Kit Dale doesn't drill.

[drop bear]

And he became a black belt in 4 years.

Look I am not totaly convinced that no drilling is the go. But I do believe the argument that creating good positioning through good timing is more important than having the picture perfect submission.

Personally I would split the difference and adopt both concepts of drilling with learning through live rolling. At least untill this method becomes a trend.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with you. I don't think most folks can learn effective technique without drilling at some level. They need to practice going through the positioning. He's an exceptional person if he actually never drilled. I could see reversing the order, perhaps: free-rolling until you hit something that's either marvelous or miserable. Then you either practice that marvelous thing a few times or stop and work on finding an better answer than that miserable thing, then practice it a few times.

He doesn't really not drill. He just doesn't drill much when teaching, and doesn't drill a specific technique when he's training. From his level, it's probably more effective to do those "from position" drills, rather than drilling a single technique, for the reasons he states. I think there's too little of that in some schools, especially schools that teach for SD - it can be easy to lean on the technique patterns for training, but it doesn't lead to the natural selection of which techniques work best for each person in an evolving situation. One of the intermediate exercises I like is to create a starting point and go through a series of responses from that point, looking at what makes each response better/worse, or more/less available. That's intended to lead to the kind of drill he's talking about.

 

[skribs]

The caption on the thumbnail is "I don't drill for BJJ anymore." So I'm guessing he drilled at one point.

My opinion is that you should learn the techniques in as clinical an environment as possible, and then once you know the techniques, work on them in dirtier ways.

For striking, it's a 3-phase process:

1. Drill the technique without a target
2. Apply the technique on pads, and practice against an opponent in non-contact or light-contact drills
3. Apply the technique in sparring

For grappling, it's more of a 2-phase process, because there aren't pads for grappling and you generally need something to hold onto in order to "get it"

1. Drill the technique against a non-resisting* opponent
2. Apply the technique in sparring

*By "non-resisting", I mean they aren't just going with whatever you're doing, but they're not fighting you either. The purpose here is to learn how to do the technique correctly, which means you must have control (they aren't just falling because you grabbed their arm), but also that it is a cleaner environment. Part of this is that in a real situation, your opponent won't know what your plan is, while in a drill your opponent can actively stop you from doing what you need to do.

If you skip applying the technique in sparring (in either striking or grappling) then you won't learn how to time it, but you have to start with drills in order to become proficient enough in the technique to spar with it.

That's just my opinion, anyway, but every class I've taken follows this philosophy.

 

[punisher73]

It's the main problem with training in martial arts in general. One guy implements a methodology that worked FOR HIM and then other people try to do it also.

I have also seen pro mma fighters that say the don't spar anymore and do more drilling because of all the injuries.

The "issue" with both of those approaches drilling vs sparring is that in both cases the person used both methods to build such a knowledge/skill base that they could still get benefits from not including the other one.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's the main problem with training in martial arts in general. One guy implements a methodology that worked FOR HIM and then other people try to do it also.

I have also seen pro mma fighters that say the don't spar anymore and do more drilling because of all the injuries.

The "issue" with both of those approaches drilling vs sparring is that in both cases the person used both methods to build such a knowledge/skill base that they could still get benefits from not including the other one.

That's not unique to MA. I see it in business (most business books are about something that worked in one environment), self-development (same comment about self-development books), sales, etc. One of the issues is that the person who is successful isn't always aware of (or correct about) what actually led to their success or continued success. I've literally heard two high-earning salespeople on the same stage within 45 minutes - the first saying "keep it short and don't give them options" and the other saying "go slow, and cover all their options". Both were saying them as absolutes, as something to always be done.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The caption on the thumbnail is "I don't drill for BJJ anymore." So I'm guessing he drilled at one point.

My opinion is that you should learn the techniques in as clinical an environment as possible, and then once you know the techniques, work on them in dirtier ways.

For striking, it's a 3-phase process:

1. Drill the technique without a target
2. Apply the technique on pads, and practice against an opponent in non-contact or light-contact drills
3. Apply the technique in sparring

For grappling, it's more of a 2-phase process, because there aren't pads for grappling and you generally need something to hold onto in order to "get it"

1. Drill the technique against a non-resisting* opponent
2. Apply the technique in sparring

*By "non-resisting", I mean they aren't just going with whatever you're doing, but they're not fighting you either. The purpose here is to learn how to do the technique correctly, which means you must have control (they aren't just falling because you grabbed their arm), but also that it is a cleaner environment. Part of this is that in a real situation, your opponent won't know what your plan is, while in a drill your opponent can actively stop you from doing what you need to do.

If you skip applying the technique in sparring (in either striking or grappling) then you won't learn how to time it, but you have to start with drills in order to become proficient enough in the technique to spar with it.

That's just my opinion, anyway, but every class I've taken follows this philosophy.

The only part I'd add is between your two steps for sparring. Between those there should be something. It might be feeding several different entries, or might be a flow drill like in the OP, or it might be the initial drill with some light resistance that shouldn't stop the technique if it's done well (or even all three). Of course, this need not happen chronologically between the other two steps - it's conceptually between them.

 

[Charlemagne]

First of all, there is no muscle memory, so that is out. What people mean when they say that is conscious versus subconscious thought.

Second, as another poster noted already, he DID drill at one point, which is how he got his technique to the point that he can execute it subconsciously rather than having to focus his conscious attention on how to do a particular movement while he is trying to do it. There is only so much focus of attention to go around. For example, if I am trying to recognize what my training partner is doing, the openings that he is giving me, etc. then I better not be thinking consciously about the mechanics of my own movement at the same time. If I am, I am going to miss things, and be late in my movement, in which case, I am not going to perform well.

There are many high performing blackbelts, and even masters, who do the exact opposite of what Mr. Dale is describing. They drill extensively and roll much less. Master Pedro Sauer is a good example of this.

The key is drilling with progressive resistance and putting in a logical progression. Start with zero resistance until you can get the mechanics of the movement down and the timing of moving your various body parts down. From there, work to understand the concepts behind the technique that allows it to be successful, so that you can relate that to other movements and enhance your learning curve. Then work on how to set up the technique. Then, your training partner starts adding resistance until, eventually, they are completely focused on stopping you from performing the technique they know is coming. After that, you can work it to positional sparring/specific training where other techniques are allowed. Then, work on transitions between positions with progressive resistance. Then finally, free flow sparring/rolling.

The above progression is consistent with the scientific literature on motor learning/skill acquisition as well.

World class athletes who have drilled their technique thousands of times don't need to do as much of this, and they shouldn't. In fact, doing so can create an internal focus of attention which, for really high level performers can hinder performance in competition, rather than an external focus of attention that allows them to see openings and react to what their opponent is doing. That is not the same for the average person or particularly the beginner. For them, specific training and rolling is important, but so is drilling technique. It just needs to be done correctly.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

First of all, there is no muscle memory, so that is out. What people mean when they say that is conscious versus subconscious thought.

"Muscle memory" is a common-usage shorthand for highly reinforced neural pathways (activity in the Perkinje cells, etc.) that don't require conscious thought and are much faster to activation than most movements. There are also likely aspects of myelin sheathing development involved. No, it's not memory in the muscles, but the term refers to something that actually does exist.

 

[Charlemagne]

"Muscle memory" is a common-usage shorthand for highly reinforced neural pathways (activity in the Perkinje cells, etc.) that don't require conscious thought and are much faster to activation than most movements. There are also likely aspects of myelin sheathing development involved. No, it's not memory in the muscles, but the term refers to something that actually does exist.

The term refers to subconscious versus conscious thought. So, let's just say that. And yes, there are aspects of neuro-plasticity that allow that to happen, the mechanisms of which are not well understood in the peripheral nervous system, but let's just call it what it is. Words have meaning, so let's use the right ones.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The term refers to subconscious versus conscious thought. So, let's just say that. And yes, there are aspects of neuro-plasticity that allow that to happen, the mechanisms of which are not well understood in the peripheral nervous system, but let's just call it what it is. Words have meaning, so let's use the right ones.

Yes, words have meaning, and that's what "muscle memory" means (though it goes MUCH deeper than just conscious vs. subconscious thought, which is why I wouldn't just use those terms). It means that because that's how people use the term. Dictionaries don't dictate usage; they report it.

 

[skribs]

The only part I'd add is between your two steps for sparring. Between those there should be something. It might be feeding several different entries, or might be a flow drill like in the OP, or it might be the initial drill with some light resistance that shouldn't stop the technique if it's done well (or even all three). Of course, this need not happen chronologically between the other two steps - it's conceptually between them.

I don't understand how that's not the same as drilling the technique. What's the difference?

 

[Charlemagne]

Yes, words have meaning, and that's what "muscle memory" means (though it goes MUCH deeper than just conscious vs. subconscious thought, which is why I wouldn't just use those terms). It means that because that's how people use the term. Dictionaries don't dictate usage; they report it.

Actually, it is what people have used to describe a phenomenon that exists, that they don't understand. Many, if not most, people who use the term "muscle memory" actually believe that muscles are learning and remembering things. More these days then not are recognizing that it is not the case, but it still common in the sporting world.

As for the rest, no, not really. Subconscious thought is an aspect of motor control that allows the movement to happen. Yes, it goes beyond that, but the movement is initiated in the CNS. It's not a reflex arc. Some of this depends on if you come from a Generalized Motor Program paradigm of motor control or a Dynamical Systems one, but most Motor Learning people tend to be GMP adherents.

 

[skribs]

I thought "muscle memory" meant a combination of the mental dexterity to do the task, along with building the strength in your muscles to handle the task efficiently. It's a combination of coordination, long-term memory, and physical conditioning. The muscles are involved, but it's not like the muscles learn it.

However, I have not met a single person who thought that your muscles have memories. Everyone I know understands that "muscle memory" is a bit of a metaphor.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't understand how that's not the same as drilling the technique. What's the difference?

It's a matter of small distinction. It's a progression beyond the initial type drilling, where there's one attack and one response (with no resistance, just accepting the technique). I think it's how the technique becomes more ready for sparring. You may have just included that progression within your first step.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I thought "muscle memory" meant a combination of the mental dexterity to do the task, along with building the strength in your muscles to handle the task efficiently. It's a combination of coordination, long-term memory, and physical conditioning. The muscles are involved, but it's not like the muscles learn it.

However, I have not met a single person who thought that your muscles have memories. Everyone I know understands that "muscle memory" is a bit of a metaphor.

Those things are what we often see in it. Muscle memory refers (in this case - there is an additional usage within fitness training) to being able to reproduce the movement without thought, which also has the benefit that the movement (for things like riding a bike) is durably learned and in more complex movements (like MA techniques) is very easy to re-learn. Part of the process is a transfer to durable long-term memory, and part of it (which I don't think is much understood yet) is how it becomes unconscious. There is a lot of memory involved, but most of it isn't about muscles.

Interestingly, the other use is for something that does, in fact, refer to the muscles. It turns out that muscles "know" (colloquially) they've been trained before. Muscles that were once developed have durable nuclei, and are much easier to re-develop, should they be allowed to atrophy. In this case, it's really about the muscles, but has nothing to do with memory. It's likely this is also part of the process that makes it easier to re-learn something we once developed to that level, as the involved muscles quickly re-develop to the level needed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actually, it is what people have used to describe a phenomenon that exists, that they don't understand. Many, if not most, people who use the term "muscle memory" actually believe that muscles are learning and remembering things. More these days then not are recognizing that it is not the case, but it still common in the sporting world.

As for the rest, no, not really. Subconscious thought is an aspect of motor control that allows the movement to happen. Yes, it goes beyond that, but the movement is initiated in the CNS. It's not a reflex arc. Some of this depends on if you come from a Generalized Motor Program paradigm of motor control or a Dynamical Systems one, but most Motor Learning people tend to be GMP adherents.

If by "the rest" you mean everything beyond conscious/subconscious thought, yes, it does go well beyond that. It's all CNS (except the part about muscle development), but it's more complex than conscious vs. subconscious thought.

 

[JR 137]

Just to throw a wrench into the “muscle memory” debate here...

There was an article published by Stanford University several years back that convincingly theorized that muscle fascia has a lot to do with “muscle memory.” If I recall correctly, they found some crude evidence that fascia is helping the process kind of similar to how the spinal cord is is responsible for reflex actions and not the brain. It wasn’t nearly as much as the spinal cord in the analogy, but they believed there is quite possibly SOME action initiated by the fascia.

I read it a good 8-10 years ago and don’t remember where it was published. Men’s Health ran an article related to it. I read the MH article and then the actual study.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Just to throw a wrench into the “muscle memory” debate here....

Someone punches toward your head. Your kick go out toward his chest. After your opponent has dropped down in front of you with broken ribs. You then realize that your leg just kick out without thinking.

I'll call this "muscle memory".

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Just to throw a wrench into the “muscle memory” debate here...

There was an article published by Stanford University several years back that convincingly theorized that muscle fascia has a lot to do with “muscle memory.” If I recall correctly, they found some crude evidence that fascia is helping the process kind of similar to how the spinal cord is is responsible for reflex actions and not the brain. It wasn’t nearly as much as the spinal cord in the analogy, but they believed there is quite possibly SOME action initiated by the fascia.

I read it a good 8-10 years ago and don’t remember where it was published. Men’s Health ran an article related to it. I read the MH article and then the actual study.

Thanks for posting that - I'll have to go look for something on that.

 

[drop bear]

Actually, it is what people have used to describe a phenomenon that exists, that they don't understand. Many, if not most, people who use the term "muscle memory" actually believe that muscles are learning and remembering things. More these days then not are recognizing that it is not the case, but it still common in the sporting world.

As for the rest, no, not really. Subconscious thought is an aspect of motor control that allows the movement to happen. Yes, it goes beyond that, but the movement is initiated in the CNS. It's not a reflex arc. Some of this depends on if you come from a Generalized Motor Program paradigm of motor control or a Dynamical Systems one, but most Motor Learning people tend to be GMP adherents.

The lie explaines the idea better than the truth. This happens sometimes.