Speed of Opportunity

[Chris M]

As per D_Glenn's request on another thread, I've started this one to talk about a different way of thinking about speed in combat. There's raw velocity: how fast your limbs are moving as a function of distance per unit of time. There's acceleration: a measure of how quickly velocity increases per unit of time. There's distance-to-target: the closest weapon to a given target. There's also the difference between weapons which travel in a linear trajectory vs. those that describe an arc. There's perceptual speed: a measure of the lag between the occurrence of a cue to initiate movement and the actual initiation of that movement. There's timing: coordinating your movement with your opponent's such that you are out of harm's way, you blend seamlessly with his movement, and that your weapons arrive at just the precise correct moment.

All of these things are factors in how fast you are and/or will seem to an opponent in a real fight. All of these also contribute to your collective speed of opportunity: your ability to capitalize on open windows of opportunity so as to make the most of them to your advantage. Having this ability doesn't come from any amount of solo training, no matter how high quality, how authentic, how traditional, how many years one practices, etc. This skill set simply cannot be developed in isolation.

It also cannot be developed to its full potential without significant amounts of training time spent above a certain threshold of intensity. Loosely defined, that threshold is that above which actual physical harm could be incurred by oneself and/or one's training partner. This doesn't have to mean life-threatening injury, but it does include the kind of injuries one can sustain in full-contact sparring as a minimum. It also doesn't have to mean that the trainee actually be injured in order to "prove" that the training was above this threshold. What it does mean is that the risk of a degree of harm has to actually be present in the training.

Ideally, the trainee would not begin training at this level of intensity until his skill level had developed sufficiently to keep him from actually being harmed. If the training has been designed and conducted intelligently, this will generally be the case. However, bumps, bruises, scratches, fat lips, bloody noses and shiners are all possible, perhaps even likely if regrettably, par for the course at one time or another if one is to attain the level of functional fighting skill that can actually prevent such injury or worse in a real life-or-death violent encounter.

Is it possible to survive a life-threatening encounter without having trained at this level of intensity? Yes. Is it as likely that someone without such training will stand the same chance of survival as someone who has faced it repeatedly in training? Common sense demands that it be simply pointing out the obvious to answer, "No." If training had no statistical impact on survival rates, law enforcement and military personnel would simply be handed a gun on the first day and told to go out and do their jobs.

Regardless of what may or may not have occurred within the annals of martial history of any given martial art style, in the context of modern-day existence in the United States, simply relying on certain traditional methods of training which do not also include the skill sets and levels of intensity described previously will not provide the necessary skill and functional ability to suffficiently prepare someone for the realities of an actual life-threatening encounter.

These assertions are, of course, my own. While I do not expect lockstep agreement with my views, neither do I personally consider any of them to be up for debate. However, I'd still be interested in reading people's various views, relevant experiences, etc. Care to discuss?

[Simon]

Thanks for your contribution it is refrehing to discuss these things in such a concise as well pratical way.

I'll be back as the thread hots up.

[DeusTrismegistus]

Somebody else mentioned that speed is more important than power, and that sparked a whole tangent of conversation about what constitutes speed. What I'll throw out that nobody else seems to have mentioned is the speed of opportunity. In real combat, and just as much in sport combat as well, windows of opportunity open and close very rapidly and usually without predictable rhythm. Frankly, anyone claiming that if you can just learn to generate enough mysterious internal Chinese martial arts power, you can just create your own opportunity at will and just blow right through whatever the opponent has up there is laughingly delusional. It also tells me he's never fought anything more than a 140lb. uncommitted opponent in a friendly sparring session. You face a 300+ lbs. experienced opponent who's intent on personally ending your life right now and the magical mystery tour of TCIMA power comes to a screeching halt. You better have another trick in your bag besides optimized power generation, preferably a large-caliber firearm. With some guys, anything less and you're just toast.

I thought it would be helpful to quote the relevant part of the previous discussion here.

Above you mention several different kinds of speeds but never actually talked about what speed of opportunity is. From what I gather you are talking about the time it takes to recognize an opening and take advantage of that opening.

I think there are generally three types of openings that occur.

1. You attack and either the opponent gets hit, or doesn't. An opening will be created by your opponent's response somewhere.
2. You are attacked and you use your defense to create an opening, or you see an opening that wasn't intentionally opened by the attacker.
3. An opening sometimes just happens. For example they may see something out of the corner of their eye and glance to the side, or they are tired and drop their hands.

Openings that are created intentionally are the easiest to take advantage of because you can plan them. You roughly know the response that will come next so you can immediately start your next movement. Even these though take time to recognize and if you plan ahead and the opponent changes unexpectedly then you might run into a problem.

The problem is learning to see openings as they arrive or before even AND automatically move in the appropriate way. You learn to see openings through time in the moment while in a state of mind that allows for mental and visual clarity. You learn to take advantage of opportunities automatically by spending a lot of time in a mental state that allows for spontaneous reaction that is refined over time to higher levels of effectiveness, by actually reacting and acting in a spontaneous way without mental planning or rehearsal.

The opening may be very short so you have to be able to see it and react quickly. This requires good positioning as well as being able to see as well as being in a body state that allows for instant reaction, this is what a good shen fa will allow for.

Learning to see the opening is done by learning how to see movement at a fundamental level. Movement over time and practice will become noticeable very early. This is how some teachers seem to know what you are going to do before you do it, recognizing the movement within the core, center of balance, chest, shoulders, head and hips is really what tells you what an opponent will do. This cannot be done in a scientific If A then B fashion because there is just too many possibilities and to do so is too conscious and too slow. It must be learned by practice. When you have seen a few thousand cross punches you learn how to see it coming, IF you stayed in a state of mind to actually SEE it while it happened.

Positioning is also something that happens with practice. As you spend time in the moment you will follow the opponents movements with very subtle movements of your own that allow you be positioned in a way that allows you to block or strike with much more speed in all categories mentioned in the original post.

[BruceP]

re: thresholds of intensity

My own approach to attaining such thresholds is based largely on addressing the individual's perceptual thresholds first. It makes it easier to create failure because everyone operates according to what they perceive as unacceptable in terms of levels of threat and actual physical contact. Exploring those points of failure in a spontaneous, unrehearsed/unscripted manner shows the individual exactly how they perceive their role in conflict. It doesn't neccessarily have to be all that physical to attain unmanageable levels of intensity. As the trainee adjusts their perceptions of threat and their role in conflict, they move very quickly in discovering their personal combat. Chaining one's default movement patterns to tactical responses often involves what I call, "re-cognition sequencing". It's through this type of work that allows our training group to glimpse speed of opportunity. Familiarity with the various factors that create failure puts speed of opportunity within reach...close enough to see it, anyway.

Capitalizing on speed of opportunity is a whole different ball of hair.

[lamename]

Very cool thread. I responded to the same paragraph that Duex pulled from the air striking thread but on that thread, but no need to pull it to here. I wanted to note that as of late I've been playing a lot of chess, and getting my ass handed to me. I find it very hard to think more than two-three moves in advance and having so many pieces gets confusing. It could be comparable however when thinking of set up striking where you telegraph a move purposefully to make the opponent react, if he doesn't you hit them, if they do you spring your trap.

The idea of unexpected things happening of course comes into play but for the most part you cant expect the unexpected so reacting does take skills; listening/feeling movement or force, seeing the movements (preferably at their 'birth'), and reaction time is a biggie. If you can see the movement at the beginning or feel the change in the opponents force you have more time to react.

The idea of setting them up I like because you can try to limit the ways they can react without getting hit. Also use of 'hidden' techniques, like strikes that can't bee seen or have very little in the way of telegraphing, seem to me to have a good chance of success. I've always been a proponent of simultaneously attacking upper and lower gates, giving the opponent something in his immediate field of vision to deal with while also attacking other not so obvious targets. This cuts down on time between strike because there is none during this type of attack.

In chess you can only move one piece at a time though you can use multiple pieces to set traps. In fighting you can move multiple 'pieces' at a time and also you don't need to be committed to a move. You could simply throw the arms up to distract and put all your effort into the legs, or vice versa.

[Chris M]

Deus,

RE: "Above you mention several different kinds of speeds but never actually talked about what speed of opportunity is.". That's because it's purely a term I made up that encompasses several things, although I did describe precisely what those components are. It's a term I came up with that some of my higher-speed/lower-drag buddies seemed to immediately and instinctively relate to, so it stuck. Feel free to call it something else if you like.

RE: "From what I gather you are talking about the time it takes to recognize an opening and take advantage of that opening.". That's perceptual speed. A crucial element, but not sufficient if you don't also have the other aspects developed sufficiently, as I'm learning all too well in rapier fencing. The longer, thrust-only blade is still something I'm not fully used to. I can typically spot more opportunities than I can actually take advantage of at my current level.

I like your three types of openings. It goes without saying that we need to be prepared for all types equally. RE: "The problem is learning to see openings as they arrive or before even AND automatically move in the appropriate way.". Ain't it the truth? Certainly harder than planning/making your own openings. For me, there simply is no substitute for both the visual and tactile familiarity that comes with experience. This is precisely one of those skills that simply cannot be developed by any amount of solo training. That'd be like trying to be a really good tango dancer by just practicing the choreography by yourself. Fighting is an interpersonal activity, and most of your 20% material from Pareto's Principle occurs when training with a partner.

RE: "You learn to see openings through time in the moment while in a state of mind that allows for mental and visual clarity. You learn to take advantage of opportunities automatically by spending a lot of time in a mental state that allows for spontaneous reaction that is refined over time to higher levels of effectiveness, by actually reacting and acting in a spontaneous way without mental planning or rehearsal.". That's exactly what I'm striving for in practicing rou shou. Done in such a way that it creates and maintains the state you're describing, it's spectacular at catalyzing improvement.

RE: "The opening may be very short so you have to be able to see it and react quickly. This requires good positioning as well as being able to see as well as being in a body state that allows for instant reaction, this is what a good shen fa will allow for.". I agree yet again. Though I would add that, in reality, you've still got to be able to make lemonade out of lemons even when the situation finds you in a crappy position and with no shen fa to speak of. In a real fight, what you do from there is what can most determine if you'll live or die. Not exactly fair, I'll grant you, but that IME that seems to be the ugly truth nonetheless.

RE: "This cannot be done in a scientific If A then B fashion because there is just too many possibilities and to do so is too conscious and too slow.". Very well put. That's a sentiment I've tried repeatedly to get across on this forum for many years, apparently without much success if the most recent spate of relevant threads is any indication. Defenders of the paint-by-numbers approach are nothing if not fiercely loyal to the dogma, it would seem.

RE: "It must be learned by practice. When you have seen a few thousand cross punches you learn how to see it coming, IF you stayed in a state of mind to actually SEE it while it happened.", and "Positioning is also something that happens with practice. As you spend time in the moment you will follow the opponents movements with very subtle movements of your own that allow you be positioned in a way that allows you to block or strike with much more speed in all categories mentioned in the original post.". I couldn't agree more. As some of my old Indonesian style friends used to say, "Time on the floor shows."

At least thus far into the conversation, we are in total agreement on each of these points, though I appreciate the superior conciseness with which you state them.

[Chris M]

Shooter,

Absolute gems in there if people are familiar enough with your presentation. In fact, good enough that it deserves its own thread IMO. Not trying to boot you off this one in any way; just suggesting that your idea deserves its own full exposition. I kinda thought you and I might butt heads a little on this one, given our different takes on approaching such thresholds, but so far I don't really see why that would be necessary. There's a reasoning behind your approach, and if it works, by all means keep exploring it.

Likewise, I do what I do for pretty specific reasons, and the success my trainees have achieved leads me to want to "keep the recipe", so to speak, but I'd be interested in hearing more of your developments to the extent you'd like to share them here. Who knows, I may see something I like. The difference with me is that I won't "be influenced" by your ideas, benefitting from them as if they were my own. I'll do the honorable thing and steal them fair and square (with your permission, of course) and give you full credit. ;P

[Daniel]

Some very good posts on this thread already. I´ll keep reading, thank you.


D.

Sarcasm. Oh yeah, like that´ll work.

[Chris McKinley]

lamename,

Nice chess analogy. Being able to anticipate windows of opportunity which are not yet open is certainly a big part of timing. Playing devil's advocate, though, one should be careful to remember the admonition, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." The challenging thing is to be able to both simultaneously, while continuously updating in real time.

BTW, I would strongly suggest using paragraphs in your posts. Without them, it makes it difficult to read your posts and since you are putting so much thought into them, it'd be a shame if folks just gave your posts a pass because of the intimidating run-on structure.

[BruceP]

Hey, Chris, no worries.

Apologies if my post read as though I was talking past everyone. Don't get much web time these days and just wanted to stay on point.

I don't think we differ much in our HOW. Maybe we do in WHY and WHAT, but you're careful almost to a fault to have the other person's objectives clearly laid out before you work together. Most of the people I train with aren't really sure what their goals are, and that suits me just fine.
Some know exactly what they want but, IME those are the folks who don't really need the type of begining training I talked about above. They tend to really dig the exploration of those ideas, though and for some reason, the 'soft', solo stuff as well.

Your concept of Speed of Opportunity really resonated when I saw it on the other thread. It nicely squares away all the pieces.

Whatever you steal from me is in good hands. It's probably better off - my stewardship sucks. People who take ownership use their own words. The credit goes to them. Besides, none of it's mine to begin with. They're some very old ideas.

Anyway, nice to see you back at RSF.

Bruce

[Chris McKinley]

Thanks, Bruce. It's nice to be back. For some reason, my account got deactivated and I haven't been able to either re-activate it or start a new one until now. Still no explanation, but at least it appears to be working again. As to ideas, I think it's becoming less and less important for me to get full credit for my ideas so much as to just see people interested in actually thinking about their training instead of abdicating their minds to whatever they're told is "traditional" the way they might leave their shoes at the door of the training hall. Those that want to explore are a lot more fun and interesting to train with anyway. They also tend to take ownership of their own training far earlier in the process and ultimately go much further in their development than those who wish to let everyone else do their thinking for them.

[TrainingDummy]

re: thresholds of intensity

My own approach to attaining such thresholds is based largely on addressing the individual's perceptual thresholds first. It makes it easier to create failure because everyone operates according to what they perceive as unacceptable in terms of levels of threat and actual physical contact. Exploring those points of failure in a spontaneous, unrehearsed/unscripted manner shows the individual exactly how they perceive their role in conflict. It doesn't neccessarily have to be all that physical to attain unmanageable levels of intensity. As the trainee adjusts their perceptions of threat and their role in conflict, they move very quickly in discovering their personal combat. Chaining one's default movement patterns to tactical responses often involves what I call, "re-cognition sequencing". It's through this type of work that allows our training group to glimpse speed of opportunity. Familiarity with the various factors that create failure puts speed of opportunity within reach...close enough to see it, anyway.

Capitalizing on speed of opportunity is a whole different ball of hair.

Hi Shooter,

I'm working with something that -may- be a bit similar at the moment and would ask your feedback.

I'm attempting to get students into unscripted exchange as quickly as possible with full protective gear and reduce the "universe of technique" until it's something that the student can deal with at their level of experience. So a day 1 newbie might be working a drill of jabs vs jab defence, or maybe a clinch game where the aim is to take their partners balance rather than throw.

The aim of the drills is not to win, the aim is to slowly ramp up the intensity of the drill to the point that someone has some sort of emotional reaction. This may be signalled by a change of breath, tension, or collapse in structure. Once player A has a reaction, player B points out the reaction cues and gets player A to feel through what's happening for them (e.g. "You're structure is collapsing, what's going on for you?" or "There's tension in your chest, are you getting angry?"). The drill doesn't stop at this point of reaction, but reduces slightly in intensity so that player A can both complete the drill with a high quality of technique and feel through the reaction to conflict at the same time.

My question is, you state that you take your students to a place of failure, which is a very -hard- place for most people to deal with. How do you get people to continue training/drilling/sparring at high quality when they are deep in a place of emotional intensity which comes up from a point of true failure?

thanks,
Dummy

[Chris McKinley]

Garth,

That's one of the meatiest, most consequential combat-relevant questions I've read on this forum in its entire history. No matter how it gets answered, thank you for asking it so succinctly.

[BruceP]

Hi Shooter,

I'm working with something that -may- be a bit similar at the moment and would ask your feedback.

I'm attempting to get students into unscripted exchange as quickly as possible with full protective gear and reduce the "universe of technique" until it's something that the student can deal with at their level of experience. So a day 1 newbie might be working a drill of jabs vs jab defence, or maybe a clinch game where the aim is to take their partners balance rather than throw.

The aim of the drills is not to win, the aim is to slowly ramp up the intensity of the drill to the point that someone has some sort of emotional reaction. This may be signalled by a change of breath, tension, or collapse in structure. Once player A has a reaction, player B points out the reaction cues and gets player A to feel through what's happening for them (e.g. "You're structure is collapsing, what's going on for you?" or "There's tension in your chest, are you getting angry?"). The drill doesn't stop at this point of reaction, but reduces slightly in intensity so that player A can both complete the drill with a high quality of technique and feel through the reaction to conflict at the same time

reducing the "universe of techinque" I like that...a lot. A worthy goal indeed.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

If I'm in a fight, any fight, with any opponent, I don't think at all, I just do.
I can't say I can know the outcome no matter what I train or how hard I train or how much I've trained of even what I know.
All I can do is do and do as best as I can. I'd rather have some training and knowledge than none.