# Resistance vs no-resistance training



## MBuzzy (Feb 22, 2008)

I post this in this area, because as far as I know, most TSD/SBD has some type of self defense.  And many of the other styles are decidedly one way or another.  BJJ for example, it is widely believed that if you are training with no resistance, you are not training.

What I'm referring to is your Self Defense training.  When you learn these movements, your partner either resists you or is a willing participant and just lets the techniques be done.  

It is my personal opinion that both types are needed, no resistance when you are learning the technique and more and more resistance as you gain profiency -eventually building to an "unwilling" assailant who will resist everythign you do.  I believe this because what good is a self defense technique if it can't be done against someone who is resisting and possibly stronger than you.  Many of these techniques will work anyway if they are done properly.

My question is - how does your school train?  Do you think this is good or bad and what are your views on the issue?

I've been to a few TSD schools that train with no resistance strictly and it is all about just going through the motions.  I've also been to place who do not talk to each other - simple stuff like "Nope, dont' got it, don't got it, don't got....OUCH!  Got it."  And some where the SD is a constant conversation about the effectiveness of the technique being done.

Do you think that your partner should "coach" you through, so that you learn to intuitively perform the technique the right way?


----------



## JT_the_Ninja (Feb 22, 2008)

We have more of a mixed approach. First off, we have pyung ahn il soo sik, where the movements are pretty much planned out for both participants, and it's just drilling to get the movements right. The idea is to move together. You still have to be aiming at your opponent and doing proper technique (in other words, the defender has to be on guard for your attack and block or he gets hit), but it's not so much about real situations as principles that can be applied over broader areas. 

Then there's ho sin sul. Attackers are instructed "Grip hard! Don't let go! Make your partner do the move right!" On the flip side, the defenders are instructed "React fast! Do something!" Of course there's the policy that when you feel your opponent tap, you let go to avoid injury, but the fact remains that it's not exactly resistance-free. 

Luckily, most of the techniques are designed such that you don't have to counter your opponent's force directly. This way, even if your opponent's bigger than you, you can still defend yourself.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 22, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I post this in this area, because as far as I know, most TSD/SBD has some type of self defense. And many of the other styles are decidedly one way or another. BJJ for example, it is widely believed that if you are training with no resistance, you are not training.
> 
> What I'm referring to is your Self Defense training. When you learn these movements, your partner either resists you or is a willing participant and just lets the techniques be done.
> 
> ...


The first statement is untrue. They offer "little" resistance for learning purposes. You need both approaches.
Sean


----------



## theletch1 (Feb 22, 2008)

In our style we break techniques down into two major categories..."Classic" technique and "Application" of technique.  In the classic uke gives only that resistance which is needed to make the technique work properly and the technique begins from a static position.  The goal here is 100% accuracy in your technique.  The application phase is done from a moving start...uke will attack with various attacks and nage will perform the defense technique with as much proficiency as possible.  The resistance during application is commiserate with the proficiency of both parties involved.  The higher your rank the more energy gets put into the attack and the more resistance and opportunity for reversal taken.  Giving full resistance to a brand new student is a very quick way to have to shut down your dojo, IMO.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 23, 2008)

Either by itself and at their extreme ends are bad (much like a liberal or a conservative!).  I had to sit a bunch of brown belts down and tell them to stop resisting the technique so much.

It was dangerous for two reasons.  First being, I'm going to get the technique anyway, so they were going to get hurt.  They weren't resisting correctly.  The second reason was because the training lost it's "aliveness".  No one grabs you and sits there trying to keep you from moving and NOT doing anything else.  I told them it is more effective to provide resistance by having a goal with the grab.  For example, instead of grabbing the defenders wrist and sitting there and pretending to be a statue, you have to ask "why would I be grabbing like this".  I general rule I apply to that questioon is "Probably to hurt them in some way" which means movement towards a punch or towards an environmental object.

I left them with two rules:
1) Protect your joints and don't resist the "technique" by predicting it (for SD training scenarios... Obviously, sport would be different.
2) Resist the technique by thinking like an attacker would commit as an attack would commit.


----------



## DRay (Feb 24, 2008)

I agree with the above post.  Realistic resistance is the proper type of resistance.  In my school the headmaster teaches Tang Soo Do and Hapkido.  I practice Hapkido, but our training is similar, just with different techniques.
When I practice 1-step sparring exercises with TSD guys I act like I don't know their sequence and just perform my sequence like that's how I would be trying to assault them.  Likewise, when I am practicing escapes, the TSD guys act like they are trying to control me, not like they are trying to resist the exact escape that I am trying to do.
Resisting in an unrealistic manner to the moves being practiced is how people get hurt during training.


----------



## Errant108 (Feb 24, 2008)

Resistance vs. non-resistance is a completely false dichotomy that ignores the actual cause of the problem, being stuck in a mentality of "if my opponent does this, i do that".  The issue is not resistance, but aliveness.  When someone who advocates aliveness training says "resistance" they don't mean trying to muscle against a technique that you're applying.



MBuzzy said:


> I post this in this area, because as far as I know, most TSD/SBD has some type of self defense.



This is another false dichotomy which arises from a poorly constructed curriculum.  Saying "this is our sparring", "this is our forms", "this is our self-defense" means your training is segmented, which means you only have a partial view of what you're practicing, like the blind men, you never actually see the elephant for what it is.



MBuzzy said:


> BJJ for example, it is widely believed that if you are training with no resistance, you are not training.



Not correct.  To learn a given manuever, you have to begin with no resistance.  The difference between BJJ and arts like Subakdo or Dangsudo is that in BJJ you are able to quickly progress from learning the gross manuever to developing the ability to apply that technique in an alive environment.  This is done by avoiding situational training, but rather training techniques that can be applied outside a mindset of "if/then".



MBuzzy said:


> What I'm referring to is your Self Defense training.



If all of your Subakdo training isn't self-defense, then what is it?


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Resistance vs. non-resistance is a completely false dichotomy that ignores the actual cause of the problem, being stuck in a mentality of "if my opponent does this, i do that". The issue is not resistance, but aliveness. When someone who advocates aliveness training says "resistance" they don't mean trying to muscle against a technique that you're applying.


 
This may not be a good dichotomy, but it is one that exists in varying levels no matter where you go.  I have limited experience, but the places that I've been it has usually been somewhere on this scale.  I've never really trained somewhere that advocates the "aliveness" approach that a few people have mentioned.  Personally, I think that this is due to overly emphasizing standardized curriculum and getting the motions right than actual effectiveness.  Unfortunately, in most major organizations, they are much more interested in the curriculum than the effectiveness.



Errant108 said:


> This is another false dichotomy which arises from a poorly constructed curriculum. Saying "this is our sparring", "this is our forms", "this is our self-defense" means your training is segmented, which means you only have a partial view of what you're practicing, like the blind men, you never actually see the elephant for what it is.


 
I can't say that I disagree with you, but I can say that your view is a bit detached from the reality of most large organizations.  The testing in at least the 3 TSD/SBD schools that I have been at teaches these things are three VERY separate entities.  Not saying that this is right or wrong, though I tend to disagree, this is still just how it is.  You have to either find someone who is able and willing to step OUTSIDE of the standardizes curriculum or be advanced enough to think of things on your own.  At least in the federations that I have experience with, they are separate and they don't teach or talk about combining them....heck, most really dont' even talk about the deeper applications of forms, let alone real world applications of their other curriculum.



Errant108 said:


> Not correct. To learn a given manuever, you have to begin with no resistance. The difference between BJJ and arts like Subakdo or Dangsudo is that in BJJ you are able to quickly progress from learning the gross manuever to developing the ability to apply that technique in an alive environment. This is done by avoiding situational training, but rather training techniques that can be applied outside a mindset of "if/then".


 
Again, another case of the standardized curriculum conundrum.  Anyone who advocates a standardized curriculum (i.e. 20 ill soo sik, 20 ho sin sul, etc) is focusing on just that...an if/then instructional style.  You're not learning to adapt yourself to a live situation where anything is possible.  how many fights actually have the attacker only throwing one technique then stopping and waiting.  Not to say that these thigns have no purpose, they do begin to teach building blocks, but without LIVE training, you'll never learn to properly apply what you've learned.

I use the BJJ example mainly because those are the people that I most often hear saying "if you train without resistance, you are [insert insult here]."  But how many traditional martial arts schools and organizations DO train with no resistance?  

Again, I think that the RIGHT way to do it is what you described, start with none to learn the movement, then increase to more resistance and eventually move along to the attacker reacting as a real attacker.



Errant108 said:


> If all of your Subakdo training isn't self-defense, then what is it?


 
Very good point - agreed....although more emphasis should be placed on the teaching of that concept.


----------



## MBuzzy (Feb 24, 2008)

Errant108 said:


> Resistance vs. non-resistance is a completely false dichotomy that ignores the actual cause of the problem, ...
> 
> This is another false dichotomy which arises from a poorly constructed curriculum.


 
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by a "false dichotomy??"  Are these not two mutually exclusive, but opposing ends of a spectrum?  I mean, you either resist, do not resist or something in between.  I suppose you can say that it isn't a pure dichotomy because it is more of a sliding scale.  You can have SOME resistance or a lot, but not complete, but I don't think that the question was presented like that.


And I should clarify, when I say "self defense," I'm referring to pure ho sin sul as is taught in most TSD and SBD schools.  The set of step by step self defense techniques.


----------



## JWLuiza (Feb 24, 2008)

MBuzzy said:


> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by a "false dichotomy??" Are these not two mutually exclusive, but opposing ends of a spectrum? I mean, you either resist, do not resist or something in between. I suppose you can say that it isn't a pure dichotomy because it is more of a sliding scale. You can have SOME resistance or a lot, but not complete, but I don't think that the question was presented like that.
> 
> 
> And I should clarify, when I say "self defense," I'm referring to pure ho sin sul as is taught in most TSD and SBD schools. The set of step by step self defense techniques.


 
MBuzzy,

Very good responses.  I think JB was trying to get at the point of varying along the continuum.  Sometimes training at one end, other times in the middle, and even other times switching between them dynamically during a drill.  The level of aliveness or resistence SHOULD BE another tool to impart technique.

Just like I was telling the black belt candidates, if you think "what technique should I use" when you are being grabbed... you'll fail.  But if you think "oooh what cool stuff can  I do, given this situation and my knowledge of martial principles" you'll be able to weather many situations.  So in my teaching, I'm constantly switching between teaching concepts, techniques, and martial thought processes.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 24, 2008)

This is a very touchy subject because a lot of dojangs need to insure themselves, so the curriculum tends to shape itself around the litigation.  With "resistance" or as Errant108 correctly put it, "aliveness" comes an element of chance and risk.  You can do your best to mitigate this, but it still will always exist.  

The bottom line is that you NEED an element of aliveness in your training in order for your training to be effective.  

To put this plainly, tori needs to be put in a position where he/she does not know what uke is going to do.  Part of your training must include drills that take this into account and then perhaps even introduce a sportive element that brings some skills to another level.  

I say "some" skills because some things really are too dangerous to practice.  This is a teacher's call however.  You can take whatever risks you want.  I know what lines I will not cross...


----------

