Compliance Issues in Training

Quote :

His view was that drills like these, and the many you see throughout martial training, Filipino, Malay whatever, actually slow down a student's progress, because though you are training some body co ordination and reflexes, there is no context. There is no 'when'? and 'why is this happening'? apparent. He felt that a quicker path was to train valid reactions to real threat, and not just counters to patterns. He also felt that the much bigger questions to answer came before the part where you have your opponent in just the right place to do a nice throw or whatever. He would say "That's just technical" I.e. that's the cake.

interesting Maija

I was just watching this video yesterday on "systems thinking" and how traditional analysis breaks everything down into its component parts... sometimes thats useful but as Sonny taught you: where is the context?

you can "understand" a subject without context, but you cant "DO" anything with that understanding!

the example used is of Business School graduates from University who are useless at DOING business, their training just does not help them at all, in fact it may hinder them!

[quote="Richard Grannon"]

Quote :

I was thinking "Roughness" - so maybe you can move compliantly (I tend to think of "aliveness" as semi sparring, becuase that seems to be how the SBG guys use it) but move with a degree of violent intent and violent movement, on both sides.

Well, Inosanto does teach it in this languid manner that everyone picks up. Some e.g. Rick Young, do really go at it combatively, full power some of the time, but will still practice it this way. One of the attributes is sensitivity to energy (direction and nature of force) that the ex-karate crowd tend not to compute; a mind set that is mid-stream and can change as opposed to all out commitment to one objective. I knew a psycho street fighter who actually swore by this principle. And I've actually taken advantage of that more combative over commitment using the WC against over-commited and strategically questionable JKD/Kali and boxing body mechanics. Although many feel the Kali/silat is the best of all worlds; chinese sneaky clever, with western body mechanics and power.


I argue that actually chi-sao is more combative and alive (wasn't "aliveness" from the TJKD?) than Hubud just like judo has more so than most Ju-jitsu practice. Because (within rules) both can attack at any time with force or finess, and if you find an opening, then the attack is straight in. There's no chopping a continuum up into a dance of 'to-you-to-me' (think I'll call that the Chuckle Brothers syndrome - obscure English cultural ref). The problem with Hubud imo is that without 'sticking', a real opponent will either choose to grab/stick or just explode into a blur of punches and you'll blink, flinch, ignore etc. but you won't be able to see and react or have physical time to block. Hence, Kali/Silat training tends to be pre-arranged aggressive, or chuckle bros free play pat'a'cake. Notwithstanding, it's an efficient way of taking turns at practicing certain precise skills, and some can come out in proper sparring.

to you...

I don't completely agree with this systems theory. In systems engineering you have a black box which you can analyse what's in it, but you give it a 'transfer function' which says what the output is for a given input. What the box does, isn't quite the same as what it can be used for. The same box e.g. principle/technique, could (theoretically) be used for a lot of different things, contexts. But I suppose if you're talking about humans needing context and that's different. Err....

"chuckle brothers syndrome" excellent

yeah man, an engine without a car, still "works" but doesnt go anywhere, a drill can "work" within the context of that drill...

it's like when people say dojo vs realworld.. if you want to get pedantic (and systems thinkingy), the dojo is PART of the real world and therefore every martial arts style and drill "works" perfectly

but claiming it will prepare you for the str33tz is another issue, therein lies the rub

Im really just thinking out loud

all this started off by thinking about and questioining the way US police are given firearms training: just the technical components to clean, load, point and fire a weapon, but usually no context

for the sake of argument: do you think a cop would be better prepared ONLY firing live rounds on a range or ONLY dry firing in live simulations with all the complexity, verbal dialogue, ambiguity, change of range, changes of target etc etc etc

one type is content focussed, one is context focussed- which if you had to would you choose?





(I know a blend of the two would be best, please dont say that )

It's tempting to say just the contextual, as long they don't scream like school girls and run away when their gun goes off. But the details could decide.

The trappy stuff does usually imply devlopement of contact reflex, which can come out irrespective of context. I know of amusing examples of this. I've even had non-WC instructors grab me to demonstrate a move and I've reacted and stuffed them with WC in front of a class - which I had no intention of doing, and to be honest, I wasn't even that good at WC, or necessarily believed it's of any value to me in a fight.

It's all a bit hypothetical and depends on details. Apparently lame drills can be OK, as long as you then pressure test the skill against someone who doesn't do that stuff, to see if it can work on someone who doesn't follow any of your assumptions.

I sparred somewhere once where everyone just got stuck in (quite a few kos) and most didn't really improve. Somewhere else they had boxing drills coming out their ears but no hard sparring. In the short term, the first lot would have won. But the second lot had the tools, and with some 'environmental training' they would have overtaken the first lot I'm sure.

Too many variables for me. It's got to be both (even though that answer's not allowed:) ) Another lie down....

If I had to choose only one, force on force would be it.

Richie, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said roughness.I would consider any training I gave to somebody incomplete if they didnt experiance rough and tough action at the more advanced stages.There should be bruises and cuts and soreness, of course safety first, but a person must get his body innured to being hit, a person needs to learn how to act with and against REAL energy.Those who dont might be shocked at the gross brutality, discomfort and desperation of an actual struggle.better get used to before hand.

I was thinking about this question some today, and the word that kept coming to mind as 'the missing link' in so much training, is 'chaos'.
That's what's missing in the video clip, and what causes more realistic reactions to threat when added to training.
At a gentler level, at least randomness.
Randomness and chaos engage the emotional part of the brain in a way that pre arranged patterns and techniques do not, and perhaps that is why they are better training for reality?
And to your question Richie - context creates content, not the other way round. I vote for context.