# Pride's Price



## Anarax (Sep 16, 2017)

Students are their biggest obstacle when they are more concerned for their pride than training. I've seen this in multiple schools over the years. There are numerous drills that are crucial in developing your skills as a martial artist. Drills are to train muscle memory, improve technique and/or to improve a physical attribute(speed, power, etc). For example; if a student gives maximum resistance in a basic flow drill, they think they are achieving or proving something. A fencing student that only wants to do bouts and not train the basics thus don't improve their skills. 

However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change

Has anyone else seen or experienced this?


----------



## marques (Sep 17, 2017)

Anarax said:


> However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change


The same everywhere. But it seems to me they don't keep thinking the same way, rather they stopped thinking at some point in the past, sadly. When things don't go well, some people just go harder, faster and clearly worse.

Fortunately, these are only some people. Unfortunately, some of them happens to be our training partners....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2017)

Best advice given to me was 'empty your cup'. No one can fill a vessel that is already full of what you think you know.

Second best advice was to relax.

Next was 'speed comes from skill, skill comes from practice, and form before all'.


----------



## Buka (Sep 18, 2017)

Honestly never seen a student not do drills, if drills were part of their training. 
Never experienced a student training the same way - if that way was incorrect. I don't know anyone who would let students go down those paths.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 18, 2017)

Anarax said:


> when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals.


This is why a special rule should be set for the sparring. If you want your students to train "foot sweep" that day, your students can only win in sparring by using "foot sweep". Any other technique that they use, it will be ignored and the sparring continue.


----------



## jobo (Sep 18, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Students are their biggest obstacle when they are more concerned for their pride than training. I've seen this in multiple schools over the years. There are numerous drills that are crucial in developing your skills as a martial artist. Drills are to train muscle memory, improve technique and/or to improve a physical attribute(speed, power, etc). For example; if a student gives maximum resistance in a basic flow drill, they think they are achieving or proving something. A fencing student that only wants to do bouts and not train the basics thus don't improve their skills.
> 
> However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change
> 
> Has anyone else seen or experienced this?


drills don't do what you think they do, building a movement memory for a skill in slow motion does not give you a movement memory for,a fast of strong use of the skill. That's why meticulously rehearsed slow drills break down the moment you try and do them in real time , and why drills should be done as fast or as hard as you can do them, whilst still maintain some thing like the form , but that's what your objecting to people doing?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> drills don't do what you think they do, building a movement memory for a skill in slow motion does not give you a movement memory for,a fast of strong use of the skill. That's why meticulously rehearsed slow drills break down the moment you try and do them in real time , and why drills should be done as fast or as hard as you can do them, whilst still maintain some thing like the form , but that's what your objecting to people doing?


That's not my experience. Slow drills work when moving somewhat faster. You don't need to train balls-to-the-wall to be able to go at that speed. Slower, more controlled work allows building proper structure and movement, which you can't do while moving "as fast or as hard as you can do them". There's a reason all training (boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc.) uses the principle of training slow and slowly building up, only going full-speed/full-power on occasion, and only once the proper mechanics are developed by slower drills.


----------



## jobo (Sep 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not my experience. Slow drills work when moving somewhat faster. You don't need to train balls-to-the-wall to be able to go at that speed. Slower, more controlled work allows building proper structure and movement, which you can't do while moving "as fast or as hard as you can do them". There's a reason all training (boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc.) uses the principle of training slow and slowly building up, only going full-speed/full-power on occasion, and only once the proper mechanics are developed by slower drills.


no they don't, no , they train at the fastest speed they can and,still do the techneque, have you ever seen any other sport where they spend weeks in slo mo
. Never seen boxer doing slow motion punches for an hour or football players kicking in slow motion. Basketball players throwing slowly?
its another one of these stupid tma things


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> no they don't, no , they train at the fastest speed they can and,still do the techneque, have you ever seen any other sport where they spend weeks in slo mo
> . Never seen boxer doing slow motion punches for an hour or football players kicking in slow motion. Basketball players throwing slowly?
> its another one of these stupid tma things


I never said anything about slo-mo.


----------



## jobo (Sep 18, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I never said anything about slo-mo.


you said Slow drills, that's slow motion ie the motion in the drill is SLOW, other wise you would have called them fast drills!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> you said Slow drills, that's slow motion ie the motion in the drill is SLOW, other wise you would have called them fast drills!


Yeah, it's not binary. There's a progression of speed. Of course, you knew that.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 18, 2017)

Drill at the speed that you can do the movements properly. 
The build the speed working only as fast as you can still do the actions properly.
When basketball players learn a new set up or football players learn a new play they walk through the play several times first then they increase the speed of the drill or the set up as they get better. Then they start working at speed.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 18, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Drill at the speed that you can do the movements properly.


It may be OK to train slow during the beginner training stage. It's not OK to still train slow during the advance training stage. For some Taiji guys, they train slow when they were 8 years old. They still train slow when they are 80 years old.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 18, 2017)

At 63 I do some drills slowly, then moderately and then with full speed a few times and then back to moderately. I can get a lot more correct reps in at moderate speed than going full speed. When or If I get to 80 slow may be fast for me.


----------



## KenpoMaster805 (Sep 18, 2017)

some students are like that they dont practice their drill or their technique forms or set or even the basic and when it comes to the sparring their having problem they realy need to be focus on what they are doing what if in sparirng you dont know how to kick punch or strike then you gonna get lost in sparring and your oppoent thats good in sparirng will beat him or her thats for sure of they dont pracrtice


----------



## Anarax (Sep 18, 2017)

jobo said:


> drills don't do what you think they do, building a movement memory for a skill in slow motion does not give you a movement memory for,a fast of strong use of the skill. That's why meticulously rehearsed slow drills break down the moment you try and do them in real time , and why drills should be done as fast or as hard as you can do them, whilst still maintain some thing like the form , but that's what your objecting to people doing?



Building the fundamental and techniques is *one *thing drills are for, granted most drills have a skill progression. For example, if you are practicing sweeps you should be taught the mechanics and moves on how to execute the technique. Second, you go through the motions of the sweep with a non-resisting partner, non-resisting doesn't mean fall to the ground when your leg is nudged, but to only go down when you balance was taken and were legitimately swept. Third, try executing the technique in sparring, sparring obviously is a resisting opponent and you execute it with speed. I have performed numerous sweeps in sparring and learned how to do so with the process stated above.

The student mentioned in my OP tries to do everything as quickly and as hard as possible, thus he's never able to do much anything in sparring. He is shown the mechanics and steps of a sweep, but it all goes out the window when he tries to use speed and power. This is because he hasn't drilled the technique properly. He almost never has an answer for any technique you throw at him on sparring, including sweeps.



jobo said:


> no they don't, no , they train at the fastest speed they can and,still do the techneque



Exactly, when they can still do the technique. I'm referring to those that lack the technical expertise to do it even at a moderate pace. Not all drills are for speed and power. You have balance, sensitivity, angles, footwork, etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 18, 2017)

Danny T said:


> At 63 I do some drills slowly, then moderately and then with full speed a few times and then back to moderately.


I still do my drill fast. I'm afraid if I slow myself down, I will have to slow down for the rest of my life. I know I have to slow down someday. I just try to maker that day to come as late as possible. I strongly believe that if I don't use it, I will lose it forever.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> At 63 I do some drills slowly, then moderately and then with full speed a few times and then back to moderately. I can get a lot more correct reps in at moderate speed than going full speed. When or If I get to 80 slow may be fast for me.



You will get out of the drills what you put in. If you go fast you will get speed. If you are precise. You will get precision.

You reasonably need both. So make progression towards both.


----------



## Buka (Sep 19, 2017)

I really like speed.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

I struggle with going slow at first.  When my CI shows me a new technique, combo, etc. I pretty much always go too fast at first.  When I go too fast when initially learning it, I miss a lot of subtleties.  Those subtleties that I miss are almost always the ones that make or break the technique 

I pretty much always have to take a step back and ask myself why I did it again.  I'll slow it down to the point where I'm basically walking through it without much speed and power (not at a snail's pace, but definitely not fast), get it down to where it works for me, then start adding speed, then start adding power.  When I do that is when it really starts to work and doesn't look like a mess.

Why I constantly forget that step, I'll never know.  I guess most often maybe I think "that looks simple" and I just go at the pace I think it should be done at my usual pace.

All I know for sure is I don't genuinely "get" the technique until I do it slowly and without power until I have a solid understanding of the intricacies like timing, footwork, hand/foot positioning and placement, etc.

A great example is the prearranged sparring drills we do.  The most basic one we do is one person will slide forward (not step through) with a middle punch, then slide forward with a high punch.  The partner will slide back and block with each punch.  The the partner does it.  Then step forward and with a front kick twice, and the partner will step backward and block each kick.  Repeat for the partner.  Then punches again the same way for both people, followed by a finishing technique.  I look at it and think "that's pretty easy, nothing new with that" and go at a fast and hard pace.  Then it gets pointed out that my non-punching and blocking hand(s) were down and not protecting my head the entire time, I dropped my hands while kicking, I stepped too far or not far enough, I was looking at the floor, I started the blocks too soon or too late, etc.  Basically, I memorized all the movements, but everything I did went against every reason why we actually do them - maintaining proper form and timing while doing basics.  Then I realize I went too fast and hard too soon yet again, so I slow down to where I can do all those things without leaving stuff out, then slow enough where I don't have to think about any of them, then I finally speed it up to near full speed and power. 

I go through that same cycle every time.  Sometimes it doesn't take as long for me to realize it; other times I've been doing it way too long before I remind myself how much of an idiot and predictable I truly am.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yeah, it's not binary. There's a progression of speed. Of course, you knew that.


of course its binary, there are two speeds bands, as fast as you can and slower than that, anything slower than fast, is by defintion SLOW


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Building the fundamental and techniques is *one *thing drills are for, granted most drills have a skill progression. For example, if you are practicing sweeps you should be taught the mechanics and moves on how to execute the technique. Second, you go through the motions of the sweep with a non-resisting partner, non-resisting doesn't mean fall to the ground when your leg is nudged, but to only go down when you balance was taken and were legitimately swept. Third, try executing the technique in sparring, sparring obviously is a resisting opponent and you execute it with speed. I have performed numerous sweeps in sparring and learned how to do so with the process stated above.
> 
> etc.


there is a whole other subject, of the bias of non resting partners towards actually co operating to make the sweep work

a leg sweep requires enough kinetic energy to kick the leg from under them and tip their balance, it just doesn't work at a slow speed. If the non resisting partner is falling over during a slow,drill, then they are,co operating ie falling over on purpose. If they actually stand their long enough for the slow,sweep to make contact instead of moving out of the way,, then they are co operating


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It may be OK to train slow during the beginner training stage. It's not OK to still train slow during the advance training stage. For some Taiji guys, they train slow when they were 8 years old. They still train slow when they are 80 years old.


Slow still has a use, even as we advance. Professional golfers occasionally swing their club slowly, to try to more accurately feel what they are doing, or to allow themselves to make an adjustment in the swing. Of course, there's a problem with spending too much time on slow.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> of course its binary, there are two speeds bands, as fast as you can and slower than that, anything slower than fast, is by defintion SLOW


Okay, so maybe you don't know it.

Humans can move at a very wide range of speeds. I can deliver a punch very slow, kinda slow, moderately, kinda fast, or really fast. And every point on the continuum between those vague designations.

So no, not binary. But you actually do know that - you're just trying to make me wrong so you can be right.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> there is a whole other subject, of the bias of non resting partners towards actually co operating to make the sweep work
> 
> a leg sweep requires enough kinetic energy to kick the leg from under them and tip their balance, it just doesn't work at a slow speed. If the non resisting partner is falling over during a slow,drill, then they are,co operating ie falling over on purpose. If they actually stand their long enough for the slow,sweep to make contact instead of moving out of the way,, then they are co operating


Actually, it does work at a slow speed. If yours doesn't, you don't understand the sweep.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You will get out of the drills what you put in. If you go fast you will get speed. If you are precise. You will get precision.
> 
> You reasonably need both. So make progression towards both.


yes agree, but then one,( speed) is more important than the other( precision) so you would naturally build speed then look to add precision, rather than the tma way, of spending countless hours building slow motion precision and then expect it to magically  speed up when you some one attacks you at full speed, which of course it doesn't as doing it fast or powerfully used different muscle fibres than the one's you have spent hours drilling. Ie the muscle memory you have is the wrong one for the situation

for instance if some one throws a punch at you, full speed, what matters is you move quickly, the precision of that movement, where you put your feet or block is,secondary to the fact that you actually move your feet or block


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, so maybe you don't know it.
> 
> Humans can move at a very wide range of speeds. I can deliver a punch very slow, kinda slow, moderately, kinda fast, or really fast. And every point on the continuum between those vague designations.
> 
> So no, not binary. But you actually do know that - you're just trying to make me wrong so you can be right.


the purpose of throwing a punch is to hurt someone, that takes speed, a slow punch is therefore a weaker punch and has less chance of hitting,

of course you can throw increasingly weaker punches. But why would you want to practise that?

you want to practise at your optimum, so if you don't like the only slow and fast thing, let's go for two types of punch, optimum and sub optimum, still binary


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, it does work at a slow speed. If yours doesn't, you don't understand the sweep.


go on then explain how a sweep that doesn't carry enough kinetic energy to knock them off ballance, can knock them off balance?


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> the purpose of throwing a punch is to hurt someone, that takes speed, a slow punch is therefore a weaker punch and has less chance of hitting,
> 
> of course you can throw increasingly weaker punches. But why would you want to practise that?
> 
> you want to practise at your optimum, so if you don't like the only slow and fast thing, let's go for two types of punch, optimum and sub optimum, still binary


What'll make that punch harder isn't nearly the speed as it is effective mass being thrown around.  I can make a slower punch just as hard as a faster punch if I put more of my weight behind it.

There's definitely a place for punching slowER (emphasis on the ER in slower).  It'll disrupt my opponent's timing.  Same way and reason as a baseball pitcher (and probably a cricket pitcher (?)) will vary the speed of their pitches - so the batter doesn't get used to a specific speed and easily time it.  That doesn't mean I'll punch in slow motion for that, it just means I'll slow it down just enough to cause my opponent to block too early.  If my opponent gets used to seeing every punch at 100 mph, a 90 mph punch will land after he's fully committed to his block/parry/slip.  Bruce Lee was the first one I saw call it broken rythym, but I'm sure others probably called it that before him.  

If you throw everything you can as fast as you can, your opponent will get their timing down eventually.  Hopefully you've ended the fight beforehand.

There's reasons to slow down a bit, even in a genuine SD situation.  Rare, but not completely nonexistent.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> go on then explain how a sweep that doesn't carry enough kinetic energy to knock them off ballance, can knock them off balance?


What if they're already off balance and don't see your sweep coming?  As hard and fast as possible isn't as necessary as well timed and precise.  The opponent did 90% of the work for you, and you're taking advantage of it.  Not everything has to be muscled.  If you HAVE to force it, it's most likely not going to work.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes agree, but then one,( speed) is more important than the other( precision) so you would naturally build speed then look to add precision, rather than the tma way, of spending countless hours building slow motion precision and then expect it to magically  speed up when you some one attacks you at full speed, which of course it doesn't as doing it fast or powerfully used different muscle fibres than the one's you have spent hours drilling. Ie the muscle memory you have is the wrong one for the situation
> 
> for instance if some one throws a punch at you, full speed, what matters is you move quickly, the precision of that movement, where you put your feet or block is,secondary to the fact that you actually move your feet or block


What's the point of drawing a pistol and firing it absurdly fast if you're not even close to hitting your target?  Learn to hit the target, then learn to do it faster, not learn to draw and pull a trigger as fast as possible then worry about hitting said target.  There's no point in drawing a gun and firing off 3 shots in 1.2 seconds if all 3 shots were 10 feet away from the intended target.  There's no point in throwing 5 punches in 2 seconds if none of those punches land (except of course you intentionally missed to create another opening that you can actually hit).


----------



## Danny T (Sep 19, 2017)

Timing.
Timing is more important than speed, unless you don't really know or understand the action then yes, speed is more important. Many sweeps require an off balancing of the opponent first then the sweep is simple. Of course if one doesn't know that then one needs speed and greater force to cause a sweep. So yeah speed would be important to that person...who doesn't know or have the timing to off balance first.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> What if they're already off balance and don't see your sweep coming?  As hard and fast as possible isn't as necessary as well timed and precise.  The opponent did 90% of the work for you, and you're taking advantage of it.  Not everything has to be muscled.  If you HAVE to force it, it's most likely not going to work.


but its a,slow motion drill, where they are,expecting a leg sweep, why would they be a) of balance and b) not expecting it?


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> What's the point of drawing a pistol and firing it absurdly fast if you're not even close to hitting your target?  Learn to hit the target, then learn to do it faster, not learn to draw and pull a trigger as fast as possible then worry about hitting said target.  There's no point in drawing a gun and firing off 3 shots in 1.2 seconds if all 3 shots were 10 feet away from the intended target.  There's no point in throwing 5 punches in 2 seconds if none of those punches land (except of course you intentionally missed to create another opening that you can actually hit).


my point isn't that you should go as fast as possible, its that you should go as fast as you can and,still being,effective as opposed to constant and prolonged slow motion drilling at sub optimal speed.

precision means you can kick at exactly the 3rd rib up, effective means you can kick hard somewhere near where you were,aiming

you gun analogy doesn't really work, but let's say you practise to draw fast AND hit the man, ans then work on refining you accuracy to heart shots, rather than being able to deliver three heart,shots, bit it takes you 30 seconds to get the gun out and,aim it. One is far more use in a life threatning,situation than the other


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Timing.
> Timing is more important than speed, unless you don't really know or understand the action then yes, speed is more important. Many sweeps require an off balancing of the opponent first then the sweep is simple. Of course if one doesn't know that then one needs speed and greater force to cause a sweep. So yeah speed would be important to that person...who doesn't know or have the timing to off balance first.


no timing is the control of speed, but first you need to build speed, that you can then control, slow motion timing is not a lot of use, unless you and the other guy are both in slow motion


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes agree, but then one,( speed) is more important than the other( precision) so you would naturally build speed then look to add precision, rather than the tma way, of spending countless hours building slow motion precision and then expect it to magically  speed up when you some one attacks you at full speed, which of course it doesn't as doing it fast or powerfully used different muscle fibres than the one's you have spent hours drilling. Ie the muscle memory you have is the wrong one for the situation
> 
> for instance if some one throws a punch at you, full speed, what matters is you move quickly, the precision of that movement, where you put your feet or block is,secondary to the fact that you actually move your feet or block


That's a strawman of TMA training. TMA training (the ones I've seen, anyway) doesn't "expect it to magically  speed up when you some one attacks you at full speed". It starts slow (just like wrestling training does), and speeds up as the person's skill increases. The same is true with punches. If you try to start full-speed defending punches, you get punched a lot. If you start with slower attacks, you build up your skill at it until you can defend full-speed punches.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> the purpose of throwing a punch is to hurt someone, that takes speed, a slow punch is therefore a weaker punch and has less chance of hitting,
> 
> of course you can throw increasingly weaker punches. But why would you want to practise that?
> 
> you want to practise at your optimum, so if you don't like the only slow and fast thing, let's go for two types of punch, optimum and sub optimum, still binary


So, your premise is to take a brand new person, put them in front of a heavy bag, and say, "Hit it as hard and fast as you can!" Then, try to fix the problems at that speed? Nonsense. They start slower and softer (how slow and soft varies by where their ability is), and add speed and power as they improve. The best training keeps them on the front edge of their skill level, where they fail occasionally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> go on then explain how a sweep that doesn't carry enough kinetic energy to knock them off ballance, can knock them off balance?


The sweep doesn't knock them off balance. It removes the leg, so they have no support. That requires only a small amount of kinetic energy, which can even be generated with your foot on the ground.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but its a,slow motion drill, where they are,expecting a leg sweep, why would they be a) of balance and b) not expecting it?


Because you move them off-balance, and don't tell them it's coming.

Of course, if you want to talk about drills, those are cooperative, so they won't (shouldn't) be resisting the specific technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> my point isn't that you should go as fast as possible, its that you should go as fast as you can and,still being,effective as opposed to constant and prolonged slow motion drilling at sub optimal speed.


That's not the statement you made before. I agree with that.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> What'll make that punch harder isn't nearly the speed as it is effective mass being thrown around.  I can make a slower punch just as hard as a faster punch if I put more of my weight behind it.
> 
> There's definitely a place for punching slowER (emphasis on the ER in slower).  It'll disrupt my opponent's timing.  Same way and reason as a baseball pitcher (and probably a cricket pitcher (?)) will vary the speed of their pitches - so the batter doesn't get used to a specific speed and easily time it.  That doesn't mean I'll punch in slow motion for that, it just means I'll slow it down just enough to cause my opponent to block too early.  If my opponent gets used to seeing every punch at 100 mph, a 90 mph punch will land after he's fully committed to his block/parry/slip.  Bruce Lee was the first one I saw call it broken rythym, but I'm sure others probably called it that before him.
> 
> ...





gpseymour said:


> The sweep doesn't knock them off balance. It removes the leg, so they have no support. That requires only a small amount of kinetic energy, which can even be generated with your foot on the ground.


and if their leg goes sideways they have lost their balance, but ok how does a sweep that doesnt have enough kinetic energy to remove their,leg(s), move there leg (s)


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Because you move them off-balance, and don't tell them it's coming.
> 
> Of course, if you want to talk about drills, those are cooperative, so they won't (shouldn't) be resisting the specific technique.


but i was specifically replying to a post where they are doing leg,sweep drills,SLOWLY, , so the guy is in balance AND expecting a leg sweep. 

he also said it was a non resistant but non co operating partner, ie the partner didn't just fall over when touched


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's not the statement you made before. I agree with that.


yes, i think that,statement or very close to it, was made very early in my post count for this thread.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but i was specifically replying to a post where they are doing leg,sweep drills,SLOWLY, , so the guy is in balance AND expecting a leg sweep.
> 
> he also said it was a non resistant but non co operating partner, ie the partner didn't just fall over when touched


Falling over when touched is over-compliance. A compliant partner in a drill simply lets you do the movement (including pulling/pushing them into the entry of the technique), and falls when the movement works.

You asked how a sweep can be done slowly - I was describing that it can actually be done slowly even if the person doesn't know it's coming (so isn't helping make it happen), so long as they are already off-balance. A drill is a different matter, as I've outlined above and elsewhere.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes, i think that,statement or very close to it, was made very early in my post count for this thread.


Okay, re-reading your posts with that in mind, I can see that's what you intended. Your earlier wording ("as fast or as hard as you can do them, whilst still maintain some thing like the form") read differently to me - like "do it as fast as you can and it still sorta looks like the technique".


----------



## Danny T (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> no timing is the control of speed, but first you need to build speed, that you can then control, slow motion timing is not a lot of use, unless you and the other guy are both in slow motion


Not when one person is quicker and/or faster than the other.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Not when one person is quicker and/or faster than the other.


don't understand that? 
Il try again timing is the,control of,speed, what's your objection to that,statement?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> don't understand that?
> Il try again timing is the,control of,speed, what's your objection to that,statement?


I think I understand your point. I'd add that timing is more than just control of speed - it's also control of stillness (waiting until the proper moment).


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think I understand your point. I'd add that timing is more than just control of speed - it's also control of stillness (waiting until the proper moment).


oh come on, stillness is a control of speed, like a,sprinter on the,starting blocks


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> oh come on, stillness is a control of speed, like a,sprinter on the,starting blocks


Okay, if you want to be silly about it. But one need not be fast to be still, nor to have good timing. Being super-fast is less important than being fairly fast and having good timing.


----------



## Anarax (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> there is a whole other subject, of the bias of non resting partners towards actually co operating to make the sweep work
> 
> a leg sweep requires enough kinetic energy to kick the leg from under them and tip their balance, it just doesn't work at a slow speed. If the non resisting partner is falling over during a slow,drill, then they are,co operating ie falling over on purpose. If they actually stand their long enough for the slow,sweep to make contact instead of moving out of the way,, then they are co operating



The point I'm making with this post is the pride aspect of training. The training partner I'm referring to gives maximum resistance in almost anything we do, his pride is only a problem for him though. His pride is what he thinks he's preserving by resisting, yet he get's humiliated in sparring but he isn't humbled by the experience. The techniques he's resisting in training are techniques he knows exactly what I'm going to do, given it's a drill and not sparring. He thinks that if he can resist that it's proving something, but in sparring when he doesn't know what's going to happen he gets caught by almost everything.

Stick disarms are another example. There are some disarms that we have to modify for training purposes. For example, there's one disarm that you strike your opponents thumb with the butt end of our stick, breaking the opponents thumb and breaks his grip. We can't train this technique exactly given the injuries it would cause. We block, enter, angle the stick and do the move exactly the way we would, except we strike pass the thumb to build muscle memory. He wrenches down on the stick with maximum resistance, thinking he's proving something. However; in sparring he's easily disarmed, swept, struck, etc.    

We can debate training methods all day long, but every instructor I've had always but form and technique first, speed and power second. The point still remains, he's only limiting himself by placing his pride above training.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, if you want to be silly about it. But one need not be fast to be still, nor to have good timing. Being super-fast is less important than being fairly fast and having good timing.


but you making it an either/ or

timeing is being at the right place at the right time, the right place is a fixed point, so your speed needs to be judge to fit the right time, to soon and its wrong to slow,and your to late

when the right time is, is completely dependent on the,speed of the object you are trying to coincide with, if the object arrives before you do because you lack speed, then the timing is off. You can only ever have good timing if you have the speed to get there,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but you making it an either/ or
> 
> timeing is being at the right place at the right time, the right place is a fixed point, so your speed needs to be judge to fit the right time, to soon and its wrong to slow,and your to late
> 
> when the right time is, is completely dependent on the,speed of the object you are trying to coincide with, if the object arrives before you do because you lack speed, then the timing is off. You can only ever have good timing if you have the speed to get there,


You simply must argue, mustn't you?


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Anarax said:


> The point I'm making with this post is the pride aspect of training. The training partner I'm referring to gives maximum resistance in almost anything we do, his pride is only a problem for him though. His pride is what he thinks he's preserving by resisting, yet he get's humiliated in sparring but he isn't humbled by the experience. The techniques he's resisting in training are techniques he knows exactly what I'm going to do, given it's a drill and not sparring. He thinks that if he can resist that it's proving something, but in sparring when he doesn't know what's going to happen he gets caught by almost everything.
> 
> Stick disarms are another example. There are some disarms that we have to modify for training purposes. For example, there's one disarm that you strike your opponents thumb with the butt end of our stick, breaking the opponents thumb and breaks his grip. We can't train this technique exactly given the injuries it would cause. We block, enter, angle the stick and do the move exactly the way we would, except we strike pass the thumb to build muscle memory. He wrenches down on the stick with maximum resistance, thinking he's proving something. However; in sparring he's easily disarmed, swept, struck, etc.
> 
> We can debate training methods all day long, but every instructor I've had always but form and technique first, speed and power second. The point still remains, he's only limiting himself by placing his pride above training.


but the point I'm making is the whole co operating partner standing there with their arm out is what's wrong with tma, it has a place for the first few times, then you need a resisting partner so you can build the speed skill to do the techneque real time. If you cant grab their arm say, because they pull it away, then that's good, you know your to slow to ever use that in the real world, if you pull and they don't move your not strong enough.

if i can get my full resting partner on the floor in real time then i know is a sound techneque that i have got the hang off,


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> You simply must argue, mustn't you?


pot kettle black


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but its a,slow motion drill, where they are,expecting a leg sweep, why would they be a) of balance and b) not expecting it?


I must have missed the part of a drill.  I was talking an actual encounter.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the point I'm making is the whole co operating partner standing there with their arm out is what's wrong with tma, it has a place for the first few times, then you need a resisting partner so you can build the speed skill to do the techneque real time. If you cant grab their arm say, because they pull it away, then that's good, you know your to slow to ever use that in the real world, if you pull and they don't move your not strong enough.
> 
> if i can get my full resting partner on the floor in real time then i know is a sound techneque that i have got the hang off,


While there are some TMAs out there who do everything you say, they're few and far between in my experience.  More so a discussion of McDojo vs a good dojo than TMA vs modern (?) training.  It's along the same lines of the idiotic TKD thread going on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the point I'm making is the whole co operating partner standing there with their arm out is what's wrong with tma, it has a place for the first few times, then you need a resisting partner so you can build the speed skill to do the techneque real time. If you cant grab their arm say, because they pull it away, then that's good, you know your to slow to ever use that in the real world, if you pull and they don't move your not strong enough.
> 
> if i can get my full resting partner on the floor in real time then i know is a sound techneque that i have got the hang off,


I agree with everything, except the presumption that TMA (as a whole) never progresses past that overly-cooperative point.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> no timing is the control of speed, but first you need to build speed, that you can then control, slow motion timing is not a lot of use, unless you and the other guy are both in slow motion


No.  Timing is WHEN you hit, block, move, etc.  Nothing to do with controlling it, how to do it, etc.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> and if their leg goes sideways they have lost their balance, but ok how does a sweep that doesnt have enough kinetic energy to remove their,leg(s), move there leg (s)


It can simply stop their leg from moving and not allowing them to regain their balance.


----------



## Anarax (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but the point I'm making is the whole co operating partner standing there with their arm out is what's wrong with tma, it has a place for the first few times, then you need a resisting partner so you can build the speed skill to do the techneque real time. If you cant grab their arm say, because they pull it away, then that's good, you know your to slow to ever use that in the real world, if you pull and they don't move your not strong enough.
> 
> if i can get my full resting partner on the floor in real time then i know is a sound techneque that i have got the hang off,



Yes, but I said we get to the point that we can execute the techniques in sparring, which is a resisting opponent. Usually when you are on the receiving end of multiple techniques in sparring, sweep, throws, locks, disarms, strikes, that usually proves to people the training method works. However; his pride is obstructing his ability to grow as a Martial Artist


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> It can simply stop their leg from moving and not allowing them to regain their balance.


well that not a,sweep, is it? That's a leg pin


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> well that not a,sweep, is it? That's a leg pin


Or a trip?

Semantics.  I've seen many things called "sweeps."

I knew you'd go there.


----------



## pgsmith (Sep 19, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Students are their biggest obstacle when they are more concerned for their pride than training. I've seen this in multiple schools over the years. There are numerous drills that are crucial in developing your skills as a martial artist. Drills are to train muscle memory, improve technique and/or to improve a physical attribute(speed, power, etc). For example; if a student gives maximum resistance in a basic flow drill, they think they are achieving or proving something. A fencing student that only wants to do bouts and not train the basics thus don't improve their skills.
> 
> However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change
> 
> Has anyone else seen or experienced this?


  I've seen this numerous times. However, I don't see it as pride, I see it as someone not really understanding how to be a good training partner. A large part of being a good martial artist, at least in the traditional martial arts with which I am most familiar, is in learning how to provide enough resistance that your training partner has to properly perform whatever movement you are practicing. Not enough resistance, and the movement doesn't have to be properly performed. Too much resistance, and again, the movement isn't properly performed.

  Add to this the fact that the proper level of resistance to whatever is being practiced will vary, depending upon how experienced the one performing the movement is, and how much they have practiced said movement.

  It has been my experience that it is the responsibility of the instructor to help their people learn how to be a good training partner. Thus, when I see someone being either overly aggressive or overly compliant during practice, I see it as a failing of the instructor that hasn't properly taught that student what they are supposed to be doing rather than a failing of the student.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Or a trip?
> 
> Semantics.  I've seen many things called "sweeps."
> 
> I knew you'd go there.


a sweep has to have some similarity to the action of a broom in the act of sweeping, other wise its not correctly a sweep, despite what people may choose to call it


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Yes, but I said we get to the point that we can execute the techniques in sparring, which is a resisting opponent. Usually when you are on the receiving end of multiple techniques in sparring, sweep, throws, locks, disarms, strikes, that usually proves to people the training method works. However; his pride is obstructing his ability to grow as a Martial Artist


i don't understand your premise, how is his being resistant as a stooge for the move, hampering his development? It might be said its hampering his partners development, but not his


----------



## drop bear (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> well that not a,sweep, is it? That's a leg pin



Yeah thanks tez.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> I've seen this numerous times. However, I don't see it as pride, I see it as someone not really understanding how to be a good training partner. A large part of being a good martial artist, at least in the traditional martial arts with which I am most familiar, is in learning how to provide enough resistance that your training partner has to properly perform whatever movement you are practicing. Not enough resistance, and the movement doesn't have to be properly performed. Too much resistance, and again, the movement isn't properly performed.
> 
> Add to this the fact that the proper level of resistance to whatever is being practiced will vary, depending upon how experienced the one performing the movement is, and how much they have practiced said movement.
> 
> It has been my experience that it is the responsibility of the instructor to help their people learn how to be a good training partner. Thus, when I see someone being either overly aggressive or overly compliant during practice, I see it as a failing of the instructor that hasn't properly taught that student what they are supposed to be doing rather than a failing of the student.


And the right type of resistance - both the right kind to lead to the technique (so they aren't using the "wrong" technique), and something that's not unrealistic (like someone going entirely rigid in the middle of an "attack").


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> a sweep has to have some similarity to the action of a broom in the act of sweeping, other wise its not correctly a sweep, despite what people may choose to call it


Depends whose definition you're using. Words only mean what people agree they mean, and some groups include things in a sweep that you wouldn't and some that I wouldn't. That doesn't make them wrong, as long as their usage is consistent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't understand your premise, how is his being resistant as a stooge for the move, hampering his development? It might be said its hampering his partners development, but not his


Receiving a technique (being thrown/locked) is actually one of the ways a student learns how the technique works. Giving improper resistance will cheat him of this learning.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Receiving a technique (being thrown/locked) is actually one of the ways a student learns how the technique works. Giving improper resistance will cheat him of this learning.


Agreed. In order to learn a technique, I have to have it done on me. Otherwise, I just won't learn it. I won't get the placement right, I won't be using my muscles properly, I just won't be doing it right. It's why I know that I could never learn on my own.


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Receiving a technique (being thrown/locked) is actually one of the ways a student learns how the technique works. Giving improper resistance will cheat him of this learning.


but he is learning that the techneque doesn't work against a resistance, and that speeds his development, as it is then clear that its pointless to learn it


----------



## jobo (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Depends whose definition you're using. Words only mean what people agree they mean, and some groups include things in a sweep that you wouldn't and some that I wouldn't. That doesn't make them wrong, as long as their usage is consistent.


if they don't agree with me that makes them wrong, if they don't agree with a decent dictionary that makes them doubly wrong


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Agreed. In order to learn a technique, I have to have it done on me. Otherwise, I just won't learn it. I won't get the placement right, I won't be using my muscles properly, I just won't be doing it right. It's why I know that I could never learn on my own.


What I found as a student (and have seen in my own students) is that I didnt' understand the technique properly until I felt it. When I saw it, I misunderstood (more often than not) what was really happening. Then I felt it...."Oh, it's the elbow that's being pushed down!"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> but he is learning that the techneque doesn't work against a resistance, and that speeds his development, as it is then clear that its pointless to learn it


Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.

That's the problem with resisting a drill. You're not actually testing the technique, since the person doing it only has one option: the drill.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> if they don't agree with me that makes them wrong, if they don't agree with a decent dictionary that makes them doubly wrong


So, if they call it a "bob maneuver", you wouldn't object? What if the "sweep" word has a different derivation than the common dictionary usage (which doesn't include a lot of martial arts terms)? Words are functional. Dictionaries don't control definitions - they simply report common general usage (which MA doesn't always fit).


----------



## Anarax (Sep 19, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Receiving a technique (being thrown/locked) is actually one of the ways a student learns how the technique works. Giving improper resistance will cheat him of this learning.



Darn you gp, stop taking the words out of my mouth. JK


----------



## Anarax (Sep 19, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't understand your premise, how is his being resistant as a stooge for the move, hampering his development? It might be said its hampering his partners development, but not his



It's important to both give and receive a technique to learn it's dynamics. I was using the sweep as an example of *one *of the drills. For example, he doesn't have the technical aspect of techniques down because he speeds up and tries to power through techniques. I was explaining how his pride effects his techniques and learning overall. In my original post I never said "slow" techniques, I was referring to a flow drill. However; sweeps like Osoto Geri do not have to be practiced at full speed to work. When he tries to execute a technique like osoto geri, he never takes my balance, instead he kicks the back of my leg  with strength. I'm left standing there on both of my feet just looking at him, he's speed and strength without form accomplishes nothing.

Flow drills can be used to learn to transition from one technique to another, it isn't meant to be a strength contest. He tenses up and uses muscle, thus I can feel when he's about to do a technique and where his energy is going. In sparring he makes the same mistakes he does in drills. It's easy to give maximum resistance in a drill. However; in sparring when you have a live opponent that has an entire repertoire of techniques that have been drilled correctly, it's much more difficult to resist because you don't know what's coming. 

I want to stress that we do live grappling and striking training as well, we don't *only* train with a cooperative partner. We must drill the technique before we try and use it live though


----------



## Anarax (Sep 19, 2017)

pgsmith said:


> I've seen this numerous times. However, I don't see it as pride, I see it as someone not really understanding how to be a good training partner. A large part of being a good martial artist, at least in the traditional martial arts with which I am most familiar, is in learning how to provide enough resistance that your training partner has to properly perform whatever movement you are practicing. Not enough resistance, and the movement doesn't have to be properly performed. Too much resistance, and again, the movement isn't properly performed.
> 
> Add to this the fact that the proper level of resistance to whatever is being practiced will vary, depending upon how experienced the one performing the movement is, and how much they have practiced said movement.
> 
> It has been my experience that it is the responsibility of the instructor to help their people learn how to be a good training partner. Thus, when I see someone being either overly aggressive or overly compliant during practice, I see it as a failing of the instructor that hasn't properly taught that student what they are supposed to be doing rather than a failing of the student.



I agree, it's difficult to read as either pride or inexperience. I left out he likes to talk smack in drills, but he never talks smack in sparring though. He's always the first to quit in sparring, he usually needs a water break when he gets moderately hit. He tries to act macho and alpha in class, but he's the opposite when sparring day comes around. He's had previous training, I'm unsure if they instilled this training mentality in him or not. Either way, I hope he sees the light one day so he can be more productive as a Martial Artist and a more respectful human being.


----------



## Tarrycat (Sep 20, 2017)

I've noticed this quite a lot whenever people are feeling insignificant &/or insecure about doing a specific technique that requires a bit more expertise or experience. Yes, it then definitely limits their potential or their rate of growth in the particular art, but it's also up to them to be proactive about it. Some students will practice the techniques at home, others will lack the discipline or the determination to do so; & so they remain in a stagnant position, & may lose interest completely. It also has a lot to do with the instructor as an individual, & whether or not they are good at breaking down techniques so that less experienced students can comprehend it better.

I find that a teacher should be able to do those things, & encourage all of the students that it takes time; a teacher should be humble enough to try to be compassionate towards students, in the sense that they don't have to do things perfect the first time around.

My Sensei always reminds us that he too used to be in the position we are in now. He breaks techniques down, & he will demonstrate a technique a thousand times if he has to. If he sees someone still struggling, he will resort to tying your hands, elbows, or arms together with a belt (just one example of many), so that you can embody the feeling of what he's looking for & what actually works in the kata. 

He's phenomenal.

The energies & the attitudes of students in the dojo also has a major influence on their peers. If they all walk around with inflated egos trying to intimidate others, then it will lead to a feeling of inferiority. Punishment, humiliation, & pressure is NO way to encourage someone.

We don't allow such people in our dojo. We all support & relate to one another, which creates a comfortable & encouraging atmosphere. 

It all comes down to competence. The more you practice a technique, the more comfortable & confident you'll be to implement those techniques.

I've mentioned a lot of variables now; each one being VITAL in any martial arts division.

It depends on the individual traits of:

The student,
The teacher, &
The peers.

Remember that a student is the reflection of his/her teacher.


----------



## jobo (Sep 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.
> 
> That's the problem with resisting a drill. You're not actually testing the technique, since the person doing it only has one option: the drill.





gpseymour said:


> Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.
> 
> That's the problem with resisting a drill. You're not actually testing the technique, since the person doing it only has one option: the drill.



no not all techniques work, at least not for all people, your a " master " of your art, I'm learning mine, i sort technues into three main classes, 1) not a hope in hell would i ever try that in the real world, 2) that might work when I'm better at it and 3 yes that works, i can only make that selection with a fully resistant partner,

if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strengh, = work to do, if they come because they are co operating then i have no idea if i have mastered that or not.

i want really punches to block and i want a partner to not fall over unless they really have to, other wise at some point I'm going to be in deep ####,

i have problems as it is, as they keep complaining I'm to rough with them and they cave rather than resist as Il only pull harder till they do fall over


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> no not all techniques work, at least not for all people


I never said all techniques work. You are correct that some techniques are better suited to some people (taller, shorter, more solid, faster, whatever).



> , your a " master " of your art,


Hardly, but I appreciate the compliment. 



> I'm learning mine, i sort technues into three main classes, 1) not a hope in hell would i ever try that in the real world, 2) that might work when I'm better at it and 3 yes that works, i can only make that selection with a fully resistant partner,


I like those categories. There are techniques that "just work" and some that "work if you are skilled enough". Your first category I refer to as "esoteric techniques" - I use them to teach principles, with the understanding that they have very limited direct application (except if you do something bad wrong - sometimes that puts you in position for them).



> if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strengh, = work to do, if they come because they are co operating then i have no idea if i have mastered that or not.


Not necessarily. I'm not a big guy, but if I know you're supposed to pull me into a position, I can make it impossible to do so. You might pull me, but not into that position, so the technique won't be available. More to the point, if I'm resisting in that direction, there's not much sense in trying to pull me. You should be doing something easier. Learning when to abandon a "wrong" technique (wrong for the circumstances) is one of the more important skills in application.



> i want really punches to block and i want a partner to not fall over unless they really have to, other wise at some point I'm going to be in deep ####,


YES! The only time I want them to fall over when they don't have to is when I ask them to (because I'm trying to demonstrate something that has nothing to do with making them fall down). And that goes for the newest student, learning their first throw, too - they need to know when it works, so they can figure out why.



> i have problems as it is, as they keep complaining I'm to rough with them and they cave rather than resist as Il only pull harder till they do fall over


That might be a problem with how they feed the technique. Let me see if I can give an example that's less convoluted. If you are going to practice a block against a roundhouse punch, it doesn't do any good for me to feed you a straight punch (or backhand, or kick, or whatever). If the block fails, that's not your fault - you were working on a drill for a specific block, and I didn't give you something to work with for that drill. The same is true of locks and throws - the feed should be appropriate for the technique. If it isn't, you (the person trying to do the throw) don't learn the right feel for when to use that technique. What you learn is how to force a technique, and that can be defeated by weight and/or strength, without skill.


----------



## Anarax (Sep 20, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Agreed. In order to learn a technique, I have to have it done on me. Otherwise, I just won't learn it. I won't get the placement right, I won't be using my muscles properly, I just won't be doing it right. It's why I know that I could never learn on my own.



Yes, I'm the same way


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 20, 2017)

jobo said:


> if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strength, ...


Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.


----------



## Anarax (Sep 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.



Yes, that's how I see it. You flow from one technique to the next, being overly committed to one technique is dangerous in an altercation.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.


well i care, if a techneque is to use body movement to generate enough power to pull you oppoinent forwards, then i expect that techneque to result in my oppoinent moving forward. If it doesn't the techneque is poor or I'm doing it wrong, saying that you could do something else instead doesn't change that


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Yes, that's how I see it. You flow from one technique to the next, being overly committed to one technique is dangerous in an altercation.


no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly  dangerous


----------



## Martial D (Sep 21, 2017)

Anarax said:


> Students are their biggest obstacle when they are more concerned for their pride than training. I've seen this in multiple schools over the years. There are numerous drills that are crucial in developing your skills as a martial artist. Drills are to train muscle memory, improve technique and/or to improve a physical attribute(speed, power, etc). For example; if a student gives maximum resistance in a basic flow drill, they think they are achieving or proving something. A fencing student that only wants to do bouts and not train the basics thus don't improve their skills.
> 
> However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change
> 
> Has anyone else seen or experienced this?


Drilling is forging the sword, while sparring is learning to wield it. To me it's really that simple.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

Martial D said:


> Drilling is forging the sword, while sparring is learning to wield it. To me it's really that simple.


yes but,,,,, if you cant make a techneque work in a flow drill, because your opponent isnt cooperating then, then your,sword is not forged at all well


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> well i care, if a techneque is to use body movement to generate enough power to pull you oppoinent forwards, then i expect that techneque to result in my oppoinent moving forward. If it doesn't the techneque is poor or I'm doing it wrong, saying that you could do something else instead doesn't change that


Or, you're just doing it in the wrong situation. Every technique is the "wrong technique" until the situation fits the technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
> having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly  dangerous


Okay, let me try to be clear on this: if you are doing ANY technique I know, and I know you have to do that technique, you will not be able to do it. Every technique has counters, and unless you greatly outskill me, I can counter that technique. But, if I don't know what technique you're going to use, your chances of it succeeding are much greater.

Using a technique against a resisting partner doesn't always (in fact rarely does) mean a partner resisting that specific technique. It means, for instance, they're trying to stay standing, and you're trying to make them fall. You find the weak spot in their defense to make them fall - you don't keep forcing a technique until it works. If you do the latter, you'll always be bested by someone whose counters are as good as your technique (counters always win), and often by people who are simply stronger or too heavy for your force.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Or, you're just doing it in the wrong situation. Every technique is the "wrong technique" until the situation fits the technique.


well yes and no, its a mechanism of dynamics, it either works or it doesn't, maybe there is a case for saying if the weight differential between you and the other, is grossly out of proportion, then its the wrong techneque or maybe you have to work on your strengh and dynamic and then it might become the right techneque. 

these techneque have to stand alone, as either working or not, giving some equality in size and strengh


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, let me try to be clear on this: if you are doing ANY technique I know, and I know you have to do that technique, you will not be able to do it. Every technique has counters, and unless you greatly outskill me, I can counter that technique. But, if I don't know what technique you're going to use, your chances of it succeeding are much greater.
> 
> Using a technique against a resisting partner doesn't always (in fact rarely does) mean a partner resisting that specific technique. It means, for instance, they're trying to stay standing, and you're trying to make them fall. You find the weak spot in their defense to make them fall - you don't keep forcing a technique until it works. If you do the latter, you'll always be bested by someone whose counters are as good as your technique (counters always win), and often by people who are simply stronger or too heavy for your force.


there is a perspective problem here, your a master of your art, i wouldnt reasonably expect to knock you over if you know what is coming or not. Unless you  co operate or i sucker punch you

for people who are some what less advanced than you are, then i should be able to tell them what I'm going to do and still be able to do it, particularly if its a drill and then can't move away from me.

if its as simple as a dynamic pull, then if they don't move as they are resisting then the pull wasn't dynamic enough, someone of even roughly equal weight to me should move , if they are expecting it or not.

we were light sparing last night with the guy who is lightning fast, and i kept telling him what i was going to do, which was a left followed in very quick time by a right, no matter how many time i did it, he blocked the left and i hit him with the right.

the learning point was for me, that i have gained some speed, for him that his blocking techneque is pants and doesn't work against someone who has less speed than him


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> well yes and no, its a mechanism of dynamics, it either works or it doesn't, maybe there is a case for saying if the weight differential between you and the other, is grossly out of proportion, then its the wrong techneque or maybe you have to work on your strengh and dynamic and then it might become the right techneque.
> 
> these techneque have to stand alone, as either working or not, giving some equality in size and strengh


But that's the thing - it's not a matter of "it works or it doesn't". Used in the wrong situation, it doesn't normally work. Used in the right situation, it normally does. If someone has their forearms covering their face (MMA cover), a straight punch or jab doesn't work. If their hands aren't there, there's a chance it does (unless they block it - a counter). A basic single-leg can be defeated every time by someone with more skill who knows for a fact it's coming and how. Sometimes knowing that it's coming is enough. That doesn't mean a single-leg doesn't work - just that it's being used in the wrong situation (because of the counter the person uses). Continuing to try it after they've sprawled doesn't improve the situation, nor your single-leg technique.

That same is true of pulling someone into position. It's not a useful technique when they are pulling away, unless you are much stronger than them (and their weight).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> for people who are some what less advanced than you are, then i should be able to tell them what I'm going to do and still be able to do it, particularly if its a drill and then can't move away from me.


Okay, then I'll make it easier. I could take one of my students, who is probably lighter than you, and teach you both a technique. I could then tell him how to counter it, and you wouldn't be able to do it more than 10% of the time. That would be true of any grappling technique I know.

I can even take that a step further. I can tell him how to make that technique unavailable, and you'd only be able to pull it off by using every bit of force you have, if you ever pulled it off, at all. Again, that would be true of every grappling technique I know.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Okay, then I'll make it easier. I could take one of my students, who is probably lighter than you, and teach you both a technique. I could then tell him how to counter it, and you wouldn't be able to do it more than 10% of the time. That would be true of any grappling technique I know.
> 
> I can even take that a step further. I can tell him how to make that technique unavailable, and you'd only be able to pull it off by using every bit of force you have, if you ever pulled it off, at all. Again, that would be true of every grappling technique I know.


but in the instant case we are discussing, the person isn't using skill to counter, just resisting being pulled, no one has taught him that, its just an instinct, just as any one on the street would know, therefore the techniques doesn't work against untrained people, arguing that it doesn't work against trained individuals is pointless, if it doesn't work against anyone who invokes the push pull reflex


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> but in the instant case we are discussing, the person isn't using skill to counter, just resisting being pulled, no one has taught him that, its just an instinct, just as any one on the street would know, therefore the techniques doesn't work against untrained people, arguing that it doesn't work against trained individuals is pointless, if it doesn't work against anyone who invokes the push pull reflex


That resistance to being pulled is how you make that particular technique unavailable. Making a technique unavailable is basically a counter before the technique can start. It doesn't usually require much skill - that's why I said I could just tell a student how to make it unavailable and you wouldn't be able to do it. Understanding that is how you actually make techniques dependable. If someone in the street is pulling away, that's not a good time to try that technique - you have other tools for that situation. And that can happen even after you start a technique, because it is a reflex - that's where a smooth change of techniques is important.

I had a similar discussion with a new NGA black belt more than 10 years ago. He was marveling at the skill of a more senior black belt, who could defeat his techniques. I demonstrated that I could do the same things, when I know what's coming (which is what the senior BB was doing). I could have taught a yellow belt to defeat all of them, too, so long as he's restricted in what he can do (so, no changing techniques). That's why drills require a certain level of cooperation. Cooperation isn't falling down for someone, it's feeding them the situation the technique applies to. What makes techniques work with a resisting opponent - skilled or unskilled - is using them where they are applicable.


----------



## Martial D (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but,,,,, if you cant make a techneque work in a flow drill, because your opponent isnt cooperating then, then your,sword is not forged at all well


Agreed, there are many sorts of drills to give you weapons, not all are equal, and not all ways of doing them equal. The resistance part needs to come after the weapons are there, else it'll just be flailing. Some guys can fight be flailing, but only against other flailers.


----------



## Anarax (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
> having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly  dangerous



That's why I've said multiple times we execute the techniques in sparring and live practice.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 21, 2017)

@jobo
When I was playing (American) football in high school, we'd run plays during practice.  One day we ran the play wrong against our defense.  So our coach stopped us and had us immediately run it again.  We ran it correctly the second time, but guess what?  The defense immediately stopped it.  Our coach threw his clipboard in the air and said "off course you'd stop it, you knew exactly what was coming at you!"

Failed miserably against a fully resisting partner in practice.  Worked perfectly against our opponent that week who didn't know it was coming.  Actually, the play worked against several teams when we ran it at the right time and the right way.  Never worked when they were expecting it though.  Same as every play we ran throughout my career.

Odd... something didn't work against a fully resisting partner/opponent when they knew it was coming, yet it worked very well when they weren't expecting it.  Remind you of anything?


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> @jobo
> When I was playing (American) football in high school, we'd run plays during practice.  One day we ran the play wrong against our defense.  So our coach stopped us and had us immediately run it again.  We ran it correctly the second time, but guess what?  The defense immediately stopped it.  Our coach threw his clipboard in the air and said "off course you'd stop it, you knew exactly what was coming at you!"
> 
> Failed miserably against a fully resisting partner in practice.  Worked perfectly against our opponent that week who didn't know it was coming.  Actually, the play worked against several teams when we ran it at the right time and the right way.  Never worked when they were expecting it though.  Same as every play we ran throughout my career.
> ...


if we are getting into stories that have next to nothing to do with the topic , when I'm playing soccer, if I'm taking a penalty i tell the keeper exactly where I'm going to put, " bottom left mate" i say and they seldom if ever manage to save it even though they know when I'm going to kick it and where.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> if we are getting into stories that have next to nothing to do with the topic , when I'm playing soccer, if I'm taking a penalty i tell the keeper exactly where I'm going to put, " bottom left mate" i say and they seldom if ever manage to save it even though they know when I'm going to kick it and where.


If they believe you, they should be able to save that a reasonable portion of the time. It's one of the harder areas to save, but far from impossible. (Source: former keeper)


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> If they believe you, they should be able to save that a reasonable portion of the time. It's one of the harder areas to save, but far from impossible. (Source: former keeper)


yes but i don't tell them if its my left or theirs,,, of course they don't believe me, that's what makes it funny they just stand there try to work out which left i mean,whilst it rolls in


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

going off, at a slight tangent, but still closer to topic that football stories.

i find knowing what will happen next a huge distraction, like my keeper story, i know there is a left hand coming and i know it going to be moving fast, but I'm not sure exactly when, missed it, damm , my conscious reactions are to slow. If i don't know what will happen, then I'm dependent on my subconscious reactions,

and they are far quicker, even if i move rather than block, which is my natural reaction, I've not complete the techneque as required, but nether have i been hit, which is actually the most important, not that the instructor or my partner think so, they accuse me of messing the drill up, by not co operating.

i dodged a punch when i should have been blocking and kicked him in the chest when i should have been pulling his arm.

should have heard him moan, what the point of that he said, i wasn't expecting that,,, welcome to the real world i said


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> yes but i don't tell them if its my left or theirs,,, of course they don't believe me, that's what makes it funny they just stand there try to work out which left i mean,whilst it rolls in


I think you missed my point. Your story wasn't unrelated. If you tell the keeper it's going low to their left - and they believe you, and you actually kick it there - their chances of stopping that shot go up quite a bit. It's not because that shot doesn't work.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think you missed my point. Your story wasn't unrelated. If you tell the keeper it's going low to their left - and they believe you, and you actually kick it there - their chances of stopping that shot go up quite a bit. It's not because that shot doesn't work.


 i don't tell them is going to their level  though, i just give them something to think about that slows them down

but, no if i tell them exactly where its going and hit it right they still cant save it anyway, if they start in the middle of the goal

,these are Sunday league keepers, they are only in goals coz they are too fat to run


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> i don't tell them is going to their level  though, i just give them something to think about that slows them down
> 
> but, no if i tell them exactly where its going and hit it right they still cant save it anyway, if they start in the middle of the goal
> 
> ,these are Sunday league keepers, they are only in goals coz they are too fat to run


Yes, but if they believe you, they wouldn't start in the middle of the goal. They'd stand one step from the corner.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Yes, but if they believe you, they wouldn't start in the middle of the goal. They'd stand one step from the corner.


they are ,  fat not stupid,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> they are ,  fat not stupid,


That has nothing to do with the point. Your kick to the lower left corner is an excellent technique (low corners are very hard to defend). If he knows that's where you're going, he can make it unavailable, and your chances of scoring there go way down. So, what do you do if they believe you and move to defend that corner?


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That has nothing to do with the point. Your kick to the lower left corner is an excellent technique (low corners are very hard to defend). If he knows that's where you're going, he can make it unavailable, and your chances of scoring there go way down. So, what do you do if they believe you and move to defend that corner?


then i put it in the other left hand bottom corner


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> then i put it in the other left hand bottom corner


And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> then i put it in the other left hand bottom corner


And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 21, 2017)

jobo said:


> if we are getting into stories that have next to nothing to do with the topic , when I'm playing soccer, if I'm taking a penalty i tell the keeper exactly where I'm going to put, " bottom left mate" i say and they seldom if ever manage to save it even though they know when I'm going to kick it and where.


It has QUITE a bit to do with the topic.  Think about it, it's an analogy...

The play didn't work in practice against a fully resisting opponent who knew it was coming.

The play worked many times in an actual game against a fully resisting opponent who didn't know it was coming.

Substitute punch, kick, grab, pull, sweep, etc. ad nauseam for play, and it becomes clear.  Yes, it took a little effort without my spelling it out for you, but you're sharper than that.


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target,


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target,


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target, , it like punching someone in the ear instead of the nose


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target, , it like punching someone in the eye instead of the nose


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target, , it like punching someone in the eye instead of the nose


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target, , it like punching someone in the eye instead of the nose


----------



## jobo (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target, , it like punching someone in the eye instead of the nose


----------



## JR 137 (Sep 21, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> And that is the point. If they make one valid technique unavailable (or even low-percentage) you choose another valid technique.


Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?


----------



## Anarax (Sep 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?



But that's where I get my boxer shorts. 400 oak street


----------



## Anarax (Sep 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?



But that's where I get my boxer shorts. 400 oak street


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> its the same technique, and the same target, just a slightly different part of the target,


Almost the same technique. Just as pulling into a leg sweep is almost the same as pushing into a leg sweep. You knew enough not to try the shot the keeper made unavailable. In a live situation, you'd do the same for the throw he made unavailable.


----------



## jobo (Sep 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?


i have no idea who or what those two things ? are


----------



## jobo (Sep 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?


i have no idea who or what those two things are?


----------



## jobo (Sep 22, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Do you ever get the feeling that you're trying to convince Raymond Babbitt that K-Mart sucks?


i have no idea who or what those two things are?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> i have no idea who or what those two things ? are


You would have to have seen the movie.


----------

