Sensei Ryan Nicholls
here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to
my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
Its the start of a new year which inevitably leads us into a period
of reflection and often prompts us to ask – “what exactly did I achieve
last year?” Last year at this time you probably made a number of
resolutions that you were determined you were going to stick to, but how
many did you actually achieve? If you achieved one of your resolutions
from last year, then you are in the minority, as most people will have
given up on their New Year’s Resolutions before the end of January. I
read a statistic that said that only 30% of resolutions get achieved.
The problem with this is that it is not 30% spread across the
population, this number is skewed upwards by those small percentage of
people who set themselves ten or twenty new years resolutions and
achieve them all. How is it that they can achieve so many when most of
us can’t even achieve one?
The key to understanding why we give up so easy on our resolutions is
in understanding human nature. Humans like consistency. It is a
fundamental part of human nature that most of us like things to stay the
same. Routine creates comfort and reduces stress. The problem with
routine is that the results will never be different if we keep doing the
same thing. In other words, if we want a different outcome, change is
necessary.
The second aspect of human nature that sabotages our resolution
efforts is that humans are procrastinators. By nature we will generally
not do something today unless we have to do it, as it is far easier to
think about doing it tomorrow… or the day after… or even next week. How
many times have you put off doing something important by sitting on the
couch and saying “I’ll do it tomorrow.” The problem is tomorrow it will
become next week, and next week it will become next month, and before
you know it a year has gone by and it never happened. Now this is fine
if you like things the way they are; the problem is if you liked things
the way they are you wouldn’t be making resolutions to change them in
the first place!
So how do we get around our inherent nature when making resolutions?
The simple answer is to make it easy for us to stick to. Studies into
the psycho-social benefits of martial arts have shown that martial arts
practitioners tend to show an increased goal orientation and goal
completion mind set which extends beyond their training and into their
everyday lives. So what is it about the martial arts that we can borrow
when trying to achieve our own goals?
Martial arts by their very nature are structured in terms of short
term, medium term and long term goals. When you first start training
that black belt seems impossible to achieve but its the long term goal
that almost every person starting martial arts has in mind. The steps to
achieving that black belt are broken up into a number of short term and
medium term goals. At every belt level you learn a number of
techniques. Each individual technique represents a mini-goal to be
achieved, and achieving each of these mini-goals is a small step to
achieving the medium term goal, that of belt promotion to the next
level. This constant orientation towards achievement in the short and
medium term provides focus on an achievable goal rather than looking at
something that seems almost unattainable. So how can we apply this to
our resolutions?
First, set your major goal. A good goal should be realistic,
measurable, have a deadline and be written down. “I want to lose 10
kilos by my wedding on the 30th of September” – this would seem to
represent a good goal, assuming you have 10 kilos to lose; its
unrealistic to lose 10kg in any time frame if you are already a healthy
weight for your height, so make sure your goal is something achievable.
Writing it down helps you to focus on your goal – an unwritten goal is
nothing more than a wish.
Next, break down your goal into smaller goals. Now when I break down
my major goal into smaller goals I usually make it so that the sum of
the smaller goals is actually greater than the major goal. For example
if my major goal was to save $1000 by the end of the year that would
equate to saving $19.23 each week, but I would at least round that to
$20 per week, and probably try to extend myself and set my weekly goal
at $25 – that way achieving my goal week after week will provide a
buffer for that one week where something unexpected happens and I am
unable to meet my weekly goal. It is easier to install a buffer into
your goal up front than it is to have to adjust all your smaller goals
to achieve a short fall.
Next, make a list of everything that you can do to achieve your
goals. Articulating the things you can do provides a mental prompt to
actually do them. For example, if your goal is weight loss related you
could park further away from the door at work or the shops and walk, you
could take the stairs rather than the lift, you could have an apple
rather than that chocolate bar for a snack, you could choose a salad
over McDonalds for lunch, you could wake up early and go for a walk, you
could go for a walk when you get home etc. Basically your list should
be extensive because it is the sum of the smaller things that help you
achieve your goal.
Take the list of everything you can do and plan which ones you are
going to do and when you are going to do it. It may be a change that you
make every day (taking the stairs instead of the lift) or it may be
something you need to schedule in (taking a martial arts class).
Most importantly, once you’ve made your plan, execute it! The single
biggest killer is that people won’t even take the small step necessary
to achieve their larger goal. There is a saying in the martial arts - "a black belt is simply a white belt who didn't quit". The only way to achieve your goal is to start, and never give up. As an exercise, review your plan every day
and if you failed to achieve something on your plan, write down why –
and don’t lie to yourself either, the major excuse you’ll find is “I was
lazy” or “I couldn’t be bothered". Each day, make sure you have
achieved at least one thing that moves you towards your goal. As motivation, implement a reward system for interim goals, or possibly even a penalty fine system when you fail to achieve something on your plan - anything that will keep you focused on the task at hand.
Finally, measure your results against your goal. If you don’t achieve
your goal don’t be too hard on yourself. Ask yourself this (and be
honest with yourself) – “did I do everything I could have to achieve my
goal?” If you can honestly say “yes I did”, then perhaps your goal was a
little unrealistic, if you could have done more, then that is a
learning for next time. Importantly, if you don’t achieve your goal,
focus on what you did achieve – if my goal was to lose 10kg by a certain
date and I only lost 5kg, well I’ve lost 5kg which is a good
achievement not something to get down on myself about. You want to make
the process of achieving your goals a positive one. So by following
these simple steps you too can have the goal orientation of a black
belt.
Thanks
for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog,
and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them
in the comments section below.
Martial Arts Perth
My musings looking at various issues, styles, schools, trends, techniques, and advice within and for the martial arts community of Perth, Western Australia (and more generally, the worldwide martial arts community).
Monday, December 31, 2012
Moving a Boulder With a Toothpick
Labels:
black belt,
goal setting,
Martial Arts,
Martial Arts Perth
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Continuous Improvement in Self defence
Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor
at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
There are many aspects to self defence that I teach my students, but I wanted to look at one particular aspect for when the situation has escalated and fighting is necessary. The one aspect I stress with all my students is the strategy of continuous improvement. Given that the situations that could require self defence are too numerable to count, and that there is no ultimate technique or ultimate style to rely on, the one "perfect" strategy is that of continuous improvement. While the approaches to this strategy will vary as much as the situations themselves, the over-arching strategy of continuous improvement is the only way to ensure success in any self defence situation.
There are many aspects to self defence that I teach my students, but I wanted to look at one particular aspect for when the situation has escalated and fighting is necessary. The one aspect I stress with all my students is the strategy of continuous improvement. Given that the situations that could require self defence are too numerable to count, and that there is no ultimate technique or ultimate style to rely on, the one "perfect" strategy is that of continuous improvement. While the approaches to this strategy will vary as much as the situations themselves, the over-arching strategy of continuous improvement is the only way to ensure success in any self defence situation.
Continuous improvement simply means that from one moment to the next in any self defence situation, you are looking to upgrade your position relative to your opponent(s). If each movement you do succeeds in improving your position relative to your
opponents, you are increasing the chance of your ultimate goal succeeding – that of survival.
A simple example is probably the best way to illustrate this strategy at work:
A situation escalates and I find myself in a straight line with two opponents - one directly in front of me and one directly behind me. They are currently out of range but close enough that if I engage one, the other will be upon me almost immediately. This is obviously a bad position for me to be in as I am unable to monitor ahead of me and behind me, meaning I could be blindsided with a king hit to the back of the head by the opponent I can't monitor. Rather than going for a one hit knockout and therefore only having to fight the one remaining, I choose the safer option of moving sideways, turning the straight line into a triangle. From this position I have line of sight to both of my opponents, and unless a third opponent jumps in, I can no longer be blindsided.
The example above depicts something fairly simplistic and a simple movement has shifted me to a less vulnerable position. Assume I did something else, say going for that one hit knockout. As I throw my chi-focused, super-awesome, one hit knockout punch, my opponent does something unfathomable - he blocks it, and grabs me! I respond immediately and throw a second strike that catches him, but as I go to move something collides with the back of my skull and the world goes blurry, then dark.
In the second example my strategy did nothing to improve my position - as I advanced forward to strike the opponent in front of me, opponent 2 closed distance. Even if my initial strike had been successful, chances are that opponent 2 would still be on top of me and I would have been struck. This wasn't a strategy of continuous improvement as I hadn't changed my position - I was still between two opponents facing one, with my back to the other.
Now if in the first situation there had been a door in that direction, and I had exited and ran, I have achieved everything a successful self defence strategy should. I had started in a bad situation. From one moment to the next I had upgraded my relative position, by getting out from between my opponents. Then by continuing out through the door (assuming they didn't chase me), I had achieved my ultimate goal - that of survival.
Regardless of the style of martial art you learn, continuous improvement should be the cornerstone of your strategy. Whether on the ground in BJJ or wrestling, in the ring in muay thai or boxing, knife fighting in eskrima, or a combination of the above in jujitsu, continuous improvement must be the strategy that formulates what you do next. While it seems a basic concept, a poor decision resulting in a downgrade in your relative position will usually be the reason that you lose. In competition, a loss is just a loss, and may provide motivation to train harder. In self defence however, a 'loss' can have far reaching consequences.
Thanks
for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog,
and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them
in the comments section below.
Labels:
cross-training,
fight strategy,
Martial Arts Perth,
Reality based training,
Response Training,
Self defence Perth,
self defence strategy
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Same sh*t, different spoon.
Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor
at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
Yesterday, my dojo hosted a workshop on the Filipino Martial Arts run by Grand Maestro Greg Henderson and Maestro Andrew Roberts of Diamondback Eskrima. GM Greg ran through a number of eskrima related activities before Maestro Andrew taught some pangamut (Filipino boxing) and dumog (Filipino grappling).
GM Greg has a saying I have heard him use a number of times, "Same sh*t, different spoon". What he means by this is that it doesn't matter what your martial arts background is, at their core, all martial arts have the same concepts. I once explained this same notion in a less concise way, saying that if all traces of martial arts were to disappear from the planet, as long as there remained a need (to defend yourself), that most of what was lost would be recreated in some form or another. The reason for this is simple - the human body can only move in so many different directions. The core biomechanical structure we have is the same for every single person on the planet. Until such time as we evolve beyond out current physical state, the core concepts at the heart of most martial arts will always be the same. Given this, it is ridiculous how much the martial arts is plagued by politics.
No Egos Martial Arts is a charity group to bring martial arts schools together, to experience different styles and techniques from other styles while raising funds for charity. As the founding members of No Egos Martial Arts, Diamondback Eskrima, RKD Martial Arts and Aus Wing Chun have a similar philosophy in relation to the martial arts. That philosophy is that all martial arts have something to offer and the politics that plague the martial arts are of no help to anyone involved. As a greater community the martial arts community should be embrasive of other styles, to learn from each other, and to paraphrase Bruce Lee, adopt what we find useful. Anyone who says that their style is the best is wrong, and an idiot. Many martial arts produce outstanding martial artists, but martial artists get old - someone younger, faster and stronger will always be waiting in the wings ready to replace you as the best.
When you hear about a seminar being run in another style, see if you can go. Experience as much as you can within the martial arts rather than sitting in the bubble of your style - there is a whole world of possibilities out there and you don't know what you're missing out on unless you give them a try. Even if you only learn one thing, the cost of the seminar is worth it. Now not all seminars are great - I can recall a seminar I attended run by an American "Master" which was atrocious - his and his assistant's technique was sloppy, slow and completely impractical. It was choreography, and bad choreography at that. It was the only seminar I've attended that I thought was a complete waste of time and money. But you will occasionally take away an absolute gem of a technique, or just a different way of looking at something. In one of the workshops I have done with Royce Gracie I learnt a ground position that was perfect for the way I fight on the ground - it wasn't a standard BJJ position but was developed by Royce as part of his MMA experience. I've still never seen it taught anywhere else (except by some of the instructors who attended the workshop), and I wouldn't have learnt it if I hadn't gone to that workshop - that one position made the cost of the workshop worthwhile.
At the workshop yesterday a few of us had a go at the sport side of eskrima - putting on the armour and helmets and whacking each other with sticks. It is a far cry from the self defence aspects of eskrima, but it was a hell of a lot of fun! These types of experiences are what you miss out on when you close yourself off to the idea of other martial arts.
With our diverse community, there are seminars being run all the time in Perth, so leave your politics at home and experience what other martial arts have to offer - you'll be a better martial artist for it.
Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.
Yesterday, my dojo hosted a workshop on the Filipino Martial Arts run by Grand Maestro Greg Henderson and Maestro Andrew Roberts of Diamondback Eskrima. GM Greg ran through a number of eskrima related activities before Maestro Andrew taught some pangamut (Filipino boxing) and dumog (Filipino grappling).
GM Greg Henderson demonstrating the unarmed aspects of eskrima |
Maestro Andrew Roberts demonstrating some dumog |
Participants from all styles at the FMA workshop |
At the workshop yesterday a few of us had a go at the sport side of eskrima - putting on the armour and helmets and whacking each other with sticks. It is a far cry from the self defence aspects of eskrima, but it was a hell of a lot of fun! These types of experiences are what you miss out on when you close yourself off to the idea of other martial arts.
With our diverse community, there are seminars being run all the time in Perth, so leave your politics at home and experience what other martial arts have to offer - you'll be a better martial artist for it.
Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.
Labels:
cross-training,
Martial Arts,
Martial Arts Perth,
martial arts seminar,
martial arts workshop
Sunday, November 25, 2012
The Decision Making Loop and Response Training
Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor
at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
I
wanted to look at the decision making process, commonly known as the
OODA loop. In any given situation our brain goes through a number of
steps in order to formulate our response to that situation. This
decision process is an ongoing loop as each new piece of information
requires us to go through the decision cycle again. Understanding how
the brain processes information is a key point in self defence. If
you understand the decision making process you can use it against
your attacker, as at any moment in a self defence situation your
attacker is going through the same decision process.
The
Decision Cycle is known as “Boyd's Cycle” or the OODA loop.
Colonel John Boyd, a US Air Force pilot and military strategist
identified that combat is essentially a time based problem, and that
those who could complete the cycle fastest in the constantly changing
circumstances of a battle would usually gain a tactical advantage.
There are four steps in the OODA loop – observation, orientation,
decision, and action. These steps aren't a new concept and have been
known by various things when discussed by various people, but OODA is
the generally accepted standard.
Observation
– this phase is where the brain gathers information. It sees your
opponent, you in relation to your opponent, and the surrounding
environment.
Orientation
– because the brain can only process so much information at one
time, it can't make a decision based on constant stimulation and must
choose a moment in time on which to make a decision. Orientation is
that moment in time, and represents the interpretation of the data
gathered during the observation phase.
Decision
– Exactly as it sounds, this point is where the brain chooses a
response to the stimulation received.
Action
– the final part of the OODA loop, action represents the brain
giving the body a command, and the body acting on that command.
Not all stimulation is seen |
While
OODA is the generally accepted standard, when talking self defence I
prefer to change the first two phases to Stimulation and
Interpretation, as I believe these terms better explain the
decision cycle in a self defence situation. I prefer stimulation
because not everything in self defence relies on you being able to
see and observe in order to gather information. An attack from behind
may be preceded by footsteps that we hear (auditory stimulation) or
failing that, our first indication of an assault may be the feeling
of someone's arm around our neck (tactile stimulation). So rather
than our input merely being observation, it may be any one of our
senses, or any combination of our senses that provides the initial
sensation that stimulates our nervous system and provides the
necessary input against which we must make a decision. As a result, I refer to the decision making process as SIDA, not OODA.
While
on the subject of stimulation I want to add one other sensory
perception into our stimulation bunch and that is of our sixth sense.
The sixth sense; often called ESP or Extra Sensory Perception; is a
cue that isn't received through the five known senses of sight,
sound, smell, taste, or touch. ESP is known by many names – gut
instinct, gut feel, women's intuition, psychic perception, and much
has been written and researched over whether or not it actually
exists. Reading over numerous accounts of violent crime you will see
one common theme – the victim sensed or felt that something wasn't
right before it happened but chose to ignore this feeling, telling
themselves that they were just being paranoid.
I'm
not going to debate whether ESP exists or not but I will say this –
if you feel that something is wrong, then something is probably
wrong; do not wait for that feeling to be proven right. Treat any
feeling as if it were fact and act upon it immediately. I can not
emphasise enough that self defence is about making the cautionary
assumption, and this includes assuming that all gut feelings are
correct.
Interpretation
is fairly self explanatory as it more closely describes what the
brain is doing with the sensory information received in the first
step. Interpretation is where experience becomes paramount. The brain
takes all of the sensory input and searches through everything it has
seen and done in order to tell us exactly what is happening. If your
brain has no experience against which it can provide reference, it
can't provide any context. While
it is different to the adrenaline fuelled fright response, people can
experience a number of types of freezing associated with the decision
cycle due to lack of experience or, as I like to refer to them, "WTF was that?" moments. In order for us to go through the decision
cycle as fast as possible we need context. Context enables our brain
to interpret the sensory information and provide us with detail with
which we can make a decision. Without context our understanding of
the situation is limited and our decision and subsequent action may
be inadequate.
Experience provides your brain with
reference points with which it can determine exactly what is
happening. The more reference points you have the faster your brain
can provide an interpretation from which you can make a decision.
Without these experiential frames of reference, your brain cannot
resolve the stimulation received and has no way of providing an
interpretation from which to make a decision, and freezes until more
stimulation is received. In a self defence situation, that additional
stimulation is usually in the form of pain.
While
most inexperienced people get stuck at the interpretation stage, most
people with moderate amounts of experience get stuck at the decision
phase. They understand what is happening, they're just not quite sure
what they should do, or even worse, they know three things they could
do and can't decide which one is right. This is another freezing
point in the decision cycle.
The
decision phase actually involves two stages: solution analysis and
solution selection.
Solution
analysis – in this step the brain takes all the parameters
provided by the stimulation stage, the interpretation of what that
means from the interpretation stage, and devises a number of
solutions that could potentially solve the problem. This is also
where experience can assist the decision making process because if we
have experienced this situation before (and particularly if we have
solved this situation before) we will have a much smaller number of
potential solutions to choose from.
Solution
selection – this is the actual decision, where the possible
solutions that could solve the problem are assessed and one course of
action is chosen.
Action is
the final stage of the decision cycle. It is the execution of the
technique chosen during the decision phase and is the step in the
decision cycle that most martial arts and martial artists focus on.
We train our punches so they are fast and powerful, our kicks so they
are balanced and strong, and our blocks to be solid and always ready
to protect us. We hone our techniques so they are fast and effective.
Training action is useless if you never get to it. If you freeze at
any of the three preceding phases of the decision cycle you will
never get a chance to execute your perfected technique, or any
technique for that matter. Because of this, it is in your best
interest to ensure that response training is part of your training
regime.
Repeating
and refining technique is an important aspect of training to make it
second nature, but it is only one part of the speed equation to make
actions faster, response training is the other. Response training is
how you train the complete decision making process. Rather than
trying to execute a specific technique in a given position (from a
predefined attack), response training requires the attack to be
random and the response to be unscripted. For example, rather than
having an attacker throw a cross punch and having the defender
execute a defined response (a specific block, lock, throw etc, which
is what we do in technique training), response training requires that
the attack be random and the response from the defender be
spontaneous. This trains your brain for random stimulation,
interpretation, solution analysis, solution selection and decision
action – in other words, the full SIDA process.
In
early stages of response training the attack may be limited but still
random (for example, hand techniques only) and the response can be
limited as well (any throw). As your experience increases, the
randomness of the attacks should be increased too, until ultimately,
there are no limits on what the attack could be or how it can be
initiated.
Now
in response training it doesn't matter that you can't remember the
name of the technique immediately or even if you remember it at all!
The attacker and defender aren't characters in a video game who must
call out the name of the technique as they execute it! What matters
is that you can execute a successful technique when you need it. Be
aware in any of your training what it is you are training. Perfect
technique with poor response will render the technique ineffective as
will poor technique with a lightning fast response. Ensure that you
train technique as well as response – both are necessary in a self
defence situation.
If
we look at an example we can demonstrate the full SIDA loop in
relation to self defence in action.
- While walking down the street late one night I see a man 10 metres ahead reach into his jacket. As he pulls out an object I see it reflect some light from the street light (stimulation)
- My brain thinks, “that is a weapon” (interpretation)
- My brain says I can stand and fight or I can run, and decides running back the way I came is the best solution (decision)
- I run as fast as I can (action)
If
you look at the example of the SIDA loop, it clearly indicates a
situation where a decision was made on incomplete information. In
that situation I saw the flash of light off an object. What that
object was was unknown, so the decision I made could have been
completely unjustified, or it may well have saved my life. All I saw
in that example was a light flashing off of something and I erred on
the side of caution and interpreted that to mean it was a weapon. It
could very well have been a mobile phone or a cigarette case, which
made my subsequent action over the top. However, if that reflection
had been off of a gun or a knife then that action was the best thing
I could have done. Self defence is about making the cautionary
assumption – it is always better to assume hostile intent and be
prepared for it than it is to assume passive intent and have to react
when hostile intent becomes apparent.
Lastly,
on the subject of action and reaction there is a saying that
states that 'action is always faster than reaction'. The reason for
this is simple, one person's action provides the stimulation for a
second person to start the decision cycle, so a person who initiates
an attack is on step four of the decision cycle (initiating their
action) which triggers the second person to start step one
(stimulation input). While the whole decision cycle may only take a
fraction of a second, in a combat situation a fraction of a second
can make all the difference. It is sometimes why a pre-emptive strike
may very well be the best defensive action to initiate. As Colonel
John Boyd identified, combat is a time based problem where a tactical
advantage is available for the person who can complete their decision
cycle fastest. A pre-emptive strike puts your opponent into a
defensive state and means their brain has to react to your action,
rather than the other way round, giving you the time advantage in
this particular combat situation.
Thanks
for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog,
and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them
in the comments section below.
Labels:
Aliveness,
Decision Making Process,
OODA,
Reality based training,
Response Training,
Self defence Perth
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Government Regulation in the Martial Arts
Sensei Ryan Nicholls
here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to
my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
I
wanted to look at a topic that comes up regularly within the martial
arts community, that of Government regulation.
Government
regulation is a somewhat dirty topic in relation to martial arts –
proposals for instructor licensing requirements, member registration,
criminal background checks, weapon licensing and registration, and
industry accreditation have all largely fallen by the way-side.
Efforts to introduce industry standards have been largely met with a
great deal of resistance from the martial arts community and filed in
the too hard basket by government agencies.
In
Western Australia, apart from laws governing combat sports in
relation to events there are no specific laws or regulations that
apply solely to the martial arts industry. Apart from general safety
and health regulations, employee legislation etc; in other words,
legislation that applies to all businesses; there are only two pieces
of legislation that really affect martial arts schools. The first is
the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004.
Basically, this Act provides that anyone working with children must
get a Working With Children Permit which is only issued after a
background check on the individual in question. As such, it isn't
martial arts specific as all individuals that deal with children in
certain capacities must have this permit, and not all martial arts
schools will require it (not all schools cater to minors).
The
major piece of legislation that effects many martial arts schools
(but again, not all) is the Weapons Act 1999 and its subsequent
amendments. Obviously it doesn't effect all martial arts schools as
not all martial arts schools train in the use of weapons. The biggest
area that this legislation effects is in its definition of
'prohibited' and 'controlled' weapons. Basically, prohibited weapons
are those weapons that are completely illegal such as the balisong
(butterfly knife). Controlled weapons are those weapons which require
a lawful excuse to own and carry, and include most martial arts
weapons such as swords, sai, tonfa etc. Under the Act, owning the
weapons for martial arts practice is a lawful excuse, and carrying
them to and from the dojo is a legitimate reason to be carrying them.
Thankfully, Western Australia; unlike our Eastern States
counterparts; hasn't gone stupid and enforced ridiculous licensing
requirements on simple martial arts weapons.
Various Martial Arts Weapons |
Why
do I say that it is ridiculous to have weapon licensing requirements
for martial arts practitioners? Simply, it is a hassle that gives the
illusion of protecting the public while creating an unnecessary
headache for the martial arts community. First, most major martial
arts weapons are relatively large and difficult to conceal – it is
fairly difficult to walk down a street with a katana, yari
(spear), or naginata
(a type of staff with a blade
affixed to one end) without being seen. Second, the biggest kitchen
knife I own is longer than any tanto (martial
arts knife) and only just shorter than my wakizashi
(a short sword), but they don't contemplate regulating kitchen knives
- my brother is a chef and hauls a plethora of various sized
razor-sharp knives to and from work every day! Third, baton weapons
(eg tonfa or hanbo),
chain weapons (eg manriki)
or combination baton/chain weapons (eg nunchuka),
are essentially just sticks and chain links – items readily
available from your local Bunnings. In the hands of an experienced
martial artist it won't make any difference whether it is a genuine
martial arts training weapon or the first item they get their hands
on (an improvised weapon) – anything can be a weapon. I think
Western Australia has it right – legislation that walks a good line
between community safety without impeding legitimate purpose.
WKA - one of many Karate regulatory bodies |
Apart from the above
pieces of legislation, the government has generally left the martial
arts industry to itself. Many martial arts have their own regulatory
bodies, but there is often more than one body for each art. Often,
countries may have their own body, which is affiliated with a world
body, and multiple versions of these too! Take karate for example –
karate has the A.K.F. (the Australian Karate Federation) which is the
Australian member of the W.K.F. (the World Karate Federation). Karate
also has the I.S.K.A. (International Sport Karate Association), the
JKA/WF Australia (Japan Karate Association World Federation
Australia), and individual style associations such as A.K.K.A. (the
Australian Kyokushin Karate Association). Some of these are art
related (the JKA for example) and some are sport related (the AKF for
example), and as such some are inter-related – for example the
JKA/WF Australia is also affiliated with the AKF and WKF. On the
downside, these associations and federations are oft times entirely
self serving, and are set up to provide an air of legitimacy. Even
worse, sometimes they are simply a cash grab by the people involved –
a registration or annual fee is paid simply to use the name.
Individual regulatory
bodies have their own rules and requirements for membership which
again, isn't standard across the industry. Bodies independent of
style have been set up in an attempt to provide an over-arching
self-regulatory body to keep government from introducing regulations
and to liaise with government on industry issues. Although these
bodies sometimes do good work, they also have a tendency to be
self-serving. One particular organisation for example publicly states
that it supports the move for a Uniform National Prohibited Weapons
Legislation, where a martial arts instructor must acquire a
'Prohibited Weapons Permit' (like the one currently in place in
Victoria) in order to teach weapons. Why would this particular
organisation support this move? In Victoria in order to acquire a
permit you have to be an “accredited instructor”, and guess which
organisation is one of the only sources able to provide
accreditation? This particular body goes further than this – they
are actively lobbying government to require all martial arts
instructors to be accredited in order to teach.
Personally, I object to
any organisation that is trying to implement a “one size fits all”
blanket to the martial arts industry. Many other instructors see
through the rhetoric and spin provided by these bodies and realise
that, at heart, they are nothing more than a power grab. These
interest groups have no desire in ensuring that the community is
protected from shonky practitioners, they just want to be able to
roundly proclaim they are the “peak” body, and require that all
instructors have taken their accreditation course(s). They even
believe they have a mandate to implement this requirement!
Unfortunately, a number of martial arts instructors looking at ways
to establish their own legitimacy have become associated with these
groups, paying them money to do their accreditation
courses. If you are an instructor establishing your own school, don't
look to these bodies for accreditation, you don't need it! Most of
these associations are the martial arts equivalent of the A.C.L. (the
Australian Christian Lobby) – they lobby hard, purport to represent
everyone who could potentially fall under their umbrella, and make
vocal claims to have the best interests of people at heart. In
reality, they are trying to steam roll their own agenda onto everyone
despite being a minority voice. Make no mistake – most martial arts
instructors and schools in Western Australia are not accredited by,
or affiliated with, these organisations and want nothing to do with
them.
So given that Western
Australia lacks a regulatory system for the martial arts industry and
doesn't want one implemented, how do we protect consumers against the
people who do one year of martial arts and then open their own
school, or worse, read a book or watch a DVD and then open their own
school? Truth be told, the greatest way to weed them out is through
market forces. People with questionable training backgrounds and
teaching ability tend to succumb to their own ignorance. Somewhere
along the way their credentials will be questioned, usually by
someone who knows better. If that doesn't happen, usually the product
they are selling will fail to impress – there is only so long a
charlatan can hold an illusion for before it begins to fade. In the
short term, these people may be able to impress with understanding of
basics, but in the long term their lack of skill and experience will
show. Like any good or bad business, word gets around, and people who
are offering an inferior product tend to go out of business.
Just one of thousands of Martial Arts courses available on DVD or in book format |
If the instructor or
business owner is quite the snake oil salesman, they may be able to
stay in business, attaining new students as the older ones leave in
pursuit of new challenges and better instruction. But does this
actually require regulation? Someone who has a years worth of
training will generally only have a years worth of material to teach
unless they do further training or start to make stuff up (hence my
warning in a previous article about offers of attaining a black belt
in a year). During that year, the stuff taught may actually be quite
sound though will probably be limited in scope and understanding.
When a student stops being challenged by the content or starts to
feel their instructor has nothing further to teach them, they may
naturally move to a new instructor who does. There is no inherent
time frame that a student signs up for at the start - “I want to
train with you for the next 20 years” is not a phrase I have ever
heard from a beginner in any school. Teaching relationships naturally
come to a conclusion when the instructor no longer has anything left
to teach the student. As an example, in the free style system I
trained in, after my 4th dan, my instructor and I agreed
that he had nothing left to teach me. Although the system had dan
levels beyond 4th we both felt that there was little for
me to learn in those dan levels beyond what I had already
accomplished with setting up my own school, and we parted ways. There
was no expectation on my part when I started that I would even reach
that far – in fact, I had started that martial art to kill time
until I decided what I really wanted to do. The fact that I stayed
for over 10 years was because I enjoyed it and felt I was learning
new skills through most of that journey.
The other issue with
government regulation in relation to the martial arts, is who decides
what can be accredited as legitimate and what can't? With traditional
martial arts, who determines which ones can and which ones can't be
included? Do we include Silat but leave out Taekwondo? Do we include
Muay Thai but leave out Sambo? Do we include Goju-Ryu Karate but
leave out Shotokan Karate? With modern freestyle schools, how do we
determine school by school whether one is legitimate while saying
another is not? If all styles and systems can be deemed legitimate,
then what is the point of regulation?
If we go beyond styles
and look at the credentials of individual instructors, who makes the
call of what is deemed valid? Do we require all instructors to be at
least 1st dan? If we did this we run into the issue that I
wrote about a couple of weeks ago – belt levels across styles are
not comparable. Do we then go by years of training experience and
require everyone to have been training for at least 5 years first?
Again we run into the issue that time in the martial arts isn't the
same as experience – a person could be doing 5, 1 hour long
training sessions a week for 5 years or they could have been doing 2,
1 hour long training sessions a week for 10 years. The 5 year example
has more hands on training experience than the 10 year example.
If we can't go by style
or school, and can't set experience standards, do we look at an
individual's technique? Who would judge what is good technique and
what is bad technique? Anyone judging would have a natural bias to
authorise technique that resembles their own, and label others as
illegitimate. In a universe of infinite variation, how do we say one
person's method of self defence is right, while another person's is
wrong? Watching how other styles do some things I have disagreed with
their method but very rarely have I believed they were just
completely wrong – less effective yes, but not completely wrong.
Why should one person or committee; who have vested interests in the
outcome; be able to rule one way or the other? And if it was someone
or a group of people with no vested interests (someone who doesn't
practice martial arts), they would be in no position to make that
call.
In essence, government
regulation of the martial arts industry creates more issues than it
solves. When it comes to consumer protection, Australia has a robust
court system to settle individual grievances. Most grievances will
never go that far, with consumers generally doing what they do best –
talking about their experience. Word-of-mouth is a powerful tool and
many martial arts schools live or die by word-of-mouth
recommendations. In marketing, they say that a customer who has a
good experience will generally tell 2 people, but a customer who has
a bad experience will tell 20 people! This is, and always should be,
how the martial arts industry is regulated – by consumers of the
service provided.
Thanks
for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog,
and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them
in the comments section below.
Labels:
BJJ Perth,
Government regulation,
Instructor Qualifications,
Judo Perth,
Jujitsu Perth,
Karate Perth,
Martial Arts,
Martial Arts Perth,
Mixed Martial Arts Perth,
MMA Perth,
Self defence Perth
Monday, November 12, 2012
Playstation Theory and Throwing Technique
Sensei Ryan Nicholls
here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to
my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
I
wanted to look at a somewhat playful, yet informative, way of
explaining the process of executing a throw that I have called
“Playstation Theory”.
Despite
what my students hope, Playstation theory does not involve choosing
your favourite character from a Playstation game and modelling your
entire fighting style after theirs. Despite the fact I wear a red gi,
I have not modelled my fighting style after Ken from Street Fighter
(I don't have the blonde hair to pull off that look and I can't hadoken no matter how many times I've tried). You will not find any
Heihachi, Nina, Jin, or Kazuya (Tekken) clones vying for power on my
mats. There are no Kasumi, Ryu or Ayame (Dead or Alive) wannabes
being all ninjery and disappearing in bursts of cherry-blossom
petals. And thankfully, there are no Mitsurugi, Taki or Maxi (Soul
Calibur) weapon's masters searching for the ultimate weapon. No -
“Playstation Theory” is a theory I use to describe the process by
which a person's body will go through when executing any throwing
technique within the syllabus at my school, RKD Martial Arts. Why is
it called “Playstation Theory”? There are four major stages I
emphasise in any throwing technique and these four stages are
represented by the four face buttons on a Playstation controller –
Triangle, Circle, Square, 'X' which is how I derived the name.
First,
a clarification. A lot of people in martial arts use the terms
'throw' and 'take down' interchangeably and make no distinction
between the two. I like to differentiate between the two as the
theory of executing a throw can become muddied when a take down that
is labelled as a throw doesn't seem to follow the same theory
application. The difference between how I define each one is in the
method of bringing an opponent to the ground. I define a throw as
requiring an application of force that moves through a circular
motion around a central point (usually the opponent's centre of
gravity) to break an opponent's structure and balance. I define a
take down as an application of pain to break an opponent's structure
and balance, for example, a locking technique that forces an opponent
to the ground. As a result some techniques that are often referred to
as take downs I refer to as throws (double leg take down for
example), and some techniques that are often referred to as throws I
refer to as a take down (many Aikido throws for example).
The
definitions I subscribe to of a throw and a take down can get a
little confusing when it contains elements of both. This can be the
case when looking at combination techniques that combine locks into
throws – generally, I find with these techniques that the lock is
assisting the throwing technique but it is not the pain of the lock
that brings the opponent to the ground, it is the motion of the
throw. I find if you look at what ultimately broke an opponent's
balance and caused them to hit the ground you will be able to
identify whether it was a throw or take down. It should also be noted
that with minor adjustments, some throws can have a take down
version, and some take downs can have a throw version.
Now
back to Playstation Theory. As I said above, the throws that I teach
all have four major stages, each represented by one of the buttons on
the face of a Playstation controller. The buttons and their
associated stage are:
- Triangle – entering/receiving
- Circle – application/redirection of force
- Square – balanced and stable finish
- 'X' – follow-up technique
The face buttons on a PS control pad |
Entering/receiving is
represented by the Playstation's Triangle button. The triangle itself
represents directed movement – an arrow indicating a direction we
must move or a position we must get to. Regardless of which one we
use (direction or position) the underlying message is the same – we
must move to get to a certain position in order to
execute our throw. Even techniques where it appears we receive an
opponent directly have subtle receiving movements (stance changes,
positional shifts, weight distribution etc) that are necessary for
the throw to work.
Considering that all
throws are position related, entering or receiving is often the most
difficult aspect of applying a throw. Certainly, once you take throws
out of the static application stage where you are first learning the
throw (a static attacker providing very little resistance) entering
or receiving becomes the most crucial skill in executing any throwing
technique. In shiai, a form
of free practice where students start in grips and vie to throw each
other (like in Judo), we are able to look at the difficulties of
trying to enter a position for executing a throw while an opponent is
trying to counter what we are doing and throw us. This is generally
how Judo throws are mostly trained, though in training in Judo this
is referred to as randori
and is not limited to throws. At my dojo we use the term shiai
(shi meaning 'to test'
and ai meaning
'gather' or 'meet', so taken together shiai
is 'a meeting or gathering to test one another') which Judoka's use
for competition, simply because we use the term randori in
regards to a different form of practice. The next stage, moving from
shiai to free sparring
where an opponent may also strike and kick to prevent being thrown,
the difficulties in entering and receiving become quite apparent. At
this stage, particularly against a similarly skilled opponent, the
importance of good entering or receiving technique becomes paramount
to the execution of even the most basic throw.
|
The red arrows show the opposing forces that create circular rotation in tai otoshi |
In an apparent contradiction to the above rule, there are some throws
that only appear to have one application of force. This is because
the second force is not being generated by the person executing the
throw, but one of two other sources. The first source is given
momentum. All throws must have some momentum which is either produced
by the person executing the throw or the person being thrown. For
example, an opponent charging at you has given momentum and may only
require a tripping point in order to execute a throw, whereas an
opponent standing still requires impetus (a force to generate
momentum) in order to be thrown.
The
second of the two sources is gravity itself, especially in a fairly
static situation where there is relatively little momentum (either
given or induced). Where it appears that a person's balance has been
broken and the person has hit the ground with application of a single
force and without the use of a pain compliance technique, gravity
will usually be providing the second source. Going back to year 8
science, gravity is accelerating you towards the ground at 9.8 metres
per second – as soon as a force starts to remove your base, gravity
starts to accelerate you towards the ground. Think of it this way:
the act of walking is a series of controlled falls. As you lift your
foot and start to take a forward step your body unbalances and starts
to 'fall' towards the ground. It is stopped by you planting your base
(your foot) and rebalancing, before you lift your other foot and
start the process again. When a force acts upon your leg in some way
and prevents you re-establishing your base, you fall to the ground.
So a single force acting upon the right location, at the right time,
can use gravity as the secondary force in order to create circular
rotation.
A
strong and balanced finishing stance is represented by the
Playstation's Square button. Although it is a fairly basic concept,
it is often the one that I find people fail to do most often. As a
result of failing to establish a strong and balanced finishing stance
many people are unable to take advantage of their throw, or worse,
sometimes end up throwing themselves as well! Most common though,
they end up in a position that is vulnerable to a counter attack by
their downed opponent. There are a number of reasons for this:
- Too much strength – people will often try and compensate bad throwing technique by using more strength. A well executed throw shouldn't require an exceptional amount of strength, it is the reason throws work for smaller people. Bad technique coupled with excessive strength usually has the thrower trying to avoid tripping over their opponent or worse, on the floor with their opponent.
- Bad positioning – sometimes a thrower will try and execute a throw when they aren't quite in the right position for that throw. Throws are fairly position specific and it is quite difficult to execute a good throw when you are out of position. For example, someone trying for an ogoshi (hip throw) may not have moved in close enough leaving a gap between their body and their opponent's body. Bad positioning is the major reason why someone with otherwise good technique will try and compensate with strength.
- Bad posture – this can apply to a number of different aspects that usually affect a person's structure and therefore, their capacity to execute a throw. Things like position of the feet (too narrow, too wide, too linear), or having the centre of gravity move outside the base (leaning into a throw for example) all come within this area.
Apart
from the damage a throw can cause it usually provides a major
positional advantage from which a fight can be quickly ended. The
most important function that a strong and stable finishing stance
provides is a stable platform from which to execute a follow-up
technique. As such it is imperative that when performing a sacrifice
throw technique (any throw where you go to ground to take your
opponent down) that you immediately move to a strong and stable
position from which to execute your follow-up technique. Too many
times I see people execute a fantastic sacrifice throw only to remain
laying on the ground next to their opponent!
The
follow-up technique is represented by the Playstation's 'X' button.
This is probably the easiest of the four major steps as all the hard
work has been done prior to this step. Never-the-less, it is
imperative that students are reminded to press their advantage and
finish the fight – this is self defence after all! The follow-up
technique can be anything appropriate to the position and situation
at hand – a striking technique, a kick, a lock, kneeling on an
opponent's throat – whatever works!
So
there it is, the Playstation Theory of throwing – Triangle, Circle,
Square and 'X'.
Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you
subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to
see covered, post them in the comments section below.
Labels:
Judo Perth,
Jujitsu Perth,
Martial Arts,
Martial Arts Perth,
Mixed Martial Arts Perth,
MMA Perth,
playstation theory
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Martial Arts Myopia
Sensei Ryan Nicholls
here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to
my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.
In this
topic, I wanted to look at a somewhat common phenomenon in martial
arts that I call “martial arts myopia”.
If you've trained for
any length of time you will probably be aware of martial arts myopia.
Most martial artists experience it in their early years of training
before they know all the 'rules' of their style. So what is martial
arts myopia? Martial arts myopia is the
act of pretending a technique doesn't exist because it isn't taught
in; or doesn't fit; your system or style. Usually, it gets justified
with an explanation that; even as a lower belt; you know is hogwash
and doesn't sit quite right with you.
Now
I should differentiate between martial arts myopia and technique
specificity. Some techniques are easier to perform when your opponent
is in a specific stance or they throw a particular technique and are
trained for that specific stance or technique. For example if I am
stepping through for a tripping technique on my opponent it is much
easier to target the leg that is forward or closest to me than it is
to target the rear leg or the one that is furthest away from me.
Inevitably you will have a student step into the wrong stance and ask
the question, “well what would I do if they did attack me this
way”? My standard answer to my students is I'd do a different
technique and usually indicate a different throw or take down – one
that is relevant to the position my opponent has presented. An
unacceptable explanation to a student is “No one would ever attack
that way” or numerous variations to that effect, as clearly, your
student just did. Martial arts myopia is not the same thing as
technique specificity.
Some
martial arts have a natural degree of martial arts myopia built into
them. For example, grapplers (BJJ, Judo, Greco-Roman) have a tendency
to ignore striking, and strikers (Muay Thai, Taekwondo, boxing) have
a tendency to ignore grappling. This degree of inbuilt myopia is not
an issue when training for competition as it is within the boundaries
of the rules – you are not allowed to strike in BJJ, Judo or
Greco-Roman Wrestling competition and you are not allowed to take
your opponent to the ground for submissions in Muay Thai or
Taekwondo. In the case of boxing it goes a step further with only
punching techniques being allowed (no kicks, knees or elbows) and
only to limited targets (above the waist).
And illegal 'reap' according to the IBJJF |
Inbuilt
martial arts myopia does become an issue in those martial arts when
it is ignored in relation to self defence. I have heard the arguments
on both sides of this debate – a kickboxer told me a grappler would
never get close enough to take him to the ground, and a grappler told
me he'd have a striker on the ground, unable to strike and submitted
in seconds. I said to both of them the same thing - “Yeah because
that strategy works so well in MMA competition, no one has ever tried
that before.” It is one thing to have confidence in your ability,
it is quite another to naively believe something when countless
examples exist of that strategy being unlikely to work, especially against someone trained in that discipline. If you've
never tested your hypothesis, how can you be so sure?
Another
situation that happens quite often with martial arts myopia is the
difference between an experienced attacker and an untrained attacker.
How often did you, as a beginner, throw a punch or attack with a
training knife in a manner that meant you hit your partner, only to
be told your attack was 'wrong'? How can an attack; especially one
thrown on instinct with no training; be 'wrong'? Isn't that what
you're more likely to encounter on the street rather than someone
trained to attack 'correctly'? I have been told in the past that the
reason for this is because the correct technique is more efficient,
therefore if you can counter the more efficient technique you can
counter the untrained technique. There is some merit in that view –
it is certainly harder to counter a properly thrown right cross than
it is to counter a wild swing, but when you bring a blade into the
situation its a whole different game. If you ask ten untrained
students to try and stab you in the chest, you'll probably get ten
different stabbing techniques. They will all have elements in common
but they won't be the same, and usually can't be dealt with with one
ultimate technique. If you ask ten trained students to do so, you
might get three – if they're all your students and have been
learning the same thing, all ten may do the exact same thing! The
point being, training to deal with inconsistent or 'incorrect'
technique should be a part of your training as it will not be the
same as dealing with 'correct' technique. When it comes to dealing
with an attack, no attack is wrong – pretending it is is a case of
trying to fit your world to your training, rather than training for
the possibilities of the world.
The major problem of martial arts myopia comes when
looking at a self defence based art that then introduce technique
limits. I hadn't been doing a particular martial art for very long
and was sparring with a red belt, someone who had been doing the
martial art for quite a few years. In the middle of the sparring
round I executed an axe kick which involves lifting the leg up and
snapping the foot down upon the opponent's head/face or collar bone
area. I hadn't been taught this kick and it was just instinctual for
me to throw it. My opponent had never been on the receiving end of an
axe kick before. Despite a number of years of training under his belt
this was something new to him and it didn't look like any of the
kicks he had experienced in the past. He was completely caught off
guard. He managed an instinctive block, but it was ineffective and
the only saving factor was that I pulled the kick and didn't follow
through. I immediately took advantage of his momentary freeze and
stepped in and threw him to the ground. When he got up my opponent
said “You can't do that we don't do axe kicks in our style.” To
which I asked “Why not?”
I said, “Well I know how to do them, and I'm going to
use them. You can pretend they don't exist but it probably just means
you'll keep getting hit by them.”
My response may have been arrogant and even rude (I was
young and full of myself), but I had made a pertinent point – why
ignore a technique when it is possible that someone may use it
against you? Isn't it better to look at everything and therefore
develop a greater range of experience? I should point out that I was
sparring with a purple belt a short time later and did the same thing
– rather than saying I couldn't use the axe kick he encouraged me
to do so, saying that “no one else in the dojo kicked like I did so
it was good practice for them.” When I told him that the red belt
said I wasn't allowed to use them because they don't exist in our
style the purple belt echoed my sentiments saying something a long
the lines of, “There is no rule that says you can't use techniques
from other martial arts and it is in our best interest to experience
as wide a range of techniques as possible”.
Quite
a number of schools have rules forbidding students from
cross-training in other arts. I have never understood these rules and
am always dubious about any school/instructor who would impose these
limits on a student. Instructors make claims that it pollutes the art
etc, but frankly, these are just lame excuses. The only reason that I
can see for preventing a student from cross-training is that they
might like the other art better and leave, or worse, realise that the
art they had been studying was completely bogus. I've seen this
happen – I have a couple of students who joined my school while
also studying a particular karate style. After a couple of months all
of them had given up on the karate style realising that their
training in that particular style had been a waste of time (note that
this is not a denigration of karate – I have a karate black belt
and believe the training was useful).
On
the flip side of cross-training, a friend of mine holds a black belt
with a Taekwondo style in Perth and was kicked out when he even
mentioned the possibility of cross-training in another art! He knew
that his current style had limits and wanted experience in elements
he felt were missing from his training to date, but he still wanted
to continue training in the art that he loved. Even as a black belt
who was teaching classes for free his instructor had kicked him out
for merely suggesting that cross-training could be useful.
Oppositely, when I started studying Shaolin kung fu, another of the
students realised that I had training in other martial arts and asked
if I had obtained permission from our Sifu. I had told our Sifu on
the first day that I joined that I was training elsewhere but I
wanted to do some training in Shaolin kung fu and he hadn't cared.
At
my school, RKD Martial Arts, I encourage my students to cross-train
if they want to, but with one caveat – if they learn a different
way to do something that they feel is better than the way I teach it
I want them to tell me and show me. I only know what I've been
taught, what I've experienced and what I've learned from that
experience. I make no claim to know everything. I still cross-train
in other martial arts for that very reason – I am always looking
for a better way to do things and have no qualms about learning that
from one of my students. I personally believe that cross-training is
one of the best ways to reduce your own martial arts myopia and to
expose you to different techniques and strategies. For example, my
ground fighting has changed as a result of training in BJJ – I
learned better ways to achieve the same result I had achieved in my
taijutsu ground fighting training. As a result of this I have changed
the way I teach ground fighting to my students. As my skills in BJJ
increase further, I will most likely continue to evolve the way I
teach ground fighting.
Apart
from style intrinsic myopia, look back at the times you have
experienced true martial arts myopia, where you have been told "we don't do that" or "you can't use that technique". Have you since learned a method
of dealing with that oversight? Did you have to cross-train or even
change martial arts to do it? Does your school allow you to
cross-train in other arts, and if not, what reason are they trying to
sell you? Finally, have you ever been kicked out of a school because
you chose to cross-train in another art?
Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you
subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to
see covered, post them in the comments section below.
Labels:
BJJ Perth,
cross-training,
Judo Perth,
Jujitsu Perth,
Karate Perth,
Martial Arts,
Martial Arts Perth,
Mixed Martial Arts Perth,
MMA Perth,
Self defence Perth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)