Aliveness - Alive training methods

Actually "no" what?

Drilling and sparring are a spectrum to me, so the lines do blur. If you know that the next technique you are doing is, or is being fed to you, I would call that a drill.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell me that my words are wrong, it won't make me change my terminology.

The language used makes zero difference to the outcome.

 

So more solo drills, and less time scaffolding and sparring?

What percentage of your class time is spent in ''applying heuristics''?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQcBI5SKJgU"]We're going to catch up to them by going slower? - YouTube[/ame]

 

No its not going to just be ''just a hip throw''... there will be other options.

Really we have to use common language in order to understand each other, 3 of us are using common definitions, if you want to have a productive conversation (the outcome Im hoping for), you will have to use our common definition.

 

It entirely depends on the level of the student. I'm talking about rank beginners.

In the first few months, there will be a lot of frontloading and resistance will be there from day one, but it will be very isolated.

Once you get your first grade then the majority of time will be applying heuristic method in sparring and isolation sparring, with the exception of when you are revisiting frontloading for the benefit beginners.

 

If you know that your partner is not going to attack you in any way, or you know that if they do it will be from a pre-arranged pool of techniques, and you know that you have a particular small pool of techniques that you have to choose from to use on your partner, I would call that a drill.

I understand that you wouldn't. I don't get what the problem is.

 

Thanks, The classes I attend run in two parts, the first Hour is fundamentals, with at least 50% of the class being isolation sparring, then the advanced class afterwards is generally 50% to 75% larger isolation sparring or free sparring. So a 2 hour class will at the very least involve an hour of (isolation and full) sparring.

 

It not a problem, unless you keep bringing it up as a problem.

Words only work as a communication device if we use them to mean the same things, if you keep bringing up differences in terminology you are stopping the conversation.

Has you classes always used the same methodology?
Does the class content change from the feedback from your 'drills' or does it always remain the same?

 

Yeah, so I'd say that 50% to 75% is about the same for a class with no beginners in it for me. Could be more, depending on what we're focussing on.

I think that the difference is that beginners under me will be doing more like 25% to 50%, and that the variables in the resistance are less. I don't want somebody trying to hit a moving pad if they can't hit a stationary one with proper form and acceptable accuracy. The long frontloading time is important to me in order to prevent inefficiencies creeping into neuromuscular memory as much as practical. I realise this goes against the general principle that you are talking about, or at least with me it takes a few months longer to get there, but I'm fine with that.

 

I didn't think it was me who kept bringing it up. Pretty sure each time I've been replying.

Do you mean did I learn in the same way? If so, yes.

Of course the class content changes according to what is happening with the students. Following the threads of people's learning is what makes it interesting for me. It boggles my mind when instructors say they struggle to come up with lesson plans, because students generate their own material for you.

 

Please expand on your use of pads, whats your general approach to progression of the drill? Aims etc

 

When I'm using them with beginners they are a simple feedback mechanism to form. Completely dead, in Thornton's terms, until their form is sufficient to do some damage without damaging themselves, should you replace the pad with a person.

For students who are already sparring, pads are used to simulate a sparring situation as much as possible, but the pads allow the element of power to be focused on. As set combinations are not really a thing with us, using pads would not be a good example of a drill that follows a progression from dead to alive. The students already know how to apply strikes from any angle to any target, so while there might be a progressive increasing of variables over a block of pad work, it won't follow the same kind of progression that teaching a new technique would.

I should think that pads are used in my classes less than in combat sport classes, from what I've seen and read. It will probably be an unpopular position here, but I feel that pads are not a good compromise in terms of reflecting actual application, even though they are necessary for feedback in terms of power generation when applied to technical sparring.

 

If you don't do set combinations, how do you check their form?
Are their any rules of thumb you use to assess their form?

 

In the same way as you would with a set combo of punches, on an individual basis of the punches performed and in the transition between them.

Form is efficiency. Efficiency of preparation and targeting, speed and power generation, and reducing targets that need to be actively protected.

I see them as self-evident and testable rather than rules of thumb. What would be your criteria for assessing form?

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, if you don't teach any set combinations (i.e. the front hand and then the backhand) How do people learn how to throw combinations ((e.g. the front hand and then the backhand).

I don't train much striking, but personally i make sure my posture is good, hips are engaged, shoulders correct, , that there is some weight commitment, but not over balanced.

But really it becomes apparent in sparring, that's why people say machida's/ gunnars / etc striking is unusual but in application it works, proof is in the pudding so to speak.

 

It's not that there won't be any practicing of paired punches, but what I want to avoid is people sticking to a set combo of 3-5 strikes when, in that moment of the pad holder moving around them, a different combination of punches would be more efficient. The foundation of this neuromuscular programming for finding the most efficient path to a target is done through "dead" training.

Like you say, it becomes self-evident in sparring, so combinations arise naturally out of the given principles.

Without wanting to sound too pretentious (even though I'm sure I will ), I think of the "dead" phase of beginners in terms of chaos theory and initial conditions. The less dynamic you can make the environment, the more sure you can be that you are conditioning people with the most efficient form (in practical terms, no-one is expected to be anywhere near perfect, just good enough to be functional) before getting them to apply those skills in a dynamic environment. It is an uphill battle trying to erase bad habits missed because a dynamic environment did not give enough opportunity for reflection and self-correction. This is the balance between heuristic and a more didactic approach that I was talking about (although, once you have a basic vocabulary of techniques, then the heuristic method becomes the prime vehicle for learning).

If you are following a set of evidence-based principles, rather than lists of technique, then the pudding is the proof. Not that I advocate a Systema-esque approach of giving principles without giving a comprehensive repertoire of techniques that embody those principles, mind. But once you are comfortable in applying the principles of your training, performing techniques that have never been explicitly taught, but follow the given principles, should happen organically.

Again, the pudding is the proof.

 

So you do teach combinations, so how do you teach people to choose their own ones without light sparring then?

Surely no sparring = no feedback = no evolutionary pressure.

 

Of course combinations should be taught. In boxing a lot of different combinations are worked on the mitts and then adjusted depending on the opponent. The idea of aliveness is great. Bottom line your martial art should spar if you want to improve in actual fighting. That being said, many martial arts miss the actual importance of drilling. I always cringe when I hear "attribute training" because it is usually is a sign that bs isn't far behind. Drills should NOT work hand speed, control, etc. They should work distance, timing and principals.

I hate to say it but most FMA in the U.S. have this problem. They do useless drills and are somehow above criticism because weapons are the deadly. I agree mostly with SBG video, and do think he has a point especially in regards to the FMA. But also I think he neglects what real FMA training should instill in practitioners, though he is trying to make a point so i'm not saying he is ignorant on the matter but he is just not addressing it. Overall I like it because he plainly shows the inferiority of trying to hard block with a weapon.

 

When I say "set combinations", I'm talking about avoiding pad work without a dynamic element like this:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2PNBoE2tAs&t=59s"]Combination Pad Work - Martial Arts Classroom Drill - YouTube[/ame]

Even if the pad holder were to start moving around, that is still too prescriptive to be particularly beneficial in terms of carryover to application, to my mind.

Much better, in my opinion, to have dynamic pad work that more closely reflects sparring or shadowboxing than a set sequence of moves with limited variables. Just like icefield said; the more an exercise resembles application, the better.

What we are looking for is to give a workable vocabulary of technique before people start stringing sentences together. Once they have the tools necessary to react to a dynamic situation, then sparring is focused on for the feedback, as you say. Putting people in a dynamic environment before they have the tools to react to it will result in sub-optimal reactions being ingrained.

While the individual will necessarily go through evolutionary pressure in applying technique in sparring, within the technical repertoire evolutionary pressure is evident in the principles that it embodies. The "dead" conditioning of reflexes serves to give people a head start in evolving their own methods of working, and kernels with which to grow through exploration and feedback through application against resisting opponents.

 

And with Matt's theory the proof is several UFC fighters, and several bjj blackbelts noted for their skills, and tonnes of clips from.them, could you upload some of yours so we could compare?

 

Then why not have the pad drills require you to adjust your technique to the targets you are presented with, and the simulated punches coming at you with the pads?