two person form.
As far as instructors who prescribe sparring without teaching the basic building blocks, I'm afraid I don't know of any. Do you?

Jerry

[Brokenmace]

No, I don't. And thanks for the clarification. I'm not here trying to tell folks that I've ever trained in a so-called "functional" school. It just sounded like that was what Mr. Thornton was getting at.

As for choreographed two-man forms, I believe they have a place as well. Examples must be shown of how to string together motions, otherwise one's motions become inefficient. That could lead to "hard-wiring" bad habits. Who wants that?

What better way to do this than to practice motions strung together, predictable or not?

At my school we don't stop there, though. We are encouraged to develop our own flow by branching off from what is shown, by taking innitiative.

I've really never seen one of these "two-man" shows played out in a sparring match. It would be rediculous.

How do you train folks in economy of motion?

[doubleouch]

Mace,
The confusion is my fault since I only included part of Matt's interview. He did address your question later in the interview. Mr. Wetzel explains it better than I could. I think results are what counts and if anyone came to Matt's gym you might be suprised to see that everyone can fight, and I mean everyone. The way his classes are run and structured it is impossible to be there long and not learn to fight. There is no way to "fake it" like I've seen at some JKD schools. This is what sold me on training there.

I am a little hesitant to subscribe to his ideas on weapon training yet however. We really don't train them at all. He has some strong ideas about it and makes alot of sense, but I'm not ready to buy it yet.

[Jerry Wetzel]

Mace,

Happy to help clear up any confusion for those who honestly WANT to know. A lot of people completely misunderstand what "aliveness" is all about. As doubleouch can attest, things clear up pretty quickly when you see how it works.
Let's consider some things:

"As for choreographed two-man forms, I believe they have a place as well. Examples must be shown of how to string together motions, otherwise one's motions become inefficient. That could lead to "hard-wiring" bad habits. Who wants that?"

Stringing together motions is fine if you're learning to throw combinations. This is done in boxing, thai boxing, etc. usually on a heavy bag or mitts. When learning a technique or series of techniques, you learn them properly and once you've got it (same day) you apply it against progressive resistance (not the same as full out sparring) When you start playing with choreography however, things move rapidly away from any type of beneficial training. The problem with two man forms is that they have no bearing on reality. Fighting just does not look like that. As far as "hardwiring bad habits", what can be worse than standing in one range while you exchange techniques. Cooperative dancing lacks the real pressure of a fight by it's very nature. This is why most of the techs trained in these drills go out the window at game time. I know about the energy drills etc. I've learned them, I did them, I used to teach them, I don't any more.

"What better way to do this than to practice motions strung together, predictable or not? "

Isolation sparring. Progressive resistance.

"I've really never seen one of these "two-man" shows played out in a sparring match. It would be rediculous."

Yes. It would.

" How do you train folks in economy of motion?"

Economy of motion in what sense? E.O.M. is actualized in a couple ways. I'm assuming you mean with a given tecnique or combination. This can be taught day one. What is important is that whatever you are training comes from a sound foundation. A boxers stance for instance. The technique/combo is isolated to make sure it's learned correctly ( no extraneous motions). Once this is done it can be isolated in actual application (sparring) using progressive resistance. At this point there should be to the point where the technique can still be done properly, say, 3 out of 5 times. Finally, the tech/combo is thrown back into the mix to get a feel for how and where it goes. E.O.M. is not a difficult idea to grasp. Most people get it without much trouble. If they want to perform extra reps, shadow boxing or bagwork can be done in the absence(not instead of) a training partner.


Stay safe
Jerry

[Brokenmace]

I see . . .

It really doesn't sound too much different from the way I was taught.

I don't think my school is quite as "static" as others you may have seen.

When I say economy of motion, I'm not just talking about throwing techniques, however. I'm talking about what to do when your energy is disrupted or blocked. Obstructions have to either be broken, dissolved, or evaded. Learning how to do this is learning economy of motion. And we do learn against resistance.

That is why I still believe in trapping. No one I ever met actually tried to seek a trap. No one I ever met actually tried to perform complex traps. That's not the point of trapping. The point of trapping is to seek to hit. If someone blocks your arms on the way in, whatever you do to remove the block or delay its effectiveness is essentially a trap, and how you do it has to be economical if yo wish to succeed. I'm not talking about Wing Chun here, although I could.

I've made this work. In light of my own experience I don't see how I could be convinced to throw out trapping entirely. It is valuable for the split second that you are in trapping range, and that is all you need in a real fight.

This isn't to say that your way is somehow "bad." It has obvious merrit. There's more than one way to hunt a duck, after all.

[Jerry Wetzel]

Mace,

We have gotten a little off topic. I'm not speaking about how you train. I don't know where you train so that wouldn't be appropriate. I was simply trying to explain what you asked. The whole trapping issue is another can of worms and usually boils down to how one defines the word "trapping". Boxers trap. Kickboxers trap. Grapplers trap. They just don't make a big deal about it. I have a student who is 16 years old and he incorporates trapping in his boxing without ever being taught how to "trap".
My distaste for trapping or weapon training for empty hands has to do with HOW it is trained. Most "energy" or "flow" drills are very inefficient at best. Detrimental at worst.
Again, this is not a criticsm of how YOU train. I don't know how you train. Just some thoughts.

Jerry

[Brokenmace]

Jerry,

Sorry. I digressed a bit, didn't I?

Explain more about this "passive resistance." It sounds like the simple progression we use from "showing" to "telling." In other words, we show the students a combo in offense-defense, then when we're sure they understand the motions and angles, we mix it up and have them go at it harder. The showing is done with the focus mits, which the students mimick. Then a larger number of reps is done with both of the students wearing boxing or bag gloves, moving faster, and throwing mixed up lines. This gets them used to odd angles, half starts, and feints.

Sound familiar?

[Jerry Wetzel]

Mace,

Not sure on the "passive resistance" angle. You'd be better off with a shrink.
"Progressive resistance", on the other hand, sounds pretty similar to what you described. The boxing analogy holds true, but progressive resistance can be used in any range with or without weapons. I only say this because I see so many people who train their boxing athletically, but when it comes to anything else, they want to strangle the life out of it by making up patterns or pre arranging the scenario(ok...I do this, then you do this, so I do this, then you do this...ad nauseum).
Another thing I see too much of is an overemphasis on the isolation or focus mitt phase. Focus mitts are awesome, but there are many folks who are simply "focus mitt martial artists". I'm not talking about beginners either.

Peace,
Jerry