The issue(s) I have with Matt Thornton's "aliveness" mantra aren't actually with the "aliveness" concept itself, but more with Matt's approach to such things.
First off is his idea that kata training (or pre-set drill training) is not valid in terms of developing applicable skills (for the record, in terms of "kata training", I'm using a Japanese model of paired kata, which some systems look at as paired techniques, or paired drills, rather than the solo training devices), as they provide no chaos, realism, or resistance on the part of the attacking partner, and this is based on very little experience or understanding of such training methods. If done properly, kata training as detailed here is very stressful and highly adrenalised, and should feel as close to a real altercation as possible, with the pre-determined aspects primarily as both a teaching aid in order to ensure that the teachings of the system are being instilled, as well as a safety measure. Resistance is actually built into these methods, as well as a great sense of chaos, as ideally the defending partner, although they have a prescribed method of responce, isn't given anywhere near enough time to remember what to do... so knowing what's coming can really get taken out of the equation there. In fact, if the three elements that are listed (in the article linked on the first page, and quoted by K-Man there) of "alive" training (movement/footwork, timing, and energy) are present in all kata training as well (or really should be!).
Again, from the article:
Why do you place so much emphasis on this point as opposed to others?
Aliveness is everything. If a person grasps the principle and truly understands what is mean by it. . then they can never be bullsh*tted again . That's why I emphasize it so much. I am also constantly being asked... what's better... this or that. . this style or that style....why don't you do this drill anymore...why do you say this doesn't work... The answer to all those questions is Aliveness........so once they grasp what that means then about one thousand and one of their questions are answered for them. It's everything.
This is written in the same article as this statement:
Just as thousands of people have been deceived by fraudulent Martial Arts, only to find out later that what they where being taught might in reality get them hurt. Especially if they believed it worked! (Witness the first few UFC's for an example).
The thing here is context, as the context of the first few UFC's (and all similar, really) are not representative of reality.... so the author (presumably Matt) is just putting his own BS out there, despite "grasping the principle" of aliveness. And that brings me to the next point.
The big thing here is centred around "application", and Steve has spent a fair amount of time going through that concept. And I agree that training should be geared up for the intended application of the skills. Unfortunately, however, for that you need to truly understand the application that you are aiming for, and Matt seems to go in two directions at once there (again, as indicated by K-Man). Matt talks a fair amount about self defence, however his entire training methodology of aliveness is geared around non-self defence application. Now, the principles and ideas he is putting forth can (and again, should) be applied to self defence-geared training, but not in the way that he's putting it forth here. Add to that the intended application for martial arts training is not always the same as the intention that Matt is putting forth either.
I'll give an example.
While we do employ free-form training (not sparring, though), it is part of a structured approach, beginning with training the physical mechanics themselves, then moving through the range of possibilities, and finally employing them in a chaotic, unstructured way (against free form, full speed attacks, for example). Until the students have gotten some degree of skill with the mechanical approach, I won't have them do any free-form with it, or I will only give them a limited form. The reason is that I am teaching them a martial art, not random skills, and if I just throw them into free-form training without giving them the requisite skills first, they may very easily "win", or "lose", but neither will be a good result. If they "win", then it reinforces habits and movements that are not what I am teaching (the attributes they came in with in the first place), so if all they want to do is "be able to fight", what's the point of learning a martial art, if "alive sparring" can negate it? If they "lose", then it can reinforce that the art they're learning (what little they may have been shown, or simply the fact that because it's occured in the martial art class) doesn't work, neither of which are good results.
Realistically, if someone wants to learn a martial art, then what they should be doing is trying to instill the art, and generally speaking, the art itself will have it's own preferred way of achieving that. And it will typically involve many, if not all, of the attributes refered to as "aliveness training", but in a very different way (perhaps not a way that Matt would recognise or refer to as "alive", though).
Now, if the application that is sought is a combative sport, such as the UFC, sport karate or TKD, Judo, BJJ etc, then the training method that Matt is suggesting is invaluable. But, as with everything, it needs to be relevant to the application and context itself, and that is really where Matt's ideas fall down completely. He looks at singular contexts, rather than having an understanding of the greater range of methods and approaches. I applaud his efforts and mindset, but really it's very limited here.
Oh, and Steve, while I like the golf analogy, I feel it's flawed in a couple of major ways, mainly that golf is a game played solo, and not under the stress and adrenaline of combative encounters, which makes the analogy inaccurate on a number of levels.
