7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Finlay
Finlay's picture
verbally setting yourself up

hello,

Havent posted in a while due to being busy however i'd like to aska  question about the effectiveness of a drill.

This isn't physical but rather something (hopefully) mental.

We were training the other night, and working on preemtive strikes to sinlge, and multiple opponents. One of the things that came up was a 'trigger' to help your mind focus rather than go all over the place when under stress. we started working on the verb trigger of 'I don't want to fight'

The drill built up like this:

calmly saying the trigger and hitting

agressively saying trigger and hitting

2 way aggressive dialouge using the trigger then hitting

2 way agressive dialouge using the trigger then either hitting, backing away, or the opponent backs down.(varied response)

Right now, i am sort of flying solo a little bit in my training/teaching so i would like to ask here for feedback on this drill, and if possible ways of making it better.

Thanks for any responses in advance 

MichielC
MichielC's picture

Thanks for sharing, Finlay. I can picture the drill based on your description. I like the way it builds up the intensity and unpredictability. Well done

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

It sounds like you’re describing something akin to the “action trigger dialogue” espoused by Geoff Thompson and Peter Consterdine. The idea is to have a trigger phrase that simultaneously deceives the enemy, and gives you an impetus to act. It’s something we teach from beginner up. There’s lots to it and more than can be discussed practically here. However, one key thing you may wish to consider is that the phrase has two key requirements: it must be both passive and open ended.

The fact that it is passive (not aggressive) will mean that the enemy is far less likely to anticipate the following strike. The fact that is open ended (can’t be answered with either a yes or a no) means it will engage the enemy’s brain more effectively.

There is a bit more on this in the video I put out just before Christmas on YouTube on Kata and Bunkai: https://youtu.be/ZOKZCsxHDY8 (Around the 20 minute mark). However, Geoff Thompson‘s book “the fence“ is the definitive work on the topic. Once people have learnt the fence properly, and the associated verbal elements, they can then start to include it in drills; some of which will end with a pre-emptive strike been thrown, and others which will end in effective deescalation. Hope that’s of some use.

All the best,

 Iain        

Dbryan
Dbryan's picture

I personally like the open ended question "What time do we start?". 

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Dbryan wrote:
I personally like the open ended question "What time do we start?".

That’s not an action trigger question I’d personally use or recommend. It’s certainly open ended, but it can be interpreted as being aggressive.

If a person is threatening violence, and you ask “What time do we start?”, I fear the answer will be “Right now mother####er!”. The question then contributed toward escalating the situation and did not provide the distraction for the following pre-emptive strike.  

Questions like, “Why can’t we talk about this?”, “Why are you picking on me?”, “How can we resolve this?” etc are all open-ended and passive; and hence better facilitate the following strike by providing a “trigger” for your action, and lowering the expectation from the enemy that a strike is imminent.

Sometimes people will recommend confusing questions such as, “Is your mum called Agnes?”, “Do you know what the final score of the game was?” etc. While they make for amusing tales, I think such phrases are more difficult for your average self-defence student to get into the dialogue because it’s so unnatural. The words therefore may not come out.

For me and mine, I’d recommend phases that are open-ended, passive, and a natural fit for the kind of dialogue that often proceeds violence.

All the best,

Iain

Dbryan
Dbryan's picture

Well put Sir. Initially I didn't look at it as antagonistic but after further review, anything to avoid the confrontation is best.

Regards, 

Dan

Iain Abernethy
Iain Abernethy's picture

Hi Dbryan,

Dbryan wrote:
I didn't look at it as antagonistic but after further review, anything to avoid the confrontation is best.

I’m pleased that was of some use. Role playing these situations is important because our partners may respond in ways we don’t always anticipate.

Away from self-protection, I am also sure every single one of us has said something we believed innocuous only for the other party to respond as if hurt, insulted or aggrieved. I’m sure we’ve all been on the receiving end of that too. Communication is complex :-)

All the best,

Iain