# aliveness in martial arts training



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2006)

Please forgive the length of this post.  Apparently I think I have a lot to say.   

Ive recently run across a number of remarks calling for aliveness in martial arts training.  People seem to throw the term around casually as if everybody agrees on what aliveness means.  After some additional reading and reflection I believe we are lacking an accurate definition of the term.  It is extremely important that our terms are clear to avoid misunderstanding and sloppy thinking.  

I believe that aliveness must refer to a techniques efficacy in a given context.  In my thinking context is everything.  In one context a simple pop to the solar plexus will be all one needs.  In another context it will take every fiber of your being, every ounce of energy and every technique you know just to stay alive.  In yet another context the problem is solved by leaving the area and going someplace safe.  

In one instance a palm extended toward a potential attacker followed by the word Stop! said loudly enough for everyone to hear will work perfectly; in that context the technique is alive.  Try the same technique in another context and it is dead  and youre injured or worse.  Therefore aliveness is determined by context.

Some who are calling for aliveness seem to suggest that any technique that will not work against an all out attack   such as a bull rushing, machete wielding, berserker ninja  is DEAD technique.  Yet in actual situations Ive used very subtle techniques like finger locks, goosenecks or the word Dont! to put my  would be  attacker at a serious disadvantage  enough to dissuade them from continuing.  Ive actually grabbed some by one of the nerve bundles under the arm with enough force to induce pain compliance.  They werent happy, but they stopped.  The technique didnt feel very dead to me OR my opponent.

Ive also noticed and intriguing tactic when discussing alive and dead techniques.  Often the person complaining about the technique will change the scenario in order to prove the techniques ineffectiveness.   Ive actually had someone tell me that a finger lock would not work because if the attackers intent was to cause real harm a simple finger lock wouldnt stop him.  My answer was; true enough, but finger pointing is not the ballistic portion of an assault.  Finger pointing is a precursor to an assault, an intimidation tactic; and the perfect time to take pre-emptive action.  Secondly, if the attacker wanted to do me real harm, thats what hed be doing; then my choice of technique would change.  Changing the scenario to prove a technique wont work is false reasoning.  Its a straw man.  Once the scenario changes  the technique MUST change, its as simple as that.

Assault statistics tell us that even the implied use of force is enough to give some attackers second thoughts. OK  class, please take out the study from Florida State University professors Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck titled RESISTING CRIME: THE EFFECTS OF VICTIM ACTION ON THE OUTCOMES OF CRIMES.  If you dont have a copy, you need one; youll find it in the journal CRIMINOLOGY Volume Number 42 Number 4 2004 (call em, its $7 or $8bucks if they fax it to you).  In it you will discover that almost any self protective strategy (except trying to talk your way out of trouble) will likely result in your surviving the encounter.  Dont take my word for it, get a copy of the study and see for yourself.

So, whats the deal?  People keep saying we have to have a clear understanding of how the world _really is_; all the while throwing scenarios at us that almost NEVER occur.  I understand worst case scenario training and encourage it  how about some most likely case scenario training? How about an escalating use of force continuum?  Thats what we teach our students.


----------



## Dark (Jun 3, 2006)

I couldn't agree more...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 3, 2006)

You actually answered a question of mine from another thread, asking if there was an existing study on streetfights. I'll have to check that out, I've read Kleck's work before and found it eye opening. Thanks for the tip.

I don't think you understand aliveness though. It doesn't refer to technique, it refers to training.  Aliveness is training against a person activley trying to resist your attacks and overcome your defense. A bad technique can be trained "alive" and a good technique can be trained "dead". The move itself is not the issue, how it is trained is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 3, 2006)

Well that simple finger lock wouldn't work on Ninja Bunnies hopped up on Steroids wearing Samurai armor and wielding Scimitars and chain maces now would it 

You make a very good point and I will have to check out the book. 

Also I agree with what you are saying.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 3, 2006)

Explorer:  

Aliveness refers to training against a resisting parter, using unscripted sequences of movements to attack/defend, and contuously moving rather than staying in a static position.  

You clearly don't understand the concept of aliveness.  Please google to find Straight Blast Gym.  They have several articles on aliveness.   Please do some searches here on MartialTalk as well.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 3, 2006)

Actually, if you want to get technical, the English definition of Aliveness is;
1. Having life; living. 
2. In existence or operation; active: keep your hopes alive. 
3. Full of living or moving things; abounding: a pool alive with trout. 
4. Full of activity or animation; lively: a face alive with mischief.


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 3, 2006)

People train on set actions agins parteners that are not resisting. Being alive is resistive action. Then you find out how a certion tool may work or find out how you can get it working with a person that resists just standing there letting you do it. And then you have to remember today you will find that person high on drugs. They feel much different  on pain You really have to hurt them sometimes to stop them. A finger lock will just get them  more upset. Every tried your best to knock some one out high on Speed. Its not that easy you hit them sevralmore times then you would for a normal person. I know I had to do this about a year ago. I hit the person sure he went down But he got up and up agin But finaly managed to stop him.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 3, 2006)

Robert Lee said:
			
		

> People train on set actions agins parteners that are not resisting. Being alive is resistive action. Then you find out how a certion tool may work or find out how you can get it working with a person that resists just standing there letting you do it. And then you have to remember today you will find that person high on drugs. They feel much different on pain You really have to hurt them sometimes to stop them. A finger lock will just get them more upset. Every tried your best to knock some one out high on Speed. Its not that easy you hit them sevralmore times then you would for a normal person. I know I had to do this about a year ago. I hit the person sure he went down But he got up and up agin But finaly managed to stop him.


 
I admit I may be missing your point here. 

But I believe the point of the post by Explorer is that a finger lock would not work on someone on speed so you change tactic.

I had to wrestle an IV drug using, drunken, bleeding, heroin addict to the floor once, nothing worked but physical force, hitting would not have work, nor was it an option. Joint lock would not work, no finesse, no style no fancy or simplistic move just strength. The only thing that worked was muscle, weight and eventually help from the other guy on duty with me. 

This was way back in my days in security for a hospital that had an ER, Mental Health, and a detox unit. And I do not miss it at all. There are no set rules in a confrontation. You use what you have, what you know and what you can. And stuff like that happened way too often.

And what you learn in any style be it joint lock, kata, form, kick. punch, throw or takedown are just things you have and need in you toolbox, if you will, you never know when any one or part of anyone will come in very handy.


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 3, 2006)

Point was that if you do not train some srt of live action That gives resistive training to you . The person on drugs would be so much harder to handle. Much less the average street fighter.  Things in real life do not fit the class room training routine if the training does not at least apply resistive motion meaning the person is not just letting you do a joint maniplation hit kick take down ect. they are trying to stop you much less if some one is hitting you back and trying to stop you first. Just being hit and being able to keep going takes training as every person is not  a fighter until they have trained some what. The old saying people are born with the fight or flight motion it rings true. some people never trained any fighting art. CAn fight very well they have that natural heart to fight any time the have to Others have to train to be  able to do this. And until they gat hit a few times they do not react as well.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 3, 2006)

> There are no set rules in a confrontation. You use what you have, what you know and what you can.


\
agreed  but I also agree that " what may happen" sotuation training is nessacary with and with out resistance


----------



## pstarr (Jun 3, 2006)

To me, "aliveness" means having "spirit" in training as opposed to just going through the moves...kind of like the difference between what I call "dead man Taiji" and "real" Taiji that has LIFE to it.

     As for the "what if..." scenarios, I couldn't agree more.  No matter what you do, there'll always be a "what iffer" right around the corner-


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 3, 2006)

Like others, I think aliveness mearly means training against a resisting opponent.  At my gym we usually start working tecnhiques against a cooperating opponent in order to learn it, as the class progresses we add resistance until, by the end, we are fully resisting one another.  I shouldn't have to tell you that once your opponent is resisting the technique, the harder it is to perform.  What we learn from this style of training is how our unique bodies and fitness levels play into our ability to apply a given technique.  This allows each practitioner the opportunity to encorporate what techniques are most effective for him/her...I work from guard a lot, because I have a strong guard...others don't like to be in this position because they aren't effective from it.  Live training gives us each the opportunity to develop our own, unique game instead of emulating a style that was effective for someone else.  Ultimately, we also learn to adjust what techniques we use against opponents of different bodytypes, skill levels, etc.  The drawback to this style of training, as I see it, is there is a tendency to avoid what is difficult to execute, so you have to be disciplined about trying things you may not be great at doing yet.  Other than that, I think its the only way to train.  just my two cents


----------



## MJS (Jun 3, 2006)

Having 'aliveness' in ones training is very important IMHO.  It'll certainly give a different feel to being able to apply a technique.  While it is often said that MMA includes this in all areas of their training, I don't feel that someone has to enter an MMA match in order to be able to apply the ideas and concepts of this training.  With the proper gear and some creativity, you'd be surprised at what can be done!

Mike


----------



## Dark (Jun 4, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Explorer:
> 
> Aliveness refers to training against a resisting parter, using unscripted sequences of movements to attack/defend, and contuously moving rather than staying in a static position.


 
    The whole "aliveness" philosophy goes back the Chinese and Okinawan MAs, and has been re-used allot by MMA people. That said the concept of aliveness has been lost to commercial propaganda and the origional meaning distorted.

     Aliveness comes in the form of princples and adaptive applications there of. Simply put, a chimp can get you in a cross arm bar. But, will it understand the biological and physical principles behind the arm bar to addapt it to a slightly different sitautation?

     Knowling the principles behind a technique and applying those principles in an ever evoling and addapting manner is what called a living technique. It's alive because it have grown in your understanding beyond what was taught to you.

     A living philosophy, is a philosophy not of strict rules but fluid and flexible idealism.

    Aliveness has nothing to do with sparring, or resistance but understanding how and why things work and addapting those principle ideas. Granted those things are a great asset in living training, but it is not aliveness only aspect there of. 

My two cents worth...


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 4, 2006)

Interesting...In my mind these two meanings are related.  If the idea is to understand how to adapt a technique for any given situation, wouldn't one's techniques be more alive if they train against resisting opponents of different sizes shapes and skill levels?  To be honest I have never heard aliveness defined in the way dark has explained it, but to me it is fully in step with the other definition.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 4, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> "dead man Taiji" and "real" Taiji that has LIFE to it.


 
I like that and I am going to use it in my descriptions of Tai Chi, since I seem to always end up watching a lot of "dead man Taiji". It is what killed my Traditional Yang Teachers class and why I am now in CMC.

Sorry, this was off post, I will stop now

Thanks for the description pstarr


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

Very interesting stuff, guys and gals.  I really like the give and take.  Thank you.

I'm still concerned about this issue of resistance.  We have a number of techniques that, adapted to a resistant uki will result in connective tissue damage (like ripping a tendon or ligiment from the bone) muscle damage or fracture.  This is obviously unacceptable.  How do we train these techniques with the aliveness some of you are advocating?  

I also think that if your partner is offering resistance, he is acting on the knowledge of what you are about to do ... he's already set up to defeat your technique ... which is really easy.  How is that like reality?  I've never, ever informed an opponent of what I'm going to do and, in any number of confrontations, have been able to surprise the aggressor with very little effort.  

We also know from uniform crime reports and studies (like Grayson/Stein) that the overwhelming number of attackers is hoping to indtimidate and overwhelm an opponent via surprise, superior numbers, etc.  They want a compliant victim ... so they don't have to work too hard or risk being hurt ... and almost any resistance will drive them off.  This is the most common case ... this is what our students are most likely to come up against.  Case study after case study shows attacks being repelled by command presence alone.  The mere threat of resistance sends the attacker searching for a more compliant victim.

OK ... the mind's working here ... if I set up the attack scenario and don't tell the uki what I'm going to do ... then that's alive training?  
IF this is the case ... how do I go about learning the skill via repitition?  I think the answer is a compliant uki ... until a certain level of skill is attained, then the uki ramps up the intensity.  Let me know how you think about this.

Again, thanks for your good thinking and sound judgement.  This is really fun.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 4, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> The whole "aliveness" philosophy goes back the Chinese and Okinawan MAs, and has been re-used allot by MMA people. That said the concept of aliveness has been lost to commercial propaganda and the origional meaning distorted.
> 
> Aliveness comes in the form of princples and adaptive applications there of. Simply put, a chimp can get you in a cross arm bar. But, will it understand the biological and physical principles behind the arm bar to addapt it to a slightly different sitautation?
> 
> ...


 
Um... no.   

Alliveness has to do with training methods, not  with philosophy or principles of physics.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 4, 2006)

Here is a link to Straight Blast Gym and their article about Aliveness.

http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html

More importantly, please watch this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2068450760833041053&pl=true


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 4, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Um... no.
> 
> Alliveness has to do with training methods, not with philosophy or principles of physics.


 


			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Here is a link to Straight Blast Gym and their article about Aliveness.
> 
> http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html
> 
> ...


 
Interesting, but this would be Straight Blast Gym's definition of aliveness but not necessarily everyone elses definition of aliveness. In this context it is, to say the least, a bit subjective don't you think. I don't feel it is a my way or the highway kind of thing.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

Alan (Old Fat Kempoka),

Thanks for the links.  After reading the article ... I'm still concerned with certain techniques that are highly likely to cause real damage if carried out in this fashion.  I have no problem with standard grappling and the ballistic punches and kicks at this level ... we practice all of those.  I have seen elbows broken by arm locks applied far too aggressively in an effort to atain aliveness.  I've seen rotator cuffs torn, fingers dislocated, necks sprained, spines compressed, ribs broken, concussions, broken noses, damaged knees ... the list goes on and on.

I've been a wrestler since 1969 and have seen fewer serious injuries on the wrestling mat during matches than in dojos practicing too aggressively.  The rules prevent unnecessary injury.  It isn't the same with self-defense.

Tell me about how you practice these kinds of techniques safely.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 4, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> Very interesting stuff, guys and gals.  I really like the give and take.  Thank you.
> 
> I'm still concerned about this issue of resistance...


We avoid injury by tapping. A technique which would result in serious injury can be safely trained at full or near full force without danger. This requires a certain level of trust on th part of both partners, but I've rarley heard of problems (most often they are from overly enthusiastic new people).

Alive training is not predictible, because sparring partners don't limit themselves to a single technique. Most often anything will be open (within the limits of the art\saftey), so neither partner knows what the other is doing untill he does it. Most often both partners are going on the offensive, there is not a set offensive\defensive role.

So to answer your question, no, throwing a random technique for your partner to block isn't really alive training. Free sparring with the intent to overcome your partner while he does the same would be.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

> MardiGras Bandit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 4, 2006)

"Aliveness" in relation to martial arts was a term popularized by Matt Thorton and the Straight Blast Gym.  This article explains the whats and the whys about what it is:

http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 4, 2006)

Here is a question.  How "alive" does one's art have to be in order to be effective?  Does it need to be "alive" at all?  How do you know?


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

According to the Tark/Kleck study ... it may not have to be alive at all to turn an attacker away.  Many are unwilling to risk any injury whatsoever and will turn tail at the mere suggestion of resistance.  They want to overwhelm easy targets.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 4, 2006)

Interesting stuff, folks...I just want to say that since Matt Thornton is my teacher I feel like I have a good understanding of this subject...

First, upnorthkyosa, the point isn't that one's training must always be alive in order to be effective, the point is that alive training prepares one for applying a technique in a real life setting.  Most martial arts have similar techniques, armbars, shoulder locks, hip throws, strikes and blocks, etc...and most of those techniques are effective...but if you've never trained them in an alive setting, you have no idea whether you can pull them off in a real life situation...practicing a hip throw kata in judo is one thing, but hip throwing an opponent who is resisting and attacking at the same time in a different matter...they aren't cooperating anymore and the technique changes.  Same thing with striking...you can stand there and throw punches at the air all day, but intil you've trained against someone trying to hit you back, your technique is pretty much worthless...most people who have made the transition to sparring stand up have experienced this.

now...there are situations that you can never control for in a gym...in a real confrontation there are a lot of psychological games that you have to play that you can't really train for when you're rolling with your buddies at practice.  Adrenaline, intimidation tactics, etc are all factors that live training falls short of addressing...but you're still better off having worked techniques against an opponent who fights back than only working kata or repetative forms.  IMO there is something to be said for practicing forms like tai chi people do, and Matt's philosophy is a little short sighted in that regard...but I can speak from having gone from aikido to bjj/standup at Matt's gym, there is a lot to be said for non-cooperative live training...you learn how to be effective much much faster both offensively and defensively.  And it is way fun to watch your game evolve as you continually work techniques in this manner.

As far as dammaging techniques, its a fine line between going balls out and being cautious...We don't work really dangerous techniques until we have had a signifigant level of experience, and can apply a submission/hold without injuring your opponent...ankle locks, especially the twisting ones are among these techniques...but as far as armbars/kimuras, etc.  you have to be careful not to hurt the person you're working with...its not a real live actual fight, its our best approximation.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

> FuriousGeorge said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now we're getting somewhere.  Thanks Furious.  If I understand correctly then; while learning a technique, a compliant uki is necessary ... perfecting the technique will require an increasingly resisitant uki.  Hmm.  Sounds like what we've been doing all along.  Nice.  Very good.

Now, please let me go back to the point of defining 'aliveness'.  After looking through the thread I feel my hypothesis has pretty much held;  there are almost as many definitions as there are participants.  Therfore the term is functionally useless ... if it means everything, it means nothing.  Apparently there is a link between technique and its usefulness in a 'real' situation ... and how one should train to ensure the aforementioned usefulness.  After that it's a crap shoot ... and EVERYONE claims to know the 'real truth'.  Good lord, I feel like I'm sitting at a symposium of economists ... or philosophers!


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 4, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> Alan (Old Fat Kempoka),
> 
> Thanks for the links. After reading the article ... I'm still concerned with certain techniques that are highly likely to cause real damage if carried out in this fashion. I have no problem with standard grappling and the ballistic punches and kicks at this level ... we practice all of those. I have seen elbows broken by arm locks applied far too aggressively in an effort to atain aliveness. I've seen rotator cuffs torn, fingers dislocated, necks sprained, spines compressed, ribs broken, concussions, broken noses, damaged knees ... the list goes on and on.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, I've seen the same injuries -- and a few worse:  faces broken, skulls cracked, etc.

Aliveness does not mean you throw out rules.  Aliveness does not mean you go all out with no control.

Aliveness means you train spontaneously against a resisting partner within a set of rules.  The key is spontanaiety and resistance.  You trained this way when you did wrestling and Judo.  I suspect you train that way when you free-spar in Shorin-Ryu.  I suspect you don't train that way when you practice Kata, 2-man Kata, pre-arranged self-defense techniques, Bunkai based on Kata, and one-step sparring.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2006)

> Old Fat Kenpoka said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you would be largely right.  Although we do employ bogu wherein the defender might know the attack ... but doesn't know exactly where it's coming from (we have them close their eyes) ... it's as close as I can get to a sucker punch drill.  And in randori, none of the parties really know what's about to happen.  We sometimes will stipulate the kinds of attacks for a defender who needs to see a lot of repetition in a given area.


----------



## Dark (Jun 4, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Um... no.
> 
> Alliveness has to do with training methods, not with philosophy or principles of physics.


 
     Your definition has nothing to do with philosophy or physics. May does, if you understand leverage, anatomy and body-machics (all under the umbrella of physics). How people react and how to manipulate them into letting their guard down, and the proper use of force do fall under philosophy. How can those not be applied to aliveness..? Or is aliveness only physical to you..?

      To me actively applying those principles is aliveness, a monkey can execute a perfect reverse punch, can a monkey re-apply those same priniples to mondify the technique?


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Another thing I want to address to the whole on here, why limit resistance to sparring. In reality sparring doesn't prepare you for a self-defense situation. Most self-defense situations the combatants don't start off facing each other. A drunken brawl is not a streetfight or self-defense and vica-versa to the rest.

    Unless you train for awareness and spontanoius action and multiple opponents you are training for the street. I used to randomly smack students with wiffle bats in class to test awareness. I also used to set up sparring drills 2 or 3 one one. If it's simply about the training and not about the over effects of action then there is no "living art" or "aliveness" seperating the street from the dojo...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 5, 2006)

I ate a book for breakfast yesterday morning, it was delicious. My definition of a book is a breadlike pastry with a checkerboard pattern of indents. It's just as valid is anyones definition, which is why the word book is so useless - there are so many accepted meanings.

See the problem with that? You can't just make up your own definition to a word and claim it is correct. 90% of the people on this thread have correctly explained what aliveness is; training with a resisting partner. Try reading the Matt Thorton article as well, it does a good job of explaining the aliveness concept and why it is valuable.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2006)

matt has been suggested and read ... yet questions continue ...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 5, 2006)

Explorer: I'm not sure what questions you have left, mind expanding on your last post?

Dark: How is a barfight neither a streetfight or self defense? If resistance sparring doesn't prepare one for self defense what kind of job does compliant sparring do? Training with resistance gives you a method to gauge your actual abilities, something that can't be done in a scripted or compliant setting.


----------



## monkey (Jun 5, 2006)

dark has a point to a point.Let me say this-in the 
Army we dry fired the M-16 for hours.Then taget shoot live for 20minutes.We played war games,but not 1 round shot-not 1 gernade-not even a fake.The other side was cought fast due to lack of planning.Heres my point How can this train 1 for battle.The street offers much more then a bar.I do bounching & its not the same responce to fights or arena of combat.Street all things-wepons-even death ar a go.Bars  we eject them & that that.


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> I'm still concerned about this issue of resistance. We have a number of techniques that, adapted to a resistant uki will result in connective tissue damage (like ripping a tendon or ligiment from the bone) muscle damage or fracture. This is obviously unacceptable. How do we train these techniques with the aliveness some of you are advocating?


 
IMO, I think that MGB summed it up pretty good!  Yes, there will be some things that will result in serious injury if done to its full extent, but as he said, tapping is important.  Training something like an eye jab could be done while wearing protective gear.  




> OK ... the mind's working here ... if I set up the attack scenario and don't tell the uki what I'm going to do ... then that's alive training?
> IF this is the case ... how do I go about learning the skill via repitition? I think the answer is a compliant uki ... until a certain level of skill is attained, then the uki ramps up the intensity. Let me know how you think about this.


 
Regardless of the uki knows or does not know what you're doing, it comes down to 2 things. 1) How he is attacking and 2) how you're defending.  I'll use a 2 hand front choke as an example.  I've had people do this to me in training, and it felt more like they're giving me a shoulder massage rather than a choke.  What do I have to worry about with that? Now, I'm not saying that they have to squeeze my throat until I turn blue, but putting their hands on my neck would be a start.   Also, they're..at least I hope they wouldn't...not just going to stand there.  Who just grabs and stands there?  The response should be to grab hard and in such a way that it going to push me back a few steps.  The same can be said for a punch.  Why couldn't they put on a glove and really try to hit me instead of punching and stopping 2 in. away from my face?  I don't even have to move.  Now, if they're really trying to hit me, I either A) move or B) get hit!

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> Now we're getting somewhere. Thanks Furious. If I understand correctly then; while learning a technique, a compliant uki is necessary ... perfecting the technique will require an increasingly resisitant uki. Hmm. Sounds like what we've been doing all along. Nice. Very good.


 
Thats correct! When I'm working something in BJJ, my inst. would always have us start out slow, so as to get the finer points of the technique. Gradually, we'd pick up the pace, with our partner gradually adding in more resistance. The same is said for techniques that are done standing, as well as weapons.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Another thing I want to address to the whole on here, why limit resistance to sparring. In reality sparring doesn't prepare you for a self-defense situation. Most self-defense situations the combatants don't start off facing each other. A drunken brawl is not a streetfight or self-defense and vica-versa to the rest.
> 
> Unless you train for awareness and spontanoius action and multiple opponents you are training for the street. I used to randomly smack students with wiffle bats in class to test awareness. I also used to set up sparring drills 2 or 3 one one. If it's simply about the training and not about the over effects of action then there is no "living art" or "aliveness" seperating the street from the dojo...


 
Thats correct, and thats why I don't just gear the training towards a sparring type setting.  With a little bit of creativity, its amazing as to what types of scenario based drills we can come up with. 

Mike


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2006)

Good stuff guys.  This is exactly the kind of conversation I needed.  

So, when someone looks at a video clip of one of our techniques and makes a snide comment about 'aliveness' in our techniques I can authoritvely tell him ... "Dude, chill.  This is the learning stage ... the resistance stage comes AFTER you learn the technique."...?

I get how Matt defines aliveness ... but I still think the definition needs a bit more clarification.  I agree with Dark regarding body mechanics and believe the definition would benefit from such additions.  I also believe aliveness must relate situationally ... many of the guys I've talked to can't seem to relate to an escalating scale of engagement.  Why is that?


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Dark: How is a barfight neither a streetfight or self defense? If resistance sparring doesn't prepare one for self defense what kind of job does compliant sparring do? Training with resistance gives you a method to gauge your actual abilities, something that can't be done in a scripted or compliant setting.


 
Self-defense: A reaction to a one time criminal act against your person. Training to survive a rape or a mugging. for example.

A bar brawl: A fight in a bar, a semi-controlled eviroment generally for ego or to attract attention. A bar braw is a one time event, that usually comes about when one person seeks to assume the dominant alpha-role.

A street fight: Streetfighting is a continual cycle/life style of violence. Streetfighters like hurting others and maintaining dominance through fear. Street fighting is a life style, not an event.

See the differences suttle but, there?

Another thing is the training with resistance. You do realize in one step and three step drills a purpose is to toughen the arns and legs against blocks, which are actually defensive strikes. Kata is an exercise and a guide book, thats why at certain levels sparring is a go. Bare in mind, pads were not invented until the 60s. Crawl, walk, run, then run really far really fast...

   I agree a resistance is a good and needed skill in training, but it doesn't make what your doing alive, and I've read the article but there are allot of points in that article then just resistant training, like physical ability and adaptability. Sparring doesn't give you any idea of your true ability. In the military we play laser tage war games with blank rounds, explosive sims and so forth. When that soldier who excells on the mock-battlefield sees his buddies get blow up of shot that fictional image of what war should be and what war is colide.
  The only real test is a real fight, being mugged, assaulted, raped and so forth. No system can prepare you for that, there is more to the real world then what you may or may not learn in the dojo. I also have personally seen TMAs eat most tournament fighters alive in the street. It has nothing to with training, but training the will of the man...


----------



## Kenpojujitsu3 (Jun 5, 2006)

Question: So what happens when a "street fighter" attacks an innocent bystander in a bar? is it self defense, a bar brawl or a street fight?

Answer: all of the above. 

Your given definitions (and I mean YOUR definitions as they are not absolute) are a bit loose and have A TON of over lap.  But still, I think I get the point you're trying to convey.


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 5, 2006)

Resistive training can come at different levels. Light resistance helps you to better learn to enforce your training. Increased resistance takes it 1 step further gathering that adjustments you may need to take to make certion things work. Then heavy resistances goes to show if you can still continue getting something working or do you need to change up or drop that certion tool.  All alive does is check the training to give it a tesed balance. Some one saying this will work or doing it with a static partener does not test if it will work for you. And it helps you develop a continued way of gettting something to work. Not testing means you never know until it comes into play. Well finding out then is not a good time to find that it does not work so well for you.. Just trying to get oof a joint manuver on a retracting hand takes a different timing. You do not have to go full resistive training to get the idea of how to get something off. But at least  A light and medium resistance is needed. Fighting is that. You never know what will come your way. But being better prepared to face something is better then not being prepared to really face full resistive live motion of a no holds bared fight. Much less some kind of weapons defence.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> I agree a resistance is a good and needed skill in training, but it doesn't make what your doing alive, and I've read the article but there are allot of points in that article then just resistant training, like physical ability and adaptability. Sparring doesn't give you any idea of your true ability. In the military we play laser tage war games with blank rounds, explosive sims and so forth. When that soldier who excells on the mock-battlefield sees his buddies get blow up of shot that fictional image of what war should be and what war is colide.
> The only real test is a real fight, being mugged, assaulted, raped and so forth. No system can prepare you for that, there is more to the real world then what you may or may not learn in the dojo. I also have personally seen TMAs eat most tournament fighters alive in the street. It has nothing to with training, but training the will of the man...


How do you train the will of man if that man has no real experience to gauge how he can perform against a resisting opponent? Waiting untill your attacked to test yourself is worse than idiotic, it's suicidal. Resistance sparring is the _only _way to acurately test your abilities outside of an actual self defense situation. Resistance training also developes will power because it trains you to be comfortable while facing force. Does that mean you will be fully comfortable in an attack? Of course not, but chances are you will be a hell of a lot more comfortable then someone who never engaged in resistance training.

Look at the example of military training you gave. Yes, it does not fully recreate a combat enviroment, but would you prefer to go into combat without having done simulated wargames to learn the military principles involved? 

One last thing. How is it that every guy who knocks aliveness or mma has a story about seeing tournament fighters getting rocked by TMAs. How do you even know they were tournament fighters? Heres a tip; just because someone wheres Tap Out gear doesn't mean they are a UFC fighter. Now if they were wearing Xyience gear...


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 5, 2006)

Robert Lee said:
			
		

> Resistive training can come at different levels. Light resistance helps you to better learn to enforce your training. Increased resistance takes it 1 step further gathering that adjustments you may need to take to make certion things work. Then heavy resistances goes to show if you can still continue getting something working or do you need to change up or drop that certion tool. All alive does is check the training to give it a tesed balance. Some one saying this will work or doing it with a static partener does not test if it will work for you. And it helps you develop a continued way of gettting something to work. Not testing means you never know until it comes into play. Well finding out then is not a good time to find that it does not work so well for you.. Just trying to get oof a joint manuver on a retracting hand takes a different timing. You do not have to go full resistive training to get the idea of how to get something off. But at least A light and medium resistance is needed. Fighting is that. You never know what will come your way. But being better prepared to face something is better then not being prepared to really face full resistive live motion of a no holds bared fight. Much less some kind of weapons defence.


 
Robert:  The point of all this is that you will be completely unprepared for a real encounter if all you do is practice Kata and prearranged drills without contact.   You will be much better prepared if you train with a partner who is fighting back with a reasonable amount of contact/force.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> How do you train the will of man if that man has no real experience to gauge how he can perform against a resisting opponent? Waiting untill your attacked to test yourself is worse than idiotic, it's suicidal. Resistance sparring is the _only _way to acurately test your abilities outside of an actual self defense situation. Resistance training also developes will power because it trains you to be comfortable while facing force. Does that mean you will be fully comfortable in an attack? Of course not, but chances are you will be a hell of a lot more comfortable then someone who never engaged in resistance training.


 
How do you train the will of man who who has never been in a real fight? You can spar all you want, but that isn't a real fight and that asuption can get you killed. I don't disagree with you that resistance is needed for complete training, however it is not the only thing needed.  

Traditional Karate used resistance training, it's got allot watered down of the last 20 years but sparring was a part of it. The reason you don't hear allot about this is because there is another element added. Philosophy and pyschology, and to that end it allows for desculation techniques, situational awareness and an element of 



			
				 MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Look at the example of military training you gave. Yes, it does not fully recreate a combat enviroment, but would you prefer to go into combat without having done simulated wargames to learn the military principles involved?


 
Yes and no... Go into war unprepared, of course not. But expect that training to fully prepare me. I'd rather go off into battle unprepared. Playing war games isn't war, stepping onto a mat is massively different from step up to a real world situation. 



			
				MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> One last thing. How is it that every guy who knocks aliveness or mma has a story about seeing tournament fighters getting rocked by TMAs. How do you even know they were tournament fighters? Heres a tip; just because someone wheres Tap Out gear doesn't mean they are a UFC fighter. Now if they were wearing Xyience gear...


 
Try because he got stomp after a 2ID BJJ tournament for talking trash to TKD guy. Also commercialized TMA aren't TMAs, they are excuses to get money and thats a completely different argument. The name Karate doesn't make something a TMA, and a if you research the history allot of those MA didn't fight tournaments of experience they fought in street fights. Origional TKD and origional shotokan are completely different now then say 20 years ago...


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> How do you train the will of man who who has never been in a real fight? You can spar all you want, but that isn't a real fight and that asuption can get you killed. I don't disagree with you that resistance is needed for complete training, however it is not the only thing needed.
> 
> Traditional Karate used resistance training, it's got allot watered down of the last 20 years but sparring was a part of it. The reason you don't hear allot about this is because there is another element added. Philosophy and pyschology, and to that end it allows for desculation techniques, situational awareness and an element of
> 
> ...


 
Sorry, but they are not different now than 20 years ago.  Now we just know that they weren't as good 20 years ago as we thought they were.


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Aliveness does not mean you throw out rules. Aliveness does not mean you go all out with no control.


 
As an ex-bouncer in my college days, many attackers are "going all out with no control".  So for some martial artists, to limit all out training (LEO, Military, Bouncers) would be ineffective training.  

As for so other thoughts...
Yes resistance is a start, but it must also be realistic in nature.  When someone in high, drunk or highly agressive they usually do not have (what we would call) great fighting skills.  They are all ove the place and hard to defend against.  When I watch two trained martial artists (in the same style especially) pratice SD, they tend to know each others techniques and methods of striking.  We need to train with martial artist from other styles to truely add spontaniety.  How spontaneous is working out with the same fellow students day after day.  

There are some awesome points being brought up in this thread.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 5, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> > Aliveness does not mean you throw out rules. Aliveness does not mean you go all out with no control.
> 
> 
> As an ex-bouncer in my college days, many attackers are "going all out with no control".  So for some martial artists, to limit all out training (LEO, Military, Bouncers) would be ineffective training.



You're right, all depends on how far you want to take it.  Training "alive" can be done with a fair deal of control, and lots of dangerous techniques removed, or not.

All depends on what a person's interests are.  Not everyone is going to get in a cage, and not everyone has too.  But "alive" training is somethings anyone can do, to differing levels of intensity.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 5, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> As an ex-bouncer in my college days, many attackers are "going all out with no control". So for some martial artists, to limit all out training (LEO, Military, Bouncers) would be ineffective training.
> 
> As for so other thoughts...
> Yes resistance is a start, but it must also be realistic in nature. When someone in high, drunk or highly agressive they usually do not have (what we would call) great fighting skills. They are all ove the place and hard to defend against. When I watch two trained martial artists (in the same style especially) pratice SD, they tend to know each others techniques and methods of striking. We need to train with martial artist from other styles to truely add spontaniety. How spontaneous is working out with the same fellow students day after day.
> ...


 
Yes.  Intensity, contact, realism should all be cranked up.  But you still have rules so that you don't literally get killed during practice and so you live to train another day.

Don't confuse "aliveness" with "intesity"  You can train dead patterns very intensly -- just watch the Kenpo "Tip of the Week" on Larry Tatum's site.  He smacks the heck out of his students -- while they stand there.  Very intense, but not very alive.  You can also train alive without any intensity.  We used to call that slap-boxing.  To really become proficient, aliveness and intensity must be combined.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Sorry, but they are not different now than 20 years ago. Now we just know that they weren't as good 20 years ago as we thought they were.


 
No martial arts especially in america have been watered down, sports commisions owns the rights to most martial arts. Which has lessoned the impact of martial arts as a military science.

I admit there is allot of BS in martial arts today, but it comes from both sides. The major arguement here seems to be that, effectiveness and aliveness come about through sparring.

But I still suggest aliveness is more then resistance its flexibility and adaptablity. When things are alive they grow, they evolve and they mature. When somehting is dead, it can still resist you even if it stagnates, and eventually rots away.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Traditional Karate used resistance training, it's got allot watered down of the last 20 years but sparring was a part of it. The reason you don't hear allot about this is because there is another element added. Philosophy and pyschology, and to that end it allows for desculation techniques, situational awareness and an element of
> Try because he got stomp after a 2ID BJJ tournament for talking trash to TKD guy. Also commercialized TMA aren't TMAs, they are excuses to get money and thats a completely different argument. The name Karate doesn't make something a TMA, and a if you research the history allot of those MA didn't fight tournaments of experience they fought in street fights. Origional TKD and origional shotokan are completely different now then say 20 years ago...


First off, a BJJ competitior is a far cry from a tournament fighter. I've been in a fair share of grappling tourneys, and would never claim to be a fighter because of it. 

Second, I've seen videos of Tiger Shulman tourneys from 10-15 years ago that were perfectly legit fights and examples of resistance sparring. I'll agree it's been watered down a lot since then. I've also read countless stories of deadly martial arts streetfights that took place "back in the day". Nine out of ten times those stories turn out to be either exagerated to a comic degree, or completely false. 



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> Yes and no... Go into war unprepared, of course not. But expect that training to fully prepare me. I'd rather go off into battle unprepared. Playing war games isn't war, stepping onto a mat is massively different from step up to a real world situation.


That sums up much of the point of aliveness training. Many MAs are convinced they are completely prepared for a conflict, but having never trained against a resisting opponent they have absolutely no basis for that belief. 

That doesn't mean that training with resistance ensures a person will be prepared for an attack. That isn't the point and no one claims that. It _will _ensure that a person is best prepared for such a situation both phisically and mentally and is armed with the best possible knowledge of their capabilities. In a worst case scenario this is something more valuable then any situational awareness  or dead drill training can hope to be.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Yes. Intensity, contact, realism should all be cranked up. But you still have rules so that you don't literally get killed during practice and so you live to train another day.
> 
> Don't confuse "aliveness" with "intesity" You can train dead patterns very intensly -- just watch the Kenpo "Tip of the Week" on Larry Tatum's site. He smacks the heck out of his students -- while they stand there. Very intense, but not very alive. You can also train alive without any intensity. We used to call that slap-boxing. To really become proficient, aliveness and intensity must be combined.


 
Those fixed patterns are baby steps to the real art form... How can you compare a toddler learning to walk to Track & Field Medalist?


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Robert: The point of all this is that you will be completely unprepared for a real encounter if all you do is practice Kata and prearranged drills without contact. You will be much better prepared if you train with a partner who is fighting back with a reasonable amount of contact/force.


 I agree  very much That a person needs to take the training to a resitive level to test the tools. No way of knowing how they work until they are applied at a higher level of doing.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> That sums up much of the point of aliveness training. Many MAs are convinced they are completely prepared for a conflict, but having never trained against a resisting opponent they have absolutely no basis for that belief.
> 
> That doesn't mean that training with resistance ensures a person will be prepared for an attack. That isn't the point and no one claims that. It _will _ensure that a person is best prepared for such a situation both phisically and mentally and is armed with the best possible knowledge of their capabilities. In a worst case scenario this is something more valuable then any situational awareness or dead drill training can hope to be.


 
Bandit: You not getting my point... Restance is needed I agree 100% but it doesn't end there. But training in against a resisting opponent you are familiar with and whom you've learned to read their body language is a far out cry from a crack addict with knife in a parking lot.

Sparring isn't preparation to anything but sparring. How do you prepare for blind attacks? How do you prepare for being jumped or multiple opponents? All battles whether they be between counties or individuals come down to endurance, and how far are you willing to go. 

The fact that you don't seem to know the purpose of kata is evident; forms are baby steps to full sprint and not the run itself...


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Bandit: You not getting my point... Restance is needed I agree 100% but it doesn't end there. But training in against a resisting opponent you are familiar with and whom you've learned to read their body language is a far out cry from a crack addict with knife in a parking lot.
> 
> Sparring isn't preparation to anything but sparring. How do you prepare for blind attacks? How do you prepare for being jumped or multiple opponents? All battles whether they be between counties or individuals come down to endurance, and how far are you willing to go.
> 
> The fact that you don't seem to know the purpose of kata is evident; forms are baby steps to full sprint and not the run itself...


 
OK, so you train with strange crack addicts in a parking lot?  I doubt it.   Look, we all know that "on the street" there are no rules and that you are likely to get surprised.  The question is how do you best prepare for it.

So how do you prepare for blind attacks and multiple opponents?  Do you say "OK stand there and somebody will come up from behind and grab your shoulder and then you will spin around, kick, then punch"?  No.  You have the person grab you from behind, you escape/evade, then you spar.  Sparring is a great way to build up endurance.  

Trust me, I know the purpose of Kata.  And if you want to do analogies about baby steps, then let's do it:   How do you teach a baby to walk?  Do you tell him to take 3 steps left, turn around, take 3 steps right, face left, take 3 steps forward...?   No, you just let the baby walk.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> No martial arts especially in america have been watered down, sports commisions owns the rights to most martial arts. Which has lessoned the impact of martial arts as a military science.
> 
> I admit there is allot of BS in martial arts today, but it comes from both sides. The major arguement here seems to be that, effectiveness and aliveness come about through sparring.
> 
> But I still suggest aliveness is more then resistance its flexibility and adaptablity. When things are alive they grow, they evolve and they mature. When somehting is dead, it can still resist you even if it stagnates, and eventually rots away.


 
No.  Martial arts have not been watered down.  They have actually improved as a result of competitions like the UFC and the incorporation of new training methods and techniques.  And, 20 years ago there may have been 100,000 serious martial artists in the US and 900,000 wannabes.  Well, now there are probably more serious martial artists -- and they are much better than those of 20 years ago.  The difference is that now there are probably 2 million wannabes.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jun 5, 2006)

And its a hell of a marketing concept! I would like to find a term or coin a phrase like aliveness, maybe undeadness, or perhaps resilivance. Relevant moment technique, maybe. Help me out people. Undeadness is good, though. If you aren't training w/undeadness you are out to lunch buddy!


----------



## HKphooey (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Don't confuse "aliveness" with "intesity" You can train dead patterns very intensly -- just watch the Kenpo "Tip of the Week" on Larry Tatum's site. He smacks the heck out of his students -- while they stand there. Very intense, but not very alive. You can also train alive without any intensity. We used to call that slap-boxing. To really become proficient, aliveness and intensity must be combined.


 
When it come to traing I do not confuse the two.  If it is my own training, I take the intensity to the level my training part will go.  As for students, we have to run a school and most of own students take the arts for other reasons and have to got to work or school the next day.  Watch any video clip and you will be able to pick a dozen issues with it.  It's called "Monday morning QB",  Wether it is Tatum, Palanzo, Planas, Chapel, and so on, they are working out with their own students.  That was exactly my point.  How can you train for reality with same people over and over in the same style?  Not so spontaneous.

But as always I love to hear another martial artist's side (especially from Kenpo).  That is what it all about - variations, variations, adaptation, variation!


----------



## Robert Lee (Jun 5, 2006)

You go to the boxing gym. you start out training the hands and learning to move bang the heavy bag. The speed bag. learn to shadow box. But sometime you have to glove up get in the ring and start testing out what you have been trying learn. Only there do you reallylearn to apply distance timeing and such. Now Kata it teachs several aspects of youre training needs. Bunki shows what you wree working in the kata both offence and defence motion.kisokumite gives you prearranged  self defence sets.  jiyu kumite sparing gives you freedom to think. But when to many rules are set you do not train alot of your tools. So you start light training the different tools there is a common aspect to resistive training. its resistive. What is often for got for street use is training agins street like manuvers. The will punches the intence of the pressure the grabing of some kind of weapon be it a chair beer botle ect.  But referance  training gives you a chance. Its not like the average M/A person goes looking for trouble. As life goes you may never get in a street fight at all. BUT you train Train for the day you just might. In the mean time you become a better person because you learned to control you emtions treat people better have more patience. So by learning to fight you learned to be that better person. Far as scools it hard to find those that want to bang get in there and test the tools. You may have to have different phases of classes. BUt remember too young kids train boxing they glove up put the head gear on and go at it. And thousands do this.It is not trying to kill each other its useing enough control the right pading to safely test the method. We can not go back in time and train hours each day most people work have a family. So you train as you can some more then others. The more a person does train the better that person gets.  Even those that do kata each and every day find they can use the tools better. I guess part is the training part is the time put into that training. So at least if a person does not agree with testing the method often They should be training longer and harder To push there way to a level they can perform when tested. Short cut test it long road train it hard.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> OK, so you train with strange crack addicts in a parking lot? I doubt it. Look, we all know that "on the street" there are no rules and that you are likely to get surprised. The question is how do you best prepare for it.


 
Two things, one there are rules to the street and if you don't know you will get hurt. That there are no rules to the street is a bunch of crap some idiot came to make up for the fact they have never been their.



			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> So how do you prepare for blind attacks and multiple opponents? Do you say "OK stand there and somebody will come up from behind and grab your shoulder and then you will spin around, kick, then punch"? No. You have the person grab you from behind, you escape/evade, then you spar. Sparring is a great way to build up endurance.


 
That would be the reason for wacking my students with wiffle bats when they aren't paying attention to their enviromant. That would be the reason for just bumb rushing a student for no apparent reason.

The above exercises teach to keep your guard up, which in the wrong enviroments will get you killed.



			
				Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Trust me, I know the purpose of Kata. And if you want to do analogies about baby steps, then let's do it: How do you teach a baby to walk? Do you tell him to take 3 steps left, turn around, take 3 steps right, face left, take 3 steps forward...? No, you just let the baby walk.


 
Apparently not, for example Gichin Funakoshi the founder of Shotokan, only taught 15 kata, that includes the waza as well. After his death there was an exaduration of kata and some 26 more forms where added. Check out;

http://www.authenticshotokan.com/shotokan_kata.htm
http://www.karate-shotokan-kata.com/

and I think you need to read this:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/sportmartialarts.html

Most kung-fu styles only contain one form, many styles of Okinawan-Te have only one to 5 forms in total. The word Kumite means free sparring, or free fighting and didn't involve pads. Just because you swing a bat in baseball, doesn't mean you are a stickfighter.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 5, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Apparently not, for example Gichin Funakoshi the founder of Shotokan, only taught 15 kata, that includes the waza as well. After his death there was an exaduration of kata and some 26 more forms where added. Check out;



err... 15 original + 26 added = 26 that are there now?


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> err... 15 original + 26 added = 26 that are there now?


 
No 26 standardized thats the common ones between the USKA and the JKA and the other one.  Depending on the org there is something like 40+


----------



## Rook (Jun 5, 2006)

What does prepare people for "the street" better than alive, resistant training?  People seem to like to attack the simulation for being less than perfect, while training at a far further distance from reality themselves.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 5, 2006)

Y'know ... all this brings to mind the great small college football coach John Gagliardi from St. John's near St. Cloud, Minnesota.  He's won more championships than almost any coach in college history ... and his players never did contact drills in practice.  All thier hitting was at the game! Back in the old days the coach did things like everybody else and ended up losing one of his star players due to a practice field injury.  He vowed he'd never do that to another player and the rest is history.  He taught his players positioning, reading the play, reading the field, reading the other players ... decision making, really.  The Johnnies just kept winning and winning and winning.  The lack of hitting in practice had absolutely nothing to do with their level of performance in a real game situation.

Hmmm.  I wonder if there are any paralells to MA?  What do you guys think?


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 5, 2006)

I'de like to say...it seems to me like people are overthinking the concept.  All aliveness means, as Matt intends it anyway, is training beyond the repition of preset patterns.  Sparring is a major part of this because its the best approximation of a live fight we can produce in the gym.

Dark, the idea of bum rushing your students, or hitting them with wiffle bats to build awareness of their surroundings falls within this concept.  It is throwing the unexpected at your students so they learn how to cope with the unpredictable variables.

Any kind of confrontation, be it a bjj competition or a down and dirty fight with a pcp addict in a parking lot, involves a complex set of variables--endurance, psychology, knowledge, strength, prowess, speed, etc.--kata and other isolation drills attempt to distill a few of these variables into a workable format for the purpose of learning technique, training in an alive manner simply means trying to approximate the whole set of variables to be better prepared for a true fight.  No matter what you do, in the gym you will NEVER fully replicate this set of variables, especially since the variables change depending on which kind of confrontation you're in.  But you're still better off with an approximation than having only isolation drills and kata under your belt. 

When I was learning rear naked choke, I started by being shown the submission and trying it on a complient partner...of course I got it, it was easy...but then I tried with a resisting opponent...different game!!!  The first time i took someone's back I was there trying to get my elbow in their throat, but they were pulling my arms away, turtling their neck, trying to get my hooks out, shifting and flailing to get out of the position, and my forearms were getting tired from holding their gi.  I didn't even get close to submitting the guy.  But from that experience, and many more like it, I have learned how to fight the guy's hands, how to keep my hooks in, how to hold the gi without exhaustin my arm, etc. In effect I learned how to deal with someone who's fighting the submission...I never would have learned this stuff from drills or kata, because it only arises during a live contest.  Not to say there is not a lot to be gained from isolation drills or kata...at straight blast gym we do isolation drills all the time...but in the end we always bring it together with live sparring.


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> What does prepare people for "the street" better than alive, resistant training? People seem to like to attack the simulation for being less than perfect, while training at a far further distance from reality themselves.


 
    No I'm all about the simulation, but sparring isn't simulation, it's sport?

Let me break down what I'm saying...
Most Likely Forms of Attack by Criminals...
Herding: Surround an intended victem, and use numbers.
Gang Assaults: Attacking in a gang and attacking from muliple angles centered on the target.
Blind Rushes: Sudden unexpected attackes.
Assaults with Weapons: Duh.
Combinations: Pick and mix basically...

The common answer I keep hearing is aliveness is Sparring. How does sparring prepare you for any of that? It doesn't, but the arguement only sparring works because sensei (sorry didn't catch the name) wrote an essay on Aliveness.
Progressive resistance isn't the problem, but it is a partial answer. The full answer is progressive resistance, combined with technical understanding and realistic training. Sparring isn't realistic training for what happens during assaults, rapes or other violent crimes.

What I'm attacking is the ignorance of limitation, willing limited yourself to only one course will leave you dead in the real world. As I've mention I attacked students with wiffle bats for no real reason, except that it prepares then for reality. Reality is letting your guard down will hurt you...

Sparring is a good step, but it's only a step... There is more, then sparring. For some reason the only thing people talk about is kata. Kata is a book and is good exercise but isn't there to do anything but teach concept. Sparring is good to, and needed if you expect to use your art on a functional level, but it is not nor will it ever recreate "the street."

Quick and dirty:
Kata is a book and an exercise, Sparring is a good step but it isn't the end of the answer and it will not prepare you to pay attention or keep your guard up at all times...


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 5, 2006)

No one is saying aliveness is sparring...aliveness is about approximating outside conditions to prepare as best as possible...at my gym, which is a sport gym, we accomplish this by sparring.  We don't train for self defense, rape, assault, etc. because thats not what we're interested in.  

You keep attacking the concept, but everything you say seems to be in line with it.  For approximating true assault, rape conditions, you need to control for different variables, You may have a bunch of gym members attack a guy gang style or something...this IS alive training...Dead training as Matt defines it is repeating patterns without applying them to the most realistic simulation as possible.  As I said above, every style of conflict has a different set of variables that you must prepare for whether its a UFC situation or a gang assault.  Alive training simply means approximating the situation to train the practitioner to respond spontaneously should the real life thing ever occur.


----------



## MJS (Jun 5, 2006)

Sparring is one way to train the aliveness concept, but its certainly not the only way.  As I said in another post, the aliveness idea can be trained while working self defense techniques.  An example of this would be to offer some resistance to your partner, rather than just standing still.

Mike


----------



## Dark (Jun 5, 2006)

FuriousGeorge said:
			
		

> Any kind of confrontation, be it a bjj competition or a down and dirty fight with a pcp addict in a parking lot, involves a complex set of variables--endurance, psychology, knowledge, strength, prowess, speed, etc.--kata and other isolation drills attempt to distill a few of these variables into a workable format for the purpose of learning technique, training in an alive manner simply means trying to approximate the whole set of variables to be better prepared for a true fight.


 
But thats what your not getting, the pyschology issue. Like I said there are rules to "the street." And those rules can be replicated if you know the reality of what your talking about. The type of confrontation changes all those variables.

Lets look at a realistic mugging senario:
Victem walks to car, and an bumb askes for some change. When guy reaches in pocket the bumb stabs him in the gut and steals his wallet running away. 

Worth case senario, right? 

Nope, more like senario that happens on a regular basis. That has nothing to do with the confritation, but it does have to deal with pyschology and phylosophy. Now I've read the article and heard allot of stuff I didn't agree with. But so far all i've from everyone here but you on the other side of the arguement is "sparring prepares you for the real world" or "Kata is useless because."

I never heard anything in the article about the phycology or mental aspects of training, just a resisting partner. And some constantly heard comment about the UFC disproving things he doesn't like. Sorry if none of it impresses me. But, I'm survived some pretty bad stuff in my life some cop out on a resisting opponent means the sme old talk. That same arguement was how free style karate got started...

Want to impress go into pychological training as an aspect of alive. That was never covered just the same non-sense about how sports relates to the real world. Like I've said before just cause you play baseball doesn't mean your a stick fighter...


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> But thats what your not getting, the pyschology issue. Like I said there are rules to "the street." And those rules can be replicated if you know the reality of what your talking about. The type of confrontation changes all those variables.
> 
> Want to impress go into pychological training as an aspect of alive. That was never covered just the same non-sense about how sports relates to the real world. Like I've said before just cause you play baseball doesn't mean your a stick fighter...



Are you suggesting learning how an attacker might think and do?  And how we might respond to these "cues"?  If the nuances of human behavior can be duplicated or at least as closely as possible in the dojo, then that will go a long way in helping prepare the proper combat mindset.

- Ceicei


----------



## MJS (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> But thats what your not getting, the pyschology issue. Like I said there are rules to "the street." And those rules can be replicated if you know the reality of what your talking about. The type of confrontation changes all those variables.


 
Maybe I'm just not reading this right, but could you explain this?  I think I have an idea as to what you're saying, but would just like some clarification. 




> Nope, more like senario that happens on a regular basis. That has nothing to do with the confritation, but it does have to deal with pyschology and phylosophy. Now I've read the article and heard allot of stuff I didn't agree with. But so far all i've from everyone here but you on the other side of the arguement is "sparring prepares you for the real world" or "Kata is useless because."


 
Well, speaking for myself only here, I've said that sparring is only one aspect of training.  As far as kata go, I don't recall that I said that they were useless.  



> I never heard anything in the article about the phycology or mental aspects of training, just a resisting partner. And some constantly heard comment about the UFC disproving things he doesn't like. Sorry if none of it impresses me. But, I'm survived some pretty bad stuff in my life some cop out on a resisting opponent means the sme old talk. That same arguement was how free style karate got started...


 
Actually, in post #39, I talked about scenario based drills.  IMHO, this would provide some excellent training.  Providing its done right, the proper mindset can be created, giving the student a realistic feel to an attack.

Mike


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting learning how an attacker might think and do? And how we might respond to these "cues"? If the nuances of human behavior can be duplicated or at least as closely as possible in the dojo, then that will go a long way in helping prepare the proper combat mindset.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
Exactly but thats only one side of the spectrum...


----------



## Rook (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> No I'm all about the simulation, but sparring isn't simulation, it's sport?


 
Sportfighting generally is a simulation.  



> Let me break down what I'm saying...
> Most Likely Forms of Attack by Criminals...
> Herding: Surround an intended victem, and use numbers.
> Gang Assaults: Attacking in a gang and attacking from muliple angles centered on the target.
> ...


 
Sure.  Start with one person at a range and work your way up to sparring multiple opponents starting at close range.  



> The common answer I keep hearing is aliveness is Sparring. How does sparring prepare you for any of that? It doesn't, but the arguement only sparring works because sensei (sorry didn't catch the name) wrote an essay on Aliveness.


 
The sparring we have develops the ability to strike in real time, to anticipate strikes and movement, to counter, to become acclimated to being struck (taking a punch) etc.  Anytime two people start fighting at close range, basically one of four things can happen:

1.  One beats the others with a small number of techniques at that range - the assumption of many RBSD people.  
2.  The two break apart and one runs off sucessfully
3.  The two break off, reset, and clash again (basically, sparring ensues when you survive the initial assault and are still standing etc.)
4.  The fight goes to the ground (talk to MMA & BJJ people for what to do here, because most people don't have a clue)



> Progressive resistance isn't the problem, but it is a partial answer. The full answer is progressive resistance, combined with technical understanding and realistic training. Sparring isn't realistic training for what happens during assaults, rapes or other violent crimes.


 
See above.  The least realistic training I see is ussually non-contact single-strike-escape one hour training session that RBSD people promote.  

People in the real word adapt (freeform) and hit as hard as possible (full contact).  Many simulations are based on the highly improbable assumption that the attacker stands and close range in a static posture and can be taken out by one strike or a flurry of counters while not continuing his/her/their own offense or defense.  



> What I'm attacking is the ignorance of limitation, willing limited yourself to only one course will leave you dead in the real world. As I've mention I attacked students with wiffle bats for no real reason, except that it prepares then for reality. Reality is letting your guard down will hurt you...


 
Well, sparring and adaptive training is supposed to let you adjust courses, strategy and tactics in your fight.  Its static drills that don't let you.  



> Sparring is a good step, but it's only a step...


 
Fair enough.  



> There is more, then sparring. For some reason the only thing people talk about is kata. Kata is a book and is good exercise but isn't there to do anything but teach concept. Sparring is good to, and needed if you expect to use your art on a functional level, but it is not nor will it ever recreate "the street."


 
Nothing is the street except the street.  Some people get closer than others in dojo training.  



> Quick and dirty:
> Kata is a book and an exercise, Sparring is a good step but it isn't the end of the answer and it will not prepare you to pay attention or keep your guard up at all times...


 
I have yet to see anything that a person can teach that will prepare someone to pay closer attention to their surroundings.


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Exactly but thats only one side of the spectrum...



Intriguing!  I'd like to know more of the other side(s) of your spectrum (the psychology issue), if you would care to elaborate.  Thanks.

- Ceicei


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

MJS said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just not reading this right, but could you explain this? I think I have an idea as to what you're saying, but would just like some clarification.


 
Mike, I wasn't specifically talking about you blasting kata. But to the point, remember how I said there were rules to a street fight? There are rules of behavior for what others consider the street.  Basically, it like a pack of wolves there is always an alpha and bunch guys trying to be the alpha.

I work the training like this, a do a few exercise to get my students used to the idea of trapping and locking, then move to resisting then move to sparring. I also allow students that are the legal age to drink beer and smoke in class. I'll blare metal and flash strobs in their eyes to simulate a bar room atmophere. They spar drunk because, the majority of fights happen while drunk.

There is a mental element to all violent crimes and street fights; fear, dominance and despration.
Fear: Most streetfighter/criminal typeshave two fears the guys tougher then them and the appearance of weakness. Appearing weak makes you prey for someone else.
Dominance: Everyone answers to someone else and the food chain keeps going. The tough guys have to find weaker targets to reinforce their own image of dominance, even though they may very well be the bottom of the food chain.
Desperation: Allot of these type are habitual offenders and see prison as an improvement to the life they live outside. So robbery or other violent crimes often leads back to the "lose-lose" mindset.

Once you understand that, randomly "attacking" students makes a good point. Plus certain concepts can not be taught in sparring. Like the fact that allot of "street fighters" grow out and cut their finger nails into points. You can guess the damage that intels..?


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Ceicei said:
			
		

> Intriguing! I'd like to know more of the other side(s) of your spectrum (the psychology issue), if you would care to elaborate. Thanks.
> 
> - Ceicei


 
I actually have a book coming out on this subject, later this year. But I explained some the pychological aspects in another post. There are also personality types for the real world as well.

Cats- Avarage Joe, make some noise and he runs back him into a corner watch out.

Dogs- Tough guys, they bark you run they chase. They bark you smack them they run away.

Wolves- Just like dogs but need back up to talk trash.

Bears- The big guys who use size to intimidate you.

Wolverines- Nasty little critter that never back down.

     Notice 3 out of 5 try to impress you and intindate you. One will either rip your throat out and it won't and the other just wants to left alone. Thats what 60% of so real street fighter as, guys creating an image to scare you. That doesn't say they won't back it up, it just means they need to look tougher then they are.

     Now some people are tougher then they look and some people you will never know until you back them into a corner. another actuality is to need to hidden behind that image. This means going farther then they plan to go just to keep up appearances.

    I hope this gives you some idea...?


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Sportfighting generally is a simulation.


 
I have to ask how do you define a streetfight? And how many have you been in? Not to sound like wonnabe, but if you don't know, you don't know... 





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Sure. Start with one person at a range and work your way up to sparring multiple opponents starting at close range.


Or you do the smart thing and learn to look for the warning signs and run far and fast 





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> The sparring we have develops the ability to strike in real time, to anticipate strikes and movement, to counter, to become acclimated to being struck (taking a punch) etc. Anytime two people start fighting at close range, basically one of four things can happen:


 
Or the all ebcombasing 5th element, you cheat and win by pulling a gun. See there is more to the street then what your enemy can do and how your live sparring/martial art skills teach you timing and blah, blah... It's called the willingness and desire to survive.
You were so focused on proving you systems ability, that you forget the first rule of survive, prepae for the worst.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> See above. The least realistic training I see is ussually non-contact single-strike-escape one hour training session that RBSD people promote.


No there the you stand here while I hit 12 times stuff...  lol



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> People in the real word adapt (freeform) and hit as hard as possible (full contact). Many simulations are based on the highly improbable assumption that the attacker stands and close range in a static posture and can be taken out by one strike or a flurry of counters while not continuing his/her/their own offense or defense.


Your absolutely right, lets teach a bunch of 12 year olds to break each others arm and say "Here try this out." 



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Well, sparring and adaptive training is supposed to let you adjust courses, strategy and tactics in your fight. Its static drills that don't let you.


Those static drills are only baby steps, ways of working up to the art form.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Nothing is the street except the street. Some people get closer than others in dojo training.


Lets call it life, nothing can prepare you for life but you can be given guidelines.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> I have yet to see anything that a person can teach that will prepare someone to pay closer attention to their surroundings.


    Then you are not looking in the right places...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> I work the training like this, a do a few exercise to get my students used to the idea of trapping and locking, then move to resisting then move to sparring. I also allow students that are the legal age to drink beer and smoke in class. I'll blare metal and flash strobs in their eyes to simulate a bar room atmophere. They spar drunk because, the majority of fights happen while drunk.


You spar drunk? WTF?! I'm pretty sure you are violating the first rule of your school by talking about your school. I'll give you credit, thats a pretty good way to recreate "the street", but if you really want people to think you are legit you should probably drive your car around the gym while people spar. After all, in "the street" you never know when a car is going to come and run you over, especially if you are groundfighting and injured by a back full of broken glass!



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> There is a mental element to all violent crimes and street fights; fear, dominance and despration.
> Fear: Most streetfighter/criminal typeshave two fears the guys tougher then them and the appearance of weakness. Appearing weak makes you prey for someone else.
> Dominance: Everyone answers to someone else and the food chain keeps going. The tough guys have to find weaker targets to reinforce their own image of dominance, even though they may very well be the bottom of the food chain.
> Desperation: Allot of these type are habitual offenders and see prison as an improvement to the life they live outside. So robbery or other violent crimes often leads back to the "lose-lose" mindset.


Mind posting the source of this information? This is the problem I had on the Streetfight Study thread, people making highly specific claims about how a fight is likely to occur and not providing any actual evidence. That sounds pretty and all, but unless you have some actual source for it, its just more speculation.



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> Once you understand that, randomly "attacking" students makes a good point. Plus certain concepts can not be taught in sparring. Like the fact that allot of "street fighters" grow out and cut their finger nails into points. You can guess the damage that intels..?


Randomly smacking students with a wiffle bat only makes sense if you let them attack back afterwords. If thats what you are doing, good for you. If it's not, it's neither aliveness or good marketing. And once again, where are you geting your facts? I seriously doubt we are faced with an epidemic of  slightly clawed streetfighters scratching their way to the top of the Kumite. Besides, those guys would just end up loosing to M. Bison's power spin.

Am I hypocritical for calling you out on speculation while presenting speculation in return? No. As it stands the evidence clearly suggests that the people best prepared to handle themselves in a fight are those that engage in resistance training  and sparring. These are the people who win sport fights; no one who doesn't train with resistance has ever or will even win an MMA match. 

The counter argument (to save someone the trouble of typing it) is that sport fights are just that, a sport. Training for sport can only prepare you for that particular situation, and in the anything goes enviroment of the street sport fighters are woefully unprepared. 

Then who is prepared? The guy who throws kicks at a bag all day but has never had to deal with a moving target? Or the guy who eyegouges a rubber dummy but has never taken a punch? The truth is no one is completely prepared, but the ones who are best prepared are the ones who have trained against an opponent who won't just stand still and be hit and who know what it is like to take a blow and keep fighting. Resistance training is the ONLY way to teach this.


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> You spar drunk? WTF?! I'm pretty sure you are violating the first rule of your school by talking about your school. I'll give you credit, thats a pretty good way to recreate "the street", but if you really want people to think you are legit you should probably drive your car around the gym while people spar. After all, in "the street" you never know when a car is going to come and run you over, especially if you are groundfighting and injured by a back full of broken glass!


 
Its not recreating the street its recreating the most likely enviroment conditions. That being intixicated and with a great deal of distraction. I'm not the first or nor the last to impliment that concept. I actually "stolen" the idea from someone else.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Mind posting the source of this information? This is the problem I had on the Streetfight Study thread, people making highly specific claims about how a fight is likely to occur and not providing any actual evidence. That sounds pretty and all, but unless you have some actual source for it, its just more speculation.


 
Sure, my sourse is life. This isn't what your getting, some people have been living what your trying to discover. There are no sources or studies on the street fight life style. On assaults, rapes, robberies etc yes. But thats not a street fight that being the subject of a crime. And statistics don't matter, they are an excuse...

In the real world there is only success and failure and everyting comes down to one thing, how much are you willing to lose.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Randomly smacking students with a wiffle bat only makes sense if you let them attack back afterwords. If thats what you are doing, good for you. If it's not, it's neither aliveness or good marketing. And once again, where are you geting your facts?


 
I'm getting facts because I habe blinded a few people in my time, also allot of jujitsu styles and tiger claw kung-fu guys use that same trick. My students don't have to hit back, if they are smart they reconise my body language and prempt the attack or simply move out of the way. There is this thing called awareness and if you aren't aware you will get hurt seriously. 

The best defense is not to be in the fight at all and if you don't train to aviod and desculate the situation you aren't even training for self-defense.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Am I hypocritical for calling you out on speculation while presenting speculation in return? No. As it stands the evidence clearly suggests that the people best prepared to handle themselves in a fight are those that engage in resistance training and sparring. These are the people who win sport fights; no one who doesn't train with resistance has ever or will even win an MMA match.


 
Get over the MMA BS kick martial arts have mixed for centuries MMA is a marketing gimmick. Like pointed out in another post, your a sportsman an athlete and thats fine. I will give props on that, but it doesn't have a thing to do with being victemized, it has nothing to do with survival instinct.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> The counter argument (to save someone the trouble of typing it) is that sport fights are just that, a sport. Training for sport can only prepare you for that particular situation, and in the anything goes enviroment of the street sport fighters are woefully unprepared.


 
Thats part of the arguement, like I pointed out you named a wide variety of possible out comes to being assaulted in the street. Except the most realistic one, claiming a specific advantage (i.e. a weapon yourself). Were you prepared to that outcome or did the constant drive to prove your system take away from the reality of the senario, staying alive and safe?




			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Then who is prepared? The guy who throws kicks at a bag all day but has never had to deal with a moving target? Or the guy who eyegouges a rubber dummy but has never taken a punch? The truth is no one is completely prepared, but the ones who are best prepared are the ones who have trained against an opponent who won't just stand still and be hit and who know what it is like to take a blow and keep fighting. Resistance training is the ONLY way to teach this.


 
Except all of those things lead up to sparring, kumite, randori etc, etc depending on your system. Most of the martial arts systems were taught to children starting at 5 or 6 years old. I'm not saying a resisting opponent isn't good for training, but there has to be more...


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 6, 2006)

Listen, as a former Navy SEAL who has killed at least 50 people (at least seven with deadly hand to hand tactics to powerful for you to legally use) I am in the preminent position here to judge the fighting arts and how they should be trained. The only sport I play is with human lives, in fact I probably saved yours several times while stopping deadly terrorist attacks you don't even know about, all the while taking part in secret undeground fighting tournaments where anything goes (including weapons and death blows, both of which I regularly use). I graduated from college with highest honors. Which school? The school of _hard knocks_. As a former streetgang member I have taken part in 100's of no holds barred (the real kind, on the street) fights and between all my experiences I have learned the deadly secrets of combat.

Sound like a weak argument? That's because it is. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of people who make similar (though slightly less outlandish) claims and site them as evidence, but I have to call it like it is. Cool stories and homegrown wisdom have their place, but don't compare to hard evidence. As it is, all the evidence points to the fact that resistance training is far and away the best method to learn how to fight.

Yes, I get the fact that you think sparring has some value, and I agree that learning situational awareness has a place in self defense. What we seem to disagree on is the order of importance. Situational awarness alone may help you realize a fight is coming, and may even help you to avoid it, but by itself will not help you in the worst case scenario of being attacked. Conversely, resistance training alone does not teach you to avoid a conflict (I personally assume that most people have enough ingrained comon sense to do this on their own) but will give you the tools to best defend yourself if such a conflict occurs.

Secondly, I doubt the abiltiy to teach situational awarness above a most basic levels. I have some limited experience with it and was not impressed, nor have I ever been impressed by what I have seen or heard about elsewhere. If it is to be taught, I can only see it being taught based off of hard facts, not subjective personal opinion. On the other hand, I've never met anyone who couldn't greatly benefit from resistance training. Anyone can do it to some degree or the other and it is the most useful and effective way to teach people to fight. In the end that is what martial arts are all about.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> But thats what your not getting, the pyschology issue. Like I said there are rules to "the street." And those rules can be replicated if you know the reality of what your talking about. The type of confrontation changes all those variables.
> 
> Lets look at a realistic mugging senario:
> Victem walks to car, and an bumb askes for some change. When guy reaches in pocket the bumb stabs him in the gut and steals his wallet running away.
> ...




Hey bro...I can understand your point and as I've already said I think Matt is shortsighted in his views...I am thoroughly unimpressed by what the UFC has supposedly shown as well...but I think we're ultimately saying the same thing.  Let me try and explain.

you say there are rules on the street...well thats what i'm talking about when I'm talking about the set of variables associated with a given situation...aliveness is training by replicating these rules in the dojo in an unscripted manner thereby forcing the practitioner to think on his or her feet.  The wiffle bat thing is an example of how you accomplish this goal. And since awareness is so important in a scenario like the mugging example you just gave, the wiffle bat thing, i imagine does a lot to prepare your students for a real live attack.  That IS alive training.

Now as far as Matt is concerned, and he talks about this all the time...his main objection is to training dead patterns without addressing the spontaneous nature of any kind of fight/attack scenario...namely the repition of kata or forms in traditional martial arts without any added sparring or randori or live, spontaneous replication of a particular scenario.  

Do you see?...you seem to be all about replicating a scenario to prepare for the unexpected, so I don't really see how what we're saying differs.  But if i'm still missing something, i'm all ears.


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Sound like a weak argument? That's because it is. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of people who make similar (though slightly less outlandish) claims and site them as evidence, but I have to call it like it is. Cool stories and homegrown wisdom have their place, but don't compare to hard evidence. As it is, all the evidence points to the fact that resistance training is far and away the best method to learn how to fight.


 
Common sense is not being discussed. You want to go through every senario but ignore my points.
1) Resistance doesn't mean anything, out of context. The difference between sparring and sparring towards a point seems to be a completely different sistaution that isn't discussed the same way...
2) There is a difference between self-defense, street fighting and martial arts. And I have explained these.
3) My point is that all this talk about sparring is good is correct, but it isn't gonna have an effect in the real world. There is a pychological effect and a stress level that you wont find, no matter who your resisting opponent is. There for a resistaning opponent doesn't prepare you for the mental strain of a real world situation. 
4) As far as background and sources go here(I went and sourced up other experts in this field):
http://www.urbancombatives.com/martialcombatives.htm
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/streetrat.html
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/self-defensetraining.htm
http://www.burrese.com/Personal_Security_&_Self_Defense/Articles/Fights_vs_Combat.htm
http://www.burrese.com/Personal_Security_&_Self_Defense/Articles/Articles_by_Others/street_people.htm
http://www.burrese.com/Personal_Security_&_Self_Defense/Articles/Articles_by_Others/criminal_mind_by_peyton_quinn.htm
http://www.burrese.com/Personal_Security_&_Self_Defense/Articles/There's_no_such_thing_as_a_superior_martial_art.htm
A few of those above links get into that psychology effect I've been talking about.
5) My main issue was senseless statements, in your case that sparring prepares you for the real world. I can asume you've been in a real fight because you have avoided my questions in that regard. Because simply put, screaming the same arguement doesn't prove anything it just lets me explore ways of shooting down the same arguement, kinda like those non-resisting drills. The problem is if I go around assuming things, I'm make the wrong assumption and get serious proven wrong.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Secondly, I doubt the abiltiy to teach situational awarness above a most basic levels. I have some limited experience with it and was not impressed, nor have I ever been impressed by what I have seen or heard about elsewhere. If it is to be taught, I can only see it being taught based off of hard facts, not subjective personal opinion. On the other hand, I've never met anyone who couldn't greatly benefit from resistance training. Anyone can do it to some degree or the other and it is the most useful and effective way to teach people to fight. In the end that is what martial arts are all about.


 
1) You've never been in a real world situation. I'll asume this because you keep avoiding my topic on that very subject. What you want to know doesn't have a set statistic, statistics don't mean anything.
2) I'm actually objective, all oppinions are flawed because are limited to the insight and intellect of those popsing them. You're looking for the next "ultimate martial arts ideology." Sparring isn't the real world and if you are drilling awareness, psychology and applied stress levels. You claiming a resisting partner trains you for a street fight, is a lack of realistic objectivity.
3) What hard fights? Someone else's input and personal experience counts are hard facts. I want a hard fact that people who spar are more likely to survive on the street. Oh yeah, if you wonna cross examine police records for the survivers of violent crimes who are martial artists and see which one's sparred. Everyone spars, there are different names for it and unless you intentionally try to be so inept that, the aliveness stuff is just a marketing scam.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 6, 2006)

I'm guessing that MardiGras Bandit is wondering exactly what your background is, Dark.


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that MardiGras Bandit is wondering exactly what your background is, Dark.


 
Then ask? 4 years army infantry and another year of MP in the reserves, but I'm switching to national guard and will a Cav Scout. Childhood, drunken father and a mentally abusive mother. Grew up in a family where fighting was basically required, went to a high school that was pretty bad and spent allot of time making mistakes. Seen Iraq once so far not expected to return until 2008.

That work..?


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Then ask? 4 years army infantry and another year of MP in the reserves, but I'm switching to national guard and will a Cav Scout. Childhood, drunken father and a mentally abusive mother. Grew up in a family where fighting was basically required, went to a high school that was pretty bad and spent allot of time making mistakes. Seen Iraq once so far not expected to return until 2008.
> 
> That work..?


 
All that and you decided to become a Ninja?


----------



## Kreth (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Then ask? 4 years army infantry and another year of MP in the reserves, but I'm switching to national guard and will a Cav Scout. Childhood, drunken father and a mentally abusive mother. Grew up in a family where fighting was basically required, went to a high school that was pretty bad and spent allot of time making mistakes. Seen Iraq once so far not expected to return until 2008.
> 
> That work..?


Given the topic of the thread, and your proliferation of advice, I think your *martial arts* background would be more appropriate.


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> All that and you decided to become a Ninja?


 
i studied ninjutsu but I prefer to karate, judo and jujitsu do to all the contiversy.


----------



## Dark (Jun 6, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Given the topic of the thread, and your proliferation of advice, I think your *martial arts* background would be more appropriate.


 
Martial arts ends at what you are taught I think were and how I have used then is more important then where and what I learned in a dojo. I also point out to my military background were I have used what I'm talking about.


----------



## Rook (Jun 6, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Listen, as a former Navy SEAL who has killed at least 50 people (at least seven with deadly hand to hand tactics to powerful for you to legally use) I am in the preminent position here to judge the fighting arts and how they should be trained. The only sport I play is with human lives, in fact I probably saved yours several times while stopping deadly terrorist attacks you don't even know about, all the while taking part in secret undeground fighting tournaments where anything goes (including weapons and death blows, both of which I regularly use). I graduated from college with highest honors. Which school? The school of _hard knocks_. As a former streetgang member I have taken part in 100's of no holds barred (the real kind, on the street) fights and between all my experiences I have learned the deadly secrets of combat.
> 
> Sound like a weak argument? That's because it is. Forgive me if I'm skeptical of people who make similar (though slightly less outlandish) claims and site them as evidence, but I have to call it like it is. Cool stories and homegrown wisdom have their place, but don't compare to hard evidence. As it is, all the evidence points to the fact that resistance training is far and away the best method to learn how to fight.
> 
> ...


 
Come again?  Navy SEALs?  

Would you mind telling us what BUDs class you were in, on what base, and on what dates?  Who was your class honor graduate?  What was your diving partner's name?  

Which team were you in post-training?


----------



## Rook (Jun 6, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> I have to ask how do you define a streetfight? And how many have you been in? Not to sound like wonnabe, but if you don't know, you don't know...


 
Any fight outside controlled envirnments where at least one party want to seriously harm another through violence should count as a streetfight, although ussually we mean fights literally occuring on the streets, sidewalks, parks etc.  as opposed to home invasions and such.  



> Or you do the smart thing and learn to look for the warning signs and run far and fast


 
Obviously, if you have an opportunity to escape, take it.  If you have an opportunity to avoid the confrontation, then do so.  The premise of actual training is that a fight has been initiated and escape is not immediately possible.  



> Or the all ebcombasing 5th element, you cheat and win by pulling a gun.


 
Not really, that still falls under 1 or 3 depending on how it is done.  You can pull a gun at short range and fire immediately, or, more likely, draw back from the initial contact, assume some semblance of a firing posture (likely an imperfect rushed one) and take your shot.  You're still within the same exercise, you're just adding a weapon.  



> See there is more to the street then what your enemy can do and how your live sparring/martial art skills teach you timing and blah, blah...


 
Okay....



> It's called the willingness and desire to survive.


 
1.  This can't really be taught.
2.  There is a reason the people who lose streetfights often are the parties with more to lose, even though they should have more will to survive.  That doesn't fully make up for other deficiencies.  



> You were so focused on proving you systems ability, that you forget the first rule of survive, prepae for the worst.


 
Everyone is trying to survive, regardless of system.  Where are you going with this?  



> No there the you stand here while I hit 12 times stuff...  lol


 
If you aren't doing this sort of stuff, then you're ahead of most of the "RBSD" community.  



> Your absolutely right, lets teach a bunch of 12 year olds to break each others arm and say "Here try this out."


 
Maybe you should start with striking or throwing based sparring before joint attacks, which tend to require more finesse on both sides to both execute and avoid injury.  




> Those static drills are only baby steps, ways of working up to the art form.


 
Ok. 



> Lets call it life, nothing can prepare you for life but you can be given guidelines.


 
Ok.  



> Then you are not looking in the right places...


 
No, you're taking various flim-flam peddlars at their word.


----------



## Henderson (Jun 6, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Listen, as a former Navy SEAL who has killed at least 50 people (at least seven with deadly hand to hand tactics to powerful for you to legally use) I am in the preminent position here to judge the fighting arts and how they should be trained. The only sport I play is with human lives, in fact I probably saved yours several times while stopping deadly terrorist attacks you don't even know about, all the while taking part in secret undeground fighting tournaments where anything goes (including weapons and death blows, both of which I regularly use). I graduated from college with highest honors. Which school? The school of _hard knocks_. As a former streetgang member I have taken part in 100's of no holds barred (the real kind, on the street) fights and between all my experiences I have learned the deadly secrets of combat.


 
:lfao:



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Come again? Navy SEALs?
> 
> Would you mind telling us what BUDs class you were in, on what base, and on what dates? Who was your class honor graduate? What was your diving partner's name?
> 
> Which team were you in post-training?


 
Hey Rook....I think this was MardiGras' way of being sarcastic about some of the outlandish and obviously :bs1: claims some people make. At least I hope that's what it was. Besides, do you actually have the resources to verify class #'s, dates, honor grads, diving partners, and teams assignments?

Respects,

Frank


----------



## Rook (Jun 6, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> :lfao:
> 
> Hey Rook....I think this was MardiGras' way of being sarcastic about some of the outlandish and obviously :bs1: claims some people make. At least I hope that's what it was. Besides, do you actually have the resources to verify class #'s, dates, honor grads, diving partners, and teams assignments?
> 
> ...


 
Oh.  My mistake.  

I can't verify the claims myself, but there are websites that can run by former Navy Seals - http://veriseal.org/about.html - as well as other resources.  If he can't tell basic information that non-military people like me are aware of with regards to the SEALs, then its easy to tell he's faking.  

Thanks for pointing out the situation.


----------



## Kreth (Jun 7, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Martial arts ends at what you are taught I think were and how I have used then is more important then where and what I learned in a dojo.


Well, you need to learn before you can do, or teach as you're attempting to do in this thread...


> I also point out to my military background were I have used what I'm talking about.


Is the Army short on rifles these days? They were standard issue when I was Marine infantry (0311), but that was almost 20 years ago.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 7, 2006)

Dark has some very good points.  The Straight Blast definition of 'aliveness' is a pretty good start, but it doesn't go far enough.  

Aliveness must consider aspects such as environment, psychology, state of inebriation, situational awareness, number of potential attackers, philosophy ... have you noticed that I haven't gotten to the physical training aspect yet?... and physical training (I"m sure I've left something out).  Just training the body isn't enough, we must train the whole person, I believe.


----------



## Dark (Jun 7, 2006)

Rook said:
			
		

> Any fight outside controlled envirnments where at least one party want to seriously harm another through violence should count as a streetfight, although ussually we mean fights literally occuring on the streets, sidewalks, parks etc. as opposed to home invasions and such.


 
But a street fight is not self-defense. I broke it down to three catagories,
Brawling- Of course drunken ego insighted fighting.
Self-Defense- Reaction to a one time criminal action, being held up. Ussually there is something you have they want.
Street Fighting- Basically repeated violent behavior, and a sub-culture of poor oppressed people in slums and really bad portions of town, so to speak.

Being robbered is of course self defense, but repeatedly robbed, harrassed and assaulted all because someone has a self-esseme complex is basically street fighting.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> 1. This can't really be taught.
> 2. There is a reason the people who lose streetfights often are the parties with more to lose, even though they should have more will to survive. That doesn't fully make up for other deficiencies.


 
1) Yes, the will to survive can be cultivated/taught. We all have it but unless your specifically trying to build on it you will never see it.

2) The reason people lose street fights is one, they don't know how to act in a rough enviroment and two, because they think anything but preparing you for the street, prepares them for the street. Sparring being the example.



			
				Rook said:
			
		

> Everyone is trying to survive, regardless of system. Where are you going with this?


 Then what prepares you for the street? Better yet, how much of the street do you know, first hand? And bare in mind I define the street as a sub-culture based on fear and fear enduced dominance...





			
				Rook said:
			
		

> If you aren't doing this sort of stuff, then you're ahead of most of the "RBSD" community.


Did you read any of the those links I posted or are you lopping people teaching watered down bunkai drills as RBSD. When your talking RBSD Im more for Bruce Lee, Tony Blair, Marc Macyoung and Peyton Quinn to name a few.




			
				Rook said:
			
		

> No, you're taking various flim-flam peddlars at their word.


 
I think your getting part of it, This whole aliveness thing is based on the assumption of one person, whos only important claim to the effects of the street are that resistance prepares you. From a guy who had been hit with a few tire irons in my day, thats a flim-flam claim. 

All martial arts have effectiveness at some points, other might use partial sparring to get you to full sparring. But all the I heard was uneducated assumption based on a subjective view and misleading information. You agreed that those drills where "safety steps" (baby steps) to getting up to free sparring, yet you don't agree?

As far as flim-flam peddlers Marc MacYoung; who trains LEOs, bouncers and allot of so-called SD experts, Peyton Quinn; who not only has appeared in BB magazine but writen books on the subject, or how about Tony Blair; US Army (National Guard) and trains Military, Security Personel and LEOs as well?

I'm all about sparring and resistance, but if your going to make that as the sole claim to it will help you survive a street fight, come on. If he would have said restance along with "these other factors" as a side note or even admitted there where other factors, I'd be fine. However, some dumb 14 year old is gonna see that and think sparring makes him a "street fighter" and he'll end up in the ER or the morge. Thats my other issue, if your gonna be realistic then be honest about it.


----------



## matt.m (Jun 7, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> To me, "aliveness" means having "spirit" in training as opposed to just going through the moves...kind of like the difference between what I call "dead man Taiji" and "real" Taiji that has LIFE to it.
> 
> As for the "what if..." scenarios, I couldn't agree more. No matter what you do, there'll always be a "what iffer" right around the corner-


 

YOu know I agree with this the most.  See, I believe that if you dont have spirit then you dont have squat.


----------



## Dark (Jun 7, 2006)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Well, you need to learn before you can do, or teach as you're attempting to do in this thread...


 
I'm not trying to teach, I am however expressing my views and reasons for seeing the whole "aliveness" concept as short sighted and somewhat misleading. 

I'll use the military as an example, there is allot of situations wear the rules of engagement do not allow you to shoot someone. Or the more likely situations hwere buddies get drunk and get into fights and of course no one ever gets beaten up or mugged, especially in foriegn counties, because they are in the US Military. Beginning to see my point?


----------



## Kreth (Jun 7, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to teach, I am however expressing my views and reasons for seeing the whole "aliveness" concept as short sighted and somewhat misleading.


Which leads back to my earlier question. What is your martial arts background? Why should anyone listen to your opinions? The members in this thread advocating aliveness training have been open with their background, and several have provided links, quotes, etc from others considered experts on the topic. 



> I'll use the military as an example, there is allot of situations wear the rules of engagement do not allow you to shoot someone. Or the more likely situations hwere buddies get drunk and get into fights and of course no one ever gets beaten up or mugged, especially in foriegn counties, because they are in the US Military. Beginning to see my point?


You pointed to your military background as giving you some type of authority on the subject. What does military training have to do with self-defense? HTH training in both the Army and Marine Corps is a very small part of the curriculum.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 7, 2006)

My problem with trying to expand upon aliveness is that I don't see it as an attempt improve a system. I see it as an attempt to redefine the term for the purpose of defending things which are not alive, and which the concept of aliveness actually stands against. Nothing constructive comes out of it, it is just a way for people who don't train alive to claim they do by expanding the definiton to suite their needs. I see it along the lines of "____ MA is too deadly for competition". Such arguments only lead to dead training and hurt the martial arts overall.

Example: Hitting students with a wiffle bat at random times, but not using this as a method of sparring. This is not aliveness. It might teach a lesson to students, but that lesson has nothing to do with aliveness because it involves no resistance. Claiming otherwise is the equivilent of if I claimed to teach MMA based on the fact that I tought a few begginers BJJ classes at college. After all, BJJ is used in MMA, and getting hit is part of aliveness. See the problem here?

Dark, I'm not sure what question of yours I've avoided, I think your confusing me with another poster. Regardless, here are the answers to any question you asked in your last post.

1. All sparring is towards a point, that point being to develope the ability to properly perform technique.
2. Your definitions are _very _subjective. I don't agree with them.
3. I specifically said resistance training doesn't completely prepare you a real situation. Nothing does. I don't belive you can train out the adreneline dump, but live training does help better then anything other form of training I have seen.
4. None of those articles have anything to do with aliveness. They bring up a variety of issues relevant to a discussion of overall self defense, but are not relevant to a discussion of aliveness. 
5. I've never been in a serious fight, and though I've come close now and again I try to avoid them. I _have _trained with both with and without resistance and seen firsthand the dramtic difference it makes.
6. Statistics mean everything, the world runs on them. 
7. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed that resistance training prepares one abosolutely for a streetfight. I'm claiming it prepares one better then any alternative. Other thing have value and should be considered, but resistance training comes first and foremost in teaching a person to fight.
8. Facts are verifiable and refuteable. Internet stories aren't. Without pouring over police reports that probably dont exist (now statistics matter?) I can't say if people who spar have a higher incidence of survival and victory in the street, although I would suspect they do. But that fact is the best martial artists are those who engage in resistance training. The people who can consistently prove that they are able to do the things they are supposed to be able to invariably train this way. Despite what you may think, not everyone spars, although anyone who is serious about learning martial arts should. The term "aliveness" might just be marketing, but the concept is much more then that.


----------



## Dark (Jun 7, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> My problem with trying to expand upon aliveness is that I don't see it as an attempt improve a system. I see it as an attempt to redefine the term for the purpose of defending things which are not alive, and which the concept of aliveness actually stands against. Nothing constructive comes out of it, it is just a way for people who don't train alive to claim they do by expanding the definiton to suite their needs. I see it along the lines of "____ MA is too deadly for competition". Such arguments only lead to dead training and hurt the martial arts overall.


 
The point isn't that the definition of aliveness by Matt and say Bruce Lee are very different. As for martial arts being to deadly for what hurts the martial arts over all, that would be allot of things coming from all sides arguements.



			
				MartiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Example: Hitting students with a wiffle bat at random times, but not using this as a method of sparring. This is not aliveness. It might teach a lesson to students, but that lesson has nothing to do with aliveness because it involves no resistance. [/qhote]
> 
> MartGras, I also mentioned that several of my students pre-empively attack me when they see the wiffle bat coming. They dont sit around waiting on me to attack and some choose distance and evasion over counter-attacking. And you missed the point of what I was saying...
> 
> ...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 7, 2006)

> MardiGras Bandit said:
> 
> 
> 
> > My problem with trying to expand upon aliveness is that I don't see it as an attempt improve a system. I see it as an attempt to redefine the term for the purpose of defending things which are not alive, and which the concept of aliveness actually stands against. Nothing constructive comes out of it, it is just a way for people who don't train alive to claim they do by expanding the definiton to suite their needs.



Admittedly, some will simply expand a definition to justify anything.  However, a definition that is too narrow leads to the kind of arguments Dark is having.  Aliveness still needs more work.  Training against a resistant partner who is trying to stop you from baking a cake might be considered 'alive' by too narrow a standard.  However, the number of bakers assaulted in process is too small to even think about.  Aliveness must consider context or it risks irrelevace.  I think the term must be refined as a philosophical position or it can degenerate into a kind of 'fight club'.  

What say you?


----------



## Explorer (Jun 7, 2006)

How about THIS for a part of the 'Aliveness' definition ... ready?  

Resolved: "Aliveness must provide techniques that give the user and unfair advantage when assaulted."


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 7, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> How about THIS for a part of the 'Aliveness' definition ... ready?
> 
> Resolved: "Aliveness must provide techniques that give the user and unfair advantage when assaulted."


No. That goes back to my problem with trying to expand the definition to encompass things it shouldn't. Too many people make claims of teaching "unfair fighting techniques", it's an industry buzzword that often goes hand in hand with absolute garbage. Tying it to aliveness gives too many people the ability to claim they are doing something they are not.

If I had to define aliveness I would stick to my original post: _Aliveness is a method of training in which technique and ability is tested against a resisting opponent. _I won't editorialize that further with a description of the benefits, as that has been spelled out in at least 70 of the past 103 posts.

Again, no one is claiming that training this way will prepare you completely to handle a fight or attack. The claim is that it will prepare you better then any other system of training because it is the best method to learn to apply technique. Other methods can certianly be used to supplement resistance training, but it should be the primary method by which one learns.


----------



## shinbushi (Jun 7, 2006)

Is from Matts site so I will repost it.

*What do you mean by timing, energy, & motion?*
               For something to be truly alive in what we do then it has have                  three key elements, movement, timing, and energy (resistance).                  If you are missing any one of these then it is not Alive. 
*Movement* means real footwork, not contrived,                  not in a pattern... on the ground it means exactly that also...                  movement... if the person is just laying there, not moving as                  you apply your lock or move....that is not Alive. In the clinch                  its the same... pushing, pulling, moving. 
*Timing* is of course just that... if its in a                  predictable rhythm, a pattern, a repeatable series of sets, then                  you are not acquiring or developing timing, just motion speed.                
               And of course *energy*... swing the stick like                  someone would really swing it... don't stop at centerline. Punch                  with the energy of someone who wants to hit you. Not locking your                  arm out so your partner can look good doing the destruction, or                  trap, or silat sweep, etc. 
               You must *move*, have a sense of *timing*,                  and *progressive resistance.*


----------



## MJS (Jun 7, 2006)

Personally, I think that the sparring issue is becoming a bit redundant.  As I said a few times already, sparring is important, should not be overlooked, but its only one aspect to the aliveness training.  Sparring IMO, will be much better than standing stationary, throwing kicks and punches.  It forces us to move, block as well as throw strikes against a moving target.

Maybe we can shift this discussion a bit, and talk about some of the ways we train aliveness.  What types of drills do you include in your training to aid in this?

Mike


----------



## Explorer (Jun 7, 2006)

Good idea, MJS.

We like to take techniques we teach and put them into a more dynamic setting.  After a student has learned a technique at the basic level (static) we start adding in motion.  The attacker might move in and out, back and forth, even feint ... the defender must then employ the technique when the attack actually comes.  We ratchet this up as far as we can before injury.  Many of our joint techniques are designed to injure the opponent ... this is where we have to be careful.

We also have a section of our tests wherein the student is randomly grabbed and they have to fight their way out.  As a student moves up the ranks they are given more resistance.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 8, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> I think your getting part of it, This whole aliveness thing is based on the assumption of one person, whos only important claim to the effects of the street are that resistance prepares you.



Sorry, but if thats what you think of Matt and his claims, then you have truely revealed your ignorance with regard to this whole concept.  Aliveness may not address all of the variables involved in fighting (street or otherwise), but the aliveness concept has been integral to the development of MMA as it is known today...all good sport fighters train alive now.  I can respect some of the points you're making, but I have to ask, how come so many martial systems that don't encompass alive training have proven ineffective in a sport fighting situation?  you've talked about psycology and awareness again and again, but an understanding of these factors would only help in an NHB sport fight situation, yet again and again traditional martial systems fail to deliver under those circumstances.  How can you explain this if this aliveness concept is so shortsighted and baseless?


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 8, 2006)

sorry, duplicate post.


----------



## MJS (Jun 8, 2006)

Explorer said:
			
		

> Good idea, MJS.
> 
> We like to take techniques we teach and put them into a more dynamic setting. After a student has learned a technique at the basic level (static) we start adding in motion. The attacker might move in and out, back and forth, even feint ... the defender must then employ the technique when the attack actually comes. We ratchet this up as far as we can before injury. Many of our joint techniques are designed to injure the opponent ... this is where we have to be careful.
> 
> We also have a section of our tests wherein the student is randomly grabbed and they have to fight their way out. As a student moves up the ranks they are given more resistance.


 
Yes, we do the same where I train.  Very important to get the basics of the technique and then add in the resistance.  Everything changes when the attack is coming in a bit faster.  Making adjustments on angles, footwork, etc. will have to happen.  

I also agree with the random attacks.  Adding in some spontanious reaction drills will certainly help the students.

Mike


----------



## MJS (Jun 8, 2006)

FuriousGeorge said:
			
		

> Sorry, but if thats what you think of Matt and his claims, then you have truely revealed your ignorance with regard to this whole concept. Aliveness may not address all of the variables involved in fighting (street or otherwise), but the aliveness concept has been integral to the development of MMA as it is known today...all good sport fighters train alive now. I can respect some of the points you're making, but I have to ask, how come so many martial systems that don't encompass alive training have proven ineffective in a sport fighting situation? you've talked about psycology and awareness again and again, but an understanding of these factors would only help in an NHB sport fight situation, yet again and again traditional martial systems fail to deliver under those circumstances. How can you explain this if this aliveness concept is so shortsighted and baseless?


 
Personally, I don't take Matts comments as just talking about sparring, but instead including aliveness into all aspects of our training. You train at the SBG, so you're obviously getting a better view of what he's talking about. 

Dark- IMHO, I think that you're reading a bit too much into the posts. For some reason, you seem to be thriving on the sparring aspect and just that, when in fact, I've said quite a few times now, that sparring is one area that can be used. Aliveness can be trained during sparring, as well as during regular attacks, regardless if they're pre-set or random. 



> So it the definition of aliveness as only be resistance, which has nothing to do with self-defense or streetfighting.


 
I'm a bit confused by this Dark. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong. Are you saying that aliveness has nothing to do with a streetfight? Now, I certainly am not one to walk around town looking for fights, but I beg to differ on that comment. You're going to be facing some non-compliant people and the situation is certainly going to be alive.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 8, 2006)

I think it's important to note that in a pre-arranged MMA fight ... both partners enter the ring KNOWING there's going to be a fight.  The most used tactic on the street is SURPRISE ... one party knows there will be a fight and the other ... unless situationally aware ... doesn't.

Surprise works two ways ... attacker surprises defender ... and ... defender surprises attacker via counter attack.


----------



## MardiGras Bandit (Jun 8, 2006)

Personally I think most people have a decent level of situational awareness built in naturally, and to focus your training on developing it is pointless for most situations. It's one thing to take a seminar on it, its another thing to train roleplaying drills to death and think you are somehow prepareing yourself to fight more then someone who regularly spars. Even if you see an attack coming (which I doubt will occur at any greater frequency then it will for anyone with a little common sense), breaking out into a kata is far from the best answer.

Arguably anything is better then nothing, but handicapping yourself with dead training is not your best option. Even if you see an attack coming in advance, without the skills to defend yourself you are still likely looking at a beatdown (even with well developed skills this is completely possible). These skills are best developed through resistance training, or in other words, aliveness.


----------



## Cirdan (Jun 8, 2006)

MardiGras Bandit said:
			
		

> Even if you see an attack coming (which I doubt will occur at any greater frequency then it will for anyone with a little common sense), breaking out into a kata is far from the best answer.


 
Really?


----------



## Rook (Jun 8, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> But a street fight is not self-defense. I broke it down to three catagories,
> Brawling- Of course drunken ego insighted fighting.
> Self-Defense- Reaction to a one time criminal action, being held up. Ussually there is something you have they want.
> Street Fighting- Basically repeated violent behavior, and a sub-culture of poor oppressed people in slums and really bad portions of town, so to speak.


 
So streetfighting is more like gang warfare but doesn't include being attacked in the streets?  This doesn't make much sense.  



> Being robbered is of course self defense, but repeatedly robbed, harrassed and assaulted all because someone has a self-esseme complex is basically street fighting.


 
So you're breaking down assaults by psycological relationship?  How much "self esteem complex" (a rather ambigous pop-psycology term at best) is involved before it becomes "streetfighting" as opposed to self-defense and vice versa?  



> 1) Yes, the will to survive can be cultivated/taught. We all have it but unless your specifically trying to build on it you will never see it.


 
I still very much doubt this.  



> 2) The reason people lose street fights is one, they don't know how to act in a rough enviroment and two, because they think anything but preparing you for the street, prepares them for the street. Sparring being the example.


 
Lots of people are comfortable in rough envirments, grew up there and so forth, and still lose.  Plenty of them were never "contaminated" by realistic training off the street.  Do you think some sort of will to live will overcome all else? 




> Then what prepares you for the street? Better yet, how much of the street do you know, first hand? And bare in mind I define the street as a sub-culture based on fear and fear enduced dominance...


 
Well, seeing as all real fights consist of full contact no-rules contact, anything short is only an approximation.  Sports approximate such fights by getting as close as is safely possible.  Those who practice sportfighting methods are adjusted to full power strikes, which RBSD nuts don't practice with, lest it shatter the myths of their training methods.  




> Did you read any of the those links I posted or are you lopping people teaching watered down bunkai drills as RBSD.



No, there are lots of bad training drills that have nothing to do with RBSD.  I'm not lumping the various problems all in with that.  



> When your talking RBSD Im more for Bruce Lee,


 
The "father of sportsfighting" (together with Gene Lebell)?  The man who was one of the first to advocate weightraining for those practicing eastern martial arts?  The man who said to seek reality in combat and advocated hard, full contact sparring, promulgated the use of pads before Jhoon Rhee, fought more challenge matches than all but a few of his contemporaries and lambasted TMAs for failing to test their concepts?  The man who mocked certain CMA and JMA practitioners for failing to use anything but light contact?  The man who said Gene Lebell's ring fights were excellent for telling what did and didn't work?  

There is a place for calling Bruce Lee influential to RBSD thought, but I don't think you're going towards it.  



> Tony Blair,


 
Haven't heard of him.  I'll look into it.  



> Marc Macyoung


 
I bookmarked his page a long time ago.  He has some interesting ideas, but he has no idea how trained fighters operate and is prone to making wild and unsubstantiated claims about his own capablities and experiance that seem to fantasy or little short of it.  I take everything he says with a great deal of salt.  Remember, too, his full time job is selling snakeoil (his supposedly superior combat system, which no one can test on him because he won't spar or enter a competition).  



> and Peyton Quinn to name a few.


 
Ok, these people SAY they have a killer system that will solve your self defense needs, or at least make you paranoid enough to buy more tapes in the hope of doing so.  

What have we seen from them to indicate they have the slightest idea of what they are talking about?  Heck, Marty had a point - anyone can claim to be the ultimate tough-guy streetfighter and start lecturing us all on how our systems are inferior, but if he refuses to allow us to compare head-to-head, then how are we supposed to know?  Just assume based their internet advertizing?  



> I think your getting part of it, This whole aliveness thing is based on the assumption of one person, whos only important claim to the effects of the street are that resistance prepares you. From a guy who had been hit with a few tire irons in my day, thats a flim-flam claim.


 
No, the straight-blast gym's manifesto is just the most widely quoted version of the arguement.  



> All martial arts have effectiveness at some points, other might use partial sparring to get you to full sparring. But all the I heard was uneducated assumption based on a subjective view and misleading information. You agreed that those drills where "safety steps" (baby steps) to getting up to free sparring, yet you don't agree?


 
Well, the drills should get to closer and closer approximate reality (full speed, full contact, no restricted zones, freeform) as one gets more advanced.  Yet, I see systems that simply add more and more drills, and never get to full speed, full contact, freeform or anywhere even remotely close.  They either propose a set of memorized moves, to which more sets are simply added, or they use more repetition of a few sets without ever moving up to approximating fighting.  

Let me put it this way - lets say you want to be able to swim to shore if your boat goes down without a life jacket.  First, you might practice swimming motions standing up on land, then in a shallow pool, then do laps in a deep pool, and finally and up trying it in the seawater. 

Most MMA people say you aren't remotely ready until you have tried to seawater - even though its not going to be the exact same as when you're further offshore.  Many TMA people (or at least the harder edged ones) will say you will be ok with the deep pool.  Some TMA and most RBSD people say what you need is 19 varieties of the breatstroke done on land without ever touching the pool or the sea, which would be far too dangerous.  



> As far as flim-flam peddlers Marc MacYoung; who trains LEOs, bouncers and allot of so-called SD experts, Peyton Quinn; who not only has appeared in BB magazine but writen books on the subject, or how about Tony Blair


 
Anyone can write books - its not difficult to get stuff published.  Ashida Kim has 30 odd books, including ninja techniques, self defense and romance.  Think its difficult?  

Likewise with getting to train LEOs, military people or bouncers - largely a product of advertizing.  I would be more interested to know what he can actually do rather than who someone managed to teach.  

Appearing in BB magazine is indicative of popularity but nothing more - most major frauds have been in there at some point or another.  



> US Army (National Guard) and trains Military, Security Personel and LEOs as well?


 
The military uses sports training methods.  Where are you goin with this?



> I'm all about sparring and resistance, but if your going to make that as the sole claim to it will help you survive a street fight, come on.


 
Its not the only training method, but its the one closest to application and probably the most important.  The other parts are supposed to hone your skills and such.  

Sparring alone is not all there is to pressure testing, but it should be a good indicator of where you are.  



> If he would have said restance along with "these other factors" as a side note or even admitted there where other factors, I'd be fine. However, some dumb 14 year old is gonna see that and think sparring makes him a "street fighter" and he'll end up in the ER or the morge. Thats my other issue, if your gonna be realistic then be honest about it.


 
Well, anyone who can avoid a fight should do so; that much is a general consensus.  Sparring will prepare you should a fight occur, but the best defense is still to avoid the areas and the situations.


----------



## Dark (Jun 8, 2006)

FuriousGeorge said:
			
		

> Sorry, but if thats what you think of Matt and his claims, then you have truely revealed your ignorance with regard to this whole concept.


 
Thats all he discussed in his own article and the video...



			
				FuriousGeorge said:
			
		

> Aliveness may not address all of the variables involved in fighting (street or otherwise), but the aliveness concept has been integral to the development of MMA as it is known today...all good sport fighters train alive now. I can respect some of the points you're making, but I have to ask, how come so many martial systems that don't encompass alive training have proven ineffective in a sport fighting situation?


 
I have a completely different compaint for most TMAs. That being that most TMAs taught in a commercial school are either watered down or just not properly taught, or well both. As far as sports fighting, that requires a completely different mindset then street fighting, and I can name a great many boxers to show this example.
I'll use Karate as an example, allot of shotokan schools spar and teach sparring. However, they aren't training dead because of kata or waza, they are dead training because the pyschology aspect isn't their. When Im talking about aliveness expanding beyond physical I was talking about for all Martial Arts TMA or MMA. If you want to hear my laudery list of problems with most TMAs Ill give them to you. But, lets be honest here the ring doesn't mean squat in a real world situation and most MAs use stuff like psychology and philosophy as excuses for not wanting to step up the real world.



			
				FuriusGeorge said:
			
		

> you've talked about psycology and awareness again and again, but an understanding of these factors would only help in an NHB sport fight situation, yet again and again traditional martial systems fail to deliver under those circumstances. How can you explain this if this aliveness concept is so shortsighted and baseless?


 
Awareness or in fact enviromental awareness, doesn't effect a NHB situation, as much as they do with say walking to your car leaving work at night or spotting the wonnabe tough guy eyeing you from the corner of the room. I agree most traditional arts fail in this, but this isn't because of anything but weakness on the part of the instructors. 

To give you an example, I had a buddy tell me how great his traditional jujutsu style was because it was used by a great samurai. My first question, was but can you use it in a fight? Where as I heard all about philosophy and history, so I gave up on the matter. Different friend of mine was going on about his shoot fighting class. But had no philosophy or psychology to deal with anything outside the ring. Both people have one or the other and they both use the "strengths" to cover the weaknesses.

There is a middle ground, and that is completeness. My take on aliveness spawns from the origional Okinawan karate philosophy. That being a constantly flowing addapting and growing art. That requires training awareness, psychology and technical understanding. A big part of technical understanding is facing another opponent, but so is these non-resisting forms. They are suppost to teach those princples, and if thet do not serve that purpose then they become empty movements and not techniques.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 9, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> Thats all he discussed in his own article and the video...



Therefore that's all he thinks...nevermind that I know him personally and have attested to his beliefs, skills and knowledge.  





			
				Dark said:
			
		

> I have a completely different compaint for most TMAs. That being that most TMAs taught in a commercial school are either watered down or just not properly taught, or well both. As far as sports fighting, that requires a completely different mindset then street fighting, and I can name a great many boxers to show this example.



Then you me and Matt all agree on something!  Matt says the same thing all the time...that commercial TMA schools don't train alive is just another reason they are lacking.  I agree that boxers lack sufficient street fighting skills as does anybody who only trains one aspect of combat (i.e. standup or ground only).  As far as the mindset, there are differences and there are similarities...of course training to fight only one person doesn't address all of the variables that play into street fighting...but that doesn't mean sport fighters who train all aspects of combat are completely ill prepared for a street fight.



			
				dark said:
			
		

> I'll use Karate as an example, allot of shotokan schools spar and teach sparring. However, they aren't training dead because of kata or waza, they are dead training because the pyschology aspect isn't their. When Im talking about aliveness expanding beyond physical I was talking about for all Martial Arts TMA or MMA. If you want to hear my laudery list of problems with most TMAs Ill give them to you. But, lets be honest here the ring doesn't mean squat in a real world situation and most MAs use stuff like psychology and philosophy as excuses for not wanting to step up the real world.



Then we agree again...and i think its important for someone who trains for the street to address awareness of surroundings and psycology...but this is an important aspect of MMA too...just in a different way.  In a sportfight, better awareness means recognizing whats coming faster, sensing openings, minute body movements, etc.  And you only have to watch Tito Ortiz rile Ken Shamrock up once to see that the psychology facter is there too...sure its different than in the street, but knowledge of these aspects of fighting plays into MMA.  If you have these skills, they will benefit your sport fighting game...fighting only one opponent doesn't mean the whole game is devoid of these factors. 



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> Awareness or in fact enviromental awareness, doesn't effect a NHB situation, as much as they do with say walking to your car leaving work at night or spotting the wonnabe tough guy eyeing you from the corner of the room. I agree most traditional arts fail in this, but this isn't because of anything but weakness on the part of the instructors.



You're right, its not...but what does this have to do with aliveness?  Just because a good TMA school emphasizes these aspects of training doesn't make it alive.  Aliveness comes from replicating the real thing in the gym to prepare for having spontaneity at the moment of truth.  You agree that being able to act spontaneously is crucial no matter what type of confrontation you're facing, right?  So I have to ask, why do you have to try forcefit ideas into the concept of aliveness?  



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> To give you an example, I had a buddy tell me how great his traditional jujutsu style was because it was used by a great samurai. My first question, was but can you use it in a fight? Where as I heard all about philosophy and history, so I gave up on the matter. Different friend of mine was going on about his shoot fighting class. But had no philosophy or psychology to deal with anything outside the ring. Both people have one or the other and they both use the "strengths" to cover the weaknesses.



Matt would probably pose the exact same question in the scenario with your jujutsu buddy...in fact, I 've heard him make that point almost word for word.  The whole point is philosophy is not alive, nor psychology by their own merits...its how you train that makes these concepts alive...philosophy and psychology are great, and more power to you for studying them...most of us who train with Matt study martial arts philosophy and psychology too, but alive training is about the practicle application of ideas, not mearly studying them.   



			
				Dark said:
			
		

> There is a middle ground, and that is completeness. My take on aliveness spawns from the origional Okinawan karate philosophy. That being a constantly flowing addapting and growing art. That requires training awareness, psychology and technical understanding. A big part of technical understanding is facing another opponent, but so is these non-resisting forms. They are suppost to teach those princples, and if thet do not serve that purpose then they become empty movements and not techniques.



So aliveness is part of your training then, but the psychology and and philosophy aspects go above and beyond the alive training you do.  The thing about empty movements is another point Matt makes all the time...Aliveness to him is about growing and evolving too...the bottom line, however, is that most TMAs don't grow and evolve, they harken back to the teachings of some old time master and don't change based on new ideas or information...this is not true of all TMAs, it varies of course, but you have all but said this yourself.  The thing about non-resisting forms is that if the techniques don't work against a resisting opponent, they are functionally useless no matter how much psychology you know or philosophy you've read...we train without resistance all the time, but in the end resistance decides which techniques stay and which ones go, that is what aliveness is about.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 9, 2006)

> MardiGras Bandit said:
> 
> 
> 
> > Personally I think most people have a decent level of situational awareness built in naturally, and to focus your training on developing it is pointless for most situations. It's one thing to take a seminar on it, its another thing to train roleplaying drills to death and think you are somehow prepareing yourself to fight more then someone who regularly spars. Even if you see an attack coming (which I doubt will occur at any greater frequency then it will for anyone with a little common sense), breaking out into a kata is far from the best answer.



I disagree.  Most people barely know where they are at any given time.  Most people are more concerned with the state of the clothing, the cell phone stuck to their ear or their 'innermost' thoughts.  Most people are clueless out in public ... and assault statistics tend to bear this out.

Your comment about breaking out into a kata shows a terrible ignorance about how kata were used classically.   One doesn't perceive an attack and quickly try to decide which kata to use.  The concept is to use kata to train techniques that will work most of the time in a given set of circumstances.  For example:  An overhand right is a great counter to a left lead to the body.  A kata might show this by creating a shuffle step back or a side step, then a right punch to the head.  

In kata where the practioner is standing in horse stance then touches the inside of one knee with the opposite foot the most common interpretation is preposterous; blocking a kick to the groin.  It could just as easily be a mapping move that shows you where you might kick your opponent ... the inside of the knee just above the bulge of the knee.  A sharp kick to this area tends to flare the hip out and roll the ankle over.  It can be accomplished at grappling distance as you drive your opponents weight onto that leg.  I've done it, it works ... very well. 

I think we can dispense with blanket statements such as "breaking out into a kata is far from the best answer" ... or perhaps we should continue ... here's one ... "Spouting ignorance is far from the best answer."  Hmmm.  It appears I'm a bit owly tonight.


----------



## Rook (Jun 10, 2006)

Guys, we have alot of threads already dedicated to the pros and cons of kata... lets not hijack this thread with it.


----------



## Dark (Jun 10, 2006)

An interesting topic on aliveness, what if your evolution requires you to walk a different path from your instructor and fellow students? Reinvent the wheel of your martial art.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jun 10, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> An interesting topic on aliveness, what if your evolution requires you to walk a different path from your instructor and fellow students? Reinvent the wheel of your martial art.



Then that is what you do. Unless you are training for their benefit...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 10, 2006)

> Dark said:
> 
> 
> 
> > An interesting topic on aliveness, what if your evolution requires you to walk a different path from your instructor and fellow students? Reinvent the wheel of your martial art.



Good question.  After my sensei retired and asked me to take over the dojo ... I told him about the direction I would like to take the training.  He went to a couple of different seminars with me to look over the material I was talking aobut and gave his blessing.  Ever since we've barely seen him.  And I've gotten word back that he doesn't feel he fits in any more.  It does make me sad as I consider him a good friend but at the same time the students have taken great strides in their understanding of martial arts in general and their own arts specifically.  

I formed a board of advisors to help keep me honest and clear headed and they believe the best course of action is to continue on the path my Sensei OK'd years ago ... while at the same time trying to keep the door open to him out of respect and love.

My old sensei couldn't take us down this road and I've been able to find another sensei to offer assistance and blunt appraisal.  It's been a boon to the school, the students and myself.

I guess if the path takes you elsewhere, you go.  That being said, I would think it both kind and wise to maintain an attitude of thankfulness and respect for those who helped you move along.


----------



## FuriousGeorge (Jun 10, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> An interesting topic on aliveness, what if your evolution requires you to walk a different path from your instructor and fellow students? Reinvent the wheel of your martial art.



I think so...isn't this what all the legendary masters have done...I believe there are no truely new techniques.  Every technique has been done before...but how you encompass various techniques changes.  Each influential master has built his system from these fundamental techniques and provided guidelines for becoming skilled.


----------



## Pants Phantom (Jun 12, 2006)

So I'm reading through this thread, laughing here and there when people take the MGB seriously with his claims to be a navy SEAL and other such things, when I stumble upon quite possibly the most rediculous statement ever by that lovable man Dark.

You say you study ninjitsu? Like ninjas and crap? Like crawling up walls an assassinating prime ministers for the Yakuza? Jesus ******* Christ man, thats the most insane thing I've ever done heard.


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

Pants Phantom said:
			
		

> So I'm reading through this thread, laughing here and there when people take the MGB seriously with his claims to be a navy SEAL and other such things, when I stumble upon quite possibly the most rediculous statement ever by that lovable man Dark.
> 
> You say you study ninjitsu? Like ninjas and crap? Like crawling up walls an assassinating prime ministers for the Yakuza? Jesus Effing Christ man, thats the most insane thing I've ever done heard.


 
LoL Pants you watch to much TV man... Ninjitsu/ninjutsu is basically jujitsu and stealth, not more then that except like 20+ weapons to learn. Unfortunately certain people, I won't name names, have made the art either look like a pop-ninja movie or new age Shinto school.


----------



## Pants Phantom (Jun 12, 2006)

Dark said:
			
		

> LoL Pants you watch to much TV man... Ninjitsu/ninjutsu is basically jujitsu and stealth, not more then that except like 20+ weapons to learn. Unfortunately certain people, I won't name names, have made the art either look like a pop-ninja movie or new age Shinto school.



You were totally my hero for like three seconds. Way to suck.


----------



## Dark (Jun 12, 2006)

Sorry to disappoint ya bro... lol


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 29, 2006)

Cirdan said:


> Really?


 
To whoever zinged me for this; I don`t mind the bad rep at all, but if would be nice if you would include your name.


----------

