ALIVE!™ Methodology Monday March 30, 2015

Techniques Dictate Nothing

By Steve Miles

Today I would like to discuss something that could really enhance your understanding of the "hows and whys" of martial arts and fighting in general.  Specifically, I want to address a serious conceptual shortcoming that is a widespread plague in the martial arts and personal defense systems.  That shortcoming is the error of allowing techniques to dictate strategy and/or tactics.

As we discussed two weeks ago, all fighting systems consist of methodology and material.  Material we said consists of strategies, tactics, and techniques: the "moves" of how a system intends to fight.

Material is developed in accordance with the system founder's basic assumption of what "winning" is.  This assumption, along with the founder's other beliefs and values, shapes the material.  It's important to understand that not every system founder has the same ideas about what "winning" looks like, and so these core assumptions can differ wildly between systems.

For example, if a founder's vision of "winning" involved a refereed decision against a single unarmed opponent with minimal striking, the resulting strategies, tactics, and techniques might look a lot like Brazilian Jiujitsu.  And if the founder's vision of "winning" involved surviving and prevailing in armed combat predominantly fought with sticks and machetes, the resulting material might look like Kali-Escrima.

Practitioners take a founder's fighting system and put it to use.  When a fighting system is employed within the original founder's assumptions, practitioners can be functional.  However, trouble can  arise when a practitioner attempts to use a system in a set of assumptions that are different from the original founder's.  For example, when an Olympic Boxer is forced to use his art in a street fight, or a military commando tests his shooting skills in a 3-Gun match. The resulting disconnect forces practitioners to improvise and adapt, and the results usually vary along two lines: successful and sub-optimal.  Sucessful practitioners adopt strategies, tactics, and techniques from other systems that correspond with the new assumptions, or they improvise entirely new material based on the new assumptions.  Sub-optimal practitioners either stubbornly insist on using the original material despite the changed circumstances, or they attempt to apply strategies, tactics, and techniques from another system based on assumptions that do not correspond to the changed paragdigm.  The rest of this post will be dedicated to helping you identify sub-optimal material selection when you see it.

Sub-optimal selection of material can be summarized by the adage commonly known as Maslow's Hammer: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails."

Maslow's Law of the Instrument

Material represents a hierarchy of task and purpose.  To be functional, material must be developed in a linear fashion whereby strategy dictates tactics, tactics dictate techniques, and techniques dictate nothing.  Just because a technique works in one particular fighting context doesn't mean it is applicable to all paradigms.

For example, in a grappling system a strategy might be "close the gap, take the opponent to the ground, and finish the fight".  Several tactics would be needed to implement this strategy, one of which might be "set up a takedown".  One specific technique to support this tactic could be "close the gap and pummel to a clinch".

MMA Pummeling to a Clinch

Now, let's throw a new paradigm up against this grappling system and see what happens.  Instead of the original MMA assumption of an unarmed opponent, what if the opponent is armed with a knife?  The pummeling technique is inappropriate for the changed assumptions about the fight, in fact, just closing with a knife-armed opponent is a very risky proposition.  If a sub-optimal grappling practitioner tries to close and pummel against a knife-armed opponent the fight will likely not end well for him.   A successful practitioner might use material from a knife-context system, or improvise some other technique on the spot like "throw a chair and run".  In any case, we must recognize when the basic assumptions about the fight differ from those of our system and not allow the techniques we know for one context dictate the appropriate strategies and tactics for another.

The above example is fairly obvious, few would argue the applicability of pure MMA technique to knife fighting.  Next week we will examine another dubious case of "techniques dictating tactics" that is still widely accepted as combat gospel: the "Modern Technique of the Pistol".

To learn more about ALIVE!™ Combatives or ALIVE! Gunfighting® contact the author Steve Miles via email to steve@combativestraininggroup.com

Copyright© 2015 Alive Technology Inc.

ALIVE!™ Methodology Monday March 23, 2015

Balance of Training Components

By Steve Miles

Last week we concluded by saying: "what is conceptually important is to understand that the key to fighting competence lies in having the proper balance and sequencing of components."

So what are the COMPONENTS we are supposed to be balancing?  Glad you asked!  This seemingly innocuous question is the gateway to unlocking an understanding about training that eludes many in martial arts and personal defense training.

Training COMPONENTS have been described many different ways, with Shotokan founder Gichen Funakoshi probably having made the most commonly used description in his Kumite-Kata-Kihon categorization.  But ALIVE!™uses the terms developed by Scott Sonnon to describe the different COMPONENTS of training: Competition-Practice-Training.

"The Three Dimensional Performance Pyramid"

In his book "The Three Dimensional Performance Pyramid" (3DPP) Scott Sonnon models training as a three-faced pyramid, where each face corresponds to a different training COMPONENT: Competition-Practice-Training.  Here they are with the definitions we use within ALIVE!™:

• Competition "The Red Triangle": Facing a resistant partner who is trying to "win" within any limits on tactics or specific environment proscribed by the instructor.  This is most commonly described as sparring or force-on-force.  Although both partners are seeking collective development of their skills, the key is both partners having opposing goals within the activity, not one partner assisting the other realize some goal.
• Practice "The Blue Triangle": Skill development through static, fluid, and dynamic drill.  This COMPONENT comprises such things as combat techniques, flow drills, and other partner drills up to the point where there are opposing goals.
• Training "The Green Triangle": Individual skill and attribute development, both physical and mental.  Examples include paper target shooting, board breaking, burpees, plank holds, cardio work, heavy bag, speed reloads, meditation, etc.

Now here is where all these COMPONENTS come together and you (hopefully) get the epiphany I did when I heard all this for the first time.  The three COMPONENT faces of Sonnon's 3DPP model come together in the shape of a pyramid where each side is only as big as the relative quantity and quality of training one does in that COMPONENT, and one's overall fighting competency is determined by how tall the pyramid gets.  Got that?  Here's a simplified example using a common martial arts training protocol:

At a hypothetical martial arts school each class is 60 minutes long.  Typically they do warm-ups, stretching, and work on basics for about 30 minutes (Training) .  Then they do about 20 minutes of combat techniques with a compliant partner, "he does this, I do that" kind of training (Practice).  Finally, they put on foam gloves and instep guards and do some point sparring for that last 10 minutes of class (Competition).  

 Hypothetical Martial Arts Protocol

In this hypothetical school students do three times as much Training (30 mins) as they do Competition (10 mins), thus the Training face of their pyramid is three times higher than their Competition side.  Using the 3DPP model their pyramid's height would be limited by their relatively small Competition side, thus their overall fighting competency could expect to be similarly limited.

Limited "Fighting Competency" height due to imbalanced pyramid faces.

So there it is.  According to Sonnon's 3DPP model we need balance in training COMPONENTS or we will not realize our full potential.  Not trying to offend anyone's particular fighting system, but let's bounce the 3DPP model against the general consensus opinions of certain arts' fighting credibility.  Of all the COMPONENTS, Competition is the most commonly neglected and it's not hard to see that minimal or missing Competition correlates with dubious fighting credibility.

Systems that have a substantial amount of Competition and high fighting credibility: Boxing, Brazilian Jiujitsu, Judo.

Systems that have minimal or no Competition and dubious fighting credibility: (I'll leave this one for you to fill in the blanks).

3DPP is just a model, and it's certainly not absolute in its implications but the correlations are hard to refute.

Now let's take the 3DPP model and apply it to another de facto martial art: gunfighting.  Most modern gunfighting schools heavily emphasize skill development Training, such as target shooting, and almost universally neglect Practice and Competition in their protocols.  Think about it, this is the equivalent of just punching a bag, breaking boards, and then thinking you are ready for the UFC.  Do people who train this way have fighting capability despite having such an imbalanced training protocol vis a vis 3DPP?  Yes, some, but it is in spite of their protocol.  If they were training in a more balanced manner I argue and the 3DPP model supports that they could develop a much higher degree of personal mastery.  And that is why ALIVE! Gunfighting® trains the way it does with a balance of force-on-force Competition and partner drill Practice in addition to the Training staples of square range shooting and weapon manipulations.

Hopefully that made sense to you. For me, Sonnon's 3DPP model completely correlated with what I already knew about training for combat from my military experience.  It resolved a lifetime of martial arts speculation as to why some systems seemed to be more effective at developing competent fighters.  Perhaps more importantly, 3DPP along with other inputs I will discuss later gave me the roadmap to really unlocking my own skills and those of the people I train with.


To learn more about ALIVE!™ Combatives or ALIVE! Gunfighting® contact the author Steve Miles via email to steve@combativestraininggroup.com

Copyright© 2015 Alive Technology Inc.

ALIVE!™ Methodology Monday March 16, 2015

What is Material and Methodology?

By Steve Miles

Think of any fighting system: Karate, Kung Fu, Jujitsu, Modern Technique, Systema, Kali, Krav Maga, etc.  Every one of these systems consists of two things: MATERIAL and METHODOLOGY.  Today I want to explain these terms in some detail.  Understanding these terms will deepen your understanding of all fighting systems and help you make useful comparisons when evaluating the merits of one system or another.

MATERIAL can be thought of as the “moves” of a system.  Specifically, MATERIAL is the strategy, tactics, and techniques of a system.  Here are some examples:

Strategy: The “Basic Fight Strategy” of Modern Army Combatives

1. Close the Distance 2. Gain Dominant Position 3. Finish the Fight

Tactic: “Defanging the Snake” of FMA Kali-Escrima

Displacing the opponent’s target while striking their hand or weapon

Technique: The Oi-tsuki “Lunge Punch” of Shotokan karate

Works good in armor

The exact assortment of MATERIAL that makes up a system will vary, but many systems share the same or similar strategies, tactics, and techniques. 

METHODOLOGY is how a system trains; that is, how a system (attempts to) make the MATERIAL functional in an actual fight.  METHODOLOGY is the “secret sauce” that makes all the difference in terms of whether or not someone is able to make a system work under the pressure of an actual fight.

Gichin Funakoshi the founder of Shotokan used three components to describe METHODOLOGY: Kumite (sparring), Kata (forms), and Kihon (basics). ALIVE!™ uses a refined model developed by Scott Sonnon that uses the terms Competition, Practice, and Training. 

No matter which terms one uses to describe training modes, what is conceptually important is to understand that the key to fighting competence lies in having the proper balance and sequencing of components.  We will talk more about balance next week.

Copyright© 2015 Alive Technology Inc.