We don’t use terms such as aliveness, but I think your description of aliveness would equate to our randori. We also do forms of what you describe as threshold aliveness. We call this ran han ko.
It sounded to me like you were saying similar things to each other (Akja, Colin and Wado). Good post with the Thornton quote also. I think the idea that the level of sparring etc. that you engage in where the opponent/partner is allowed to move in unpredictable ways for you to counter is pretty much the definition of aliveness. How controlled that is, i.e., are they allowed any technique, or only a certain type? is going to further determine the effectiveness over time. That is, certain schools of martial arts limit their student's effectiveness due to the limits that are placed on them when training live. My Shotokan school was that way. It was straight punching and kicking. No takedowns, no ground work or even follow up on the ground. So it was good as far as it went, but it just didn't go very far. However, merely because one is engaging in a controlled, static training method, doesn't mean that one's fighting ability isn't improving. Timing drills, distancing, positioning, execution of technique are all things that need to be developed. Without the preliminary drills mentioned above, the student will be forced to rely on nothing but his own natural instincts in a fight or sparring match, which won't represent anything scientific at all. You have all seen footage of apes fighting each other I'll wager, and that's what martial arts would devolve into if the technique wasn't first developed in more static or semi-alive ways first.
I agree that technique needs to be developed before placing too many demands on students. Not only does technique need to be developed, but also the removal of some instinctive actions. You have all probably noticed how beginners will back away from an attack. This is a natural reaction to the attack and it does serve you well in avoiding the attack; however it does not putt you in a position where you can mount a counter offensive, more productive forms of evasion need to be developed before overloading them with other stimuli. Without breaking down skills and isolating various skill sets so they can be concentrated on, students will just keep making the same mistakes when under the pressure of a non rehearsed scenario, or someone actually trying to attack them rather than just statically grab them. With my new students I use our normal pair form training but without the ran han ko. As they get their heads around the various techniques within their syllabus I allow some ran han ko. When it comes to randori with my new students I limit it in various ways so that different aspects can concentrate on. Sometimes I will designate the attacker, other times I may allow punching or kicking only, I may even give the attacker a choice of only two or three attacking combinations. To tie all this together I will use a randori where the participants are told to keep it light, playful and at half speed. This allows them to experiment with what they know and help the movement from technique to technique. As students progress the requirements for randori will naturally move on. On my first visit to our headquarters in Japan, I was surprised to read on the timetable that we were scheduled to practice the one technique (Gyaku Gote) all afternoon. After the normal start to a training session, Taiso (warm up) and kihon (basics) we broke up into pairs to practice Gyaku Gote. After a couple of minutes the sensei stopped everyone. For the next three hours Gyaku Gote was broken down into various stages. We practiced just Shu Ho (locked hand defence) we practised feeling for kuzushi (the point at which balance is lost) and so on. After doing this for most of the training session we were then allowed to practice the complete technique. At this stage I had been doing this technique for a number of years and yet I still managed to learn and improve the technique from this practice, so I believe that this too is a valuable form of training.
This is posted in the Kenpo forum, but you say it is in regard to all martial arts, so here goes: I think we need to get rid of the term "point sparring", because it is a meaningless contradiction. The whole point of sparring is that you don't attack once and stop, this exercise already exists and it is called a drill. What is called "point sparring" today is an advanced form of that drill where the two participants can attack simultaneoulsy. There is no pressure testing that is a major benefit of sparring. The exception to this is judo and similar randori-grappling, because you need to really fight hard against a resisting opponent, and once you manage to perform a scoring technique you are generally in a superior position. Judo randori is a lot closer to what you define as "Contest", because there is also a clear winner every time. Since you make a distinction for "limited contact", i assume that by "aliveness" you mean harder contact and more "realistic" sparring. I don't feel there should be a distinction between the two, sparring is sparring, the most versatile training tool that can be focused on controlled technique with limited contact or testing your ability to fight under hard contact and pressure, with all variations between, as desired by the instructor and the fighters. Sparring is by definition "alive" - or in some cases, it should be. A very valuable tool, but i'd rather not call it "sparring", for the sake of clarity. "Drill" is just fine. Apart from the "the Tournaments have light to no contact" part which i don't understand at all - i have seen plenty of K-1 and karate tournaments, as well as grappling, all full-contact - i see the distinction, although i have to say it is not very practical for forum use . The distinction should be perfectly clear fom the discussion or information context. If the discussion focuses on semantics when it is supposed to be about something else, then it has lost any value anyway - or one of the participants has no valid arguements, tends to happen quite often. My 2 eurocents.
Whoah. Judo randori and karate's ippon kumite have almost nothing in common. Randori is a hard contact grappling exercise with continuous scoring (except in the case of a solid throw). Kumite is a minimum to no contact practice that is not continuous. The fact that you can score an ippon in judo does not make it much like karate. These are really the same thing. "Alive" training is not a function of contact, but resistance and a lack of prearranged movement. An "alive" version of such drills is where each participant has a limited repertoire of techniques they may use. This isolates the movement in an activity-specific fashion instead of simulating it out of the context of the activity. We always come back to "dead" drills because there must be a way to feel the technique through to its conclusion before applying progressive resistance. The danger is that these limitations excuse a technique that just isn't viable in a more flexible scenario. Contests Stylistic differences are starting to come back in fits and starts. Now that everyody has the same base the value of specific techniques are extra options, tricks and specialties is coming back. Judo-style hip throws and high kicks are examples of specialties that only a few gyms and athletes go for. I think the main difference has little to do with technical aspects and far more to do with pacing and objectives. Probing jabs, draws and stalling don't really apply. MMA's pacing is really starting to catch up, though, especially in the striking. Strikers used to be much more cautious because they were used to feeling the opponent out and jockeying for position. But as you can close and still fight in MMA, there's not much point to this kind of caution unless you're preventing a shoot or clinch.
New time new terms Danjo mentions, 4)pre-set sparring drills Whether this is the one-step and three-step sparring in Shotokan, or the Combinations in Shaolin Kempo, or the Punch counters in Kajukenbo or the pre-set techniques of EPAK or Tracy's Kempo, they are designed to build one's muscle memory, flow, power, and reflexes using proper form and technique in a controlled setting Dan First, I would like to say good thread, I hope it will not go as others before to the locked box. You mention Muscle Memory. Lets first get away from that archaic thought pattern. we have pathways that send the communication to the head guy..(Brain) To or from, pain is a message and so is the movement. One from one area the other from another. The Muscle is nothing more then a tool to get the Job done. If it is not worked by the person and send it the signals to the main location (Brain) it does not get it done. Numerous things I can go into Lympic system etc.. But I am going to stick to the Memory of muscle's. If you are using it as just a reminder that it is the brain and the area of it that controls the muscle, Ok. Brain is the thing. Many parts, but lets look at it like as a whole. Not unlike a black hole in the universe. Some say they continue going one way and then boom they go another. Opinion's love um. So, if that is the case and we sever the nerve to the muscle it goes, no mas. As in the one in my lower left leg. It is hampered but not totally gone as others, who have had their back injured for "real" also, none of this little pain and stopping me, but as in damage and ruin. So if the muscle is like a tool which is laying on the work bench, waiting to be used at the command of the brain. Lets look at it that way. Drills are the way, many times executed send it, send it, many, many, times some say hundreds, others say thousands. Now there is a fold in the brain that holds that information and similar to a switch it is on or off. Computer is another way to look at it. If your pc is not running it is not going to perform. Regards, Gary :Angel:
Hey, thanks to both you and Eyebeams for correcting some of my terminology and adding your insights and opinions.
Well, let's say they are simliar in that they are usually what one sees at the respective tournements and even kids participate in them. Full contact kickboxing and MMA stuff is usually the realm of adults. These are both scored with points and have time limits etc. etc. Beyond that, I agree with your distinctions.
I have a similar understanding of the value of repetitive movents as Gary. We don’t spend a lot of time on warm ups, as we don’t compete and therefore don’t have the need to go through ten three minute rounds. My thoughts are that if my students want greater levels of fitness they can go for a run, do aerobics or go spinning. I have them for only two hours and I’m the only one that can teach them Shorinji Kempo, so this is what I should spend my efforts on. After a short warm up period I will start kihon. While kihon is just basic kicking, punching and blocking it is also a very good sport specific exercise program that build on the initial warm up and helps keep all the Neuro pathways firing. While kihon is particularly important for beginners it still holds value for experienced kenshi. If I miss kihon for any length of time I can really notice the degradation in my technique, speed and balance. A number of years ago Aosaka sensei told me that he used to do 1000 kicks a day into a punching bag. While this was a little extreme and has left him with a damaged back, it also was partly responsible for his legendary performances at randori and in the open full contact tournaments of Japan. He is getting old now, but his randori is still very strong and even the full time students at headquarters feel apprehensive when they are required to do randori with him. So I guess I’m saying that there is room for repetitive practice in our toolbox of training methods and that like any toolbox you will have a number of tools to chose from, each used for a specific purpose.
Hi Colin Yes we have similar views and similar injuries, but we work with them and try to educate the ones who want to be or not. That can be taken several ways. Injured or educated or not or both or one or the other. So I feel the student needs to be brought along gently and firmly don't let them get hurt. Example: Last night good fight on HBO tough fighter doing his best that he can against a huge man. He was getting beatup pretty bad and it really started showing going into the second half of a 12 rounder. He would not give up, ref should have stopped it did'nt and finally a few rounds to late in my humble opinion his Manager/trainer stopped the bout. So I am of the thought all this rough and tumble is not the way to train. Not for the best benefit of the average peerson who wants to learn and not be injured for life. Gary
Sooooo, some poepl here are actually trying to say that street type fighting simulations (or actually NHB fights) are NOT a good way to train self-defense? While I may respect some of you that have said it, that being what I got from it, that has to be one of the most ignorant things I have read regarding martial arts. Such things or often said about MMA fighting and such, and they are usually said by people that know they would get their asses handed to them in such a situation. I hope someday my kids can learn to play guitar without actually playing...that'd rock...
I may have missed it but I saw only two points related to the above. 1. If you are injured enough so that you can't train, that limits your ability to in self defense too. Basically this logic applies to everything, whether it is TMA or MMA. All training has risks to be mitigated. This is generally one of those things where older people reflect back on injuries that they laughed at when they were younger but now they are still hurting from them thirty years later. Examples used against sport martial arts related to this are the cases of boxers getting "punch drunk" (brain damage) from repeated hits to the head. On the other hand, same arguments about joint damage from repeated strain and "punching in the air" caused by years of TMA training as well as the mangled arms from trying to block a kick with the edge of the forearm because that movement is ingrained in some martial arts as "proper technique". 2. and the other point was about muscle memory... I think this is more about being a balanced martial artist. Basically too much of anything is not good. Sport type martial arts spend TOO MUCH time training only for the competition (neglecting other aspects of self-defense and martial arts). Self-defense martial arts spend TOO MUCH time working on the tools (neglecting actually developing those tools against fully resistant and determined opponents). Or something along those lines. This is a matter of perspective also. Many sport oriented martial artists do so when they are younger and then move on keeping those same experiences but expand into more the self-defense and other aspects of martial arts as they get older. Many self-defense oriented martial artists end up moving towards a sport type environment to improve their "delivery systems" because without resistance to test and learn, practical application is only theory. I didn't see anything in the above points that says occassional MMA or NHB type training isn't a bad idea for those serious about martial arts. I only saw concern about over use of the more extreme training methods because of injury and safety concerns.
Keep in mind that greater level of fitness = more powerful strikes, better wrestling and generally better health. Fitness is not only meant for boxing for 12 rounds, it affects a single strike equally. Damaging your back by kicks = either bad form or training through a pre-existing injury. Edit: Also bear in mind that those who are concerned with safe training the most are professional fighters, because injuries in training mean no fights - no money, and if they fight they put their long-term health on the line too.
HI all I believe this is true. I think this is more about being a balanced martial artist. Basically too much of anything is not good. Sport type martial arts spend TOO MUCH time training only for the competition (neglecting other aspects of self-defense and martial arts). Self-defense martial arts spend TOO MUCH time working on the tools (neglecting actually developing those tools against fully resistant and determined opponents). Or something along those lines. This is a matter of perspective also. Many sport oriented martial artists do so when they are younger and then move on keeping those same experiences but expand into more the self-defense and other aspects of martial arts as they get older. Many self-defense oriented martial artists end up moving towards a sport type environment to improve their "delivery systems" because without resistance to test and learn, practical application is only theory. I didn't see anything in the above points that says occassional MMA or NHB type training isn't a bad idea for those serious about martial arts. I only saw concern about over use of the more extreme training methods because of injury and safety concerns.[/QUOTE] DB Check out my bio in the last pages of a thread here on MAP, "Legit Belts and BS." It has been locked. Then post me yours and we can compare. Thanks, Rebel nice, well said and done. I took the liberty to use some of it here, Probably should have used it all but I am not into the fight. :woo: LOL, :Angel: Regards, Gary
Aliveness I'd venture to say is an American term closely associated with the Jeet Kune Do and some Ken/mpo camps and more recently with the newer reality based martial arts.
Definately. Just like everything there will be slight differances. Several paths to the same location.
I agree and disagree. Yes, MMA brings realism but it is heavily regulated depending on the which orgs. rules we are viewing at the moment. But we do need a solid balance between technique/drilling and freestyle.
Oh sure, MMA has it's rules and each org has more or less of them, but even with that it is probably close to the most realistic "street fight" situation you can get into without actually getting into a street fight. I also agree, technique and fitness are of utmost importance in any MA as is safety, but fighting is another part that many people say is worthless (or at least unproductive) which I find humorous.
I totally agree except with some realistic JKD and weapon training that MMA does not include. Not all JKD or weapon training, just some that I've experienced are very realistic.
Can't speak with any experience there, I have no knowledge JKD, but my Kenpo training has a bit of weapon defense stuff that is pretty good, I am sure there are plenty of good things out there.
