Speed of Opportunity

[Chris McKinley]

Bhassler,

I'm currently loading your referred article. Meanwhile, RE: "One thing I find interesting (about this discussion, not the link I posted) is the differentiation of the process from the context...". Yup. Processes can often map over from one context to a sometimes completely unrelated one.

RE: "I'm curious as to how much of each is necessary.". Me too. That also differs from one individual to the next, and even with a given individual as his training evolves or progresses.

RE: "Context without process is abuse. Process without context lacks reliability.". Well and simply put. Increasing the intensity is also directly proportional to approaching the native context of combat skills. Governing that increase through an incremental and controlled process allows the instructor to tailor the training to the level of development of the individual trainee while also inuring against the triggering of amygdala domination and its corresponding catastrophic erosion of functional fighting skill. Bringing the intensity up to and above the individual's threshold of intensity/threat of harm ensures that the skills become melded with the context for which they are trained. As you already know, I'm a HUGE proponent of both intelligent training processes and of contextuallizing the skills they produce.

[TrainingDummy]

One thing I find interesting (about this discussion, not the link I posted) is the differentiation of the process from the context-- as can be seen by the multiple effective methods presented here, the two are not one and the same. I'm curious as to how much of each is necessary. Context without process is abuse. Process without context lacks reliability. I know the appropriate amount of each will vary between individuals and activities (context matters very little in solving mathematical equations, but matters greatly in personal relationships, for example). An understanding of each and the role it plays in one's training (or life) might offer some interesting possibilities for expansion and growth in areas inclusive of but not limited to MA and combatives.

My personal context is that I love exploring movement , and I really enjoy using sparring as a metaphor for watching my habitual patterns to conflict. The people that I train with all have a serious meditation background, and therefore have a common interest in exploring the reactions of the mind. My current training is tailored to them specifically and would have to be presented quite differently to someone who walked in off the street.

I find some of what has been presented here to be either overly dependent on conscious analysis and correction or overly dependent on potentially abusive and unnecessarily negative mind games. For those who advocate the latter method, I wonder whether you might also be manipulated in the same way by someone who is able to accurately assess your psychological triggers and your emotional attachments? Is anyone among us totally immune to such motivating influences?

I submit that the man who has nothing left to lose may be the possible exception, but fortunately such individuals are rare, and make far better friends than enemies!

Doc

As Shooter has mentioned I don't think such a process would be possible without first creating a sense of genuine caring within the group and subjecting the group leader to the same process that we've discussed. I personally need to be reminded when I'm being an asshole or if I'm getting into a power trip, even if it's at a subliminal level. This rawness of emotional vulnerability amongst the group members is what avoids personality cults, and allows the group leader to guide the process based upon the collective interests of the group rather than forcing his/her own agenda upon it.

I find some of what has been presented here to be either overly dependent on conscious analysis and correction

The way I train is 90% based upon maintaining structure, smooth breath, a still mind and fluid movement. This base mainly comes out of the Ichuan I've learnt under forum member WalkTheTorque. I don't really teach technique, as I find any technique engages the mind too much and removes the learner from what is actually happening in that moment of time. I show how to remove structure in someone else whilst maintaining your own structure. It is principal based in the way that many trainers are working already, separating the skills of balance breaking, grips and trips (in the throwing realm), and allowing the student to put the variations together in real time under pressure.

What I'm doing a little differently is to use safe sparring or intense exercise to get someone have a reaction. Now because most of my group members have been meditating regularly for 5+ years the idea of a reaction is really different from most people. For me a reaction is a removal of stillness from the natural state of the mind. This fluctuation of the mind is registered somewhere in the body before it blossoms into a true emotional reaction. Through the process of touch sparring your partner can often feel you reacting before you are consciously aware that you're having a reaction. By bringing awareness to this "near conscious" reaction and having your partner point it out, you are presencing a level of consciousness that you previously couldn't feel. Students are directed to maintain their breath, structure and movement whilst also holding awareness of this new level of consciousness. It feels like opening into a reaction instead of closing into it. Over time this fluctuation will subside from the gentle pressure of awareness and another will arise and the process begins anew.

So what I'm finding really interesting (to bring this bucking horse of a topic back on course) is how quickly people learn genuine sparring skills with this method. Because reactions are caught before they are felt, there is zero stress in the class and a general feeling of focused play, so people are in an optimum state of learning for a whole two hour block. Students don't shy away from strikes or close their eyes because these reactions are tells that the training is going too quickly for them, and the drill is reduced in complexity until it's at a level that they can cope with. They know they can call "Stop!" at any time, and this gives them the courage to step into more complex sparring drills through simple curiosity. Because they are fully present to the moment and unafraid they can capitalise on any mistakes made by their training partner, step in with full structure and execute a strike or throw on the half beat.

My premise is that any fluctuation of the mind prevents you from seeing what is truly happening in the moment. If a reaction is present you'll be trying to force the situation into something other than what it is, by either being too aggressive or defensive, and there will be more tension that what is required for the completion of technique. I'm also extending that premise by proposing that exploring reactions back to their source one can change the global landscape of consciousness, and since this skill carries over into one's daily life, one can become less reactive over time through the gentle presencing of progressively deeper levels of consciousness.

This is the current solution that I'm experimenting with and I could be totally wrong.

[Chris McKinley]

Garth,

I like your method for the way it relates to the process of learning. In fact, it seems fairly idyllic to that purpose. But let me encourage you strongly against believing that maintaining at all times that alpha-brain wave-dominated state you're describing. It will almost certainly lead you to a risk of self-delusion both for yourself and your students when it comes to the very separate process of contextualizing. This is due to the phenomenon of state-dependent learning. In this particular case, the state(s) associated with the native context of these particular skill sets trends toward the negative, sometimes extremely so. If you are so inclined, you might wish to read some of my prior, more detailed explanations of this concept in a thread titled Contextualization: the Make-or-Break of Martial Arts: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4907&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=contextualization

[humbleboxer]

meditation is just as valuable a training tool for fighting. speed and seizing opportunity are products of relaxation. staying relaxed, focused and in the "now" is a process gained through many different types of training. the body has limitations but the mind is limitless. the mind controls the body ultimately. techniques become 2nd nature through the combination of solo training and partner practice. solo practice allows for refinement and reflection. I agree with the concept that part of your practice with a partner should be done at full speed with resistance is absolutely essential to build confidence and timing, but it is not the end all. working with a partner gives a measure of your level of ability only during the precise moment you do something. there is no guarantee that the same thing will happen every time. in my mind internal and external practice are 2 parts of a whole. to much of one without the other is not a good thing.

[Chris McKinley]

humbleboxer,

You haven't mentioned a lot of anything specific enough to either agree or argue with. Some of what you posted seems to echo what we've been describing already and some of it seems to take issue, at least by degree, with what's been discussed. The focus of your points seems to jump around a bit and touch on things in a somewhat superficial and general kind of way. For me at least, without you getting at least a little bit specific, it's hard to find a place to jump in and address your comments other than more or less agreeing on general principle. Might you care to elaborate on any of the points you're making?

[TrainingDummy]

Chris McKinley,

Yeah, I remember this thread well and intend to include some of those ideas.

At this time the group is more interested in sport specific applications than true self defence or combat applications. At some point I'm sure we'll do a RBT cycle to round out that end of things. I'm not concerned since I've got a few cops and bouncers in the group who are already contextualising their new skills into their work.

Currently I'm using sports to explain the universe of technique and what's "legal" within the context of that particular drill, boxing, kick-boxing, wrestling and submission grappling. Since the majority of the group are still green, a MMA universe would be too complex for them. I want them to get comfortable with a heavy sparring MMA game and then extend the universe with RBT.

One of my friends/ sparring partner/ teacher is an instructor under Ray Floro, so we'll incorporate some stick/blade work at some point as well.

[Chris McKinley]

Cool, Garth. Keep us posted how the training comes along....what's working, what insights you get, etc. Let me know if I can offer any information or advice to assist you.

[humbleboxer]

C Mc C sorry for being non specific. my posting time is generally done in short bursts so I don't always have time to read and analyze all of the responses. the general theme for this post and some of the others floating around seems to be about the importance of practical hands on training vs. solo practice. I see 2 basic trains of thought on how much is necessary and effective. my experience has been that training varies constantly according to your goals, your present needs and how much time you can realistically devote to developing your self. these factors vary from person to person for many different reasons. getting locked in to one way of thinking for me limits my growth. balance has always kept me on the path I have chosen.

now to get specific. and once again I apologize for any repetition. I do not train for sport so my attitude is slightly different than those who wish to compete. in my experience there are limitations to sparring and partner practice. the proper amount will keep you sharp, build confidence and allow you to test your ability to perform technique. to much of it and you will reach a point of diminishing returns from the limitations. this approach is shared by both my martial arts teacher of 30 yrs. and my boxing coach for just under the last 2 years. the first major concern is injury. getting hurt prevents training which in turn slows down the learning process. the second is learning bad habits. you can get to used to doing things that work under the conditions of the practice. when the conditions change it is more difficult to switch to different techniques that are required. examples are - training with the same people, getting over confident, using safety equipment, not ever using your full force, having rules on which techniques you can use (and for all of the IMA people out there - it can obscure some of the wonderful benefits of practicing to improve yourself as a person). this is where solo practice is so important. if you keep the right attitude and approach it is shouldn't be any different than training with a partner. drilling through repetition and conditioning the body with foundation training is only limited by your own abilities. I can throw, punch, kick, etc. full force without having to be concerned about anything except how well I am doing the techniques. I'll use my boxing training as an example, learning how to parry a jab with the rear hand (almost a lost art). before I learned the parry I had to learn a proper boxing stance. first my coach shows me the parry. than I repeat what he showed me over and over. next we put on the gloves (which I have gotten used to but still prefer bare hand) and he feeds me punches. then I practice solo again over and over. next time he feeds me punches gradually building up his speed and tries to hit me (his vertical jab is hard to see before you get hit). then back to solo practice. next I spar with someone else who really wants to show me that I can't stop his jab. this process goes on and on but if I don't practice and perfect the movement solo, my form is weak. my ability to parry starts with the perfection of the movement first. working with my coach or sparring partner is for timing, confidence and the ability to adjust the movement to the punch. now getting deeper in to the parry there are other factors - mindset, focus and relaxation. without these elements it really doesn't matter how well I can physically perform the movement. more solo practice. meditation is the best exercise for building these elements as skills. it can be seated, standing, lying or moving (practicing Tai Chi Chuan forms). at this point in my training I perform better physically the more I develop my mindset, focus and relaxation through solo practice. the best way for you to find out if it works for you is to devote enough time to doing it to have an opinion based on experience. thanks for taking the bait ;-)

[Wanderingdragon]

Humbleboxer, the only thing here that speaks to speed of opportunity is the last thing you said, which by the way really isn't that humble " thanks for taking the bait ". I still offfer the short winded answer, you create your opportunity, throw out the bait, when they take, its your opportunity. Old school " you slow you blow ".

[Chris McKinley]

humbleboxer,

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your points. I understand it's hard to cover a lot of territory thoroughly when you're limited on posting time. I find your final comment about "taking the bait" to be more cryptic than arrogant. I'm not quite sure what was meant by it, but that's of no real matter. Since you made a lot of stand-alone point statements in your most recent post, I'll address several of them one at a time.

RE: "the first major concern is injury. getting hurt prevents training which in turn slows down the learning process. the second is learning bad habits. you can get to used to doing things that work under the conditions of the practice. when the conditions change it is more difficult to switch to different techniques that are required.". Certainly, yes. Of course, it is a misuse of logic to avoid not just sparring but partner work on applications altogether simply because such work carries with it the theoretical possibility of either injury or the ingraining of bad habits, as some might do. When we avoid altogether a practice simply because it can be misused or could have ultimate limitations, we also deprive ourselves of all of the benefits of the practice, some of which in this case cannot be derived from any other substitute method. Sadly, this choice is perhaps a large part of the reason we see the consistent inability to fight effectively at any level among IMA schools in general.

RE: " this is where solo practice is so important.". Yes, of course. A simple but certainly important point. No one on this thread or any other that I can think of is advocating the abandonment of solo practice. The problem, in fact, is the inverse: folks engaging in/promoting solo practice to the exclusion of significant partner work at levels of intensity required to gain the skill sets necessary.

RE: "if you keep the right attitude and approach it is shouldn't be any different than training with a partner.". I'm not even sure if it should be the same, nevermind the fact that in every demonstrable way, it universally isn't. I'm not sure if you're making this particular statement out of gross naivete about actual combat training or simply out of a desire to express an appreciation for what would be a Platonic ideal if it were actually true. Certainly though, and for the sake of the context of this particular thread, it must be pointed out that the two are not in any way the same or fully redundant to one another.

RE: "drilling through repetition and conditioning the body with foundation training is only limited by your own abilities.". This statement also is incorrect, in and of itself. Those training methods are inherently and inalterably limited in their inability to provide many of the benefits of partner training, regardless of how well or how long one practices them. Now, you may be intending to make the point that those methods are only limited in providing the particular but limited skill sets they are capable of yielding by the practitioner's ability to optimize them fully. That might be a far more accurate point to make, if that is indeed the point you are intending, than an interpretation which claims that solo training is unlimited in its ability to provide every and all skill sets necessary for real combat to the exclusion of partner work, which would be a fallacious claim. Perhaps you might clarify which interpretation you intended?

RE: your rear-hand boxing parry training. You describe what is an excellent example of the kind of constant back-and-forth between learning, practicing and contextualizing with incremental progression of intensity that I so strongly advocate. The most obvious point, as it relates to this thread, is that solo practice and partner work of varying levels are not mutually exclusive in any way and indeed work best when there is constant interplay between them.

Mindset, focus, relaxation, etc. are all completely valid as beneficial factors in the real usage of the skills we are considering. That such benefits might be optimally derived from solo training is also a possibility which in no way conflicts with the advocacy of liberal amounts of partner work. Ultimately, the mindset, focus and relaxation that one might develop in solo training has to be tested in, at the very least, pressured partner work in order to determine if those skills have contextualized properly and aren't merely limited to the context of solo training. This last limitation is one of the biggest dangers of putting solo training disproportionately greater and out-of-balance with partner work; namely, that the skills developed there cannot under any circumstances be assumed to have contextualized automatically and without any further such work. This often leads many solo-heavy or solo-only practicitioners into a self-deluded and erroneous belief that they can fight effectively, only to find that when they face the native context for which these skills are necessary that those skills are either inaccessible in the moment, grossly insufficient to the task, or both.

RE: "the best way for you to find out if it works for you is to devote enough time to doing it to have an opinion based on experience.". Again, I would completely agree. And in a further agreement based on my many years of personal experience, I would testify that, done properly, the benefits of mindset, focus and relaxation can indeed be gained in solo practice. Now, that's not to say that they can't also be gained from other types of practice, but they certainly can be gained.

[Sprint]

By context are you guys really meaning psychological conditioning? So to get over a fear response you need to face the fear and work in that environment to solidify your training?

[Wanderingdragon]

Mindset, focus, and relaxation are part and parcel of "speed of opportunity" , I think the point being of importance here is that you cannot truly realize these attributes without proper adversarial experience.

[Chris McKinley]

Sprint,

By context, I am not referring to psychological conditioning. Psychological conditioning is something that prepares you for the context of combat. You will also occasionally see me reference the concept of "native context". In this case, the native context is not the safety and sterility of the training hall. Nor is it the higher intensity of the tournament competitor's training gym. Nor is it even the high intensity of the cage or octagon. The native context for real combat can occur nearly anywhere, but the important point is that it includes conditions that are different than any of the above other contexts. It generally includes surprise, it frequently includes weapons, and it always includes the risk of death to oneself or loved ones.

Now, as to developing psychological conditioning as preparation for the native context....yes, incremental habituation, raising of reaction thresholds, and reduction/extinction of certain reactions is an intelligent approach on principle.

[DeusTrismegistus]

RE: "the first major concern is injury. getting hurt prevents training which in turn slows down the learning process. the second is learning bad habits. you can get to used to doing things that work under the conditions of the practice. when the conditions change it is more difficult to switch to different techniques that are required.". Certainly, yes. Of course, it is a misuse of logic to avoid not just sparring but partner work on applications altogether simply because such work carries with it the theoretical possibility of either injury or the ingraining of bad habits, as some might do. When we avoid altogether a practice simply because it can be misused or could have ultimate limitations, we also deprive ourselves of all of the benefits of the practice, some of which in this case cannot be derived from any other substitute method. Sadly, this choice is perhaps a large part of the reason we see the consistent inability to fight effectively at any level among IMA schools in general.

With regard to this idea. The fear of sparring comes from lack of control. This is the first thing that must be taught so that proper sparring can occur. The problem is that control in a sparring environment requires you to practice sparring. This is why beginner's should be more dangerous to spar at higher intensity than senior partners in the training hall. I completely trust anyone at my school who wears a brown belt (yes we have belts) or higher to not hurt me at pretty much any intensity because I KNOW they have the control to not do so, to stop a strike on a dime, and adjust in real time on the fly. I don't know if it still exists but there was a Properly Structured Sparring thread a long while back that addressed this topic at length.

Also learning bad habits is a bad and pathetic excuse to not spar or engage in partner work regularly. The benefits of practicing in this context far outweigh any bad habits that might be created and the familiarity with contact and pressure will be more helpful if something real happens than having a less couple less than perfect or even disadvantageous habits. Besides that it is only through practice with a partner that those bad habits can be refined and eliminated or turned into beneficial habits.

Another thing I want to address. Is the training necessary to be able to take advantage of an opportunity. In the striking side of the coin it is a matter of being able to use the right strike to attack the open target automatically without hesitation. This can be considerably variable as the relative position of your body and the other person's is constantly changing and as near as we can probably get to infinitely variable. With regards to throwing the variables are more easily controlled however a throw is usually a more complicated action.

In both cases; no matter how good a state the mind is in when there is an opportunity, if there is not some kind of previous experience in a similar enough circumstance or enough time for the person to adjust on the fly, an effective use of the opportunity is not very likely or nearly impossible.

[johnwang]

This is why beginner's should be more dangerous to spar at higher intensity than senior partners in the training hall.

This was the reason that I switched my interest from the striking art into the throwing art. In striking art sparring, you control your force but your opponent does not. It's not fair. In wrestling, both you and your opponent don't need any control, you can go 100%. If you lose, you will not blame on anybody but yourself.