Compliance THEN Resistance?

A beginner started at our dojo a month or so before Christmas and he's been very keen and always shows up.

I was training with him one night and he was actively being awkward and non-compliant (as I would expect the senior grades to act), I took this in my stride an applied the technique or changed the technique to use his resistance against him. Our sensei spots us, come over and stops us and has words with the beginner about how it's far too early for him to be resisting, he has to learn the technique both as Sh'te and Uke before we start resisting or even countering techniques.

A week or so later myself and another guy who is a grade above me were practicing some jiu waza techniques. We were going quite fast and looking to either catch each other out with a cheeky strike or pound them into the ground with the technique. Again, my sensei came over and stopped us because we weren't doing any of the techniques correctly or landing the ukemi's right. He told us to slow it down and work together to get the techniques to work, he said it wasn't a fight and we had learn each others movement.

At the end of the session our Sensei commented on what he had seen us doing. He said that although in seems totally backward and counter intuitive, we have to learn how to be compliant and learn the technique before we start resisting and fighting each other. He said if we don't learn how sh'te or Uke is supposed to move then we are never going to get anywhere in our progression.

I've been thinking about this for a while and I guess it just comes down to the simple fact that if you don't have the solid, basic foundations of a technique embedded into you head/body then your technique will always suffer. But does that mean sacrificing your resistance and being somewhat compliant when you are a beginner? Or is that detrimental to ones training from the outset?

Would love to hear some opinions.
--

 

Sounds like, from how you describe things, your sensei is pretty observant. Since you choose to be one of his students, I believe it is best to go by the guidelines he sets forth to practice. If you plan to be in aikido for any length of time, there will always be time eventually to train in resistance.

You have to look at it almost like you are learning to ride a bike for the first time...you have the training wheels on the back of the bike. Eventually you will take those training wheels off and get to ride with the big kids.

Of course I would not advise it, but if you really want to train resistance, if that is your goal, try it out on your sensei...why mess around snd waste your time with the lower ranks?

Just my .02 cents

 

HAHA

I have resisted against my sensei, much to my body's disapproval! I trust his teaching, it just gave me a lot to think about

I have seen high dan grades cut through people like butter despite the resistance. So I know it can be done.

Thanks for the input

 

What you seem to have stumbled across is the much discussed difference in approach between classical and sports based martial arts. Training in one of each I can see there is something to be said for each, as well as downsides with each.

In my own BJJ experience, I'm had UFC fanboys slam me to the ground on their first lesson because they didn't know the rules and couldn't open my guard. i.e. - straight into resistance can have bad results.
BUT, I've read on the Ninjutsu forum someone advising that you must really train for 10 years compliantly before you are able to fight using the style as it should be used (rather than resorting to some copy of kickboxing). That to me sounds like a long time.

I've only ever had a couple of Aikido lessons, but it's famously on the more traditional side of the split. So, I would say it comes down to two main questions:
1) Where exactly does YOUR instructor see the balance, as he is dictating the level of compliance/resistance?
2) How does that sit with your [current] MA goals?

My personal view is that you need at least some level of resistance relatively early on - it checks ego and puts skill in focus, especially compared with natural advantage. But, in a traditional style, I can understand the desire for correct technique. So - a balance that meets what you want out of MA.

 

I have been training in Aikido for a mere 16 months, when I began it was all compliant and learning how to the techniques worked as Sh'te and Uke. but now I am encouraged to resist a lot of the time. From what I have experienced, my sensei wants us to resist and make the techniques work against the resistance, but only once a certain level of proficiancy in the technique has been achieved. At the same time I think it's always important to go completely back to basics to keep your technique foundations solid.

With Yoshinkan, especially in the early stages, it's ALL about posture and doing the most basic version of the technique as perfectly as possible, understanding of the mechanics of the technique is heavily empashised, hence the need for compliance early on.

I think my instructor is finding the right balance

 

I do not do Aikido, but rather teach Hapkido (your art's ******* cousin). It is difficult, if not impossible to learn correct technique on a non-compliant partners. Look at it this way, in order to make a technique work against a non-compliant partner, you'll have to alter the angle, timing, footwork, and other aspects of the technique to use the receiver's, or uke's, Kinetic energy against them. After doing this it is, by definition, a "different" technique. Inexperienced people who do not understand proper training methodology often downgrade arts like Aikido and Hapkido for compliant training. Good BJJ instructors (an art I also train in) also stress compliance at first when learning technique as well. In my dojang, I typically introduce non-compliant training after about 12 to 18 months.

Beginners often want resistance right away, but I would advise them to wait at least a year. My instructor used to stress that if you worked with a compliant partner you could learn to apply techniques against resisting partners in a year of two, but by resisting all the time you would increase that time to ten years or longer. Even a BJJ instructor that tells you to resist from day one is not that great, in my opinion.

I think any instructor of any martial art that tells you to train compliantly for ten years is not competent and is probably saying that to make up for functional deficiencies.

Also- you have to realize that by JUST training compliantly you do not magically gain the ability to do techniques against resisting partners no matter how long you train like this. You gain the ability to do techniques against resisting partners by practicing against resistance AFTER you learn correct mechanics on compliant partners.

If you feel you need to learn to fight, for whatever reason, in under two years, then these arts are probably poor choices anyway.

 

Excellent! As long as you're enjoying the balance you're getting then it sounds spot on.

Convergencezone, I agree that there is a lot to be gained from learning the technique first. From the way you say it, my only worry would be that if you didn't train any other style, then when you get round to sparring, you might not consider any other from of attack.

To clarify on my BJJ, just in case I made it sound like my instructor has us all going hammer and tongs, the technique drills start fully compliant, with maybe a little resistance when the other guy gets it. BUT - we encourage new people to join in controlled sparring from their first lesson when that part of the class starts.

I just worry that the ego of someone who has learned for a long time but not faced resistance may be over-inflated (I thought I was invincible after a couple of Lau Gar Kung Fu sessions). Also, that the opportunity to build up the timing from early on could be missed - but since that's usually 'sparring timing' it's not necessarily the same as self-defence for example, so it comes down to what you want from MA I guess.

Interesting question though Aikidojomofo - I'm glad I tripped over your subforum.

 

Martial Novice. your concern is valid, but the fact remains that Hapkido and Aikido techniques cannot realistically be learned with resistance from the onset, and that's just the unfortunate fact. Look at it this way, there are some martial arts techniques, like jab cross in boxing that are functional even if you have lousy form - just not as good. The type of joint locks we are talking about will not work at all with lousy form, and will be toatally non-functioning against a resisting opponent. Students need to accept that this type of trainng has a learning curve and it will take a while to be functional. If you jump the gun, you will never be functional with Aiki/Hapki techniques, but you may become okay wrestlers.

Your concern with confidence is a totally different issue.

 

In Ki Aikido we had the concept of following technique. The idea of this is that you limit the resistance to just enough to make the technique difficult. Which is good in theory. The reality is that most people would just fall over when it was time to fall over. But then again I've had to teach students who were belligerently stubborn and made life a nightmare for other inexperienced students. And then I've had stuborn students who were quite happy to be as difficult as they could be. But felt it was unfair when techniques were made to work on them and they took the brunt of it.

Martial arts hurts.

While I think the way the "following" approach was passed on to new students in Ki Aikido has lead to Ki Aikido becoming too soft. I think stuborn students do more harm to other beginners trying to learn the basic shape of a technique. When you have two students who don't know what they are doing being overly resistant they just end up wrestling.

The way around this problem I feel is to always pair beginners with experienced students wherever possible. The more experienced student should have a better idea of the level of resistance to offer and how to deal with stubborn beginners.

 

I've never done Akido so please bare that in mind.

I think this issue comes down to technique.

For me I think you should learn a technique with complience, then practice it against a little resistance, then against more resistance. Then practice it again with complience to correct and perfect your form. Then again put it to the test. And repeat this again and again.

Its like the colours on a ying yang, there must be balance.

Many clubs focus too much on the yang, hard, tough training with everything at 100%. People sweat, people get fit and strong but techniques never get perfected and they never notice or fix their, potentially serious, flaws. They don't think enough about what they're doing, they aren't intellectial enough about their training.

Then again some schools are too ying. Their technique is awesome to watch, but they've never developed the ability to actually use it as its meant to be used. They lack the small amount of 'scrappyness' that a good martial artist needs when under pressure and ultimately their abilites are not 'truthful, there is no true foundation.

I think taking a middle path is the only way to fully realise your potential.

 

Compliance is often misunderstood, IMHO.

Rather than call it compliance, we call it accepting the technique. The difference is that we are always protecting ourselves, but we lessen the amount of countering done based on the lesson plan and capabilities/experience of the training partner.

Here is the difference between calling something compliant and calling something accepting:

As uke, if you were standing still and your training partner was to punch you in the stomach, you might want to block them or get out of the way. This is instinctive to want to protect yourself. Now lets say your arms and legs are held so you can neither block or effectively move out of the way. When you accept the blow, even though there is no block or evasion, you still can attempt to tighten your stomach muscles, kiai, move slightly roll with it, to protect yourself. This is accepting the technique, you are still protecting yourself at all times, but you are limiting the amount of countering and counter attacking.

What does it mean to be hit when you are compliant? I don't know. Doesn't make sense to me how this could help anyone.

One of the first lessons as uke is to learn to accept the technique. In this manner you are always protecting yourself, even if you are not actively blocking, etc. you are minimalizing the damage done to you.

As for nage/tori, the one applying the technique it is a matter of speed and structure. When people go 100% speed under fire, they tend to tense up and become more sloppy. Ideally at 100% under fire you want to stay relaxed and keep your structure. One of the most successful approaches to this is to start at slower speeds and develop good structure, then periodically test yourself under fire at 100%. This is a process that repeats.

To actually build a good structure that stays there when going 100% under fire can take that 10 years or 20 years to develop. However, even at 70% structure (e.g. 30% sloppiness) at 100% under fire, you can very well be effective. You can get to this point in a much shorter time. And if you rely a lot on speed and strength, you could even be very effective at 50% structure.

IME.

 

this is almost a different topic, but one thing to also consider when building effective technique is what judoka call "entry' and "fit", or as I like to call it, entry and the "bridge" (borrowing a term from Chinese martial arts)

If someone grabs your wrist stands there while you try a wrist lock, for instance, you are practicing the way the technique "fits". If you seize your partner you are practicing "entry". (Him grabbing you is also "entry").

I think a big reason why many people (probably the majority of practioners) cannot get techniques like we are discussing to actually work is because they practice the way the technique "fits" but not the entry. You can get to the point where you can do a technique against a tensing, non-compliant partner, but if he just walking up and grabbing your wrist, you are still practicing fit without entry or "bridging".

If you practice techniques against random grabs and strikes, or seizing, if your style even does this, then I think you are also practicing techniques from various "bridges".

Rebel Wado, As for being compliant with strikes, I would just consider this to mean that your parnter is not really trying to hit you.

 

I agree with your sensei Aikidojomofo.

This is not aikido, but its the same.
One time a visitor visited us for practice, he had little experience in katori shinto ryu but had some in other, but when he was kirikomi against a senior he did it fast, hard, with spirit you could say. But it was not katori shinto ryu. The senior got an puzzeled look at his face, then the juniors sword flew out of his hand and the senior said something like "ok, lets take that from the beginning."

In the beginning of your training there will be a time when you are thinking to much. Things is not dynamic, things is awkward. And all of this was evident in this visitor.

How long it takes varies from person to person. If you practice as heck, then a short time. Just a few hours in the week, then a longer time.

 

I think this is an important point and perhaps draws a line where compliance in the early stages of training is used.

In Yoshinkan Aikido, most techniques are initiated with a strike (atemi) distracting uke or putting them into a position where a technique can be applied.

From day one of my training I was always told to strike correctly, with power and accuracy. In turn I was always taught to block/get off the line because the person trying to hit you means it.

When it comes to atemi there is no room for compliance, or complacency. I think it would instill a number of bad habits which could see you getting your face broken the minute you trained with a non-compliant partner or met someone who intended to do you harm. If you strike, strike hard and fast and if you are on the receiving end block and get off the line just as fast.

Any compliance in technique for the benefit of learning should only come after

 

Excellent point but my only issue with this is that it doesn't happen only at the beginning of training. This is true in all cases when fundamentals are lacking or need to be worked on, no matter how experienced someone is.

It isn't a matter of compliance then resistance when working fundamentals, it is more, IMHO, a matter of progressive resistance. You work with your partner to find the amount of resistance in order to work on learning the fundamentals. I've found through cross-training that I've lacked fundamentals in areas even though I have multiple black belts, and each time I have to go back to basics and drill them.

The difference here is that working fundamentals is more about working principles and removing bad habits than learning specific techniques. Good fundamentals help with all technique.

The first lesson might be just having someone punch and have the other move out of the way, enter, and counter strike. No specific technique, just learning movement, alignment, and angles of attack.

Using Aikido as an example, there are fundamentals in how to accept a technique (ukemi). A person (uke) has to be taught how to attack and how to react to a wrist-lock take down, just like a person (nage) is taught how to put on a wrist lock, for instance. When uke grabs an arm in Aikido, they exert force forward to drive nage's elbow into nage. Then, nage has this force to work the technique. Once uke's wrist is being torqued by nage, uke bring's their head towards their hand as part of ukemi.

The compliance is in the pre-scripted movements only. Uke agrees to attack in a specific way and to accept the technique in a specific way. However, uke is still trying to hit nage and if uke is not unbalanced, uke is not going to throw themselves to the ground for no reason.

I think of it as more of an agreement between training partners as to the speed and intensity. In this agreement, we can work techniques with the same resistance whether it is at half-speed or full speed. If it is agreed that uke will grab nage and if nage is open, uke will slap nage in the side of the head, then this can be done at half speed same as full speed.

The point is that what you are training at half-speed should be the same as what you are training at full speed... this helps to build the structure that will be kept when going 100% under fire.

As for the way to attack, such as grabbing and exerting force forward... if you want to work uke pulling instead of pushing or grabbing from all directions, you got to work this attack at half speed the same as full speed.

One of the issues is that what is trained at half speed is often not the same attack that is seen at full speed. This is not good training if this happens often, IMHO; rather it is preferred that they should be the same. This is another reason I don't like the word compliance to describe what is going on, rather I like the word acceptance better. To accept something doesn't mean you agree not to protect yourself. In fact, when you accept you are really just learning to wait until the last possible moment to counter... this takes courage to do. A completely different mental state than assuming you are in no danger and going through the motions, which is what the word compliance implies.

 

Nicely said.

The only difference is in our training we do a lot of half speed striking through the target. Then work up to full speed and back. Very similar to what Snoop described previously in this thread in a post I thanked him for.

 

Compliant atemi are useless. And they do encourage bad habits. I've witnessed this first hand in my training.

 

In my brief stint in Japanese Jujutsu, my instructor's views mirrored your sensei's. We were allowed to give a little bit of resistance but not to the point where it was a fight, and usually after they already had the hold or lock applied. From there we started to learn how they would resist and were thus a bit more observant on it when we started slowly upping the intensity.

I'd say he knows best and he seems to be doing what's best for you. The only drawback to this kind of training is some people never learn to go beyond compliant.

 

I may sound like a broken record, but I still do not like the use of the term, "compliance". To me, compliance in training is a good thing... it means that you are following recommended best practices and guidelines. Our Muay Thai fighters are compliant in the ring because they follow the rules, the one thing we do not want them to be is predictable.

I think if someone in training is not trying to hit me in a realistic manner, then they are non-compliant. The person giving me a good, realistic attack is the one that is being compliant with our training methods. I think as one progressively increases the resistance in training, that should be regarded as moving towards more intensity and freedom of movement. You start with very strict guidelines as to what is allowed (highly predictable) progress to a more free form (unrestricted) training.

Being compliant is a good thing. What is bad is that if you never progress to free form attacks and training, then you may be stuck overthinking things. Free form movement means that you do not have to think about what to do next, it is whatever comes naturally/intuitively.

So in kata training, if your partner deviates from the kata, you should not have to think about what you do next, it should be intuitive to strike at the last possible moment when your partner has left an opening, and in doing so, prevent them from successfully attacking you. So even within the restricted guidelines of kata, the mindset is one of freedom of movement/action. This can take a long time to develop... at first, if someone deviates from a kata, a student might flinch and is likely to over think what comes next instead of acting intuitively.

 

I don't like the term compliance either. It doesn't really describe how resistance is delivered in controlled doses with increasing intensity for the purposes of training.