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.