11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture
application ranges and best practices

What range do you tend to initially teach bunkai from? Do you start from close range, or does part of your process involve actually initiating close contact and moving into range first? With this question i'm addressing the stage where it is primarily compliant, simply learning to apply principles, not talking about any dynamic drilling yet...the "learning application" phase of Kata teaching, by Iain's model.

Generally speaking I have people first learn against some kind of distance-closing movement, round punch, straight punch, push or grab. More and more I am wondering whether it is a good default approach to have people step in. I notice that when people step in from a farther range there is a tendency for both parties to be more awkward on the way there, there is an extra artificiality to it. It's not the fashion on the long range oi-zuki or anything, just a step into range, the application itself of course is close range. Some techniques simpy don't lend themselves to beginning at distance at all. Typically I work things at three ranges where the opponent must step in to touch you, where he can touch you without stepping, and where you are already in contact or grappling, all kinds of attacks, no attacks etc. Lately we've also just being practicing them from push hands/kakie, which is what prompted my question.

I used to generally have people start with the "step in" range. There are some advantages to using the step in range, namely that people are learning to work against a non-static opponent form the beginning and having to adjust to someone imposing themselves structurally as they step in, but more and more I feel this is a somewhat awkward constraint and I'm just going to start doing it contextually.

What's your experience with this? Keep in mind, this is not so much about effectiveness of bunkai as it is trying to trim some of the fat of uneccessary stuff in the learning process.

Heath White
Heath White's picture

I don't have strong opinions about  ranges, but I do think that just good educational practice is you only ask students to solve one problem at a time.  If they have to learn to get their hands right, their feet right, their timing right, and the distance right all on  the first go, that will be too much.  So I would generally teach things in pieces:  do the hands solo, then the hands with footwork solo, then standing with a compliant partner,  then with a dynamic compliant partner, then add resistance.  The order could be different but the bit-by-bit approach is crucial.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

That's actually really handy, thanks Heath. Gonna try to keep in mind only teaching one thing at a time. Now that you mention that, that might be some of the issue here.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

I think “ranges” can be a useful set of labels to categorise various methods, but they have little bearing on application. I once heard Dennis Martin remark along the lines of, “Ranges matter for rockets and battleships, but they have little relevance to personal combat”. I also liked Mo Teauge’s comment that, “There are two ranges; in range and out of range”.For example, I can kick shins while in a clinch … so is that kicking range or grappling range? If I punch someone when on the floor, is that punching range or ground fighting range? It all blends together in application.

Zach Zinn wrote:
What range do you tend to initially teach bunkai from?

We have different types of drill, but distance wise it’s all the reach of a punch or closer. I think that’s the distance the kata addresses i.e. the distance associated with non-consensual criminal violence. I would worry that practicing at a longer distance could mess us expectations, timing, etc. We do practise things at a distance, but that’s more the consensual fighting stuff.

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
I think “ranges” can be a useful set of labels to categorise various methods, but they have little bearing on application ...

It's hard to communicate what I'm saying here, it's a fairly nuanced teaching question. I've never thought in terms of "kicking range" "punching range" etc., more what I'm talking about is an example like this:

Training applications from 1) a static grab or 2) a grab where someone steps in. 3) a grab where someone is near enough to reach you but you react immediately rather than reacting after they've grabbed you.

I was trained primarily with #2 and #3 as a goal, and I think there is value there, because you are learning to react with impetus from the get-go, with the assumption that you must move more efficiently than the other person, and with "twitch" or flinch reaction, rather than with anayltical frontal lobe thinking leaking into martial movement, which tends to result in "pieces" rather than wholes. of course like anything you must start slowly and build up speed.

What I am wondering is if I haven't given #1 above a fair shake, and if it should be the default first part of the learning process, at least in some cases. To use Heath's terms, maybe I am trying to teach more than one thing at a time, and that is what really prompted the question.

Again, it's a pretty abstract question that tests the limits of my langauge to describe it really, hope this makes sense.

Chris R
Chris R's picture

My opinion is similar to Heath's. Let's say someone was learning a counter to a grab - I think a static grab at close range is the easiest place to start. Doing the grab with someone stepping in adds another dimension to the learning process, as the learner now has to think about distancing and timing as well as the technique they're trying to learn. Other stuff like trying to react to stop them before they grab you is more dynamic, and to me also is not suitable as a first step in the learning process.

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Chris R wrote:
My opinion is similar to Heath's. Let's say someone was learning a counter to a grab - I think a static grab at close range is the easiest place to start. Doing the grab with someone stepping in adds another dimension to the learning process, as the learner now has to think about distancing and timing as well as the technique they're trying to learn. Other stuff like trying to react to stop them before they grab you is more dynamic, and to me also is not suitable as a first step in the learning process.

I think you may be right. My class has been dedicated practitioners for a number of years now, and I think my ability to break things down in a manner appropriate to beginners has atrophied somewhat.

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Thanks for clarifying. I think I now understand what you mean

Zach Zinn wrote:
Training applications from 1) a static grab or 2) a grab where someone steps in. 3) a grab where someone is near enough to reach you but you react immediately rather than reacting after they've grabbed you ...

… I was trained primarily with #2 and #3 as a goal …

… What I am wondering is if I haven't given #1 above a fair shake, and if it should be the default first part of the learning process, at least in some cases.

I think static practise has its place. I make a broad distinction between two kinds of drills:

A) Skill and Attribute Development Drills.

B) Application and Scenario Drills.

I find it can be valuable in the initial stages to drill a method out of context so the student can learn a specific motion in isolation (sometimes only for a few minutes). That kind of training is NOT realistic, but it can still be useful (it’s Type A not Type B). If we jump to Type B the student has lots of other factors to consider and it’s therefore not ideal if we wish to emphasise one given element. However, such drills do not reflect how the method would be applied in reality, so we do also need to include Type B.

While new methods are often introduced with Type A drills, they are not just for beginners. The two kinds of drill inform each other such that we can isolate, refine and then reintegrate with realism. If the realistic drills (Type B) highlight any shortfall, then we can isolate the problem area via Type A drills before going back to Type B.

Does that make any sense?

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Thanks Iain, yes, it does make sense. I think I've learned from this conversation that I do not spend enough time on the initial static phase of techniques in class, which is very valuable to know!

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Zach,

Zach Zinn wrote:
I think I've learned from this conversation that I do not spend enough time on the initial static phase of techniques in class …

It would be interesting to explore who much time people feel that is? The obvious answer is “enough time” and I think we’d all accept that will vary with method and student.  However, suggestion would be that it’s often not a clear demarcation nor a linear progression.

We can show a method static; so the student gets the idea. Minutes later we start to add in variables and a sufficient degree of resistance. If the student does fine, then we can add in more variables and increase the resistance further. However, if there is a technical problem, we can isolate the problem with static training and then return to a livelier form of practise.

Even when the student has the method down to a good degree of efficiency, there is still value in isolating given components to facilitate yet further refinement. So, while we are most often start with something static, we may not be there for very long (minutes) and we will also return to it throughout training. This would make it less of a “phase of training” and more of an “aspect of training”? Thoughts?

All the best,

Iain

Zach Zinn
Zach Zinn's picture

Iain Abernethy wrote:
It would be interesting to explore who much time people feel that is? The obvious answer is “enough time” and I think we’d all accept that will vary with method and student.  However, suggestion would be that it’s often not a clear demarcation nor a linear progression.

We can show a method static; so the student gets the idea. Minutes later we start to add in variables and a sufficient degree of resistance. If the student does fine, then we can add in more variables and increase the resistance further. However, if there is a technical problem, we can isolate the problem with static training and then return to a livelier form of practise.

Even without talking resistance, simply looking at how prescribed techniques are practiced it seems there is a spectrum of approaches. Though I guess it depends on what we are calling "resistance". To me someone moving faster or adjusting range is not neccessarily resistance as everything is still pre arranged. Let's take the example of a push. For the "static practice" bit you might have a slow "walk in" push, but for more dynamic practice you might have someone in range actively pushing at you, there is a chance of failure, even if you know exactly what's happening. I guess this is the place where we should return to static practice - when there is some kind of unacceptable failure level with the dynamic technique. It seems obvious talking about it now, but I guess I've been neglecting it.

Iain Abernethy wrote:
Even when the student has the method down to a good degree of efficiency, there is still value in isolating given components to facilitate yet further refinement. So, while we are most often start with something static, we may not be there for very long (minutes) and we will also return to it throughout training. This would make it less of a “phase of training” and more of an “aspect of training”? Thoughts?

Yeah, one of the things I learned in my years in Jujutsu was the value of really breaking things down like this and isolating specific components when something is not working. The Jujutsu people I learned from were particularly good at this. This kind of approach in particular improved things like joint locks and throws immeasurably for me as a student. I think that working with mostly "advanced" Karate students has made me forget how important this approach is at times.