|
Matt Thornton discussion
His name crops up a fair bit, so I thought I'd start a thread. 
I used to disagree with him a fair bit, I'm still sure that he's somewhat missed the point over Chi Sao and "Wing Chun Trapping". However, I've begun to agree more and more with him once I gave up Wing Chun and started doing MMA and BJJ. Coincidence? Brainwashing with the evils of "sport" martial arts? Or realisation that he's got something close to the truth?
Here are two of his articles, entitled "Aliveness 101" and "Why Doesn't Everyone Train Alive?":
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php...article&id=212
http://www.bullshido.net/modules.php...article&id=211
I once tried to make the argument that Chi Sao is NOT alive, and I stand by that. Because as a whole, chi sao encompasses a vast array of different drills, and also doc sao and gor sao. *Even* gor sao is not alive, because it always returns back to the poon sao roll, which is a set pattern.
Another issue is that chi sao cannot cover all "ranges" of fighting.
Comparing this to something I did a while ago in MMA, enter from outside contact, clinch, pummel and takedown. Interesting really, as it covered more aspects of fighting a few weeks in than chi sao covered 1 year in. There was also no set pattern, no poon sao, and we never even began with static footwork like you would in chi sao.
IME, the progression in chi sao went something like:
0-6 months: No/little chi sao, usually only single hand (dan) chi sao
6-9 months: Chi Sao, mostly poon sao (the rolling hands), no footwork
9-12 months: Using techniques in chi sao, some footwork
12-24 months: Doc Sao ("asking questions", more footwork, more techniques
24 + months: Gor Sao (free use of technique, "free fighting")
Contrast with BJJ where it took 3 lessons to get into rolling, and the enter/clinch/pummel/takedown training described above in MMA which gets worked from a similar time in.
IMO, Kung Fu relies on you having to rewire your brain to movements that aren't natural, whereas the "sport" martial arts modify movements and positions that we would do normally (ie clinching, and ground positions). Because of this, it takes longer and longer for "Alive" training to get introduced into "traditional" arts.
If you introduce alive training too early on, the results you will get will not represent the art.
OK, here's the articles. The second is probably better than the first IMO.
In particular, this made me think a lot when I first read it:
"Can you see that the self which says "I don’t train for sport, I train for the street", is the same self that is fearful of measurement through performance."
I like certain parts of his philosophy. In particular, I like the way that he says you can only be judged on performance- that's all that matters. Personally, it suits me, even though I'm not really a competitive person.
Quote:
I have traveled literally all over the world over the last several Years. And it has been a great privilege for me to do so. The reason for my travels have been seminars, and regardless of where I am I always start them the same way. I explain that my main message, the thing I am most interested in sharing with people, with communicating effectively, is the message of Aliveness.
Occasionally I am asked why I bother? Why not just teach some functional fighting skills, and leave it at that. Why explain the process? Why discuss the differences? In short, why is Alivenes the main message?
And my answer to that can be summed up in four words. . it is SO healthy!
When our intentions regarding the activity we are engaging in are clear, honest, and open, then that 'thing' (activity-event) becomes incredibly healthy.
It is about Authenticity.
In other words, if someone says "I do Tai Chi because I find it a relaxing form of moving meditation". . . .I say, rock on! In fact, I might even join them.
However, if someone says "no need for Doctors Tai Chi will cure your cancer." Then I may need to question that. And that questioning is also incredibly healthy. Likewise, if they say "Tai Chi will serve as a wonderful form of self defense". . .then I will also want to question that. Both those claims, 'cures cancer', and 'good for self defense', are verifiable within objective reality. And as such, if we are really interested in Truth with the capitol T, then not only should we question those statements, I believe we have an obligation to.
I think that is common sense. When we don't question such statements within ourselves, and accept them solely at face value, then we find ourselves lost, deceived, and often hurt.
Granted, one of those things (cures cancer) may be far more serious then the other. But both are equally irresponsible, and I never claimed to have the most 'serious' job. Just a blessed one.
So let me be clear about what I mean when I say 'question'.
We come to the question of speaking publicly on it. And to be clear, I don't advocate that for everyone. In fact, the only thing I believe matters is that we are honest within our own self about our own intentions. And that we remain skeptical, and question all forms, and statements of authority. . .for ourselves.
Whether or not someone then goes out and speaks to others about their findings is an individual thing. I can only say I am really-really grateful that some people do.
I think of the Amazing Randi, who has been debunking charlatans like Uri Geller for well over 30 Years. His writings had a great impact on me when I was a teenager. I remember watching Uri Geller on television and feeling like something was just not 'right'. And his book helped validate my own critical thinking on the matter.
And Lord knows that if this world could use a little more of something, then 'critical thinking' would rank VERY high on that list. Just under Love and Compassion, in my opinion.
I felt much the same about Martial Arts as I think Randi and many others felt about the scams of Uri Geller. I felt like I had been deceived, whether intentionally, or through ignorance. But deceived either way. And that is never a good way to feel. And it can, and does, happen to us all. Uri Geller deceived a large pool of highly educated scientists at the Stanford Research Institute, using what amounted to poor magic tricks. Just as thousands of people have been deceived by fraudulent Martial Arts, only to find out later that what they where being taught might in reality get them hurt. Especially if they believed it worked! (Witness the first few UFC's for an example).
Did they want to believe, or where they just naive?
I have a good friend who recently sat in on an interview with a major Martial Arts figure. This man being interviewed is known as one of the leading authorities in "pressure points". . .which he claims are hidden within 'katas'. When asked why we don't see this amazing pressure point knock outs in full contact sports, he said "they have been banned". When pressed as to why that would stop a grappler from striking a point on the body which was legal within most sports, he said "well you have to hit three points almost at the sametime, and it depends on what time of day it is!". I am paraphrasing from memory, but I promise the exact quotes would be equally absurd. He then explained how these points are different on men and woman, and which order they need to be struck. My friend then asked, "what if the guy you are fighting was gay? Would you use the male points, or the female points?" And this person sat very still for a moment, and then he said "use the female points."
Sadly, he was deadly serious.
This man then went on to explain how you can knock someone down using just a sound. . .which he began to make. My friend emulated the sound, and then asked, "If I was in that corner of the room making this sound, and someone else was in the other corner making this sound, would you consider it a mass attack?" After some thought the man answered, "yes".
And no, I am not kidding.
So I still see Aliveness as the core message.
When Aliveness is compromised on, the entire structure falls apart. This happens because Authenticity is lost. And the results are not healthy.
But when Aliveness is maintained, then everything else seems to come right in the end. And once the proper methods for drilling and Coaching are added in, the sky is really the limit in terms of potential.
So having stated that, I will start off this BLOG with a basic Aliveness Q & A. These answers have been gathered over many Years, and all these questions have been asked many hundreds of times. This section details the answers we have given, time and time again.
-Enjoy
"In considering whether being Alive is good, we must realize that what matters is not what the mind thinks about being, but only the experience of being. And this experience can only be had when the mind is not."
- Robert Powell
* * *
What is Aliveness?
Aliveness is timing, energy, and motion.
What do you mean by timing, energy, & motion?
for something to be truly alive in what we do then it has have three key elements, movement, timing, and energy (resistance). If you are missing any one of these then it is not Alive.
Movement means real footwork, not contrived, not in a pattern.... on the ground it means exactly that also... movement.... if the person is just laying there, not moving as you apply your lock or move....that is not Alive. In the clinch its the same... .pushing, pulling, moving.
Timing is of course just that.... if its in a predictable rhythm, a pattern, a repeatable series of sets, then you are not acquiring or developing timing, just motion speed.
And of course energy.... swing the stick like someone would really swing it.... dont stop at centerline. Punch with the energy of someone who wants to hit you. Not locking your arm out so your partner can look good doing the destruction, or trap, or silat sweep, etc.
You must move, have a sense of timing, and progressive resistance
Why do you place so much emphasis on this point as opposed to others?
Aliveness is everything. If a person grasps the principle and truly understands what is mean by it. . then they can never be ********ted again . Thats why I emphasize it so much. I am also constantly being asked....whats better.... this or that. . this style or that style....why don't you do this drill anymore...why do you say this doesn't work.... The answer to all those questions is Aliveness........so once they grasp what that means then about one thousand and one of their questions are answered for them. It's everything.
However, if someone wants to collect a certificate from a well known "Sifu", or look cool doing two person forms, then they will not care or pay attention to the concept of Aliveness.
Why do people then find the Aliveness concept so difficult to accept?
I think that is because when some people start to train Alive, and expose their students to Alive training, they often have to throw out a major portion of the curriculum they learned before. This is because it is shown to not work when applied against a resisting opponent. And Aliveness gauges that very quickly.
All of the sudden the premium is placed on performance. And Arts that perform well. . .boxing, wrestling, Judo, Muay Thai, BJJ, and others, become the base.
What is the distinction between "delivery systems", & personal "style"?
"Style" is always very individual.Each fighter has his/her own "style". And it's aquired only through sparring and Alive training. In that action against a resisting opponent the athlete discovers how to make the delivery system work for them. That is their "style".
However, Delivery Systems always remain fairly constant, regardless of the individual body.
In other words, there is a proper way to put on a rear naked choke. And as long as humans have the same design to their bodies, that 'technique' will remain the same. That choke is an example of "delivery system".
That is why the typical JKDC method of a buffet aproach, picking and choosing from many arts regardless of the delivery system, is such a poor idea. Without solid skill in the basics of the delivery systems of stand up, clinch, and ground, you will not be able to fight, or apply any of the information. Sticking to the simple basics, drilling Alive, and sparring, is the only way we have found to aquire real functional skill.
Delivery systems can be tested, and it's obvious what works and what does not. MMA has shown the boxing, wrestling, and BJJ delivery systems to be of great value. So the delivery systems fighters choose tend to all be the same. Someone trained in say 'silat', without that background in the functional delivery systems mentioned above, would be unable to compete in MMA. They cannot defend themselves against such opponents.
However, each fighter naturaly develops their own style, as they practice, drill, spar, and fight. No two BJJ fighters are the same, yet they all use the same delivery system. No two boxers are the same, yet they all use the same delivery systems.
It's all very simple and clear.
But isn't ALL just up to the individual.
There are no superior delivery systems are there?
There is a proper way to perform a rear naked choke that will allow you to achive the desired results as quickly and efficently as possible. This is simply a reality. Likewise, we there is a proper way to throw a right cross. Their may be many variations of 'how' it is thrown. . .this is 'style' and every boxer will have his own. But the fundamental body mechanics, such as rotation of the hips, are based on the laws of gravity and motion, and this is the delivery system.
Whether people choose to acknowledge that reality does not change the truism.
As an example, everyone who teaches functional ground fighting these days is incorporating the guard, mount, etc. They may call it Submission wrestling, but, it's the same delivery system.
Since the Brazilians brought that delivery system to prominence I feel it's important for me to give them credit. But ultimately, the name of the style is not important. The reality that the delivery system is backed by principles of leverage and timing, and works against resisting opponents; that is what is important.
Can you give me a better example of what you mean when you say 'delivery system'?
Sure, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu could be called a 'style'. Shooto could be called a 'style'. But, if you took a close look at two of the top players, as an example I will say Rumino Sato of Shooto, and Renzo Gracie of BJJ, then you would see that they are using the same delivery system. They both train the same positions, guard, mount, crossides, head and arm, etc. The same submissions, armbars, leg locks, chokes, etc. And the same types of drills, passing the guard, drilling leg locks, etc. So they essentially train in the same delivery system. So the Shooto, BJJ name becomes moot at that point.
Without that delivery system neither one would be as good of a fighter on the ground. That is just a fact. Imagine if Sato didn't know what the guard was, or could never hold that position, or if Renzo didn't train his escapes from mount.
So a delivery system is just that, a system of body mechanics, or movements.
Here is another example, both JJ Machado and Rigan Machado teach Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. If you asked them to teach you a shoulderlock from mount position I am sure they would both teach you the same method of delivery. How to set your weight, hold position, crank the joint, etc. That is because there is a best known way to do this. That may not be the politically correct thing to say, but it is the truth.
Now as far as 'style' goes. Both have a totally different style. Rigan is slow and crushing, and works an amazing top game that makes you feel like a crushed bug. JJ has a fast, machine gun like, attacking game from the guard. JJ puts the word active into his guard game in a whole new way. So they both have very different styles, but the same delivery system.
Then to clarify, by your definition what is a 'style'?
Good question. A style is an individuals personal method of application of a delivery system.
It is worth knowing that you cannot develop a personal style unless you train Alive, or at the very least. . .spar.
So how do you develop your own "style"?
It is not a matter of taking different pieces from different arts, (the Concepts method), or learning an imitating someone else's style, (the Original method).
Rather, it is a matter of learning the basic delivery systems and then training Alive. That process is JKD. And not everyone gets that.
Can there be real JKD without Aliveness?
No, without Alive training you cannot really develop your own game, your own "style". And not reaching a level where you have your own style equals not doing JKD.
JKD is not a matter of tracing your lineage back to a certain person. And it's not a matter of having some ink printed on a piece of paper from Kinkos. Nor is it a matter of accumulating a mass of dead pattern drills, or chi sau skill. Doing JKD is a matter of reaching a point in fighting where you begin to develop your own personal 'style' in all ranges of combat. That can ONLY be done through Aliveness. That is just the reality of things, and it's a lack of understanding about this point that has lead to all the confusion.
Why do you think there are a lot of Instructors that are still not teaching with Aliveness?
Two reasons. One is they don't know how yet. They honestly just don't know exactly what Aliveness is. Two is fear. They are smart enough to know what Aliveness is, but the curriculum that such a principle would demand is something they are scared to get into 100% of the time. They have too much they would need to throw away, or stop teaching. They have a position or reputation that they have spent Years developing, and they feel like they have come to far to step back and admit that perhaps they where wrong in the past, and that there is a better way. That's to bad, because that attitude prevents growth, and produces fear. Fear leads to anger, and that anger comes out as a defensive reaction. You have to be willing to let go.
So there is such a thing as superior delivery systems?
Let me give you another example, lets use a hip throw. You can find the hip throw in Freestyle wrestling, Greco Wrestling, Judo, Jiu-Jitsu, Sambo, Mongolian Wrestling, Icelandic wrestling, swedish wrestling, and Chinese wrestling, just to name a few. But, the Delivery System for the hip throw, or 'hip toss' always remains the same. The mechanics of the move are essentially, always the same, a back step, level change, hip bump, and toss. Why? Because there is a proper way to do it. And every Art that trains Alive in throwing has found it.
I could go on and on with examples, but hopefully you see the point. Without the delivery system you cannot become familiar with the range, and thus you cannot effectivly realize the goal of JKD, to become effective at all ranges.
Whether you choose to call that delivery system BJJ, Shooto, or wolverine style, is redundent, not because it's been posted before, but because it is a semantic, and not a real difference.
Yes, but not everyone can be a good fighter? What about those that say you can be a good technician without necessarily being a good fighter.
Think about it... how can you be a good technician if you can't fight? It doesn't make any sense. You don't say... hey that guy is a good boxing technician... but when he spars he just gets mauled everytime. Or that wrestler is a good technician, but his takedowns suck... or that Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu guy is a good technician, but he cant fight on the ground at all. If you said that you would sound insane. But people say that in JKD all the time. Its another in a long line of myths.
You can be a tough fighter without being technical, due to aggresion, size, explosiveness, strength, etc. But you cannot be a good technician without being able to fight, its impossible.
Its similar to when people tell me they think I have taken the Art out of Martial Arts... that its all about fighting only with us... I reply, Art of what?
The Art is in the performance, the doing. Art is in the performance, sharing, and experience of the training itself.
Also, anyone can be a fighter. A good coach can show anyone of even moderate to low athletic ability and intelligence what it takes to become a good fighter. Now, not everyone may then want, or need, to make the sacrifices necessary to get to that level of performance.
If all you train are basics, then wont you be training only for the short term objective of 'performance'?
There is no such thing as "advanced" techniques in fighting.
The same armbar Rickson Gracie uses, is the same armbar a white belt with one month in uses. The same triangle choke, the same elbow escape, etc. The difference between 'advanced' technique, and 'beginner' technique, is simply the timing, tightness, and efficiency of the movement.
The same holds true for wrestling. The same double leg 6 years olds are taught in pee-wee wrestling class is the same double leg the olympic level "experts" use.
In Judo experts of the Art spend lifetimes perfecting two or three of the "basic" throws. Yes, the exact same throws taught to all beginners.
Lennox Lewis doesn't throw an "advanced" left hook. . .same basics, same basics, same basics. Fundamentals, that is what ALL functional fighting arts offer.
Fundamentals done really well. . . .those are advanced techniques.
If all you have are basics, what can you offer others?
The answer is = everything.
But I don’t believe in throwing a new person in over their head and having them spar in the first few months of training?
Yes, we don't usually suggest throwing a new person into sparring. There are far better methods.
Is such and such Art functional?
My message and that of the Gym is Aliveness.
If you understand that message, and what Aliveness means then you can look at any Art and see right away if the training methods they use will be at all functional. As such, there is no need for any of us to single out specific Arts or Instructors, nor is that the point.
First things first.
My Instructor say's Kata training is usefull.
Do you see use in Kata, forms, or Djurus?
None, in fact it's most likley to be counter-productive.
Well since boxers hit bags, and football players run tires, don't you believe you need a mixture of both Alive & dead training?
What you are describing is not what we would call a "dead" drill, but rather a set of conditioning excercises.
Yes, you can lift weights, and then train with Aliveness and be highly skilled. You can also run tires, jump rope, do wind sprints, practice Yoga (I am a big believer in that), and a host of assorted other conditioning drills, and if combined with a combat sport, yes, you can be highly skilled.
But, if you are going to train an activity specific movement designed for 'fighting', then you need to train movements that are functional and will work against aggresive, resisting attackers. And when training those movements with another human being, you need to make that training Alive. *(see 'I' method)Otherwise your training will not translate under pressure.
But people lift weights, run tires, etc, to develop attributes, so why not do sombradra, hubud, kata, or two person forms for that reason?
Lifting weights is a conditioining drill. It will enhance you fighting skill, because it makes you stronger, and in better shape. It will not teach you how to do an armbar better. That requires an Alive opponent. That is what "isolation dilling" is for. In order to develop functional fighting skill you have to invest in thousands of hours Alive drilling against a resisting opponent. That is why it is important to seperate conditioning drills, from sports specific training. Athletes don't become confused, they know the distiction, but Martial Artists often do. There in exists the problem.
Sombrada as an example is not taught as a 'conditioning drill', it is taught as a sports specific drill. It has been alleged by those that teach it that it is the first stage used to teach people to fight with a stick. It is not sports specific because it does not apply directly when you spar. . .the way an armbar does in BJJ. You don't teach an "armbar flow drill" to enhance attributes, and then when it comes time to spar the armbar say. . .okay now we have to make these changes to make the armbar work. Again, that would be counter productive. That is one of the many reasons why Sombrada, as it is often taught, is not and Alive, or sport specific drill.
You could attempt to make the aurgument that it can be used to "enhance other attributes" which many people attempt to do, but why learn something the wrong way in order to enhance attributes. It is not rational.
How would you teach someone with zero experience how to stick fight then? As an example, how to enter and counter off a forehand or backhand swing?
1) Demonstrate a move that I feel will get them there. As an example a cover an crash.
2)Have both people gear up, (as little gear as possible). Have one party swing a forehand at the other. . .starting slower, but pulling through with the strike. Again progressive resistence.
As this is done the other person attempts to perform the skill you are trying to coach...in this case, cover and crash without eating the blow. As they get better we increase the resistance, and add a back hand. Within 5-10 minutes this should lead to one side feeding a random forehand or backhand, while the other side attempts to cover and crash.
After about 15-20 minutes we would probably just finish with some sparring if this is where the particpants want to go with it. The level of intensity and type of equipment used there would depend on the level the Athlete was comfortable with.
This is how we coach armbars, jabs, kicks, double leg takedowns, sprawls, and stickfighting.
It's the first stage of drilling and we refer to it as the:
I method
Introduce (should only take a few minutes, if not it is probably to complicated for the participants)
Isolate (Isolation sparring in an Alive way)
Incorporate (Add into your total game)
Nobody needs to gets hurt, there are no memorized patterns, no contrived footwork, it's all random and real. When they move to the sparring 'stage', nothing needs to be 'tweeked' or modified, because they where trained correctly from day one. There is nothing to fix. There is no box pattern. It's fun, and students like it.
As an experiment, or just for a change of pace, try this:
Teach one group of students using sombrada/hubud progressions, and then work them through all the different 'stages' you have to sparring. And, at the same time have another group that just drills completely Alive, as I described above. No patterns, no hubud, no B.S., just sparring drills against progressive resistence. Then have them spar each other. The results should interest you, and more then anything else make my point.
But not everyone will respond to 'I' method drilling right away will they? Don't some people need to be walked through dead patterns first?
If you are making the assumption that 'drills' must be done in a pattern, please look at that assumption. They do not. Furthermore, you gain little value from the drill in terms of any attributes, beyond introducing a movement, when you are operating within a pattern*. To actually "drill" correctly there must not be a contrived pattern, and there is no reason to start with one beyond ignorance born out of 'tradition'.
*(note: by contrived pattern I am speaking specificly of a two person form. I do this, you respond with that, etc. Sometimes good combinations are linked, but when we 'drill' we want to work those combos against a resisting opponent. Otherwise there is no timing, and we are still at the "I"ntroduction stage of the game.)
You are not developing sensitivity until you throw away the pattern. In other words. . .you cannot get and increased sense of 'timing' from hitting a wooden dummy, or a stuffed bag. You can get 'sport specific' repetitions in on the stuffed bag. And that will help you build the heart, and muscles which propel the tool. And help you remember combinations. But, it will never give you any type of 'timing', because it is not "Alive".
Sensitivity. . .is nothing but 'timing' applied to 'tactile sense'. . .again, you need another human for this. You cannot get sensitivity from a wooden dummy, or heavy bag, anymore then you can can get 'timing' from a wooden dummy and heavybag.
There are a hundred thousand ways to gain true sensitivity from day one, without getting hurt, with sports specific moves, that do not involve patterns, that can be taught to anyone, that are Alive.
All you have to do is. . . .let go, and create some.
But people like the goofy stuff?
I disagree.
Let me give you a concrete example. Often I hear from Instructors that state that some students 'want' that 'stuff'. I have taught seminars before where the host begged me to show some 'trapping' because the students would love it, and I was told that the group that I was teaching to, (as non athletic a group as you could find) would not respond to my approach. Anyone who knows me knows I don't I don't compromise on this, ever. So. . . I showed no hand trapping, or one and two step sparring. I taught as I always teach, and the students. . . . . .loved it. They said to the Instructor. . ."whydidn't you show us this approach before?"
That has been my experience all over the world.
But, would I have had the muscle memory or coordination with/without the drill?
What would you say if I threw a right cross in sparring, after being taught reverse punches and Karate blocks. And then when it was pointed out to me that my cross didn't look anything like my reverse punches and karate blocks I stated,
"True, but would I have had the muscle memory or coordination with/without the drill? Personally, I don't think so."
It just makes no sense.
Why do so many JKD/Kail Instructors still teach drills like Sombrada, and hubud then?
My gods honest guess is that most Instructors simply don't know how else to do it. Since they don't understand how to drill they fear they will lose students by teaching Alive. They believe that students 'want' or need these drills. Or that to stay in business they have to do it this way.
Again, that is a fallacy. There are much better ways to teach. Just as safe, just as easy to learn, just as fun, and far more functional.
What is the De-Chau analogy?
It was an analogy that explained why it is important to always teach 'principles' for fighting with activity specific drills.
So for example I would talk about the mysterious "dropping" energy. I could then invent a two person form to 'demonstrate' that principle. Perhaps a little dance where we stomp our feet a few times, like the chicken steps in Kali. Or perhaps a two person patty cake form where we can play a game and try and slap each others hip before we perform the "drop".
There would quickly be De-Chau experts, who were undefeatable at the game of de-chau, and who could show you lots of cool switches, and variations of the de-chau drill.
When questioned as to why the de-chau drill looked nothing like a real fight, they would explain that de-chau is just meant to teach you principles of "dropping energy", and impart a few techniques. That's why!
Or I could just teach an athlete to sprawl.
The sprawl teaches the "dropping energy", but if you where to ask a wrestler what they where doing they would tell you they where learning to stop a takedown. Not learning "dropping energy". And the concept of learning the sprawling energy, without a sprawl, would seem absurd. That is just a common sense aproach.
When you begin teaching forms and two person drills which are not activity specific and simply meant to demonstrate a 'principle', and athletes begin practicing as such, things get goofy and the functional Art is lost rather quickly.
Isn't it ignorant to claim as some have that chi sao is ineffective?
No, that is inside out. Ignorance comes from the root words which imply something you "ignore". In this case it would be the lack of any measured evidence for functional use.
Unfortunately the MA school I attend does not always use aliveness (which you define so well in your videos and web site) as it's guiding principal. People will often defend training methods were aliveness is not a factor. During a discussion about training methods someone said to me "What about boxers hitting the heavy bag, and speed bag there is no aliveness there, So hitting the bags is a waist of time huh. Hitting the speed bag doesn't look anything like fighting so that must be a waste of time too huh.." I replied that the heavy bag was good for things like body mechanics, and could be a great work out in itself. The only response was "well if there's no aliveness how can it be any good, huh..." Anyway just wondering if you had ever fielded a comment like this?
You are correct. People will defend their beliefs because they are feeling defensive. This usually has to do with personal identification with the method. And so the best thing you can do there is simply speak your truth, (never be afraid to do that!), smile, and walk on.
In regards a heavybag, you can make heavybag training more realistic. . . . by moving around, and not using repeated patterns like a robot. However, there are many things we may do that improve are bodies that are not "Alive". Its just that all of those things fall under the category of conditioning/excercise. Lifting weights is not Alive, but it will have a direct impact on your body.
Aliveness comes in is when you include a partner. BJJ is a great example. You could roll around with a stuffed dummy on the mat, and practice knee ride, punches, etc. This would be very similar to a boxer hitting the heavybag. However, if you never, or rarely wrestle "live" against a resisting opponent, you will never be able to compete or reach the performance level of even a beginer blue belt.
You must have Aliveness, its as simple as that, thats where timing and abililty come from. As it is in BJJ it is in stand up, and clinch.
But you can't teach beginners that way. How can you teach a whole seminar full of people that way. It would look chaotic?
Simply not true. I teach seminars all over the world without the aid of dead patterns. I teach stick, ground, clinch, stand up, whatever, without ever busting into a pattern. All the while people learn quickly, have fun, laugh, and stay injury free.
What about the idea that these dead pattern drills are for self perfection?
That is usually the last excuse for poor training methods that gets put out there. The thing to ask here is what is meant by the term "self perfection"? If that term is left undescribed, then the idea itself is absolutely meaningless. So it is important to ask for a description on this.
Once a description is given, ask yourself if an Alive training method would serve that description just as well, or in reality. . .much better. You will find this is always the case.
Remember, for something to be used for 'self improvement' it must first be true, real, authentic.
If you are looking for real methods of "self perfection" then you will find them in Alive training, in athletics. As the late, great Joseph Campbell stated, "the only peak experiences I have realized have come as a result of athletics."
But don't they thrown all the 'self perfection' or 'spiritual side' away when they train only Alive?
This is backwards, in reality the opposite is true. And there is much writing regarding how functional athletic training can have serve as a deep and meaningful vehicle for self actualization, and realization.
How do you train Alive as you age?
Great question, three things:
1) Stay in shape. (You should do this anyway, as I assume you care about your body)
2) Train smart, that is do not over train.
3) Use progressive resistence. There is no need to go balls out very often. In fact There is a false idea out there that effective training needs to be rough and brutal, and like so many ideas that too is backwards.
That is also why I love Jits, it can be done slow and gentle and still be highly effective. What a beautiful Art.
Remember, if you can't pull of Tai Chi, or Silat, or Aikido, etc, now, as a younger, strong man, what good will it do you when you are older and less athletic? (This is why it amazes me when I hear people talking about saving those arts for when they are old. What sense does that make?)You need to use the same moves, you just have to be wiser, and smarter about how you apply them, and how you train.
Aliveness is for every-body!
Isn't there are as many ways, as there are faces on the planet?
So true, when left that vague. . .add the words (to execute a rear naked choke) and we begin to see that all people share similiar bodies, and as such the body mechanics and laws of physics applied to that motion will be similiar in nature.
Here is a favorite Krishnamurti joke regarding that exact topic:
The devil and a friend were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend asked the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of the truth,” said the devil. “That is very bad business for you, then” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to help him organize it!.”
Truth of the truth:
Aliveness is about the freedom to use whatever works in the moment. Right action at right time. Which is another name for true compassion. A freedom that is only fully felt when one is completely immersed in the present moment of now, and free of the burden of beliefs, which manifest as thoughts. A clear mind fully aware of reality as it is now, and operating with absolute synchronicity within time and space, that is the real beginning of Aliveness.
It is about Love.
|
Second article:
Quote:
Over the last several Years I have made a point in my classes, articles, videos, and seminars around the world, to preach the message of ‘Aliveness’. I made this my primary objective because in the very moment of the understanding of what Aliveness is comes freedom from the ritual, hierarchy, and nonsense that is Martial Arts. When a person actually understands what Aliveness means they are from that point forward immune to ever being deceived again, at least within the realm of Martial Arts. So essentially, Aliveness is the truth that sets Martial Artists free from the lies and deceptions of the ‘classical mess’.
It has been my experience that once a person gains an understanding of Aliveness, the next question is usually, "Why doesn’t everyone do it this way?" "Why do others persist so adamantly in training methods, progressions, and ritual, that serve no purpose, and are simply ‘dead patterns’". "Why do people still feel so attached to dead patterns?" I hope to answer this second question in this article.
Motive
As I see the state of Martial Arts around the world today I see two distinct motivations people have for studying a Martial Art. These motivations are diametrically opposed, and therefore usually incompatible.
The first is IMAGE, the pursuit of an ‘image’ that a person wants to have of themselves. An image in their thoughts of a ‘Martial Arts Master’, or a ‘Kung Fu star’, or a ‘Martial Arts teacher’. The motive from that point forward becomes the actualization of that image. Therefore the ‘PROGRESS’ is ‘MEASURED’ by how well they match that image. And since it’s an image they are pursuing, they require the feedback of others. They require an ‘audience’. Someone to confirm the image.
The second motive is performance. It can be summed up as better fighting skill, better self defense skill, being in better shape, being a better Coach, being happier, etc. But the progress is ‘measured’ not by an audience, or outside oneself, as the image based motive is. But rather it is measured through performance. I am in better shape because I can perform longer, or faster, or stronger then I could before. I am a better fighter because my performance on the mat, in sparring, is better then it was before. I am a better coach because my students perform better on the mat, in sparring, then they did before. No audience is required for such a measurement. If the goal is superior fighting skill, or superior coaching of fighting skill, then only an Alive environment and an opponent is required.
I hope you can clearly see the distinction here. One, image, requires the validation of an audience. And one, performance, requires an internal process of measurement from inside oneself. These are two VERY different things.
Measurement
A key word within the above paragraphs is the word ‘MEASURE’. The word measure actually comes from the Sanskrit word ‘Met`r’, which is also the root from which we derive the words ‘matter’, and ‘meter’. This is a very important point because everything we perceive as ‘objective reality’ is perceived as such through a process of ‘measurement’. If you say you have become smarter, then you are comparing, or ‘measuring’ yourself against something else. . .smarter in comparison to what? If I say I am better, or faster, or stronger, then it is always a form of measurement. As simple as this concept may seem, it’s very important that we understand it, because the very act of measurement itself is how we as human personas define ourselves.
Per-sona
The word persona is also an interesting one. The word comes from the Greek, Per = something, and Sona = sound. So per-sona is something sounds comes from. The word itself was used as a name for the large metallic masks that Greek actors would wear during their plays. The masks where made with a cone shaped mouth, so as the actors spoke their voices would be projected loudly to the audience. When as actor put on, or took off his mask he was said to be taking on or off his ‘Persona’.
Today the word has come to mean the role we act out in public. Or how we present ourselves to others. An easy example of just how important these personas are to our lives can be seen at a dinner party. When the host introduces one guest to another they usually say something like, "Hello Jim, this is Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith is a Lawyer". Or "Sally, this is Linda, Linda is a Doctor". The introduction does two things, it serves as a means to start a conversation, and it also defines our ‘role’, or persona. When someone acts in a way that is outside of that role they are usually branded eccentric. The only people that don’t seem to need the personas to begin a conversation are young children. Young kids are fully capable of walking straight up to someone and saying "Your tall", or "I like your shirt", a defined role is not a requirement for them socially yet.
Duality
This brings us to duality. Duality is the actual thing of which ‘matter’ and ‘measure’ is made up, or defined by. For example, you could never know what bitter was if you had not tasted sweet. The concept of sweet would not only be completely unrecognizable to you, but also totally irrelevant, if you had not tasted, or ‘known’ bitter. You could not know what black was without white. Up without down. Front without back. Near without far. Etc.
What most people miss from this simple principle is the basic fact that both sides within duality are actually one and the same. I usually explain this principle at my seminars by holding up a stick. I explain to the class that I have grown to dislike the bottom of the stick, as such I have decided to get rid of the bottom and only keep the top. So I cut it off here, and point to a spot on the stick. Have I gotten rid of the bottom? Of course not, damn, now the bottom is here! So I cut it again. Dammit, now the bottom is here. And this goes on and on. I could cut that stick to infinity, using the sharpest and finest instruments imaginable, and NEVER separate the bottom from the top of the stick. There is a very simple reason for this. You CANNOT have a top WITHOUT a bottom. The top and bottom of the stick are in reality part of the same OBJECT. This can also be shown with a coin, can you separate the front of a coin from the back? This simple principle is what Krishnamurti called the "illusion of the opposites". Understanding it plays a crucial role in understanding human motivation. Particularly as used within the context of ‘measurement’
Now you may say that simplistic principle stands true for ‘objects’. But what does that have to do with motive. This is the point at which you need to understand that that basic concept, duality, is not only how we define taste, sight, sound, touch, and smell, but also emotions.
For every emotion there is a ‘shadow emotion’. For example fear and aggression. Two men in a foxhole may be asked to charge a machine gun nest. One man runs head on into the machine gun and is considered a hero. The other man hides in the foxhole and is considered a coward. However, the relevant point here is that both men ‘felt’ the EXACT SAME THING. Fear and aggression are two sides of the same ‘thing’. Just as the top of the stick is the same from the bottom. Again, this is the illusion of the opposites. Here is a simple chart to provide a few examples:
Up - Down
Top - Bottom
Bitter - Sweet
Fear - Aggression
Sad/ Sorrow - Mad/ Anger
Desire - Obligation
Insecurity - Vanity
Resentment - Guilt
Pressure - Ambition/ Drive
Anxiety - Excitement
Whether or not you, as the observer, see the fear or the aggression, the sadness or the anger, the front or the back, depends entirely on your ‘perspective’. But that doesn’t change the essential truth that both ‘opposites’ are actually the same ‘thing’.
Why we measure using duality
So why do we use measurement through duality as a means of defining things? Because within the confines of objective reality there is no other way!
Take this simple test, try and name anything, define anything, without using duality. For example, if I say that is a tree. It is a tree as opposed to what? I have immediately defined something else as ‘not’ a tree. When I further define that tree as a ‘tall’ tree, or a ‘pretty’ tree, then I further define it against other trees. This is the very process of duality in action. It’s interesting to note that in the book of Genesis the first job God gave to Adam was to ‘name’ things within the garden of Eden.
Why personas seek an ‘Image’?
This brings us full circle back to the beginning of the article. Why do people seek an ‘Image’? I think I answer that question in one very simple sentence that I would like you to remember.
"PEOPLE are ATTRACTED to THINGS that CONFIRM and IMAGE they WANT to have of THEMSELVES."
"PEOPLE are ATTRACTED to THINGS that CONFIRM and IMAGE they WANT to have of THEMSELVES."
My favorite example regarding this basic phenomena is Playboy magazine. Looking back on the first playboys published we can see them filled with beautiful women that would by ‘todays’ standards probably be called "heavy". Modern day Playboys are also filled with beautiful women, but they are also much thinner women. My question is, what happened to men within the last few decades that caused them to find thinner women to be ‘more’ attractive? Did a genetic change occur? Has the brain of men born in the sixties and seventies changed from the brain of man born earlier? OR, could it be that what men are actually attracted to is not so much the women herself, but the "IMAGE" they would have within society when ‘seen’ with such a women? I think the answer is quite obvious.
This is why you see the sixty five year old man, with the nineteen year old girl, driving a sports car. That man needs an audience. If he were alone, the whole image would be blown. He needs the confirmation of others. He is trying to CONFIRM and IMAGE he DESIRES to have of HIMSELF.
This brings us back to the image motivated Martial Artist. The image motivated Martial Artist will always require certificates, uniforms, lineage, ritual, hierarchy, titles, and most importantly, an AUDIENCE that is willing to play along with the image. All of this is required because an image motivated Martial Artist needs validation from outside himself, just as the 65 year old man dating the 19 year old girl needs validation outside himself. Both require an audience.
Contrast that against the performance motivated Martial Artist. He requires neither titles, terminology, hierarchy, ritual, uniforms, or anything that’s purpose is to display to another. He doesn’t require that because he doesn’t require validation from anyone outside himself. This is a very different motive. After all, what is the purpose of a certificate if it is not to ‘show’ to ‘another’?
Paradigm Shift
Along comes a paradigm shift. We all have them. Someone, or something comes along that is obviously superior, or more accurate then what you where doing, or using before. What is interesting here is the reactions people have.
If a performance motivated person hears what we have to say, they can agree, or disagree, and it's done. For example, if I looked at Lennox Lewis and said, "Lennox, I think your stand up 'structure' is wrong. You need a wing chun base for more 'power'". Do you think he would care? He would chuckle, and that’s that. If I am sitting in the car with Rickson Gracie, and I say, "Rickson I think your Jiu-Jitsu could use some work". Do you think he would get angry? Of course not, he doesn’t need my validation, he knows what he can and cannot do. He would have no anger because he has NO fear or sadness about his abilities. Remember fear and aggression are actually two sides of the SAME thing.
Tell an Image based Martial Artist, and they get an instant reaction of anger and irritation. That's because THEY already KNOW what we are saying is TRUE. They are just worried there 'audience' will find out, and well, that will f#ck up the 'image' thing!
When you really see that, then you will understand that people who insist on clinging to something they already know is 'dead' and value-less in terms of 'performance', do so out of fear of losing an image.
So why do people cling to dead patterns? Because they need them to confirm an IMAGE they want to have of themselves!
Shallow measurements
Some forms of measurement of the ‘self’ are obviously more shallow to others, even to a casual observer. A few examples might be someone who defines him or herself in terms of race, "I am white". Or wealth, "I make this much per Year". I once new a man who made a point of telling people how much his shoes cost. The shoes happen to be quite ugly, however they where also very expensive. He made a point of verbalizing the very expensive part because he was defining himself by those ‘things’. If you define yourself based on possessions, wealth, or perceived social status even the casual observer will call you ‘materialistic’. What is important to realize however, is just how shallow that particular persona’s sense of self must be in order to define himself based upon something as hollow and meaningless as material possessions. You can only feel compassion for such a person, as they truly are the weakest types society has to offer.
Another obvious form of measurement of the self is religion. I AM Christian, I AM Muslim, I AM an Orthodox Jew, etc. The fruits of such definitions can be clearly seen in the wars and turmoil around the world. That definition is usually not enough, so it further divides, WHY? to further define the SELF. So it is not just, I AM Christian; it is I AM Protestant, I AM Catholic. Look at Northern Ireland to see where that leads. You can only laugh when you see a fundamentalist anything argue with a fundamentalist anything else, because if you simply switch the names around you realize they both believe essentially the exact same thing! They cannot bring themselves to ever realize this though because in that very moment of realization would come a loss of self, of ‘ego’. Why? Because that is how they DEFINE, MEASURE, the SELF. So the ATTACHMENT to the definition becomes incredibly INTENSE. Something to kill or die for.
There are other forms of measurement of the self that are just as hollow, but harder to see. A good example of this would be someone who defines themselves through their hardships and pain. Have you ever met the person, whom upon first introduction begins complaining about their body, health, family, job, weather, the morning they had, the rude grocery store clerk, and anything else that is unhappy? It’s obvious they are filled with misery, what is not so obvious is why? The reason is that they define themselves through that misery. In that way they have formed an INTENSE and lasting ATTACHMENT to that misery. By defining themselves through misery or pain, the misery and pain BECOMES them. So when you try and attempt to take away, or mitigate that misery or pain, they feel you are actually taking away them, who they ARE! As such, they can not let it go. Look around, you will see these people everywhere.
Other personas define themselves through direct measurement against another persona. These people are seen outwardly as "judgmental". They waste no time in telling one person the faults of another. But in that very moment of telling a third party the faults of another persona they betray themselves and their motive. Because the very act of telling is the act of DEFINING, or attempting to define, themselves as something ‘better’. If they ceased the telling, the gossip, they would cease the defining, and as such they would not know WHO they where. They are usually filled with resentment, which viewed from another side is guilt. Again, the illusion of the opposites. This person’s sense of self is just as shallow and weak as the person who defines themselves in terms of wealth, race, or breeding, but it’s less obvious.
Now the above related forms of measurement of the self may be blatantly shallow. But nothing within this universe is as sneaky, as slippery, as insidious, as the human beings ability to find ways of defining a persona. So we must be aware of the less obvious ways.
A slippery slope
Understanding what motivates YOU is the important issue. The first thing you must do is avoid the temptation to use this information as a way to judge others. To the degree that you say "that guy is all image based" to another persona, is the degree to which you need that persona to view you as something better. So it truly is information that should be used to evaluate only yourself. In that sense the moment you judge another, and share that judgment with someone else, is the very same moment you have betrayed yourself and have fallen into the same trap.
Once you shed the false motive of image you are only left with performance. Then you must evaluate your form of measurement. What I mean by that is that you cannot possibly evaluate performance if what you are doing is not Alive. If we are talking about a fighter, or Martial Artist, then we must understand that Aliveness is to the fighter what a wave is to a surfer, a mountain to a snow boarder, a body of water to a swimmer. So you MUST be training in a ‘sport like’ way. That’s why we prefer the term Combat Athletics to the term Martial Arts, or worse yet, streetfighting.
So if you say, "I am a streetfighter", then again you have trapped yourself. How will you define that? Will you beat up drunks in a bar? Can you see that the self which says "I don’t train for sport, I train for the street", is the same self that is fearful of measurement through performance. So you have taken yourself out of the loop, and therefore have fallen back into the image trap.
What’s left?
Finally, all that’s left is a sports like environment, and performance. At this point it’s time for the ego’s last step. The realization that measurement itself is futility.
Although what you are now left doing is a million times more ‘real’ than anything an image based Martial Artist will ever engage in; it still must not serve as a measurement of who YOU are.
Why? For one it’s always relative so you must evaluate yourself ONLY based on YOUR own increases in performance. And although that requires another person, or opponent, that does not mean you are measuring yourself against that person. You only measure your progress based on your previous skill level, not their previous skill level. There will ALWAYS be someone better, stronger, faster, or smarter on any given day. There will also ALWAYS be people you will better then, on any given day. Therefore that form of measurement is meaningless at best. All that matters is that you grow in comparison to where you where before, NOT in comparison to who you could or could not beat before.
The second reason why measurement is futility is because WHO you actually ARE exists completely outside duality, and therefore outside the process of measurement.
But that’s another article.
-Matt Thornton
|
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwan Jang
I have an IQ tested at over 150
|
Quote:
|
A wise traveler never despises his own country.
|
|
04-Mar-2006, 12:28 PM
Similar Threads
