transitioning from attacks into drills.

Jr.:  Simply, I believe the answer to your question is partly 'trapping drills'---   I believe some structured trapping methods could help you out some. 

As with everything, however, I believe there is a difference between what I call 'technical' and 'tactical' training... the first method is about either learning to do, or improving, a target skill set.  The second domain, however, is about USING that target skill set. And, my belief is, you need drills that do both.

To clarify what I mean using the illustration you posted, by our definition this is "structured" and in the first domain... So what do i mean by that?  First off, not to criticize the drill, which I see as a very good one, in the least---  merely to place it in the context of how we specifically use terms.  i.e. Some people would say you are 'applying' the knife hand from the kata, which you are.  But to us, any drill where BOTH sides are *equally aware* of what is about to happen is a 'technical' drill--- one focused on IMPROVING a SPECIFIC technqiue or skill set (in this case, the shuto uke).    So, you CAN have 'applied' technical drills.

By contrast, in our school we also separate out 'tactical' drills, i.e. loosely, 'scenarios', but that term is somewhat fraught to it's own interpretation as well, which is why I am attempting to dsitinguish.   The recognizable characteristics of tactically oriented drills are twofold:  1) they are generally *unarranged*, at least to some (usually large) degree, i.e. they are sparring- ***LIKE***.  That would mean, for instance, that the 'attacker' is not simply giving you a *particular* punch or 'feed' (i.e. 'all straight feeds' as indicated in the video illustration)  And  2)  tactical drills have a desired 'outcome' for which there is no 'correct' technical answer.   So, If I say, 'get out the door' (tactical objective), it doesn't matter to me *which* techniques the student USES to achieve that outcome.  Nor, is frequently the 'attacker' or 'aggressor' side of the drill severely delimited either.  So, simple case I say to student 'a':   you, stop him from leaving the room.  And I say to student 'b':  you, get out the door.  That would be a tactical drill in our program.  They look a lot like 'just fighting' but there are (typically) underlying rules and an underlying purposes to them.

All that clarification now having been made, what I mean to suggest is that 'trapping drills' (ala Wing Chun, or whatever) might help you, but only if you take the structured techncial drills from whatever system and apply them in various tactical scenarios, such that 'techniques' (RESPONSE-specific drills) give way to tactics (OUTCOME-specific drills). 

The trouble with this from an isnrtuctional standpoint is--- if I set up the 'a-b' scenario described above, and b simply kicks 'a' in the groin and walks out of the room, well, great, he has achieved the pure tactical outcome of getting out the door safely.  But maybe as the instructor I am trying to PRIVELIGE certain skill sets (like trapping, but it could be punching or wrestling, or grip defenses, or throwing, whatever), INSIDE the outcome-oriented drill.  So, I need an intermediate exercise of some form, somwhere between a (pure) 'technical' and (pure) 'tactical' drill-- i.e. I need to 'rig' the scenarios (free action) so that they 'likely require' whatever skill set I am attempting to focus on. 

My point is, there are several different entire systems which adress the question of 'clearing the barrier' presented by his limbs, whether that is a (premptive) offensive strike, a counter-offensive response action, or a counter-the-counter type action (i.e. he is instead actually countering) you the way your question prefaced.  There are a million and one specific techniques that deal with the scenario you ask about, and all of them are situation specifc as you rporbably know.  In fact, I believe a great deal of HOW (or rather 'why'?) systems are uniquely separate, one from another, is frequently with regard to this question, in particular: i.e. how do they adress the question of 'entering' from long range (detached) striking distance to what we might call 'attached hitting' or 'clinch' range tactics? Which **specific** actions (along with their associated **specific** counters) they use to accomplish this are a great part of what separates individual organized systems: i.e. how do you get 'to him' and what do you do then?  If you parry and hit from angle X, it's called 'Wing Chun'.  If you parry and punch the kidney from angle Y, it's called 'boxing'. Etc.

 So, my point is only that structured trapping offers you a place to start.  But then, like any other SKILL, you will then ALSO need to add drills in which 'trapping' **as a skill** gets used.  And by 'used', I don't mean 'used in a way where the other guys knows in advance that he is about to be trapped'.  I just mean, BAM it happens, i.e. it 'comes out' in the drill when either one, or maybe even both sides were not planning on it.   That is how you start to take technique's and add in the so-called 'reality' of a 'real' (i.e. spontaneous and not-known in advance') opening cue and the 'real' timing that is required to capitalize on it.  Sometimes the target action 'comes out' because you have structured a good scenario which LIKELY requires trapping as an innate response.  But 5 out of 10 times you might not see any trapping in your drill.

Personally, I find various drills involving different levels of relatively 'free' hockey-fighting to be a good drill to accomplish the barrier negation outcome.  But be prepared in advance for something that looks a lot more like sparring than it does like trapping.

In reality, you could also structure such drills using so-called 'basic' karate.  I'm just suggesting that trapping is a place to look as it adds to a skill set that I belive was 'in' traditional karate but which is frequently neglected as such in present day training.  Accordingly, it can add-back a lot of dimension by recasting your  perspective.  

So ultimately, your drill looks something more like:  'okay, partner a, I want you to walk up, aggressively interview, and at some point ('random' is fun!), launch into a free, attached-grip punching attack'.  (meaning:  the 'attacker' role is freed SOMEWHAT i..e. they are freed to 'simply grip' whatever 'presents'-- and to punch-- at whatever opening, whatever angle.  But it's NOT sparring.  'A' cannot use kicks, headbutts, wrestling to any significant extent or the like, he just needs to feed a SKILL SET, instead of an isolated technique.

Then you say, 'OK, b, I want you to defend and counter attack'.    So 'b' is then freed  in terms of their response to deal with a *spontaneous* intersection of limbs which **MIGHT** occur in the drill.  Which is what all the trapping drills in the world are supposed to be teaching you in the first place-- how to recognize and deal with the insertion of a ***spontaneous*** barrier, either his or yours, whether that barrier is a 'flinch' or a deliberate 'block'.

Thinking about it just now, I guesss that is the simplest way to say it: if you ever want partner B to develop the SPONTANEOUS 'ability' to deal with punch or grip counters at random angles (i.e. 'trapping'), then the 'feed' which is used to teach that skill ALSO (eventually) needs to reach the 'skill set' level. Which in this case would mean 'close range randomized striking'. Because the only way B ever develops trapping OUTSIDE OF or 'beyond' structured feeds is if they are 'freed' to do so in response to an attack which has been equally liberated.  

And don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the structured drills, they're very important... what I'm saying is:  the STRUCTURED drills teach 'pathways' which **MIGHT BE** exploited in real fighting.  So, you teach the structure FIRST.  But then, to take it to the next level,  you set up scenarios that 'require' the structure.

Anyway, I hope that is in the direction of your question... 

Jr cook wrote:

How do I take this neat arms-crossed guard and fit it into a more chaotic scenario? This would also apply to a number of other drills that start in a similar crossed-arm posture as well. I have been training some drills that start from a similar position but they seem to be missing some elements. I don't buy easily into some of what I have seen so far. For example, the idea that my opponent will just 'give' me this arm without pulling back does not sit well. I'm not doubting the skills but I know that there is more to it.

This is a very important topic and a great area for discussion.

To my mind, the first thing is to ensure people are clear on the purpose of that kind of drill, and for them to understand that it is part of a much wider training methodology. During close-range conflict it is very common for arms to be flailing around and to get in the way of our strikes. We therefore need ways of controlling the arms to cut a pathway through for our strikes. We therefore isolate the motions that do that and get the students to drill them in isolation. In doing so, they can learn and refine the physical actions required. So these are not drills for dealing with a “given arm” they are drills for learning some motions to control an arm, regardless of what that arms is doing at the time. I wrote about this recently in this thread:

http://iainabernethy.co.uk/content/enpiwanshu-video-bunkai#comment-4749

Iain Abernethy wrote:

When I teach our set bunkai drills we often being with a static arm that is then controlled so the following technique can be effectively executed. I’m not for one second saying the kata is all ways of getting past static arms though; it’s just a convenient place to start from while people learn the basics of the method. So to start with it is “just an arm”. When the student has grasped that (and it does not take long), the “arm” can become a flinch, a push, an attempted strike, the knocking away of an eye-gouge, a proactive control, just about anything really. All that matters is that you get control of the arm from wherever you happen to be and then manipulate it to open up the kata method.

Drills that isolate a given method need to be part of training so motions are improved and can hence be applied in a skilled way. Essentially these drills teach the “what to do”. What they don’t teach is the “when”. You need further drills for that.

Such drills are really simple to construct. Anything that has people working against one another at close-range will require the limbs to be controlled and that it where such methods can be freely applied. One super basic one, for example, is to get the students to stand close together and tell them they may not move their feet (so the range stays at the one we wish to practise and they don’t move into grappling or out to long range). They than have to try to reach out and touch / punch (depending on the level of the student) their partner. Almost immediately they learn that both hands need to be active and pro-active control of the limbs is far more effective than reactive blocking. You also see all the motions they have picked up from their technical drills being given free expression.

You’ll also see all that in all-in sparring to as the students move into strike, flow into a clinch, set up a takedown etc. But before they can do all that efficiently, they need to learn and refine the basic motions hence the need for “technical isolation drills”. It’s no different to a boxer working set combinations on the pads. As I say, it’s really important that people understand the nature of this type of drill. It’s not the totality of training; it’s a single part of a much larger integrated methodology. The nature of a short clip on YouTube means people can misunderstand that if they believe what they are seeing is all there is.

miket wrote:

As with everything, however, I believe there is a difference between what I call 'technical' and 'tactical' training... the first method is about either learning to do, or improving, a target skill set.  The second domain, however, is about USING that target skill set. And, my belief is, you need drills that do both.

Perfect! I totally agree with that and also feel that is the approach needed.

All the best,

Iain

miket wrote:

As with everything, however, I believe there is a difference between what I call 'technical' and 'tactical' training... the first method is about either learning to do, or improving, a target skill set.  The second domain, however, is about USING that target skill set. And, my belief is, you need drills that do both.

To clarify what I mean using the illustration you posted, by our definition this is "structured" and in the first domain... So what do i mean by that?  First off, not to criticize the drill, which I see as a very good one, in the least---  merely to place it in the context of how we specifically use terms.  i.e. Some people would say you are 'applying' the knife hand from the kata, which you are.  But to us, any drill where BOTH sides are *equally aware* of what is about to happen is a 'technical' drill--- one focused on IMPROVING a SPECIFIC technqiue or skill set (in this case, the shuto uke).    So, you CAN have 'applied' technical drills.

By contrast, in our school we also separate out 'tactical' drills, i.e. loosely, 'scenarios' 

Miket, exactly what I was after. As I read through your reply I found myself nodding my head in agreement. I understand (or think I do) everything you were describing and I view what I'm trying to do with my class in the same light. Hearing it expressed from another perspective cemented this for me a bit more and generally helped clarify some of the issues I am seeing. One thing I now recognize more clearly is that there is a certain degree of skill practice that has to be done before you can successfully begin making the transition to linked skills. I think this may be one of the hurdles I am going over at the moment. Some members of the class are ready for this and some are not. Identifying the 'bigger picture' helps identify the pieces that are still short. Thank you.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

This is a very important topic and a great area for discussion.

To my mind, the first thing is to ensure people are clear on the purpose of that kind of drill, and for them to understand that it is part of a much wider training methodology.

Iain, I recognize this point and I see just how important it is to identify the place of drills. To know that you are not fighting in the larger sense but, you are practicing one of many parts that might make up the conflict.  Again, right on. The drills you go on to describe give me some useful ideas for next steps. A progression of skill building up to a more free scenario where numerous skills may come into play.

Having done the drill with you at a seminar I knew there was more to it than what is captured in the clips. It just made a good reference for the place I was finding myself stuck. Trying to connect other skills around this drill in a sort.

I am trying to build a plan not just for my own training but for the others I train with. To have this training plan in place I want to understand where each part of the structure fits. Drills such as this one, and how to combine those drills with others. What directly relates and what does not as far as the learning curve is concerned. Then training in such a way that these drills come to life. And finally working them in an unrestricted setting against resistance.

Sometimes it just helps to get it out there and hear (or read) some feedback. Again,thanks. It's been helpful. 

Iain Abernethy wrote:

During close-range conflict it is very common for arms to be flailing around and to get in the way of our strikes. We therefore need ways of controlling the arms to cut a pathway through for our strikes. We therefore isolate the motions that do that and get the students to drill them in isolation. In doing so, they can learn and refine the physical actions required. So these are not drills for dealing with a “given arm” they are drills for learning some motions to control an arm, regardless of what that arms is doing at the time.

Iain, yes, exactly.   What you are calling 'cutting a path through' is exactly what I was meaning by 'barrier negation'.  And incidentally, I hope it reads through that I think  your original drill is a very good one, and I was only trying to place my remarks in reference to the illustration.  And, I also know you also appear to have several phases to this based on what I've seen.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

Drills that isolate a given method need to be part of training so motions are improved and can hence be applied in a skilled way. Essentially these drills teach the “what to do”. What they don’t teach is the “when”. You need further drills for that."

Again, full agreement.  That is a much more succint way of saying what I was trying to explain. 
We actually clarify THREE phases, not two, I was trying to simplify above.    Phase I we call "Installation" training (i.e. initial learning of the motor program); Phase II is any drill that is focused on a 'technical' attribute or outcome as described (which at it's culmination gives wayto what I call 'controlled application drills'; and Phase III is 'contextual application drills', i.e. starting with simple scenarios and building up to 'complete' full out skill tests ala the stuff that Tony Blauer and others are doing. 

Or, if you prefer the old-school version via Jigoro Kano:  'kata, randori' and shiai'... formal, controlled  learning; semi-free applied learning in a controlled context; and  applied 'testing' of target skills in a contextual facsimle. 

Personally, in our program, 'isolation' is just a 'particular focus on something' (what I referred to in my last as 'priveleging' a skill or skill set). So, you can isolate a punch (i.e. a single technique), which is how I would argue most people tend to see 'isolation training'-- as 'component like. But just as validly, you can isolate a combination for drill, you can isolate an entire skill set (i.e. 'punching') for drill, and you can even isolate a particluar weapon. So, to me, the way I use the word isolation or isolation training is also specific although again that is meant to be clarifying, not argumentative to how you are using the word.

Jr, I'm glad you found the remarks useful.   There is a lot of talk these days about 'reality based' training but regrettably there isn't as much about HOW to go about achieving that outcome in specific detail.  Another place I have had a lot of luck wth 'learning how people learn' has been sports and exercise physiology and psychology sites.  I love the internet.   Yet another site is to look at the underlying TRAINING METHODS of [combative, but also 'regular'] sports, not their techniques... most are pretty 'literal' and geared toward building a progressions toward simply 'doing' the skill in the partcular environment of the game or event.   Look at how a kid learns to play soccer for intance, there is stuff all over Youtube... what is going on under the hood?  What is the drill building in the student and how does that relate to the game-event, etc.  

"I am trying to build a plan not just for my own training but for the others I train with."  Good luck with that, this 'one' item is probably the thing that gives me the greatest fits these days; also one of the greatest reasons for why I am apparently so obsessive about 'terms' and clarifying them...   If you can be both deliberate and loyal to your own internal logical rules you set down for yourself about WHY something is important as well as why it is taught at a speific point in a student's development, you will go a long way toward improving your curriculum but the consistency part sometimes 'ain't easy' when you get down to the level of specific drills, and there is often a great deal of overlap and blur between these domains. The problem is otten one of a decision and nailing things down---  I am forever tweaking mine such that it really is always in flux...  Frustrating to my guys sometimes.  By way of intended encouragement, Stay the course, I think you are on track.

The thing I try to let guide me is watching my guys.  A friend and fellow instructor once gave me a simple barometer to use while discussing this subject: "If you have one guy in class consistently making a mistake or doing something 'wrong', that is on him... if several people or the whole class is consistently doing it 'wrong', that's on you, the instructor."   It might seem obvious, but if you are going in the 'correct' direction for improving your people, then (duh! )  will show improvement in the direction you want them to go and will show improvement in the TESTING domain speciically.... not their katas, not their isolated kiciking and punching, not their horse stances, but their ability to process, and if necessary, physically resolve aggressive conflict (In saying that, I am assuming that like me, your primary instructional interst is self defense).

So the 'proof' really ends up being in the pudding... if students are not producing what I would simply call 'effectiveness' at the testing domain, you need to rewind and figure out what is going on and/or lacking and /or not working in the first two domains.  (For me, it is frequently throwing 'too complex' or emotionally intense of a drill at people who are simply not ready for it and who need a 'smaller' itemized breakdown).  But that is what you should see, and what I believe you are after... a clear and senisble 'progression' toward free skill deployment in response to real aggression.  And like I said, this is nothing 'new' in itself in terms of teaching combatives, although what you 'rediscover' for yourself might be 'new' to me or you.

miket wrote:

Jr, I'm glad you found the remarks useful.   There is a lot of talk these days about 'reality based' training but regrettably there isn't as much about HOW to go about achieving that outcome in specific detail.  Another place I have had a lot of luck wth 'learning how people learn' has been sports and exercise physiology and psychology sites.  I love the internet.  Yet another site is to look at the underlying TRAINING METHODS of [combative, but also 'regular'] sports, not their techniques... most are pretty 'literal' and geared toward building a progressions toward simply 'doing' the skill in the partcular environment of the game or event.   Look at how a kid learns to play soccer for intance, there is stuff all over Youtube... what is going on under the hood?  What is the drill building in the student and how does that relate to the game-event, etc.

Once again, we're on the same wavelength! I have done similar studies though primarily not online. To me the sports I have experience in just seem easier to break down and critique than martial arts. Because of the similar relationship between training and gametime techniques and the stimulus and reaction requirements, it was a natural comparison. Then trying to take the lessons learned on the field into training for martial arts. The ironic part is that some of this process has begun to reverse and now I see (to name a few) balance, timing and power generation from martial arts in the sports I play and coach. Most people see a guy throwing a ball. I see the mechanics of a right cross.

miket wrote:

"I am trying to build a plan not just for my own training but for the others I train with."  Good luck with that, this 'one' item is probably the thing that gives me the greatest fits these days; also one of the greatest reasons for why I am apparently so obsessive about 'terms' and clarifying them...   If you can be both deliberate and loyal to your own internal logical rules you set down for yourself about WHY something is important as well as why it is taught at a speific point in a student's development, you will go a long way toward improving your curriculum but the consistency part sometimes 'ain't easy'.

Agreed. I am constantly challenging my own syllabus but I have comitted to making only minor tweaks for now. I want a very solid plan with some results to support it before I do a full rewrite. I'm sure it's coming though.

miket wrote:

So the 'proof' really ends up being in the pudding... if students are not producing what I would simply call 'effectiveness' at the testing domain, you need to rewind and figure out what is going on and/or lacking and /or not working in the first two domains. 

I have seen this as well. Watching with a critical eye and identifying what the class as a whole needs has provided some positive results. Just in the last 6 weeks or so I decided to get back to basics somewhat and as a group, the class is improving in the areas we are focusing on. I wish we could just go in and do the fun exercises. Sparring and live scenarios and so on. But, I have a responsibility to train them to the standards of our system. There are certain checkpoints that must be met and honestly, they are all positive things. Sometimes you just have to work the Kihon and Kata until they are polished. It's all part of the package. If anything, we were getting quite effective at specific skills but the foundation was starting to suffer.

And yes, the focus is self-defense. Followed closely by having a good time with like minded folks.