Functional abstraction of martial applications

[Bhassler]

.

[qiphlow]

i try to imagine that i'm moving against huge resistance. if i'm mud stepping, i've got heavy stone blocks attached to my feet that i'm sliding through the mud. if i'm performing a push, i'm shoving a huge slab of rock.
etc, etc. or i'll imagine that i've got elastic bands attached through my joints, or attached to my body at one end and a nearby tree or building at the other end.

[Brady]

I'd say my "training" runs the whole spectrum from lying down micro movements (very abstract) to full contact sparring. But most of my body training isn't specific to martial arts so I am comfortable bringing a large amount of abstraction to what I do without the need for it to be more martially relevant. I find that I'm a more grounded person when I'm comfortable in my skin. Martial arts are just a fun way of keeping me focused on embodiment and provide a highly resistant training ground to test my new skills out.

That being said, as long as I have an hour or two each day to train martially relevant exercises (ie- throwing with a partner, slap boxing, single action drilling) then I like to spend the majority of the rest of my day doing very abstract movements and I've found a wealth of skill has come from this practice.

[C.J.Wang]

This is a great topic.

I think the effectiveness of abstration training is determined by the individual's level of practical experience. If a boxer has never stepped into the ring and fought against a live opponent, he wouldn't be able to accurately simulate the situation by shadow boxing because his abstration would most likely be unrealistic.

On the other hand, for a seasoned boxer who's fought both in the ring and on the street many times, he is able to incorporate all the experience he's gained in the past to abstraction training to create a scenario that is very close to the real thing.

[Andy_S]

Good question,and excellent post by Brady.

I would say that the higher your level/graeter your experience the greater the level of abstraction you can train and still achieve martial benefits. I recall someone once saying to me that if you are really good, you can find a martial use for, or a useful gongin, brushing the floor.

And speaking for myself, the reason I moved into CMA from Thai/Malay/KMA was because I was attracted to its artistic side and the non-martial, health/longevity benefits of the practice. The danger is, of course, moving so far toward the abstract and so far away from the reality (or whatever the opposite of abstract is) that one loses the martial focus.

Naming no names, I find it odd that there are a number of CMA teachers who have never had to defend themselves on da streetz, but also have never taken the opportunity to move outside their own comfort zone and experience some style of full-contact fighting (boxing, Sanda, kickboxing, arnis, etc).

To put it another way, if ARE practicing to learn to fight, the less "abstraction" and the more direct reality/experience the better. It is telling, to me, that boxers, MT fighters, MMA fighters, while practicing a number of "abstract methods" - push ups, medicine ball, roadwork - all have a clear idea of what these exercises are meant to achieve, and if you ask a dozen different boxers why, for example, they skip rope, they would probably all give the same answer; the methods are commonsensical and based on common experience of actual fighting.

Ask a dozen Taiji people what the purpose behind practicing form is and you will probably get a dozen different answers...not all of which are commonsensical, and most of which are based on no actual combative experience.

[johnwang]

Old saying said, "If you just miss 1 cm, the end result will be 1,000 miles apart (your move won't work)". When you step in, you have to land your foot on the right spot at the right time. If your landing spot is just a bit too far away from your opponent, your striking or throwing move won't work. So you have to constantly estimate the distance between you and your opponent. You then decide whether to enter at that moment or wait for the next opportunaty. After you have put this kind of consideration in your mind, the abstraction will have very little meaning to you.

In the LF system, there is a move called 亮掌(Liang Zhang), that you flip your palm to your right and then turn around and facing your fingers to your left. No matter how hard that many LF masters tried to convince me that move has combat meaning (some told me that move is for dart throwing), today I still believe that move is useless in combat. I regret to spend any training time on that move but I won't make that kind of mistake for the rest of my life.

[D_Glenn]

Old saying said, "If you just miss 1 cm, the end result will be 1,000 miles apart (your move won't work)".

John, if you don't mind what is the chinese for that saying? I believe it's the same one I've heard translated as "Off by an inch, miss by a mile."

Often used to describe how important it is that our practice and training of martial arts is correct and accurate or else when you have to actually use it, it won't work.

[johnwang]

I think we are talking about the same Chinese saying. Someone once said, "A step is a kick and a kick is a step". The fact is if you step then you are training your step. If you kick then you are training your kick. You can't have both benefits at the same time. Thinking about a "spin back kick" is just a "spin back fist" by using your leg, and if you can execute you "spin back fist" then you automatically can execute your "spin back kick" will not be a realistic assumption.

This is why I hate abstraction. It gives me an unrealistic illusion that makes me to believe that I can do something that I really can't. For example, if I believe that I can do 亮掌(Liang Zhang) then I can throw a dart and kill my opponent with accuracy will be unrealistic.

[C.J.Wang]

I think we are talking about the same Chinese saying. Someone once said, "A step is a kick and a kick is a step". The fact is if you step then you are training your step. If you kick then you are training your kick. You can't have both benefits at the same time. Thinking about a "spin back kick" is just a "spin back fist" by using your leg, and if you can execute you "spin back fist" then you automatically can execute your "spin back kick" will not be a realistic assumption.

This is why I hate abstraction. It gives me an unrealistic illusion that makes me to believe that I can do something that I really can't. For example, if I believe that I can do 亮掌(Liang Zhang) then I can throw a dart and kill my opponent with accuracy will be unrealistic.

That's why effective abstraction training requires practical experience. If you have actually used the liang zhang movement to throw a dart and hit a target accurately with power, then it's all good; if you haven't -- it's another story.

[Royal Dragon]

Much of what is trained in martial arts is an abstraction of something else. As an example, when a shuai-jiao guy is swinging stone locks, tossing them in the air and catching them then swinging down between his legs and up again, the movement he's doing is not an actual throw, but it resembles a throw-- it is representative of any throw that would use grabbing, pulling down from high to low, or swinging from low to high. Something more concrete (and less abstract) would be a boxer shadow boxing in front of a mirror. In this case, he is actually bobbing, weaving and using all of his punches as he would in a match, he just lacks the contact and dynamic necessity for change that he would have with a live partner. A higher level of abstraction (meaning more abstract, not smarter/better, or anything else) would be something like a taiji form, where a particular movement might have three or four different applications, all of which are based upon the particular path of force generated from the ground through the body in that particular movement-- the path used for each particular application may not be exactly the same, but the general pattern is the same. An even greater level of abstraction might be found doing something like skipping through the woods, where a person could make a convincing argument that skipping (or even walking) contains elements of all primitive movements (flexion/extention, sidebending, rotation) and spirals within the body, and in that light with conscious attention could develop skills relevant to fighting. Going even further, simply imagining a movement can have effect on the nervous system, so depending upon the quality of the imagination, one could use mental repetitons, meditation, etc. to improve fighting ability.

So, the question is, what level of abstraction are people comfortable with and confident in relative to their own training? Or in other words, how far from the actual thing can a particular element of your training be and still help you improve? Note that the question is not whether or not one can become a fighter without actually fighting-- it's more a question around the breadth and scope of training and different people's understanding of the learning process as a whole.

Reply]
I think this is why hard core gymnasts who started at 3 years of age can later perform very well in any athletic endeavor.

[SPJ]

kind of agreed to both camps;

1. application has to be specific, not only the moves/techniques but also the conditions or prerequesite for them to work.

if the timing or force is off, it is off etc. if the position and balance or distance are off, it is off etc.

however,

2. it is also possible to practice some general moves/functions that may serve as a base for several techniques to be derived or turned into.

these practice may not be obvious or apparent to see the apps right way.

for example, in Yan Qing or mi zhong. there are moves for frames, or yan qing jia zi.

it is very boring to practice, b/c it is not direct app.

however, they serve as your basic structure practice, if you are good at them, you may then practice with apps later with ease.

--

etc etc.

[SPJ]

grouping of ideas or principles

it is usually done with a single chinese character according to each style.

in that case, the character does not mean a specific move but a group or sets of moves that represent a general theme.

--

[river rider]

specific abstractions ("imagine an opponent...") have a place in teaching and learning, and have been widely used. I suspect that the important thing is that this be a directed activity, guided by a competent and knowledgeable teacher who knows how to use this tool.

[Bhassler]

Thanks to all who replied. In thinking about my own experiences, I've found that some of the most useful things have been the most abstract-- meaning not only do they not directly correlate to a martial application directly, as often as not they don't correlate to any known movement I might make. By doing a movement that is totally outside of any perceived function, it frees the mover from any sort of idea of how the movement SHOULD be done, and opens the door for genuine exploration and learning. So if after doing a movement I suddenly get a sense of my upper torso as 41 individual bones instead of just "my ribcage" I can learn a tremendous amount of mobility, which then leads to a much better level of skill when I try to direct jin through my upper body.

[Bhassler]

Old saying said, "If you just miss 1 cm, the end result will be 1,000 miles apart (your move won't work)". When you step in, you have to land your foot on the right spot at the right time. If your landing spot is just a bit too far away from your opponent, your striking or throwing move won't work. So you have to constantly estimate the distance between you and your opponent. You then decide whether to enter at that moment or wait for the next opportunaty. After you have put this kind of consideration in your mind, the abstraction will have very little meaning to you.

If your opponent is 7 feet tall, do you put your foot at the same place as if your opponent is 5 feet tall? If your opponent's front foot is turned inwards and he is standing slightly downhill from you, does your foot go at exactly the same angle if his front foot is straight forward and in a pothole in the street but otherwise you're on the same level?

If there's a difference between 5 feet tall and 7 feet tall, is there a difference between 6 feet one inch and 6 feet one and one-eighth inch? Where do you draw the line? When does one opponent become "taller" while another guy is "the same?" We are always making abstractions in life-- that's how you know a woman is a woman and don't have to sniff her and grab her butt each time. Just looking is enough to let you know it's a female (especially if she's fat and you don't want to grab her). Abstractions are how we learn.