These "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern...

john kavanagh

i'll make the small request at the beginning of this thread that no one mention the terms MMA, TMA, individual Styles/Arts as these terms have far too many meanings to be useful. lets see who'll break the rule!!:D lets keep it friendly and have a genuine discussion about TRAINING METHODS ONLY:)

"These "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" is the 'perfection' of movement and application of power"

so will "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" get you "perfection of movement" - a skill that can be used in a fight or is there better training methods?

and will "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" help with the "application of power" and what does that even mean?

thanks

dlofnep

My two cents on this.

In boxing, you'll hit a heavy bag for x amount of time.. It helps your muscles deal getting used to hitting a solid object and generally puts more power in your punch.

This however doesn't mean you'll have the footwork to step in a boxing ring and throw down.. Sure you might land one or two heavy shots but you're not really going to get anywhere.

I think hitting a bag can be construed as "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent".. Would it not? And then working on your footwork and integrating them both in the ring against a sparring partner will give you the end result or true feel for the art/sport/whatever. I think however that alot of gyms do first but skip the important part of integrating it against a person. I'm not going to use these cliche words, but just against a person who thinks and acts uniquely just like anyone else.

vasch_ro

did you just break the rule ?

john kavanagh

dlofnep wrote:

In boxing...

lol, so we didn't even go past one post without mentioning "individual Styles/Arts"

dlofnep wrote:

I think however that alot of gyms do first but skip the important part of integrating it against a person.

i agree that this would be the sign of a school training with a 'non functional' training method.

personally i've never met anyone coming from a non-functional training background ("endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air") who could 'fight' with any degree of ability......the only ones who could fight either

A) were blessed or worked on attributes (very fit, strong, fast) - but imo this has nothing to do with martial arts skill development, but instead conditioning.

and/or

came from a strong background of (what i would define as) functional training methods (training with partners with ever-increasing resistance)

john kavanagh

haha beat me to it "vasch_ro"!!

Tim_Murphy

In fairness to John O B. I don't think that boxing has "far too many meanings to be useful" but I agree with the sentiment in general, this coming from someone who came from one three letter acronym to another without an huge amount of difficulty.

As for 'repetitions against the air', it has a place. When I'm teaching people the basics of striking that is what I do. I also have them do it against an unresisting opponent, usually focus mitts. This helps people develop the basic techniques, it of course does not help them develop the skills that go with the techniques, they need a good training partner for that.

As for 'perfection of movement', I'd say this can only be done against an active sparring partner, otherwise what meaning has the term?

columok

Well I think the thing to ask is what is the end result required from your training...

If the end result of your training is to be able to fight or "interact in a combat environment" with somebody who's fighting/interacting back then I dont think that this can be achieved statically. While some static training may be needed as Tim suggested in the Introductory stage of training a range, move or concept the static training MUST go live for the practitioner to develop the skills (Thanks Riley;) ) to pull it off against Paddy Mc Movesalot, your common street attacker or combat sport opponent.

I have great respect for people who perfect something static for the right reasons. I think a well excuted kata can be a very impressive display of co-ordination and synchronicity. I do not however think that in the long run static training develops skill. Skill is that thing that is trainable and while factored by athleticism can be developed to some degree by anyone. If skill development is what you want then dynamic sparring is the only way to go.

"These "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" is the 'perfection' of movement and application of power"

Thinking that feudal warriors used kata alone as a means of preparing for battle is ludicrous. Such people fought and sparred all the time else they would have been wiped off the battle field.

john kavanagh

Tim_Murphy wrote:

As for 'repetitions against the air', it has a place

agreed but thats not what was said - "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent"

as colum explains the introduction stage will have little to know resistance. but this stage should only last 5-8mins. any longer and the skill is probably too difficult for the person to do, try a simpler technique.

but then the isolation stage - ie that particular skill practiced against continually increasing resistance levels. its this 'isolation' stage thats usually absent in schools which have a non-functional based training method.

Tim_Murphy wrote:

it of course does not help them develop the skills that go with the techniques, they need a good training partner for that.

As for 'perfection of movement', I'd say this can only be done against an active sparring partner, otherwise what meaning has the term ?

you do cover this here!

kenpo_dave

I suppose what really ticks me off is the fact that people keep going on about how the stationary training is useless despite the fact that the styles that do stationary training, aswel as 'alive' training, were actually used in combat...Kung Fu, Okinawan Karate, Kenpo etc. I say Okinawan Karate because as far as I understand it when Karate went to Japan it was then that it was turned into a sport.

http://www.gojuryu.neu.edu/video/2003%20Paris%20Open.mov

Heres a nice example of Goju Ryu sparring. Its not full contact but is a great example of what 'real' point sparring looks like.:)

john kavanagh

kenpo_dave wrote:

I suppose what really ticks me off is the fact that people keep going on about how the stationary training is useless...

why would that 'tick you off'? instead try to form an argument as to why 'stationary' training is useful in training for self defence. like tim did above and no one disagrees....as long as the isolation (or whatever word you like to describe this part of training) stage then follows

try not to go into a history lesson with a load of styles/arts mentioned that have come to have so many different meanings they are useless words in this type of discussion. it'd be nice to have just ONE discussion where it doesn't become "but style X is better than style Y - and here's a load history, anecodotal evidence and hearsay to back up my point":rolleyes:

lets just discuss training methods

kenpo_dave wrote:

http://www.gojuryu.neu.edu/video/2003%20Paris%20Open.mov

Heres a nice example of Goju Ryu sparring. Its not full contact but is a great example of what 'real' point sparring looks like

do you think 'real' point sparring better prepares you for self defence than full contact? imo after having spent years doing points it comes no where close to preparing somebody for SD like the full contact paradigm.

columok

Heres a nice example of Goju Ryu sparring. Its not full contact but is a great example of what 'real' point sparring looks like.

Dave,
in my opinion...

Light Full Contact Minded Training >>>>>> Hard Tough Points Sparring.

IMHO no matter how tough, nasty and hard the points sparring is it must be grounded in reality and seeing points sparring like that reinforces my belief.

If its an issue of contact... then do ultra light striking in your 100% (or even less) resistance grappling. As in allow all kinds of grappling. Aim to stand up fight with light kicks punches knees to the face, body and legs. That's infinitely better fight training than doing a much more contrived and limited points sparring practice even if the points sparring incorporates much greater levels of contact and is perceived to be tougher.

I should place a caveat though... I'm talking about in this in terms of developing functional combat skill. I think points sparring is a great sport and its fantastic encouraging people to be fit, healthy and HAVE FUN! However, it's far from the best method of teaching realistic fighting skill.

Asides from its competition benefits (not everyone wants to do full contact which is supercool) I can't understand why a points sparring model could be considered to be an effective methodology of improving combat skills

I practice a quite popular martial art, involving a lot of throws, from Japan. It has been known for elite practioners of said art to do hundreds of reptitions, daily, of a single technique on non-resisting opponents. Obviously they train the techniques in other ways too. I think I could safely say that most who practice the art would be of the opinion that such repititions are necessary (if not sufficient) to perfect a given technique.

columok

I think I could safely say that most who practice the art would be of the opinion that such repititions are necessary (if not sufficient) to perfect a given technique.

What do YOU think? Its something I've seen many times and to be honest I've always thought it was a little unnecessary.

dlofnep

john kavanagh wrote:

lol, so we didn't even go past one post without mentioning "individual Styles/Arts"

Sorry, It was relevant to my explanation. Not to worry. Forget I said boxing, the idea is still applicable. All I wanted to get across was that sparring isn't the only form of progression.

I think that the form of teaching fails when the actual testing of yourself against a person is forgotten. If they work on technique, I've nothing to say against it so long as they further it against a person he's dynamic as a snowflake. I'm personally not a big fan of patterns however. Working on focus mitts like Tim mentioned is essential for working on functional combos but trying to remember a 30 step pattern time that could be spent on other areas. So where do we draw the line with repetitions against the air.. Would we include shadow boxing or are we talking about practicing high blocks in some anicent tibetan system designed for war?

Tbh, there are so many variables here, I think you'd have to actually be specific as to actually what you would construe in each area.

I think if you're trying to master a throw like uchi mata you're going to have to do thousands of repetitions. The amount of co-ordination of hand, leg, hip, foot movement & balance breaking means you're going to need to practice it an enormous amount of times. There are too many things to consciously think of when performing the throw, if you want to do it right. So by performing thousands of repetitions you can train your body to do them subconsciously. In terms of effiency you want to get as many repititions in per session as possible.

In my experience I've found that doing 40% of repetitions on a stationary opponent not completing the throw, 40% of repetitions on a moving opponent not completing the throw & 20% of repetitions completing the throw to be the best way to divide those repetitions.

dlofnep

Good example.

kenpo_dave

I know it shouldnt tick me off. And John you are right. I need to take a less emotional involvement in these debates.

"do you think 'real' point sparring better prepares you for self defence than full contact? imo after having spent years doing points it comes no where close to preparing somebody for SD like the full contact paradigm"

Actually I dont think sparring comes close at all to self defense. Yes people who do sparring can defend themselves, but Sparring type fighting only comes after the initial verbal exchange (which does involve pushing and shoving). Ed Parkers Kenpo however is about attacking with complete spontaneity during the verbal exchange when it is clear that a peacefull resolve cant be met...and that is my mentality with regard to fighting. Now, I know that alot of attacks on the street are spontaneous themselves, and for those twitchy reflexes are needed, plus ground fighting just in case

ninjawitatitude

Sorry John,
It was just too funny not to nick. Yoink. Anyway, I think it's a mix. I don't think these training methods are mutually exclusive. Practising against static opponents will improve your ability to apply, and practising against dynamic oppents will move you ever closer to perfection. So both definitely have their place. I don't like sending a fighter into battle with no weapons. By the same token however, I don't like sending a fighter into battle with a load of weapons that he doesn't know how to use. For me, I think learning the technique to a reasonable level of aptitude, followed by some heavy application thereof (against resisting oppponents) is the way to go. For me anyway, the rest of you do what you like, cause I ain't fighting your battles for you.
For my part, I practised many hours against compliant opponents, and had to deal with several fights. Which I did. Textbook too. I became a proper cocky bastard. So god sent a nutter with a bottle at me. I beat him, just. And I mean just. I escaped with my life. Shortly after that I joined a school that had plenty of sparring.
In my opinion, compliant opponents teach us the technique and it's variations. However sparring or fighting with resistant opponents teach us how to use them. I still practise movements for hours, by the way. And like headbutt, will sometimes practise just one move for an entire class. During this class, I will go from boredom to frustration to anger to indifference to crippling agony from the repetative strain injury. But next time I spar, that move is as natural as keeping your guard up.
For those who don't know me, I got in those fights as a bouncer. I'm not a thug. Anymore.

Earthhorse

I think the problem with singling out any training technique is that it can be somewhat reductionist. Will endless repitition of patterns against the air make you a better fighter? In isolation? It would be miraculous if it did. Similarly we might ask, "will lifting those weights or going for a run make you a better fighter". No, but they might make you stronger or fitter which can help.

Patterns and forms can have their place in a good training regime. But what is that place?

As others have already pointed out practising a technique against the air repeatedly can help perfect it. It's not enough on it's own but if you can't do the movement properly against thin air how likely is it to work against resistance? Of course, this resistance must be introduced at some stage (and, I would argue, sooner rather than later), probably in the form of a predictable but fully resisting opponent (by which I mean someone attacking with a predictable attack but doing so with force). Eventually, when the student has enough control, we remove the safety wheels of these methods and expose them to the dynamic environment of sparring, encouraging them to apply what they have learnt and not allow themselves to resort to scrapping.

So we can see that within a structured regime "shadow" practising has its place.

There are other benefits too, primarily in the ability to learn new techniques. As students progress, becoming fitter and more co-ordinated, so too does their ability to absorb forms and hence, numerous techniques at once. Now, you might ask, why not just teach the techniques? And you could, and indeed it wouldn't be the end of the world if you didn't, but I would argue that our memories value connection. It is easier to remember a set of moves that flow into and out of one another than it is to remember these moves in isolation.

To take an abstract example, if I were to ask you to memorise 10 sonnets you would probably find this easier than if I were to ask you memorise 140 random lines of iambic pentameter. In a poem one line begets another and it is the same for a decent pattern. One movement begets another, helping you to remember all of the new techniques you were shown that day and practise them at home.

Admittedly patterns, or rather an over focus on patterns, can have its drawbacks. Without the introduction of the dynamic sparring environment students are prone to practise patterns without purpose. They are going through the motions, waving their arms about precisely but aimlessly and without enthusiasm. Every time a pattern is performed it should be done with total focus and commitment.

As with everything, it is a question of balance. On its own the repitition of forms can seem like a ridiculous training technique. As part of a proper regime it can be seen as a useful tool for both learning and helping perfect large numbers of techniques.

john kavanagh

"In my experience I've found that doing 40% of repetitions on a stationary opponent not completing the throw, 40% of repetitions on a moving opponent not completing the throw & 20% of repetitions completing the throw to be the best way to divide those repetitions."

so 40% of your time in introduction stage and then the remaining 60% with ever increasing resistance (isolation stage) - sounds like a good mix!

"I think learning the technique to a reasonable level of aptitude, followed by some heavy application thereof (against resisting oppponents) is the way to go."

i couldn't agree more!

Tim_Murphy

agreed but thats not what was said - "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent"

True that.

Earthhorse (??),

Patterns and forms can have their place in a good training regime. But what is that place?
As others have already pointed out practising a technique against the air repeatedly can help perfect it.

I’m not sure what you mean exactly by patterns or forms but anyone’s I’ve seen generally involve fairly abstract techniques. Ones that won’t actually work without being modified. Hence perfecting the pattern version of a technique isn't very too beneficial in terms of learning a practical technique. A person would need to unlearn the pattern way of doing it before learning the way that works.

There are other benefits too, primarily in the ability to learn new techniques. As students progress, becoming fitter and more co-ordinated, so too does their ability to absorb forms and hence, numerous techniques at once. Now, you might ask, why not just teach the techniques? And you could, and indeed it wouldn't be the end of the world if you didn't, but I would argue that our memories value connection. It is easier to remember a set of moves that flow into and out of one another than it is to remember these moves in isolation.

This type of training IMO will make people better at memorizing, that’s all. If a person is more interested in practicality then this method of teaching techniques in counterproductive.

Earthhorse

By patterns or forms I mean a set of movements that are practised together (a practical example of this would be a kata). You are right that if the move in a pattern is abstract and needs to be modified then it is not really beneficial to practise it, indeed it could be counterproductive, but that's only if the pattern is abstract.

I think you are slightly missing my point with regards to patterns helping people learn techniques. What I am saying is that patterns, by their very nature, help people absorb large numbers of techniques quickly. You can then get on with the business of applying resistance to them.

columok

I think you are slightly missing my point with regards to patterns helping people learn techniques. What I am saying is that patterns, by their very nature, help people absorb large numbers of techniques quickly. You can then get on with the business of applying resistance to them.

I think you're missing Tim's point to be honest. With his sizeable knowledge of pattern related fun, Tim is saying that patterns are completely unrelated to those movements that should be sparred.

In my eyes the work taken in trying to return functionality to patterns is so much greater than the work taken to learn, for example, a good level of functional striking that it makes the yield from the former poor.

john kavanagh

'patterns' are by definition a repeating, predictable set of moves

'fighting' involves non-repeated, unpredictable dynamic movement

to train with any degree of effectiveness you have to spend most of your time in 'non-repeated, unpredictable dynamic movement'

'shadow boxing' is often cited as a 'pattern style' training method used by guys who certainly have functional ability in the stand-up range. however this is incorrect as good shadow boxing is 'non-repeated, unpredictable dynamic movement' ......and of course is only used as a warm-up before the real work starts.

Tim_Murphy

Shadow boxing is "repetition against a non-resisting opponent" but as John said, it's a completely different thing to pattern training.

I think you are slightly missing my point with regards to patterns helping people learn techniques. What I am saying is that patterns, by their very nature, help people absorb large numbers of techniques quickly. You can then get on with the business of applying resistance to them.

No, I get your point. What I am saying is that learning large numbers of techniques quickly (be they abstract pattern ones or effective ones) is not a good way of training. It does not serve a useful purpose.

With his sizeable knowledge of pattern related fun

pattern related fun, I like that phrase!:D

In my eyes the work taken in trying to return functionality to patterns is so much greater than the work taken to learn, for example, a good level of functional striking that it makes the yield from the former poor.

Exactly.

Earthhorse

Right, I have to say, if that was Tim's point it wasn't necessarily clear to me from his post but I can see what you're saying (sorry Tim, I was writing my reply before you posted yours, it's all clear now!).

columok, could I ask you why you believe there is such work involved in returning functionality to patterns? Has your experience, like Tim's, been that techniques displayed in patterns are not the real ones and require some or a lot of modification? Or is it that you think there is a lot of superfluous material in patterns? Blocks against attacks that are unlikely to happen, maybe. Or is it something else?

John, you have mentioned 5 minutes as a rough time by which, after initialy showing a technique people should beging to practise with resistance. At what stage in a pupil's training do you think they should be exposed to 'fighting'? If it's introduced too soon they seem to resort to no more than scrapping, that is, not using any technique at all.

Sorry, I might be dragging this debate off topic with these questions so if a mod wants to split this off or if people don't feel their answers would be relevant to the debate, that's cool!

Colm_OReilly

Ed Parkers Kenpo however is about attacking with complete spontaneity during the verbal exchange when it is clear that a peacefull resolve cant be met...and that is my mentality with regard to fighting.

That sort of preemptive attack wouldn't b elooke don too kindly by the law imo.

At what stage in a pupil's training do you think they should be exposed to 'fighting'? If it's introduced too soon they seem to resort to no more than scrapping, that is, not using any technique at all.

If done right, they can be fighting on their first day. Allow me to explain. All skill dependent sports are trained in this way: technique, skill developemnt, reintegration into the game, analysis of skill improvement, technique, ....

To use the analogy of soccer, which is another skill based activity (ignoring tactical factors here) and as such can be used in the context of discussing sport training. You learn a curved kick (basically a kick tha will curve the ball out then in, or spin it in a particular way). You then do some drills which get you working on doing this while the ball is rolling instead of stationary, then adding in an opponent or anothe environmental limiting factor. Then you play a game at the end of training.

Now as regards fights looking sloppy, fights are sloppy. All skill based sports, particularly contact sports, can look sloppy (think rugby here, a play hardly ever goes as perfectly planned, but they roll with it and adapt)

John used the example once with me of learning a martial art, and I think it fits pretty well. It's very similiar to learning a language. At first, if you immersed in a language you didn't know, you wouldn't understand a thing. After a while, you'd begin to get the flow of the language, then pick up and be able to understand a few words. At first, you'd only be able to blurt out a few words, and as time goes by, you would have enough words to be able to express yourself. After that, it's only a matter of time speaking that will determine how quickly you become fluent (all other factors being equal of course)

Colm

john kavanagh

Colm_OReilly wrote:

That sort of preemptive attack wouldn't b elooke don too kindly by the law imo.

as far as i'm aware you actually are allowed to attack pre-emptively if you have 'honest belief you were about to be attacked and felt you had no other option'. witnesses and what you say to the police would be the most important thing here.

Earthhorse

"John, you have mentioned 5 minutes as a rough time by which, after initialy showing a technique people should beging to practise with resistance. At what stage in a pupil's training do you think they should be exposed to 'fighting'? If it's introduced too soon they seem to resort to no more than scrapping, that is, not using any technique at all."

great question! here's my personal system - i run a 12 week intro course at my gym (24 1-hour classes covering basics in Stand-up, Clinch and Ground - i can email you a copy sbgireland@gmail.com if you like). to explain the terminology

I method

Intro - explained already
Isolation - explained already, isolating that particular skill (jab, mount escape, sprawl etc etc) with ever increasing resistance

now this is as far as we go for the first 24hrs of training

then when you go into the regular classes the 'intro' and 'isolation' stages can be reduced in time and 'integration' stage takes over.

integration - sparring a single of combination of ranges....at the intensity YOU are able for.

Arnagan

so will "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" get you "perfection of movement" - a skill that can be used in a fight or is there better training methods?

I dunno, is there anyone who'se done that, then been in an actual fight and done it another way then been in another fight that can make a fair assessment of both methods?

I can't, cause I've never trained by doing "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air", but I've been in a lot of altercations. And since 1993, I'd say 80-90% of the physical movements I used in around 70 or 80 different incidents were done exactly with the physical postures coached into me and my fellow players; on the mat, at football camp or the dojo. Now, thats not including all the locks and subdual techniques, bull rushes, tackles and hip throws, but just "taking the advantageous angles" and "were the head goes the body follows" stuff, even just how we had to run on a football field.
And the way Coaches Tush and Sommerville, Coach Corso and Sensei Shiro Oishi pounded into us to do that stuff, ya really didn't have a choice to take plays off, or ud not only sit the bench but ud b humiliated in front of ur peers or b made to run extra laps. Sensei Shiro could be a little more lenient (guess cause we paid him, and if we wanted we could just walk outta class if we felt like it) , but then every once in a while he'd remind u to b serious by giving ya nuggies and choking ya out with his armpit at the same time.
Was it useful?
Well . . .
Whadda u think?

and will "endless repetitions against a non-resisting opponent or repeating a pattern in the air" help with the "application of power" and what does that even mean?

For me, now, after all I've been through, I think I could manage up too but not exceeding mediocre form to a resisting opponent.
No lemmie refrase. I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that I could manage, any practical form I'm able too under normal circustances, while experiencing fight or flight.
And I would would do it with serious intent (meaning faster, quicker and harder), but it would b totally contingent on the need for said technique due to the defence of self or loved ones (I'd hafta b scared).
For example, I've seen people doing forms in kendo in front of me, and I've practiced the pretty basic, step foreward and lift foot up while lifting hands in air, then come down with hands while simultaneously landing with lifted foot; technique.
God forbid I have a stick in my hand and my life is genuinely threatened from multiple directions and I have no avenue of retreat to safety without endangering myself further, I'm 100% sure I'd at minimum b in the proper kendo stance and ready to poke/prick someone with the umbrella tip.
Now would I b good enough to fend off a Kendo practitioner as one of the dudes rushing me?
No way, but these days, who gets robbed by the local Kendo master?

Oh, and by the way, it may sound neet, or cool, that I know I could do this, but its not. What I've experienced that has brought me to this place where I know myself, and the ugliness I'm capable of, was not good and I'd never wish it on my enemies or their luved ones.
So no, dancing around and practicing "steps" ya mimic from a video tape is not a good way learn, and if u actually did and were able to apply any of it, ya didn't apply much and the trade off's kinda wack.

Mikel

This one time, at band camp.......

dlofnep

Go on Mike, don't stop there..

Pro. F

IMO: different learning schedules are needed for different ranges/techniques. in the striking range learning how to throw a good punch can be best done against the air, pads and the bag. learning how to land the punch needs to be done in sparring. However if you try to learn how to land the punch before you´ve learned how to throw the punch then precision of the technique is lost (too much focus on trying to land the punch and not be hit, not enough on how to land it well). In the grappling range, feel for what the opponent is doing is more important so resistance is introduced much earlier (learning how to throw(do) an arm bar needs resistance). also wrestling and grappling lend themselves to the earlier introduction of this resistance as they are less stress inducing then striking. if resistance is introduced too early (in any range) then the technique isn’t learned properly because reflex action (like flinching) tends to take over and override the precision of the technique. this happens when the stress of even low intensity sparring is introduced too early.

Colm_OReilly wrote:

Now as regards fights looking sloppy, fights are sloppy. All skill based sports, particularly contact sports, can look sloppy (think rugby here, a play hardly ever goes as perfectly planned, but they roll with it and adapt)

I disagree - you can tell the difference between a good technical striker and a sloppy striker. e.g. of sloppy technique include: chin held high, swinging straightish arms; being beaten to the punch; etc.

john kavanagh wrote:

'shadow boxing' is often cited as a 'pattern style' training method used by guys who certainly have functional ability in the stand-up range. however this is incorrect as good shadow boxing is 'non-repeated, unpredictable dynamic movement' ......and of course is only used as a warm-up before the real work starts.

shadow boxing is an integral part of training for the guys who we know have functional stand up and not just a good warm up, which it also is.

Colm_OReilly

I disagree - you can tell the difference between a good technical striker and a sloppy striker. e.g. of sloppy technique include: chin held high, swinging straightish arms; being beaten to the punch; etc.

My bad, meant to qualify this further. To someone who doesn't understand the sport, it can look very frantic and disorganised. Furthermore I meant it in the sense of that things don't go as perfectly as they do in a demonstration scenario/exactly as the protangonist predicted.

Colm

Niall Keane

Evening everyone,

A few practical benefits I found:

• Learning structure and the efficient generation of force, where the technique comes from, how to make the entire body alive throughout the generation of the technique and be capable of feeling. Thus generating awareness and therefore the potential for quicker change. I cannot listen while I am talking. Fair enough a techniques finer points can be eventually understood by fighting. If we keep running at the wall we’ll eventually find the door, but sometimes I find it beneficial to slow down and assess the situation?
• Learning how to blend one technique seamlessly into another - the transition, enough said.
• Possible combinations, in many forms techniques of the same root are placed close together, kind of if that doesn’t work try this, this wont help at the time but if something really has you stumped in fights, its like talking with the old boys and asking their advice, this can then be practiced when sparring and tested
• From time to time I have surprised myself by using a technique from a form in a san shou match, having never really trained that particular technique, I can only speculate that repeated movements have conditioned the muscle memory / nervous system to be able to do this under pressure
• (I digressing here from personal benefits to benefiting future generations.) I can’t think of a better way to pass on martial knowledge without losing techniques, there are techniques there that I would never use, but some of those techniques I find my students using. Every few years in my experience certain techniques are the standard, then someone comes along with something unusual and f***8 everyone up. The standard techs are abandoned and in time they return as fresh and unusual. I can demonstrate any technique from my forms, but I use only a few of them, but I wouldn’t feel good about abandoning potentially good future techniques for some one who moves/ thinks differently than me, that have been slaved over to acquire in the past, just because I wasn’t interested in them.

Forms should be alive, by that I mean personal, skills should be gained from them, but they are only part of the picture. Above is an honest response to John’s initial and interesting question. I honestly find them helpful, but I do not consider for a moment that they would suffice on their own. Forms are a method of solo practice, they should not eat into valuable class time so while I’m sitting on my arse at the interwebb thing, with no sparring partners around I could be figuring out how I f**** up and was thrown in that last session?

Niall

A little exert from a Chang Tin Hung interview: (might be relevant)


It is easy to talk about neutralizing by yielding force and drawing aside on paper, but not so easy to practise. They cannot be brought into play unless you have highly-sensitive reacting ability. If you really want to use these techniques as your mind wills, you must take a wide range of exercises with your sparring partner. Through the exercises, you will progress from being barely able to perform slow actions to dexterity, and then from dexterity to the point where you can apply the techniques at lightning speed. A long period of practical training is, of course, a necessity in this process. You also need careful lectures and patient guidance to learn the correct methods, which are just as important as, for a simile, a correct method in leading an ox. When you tie a rope to an ox's nose, he will obediently follow your order in spite of his heavy build. That is because you are aping the correct method. But if you do not know the correct method and tie the rope to the ox's leg, will the beast obey your orders? Thus even in leading an ox, you have to use the correct method. So what greater importance will correct methods be in conquering a trained and experienced opponent?