Functional martial arts training

Hey guys,

Just writing this because I wish someone gave me this information when I started out training, and there are alot of debates on here about MMA vs TMA;

I’ve been down the traditional martial arts route and I've also done combat sports. Though it may surprise some, the silat, kali and Muay Thai schools I went to taught drills and offered sparring, however there seemed to be a big jump from the drills to the sparring in all schools. The intuitive ones amongst us 'figured out things' during sparring, but the class in general would have been better in skill if there wasn’t that gap.

I couldn’t figure out why or what essentially made a martial arts functional (for self defence or sport fighting) until I came across the term aliveness. I now realize without training with aliveness (or ‘replicating the fight’ as Steve Morris puts it) it isn't likely that your art is going to be functional.

Aliveness is a word given to the essential elements of functional training. Really you can only understand what aliveness by demonstration…

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL05Es8LVAQ"]Aliveness[/ame]

http://aliveness101.blogspot.com/

Some common misconceptions are:

1) Some thinking that Matt Thornton is stating that it is new or unique - he explicitly says that the training method isn‘t new, it’s just a new word and articulation.

2) Some thinking that it is simply sparring - drills also have to be performed with aliveness, nor is it only training with full resistance - the level of resistance can vary but there must be some resistance in the drilling and sparring phases of training.

3) Aliveness doesn’t involving performing techniques or developing skills without resistance - training mechanics and attributes without resistance is a part of alive training. It is the first stage in the 3 stage training method called the I method - the problem comes when that and only that is practiced, or the fundamental movements are unrealistic.

Lack of aliveness in drilling was the gap that I saw in my own training, our drills weren’t alive - many of them were dead patterns; choreographed, static and incorporating unrealistic mechanical movements (the Muay Thai school was better than the others but it was mainly pad work, and not many 2 man drills involving aliveness).

Something interesting another poster pointed out;

Seems like he’s on to something… There are some great Maists who have had to fight for a living in 'teh streets' like Dennis Jones, Trevor Roberts, Gary Spiers, etc, and they saw great benefit in some of the ‘training' that TMA’s offer. What they all have in common is that they have enough experience and fighting ability to derive use from the forms, tools and overall training of traditional MAs.

Aliveness is needed to make arts functional, but that doesn’t discount that forms, sensitivity/flow drills (systema style) have their place. The training concept of Aliveness can be - and is - applied to self defence, combatives, weapons or combat sport training. Lastly if there is little aliveness in training, then alot of fighting is experience to make it functional.

What do you guys think?

 

I agree with Thornton's basic point, and those that follow from it, but this particular video and the term "aliveness" get trotted out so frequently nowadays that I'm kinda tired of it. That's strictly a personal objection the rhetoric though. If people couched the idea in different terms periodically, I'd be good with it.

As far as the general idea, though, I'm a big believer that you should be tailoring your training to the end result you want, rather than unquestioningly using drills that have been passed down to you.


Stuart

 

Being alive is better than being dead.

On the other hand being locked in a small cage and unable to access the outside world isn't much of a life.


Aliveness is a great concept, but once you lock it in a box it might as well be dead.

 

??? Can you explain the above?

 

Good post. We've all said it in various threads but it's nice to have it all in essentially one post.

Ace actually thinks trained fighters are easier to handle than untrained Joe Averages, so that probably explains a lot.

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=34117960&postcount=68

 

Uh, aliveness requires safety, you can't go full on without rules. However, every rule you add takes the training one step further away from reality.

Aliveness has a place in training and I think everyone should be exposed to it to a degree, but I think it is misleading to advertise aliveness as 'more real' because it's not.

This 'aliveness revolution' isn't really a revolution, it's just a training methodology (which most serious martial artists use anyway) re-branded for the MMA/BJJ fad.


So uh, do Judo and stop listening to salesman trying to reinvent the wheel... again.

 

I think your confusing broad training concepts (realistic timing, energy/resistance, and motion) with a specific application ie. MMA. You can find the same training methodology applied at a good RBSD school.

I addressed that (and so does Matt in the video, did you watch it?) it isn't a new training methodology.

Having it articulated and conceptualized is very useful for people to identify a functional training methodology. Don't you think?

Why Judo?

 

Because Kano created judo by applying basically these same concepts to jujitsu in order to make it into a more practical and effective system. (an oversimplification but thats the basic idea)

 

So you learn how to fall.

Kano altered jujutsu making it safer for children, so they could practice it without getting hurt.

Judo is more effective for learning and more practical for children because of less down time due to injuries, however it is less effective and less practical at seriously hurting people.

 

Yes it's nothing new, but he never claimed that it was. Just because its been said before doesn't mean its not good to remind people of it every now and then. Especially with an idea as important as this.

 

I think the tokyo police would disagree. I assume you're well aware of what I'm talking about.

 

No idea, please enlighten me.

 

Thats what you think judo is? You obviously know nothing Ace.

 

Seriously? In 1885 the tokyo police hosted a series of matches (with no or very limited rules) between the Kodokan and the other dominant jujitsu schools of the time. Judo wiped the floor with them and was adopted by the police as their preferred method of hand to hand training. Thats a pretty basic piece of JMA history I assumed you would have known.

 

Matt's take on Functional Martial Arts- training with Aliveness makes a lot of sense. He does stress the fact that if you come from a Functional martial arts background, Judo, wrestling, bjj, Muay Thai, boxing etc you will likely say "duh, what's the big deal that's how I've always trained". However if you come from a TMA, fantasy based background you will probably feel cheated and hurt for believing in such nonsense (as I did).

I think most Traditional Martial Artists hear someone like Matt telling the truth about effective training and take it as a personal insult and a crime against their chosen Martial Art, Master/ Grandmaster, Sifu, Sensei etc. The fact is there are still a lot of people living in their own little bubble, teaching people a whole heap of rubbish that they have learned, without taking the time to look objectively at how they train and how effective their methods are in comparison to others.

I would recommend people from TMA's go to a good Functional Martial art's gym, whether it be Muay Thai, Boxing, Bjj, MMA, Judo, Wrestling and train for more than one month. Only then can you objectively look at Thornton's videos and say this guy is full of crap, you are more likely to say "I get it now" and feel embarrassed about performing Kata and step sparring.

 

I hate using "Internetese" but this one just calls for it. Two of them actually.

LOL. Noob.

 

Actually I think Matt is right in concept but wrong in expression. Everything is pretty much a dead system anyway.

I'll use MMA as an example; MMA being a sport is limited to set patterns of thought within a "rules set." Now the rules are what makes the sport playable to say MMA is alive itsn't true because it doesn't evolve. Once you label something it becomes bound by the label of what your taught it means. The same is true of any other "fixed forms" expression, aliveness in the spirit of what being alive means (not just the label) should be mutable, evolving and expansive but not restrained by someone's definition of & perceived limitations of the label either.

 

Draven Azropht to say that MMA isn't evolving is Ludicrous. Yes it has set rules and parameters largely due to the fact that the original sport was branded 'Human cockfighting' amongst other things. Its still way less restrictive than a lot of single disciplines.The sport has had to introduce more rules and evolve into what it is today to be viewed as 'acceptable' and make it's way onto our TV screens. This does not mean that its not Alive!

Aliveness refers to Timing, energy and motion

Timing- Not choreographed or in set sequences. i.e. Kata, step sparring, flow locks, wooden dummy etc. (they develop no sense of real timing, as you know what is going to happen)

Energy- Resisting opponents with varying degrees of progressive resistance. (not just letting them strike, submit or throw you).

Motion- Moving and changing in and out of ranges being effective in stand up, clinch and ground. As opposed to prating static submissions or striking.

 

Oh please dude. Sparring with safety precautions doesn't take away from it's aliveness.

I'm sorry, but if you think practicing choreographed movements helps you with aliveness more than just throwing armor on and letting the attacker attack how he WANTS. Then I feel sorry for you.

I think the person with the armor will learn about breathing, distancing, and timing. And how resistance feels and how unexpected it is.

Even a 5year old could survive an adults choreographed onslaught. I doubt a 5year old would survive an adults onslaught if he was allowed to attack how he wants.

ANd if you want to complain about "wah wah but you can't use eye gouges and hit them in the balls wah wah"

If you think you can do those things without being to land a jab or a kick.
You're in for a rude awakening.
You wouldn't even do those things in choreographed practice.


In fact if you couldn't survive with rules in place to protect you. Because to be honest you can train with rules that really don't prohibit "effective" techniques.
Then I'd say you'd have a bigger loss when it comes down to no rules.

 

I did not know that.

However, this is not the same Judo that we learn today. (From what I read) Jigoro Kano was not happy with the outcome of that match (in 1886) and sought to make Judo safer (which he later did when he became a principle at a school).

At the end of his life (1938), Judo had changed radically from what it had been in the early days (1886).

In the late Tokugawa period there were a group of thugs called the Shinsengumi who were very good at killing people. There is one story where 2 Shinsengumi entered a bar and slaughtered 50 samurai by themselves, that is how good they were.

In those days kenjutsu schools still challenged each other in duels but the Shinsengumi always lost. When there were no rules and they used real blades they performed exceptionally but as soon as it came to bokken and ritualised duels they performed poorly. I think this is a good example to counter your argument.