IF YOU HAVE THE TIME

If you have the time, i found out by accident that [don't worry, i know alot of you knew this already] when you plan a class around one thing only [in my case--head controls], something really good happens:

-first you get a finite script to follow where you get the awkwardness out of the way
-as the skill set increases you practically don't even have to ask, quite naturally students start resisting in a way that not only fashions a more realistic resistance, but also a good plan B.
[most times this resistance is due to knowing what the training partner is attempting, but this is fine since it add pressure to the drills and forces people to move more quickly and decisively]
-finally, for example, from something that i like, 'moving from a crank to a Bob and Richie-esque spin and drop from holding the chin...with people of different sizes and abilities, you find other possibilities for not being decisive enough. [usually i would hold back on students more, not wanting to wrench their necks, but it was worth exploring anyway--in case that bull necked tall monster presents himself oneday]. in this case, one of my students did exactly the same thing in this practice session that i had to do outside of the training facility--since there are only so many possibilities really. the move isn't so important.

what was important:
that a greater understanding was born of all the possibilities of movement. taking someone off balance, keeping the safer position. learning that these are finishing techniques, etc... you learn more practically how the moves can serve you--when you train for a long long time on one thing until you can't help but want to increase the pressure and see where it leads you.

I think that way of training is much more organic and its pretty old school, if I am to believe the stories I grew up with regarding old school jujitsu, aikdo , tai jitsu training

i like the sound of 'old school'. sometimes i don't know if what i'm doing is where i'm trying to go. they say it's best [they meaning the teacher programs i'm surrounded by in academics] if one sees the end point and teaches backwards. i've been sort of winging it. a student asks..."what if they do this when you are trying that?" and i find myself saying, "i don't know...do it and lets find out". i've ended up demonstrating everything from judo like push/pull leverage, to just fooking biting. but i'll have an answer, and i try to see if they can reach it as well.

the plus side is that i've at least been dogmatic about no theatre shit. what to do when someone grabs your wrist type scenarios they all come walking in with and wanting answers for--fooking hit them, hit them hard. that should do it.

where i differ from the really sound NLP stuff that has, in fact, helped me a great deal is that i tell them:
you may lose, but you'll make such an impression they'll never want to see you again. they'll have won but will go the other direction if they see you in the street. i guess i'm trying to protect their fragility as they grow in pugilism.

i think that by telling my bunch of worry worts that, they stop wondering if they can do it, or putting all there energy into unconvincingly thinking they will win when deep down inside they really haven't convinced themselves they can do it yet. it's a set up for a mind fook at this stage. i will change the philos when i see them really getting more confidence, but so far i've noticed it takes the edge off of winning, and onto inflicting maximum damage and pain.

this should have probably been put in psychology, but i didn't see making an extra thread for my free flow nutter speak. burp.

Hi Russell Sage,
Nice to interact with you again ...
You said: "... i will change the philos when i see them really getting more confidence, but so far i've noticed it takes the edge off of winning, and onto inflicting maximum damage and pain."
Very interesting. So do you believe that thinking about 'winning' adds a level of self consciousness that impedes progress? Or is it just the conflict between thinking something and really not believing it that causes the problem?
I guess in the end they are probably the same thing .... ego issues, but I am curious, as a learning process, how competing with someone else versus competing with yourself compare?

Quote :

where i differ from the really sound NLP stuff that has, in fact, helped me a great deal is that i tell them:
you may lose, but you'll make such an impression they'll never want to see you again. they'll have won but will go the other direction if they see you in the street. i guess i'm trying to protect their fragility as they grow in pugilism.

thats a commonly held belief amongst the effective practitioners of "blood and snot jitsu" that Ive met over the years who I have modelled - so the NLP of instilling that belief is good mate- just be careful with the post hypnotic command "you may lose,but"

hypnotic language patterns try and avoid getting the unconscious to consider anything other than what you want the subject to focus on,

sample hypnotic langauge patterns for teaching

"you may find yourself following your SOPs perfectly calmy and confidently and either escaping the situation with cunning and psycholigical deception, if it does go physical you may find yourself suprised at how simple and effective it is to stop your opponent sticking to the simple tactics we drill in here AND (rather than but) if you do get under more pressure you can feel confident that whatever happens you will give a good account of yourself."

the linguistics of "win" and "lose" are tricky too, I tend to avoid using them in teaching, it implies a "game", an ego battle and that there are only two options: "winning" or "losing"

what is "winning" in the students mind?
are they creating some scene at an internal representation level of what winning is that is going to be hard to live up to OR likely to cause them to over react?

if they dont end up with their foe inert and bleeding at thier feet will they feel like they havent "won"?

like good urban ninjas we need to keep it grey and avoid black and whites

instilling the aggressive belief of giving a good account of yourself no matter what is healthy and as you say Russ will feel more believable to new students who, rightly, dont trust their abilities yet.

we dont want to crush them, we dont want to over pump them, its a tightrope walk

Mr. Grannon--i have to read your response on my work break [drat going to work] ...i'm sure it will factor into my re-thinking things. but i haven't changed my initial response to maija because i'm rushing off to work [and am curious to see how it contrasts]...and i don't want to review yours too quickly. below is what i wrote just prior to your entry///




likewise maija--and hiya,
i like your gage, both conflicted feelings and the pressure and expectation to win
when the game is so early on.

personally, i believe that competing against oneself is the highest kind of 'training'.
i have a slight OCD when it comes to physical movement. obsessive would be under
stating it. i ran for 2 hours after my mum's suggestion i go running [at 2yrs] round
a pool. only after she realized it, did you suggest that i do something different.
that compulsion, however, i [late teens] combined with a philosophy that only competing
against oneself would bring anything significant.

when i was 18 [i find it hard to believe now since i could never repeat it now] i could do
500 push-ups in one go [with that OCD and philosophy in tact--ignoring what other people
suggested was an impressive feat...probably 100?]
1000 push-ups

once i started, i couldn't stop 'bettering' my last numbers. it was a burden, and quite nightmarish
for the time invested in the runs, etc...but i still believe it is critical to growth to keep simply
setting yourself on your last personal best without any expectation of perceived limits. i had the
advantage of my OCD personality--if it can be called an advantage. i wasn't able to do as much
with my weight lifting [to my great dissatisfaction] since my body was not meant to take the great
poundages i imagined they should. i'd be benching for 3 hours at a stretch. in the end i was a 'good'
weight lifter but a better martial artist.

having said all that.
when it comes to a fight, i think the reverse is true. it only matters that you win--even if you had to
bite, throw sand, poke and eye or whatever. my ego would love it if i could outpunch, outkick, out
maneuver a guy and beat him at his own level of prowess [sp?] but the stakes are simply too high.
that's for the sports arena [again, in my opinion]. i think one has only one of two options--either to take
one's humility down to zero [no expectations] and think of just going for damage and survival like some
desperate rat that goes for the balls of a bigger predator like a dog or raise yourself to a level of
'unlucky you, you should never have left the house'. i think either stance has to factor into someone's personality. like the samurai--who have seen their own death already before engaging, or the killing
machine assuming only success [Bob Spour and Richie type folks who already "KNOW" the outcome].

again, my opinion. don't want to seem apodictic about it, just that two opposites often have a profound way of being mostly true. my inferrence is from the ashram. the prototypes comes from the personalities
i've met that became great swamis. they either saw themselves as 'kittens in the lap of god' or 'god himself'.

what are your thoughts?

Wow. nice response Richie.
as an aside, i've had this conversation over my choice of wording--linguistically,
as it relates to my health lessons in PE. "now class, which food is BAD, and which
is GOOD", instead of making a spectrum that approaches greater health.

now i'm revisiting it. i've often thought about the psychological affects of wording
in a dualistic society. the wars waged by way of classism, etc... but i do in fact
use win/lose dualistic thought, even as i hope to distance myself from competition
minded thought. and i admit that i have wondered about offering the idea of losing
and it's willingness to be incorporated on more fragile minds who may be, as of yet,
unable to invision success by their own hands.

very appropriate food for thought. an example of me in my ivory tower not being
completely aware of holism by way of wording. secure all the fronts, right. the weak
link is the seed of doubt. i'll fix it--and i'll save your alternate quote. i like thinking of the
grey tight rope walk. my highest objective is not to set them up as i've been mislead by
previous erronious ideas fashioned in dojos and not on the pavement.

cheers again

Apparently it is impossible for me to use the 'quote' function on this forum so am left with the simpler ..
Richie said:
'the linguistics of "win" and "lose" are tricky too, I tend to avoid using them in teaching, it implies a "game", an ego battle and that there are only two options: "winning" or "losing"'

Sonny had a large sign on the wall of his living room where we worked out - I have it on my wall now - it says:
"The idea is NOT about competition/tournament. NO bullshit ........ This is a warning!!"
He was talking about the ego issues that come from wanting 'to win' and the problems of keeping an open mind and learning new things if you think you are 'losing'.

OK, so here's something that may or may not make any sense, but I know you guys are up for it .....
I was thinking about this idea of winning and ego, a what it meant in both training and fighting, and I started thinking about the different mindsets developed in different martial arts.
The ones I know most about are the Chinese 'Internals', Toyama Ryu and Eskrima.
Tai Chi is kinda about 'Your energy is my energy, your weight is my weight, we are one person moving ... except I am the one directing it'
Hsing-I is more like 'You are inhabiting the space I want, it's mine and I am taking it'
Bagua has elements of both
Toyama Ryu seems more personal, sort of - 'I will crush your spirit, strike you down and bring honor to my family'
Eskrima seems to contain all the elements above.
What is interesting to me is that the Internals almost negate the concept of an opponent. I've even heard my Bagua teacher refer to Bagua fighting tactics as 'garbage collection' - Anything you want to give me, I'll take it ... just not in the way you intended.
I was wondering whether training in this way fostered a different mindset when fighting?

The other thing I have noticed is that in weapons training, swords in particular, the better you get, the more you look at the gaps between the weapons as opposed to weapons themselves. The negative space becomes more important. I wonder if this affects the brain in any way, especially with regard to focus, ego, etc ......

hey Russ

you can still use the dualistic/duelistic "win-lose" paradigm and not be sinking into tournament mode - it can be street/survival applicable for sure

and in truth I have used that mindset myself with good effect over the years, as I have also used pure combat sports techniques over the years during "bar brawls" and "scraps"- the last couple of fights I've been in recently though you would have watched and thought "Ah Richie has definitely WON that"
but Im still not sure about my performance
if they had been arguments I "won" by the equivalent of shouting louder than the other person, which is fine, but after so long of training and being an instructor I'm really looking for something more... this is a developing philosophy/training methodology that Im working on right now that is sort of "COmbatives Advanced" so I cant say too much about it

Also in context, you are teaching in an AMerican high school and I have my own prejudicial ideas about AMerican culture vis a vis the psychosis of "winners" and "losers" which I know you will have come across in the ashram days- this prejudice might not be relevant in this context though, I dunno

Maija

Quote :

OK, so here's something that may or may not make any sense, but I know you guys are up for it .....
I was thinking about this idea of winning and ego, a what it meant in both training and fighting, and I started thinking about the different mindsets developed in different martial arts.
The ones I know most about are the Chinese 'Internals', Toyama Ryu and Eskrima.
Tai Chi is kinda about 'Your energy is my energy, your weight is my weight, we are one person moving ... except I am the one directing it'
Hsing-I is more like 'You are inhabiting the space I want, it's mine and I am taking it'
Bagua has elements of both
Toyama Ryu seems more personal, sort of - 'I will crush your spirit, strike you down and bring honor to my family'
Eskrima seems to contain all the elements above.
What is interesting to me is that the Internals almost negate the concept of an opponent. I've even heard my Bagua teacher refer to Bagua fighting tactics as 'garbage collection' - Anything you want to give me, I'll take it ... just not in the way you intended.
I was wondering whether training in this way fostered a different mindset when fighting?

nice break down! nerd heaven! lol! Silat instructor Chris Parker who've Ive only had the pleasure of training with a handful of times says "we buy but we never sell" similar to the Bagua teacher "anything you want to give me I will take"- this is very different to everything I teach and different to most "combatives" systems, could be a missing element- I had a convo with Chris recently and we discussed "penetration" and "intimacy" in martial arts (not sexual technique) and it got me thinking how Combatives is a pretty blunt tool- which is fine for its general usage purpose, but if we forget its a blunt tool...
well we can "win" fights but still not be happy with the performance

damn this got deep quick

geek heaven

i was just late to teaching one of my classes trying to respond to this.
i had a complete brain fart and showed up--message not sent, 15 minutes
late. erm, sorry kids, traffic. ah snot, i forgot, sorry.

the two things that really inspired me to respond:
-garbage collector
-i'm not going to respond the way you intended me to

why?

-i love the term idea of a garbage collector for two reasons
1. they are the garbage to be quickly assorted and dispenced without
emotion--probably not the intended meaning
2. i have a garbage collection of techniques that don't follow a predictable
pattern because they work; and they don't follow a predictable pattern.

it conjures up bull riding where the ego of physical strength is out the window,
but rather replaced by sharp mental strategy and knowledge of physical movement
and how to ride it out. i picture fred astaire dancing with jerry lewis, only with
blood, snot, and concussions. it still reaks of ego--the chess player sort, but chucks
all that muscle minded male stuff out and probably aids in focus.
having said all that, i can't deny that my repackaging of thuggery is in fact a
calculated strategy to mirror back what is feared the most and increases the perception
of risk in my attacker--now turned strategically defender, rendering their confidence
and ensuing skill depletion [i hope] to that of a metaphorical deflating lilo [in theory]. all that to say that it is at least partly an act that i play into, but i also believe that many thugs are also acting and that
i have to be the better method actor--with all the appropriate prepatory training of course.

exhaling now

the 2nd bit about not responding in a way that was intended conjures up a lesson that changed
my style of training--actually one of two events.
a guy i used to work with on a carpentry site used to brag alot about being ranked 2nd [can't remember
now] in his country for martial arts [in south america, and i can't remember which country]. he used to
drink and smash boards, and i think he started accepting me as almost human when i reacted strongly to
his lack of permission to use me as a demonstration dummy around the other after work drinkers [myself among them]. i'm guessing he could have beaten me, rolled me in glue, and then sprinkled feathers on me--if all the real fights he often blabbed about were true. but now i was a fighter in his mind, not up to his grand level of course, but not a wet roll of toilet paper either. he said one thing that
i took with me and liked.
"i've been good at fighting because no really is prepared for how i'm going to receive them"

it made sense to me, i became less annoyed with him after that because the thought penetrated my
subconcious and opened up another train of thought for me. i now still carry elements of that when i
often teach to do the counter intuitive things because your attacker's entire existance is built around bracing themselves for natural responses.

meaning, for example, someone grabs you from behind in a sleeper [bad example but now i'm rushing] a counter intuitive response might be leaning into them, sinking down, then using the created space to turn into them and start firing punches. it's counterintuitive because you aren't strugging to move away
from them, or to raise up on your toes, or to get that strong arm from around your neck. instead you're reacting like you're trying to get closer. sort like the weird advice of sticking your arm deeper in a dog's mouth [which i, in fact, would not do...just because it's a wee bit too weird for me].

Russell Sage said: ".... i can't deny that my repackaging of thuggery is in fact a
calculated strategy to mirror back what is feared the most and increases the perception
of risk in my attacker--"

Absolutely! It is so interesting to see what will throw somebody off their game. And you comment about acting ... again, couldn't agree with you more!!
My Eskrima teacher had 2 main things he wanted people to learn to improve their sword work - salsa dancing and to tell a convincing lie (body, words and emotions) i.e. acting.
He was a superb mimic, and could mirror anyone's movements who he played with. As it turns out, we all have a natural rhythm - if you've ever watched video footage of yourself training and sparring you will see what I mean - and if you can find the other person's rhythm, you can also f#ck with it. And again, this is not just physically, but mentally also ........

Fred Astaire and Jerry Lewis combative dancing eh..? I'll have to think on that some more !

Richie: Your Silat teacher sounds interesting