Contextualization: the Make-or-Break of Martial Arts

[Chris McKinley]

Also,

Excellent points about the realism in training. Those points go to the aspect I purposefully left out of both my Fundamental Flaw thread and this one....namely, the realism and combat viability of the content of the material itself, regardless of how it is trained. As we on this forum have discussed/debated/bitched about for years, lots of the content of material in martial arts is itself not realistic for combat, even if you trained it and contextualized it in a realistic way.

[Bhassler]

Deus,

RE: "This is an interesting thread because how do you know something is appropriately contextualized for a life and death encounter without getting in one?". Aha! I was wondering when somebody would pick up on that. You don't. This is one of the main reasons that, in my own personal beliefs, I'm so adamant about combat instruction being given by someone who's actually "been there", in whatever various way that means. There are far too many schools for martial arts out there, and far too many of them being instructed by people with no actual experience with fighting themselves, and I'm not even talking about life-or-death combat.

The simple answer is that there is no single standardized threshold for sufficient contextualization. Not only would it be a lost cause to try and find unanimous agreement about where that threshold is and how it would be measured, but creating a single standard would likely be pointless anyway. Individuals vary in where that threshold is for them, and not only from person to person, but also from tactic to tactic. Tom might find it easy to work up the jab, but the hook takes him a lot longer to really get down to the point where he can use it for real. Dick might find the hook easier, but the jab gives him trouble for some reason. Harry can also do the jab a little easier, but he's a Tong Bei stylist, so he doesn't care. He's got other challenges.

There will always be subjectivity inherent in the process. Not only is that unavoidable, it can actually be preferable. There's already far too much of the one-size-fits-all mentality in martial arts, especially in those martial arts most influenced by collectivist cultural beliefs. What's needed isn't a single standard that allows people to abdicate their individual judgment in favor of a policy, and also allows people with no fight experience to resume teaching, since all they would have to do is recognize the threshold.

What's truly needed is to find someone with real experience whose teaching style works for you and whose teaching you trust. Yes, that evaluation would have to be made subjectively, and you will know less about the material and teaching you are evaluating at first than after you've been around awhile. Eventually though, you'll know from your own personal experience as you begin to test the material yourself. You'll begin to learn what works for you, and that will inform your ability to evaluate not only your current instruction but also any future training situations.

It's a lot like choosing a family doctor. Yeah, sure, you want all doctors to be held to a standard that is, at minimum, sufficient for treating people, but even with standards like that in place, not all doctors are equal by any means. Ultimately, only you can determine who your physician ought to be, and at least parts of that decision are subjective.

The instructor you choose for combat instruction should always be accountable to you, the student, even though of necessity, you will be placing a certain amount of trust in his/her instruction. No one instantly and automatically gives absolute loyalty, social deference, and unquestioning trust to a garage mechanic when you need him to fix your car. Neither should you give your physician those things automatically. And you certainly shouldn't blindly give those things to someone claiming to be able to teach you how to fight.

A good, qualified instructor will be able to guide you toward real functionality, and at the pace your needs require. He/she will also be able to evaluate your progress and current abilities, and determine whether or not you are truly becoming contextually functional, or whether you are just developing refined abilities out of context. He'll know the difference, and he'll keep you from bullshitting yourself and future generations of practitioners that you might teach. He'll be tough but fair, and his guidance, however bitter, will be trustworthy. He'll also know how to help you contextualize your skills gradually, at the appropriate pace for you, to keep you from either languishing in mediocrity or from moving too quickly for a given skill.

Here's a little quote from Richard Feynman (who by all accounts knew something about inquiry and learning):

Each generation that discovers something from its experience must pass that on, but it must pass that on with a delicate balance of respect and disrespect, so that the [human] race — now that it is aware of the disease to which it is liable — does not inflict its errors too rigidly on its youth, but it does pass on the accumulated wisdom, plus the wisdom that it may not be wisdom.

It is necessary to teach both to accept and to reject the past with a kind of balance that takes considerable skill. Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers of the preceding generation.

source: http://semiorganized.com/articles/other ... ience.html

I think this speaks to the notion of how one might relate to a teacher, experienced or otherwise.

The concept of passing knowledge from one to another raises interesting questions about the supposition that one must have "been there" in order to teach viable self-defense with integrity. If I have learned from a number of teachers who have "been there" in far more severe circumstances than even most professionals (i.e. special forces in Vietnam, the Cultural Revolution in China) and they all have similar ideas and approaches at what point can I say "okay, I have enough information/experience to determine that this is viable"? If I can hang with a bunch of street fighting and military combat veterans, and they say it's good enough, can I teach that with integrity as self-defense? The obvious answer is that we each need to make our own assessments and choose accordingly, so while saying you need to learn from someone who's been there and done that may be a relatively safe recommendation when speaking to the masses sight-unseen, I question whether it really stands up to close scrutiny as a universal rule.

Approaching the question from the other end, if we agree that any sort of training is at best only an abstraction of a life-and-death encounter, then we can fairly examine how learning occurs and how skills transfer from abstractions to usage in general. This is more or less the reasoning behind "attribute enhancement" in certain styles of martial art. Iron palm, speed training, conditioning etc. are not in any way, shape, or form fighting, but are very useful attributes for a fighter to have. The same approach could be applied to mental and reflexive aspects of fighting as well. If an abstraction will always be an abstraction, why not let it be what it is and take advantage of the inherent benefits it offers? So then the question becomes "can we benefit by training fighting skills in a MORE rather than less abstract manner?" (Note that I do not consider something like endless form repetitions or chi visualizations to fall under this category. They may contain similar elements but generally speaking are not used in that fashion.)

[Chris McKinley]

Excellent retorts, Brian. I love it when thinking people post.

I love that quote by Feynman. My bro-in-law, a physicist, turned me on to his quirky brand of wisdom years ago, and I'm a fairly decent hand drummer today as a result, even though my physics knowledge is still...hmm...not commensurate.

RE: "If I have learned from a number of teachers who have "been there" in far more severe circumstances than even most professionals (i.e. special forces in Vietnam, the Cultural Revolution in China) and they all have similar ideas and approaches at what point can I say "okay, I have enough information/experience to determine that this is viable"?". Dunno, but I would say that at some point, and in a bit of contradiction to my usual beliefs, you probably could. I described previously that a student ought eventually through his own testing develop the ability to evaluate potential future training situations as to their realism and viability of the content as well as the quality of instruction of that content. That seems to be what you're describing here.

If you've developed that evaluative capability yourself, and you've got a couple of guys whose input you trust because they've been there, not because they talk a good game, then yeah, you probably could make those evaluations yourself somewhat reliably. You might also be able to discover some quality instruction from the rare instructor who both has good reliable instruction in this regard and yet has not himself had any experience in using it.

I can think of at least two factors, though, that need to be noted for perspective:

1) Percentage-wise, there are going to be very few instructors who qualify that way as being both a) capable of providing top-quality instruction of realistic material content via realistic combat-viable training, and b) completely without direct personal experience of combat themselves.

2) The current state of affairs is in such a poor state regarding the viability of both content and training that, personally speaking, I can only feel confident erring on the side of caution and must risk alienating that tiny rare percentage of instructors who are both inexperienced and have the best material and training methods by recommending that, by default, potential students ought to limit their final choices of instruction to those instructors with experience if they (the students) are serious about obtaining skills that are viable for real combat.

Yes, I realize that that recommendation would rule out, and perhaps even drive out of business, the majority of martial arts instructors across the board regardless of style. Like I said, there are already far too many martial art schools, and the number has grossly outpaced the level of competence.

RE: "If I can hang with a bunch of street fighting and military combat veterans, and they say it's good enough, can I teach that with integrity as self-defense?". Yeah, if you can convince potential students to trust you. Even within my model, there is room for that kind of subjective, case-by-case evaluation. At least you will have tested your material enough to honestly determine that you can "hang" with those who have the experience, though it depends on how you define being able to hang. However, such situations are still quite rare. In most cases, those without any real experience themselves simply will not be able to "hang" with those who have real combat experience as well as training when it comes to real combat or even realistic combat training. That's just basic Law of Averages kinda stuff.

So while there may be the occasional exception, the rule should still be as I previously mentioned. Those who think themselves viable exceptions to that rule have upon themselves the onus to prove to potential students that an exception to the 'experienced-only instructors policy' ought to be made in their particular case. In contrast, what we have now as the rule is that the benefit of the doubt on that issue is grossly and routinely abused, with almost every instructor given the benefit of the doubt and simply assumed to be competent to the task which they advertise without having to provide any evidence whatsoever that they are deserving of that exception to the rule.

RE: "The obvious answer is that we each need to make our own assessments and choose accordingly, so while saying you need to learn from someone who's been there and done that may be a relatively safe recommendation when speaking to the masses sight-unseen, I question whether it really stands up to close scrutiny as a universal rule.". Thank you, bless you even, for the critical thinking represented in this comment. I believe that I have above demonstrated that my recommendation still does hold for universal application as a default position, though there may be room for the occasional exception assuming that the given inexperienced instructor can still demonstrate his competence to the task sufficiently to earn the trust of his potential students.

RE: "Iron palm, speed training, conditioning etc. are not in any way, shape, or form fighting, but are very useful attributes for a fighter to have. The same approach could be applied to mental and reflexive aspects of fighting as well.". Indeed so, as I and others have done for many years now.

RE: "If an abstraction will always be an abstraction, why not let it be what it is and take advantage of the inherent benefits it offers?". Because that abstraction may prove insufficient or non-viable, either wholly or by percentage, to the native context of the training. Further, all abstractions to combat are not equally abstract nor metaphoric. That fact alone will make some more useful than others.

RE: "So then the question becomes "can we benefit by training fighting skills in a MORE rather than less abstract manner?". A qualified yes, but never at the expense of 'least abstract' training, and only if that training yields concrete beneficial results. I would submit my own research and development into trance work related to combat training as a perfectly illustrative example. By my own standards, I can include such training, but never at the expense of more essential 'less abstract' training. Further, even if the scheduling doesn't conflict, so to speak, I am still limited to providing such abstract training only if it produces concrete results in the native context. IOW, does it make me or my trainee a more effective fighter in real combat? If not, it has to go, regardless of cultural or personal sentiment. If it does, then it can stay. In fact, I may even find that I want to increase it to some degree, but always with concrete results as the yardstick.

[Bhassler]

Thanks, Chris, your particular brand of discussion often helps me clarify my own thoughts, even where we disagree.

RE: "So then the question becomes "can we benefit by training fighting skills in a MORE rather than less abstract manner?". A qualified yes, but never at the expense of 'least abstract' training, and only if that training yields concrete beneficial results. I would submit my own research and development into trance work related to combat training as a perfectly illustrative example. By my own standards, I can include such training, but never at the expense of more essential 'less abstract' training. Further, even if the scheduling doesn't conflict, so to speak, I am still limited to providing such abstract training only if it produces concrete results in the native context. IOW, does it make me or my trainee a more effective fighter in real combat? If not, it has to go, regardless of cultural or personal sentiment. If it does, then it can stay. In fact, I may even find that I want to increase it to some degree, but always with concrete results as the yardstick.

What would you say the proportion is between more concrete and more abstract training for you or your students? Do you find it trends towards a particular ratio or does it vary widely between individuals? Lately I've found that I do better with a strong emphasis on the abstract and the (relatively) more realistic stuff is done almost purely for the purposes of contextualization, which can actually happen very quickly. Then again, I'm not a hardcore fighter and my background is not typical as far as how I've learned to move and how that's generalized to learning in a broader context.

[Mut]

I think one important thing is for the attacks used in drills to be real. By real I don't mean real intent, but the attack should be real in that its being thrown at a realistic target in a realistic way and eventually with realistic power and speed.

Deus, I think you are partially right here, though with regard to intent I think that it is an imperative in contextualizing real world violence. The only factor that is consistent in real violence is the intent, speed and skill are inconsistent. So when we are talking about real drills I would suggest that the attack can only be real if it has intent, or at the very least where the attacker can fool the person practicing that the attack has intent. Speed and power provide a hell of a lot of practice, though I am not sure they contextualize the practice.

Personally I try to follow the following path:

1/ learn the skill in a safe way I.E: the feed is predictable and slow (while maintaining correct distance and some timing)
2/ begin to imbed the skill by ramping up the speed and power of the feed, not so much as to cause failure in the person practicing (at this stage)
3/ have the feed slow down but add intent to what is going on. This requires the feeder to actually envisage succeeding in causing harm on the practitioner with the particular feed/series of feeds used (important here that the feed does not become overwhelming in terms of continuing with the attacks past a given point)
4/ ramp this up in terms of intent speed and power. (still not full speed or power)

5/ have the practitioner reflect on the process, how different is it dealing with fast(ish) attacks with no real intent compared with slow(er) attacks with intent

6/ begin working the skill at a higher level of speed and power aiming at getting to failure for the practitioner, once failure is real peg back a little and work up again. At this stage the intent should be taken away again, the aim here is to overload the practitioner with speed.
7/ Go back and add intent, really ramp up the (seeming) cost of failure but keep the the intent controlled and in context of the skill being trained

8/ again reflect
upto this stage the practitioner is told they are in control and can choose to step away at any time (and are encouraged to do so if they feel particularly tence) often this needs to be re told timne and again because they forget they are in control... or should be.

9/slowly open up and free the training in order to practice without assumption of what is coming in.
10/ aim for free attack with high levels of intent.

note: it is important for the intent to be there at a convincing level to fool the practitioner into actually believing they are in danger. If you fight how you train and you never feel in danger at training there is no context.

My learning of this was fast and brutal, when I traveled to the main school, interstate for my BB grading I was suddenly faced with people who had the intent to hit me and hurt me (even in prior full contact training I had not experienced this feeling inside a MA setting.) It was an eye opener (again) in that I did not feel prepared for that level of blatant hostility and aggression. During the first week I was there I regularly went away from sessions psychologically drained and fully adrenalised (though deflated), over the course of the month I was there I came to understand the need for intent when training. I have been in many situations of danger both before and since, but since then I have never been so affected as I was at the time.



BHassler that Richard Feynman quote is a great one.

[velalavela]

Hi Chris,

I’ve been following the threads you’ve posted recently. Like most of your post they are well though out interesting ideas. Quite wordy posts from everyone but worth reading right through to get to the point.

My firt teachers were guys that got into Karate in the mid to late 60’s ( before the Bruce Lee phenomenon) They were pretty hard out guys but I don’t think they’d ever risked their lives. Once they heard about our grand teacher they jumped at the chance to learn Chinese MA with him as he was something quite different.


I’ve already posted here that the last 'real' fight I was in was when I was 18 and though I might have been risking getting hurt I certainly was not risking my life. Since then I’ve ‘bounced gigs and seen a few nasty things but again my own life or health has not been at risk (well not much anyway).

That probably goes for most of the posters here as well.

Basically you seem to be saying that unless you’ve used your own MA skills in self defence situations where you were at risk of grievous bodily harm or worse, you are not qualified to teach students to handle these situations.

Well, short of War veterans, SAS or equivalent, Cops or ‘street fighters’ I have a feeling that pretty much eliminates most of the people teaching/learning Martial Arts out there today.

While I have to agree with the honesty of that argument it does not leave many options for people who want to learn a bit of Martial Arts.

[Chris McKinley]

Brian,

RE: "What would you say the proportion is between more concrete and more abstract training for you or your students?". It depends on whom I'm training at the time and what their training needs are. I don't teach public classes anymore, so right now, the marker tends to be skewed toward more intense needs with some of the folks I'm still working with. Therefore, most of the stuff tends toward the very concrete.

RE: "Do you find it trends towards a particular ratio or does it vary widely between individuals?". It can vary wildly depending on both the individual and on his training needs. It can also depend a great deal on how much time the client/student and I will have to work together and whether or not the training already has overriding priority objectives.

RE: "Lately I've found that I do better with a strong emphasis on the abstract and the (relatively) more realistic stuff is done almost purely for the purposes of contextualization, which can actually happen very quickly.". Certainly, that can happen. Contextualization does not always take very long to create, as I've mentioned previously. Shooter gave an excellent example of the short-term extreme that can occur.

[Mut]

While I have to agree with the honesty of that argument it does not leave many options for people who want to learn a bit of Martial Arts.

velalavela, there are still plenty of options for learning martial arts... just not many if you really want to contextualize them. Personally I change the angle in teaching and don't try to teach SD. I want to teach people to fight, pure and simple. (note: not 'how to')

There is no problem IMO in learning an art out of context, as long as you are aware that this is so. I think this is where the whole problem of honesty and integrity come into the picture. Personally though I don't quite get why someone would continue to learn an art if the context is missing..... makes me think of a hotted up car that has no engine, sure it may look good but it won't get you home.

[Chris McKinley]

Mut,

RE: "Deus, I think you are partially right here, though with regard to intent I think that it is an imperative in contextualizing real world violence. The only factor that is consistent in real violence is the intent, speed and skill are inconsistent.". That's a good point. While it can be good to work up to including that kind of intent, especially if it is coupled with full speed and power, some degree of it eventually must be included because that is a consistent and potentially deadly factor that is part of the native context. Great care must be taken by the instructor in determining if, when and how much of this is included. Inocculating against trauma is the goal, not creating more of it.

I really like the detailed description of the training path you describe. I'm impressed by the practicality and intelligence of your method.

RE: "It was an eye opener (again) in that I did not feel prepared for that level of blatant hostility and aggression. During the first week I was there I regularly went away from sessions psychologically drained and fully adrenalised (though deflated), over the course of the month I was there I came to understand the need for intent when training.". Thank you for the honesty of that experience. I hope everyone on this forum will read it and take it to heart. Too many martial artists are completely bullshitting themselves into thinking they are prepared for the psychological environment of real combat.

[Chris McKinley]

velalavela,

Thanks for the compliments. Sometimes it can seem like I'm just talking to a brick wall when I bring up controversial topics for discussion, but if I can occasionally make even one person think a little bit in a way they hadn't before, then I'll have done my job.

RE: "Basically you seem to be saying that unless you’ve used your own MA skills in self defence situations where you were at risk of grievous bodily harm or worse, you are not qualified to teach students to handle these situations.". That's almost precisely what I'm saying, yes. Like I mentioned to Brian earlier, there can be the occasional exception, but by and large that's exactly how I feel about it.

RE: "Well, short of War veterans, SAS or equivalent, Cops or ‘street fighters’ I have a feeling that pretty much eliminates most of the people teaching/learning Martial Arts out there today.". Hmm...well, come to think of it, I suppose it does, doesn't it?

RE: "While I have to agree with the honesty of that argument it does not leave many options for people who want to learn a bit of Martial Arts.". No, it certainly does not, thank God. I'm about as much in favor of someone learning "a bit of Martial Arts" as I am someone learning just a bit of handgun safety, a bit of how to drive a vehicle safely, or a bit of surgery. You either learn it to the extent that its native context requires or you have the wisdom to stay the hell out of it, whatever it may be.

As Mut put it so succinctly, "There is no problem IMO in learning an art out of context, as long as you are aware that this is so. I think this is where the whole problem of honesty and integrity come into the picture. Personally though I don't quite get why someone would continue to learn an art if the context is missing..... makes me think of a hotted up car that has no engine, sure it may look good but it won't get you home.".

[Mut]

Great care must be taken by the instructor in determining if, when and how much of this is included. Inocculating against trauma is the goal, not creating more of it.

Absolutely Chris, the process needs to be gradual and gentle (not sure how appropriate that term is given what we are talking about... but hey...) the aim of the training is to develop the skill and ability to use the skill, overwhelming a student before they are ready defeats this aim. That being said I like to use the frog in a pot analogy that I used in the other thread. heat the training up over a timeframe that suits the individual, this can be hours, months or in rares cases seemingly never. Commonly though I have found that after a couple of months training 2-3 times a week people are able to deal with a fair amount of pressure.

The main problem I find with new people is that they just simply don't like being touched on the face (and I do mean touched not hit) which can turn people away straight off, I haven't quite worked out how to get around that one given that it is an imperative in our training.

With regards to the model I described I have put a lot of thought into how I was taught and then thought out why I was taught in the step by step manner that I was. The current conclusion of that process is that particular model. I am always looking at how to best tweak it.

Thanks for your kind words!

[DeusTrismegistus]

I am really not sure that actual intent can be replicated in the training hall. Especially something as extreme as the intent to kill. I am also not sure its necessary. Can you fake the intent to kill? What about just the intent to harm? Now I have had people in class come at me with actual intent to hurt me. Its actually a common response when people are pushed to the threshold of what speed and power they can take. Its really not difficult to push most people into a state where they believe they are in danger and react accordingly. This can be done with light contact in most beginners even. This is why I am not sure the intent is a necessary part of centextualization, or training in particular. If I truly had intent to harm my training partners, we would constantly be getting hurt, and not much training would get done.

Whats more important IMO is pushing the threshold where people lose it to ever higher levels. This is done mainly by free sparring under controlled conditions with a focus on relaxing as much as possible, and learning to be comfortable in uncomfortable situations. The level of intensity should gradually increase but the next step should be taken when proper relaxation is achieved at the current step. Occasionally intensity will go up to see where the student loses it, but only occasionally. You do that to judge progress and see what needs work. You don't want to push yourself to the point of losing it every time you spar because then you are conditioning yourself to lose control, and not to maintain control.

The following is me pretty much thinking in text, so it may take awhile to get to the point...

For contextualization of a skill such as distance I am not sure how you would go about that. Distance is something you learn over time from lots of practice hitting things, moving and otherwise. You learn to judge distance automatically. Now there are specifics about adjusting for the correct distance with footwork that can be contextualized similar to any other technique. However with the skill of distance also comes learning when to use what type of attack, what range you are in, and matching your weapon appropriately. You need to be able to adjust appropriately for the distance automatically which means training so that using the right weapon for your distance is second nature and something you don't have to think about. However this must be done in a free context without restraints as well and against a moving target.

A skill like distance though is really similar to walking in that it crosses all boundaries of fighting, from point sparring, to MMA, to life or death confrontations. Its a universal skill as pertains to fighting. It seems to me that there simply would come to a point where you either know it or you don't.

Now a specific movement like say a front heel kick. The mechanics can be learned in solo format. They can be practiced and made part of muscle memory through single man drills. They can be integrated into abstract combos via form work. Then they can be practiced in a two man drill format. From there that specific technique can be used in a free movement format which usually becomes much more difficult than any of the predecessors. You must not just do a technique on command now but must integrate it into random movement and learn how to visually recognize the opportunity to use the technique. Usually you will see opportunities but not have time to take advantage of them. Then as you get better at recognizing the opportunity you start using the technique but this is still at a conscious level, you have to decide to kick, you need to practice until you just kick without thinking about it. Then the free format presents more problems as the opponent learns to move out of the way or counter your kick you must learn how to combo the movement for it to work, or to hide it, or to time it better.

The questions are
1) is executing techniques spontaneously and effectively in a free format contextualization in itself?
2) do specific techniques really need to be trained for contextualization in specific or does the training to remain calm under pressure make the techniques available regardless of the specific technique used as long as it was trained to the proper degree?

[Chris McKinley]

Deus,

RE: "I am really not sure that actual intent can be replicated in the training hall. Especially something as extreme as the intent to kill.". Thankfully, it doesn't have to be replicated, only simulated.

RE: "Can you fake the intent to kill?". Yes. It's not exactly the same, but it's close enough to get the job done.

RE: "Its really not difficult to push most people into a state where they believe they are in danger and react accordingly.". Yes, that's it. And that's all that's really necessary, or even useful.

RE: "If I truly had intent to harm my training partners, we would constantly be getting hurt, and not much training would get done.". Not if you had the actual skill to handle it. Yes, there are occasional injuries; it would be dishonest and dangerous to state otherwise. That's why I had the two separated shoulders in one year a couple of years ago. I regularly claim that, in realistic training courses, nobody gets beat up more than the teacher. Keep in mind though that this represents the more dangerous end of the training spectrum. In my case, these guys are specialized LEO's, and the training is correspondingly more intense.

Additionally, this level of contextualization isn't the majority of the time spent in training; it's occasional. Also, you don't toss people who aren't ready into that level of intensity either, or you do indeed risk injury or even death depending on what's being trained. That's another reason why it's so important to have an experienced instructor to guide you. Someone without any experience might have good material content to teach, but they are very likely not to have a reliable guage on callibrating the level of intensity in contextualization so that the training achieves the sometimes delicate balance between realism and safety.

RE: "The level of intensity should gradually increase but the next step should be taken when proper relaxation is achieved at the current step.". Bingo! That's it in a nutshell. Habituation and reduction of the arousal response to ever-increasing thresholds of stimulus is the crucial factor in allowing one's hard-earned skills to contextualize themselves into the native context of actual combat.

Excellent points about why contextualizing isn't the only kind of training one should spend time with. Being able to succeed under the appropriate conditions is just as important as the need to experience failure there. I don't often talk about it here, but one of the objectives of my training model is to purposefully create a meta-program at the level of the trainee's unconscious mind when their conscious mind gets overwhelmed by the duress of the situation.to guide them away from the pain of experienced failure and toward the pleasure of experienced success. Without actual experience of both, that "software" won't run correctly.

Experience with failure is necessary to demonstrate to the student that all is not lost and that even resounding success can still be achieved. It's also necessary for the fact that, as I've droned on many times on this forum, in a real assault on people who don't look for fights, it is likely to begin with a surprise attack. It's also necessary to experience failure in order to create the pain of that condition and associate it with remaining in that condition rather than taking action. To achieve that association, my training at the highest levels of intensity of contextualization can sometimes including continuing to attack someone who won't take action. This level of intensity would utterly overwhelm most IMA practitioners emotionally for the apparent visciousness and cruelty of it. That level is not for everybody and it's not to be used frequently.

Experience with success is necessary in order to create and establish the unconscious "program" to move toward the pleasure of taking action to ensure your survival rather than going fetal or freezing and getting killed. It's also IME absolutely vital in order to provide the trainee with the belief based on actual real experience that he actually can succeed. This unconscious belief absolutely, non-negotiably must be there if the person is to survive the most intense, life-threatening types of combat. It doesn't matter whether that person is the most high-speed SpecOps operator, the most highly touted well-known lineage-holding martial arts grandmaster, the most successful undefeated tournament fighter, the most average family guy, or the sweetest little old lady. All of them can fail when faced with real threat to life if they don't believe they can survive that kind of assault.

[dragontigerpalm]

Excellent points about why contextualizing isn't the only kind of training one should spend time with. Being able to succeed under the appropriate conditions is just as important as the need to experience failure there. I don't often talk about it here, but one of the objectives of my training model is to purposefully create a meta-program at the level of the trainee's unconscious mind when their conscious mind gets overwhelmed by the duress of the situation.to guide them away from the pain of experienced failure and toward the pleasure of experienced success. Without actual experience of both, that "software" won't run correctly.

Experience with failure is necessary to demonstrate to the student that all is not lost and that even resounding success can still be achieved. It's also necessary for the fact that, as I've droned on many times on this forum, in a real assault on people who don't look for fights, it is likely to begin with a surprise attack. It's also necessary to experience failure in order to create the pain of that condition and associate it with remaining in that condition rather than taking action. To achieve that association, my training at the highest levels of intensity of contextualization can sometimes including continuing to attack someone who won't take action. This level of intensity would utterly overwhelm most IMA practitioners emotionally for the apparent visciousness and cruelty of it. That level is not for everybody and it's not to be used frequently.

Experience with success is necessary in order to create and establish the unconscious "program" to move toward the pleasure of taking action to ensure your survival rather than going fetal or freezing and getting killed. It's also IME absolutely vital in order to provide the trainee with the belief based on actual real experience that he actually can succeed. This unconscious belief absolutely, non-negotiably must be there if the person is to survive the most intense, life-threatening types of combat. It doesn't matter whether that person is the most high-speed SpecOps operator, the most highly touted well-known lineage-holding martial arts grandmaster, the most successful undefeated tournament fighter, the most average family guy, or the sweetest little old lady. All of them can fail when faced with real threat to life if they don't believe they can survive that kind of assault.

Great post Chris that pretty much sums it up IMO.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Deus,



RE: "If I truly had intent to harm my training partners, we would constantly be getting hurt, and not much training would get done.". Not if you had the actual skill to handle it. Yes, there are occasional injuries; it would be dishonest and dangerous to state otherwise. That's why I had the two separated shoulders in one year a couple of years ago. I regularly claim that, in realistic training courses, nobody gets beat up more than the teacher. Keep in mind though that this represents the more dangerous end of the training spectrum. In my case, these guys are specialized LEO's, and the training is correspondingly more intense.

Additionally, this level of contextualization isn't the majority of the time spent in training; it's occasional. Also, you don't toss people who aren't ready into that level of intensity either, or you do indeed risk injury or even death depending on what's being trained. That's another reason why it's so important to have an experienced instructor to guide you. Someone without any experience might have good material content to teach, but they are very likely not to have a reliable guage on callibrating the level of intensity in contextualization so that the training achieves the sometimes delicate balance between realism and safety.


Excellent points about why contextualizing isn't the only kind of training one should spend time with. Being able to succeed under the appropriate conditions is just as important as the need to experience failure there. I don't often talk about it here, but one of the objectives of my training model is to purposefully create a meta-program at the level of the trainee's unconscious mind when their conscious mind gets overwhelmed by the duress of the situation.to guide them away from the pain of experienced failure and toward the pleasure of experienced success. Without actual experience of both, that "software" won't run correctly.

I have managed to avoid hurting people in class who have come at me with intent and avoid getting hurt by them. However while they were pushed into the real zone by the level of intensity I was not. I did not have real intent to harm them, although sometimes I wanted to. I have tried to hurt my teacher in the past as well as some of the adults when I was a child. If both parties had real intent I think injury would become unavoidable. I think this is where its important that like you said the intent is simulated, and both parties have enough control to stop when told and to restrain themselves from causing serious harm.

Another factor that is important IMO is commitment to attack. This is different for me than simply using realistic speed and power because a punch can be thrown with realistic speed and power but still be thrown without real commitment. A committed attack requires a committed defense. The normal patty cake you see people play at full speed will not work on a truly powerful committed attack a lot of the time. An unexperienced fighter can and will still throw very committed attacks, sometimes they don't know how not to. However through training in most MA its easy to learn how not to commit. If an instructor is any good they will make mince meat of someone who attacks with a beginners wild, highly telegraphed, but highly committed attacks. This reinforces to students not to commit fully because they get in trouble, couple that with drills that aren't using committed attacks and medium and slow speed pattycake sparring and you end up with black belts who can defend themselves better against another black belt than a rank noob, because no one throws committed strikes. Since no one throws committed strikes they don't learn how to truly commit to the defense. They also don't learn how to commit themselves which without doing so makes it difficult to truly harm someone. I think this goes hand in hand with intent because by committing to an attack you make it feel real, which is what really illicits the response of being in real danger.

With regards to your meta-program. It sounds very similar to how we practice. One of my favorite things to do is trade punches, no blocking allowed. This teaches the puncher how to hit solidly and what its like to hit a real person, and the person getting punched gets to work on taking hits without being hurt. If you practice so that your strikes are always good and solid then when the shit hits the fan your body will automatically do the same thing, a solid strike that has the potential to hurt someone. If you always play pattycake and your strikes never land well then you are unlikely to land a strike well when its real.