‘aliveness’ in martial arts training

[Explorer]

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]

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]

We avoid injury by tapping.

Good, OK ... I see where you're going. We use tapping too and it's a good device. I'm beginning to see where our views are coming together ... this is a good thing.

In most of the assaults I've encountered, my opponent began with verbal (duh), then tried to grab me with his weak hand in order to punch me with his strong hand.

In a minority of cases the attacker tried a sucker punch (and, I'm embarrassed to say, in some of those cases I had dropped my situational awareness).

Very, very rarely have I been faced with a stand up ... kick boxing sort of thing. And it's pretty easy to tire those guys out then knock 'em over.

How about some suggestions for the first two areas?

 

[Andrew Green]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[MardiGras Bandit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?