Intent drives action. A lack of intent could mean weak or ineffective technique. Strong intent generally means strong and more effective technique. However, how can we quantify intent? I could punch with great force, but at the last moment pull my punch. Was the intent the striking hard or was it the end result of pulling my punch, or both? This actually happened to me in several different situations. I'll use one as an example. I had hurt my wrist fairly badly, even when fully healed, I had a hard time hitting a heavy bag with that hand at full power. It took me more than healing of the body to reach a point where I could hit full power again. I would like to discuss intent. I will start with... Intent is in spirit, mind, body. Let's keep it simple and define spirit = fighting spirit (determination, courage), mind = conviction (strong belief, motivation), and body = procedural memory. Under these definitions, body is actually including the mind, or at least the part of the mind that controls how the body moves. The term "mind" is literally conscious thought of what is believed to be right or the truth combined with decision making and planning. Spirit is a kin to intuition and also includes that part of the mind that is subconscious... in other words, the part of the mind that controls knowledge or conviction gained by intuition. Okay, I'm starting to sound like an Anime creator. To act decisively, without hesitation requires spirit, mind, body to all be in agreement. When spirit, mind, body are not all in agreement, we have internal conflicts. Take for example a hot stove. The first time you touch it, it burns. If you approach a hot stove later, you can decide to touch it, but your actions will be slower because your body remembers what happened. You may even lack the spirit to act. The body is telling the mind, don't touch the hot stove, that is stupid. This is internal conflict. In training we are taught and told to attack with intent, but really do we know what that means? I believe that to really understand intent, we must understand our own internal conflicts. 1) The first intent comes from the body. The body acts in certain ways based on training motions repeatedly. But this also includes what we learn from trauma and when under pressure. The body remembers. 2) The second intent comes from the mind. This is having strong belief that an action is necessary. Of course, our beliefs might waiver based on available and unknown information. 3) The third intent comes from the spirit. This is gut feelings, or belief based on intuition. IME, the first process is to remove intention from the body. This is done by focusing intent through the mind. At first at a more conscious level, such as staring between the eyes of the opponent. The training is to teach the body to TRUST the decisions made by the mind. In other words, if the mind decides that touching the hot stove is the right thing to do, then the body acts without hesitation. The mind must be strong in conviction for this though, because we know we will likely be burned. In combat, this could be the decision to allow the enemy to break your arm so that you can rip their throat out. Give up the arm to finish them. In a life and death situation, the conviction that this is the last resort, that it is necessary. Intent in the mind or rather conscious thought takes time to process. The opportunity to act may have already passed by the time the thought to act comes. The intent then must then be taken out of the mind. This frees the mind to make important decisions rather than be overly focused on one thing. For this to happen, the mind must learn to listen and TRUST the spirit, or in other words, trust your intuition. To act freely, without internal conflict. To take actions seemingly effortlessly. To get back into the more unquantifiable intent, the enemy can learn to read the intent of the body, the enemy can pick up on the mind being focused or distracted, and the enemy can sense when spirit is weak or fading. However, when all three (spirit, mind, body) are in agreement, it is like a mirror (IMHO). The enemy sees in you what they see in themselves. Kind of like just having a really weird feeling that something isn't right but not being able to figure out what it is. Okay, sorry, last part does sound like something out of an Anime.
Well sure, then maybe not the badgers, but if he's been a right runt you can still give it to him in the shins.
If you "intend" to punch - fast, that will not be your true speed. - hard, that will not be your true power. When 1. your opponent attacks you, your leg kick out without knowing yourself, he runs into your kick, and drops down in front of you. 2. your opponent stabs a knife into your chest, you spin your body, hay-maker hit on the back of his head, and knock him down. 3. you walk on the dirt road, your foot hit on a rock, your body lose balance, you readjust your other foot, regain your balance back, and continue your walking. In all 3 cases, your body respond by your "reflex" and you don't have any "intend" at that particular moment. Even when you are drunk, you still want to be able to defend yourself. Is that what you want to train your MA for - to develop nature reflex by your muscle memory?
re: intent: this is actually pretty decently studied in weight training, of all things, in the dichotomy of internal vs external foci, the former being visualization or concentration cues relating to what the body is doing, with the latter relating to what the goal of the movement is, and having greater efficacy than the former with regard to increasing performance (maximal strength, throw distance, jump height), and internal foci serving more for the quality of isolated movement, in that context being more useful for muscle development. more info here. as an aside, this is purely a suspicion of mine with no data to back it up, but i actually think this phenomenon may actually involve different neuromotor pathways for each kind of foci, with internally and externally focused movements processed in different areas of the encephalon before the motor impulse is sent to the muscles. this obviously exists in martial arts as well and is at the crux of all the endless form vs function debates. i personally think of it in bastardized CMA terms, where li, the sum of the muscular forces involved in a movement, is turned into jing, refined technique where forces are exerted in the right direction in a coordinated manner, to my mind cognate with karate's kime, by applying yi, or intent, that is, the will to move in the most effective way possible for one's intended goal, such as bonking the guy in the head really hard, or taking him down, with the quick/violent/explosive application of li and jing getting the prefix fa (project), so fa li for gross and violent motions, and fa jing for relaxed yet firm explosiveness, and using the okinawan concept of chinkuchi (transliteration of fa jing, if i'm not mistaken?) to identify the firmness of structure at the moment of impact or resistance that actually leads to force transfer and makes effective a movement with jing (thus making it and fa jing opposite ends of a continuum, sort of). i don't know enough formal CMA theory to know if this contradicts any classic texts or whatnot, but neither do i really care as i just appropriated the terms for my own use to better explain what i mean now, can we quantify intent? i'd say we hypothetically could, or at least its end result, but it would be so impractical as to be inviable. to my mind, it would be a scale between a movement that does exactly what one wants it to do, to the utmost extent allowed by the physical capabilities of the body, and the exact opposite of the movement, but since every body is different, every situation is different, and the end goal for a movement will vary from situation to situation, it could only be realistically assessed on a case-by-case basis.
I think this is the crux of it. Consciousness is a double-edged sword. It is both the reason we can learn complex skills, and also the reason why we mess up a lot of the time. Compare a human climbing to a goat, or a human trying to jump between trees compared to a monkey, or a human fighting compared to a dog. I really don't think this trinary system of spirit/mind/body is necessary or instructive. In the end it is the same mechanism as meditation: you want the conscious mind to only touch lightly on your actions by timely focus on results. Once the conscious mind gets involved in trying to orchestrate movement, it all goes to pot. But, at the same time, without that clumsy conscious control of the body, we would never get past swinging wild haymakers and biting people. It is how we are able to learn complex new skills. But until those skills become unconscious habit, you can never rely on them to work effectively. The conscious mind is just the mouth of the mind. It goes much, much deeper than that, and this is why I believe my experience matches YouKnowWho's - because when you react without conscious deliberation you are allowing your true intent to issue forth unfettered. The trick for me is in how I direct that intent - by conditioning myself never to err, hesitate or split intent so that actions end up only half-performed. This is also where you have to become comfortable with your character. You don't get to choose if your instinct is to destroy, control, freeze, fight, run away. You can try and chip away at these instincts, but there is no room for denial or role-playing when the faeces is spraying from the fan. Great article, thanks for that. I like it when practice is validated by science
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGQdzv-5kk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyGQdzv-5kk[/ame] Sijo puts it much better than i can
Thanks for all the great replies. I'm going to try some multi-quote madness. See if this works. There is some decision making to what is the appropriate use of force. To always strike through a target, we use a trick called target and technique replacement. It goes something like, instead of kicking the groin, push kick the hip track to break posture. Instead of kicking the knee, kick the shin. Instead of raking the eyes, palm strike the forehead. The technique must match the target. All hits should stun or unbalance on contact, but the chance of permanent or long term damage can be reduced through target replacement. As a last resort, pulling the strike is still an option, but if pulling was the first option, then it would make it very difficult to learn to strike through a target always when under pressure. We call that training to use triggers. I'll use your post as an example of how spirit and reflex can be at odds with each other, causing internal conflict. Take the principle, "maximum mobility and minimum movement". Maintaining maximum mobility is not hard to understand. Even when on the ground/grappling, mobility is maintained through training and technique. The exception is only when it is safe to limit mobility in order to pin or submit an opponent. Minimum movement could be said to be to learn to move only what is necessary to get the job done. Moving less than half-the width of the body is enough to evade or negate most attacks. And efficiency of motion is understood to be a good thing. Combining the two parts of the principle into a tactic... "wait until the last possible moment to move" Seems a lot of martial artists cringe at the word "wait", but I won't address the word as much as the meaning. When the enemy attacks, they are most vulnerable at the time they are most committed to the attack. If you move too early, you may not get a committed attack, giving time for the enemy to readjust. If you move too late, you get hit/killed. It takes courage to be able to face the enemy to the point of their full commitment of attack, and only then move to evade and strike them. The spirit must be strong or else the body's reflex will be to move too early or even worse freeze. I have a few training tricks for this, but won't go into it right now. Excellent. Thanks for the linked article. Maybe this is why staring between the eyes helps focus. I don't feel conscious thought should be only for the beginning stages of training. Deciding the appropriate use of force isn't purely reflex. I can use an example of a fellow who has what I consider "true killer instinct". His instinct is to "go for the throat", he has done the reverse training as the majority of people. He consciously stops himself from killing an opponent. In his mind, he has already killed you, but by freeing his mind to make important decisions, he decides when not to kill. It is very rare to find someone with true killer instinct. However, the lesson taught to me was to free the mind to make important decisions. This is not unique in usefulness. I think most people would have trouble killing a helpless opponent. This is a good thing, makes you a good person. However, if you do not train to understand this, it can come at a time when you find yourself in internal conflict. It isn't enough to train muscle memory, the connection with the conscious must also be trained for intent to be true. I'll just say that I didn't have to think to punch someone when I was younger, but maybe it takes more thought ahead of time as we get older. I'd say Honey Roy Palmer said it better than me though, but I don't remember the quote. Doh!
IMO, this approach is too risky. You give your opponent too much "time" and "space" to generate his speed and power. It will take you more effort to stop it. It's better to prevent a problem from happening, or solve the problem during the early stage than to let a problem to happen and then try to fix it. It's much easier to stop your opponent's - kick by using your leg to "jam" his kicking leg, - punch by using your arm to "wrap" his punching arm, when his attack is still in the initial stage that speed and power have not fully been generated yet. In order to do so, you have to move in ASAP and you should not wait until the last moment. In the following clip, if his opponent's right fist has almost reached to his face, his left arm won't have enough time and space to extend and perform the "wrapping". [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWXyvnUVdbk&feature=youtu.be"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWXyvnUVdbk&feature=youtu.be[/ame]
There is a saying in knife training, "don't overreact to the first move. If you do, that's when they got you." [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCl9bfz-8Y"]Filipino Kali Authority, Dan Inosanto on Speed of Knife Attacks Vs. Gun [Surviving Edged Weapons] - YouTube[/ame] I didn't think I had to go in to this, but waiting in martial arts is completely different than conventional waiting. In martial arts, you always protect yourself and when you are waiting, you are not passive, you are attacking at all times while protecting yourself. Waiting is to be ready to go, but to not overreact so that you can change direction at any time. When we overreact, we ourselves commit and then cannot change direction instantly. So when we do commit, we must act decisively. The martial training in waiting until the last possible moment is to train the spirit to act decisively. To train to go from zero to 100% in an instant. In peaceful times, we tend to think in the aspects of physical action, but in war time, it is psychological and physical warfare. In warfare you exert control of your enemy BEFORE contact is made. So when waiting in martial arts, you already have exerted control over the opponent(s). Think of it this way, if you learn to overreact, you become predictable and the enemy can control your actions before contact is made. Example of waiting until the last possible moment to move: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ESfN3lUNRM"]Seven Samurai Die Fast - YouTube[/ame]
We may talk about the same thing but using different terms. It's not "over-react" but "interrupt". You need to cut in a certain angle that can "interrupt" whatever that your opponent tries to do to you. In this clip, when he applies "arm drag" on his opponent, he tries to move to his opponent's side door and then back door. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWBrnVxpW7w"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWBrnVxpW7w[/ame] In the following clip, his opponent applies "arm drag" on him (in a NW direction) and tries to move to his right side and then behind. He - steps in front of his opponent (in a NE direction), - blocks his opponent's moving path, - interrupts his opponent's attack, and - applies his attack. Please notice that if he waits too long, his opponent's "arm drag" can force him to shift more weight on his leading leg. That will be difficult for him to lift his leading leg and move to the NE direction. You can wait until the last moment so you can borrow your opponent's force. This is most "internal" guys like to do. But what if the force that you try to borrow can be used to against you? If you don't want that to happen, you will need to "interrupt" it. [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr-fRFRZ7Q"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQr-fRFRZ7Q[/ame]
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ESfN3lUNRM"]Seven Samurai Die Fast - YouTube[/ame] This clip shows that he is a defensive and counter fighter. He lets his opponent attacks first, he then reacts to it. There is another strategy that you attack, your opponent responds, you then respond to his respond. I prefer the 2nd strategy for many reasons.
If that is what you believe, maybe you should look at the full scene (sorry, I could not find it in English): [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31ry9HOmI-Y"]I Sette Samurai , Il duello di KyūzŠ- By Jin Roh no Dojo - YouTube[/ame] And here is a clip just because: [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7I2N61y5_I"]The Empty Mind - YouTube[/ame] Metaphorically speaking, we are looking at different aspects of martial arts. I feel you are looking at the game of chess, which is the aspect of slowing down the game and methodologically breaking down the enemy. This is something that works when in a superior position. You are not overly concerned with bluffing or deception. On the other hand, I'm playing two games, one of Siamese speed chess and the other is poker. Something that is necessary for multiple attackers and weapons, when you do not have equal footing. I am concerned about bluffing and deception. IMHO.
I had played a high rollers Mahjong games once in my life. Each hand was at least $500. The whole game was 16 rounds. In 8 rounds, I already lose $12,000. Since I had only 8 rounds left, I started to play 100% offense with 0% defense. My offense strategy had scared the other 3 players. They all started to play defense and though I had good hand. At the end of that game, I end up winning $3,600. From that game, I did learn that "offense is the best defense" is good strategy. Old CMA saying said, "Even if you can't find any opportunity to attack, you still keep moving. During your constant moving, soon or later you will find opportunity to attack." I assume "constant moving" is different from "standing still and wait".
I meant the conscious control of muscles in particular. Not that you have to switch off your conscious mind entirely. I'm not sure you really took in my bit about using the conscious mind with a light touch to direct intent. I think that we'll probably never agree on how much impact our consciousness has on our behaviour. You're also bringing up a lot of examples that I just cannot contemplate or comment on: I've never been in a war, I've never let someone break my arm so that I could rip their throat out with my teeth, and I've never been in a Japanese reimagining of a spaghetti western
I like the term you used, "light touch". I don't think we can ever know if we completely agree because we aren't mind readers. I would say there are a lot of examples that make sense on a case-by-case basis, but generalizations don't tend to work. With that said, what I am getting at isn't a disagreement with you, I don't believe. I'm more trying to get at training methods that help reach that point where "the light touch" works and rather than cause internal conflict. I guess I'm talking about how to remove internal conflict. For the conscious thought, one method is to make important decisions ahead of time, then if and when it really happens, you won't tend to overthink things when the pressure comes. IMHO.
Sure, I don't think we're disagreeing fundamentally, but I do feel that you are overcomplicating things. In the "Biomechanics..." thread I talked about training methods, and that hovering in the borderland of panic in sparring is where one learns about intent. This goes just as much for the person who cannot control their aggression as it does for the person who is too timid to let rip. I think it is all one simple mechanism, albeit a life's work to master, so I see no need for case-by-case over generalisation. As for conscious thought ahead of time, I agree in practice, but in principle I would still argue about how "conscious" those decisions really are.
