Aliveness - An essential component of realistic combative skill? (Video post)

[Adam @ Low Tech Combat]

I recently posted this video on my blog and I thought I would present it here for discussion. It is a video showing Aikido for the street. Now the guy doing it looks quite sharp but I have one question.


His partner is co-operating. Does this matter that much???

Aliveness is a term started by Matt Thornton of Straight Blast Gym fame im pretty sure. It basically means training against a resisting partner who is fighting back. It also suggests training should eventually, always progress into sparring and wrestling and other such free form activities. By training against a resisting opponent who is fighting back you can develop an ability to harness the other persons movements and strength for you and also utilise feints, draws and set-ups and such things.

Now the guy above looks sharp but he is missing that element of aliveness in that video. Is that really important? Does skill development training make up for that? What are your thoughts on this?

[Dave Chesser]

"Live" training is essential. It isn't a panacea, but then nothing is. I think of it as necessary but not sufficient. If you don't have it, my experience tells me you will have significant holes in what you're capable of doing, holes you won't even be aware of.

Sparring/randori exposes more of those holes than cooperative training. Sure it has rules too, but much less than cooperative training. Most people that are against live training bring up reasons that apply even more to their own cooperative training than live training.

So while it isn't perfect, it's as close as we can get safely.

My 2 cents.

[Adam @ Low Tech Combat]

Dave Chesser said:

So while it isn't perfect, it's as close as we can get safely.

Yeah, that's what I think as well. And like you say, it is closer to the real thing than static training with co-operative partners. Aliveness isn't the be all and end all but it is vital.

But I wonder, if someone develops a high level of skill even using co-operative partners, can that skill be easily transferred to 'alive' training? I would say it could be transferred relatively easily because in the example in the video, he appears to be quite competent. And that 'base' should put him in good stead. There will of course be a battle in that initial transition into alive training but the guy in the video should adapt to it more easily than someone who is less skilled as he has 'tools' in his arsenal he can utilise.

[Mokuren Dojo - Patrick Parker]

I thought it was a very dramatic video - particularly the music. But it didn't appear to have much to do with aliveness or self defense. it was a nice demo with compliant partners and lame attacks dressed up in jeans and jackets. it's a demo - sales copy - not a training practice, so I don't see what aliveness has to do with it at all...

p

[Adam @ Low Tech Combat]

Mokuren Dojo - Patrick Parker said:

I thought it was a very dramatic video - particularly the music. But it didn't appear to have much to do with aliveness or self defense. it was a nice demo with compliant partners and lame attacks dressed up in jeans and jackets. it's a demo - sales copy - not a training practice, so I don't see what aliveness has to do with it at all...

p

Thats kind of my point Patrick. There is no aliveness. He is using a complient partner. That is the reason I have posed the question. I am interested in peoples opinion on just how much importance they place on Aliveness. I used the video above to simply highlight the possibility that maybe at some higher skill levels with only using complient partners, skill that is usable and is able to be applied in the real thing can be achieved.

I guess I am just after peoples opinions and views on the complient partner v aliveness approach to training, what they prefer and what they feel the reasons are for this view. I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough. The video was just to add some web 2.0 to the post and make it a bit visual :)

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this.

Cheers.

[thefightgeek]

I'm coming at this from a different perspective than most on this forum, (at least I think I am) ... I don't believe martial art training is really useful for self defense at all (at least not for the average citizen).

[Karrie Bowen]

For me, aliveness is extremely important, especially if the techniques you are practicing are ones that can be used in a self-defense situation. Of course to get there you need to at first have some compliance in order to get the move down, but as you progress it is so important that you train in as real a situation as you can get. If you don't, then why bother? It will look pretty, but as soon as someone resists you it's all over.

FG: What do you mean by "average citizen"? Are we talking about someone who may take a few self-defense classes and then never practice what they learned or someone who just trains in a self-defense system with no kata, etc.? I feel that anyone who sticks with a martial arts system and practices the techniques on a regular basis can eventually build a very strong self-defense foundation. I assume you're talking about a martial art that has kata/poomse?

[Richard Kimura]

I feel that Jiyu kumite in contact karate, randori in judo and in some aikido styles offer "aliveness". From personal experience in law enforcement, I think it is important to train with an resisting opponent. For example, most police academies teach "pain compliance techniques. It often works against cooperative opponents, yet it is not as easy to apply to a resisting one. That is fine in the training room but the real answer is out on the streets, when the subject really doesn't want to be taken to the holding cell.
In Japan, many styles of martial arts like to use the term　実戦 literally translated as "real combat" in their naming of their styles,. Jissen Karate, Jissen Aikido, Jissen Kenpo, etc. Interesting that I have yet to see a Judo Dojo advertising Judo as "Jissen Judo". I believe the term got popular with the spread of Kyokushin Karate. But then, what is real combat ? And, have all these instructors actually experienced and lived through "real combat"?
A different insight can be seen through the development of Paint balls and Simunition for firearms training. The use of Simunition has brought the level of shooting training to a different level. In the past we shot at only paper targets that did not shoot back. Paintball and Simuntion provided live opponents that shot back. A big difference.
So, the question remains how much and to what level do we apply "aliveness" to our training?
An instructor once said, " If you go through life without using your martial skills, then it has served its purpose".

[Christopher Littlefair]

thefightgeek said:

I'm coming at this from a different perspective than most on this forum, (at least I think I am) ... I don't believe martial art training is really useful for self defense at all (at least not for the average citizen).

You know what, I tend to agree with Fightgeek here. Personally speaking I might have a better understanding of body movement, vital points and how to hit and kick but I'm not sure how useful this *really* would be for a street fight / self defence situation. My martial training gives me confidence and an ability to deal with adrenaline surges but could it give me an over confidence? I dunno. I've never been involved in a street fight nor do I want to and I don't train for self defence. I kow this sounds odd but it never has been a driver for me in my studies. I enjoy what I do in the dojang/dojo but I really do believe that this is a dojo specific or centred training. Pals of mine who've been in fights tend to say they don't conform to dojo standards and rarely see how it kicks off (and therefore no real chance to respond adequately).

Hmmm. I feel a bit tied up there. Any comments? Maybe this is the whole nub of the 'aliveness' issue....

[thefightgeek]

FG: What do you mean by "average citizen"? Are we talking about someone who may take a few self-defense classes and then never practice what they learned or someone who just trains in a self-defense system with no kata, etc.? I feel that anyone who sticks with a martial arts system and practices the techniques on a regular basis can eventually build a very strong self-defense foundation. I assume you're talking about a martial art that has kata/poomse?


This is quite an 'involved' issue that can get a lot of martial artists upset (not my intention btw). I haven't got time to go into it fully at the moment but here's one point to think about ...

"What you practice" ... There are plenty of tennis players who can win games on grass courts but can't win on clay courts (and the inverse is true). Whilst a players 'style' has a small part to play in 'why' this is the case, the main reason has to do with 'experience' ... what type of court has the tennis player predominantly learned to play on, and where does he actually play most of his tennis ...

Now think about this ... It's the same sized court, same net height, same rules, same type of environment (stadium with a crowd), and more often than not even the same opponents ... there's only ONE small variable that's different—the surface of the court. And for many players, that's the difference between winning and losing.

Let's take that analogy across to 'self defense' ...

same sized court and net ... There is nothing even remotely similar about the standard place of training and a real self defense scenario ... yet somehow martial artists are expected to be able to adapt, instantly, under threat of death, to any and all fighting situations that come their way (and not only that, tennis players know when their next tournament is going to be, on what surface, and have time to prepare, but that still doesn't help them overcome the one small variable of surface.

same rules ...the rules of training in a dojo/kwoon in no way resemble a real self defense scenario. Even with 'live' training partners, the dude is still your 'partner'. He/she will stop hitting you if you ask him to. They will stop submitting you if you tap. They will wait for a bell or bow before they attack you ... they will wait until you've finished your warm up and are feeling ready to go before they start throwing ... they will be careful to stay within the area assigned for the sparring session ... they will be wearing the same sort of clothing you're wearing (probably without shoes) ... they won't bring anything unexpected into the sparring session (ie gun) than you do .... etc. Once again, lets get back to our tennis players ... exactly the same rules each have practiced for YEARS ... only thing different ... the surface ... and that's enough of a difference to bring on defeat.

same type of environment ... tennis players are used to having perform under pressure ... the pressure of 'earning a living', the pressure of playing in front of big crowds, the pressure of media scrutiny, etc. But all that experience doesn't help them on a different surface ... compare that with a martial artist ... they train for fun, in a friendly learning environment, with no external pressure (ie media, competitors etc.). And yet they're expected to respond adequately in a self defense situation that makes the stress tennis players experience on court seem trivial ... Many EXPERIENCED tennis players struggle with the pressure associated with playing ... how is a martial artist supposed to cope ... his training pressure (no matter how 'alive') will NEVER be the same as the pressure associated with "I'm about to get raped" or "This dude is going to kill me unless I do something".

same opponents ... We've all seen great rivalries between clay court and grass court specialists ... In these circumstances, the players even know one another and yet the small variable of the surface they play on is enough to bring about defeat ... compare this with a martial artist who is used to practicing with a small group of training partners, who train the same style, using the same training methods, who learn the same kinds of attacks and defenses, who then must confront an unknown assailant, off guard, who's using unknown skills, unknown weaponry, unknown advantages/disadvantages, and unknown assistance ... and he/she is expected to adapt and win ... remember our tennis players who go into matches and know EVERYTHING about one another and yet they still lose because of one small variable being different ...

Anyway, sorry about the rushed post ... I'm pretty busy at the moment ... but that should give you a rough idea of where I'm coming from ... I know the analogy isn't perfect ... but it's good enough to make you think about the issues involved.

biw, I'm not saying martial arts training is pointless ... I think it can be beneficial for health,fitness, discipline, sport, enjoyment etc. I just don't think it will achieve the things martial arts instructors think it will ... not even close actually.

Cheers.