Discussion On My Dojo List

[Tgace]

The only thing I can add is I think you may (could be wrong) believe that Im saying this OODA stuff is something that students should be "thinking" when they enter combat. OODA is more of a tool to analyze tactics and develop techniques. This tactical stuff is more about "mindset" than it is about technique. Boyd just observed a trend in confrontations and applied it on a strategic level. Its like Musashis' statement that the "way" is the same for 10,000 a side battles as it is for one-on-one encounters (close enough). I fully agree that if a student is being told that he has to "think" OODA in a confrontation that hes being misled.

Ill use NFDD's (flash bangs) again. You have a gunman holed up with hostages who "knows" the SWAT guys are going to come eventually. He thinks "When they come in, im shooting the first guy who comes throught that door." When the door opens and the bang comes in the guy goes "what the..." Before he can reOrient on the door the entry team is in and shooting. They broke into the BG's OODA by causing him to reorient. There isnt really a conscious decision to use OODA by the SWAT team, they just used the process to gain the advantage.

 

[Dale Seago]

I think we are more in agreement then disagreement. My point of contention is still on the word Decide -- as the word denotes conscious thought. I think it is closer to OOA or OA without the decide / orient.

I think this is the crux of the whole thing, and that we're more in agreement than not. If the "decide" part is occurring on a "pre-cognitive" level it can, perhaps, be said to effectively not exist.

Kuroda Tetsuzan teaches several classical bugei which are not associated with those of the Bujinkan. In an interview with Stanley Pranin in 1993, he said some things which both parallel things I've heard from Hatsumi sensei and which match my own experience in our arts:

. . .A teaching called zegoku itto no koto has been transmitted in Japanese swordsmanship from olden times. When confronting an opponent, one aims for a level where the movements of his mind and body control the opponent before he swings his sword. This is the highest level of swordsmanship. It seems to be a rather abstract spiritual teaching, but that's not at all the case. It is an "invisible" technique which consists of advanced technical movements and the workings of the spirit based on these movements. All martial arts training begins with learning how to perceive this invisible element.

It may be dangerous to talk or write about things which cannot be seen with the naked eye, but we cannot understand what the bushi [samurai warriors] of earlier eras have bequeathed to us unless we recognize the fact that an inner vision capable of perceiving these unseen things is the basis of the martial arts.

Since the vision of ordinary people is only partially developed, they can only see those things which are visible to the eye. For that reason, people are completely unable to see true things. However, there are also instances when people are able to easily accomplish things that could be considered impossible as a result of knowledge acquired through training. It sounds like a matter of religion if I talk about hearing things which cannot be heard or seeing things which cannot be seen, but please understand that I am referring simply to an individual's latent knowledge.

Pranin: How was it that you arrived at this way of thinking?

Kuroda Sensei: Previously, I had my doubts that this knowledge was directly related to the martial arts, or that the practice of martial arts kata would enable one to read people's minds. However, as it is expressed in the writings of my grandfather Yasuji, training in the martial arts is learning how to achieve unity of the sword and body, that is, of techniques and mind. If we ask how to achieve this unity, this answer is through the practice of kata. Everything which the traditional bushi attempted to transmit to future generations is contained in the kata. Through kata training, first of all, our eyes become opened.

At the present time I have a fourth-grader among my students. If I control his center line (seichusen), even he is able to clearly see my slightest mental movement and he immediately reacts by withdrawing slightly backward. He hasn't been trained to concentrate his consciousness on any kind of spiritual training to see invisible things. He has simply practiced jujutsu and kenjutsu kata together with us.

Naturally, the mental and physical development of this boy is still immature. However, he is learning kata with eyes that are capable of seeing. In his practice he is conscious of what to do in the kata and how to move which part of his body in order to develop effective technique. It doesn't matter that he is a child.

This is very different from learning a kata form as merely a refined, traditional movement or learning it exactly as one is taught. Therefore, during training at my dojo I begin teaching how to understand the kata and how one should understand each individual movement. We study why the kata have become what they are, why they must be done that way, what we are hoping to achieve by doing the kata, and what will result from practicing them. Isn't that what the samurai of old were seeking and what they devoted their lives to?

In my opinion, one of the goals of our approach to training is to become able to act spontaneously and effectively without conscious thought. One of the things -- again, in my opinion -- the 5th dan test is "about" is to determine whether the candidate has any hope of being able to do this.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the test, it actually is very simple (which is not the same thing as “easy”): The candidate kneels and "empties his/her mind", while Hatsumi sensei stands behind him or her with a sword. (As of April of last year, the test may now be given by 15th-dan shidoshi, but only in Hatsumi's presence in Japan.) When Sensei feels the moment is right, he literally projects a killing intention (sakki in Japanese) as he strikes. Passing the test consists simply of not being there at the instant the sword comes down. Any internal chatter, wondering whether you're feeling it yet, listening for movement, etc. tends to create a "filter" between you and the direct experience which will cause you to fail due to the time-lag created. The only way it can be done is to move, appropriately and without conscious thought, with the intention which precedes the strike by a millisecond or so. (And before you ask: No, he does not use a steel blade. He uses a shinai or split-bamboo training sword. But the “feeling” behind the blow is exactly the same, and things like concussions and separated shoulders have been known to occur. You do not want to get hit.)

This is the point where one becomes officially accredited as an instructor and can have his/her own dojo. From the standpoint of training progress, however, it means that one is now entering the "middle level" of training. The churyaku (mid-level) kata of Gyokko ryu, for example, are largely concerned with both empty-hand and armed surprise attacks from behind and depend on this faculty (though they're often taught as responses to a fleeting movement you've picked up in your peripheral vision).

In our approach, there also is no contest/engagement of wills, though we may present an appearance which is contrary to that (part of the kyojitsu Daniel alluded to).

 

[Tgace]

I think this is the crux of the whole thing, and that we're more in agreement than not. If the "decide" part is occurring on a "pre-cognitive" level it can, perhaps, be said to effectively not exist.

Im no expert on Boyd, but as far as his theory goes, I dont believe a "conscious" act of decision is a pre-requisite. I would believe Boyd would say that if you have (by any measureable standard) effectively "eliminated" your decision time than that is your method of breaking into your opponents loop. How many "decisions" do you make just driving to work? How many of them would you say were "conscious" i.e. "hmm this guy is going too slow, I should pass." you just seem to "do it".

In our approach, there also is no contest/engagement of wills, though we may present an appearance which is contrary to that (part of the kyojitsu Daniel alluded to).

I believe thats more of a philosophical difference than a physical one.

 

[Tgace]

More Info on the topic from a much better writer than I...

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html

Decide ? The Pipeline - The Third Quarter

Practical decision-making can easily divided into two basic paths. The subconscious mind which can process hundreds of variables simultaneously, in parallel and the conscious mind which works in serial or sequentially, handling seven plus minus two variables before disregarding or misinterpreting incoming data.

Any process that must be accomplished in a compressed time frame should be relegated to the powerful subconscious mind, through training.


"If you consciously try to thwart opponents, you are already late" - Miyamoto Musashi Japanese Philosopher/Warrior - 1645

Subconscious decisions are decisions arrived upon based on what we perceive, how we orient that perception and the time allowed to make the decision. If the threat is close and the time frame compressed we will automatically default to the sub-conscious pipeline. Whatever we brought to the situation, genetics, personality, training, assumptions, tools available, will pour out of us without conscious thought or effort.

 

[DWeidman]

Again, its not an issue of "decide to use OODA" .Either its a model for conflict or not.

Agreed - it isn't a real-time choice at engagement time -- specifically called out as an OODA decision (see the PS below).

I think you may be falling into the error of thought regarding OODA that Ive been seeing. OODA is a process, not a strategy or tactic. Its usefulness is in developing techniques and strategy... ...OODA as a tool is for the creation of effective tactics. Look at the arena of conflict you expect and using the model decide what techniques you can use to take advantage of the process.

And this is where I now have contention with your vantage.

You specifically call out a logical extension of viewing the OODA process. This is what I have an issue with.

By looking at "techniques and strategy" - you have to assume one of the forementioned OODA scenarios -- so which one is it? The low level instinctual OODA or the highly complex solve OODA?

Techniques (by nature) are designed to SPECIFICALLY target the weaknesses of the human machine (both physically and psychologically). OODA describes a mental / psychological weakness in how we respond to stimuli.

From your own writing in the other thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173831&postcount=5):

This is the OODA Loop. Whoever can move through this process faster, gains the advantage over his foes by disrupting their ability to respond in a timely or effective manner.

With this understanding, we can see that an aggressive operator who initiates the action after proper observation, orientation, and
decision will have an overwhelming advantage over a reactive individual. The basic reason is that the aggressive operator's cycle
is at the end or action phase, whereas his opponent's cycle is at the beginning or middle. The aggressive operator has already oriented himself to his opponent (sometimes simply recognizing that he is an enemy is enough), and decided on a course of action based on that orientation.

Would it be fair to say there is no "overwhelming" advantage without the "Conscious Decide" - if the entire OODA cycle in the reactive individual is milliseconds long - (unless the encounter only lasts milliseconds (like a sniper))? If you are working at an almost pre-cognitive level (yes - the brain is still sending signals - so yes, it is still "deciding") techniques designed to take advantage of the weakness described by OODA have NO advantage over other techniques... That means the logical extension (which you expounded on above) to Boyd's OODA theory has no foundation.

Does that make more sense?

-Daniel

PS. Whereas you are correct in the statement about "deciding to use OODA" - you miss the nuances that are used ALL the time - on purpose - by people. Feints are thrown to start and stop the OODA cycle - timing is used to catch people on the wrong beat (and at the wrong phase of OODA) - and attacks are thrown to specifically deceive the observation of the real intended targets. Boxers are EXCELLENT with OODA techniques - and they are SPECIFICALLY trying to capitalize on the weaknesses found in the OODA cycle. So in essence - people do "decide" to use OODA when they engage each other...

 

[Tgace]

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html
Read the above link...he describes it better than I can.

Recalibrating the Internal Clock

The first issue is our perception of time itself.

I often illustrate people?s perception of the time by walking to the back of the classroom and then back to the podium while elucidating some tactical point. While the class is still trying to digest the point, I then ask several students, how long did it take for me to walk to the back of the room and return to the podium? Typically I get a few turned faces, questioning looks and frowns. They are non-verbally asking me, what difference does it make how long that took?

The answers I do receive will typically range from 2 seconds to 10 seconds, a substantial variance. Some will argue that I did not give them any preparation to ready their internal stopwatch. But this misses the point. No one in a rapidly developing engagement is going to stop and remind you to calibrate your chronograph. The point is, using recall alone, the same event witnessed by trained observers is perceived to have taken place in different universes where physical reality moves at different speeds.

The other interesting thing to note is that I will never get an answer like 3.345 seconds.

Why is this so? True sometimes I get an answer of 3½ seconds, but that?s as fine a gradient ever expressed. Our everyday existence does not require a division of time any closer than seconds for most events, in terms of verbal articulation. But in the world of close quarter engagements, using only full seconds to measure time is like using a sledgehammer to fine cut a diamond.

Tremendous and significant changes can happen in one second. A proficient adversary can fire three rounds out of a semi-auto shotgun while passing by an open doorway, horizontally and vertically changing position in relation to you in under a second.

To further illustrate the calibration point in the classroom, I ask someone to stand up and I give this volunteer a ?red gun?, an inoperative hard plastic replica handgun. I tell them to put it in their waistband, and I do the same. I tell them that they are now part of a futuristic new game show that pits one man against the other in a six-foot gunfight. The participants face each other, winner to receive one million dollars. Both are wearing metallic braces on their wrist and ankles and are held in place by a strong magnetic field. Both will actually be using real, perfectly functioning firearms. When the green light is observed, you will be free to access your firearm and dispatch your opponent as required.

Now I throw a twist into the scenario. I tell the student, that he was smarter and more cunning than I and he offered ½ his winnings to the operator of the magnetic field, if he would release his magnets 1 second earlier than mine. The operator says no, because one second was too obvious and the producers would have him executed for this breach of the rules. So the negotiations continue.

How about .9 seconds? How about .8 seconds? How about .4 seconds? How about .2 seconds? The operator finally agrees to release my opponent?s magnets .125 seconds prior to mine. At this point in the discussion, I then ask the student, would you take this time advantage if given to you, even if you had to pay $100,000 for it? The answer is inevitably, in the affirmative! Any sane person would take any and all time given in a gunfight, no matter how small the increment.

We zoom back out. How important is time? How important is learning to perceive time? How important is it to re-calibrate our internal chronographs? How does one get better and more efficient at anything?

 

[DWeidman]

http://radio.weblogs.com/0107127/stories/2003/02/08/oodaCycleByKenGouldDirectorSurefireInstitute.html
Read the above link...he describes it better than I can.

[/size][/font]

I did.

Ken walks through the differences between Subconscious and Conscious thought.

Any process that must be accomplished in a compressed time frame should be relegated to the powerful subconscious mind, through training.

This is what I am talking about. The extension of OODA to evaluate and create "technique and strateg[ies]" is where I am disagreeing. Are you still holding to the theory that OODA can be used to evaluate techniques and strategies - or that there is an "overwhelming advantage" to the one who enters the cycle first?

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

Well, I would say both have their place. When developing a tactical plan in a SWAT situation we use diversionary devices and entry plans to take advantage of the OODA process. We develop officer safety tactics to take advantage of OODA principles. Or like in Ken's article, develop firearms techniques that dont block out the field of view......When actually in the fight we (through better training, intel., equipment and experience) hopefully out cycle the opponent. However I cant remember a single time I consciously thought "what should I do next to get inside this guys loop." Once the door was down. Techniques take advantage of the process. OODA isnt a "technique". That, obviously poorly stated, is my point. The time to "consciously use" OODA is for developing tactics. When actually fighting, OODA is "automatic".

Even that isnt "exactly" what Im trying to say, but close....

 

[msneen]

This is what I am talking about. The extension of OODA to evaluate and create "technique and strateg[ies]" is where I am disagreeing. Are you still holding to the theory that OODA can be used to evaluate techniques and strategies - or that there is an "overwhelming advantage" to the one who enters the cycle first?

Hey Daniel, thanks for inviting me. Awesome thread!

Perhaps I misunderstand. Why couldn't you use OODA to evaluate and create techniques and strategies? If you evaluated a technique or series, and each move or part of the move put you further behind in your ability to cycle through OODA, it seems like some other factor(s) would have to be extremely good in order for that move or series to still be evaluated as good or workable.

Too funny because the Ken Good was the one who introduced me to the OODA cycle when I worked for him at Combative Concepts. It seems like you guys are studying the same thing I have been, which is the difference between how the conscious and unconscious mind move through OODA, and how to efficiently keep them synced.

I tried to have a conversation with Ken about it on his forum awhile back, but I don't think we connected. His mind naturally works so efficiently under compressed time frames that he may have trouble imagining what it is like for some of the rest of us ( Have I mentioned I'm Polish? ).

I quit training for a few years in the late 90's, and spent the time working as a programmer. When I started training again, I found out I was 60 lbs overweight... but I digress. I initially had trouble with compressed time frames because my conscious mind was used to being in control all the time. I started researching it and found that motorcycle and car drivers in racing, and pilots often have the same problem.

Here is my 2 cents on OODA based on my reseach, and experience experimenting on myself and a few foolhardy friends.

The conscious and unconscious both run through OODA for every decision/action, but they do it differently, and Simultaneously.

The Observe phase is roughly the same.

Starting in the Orientation phase, they seem to deviate.
The conscious mind analyzes the situation while the unconscious tries to match it with previous observation of similar patterns. If it can't, it hands it up with a panicked "sorry!".

As they go into the "Decide" phase, the conscious mind uses memory, logic, and trial and error testing, often working through numerous bad solutions before finding a workable one.

The subconscious mind seems to works a bit differently. It seems to work on a template based system. During training, or even offline visualization, the conscious mind processes training material and decides which skills to learn and how to perform them. Through repetition, the conscious mind loads these skills into "templates".

The decide stage for the subconscious mind is simply picking which template(s) to use. The subconscious mind is much faster and can take environmental input from the five senses and match it directly with its library of templates.

This process is extremely efficient and requires no effort compared to conscious processing. When the unconscious mind processes input that it can't match to a template, it calls for help from the conscious mind. Done efficiently, the conscious mind would jump in and solve the problem, then turn control back over to the subconscious mind.

Then, either way, an Action is taken and the whole thing starts over.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

 

[msneen]

Originally Posted by Tgace
...

With this understanding, we can see that an aggressive operator who initiates the action after proper observation, orientation, and
decision will have an overwhelming advantage over a reactive individual. The basic reason is that the aggressive operator's cycle
is at the end or action phase, whereas his opponent's cycle is at the beginning or middle. The aggressive operator has already oriented himself to his opponent (sometimes simply recognizing that he is an enemy is enough), and decided on a course of action based on that orientation.

Would you object if I suggested that the aggressive operator only gains an advantage in this scenario if the distance and/or speed of attack are so close or fast that the reactive individual does not have time to cycle through OODA? Many speed based firearm disarms effectively take advantage of this scenario, when the weapon is within easy reach, but as distance increases, it leaves too much time for the reactive individual to cycle through OODA and shoot him. Obviously, when at that "grey area" of speed or distance, cycle time i.e. training time, matters a great deal.

Regards,

Mike Sneen
Nasza Rzecz - Polish Martial Art

 

[Tgace]

Sounds logical to me.....

 

[DWeidman]

Hey Daniel, thanks for inviting me. Awesome thread!

Perhaps I misunderstand. Why couldn't you use OODA to evaluate and create techniques and strategies? If you evaluated a technique or series, and each move or part of the move put you further behind in your ability to cycle through OODA, it seems like some other factor(s) would have to be extremely good in order for that move or series to still be evaluated as good or workable.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

Great question (and good post, BTW):

Since there is a significant variance in the subconscious OODA loop and the conscious (congnitive) OODA loop. The subconscious OODA loop negates any advantage that the "OODA-approved" techniques / strategies use. In other words - the OODA loop isn't a constant - it is a variable that depends on a number of factors (experience (or number of templates) at the opponents disposal being one, for example).

To use the Tgace's example from earlier - the flashbang before entry. What if the BG had on ear protection and sunglasses - effectively negating the effects of the flashbang. Instead of catching the BG in a "what the hell ???" OODA loop - he calmly watches the flashbang thrown into the room - closes his eye for a second while it goes off - then centers his two machine guns on the door and kills everyone who rushes through it.

In other words - evaluation of a strategy / technique has to have the opponents experience built into it.

A jab feint / left cross combo that works on "Untrained Joe" won't work on a professional boxer, for example. But a jab feint - left cross should be effective when viewed through the OODA process. The feint thrown at "Untrained Joe" captures his mind and body completely - and the cross is devastating. What do you think the results would be against Oscar De LaHoya (he has that template down pat)? The OODA cycle (done in the subconscious mind) has virtually no effect on Oscar.

Does that clear things up?

-Daniel

 

[DWeidman]

The conscious and unconscious both run through OODA for every decision/action, but they do it differently, and Simultaneously.

The Observe phase is roughly the same.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

Hm - in re-reading this i have another disagreement.

What is being observed depends on your experience. Whereas a newer person may concentrate on a set of features (or watch the eyes) - a more experienced person observes a completely different set of features (by chunking / templates).

Agreed - or?

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

None of this negates the OODA process, just causes a recycle and the necessity to re-enter the opponents process.

Thats the name of the game, sometimes the BG is wearing earplgs. You never "depend" on the flashbang to work 100%, its just another tool. When it works it works by disrupting the BG's OODA process. When it dosent work you use other tools. Thats why we enter an a specific way, to avoid the funnel. Thats why we may use multiple entry points...maybe the BG is a trained fighter. Sometimes the BG wins because he was faster in the loop. Dosent make the process "useless". It dosent mean OODA isnt taking place. Or using it as a planning tool is useless. Theres nothing wrong with, and everything to gain with understanding the "process" of the confronatation. We can pick away at variables all day.

At the base of it you have to percieve the threat (ill include orient with that broad statement), the brain (subconsciously or otherwise) selects an action and you do something. Unless Im missing something thats the "nuts and bolts" of it. And thats OODA.

Cops, soldiers etc. all do after action reviews (AAR's) to see what went right and what went wrong and work out better ways to deal with conflict. If they all said "well its all a crap shoot because we never know what the other guy has, knows or is prepared for." There would never be any advancements in the tactical craft. Heck..ambush is close to the ultimate OODA break-in, you have gone through the whole cycle before the other guy has even Observed you, unless the BG spots the ambush first in which case you better start shooting while you have any advantage. If he counter ambushes first the game goes on.......hope you remembered that flank security and Claymores.

 

[msneen]

Hm - in re-reading this i have another disagreement.

What is being observed depends on your experience. Whereas a newer person may concentrate on a set of features (or watch the eyes) - a more experienced person observes a completely different set of features (by chunking / templates).

Agreed - or?

-Daniel

Agreed - I was parring down what I was writing to try to make it less boring.

Even further, In my case, my conscious mind tends to have my eyes focus on specific things, whereas my unconscious tends to use unfocused peripheral vision more.

I think the action phase is different too, having to do with chunk theory. It seems to me that it is the unconscious that controls or "maintains" the "chunks" of learned skills, and the conscious that gets overloaded by trying to work with more than 7 +- 2 chunks at a time. The unconscious either matches a pattern or it doesn't. From what I can tell there is no overload other than the big "sorry![don't have a template for this one]"

And yes, I do see your point in the other post that OODA can be so relative that it is hard to use it as a factor to evaluate techniqe and strategy. I have to agree with you now but let me think about it, because it seems to me that almost every good technique or strategy I can think of(about 2 as I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet) attacks the other person's OODA cycle in some way.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

 

[msneen]

None of this negates the OODA process, just causes a recycle and the necessity to re-enter the opponents process.
...

It dosent mean OODA isnt taking place. Or using it as a planning tool is useless. Theres nothing wrong with, and everything to gain with understanding the "process" of the confronatation. We can pick away at variables all day.

I agree. As far as I can tell OODA is always happening in everyone any time they are moving.

Let me try this angle. OODA is always happening, so in using it to evaluate technique or strategy, part of the the evaluation should be:
Did you leave yourself in a bad position at the end of any cycle? In our "getting ahead in the cycle" example from previous posts, it would be good to be acting before he starts his cycle, as long as you leave yourself in good position.

Hmmm, Interesting. James Williams explained the "Gain" pattern to me a couple years ago, which in part explains the "fight" lifecycle. I think it might be Boyd's as well because James initially used a dogfighting scenario to explain it.

As you go through any type of fight, whether team gunfight or individual h2h, on every movement there is (preferably in your favor) some type of Gain is happening. This can be a strike or bullet actually hitting, or it can be a timing or positioning gain that won't really manifest itself for several moves.

Usually the gain is made or lost on each "beat", but I'm thinking that if you look down another level, it is made or lost in the OODA loops that are happening within each "beat".

Feel free to beat me up on that one because I just made it up and haven't thought it through.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

 

[Dale Seago]

Even further, In my case, my conscious mind tends to have my eyes focus on specific things, whereas my unconscious tends to use unfocused peripheral vision more.

I'd agree with that, and see it as an important key to that "working with the shape of the space" thing I referred to earlier. I explicitly and constantly hammer on the need to use peripheral rather than focused vision in close combat to my students. Peripheral vision picks up on movement more quickly and is also more "holistic" -- seems to be connected more with right brain hemisphere recognition of pattern, shape, context, spatial relationships. Besides, it's also good training for that inevitable time when your eyes start getting presbyopic and you don't see as distinctly close-up. :wink2:

I think the action phase is different too, having to do with chunk theory. It seems to me that it is the unconscious that controls or "maintains" the "chunks" of learned skills, and the conscious that gets overloaded by trying to work with more than 7 +- 2 chunks at a time. The unconscious either matches a pattern or it doesn't. From what I can tell there is no overload other than the big "sorry![don't have a template for this one]"

Looks to me like we're all on the same page on this one.

. . .it seems to me that almost every good technique or strategy I can think of (about 2 as I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet) attacks the other person's OODA cycle in some way.

I can't think of anything in our budo that is not designed to do so. Doing it at the "pre-engagement" level (as distinct from things you'd do to regain initiative) has been a major element of Hatsumi sensei's training themes for the past two years: It may appear to an untrained observer (and to your opponent himself) that he is initiating an attack, but he's really not. This appears to be the same thing Kuroda sensei was referring to in the Aikido Journal interview when he mentioned zegoku itto no koto: "When confronting an opponent, one aims for a level where the movements of his mind and body control the opponent before he swings his sword."

 

[msneen]

Doing it at the "pre-engagement" level (as distinct from things you'd do to regain initiative) has been a major element of Hatsumi sensei's training themes for the past two years: ...

The team tactics that I learned with the guys Combative Concepts work the same way. Many of the basic skills and techniques are how to win while in the fight, but most of the advanced stuff is about taking major "gain" before the engagement by subverting the opposition's OODA cycles.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

 

[msneen]

I talked to Daniel Weidman on the phone for almost 2 hours on Friday about this subject. Unfortunately, We got a little far out ahead of this thread, but I'll try to stay with the logical progression of the current discussion.

There is a difference between how conscious and unconscious OODA
cycles work in the mind.

In compressed time frames, pushing someone into a conscious OODA
cycle is awesome, and having someone push you into a conscious OODA
cycle sucks!

If you are using OODA cycles to evaluate techniques or strategies,
you should make sure that the timeframes are compressed enough that
your evaluation critera is unconscious OODA. If a relatively
untrained person tests a "move" against a few other untrained people,
and can easily get inside their conscious OODA cycles, he may be
really unpleasantly surprised to run up against someone who is
capable of unconscious OODA cycles against that move.

One of the things we both noticed is that advanced fighters perform multiple OODA loops per beat, which are used to refine their response as they observe variations in the attack. Relative beginners often perform 1 OODA loop per beat (or less), which results in a single action. Their OODA loops aren't yet fast enough to make the little adjustments midbeat.

Sorry if I'm boring any or all of you. I'm writing a chapter on this in my Team Tactics book, and I'm using you as a sounding board since you've had such a good discussion going on the subject.

Regards,

Mike Sneen

 

[Tgace]

Would it be propper to say that OODA is a different animal when looking at the close quarters, extremely rapid pace of a H2H fight when compared to say military operations, SWAT planning, and even air combat? Like my SWAT example, you can look at the use of equipment anf tactics as methods of entering the opponents OODA cycle. But thats a different application of the process from how say a boxer manipulates OODA with feints, combinations etc.

Similiar to how basic military tactics can be applied from the level of doctrine all the way down to individual soldier skills.