Variable Resistance: Upping the Training Ante

[Vash]

In my karate school, we tend to work at several levels of resistance, though there are no terms for these levels, and no real distinction drawn between them. However, I feel it prudent to set up a skeletal framework for the introduction of resistance in learning the so-called "classical" or "traditional" arts - the arts which tend to place emphasis on forms/kata training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 0:
0 Resistance - Forms/Kata practice. Includes initial introduction to techniques, as well as all manner of one-person formwork, shadowboxing, and the like. At this level, focus for the beginning and intermediate student is on developing a general understanding of the intended motion. For the more advanced practioners, a basic study of strategy is available, as is the free study of intended physical structure within certain techniques or ideas.

Level 1:
Two-Man Drills. Training at this intensity level tends to focus on translating the concepts garnered at Level 0 into executable techniques recognizable as the "style" or "method" of the practitioner. (also includes bagwork, padwork, et al)

Level 2:
Low-Intensity free-sparring. Focus at this intensity level is on allowing the student to actively test the techniques/concepts introduced at the previous levels against a completely non-cooperative opponent.

Level 3:
High-Intensity free-sparring. Focus herein is the same as Level 2, only the pressure is raised a few notches - not, however, at the cost of safety or lack of control of trainees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my opinion that training with this type of sliding scale of resistance will allow a student of a "classical" or "traditional" art to apply their style's techniques and strategies under stress.

Any thoughts?

[yenhoi]

Same sort of thinking on our side of the table:

attribute training: solo training in any number of manners that improve basic personal attributes.

skill development: partner training with varying levels of "resistance," decision making opporatunitys, and mistake making opporatunitys.

Its common in JKD concept camps to refer to this type of training methodology as Progressive Sparring, Isolation training, or similar.

Skill development cannot take place without a somwhat or fully resisting partner/opponent.

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Skill development cannot take place without a somewhat or fully resisting partner/opponent.

I'm going to be real ballsy and disagree. And I'm going to use my own (exceptionally limited) experience to make my case.

When I was coming up, learning the basics, I found the "dry-land swimming" exercises helped me to focus on a given technique without the "distraction" of a bag, mitts, or an opponent. By doing this, then afterwords going up each level of the aforementioned intensity scale, I was able to more effectively (and much sooner) use the technique than having started with a higher level of intensity. That is to say, I'd gone through a similar process, leaving out the "dry-land" aspect, and had found it difficult to grasp what I was doing quickly and effectively.

Iain Abernethy has a good article which explains more clearly what that last paragraph was trying to get across.

For me, this learning process has proven to be effective. Of course, I've always found it easier to "get" something shown me if I pantomimed it first. I'm just strange that way. And many of the people I've worked out with have been the same way. Of course, there have been many people (and there are obviously a great number of people, as shown by the amazing and proven fighters in the non-forms camps) who don't work that way.

My suggestion is that a full range of pressure-testing, from 0 all the way to balls-to-wall, allows for a complete psychological and neurological immersion in a given task, thus making a more complete learning experience.

Later on today, after I've edited the sleep-deprivation out of this post, I'll discuss the merits of training techniques which don't work in every situation and which are not easily accomplished by someone without a substantial bit of training in said technique.

[yenhoi]

This is where terminology and lingo will seperate and destroy us Vash.

Our family has decided that there is attributes, the basic building blocks of all fighters, like speed, endurance, power, structure, integration, and focus... and then there is skills, specific functions you can DO against a person who doesnt want you to and is trying to hurt you, these involve the aspects of timing and setup that cannot be simulated without another person. Principles are higher ideas that are learned through specific expierences while training attributes and skills.

Solo practice of all sorts can be very beneficial on many levels. What we call "skills" are things you can only do against a person... and so can only be practiced by doing them against a person.

An example of a skill would be: the ability to "enter" past your opponents weapons and gain a superior clinch hold/grip/tie up. Another might be the ability to "off-balance" your opponent from a superior clinch hold/grip/tie.

skills are obviously inter-related with attributes, techniques, and principles. People can train attributes and techniques to a large extent without partners and with great results, but skill and (martial) principle seems impossible to actually practice alone.

I would also say that some solo training methods like shadowboxing, carenza, some types of form and kata, and visualization obviously exist in the gray area between attribute/technique and skill/principle.

[Vash]

This is where terminology and lingo will seperate and destroy us Vash.

Indeed. It's hard to learn whilst having to play the language game.

That was a good post. Definetly cleared up a few things.

[SevenStar]

Excellent thread. Yenhoi has the same train of thought as I.

[Siu Lum Fighter]

Solo practice can be an invaluable way of training (along with the three other mentioned levels). Back when I was learning Shotokan Karate (and I was also somewhat interested in JKD) I remember thinking "hmm, what if someone decided to make up a kata for JKD?" "What would it look like?" With Karate I learned that once the forms really become second nature, you can mix-match as many different moves as you want and literally make up your own forms. That's how the masters of old did it.

I think it could be useful for practitioners of JKD to do this (as I'm sure many probably have already).

[Vash]

That's one of the topics I intended to broach sometime after the forms vs no-forms debates blew over on the main forum.
I've got a few decent-sized posts regarding my views saved on disk. I would be very itnerested to hear more of yours, and anyone else's thoughts on the subject, so long as they can be presented in a non-policitical, this-is-right way.

[yenhoi]

How do you pick which forms to collect?

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
How do you pick which forms to collect?

I don't think I understand the question; are you asking how a school (style) decides which forms to practice, or are you referring to practice at the individual level?

[yenhoi]

Mainly how do you decide which forms to collect, Vash.

But also, if you want, how/why have any specific schools/systems/styles collected and taught the lists (short of long) of forms?

[Vash]

Originally posted by yenhoi
Mainly how do you decide which forms to collect, Vash.

Well, I'm sticking to those in my system, plus two I'm working on with friends/students of other styles; one is from a style which heavily influenced mine, and the other is the CLF Drunken form.

But also, if you want, how/why have any specific schools/systems/styles collected and taught the lists (short of long) of forms?

My guess, and that's all it is, is that the forms within a syllabus correspond to and help instruct the attributes of a given fighting methodology.

[Vash]

To start, here's the fuel for the flame: a method of combative instruction which utilizes the practice of forms, long or short, against no or compliant resistance is less efficient than a system which focuses on active resistance at all but the introductory levels of instruction.

However, this does not speak to the overall efficacy of a system. Often times, it'll be said that "it takes years to master x form." While this can be true, it does not mean one should not be able to adequately defend themselves given three or four months of good training. From my conversations with the "higher ranks" in both my system and a few kung fu systems, the techniques which are thought of as inadequate for immediate use are labeled correctly. It is the time invested and applied to the training of the "advanced" (heretofore labeled as inadequate for immediate use) technique which allows for the "effortless" application in a live environ.

This difference in training:

1) Utilizing only quickly efficient attributes and attribute-builders; method is negligible

2) Focus is on development of combative ability utilizing a specific method

If trained properly, the "tradititional" approach can produce combatants on the same level as the "modern" approach. However, they more often than not do not, at least "these days." This, I believe, is due partly to something Ford Prefect pointed out on a thread in the main forum; the difference in physical activity preferences.

One method will produce fast results which can be carried on and improved upon for some time; the other takes time to make the chosen method natural (and therefore, efficient and effective). They are not completely different goals. The difference is one of degrees.

[SevenStar]

This is what we've been saying all along - the difference is in the training methods. that and the design. TMA systems were designed to take longer.

[Vash]

Sevenstar is correct.