conversation is sparring not kata.

I don't think you hate people. I think that perhaps you got off on the wrong foot soon after joining and did a bit to keep digging yourself deeper. But that can be, and should be turned around and you have the opportunity to be a productive member of the community. I'd extend my hand out to you in that regard. :)

In regards to kata, I once thought they were a complete waste of time, effort and energy. But I didn't truly understand them. That changed. Now you have to understand, I started training in 1975. Since 1985 I've been in one uniform or another and, unfortunately, have had to put my hands on people more times than I care to remember. Real world training is a BIG need for me. My life or the life of a partner depends on it. So, having said that, do you think I'd waste my time on something that wouldn't fulfill my primary needs? Just a thought to toss out for consideration.

thanks for the olive branch.

i certainly have wasted my time on training something that would not fulfill my primary needs.

Or to put that better. I employed a method that got the job done. But through observation and experience. Am employing a better method now.

when street fights work exactly as they do in training. I look at that training as useful.

Now we can have a tactical vs technical debate. But the technique looks sound. Showing me the core of the training is sound.

from sound training and good basics. Then i can come up with solutions to fight on stairs or in the dark.
 
...And the word is defense...with an 's' and not a 'c'. When you get the squiggly red line underneath a word it means you misspelled the word. Unfortunately there is nothing to remind you to capitalize the first word in a sentence.

Before we get back into this too much, just to address this point… yeah, some of drop bears postings have me wondering exactly what is being meant (the odd applications of full-stops separating sentences in the middle etc), but in this case, it's not an issue… "defence" is the correct spelling here, not "defense" (which, for the record, gives us a "red line", and my computer wants to turn into "defines"…). The thing to remember is that the US actually changed a range of spellings from English (Continental), and, while we've adapted some of that, we are still spelling things the way they are in England… such as colour, rather than color (hmm, there's that red line again…).

Just so you know… okay, let's get back to it.

you cant ask for proof apparently because it is trolling.

No, asking for back up isn't trolling… demanding for a specific form of evidence that is flawed, and you know doesn't exist, then denigrating the other persons opinion just because you aren't getting what doesn't exist, and continuing to put down other approaches based on that, can start to edge across into trolling…

all the incidents are at our office. Which i believe is the same proof you have.

Hmm, I thought you said you "are not even taking shots at people"…

i am not sure how the other arguments you made are really helpful.

If you're referring to Kong Soo Do's comments about your posting, well, he's asking for you to pay more attention to your posts, as they can be a confusing mess to try to read… add to that your lack of clarity when quoting (quoting an entire post, then answering seemingly random aspects of it without having any reference to what exactly in the post you're discussing) and so on just adds to the confusion… I mean, I'm only guessing here at what part of KSD's post you're actually talking about… which is really a case in point for that.

Ok back to this because i find it quite a strange statement to direct towards kata.

can someone explain how it is valid?

"•Has no mutually prescribed rule set that both the victim and the attacker(s) have previously agreed upon to use"

This would be a description of kata?

It can be a description of the intended structure and application of kata, not a description of kata itself… but, most importantly, you're looking at entirely the wrong thing. We'll cover that as we go.

It would be a property of Kata.

Yep.

some sort of non prearranged kata?

Nope. Not anything at all to do with it. "Pre-arranged" or "random" have nothing to do with this.

there is two person kata. And even the implied attack in one person kata is prearranged

Sure… but, again, not the point or the argument.

this thread is mostly ego sparring. I think people may have lost the ability to have a discussion.

Er, you do know what irony is, yeah?

it is like they have been saying this stuff and nobody ever turns around and says. "that just doesn't make sense"

Are you really suggesting that you are the first to question anything, from training methods, to applicability, to, well, sparring vs kata? Seriously? Have you considered that, perhaps, it's just possible that others have already gone through that phase, gotten answers, and understood them to the point that they don't need to continue in that vein anymore? Or that your questions have all actually been answered, you simply have ignored most of what you've been told?

after being in an echo chamber for long enough you can wind up believing anything is right.

Again, you do know what irony is, don't you?

ok but how exactly have you remove the rules from your training session?

I think you're getting confused between what was said (that the attacker doesn't have to be beholden to a particular, commensurate methodology as the defender… in other words, the attacker can have a very different set of parameters, including the usage of weapons against as unarmed target, not conforming to striking only, or grappling only, even up to having multiples against a single person, and so on), and your idea of the fact that it's a structured method of training.

i do a kata. It is a pre arranged structure. I don't just make up kata. I do it the way it is supposed to be done.

Do you? And how is it "supposed to be done"? Is there no freedom within kata? Do you know what bunkai actually is?

i do bunkai. Which i think would be a resisted drill or step sparing. You punch in a prearranged manner i defend either in a prearranged manner or on the fly. Still according to rules.

Hmm, that would be a "no", then…

While bunkai can be trained as drills, and can be done in a fairly regimented fashion, that's not really what it is… literally, the term refers to "exploration/examination"… and is a training concept, not a prescribed method or sequence. Individual bunkai can be a particular, pre-arranged drill… but so can a shadow boxing drill. That doesn't mean that the shadow boxing drill is the only way that sequence can be done, or applied…

In sparring like in conversation the rules do matter. Otherwise we either hurt each other. Or achieve nothing.

So, if you agree that the "rules" matter in conversation, why do you persist in pushing the rules here? But, for the record, the rules are actually a bit different, and have a range of different reasons for the two contexts… yet another reason that conversation isn't sparring, of course. Oh, and there's that irony again ("achieve nothing")...

in a combat scenario. The rules matter for the same reason.

No, in a training scenario the "rules" matter for that reason…


i mean this looks like it is prearranged and following rules.

it also does not look like a conversation.

As others have suggested, that is incredibly basic application of the kata… personally, I'd hesitate to refer to it as bunkai… there's really no exploration or examination present, simply a very basic "this is a block, this is the target for a strike" approach. In Japanese terms, this would be very much the omote (outside, face) application… the actual bunkai would be the ura (inner, hidden) side of it all. But let's leave that off, and look at your complaints.

It looks pre-arranged… okay, sure. It is. So I'm hardly surprised that it looks such. But, and here's where you seem to be getting confused, that's not the same as "following rules". Sure, that particular form of application is sticking with the same context for both parties, but that's really not the end-all, be-all… nor even the reality across the board. There is nothing that says that that's the way it has to be… for example, the second application (against a grab from behind) could just as easily be a response against a pistol held against the back of the head… or a knife attack… or an attempted choke… or any of half a dozen other attacks I can see there. There are no "rules" about what the opponent can attack with… which was the point.

And no, it wouldn't look like a conversation to you… mainly as you're missing a lot of understanding as to what's actually going on. It's a prearranged drill set, sure… but so are "conversations" that are written down in plays… so let's take a look at what a conversation actually is, as I think that's been missed here.

A conversation is a communication between two or more parties, following a common thread or idea, or group of ideas. It's not two people randomly saying different things… not paying attention to each other (you might note, this is where the blog you've linked was making a connection, essentially saying that, in sparring, you should be paying attention to your training partner, rather than just focus on yourself… again, very, very different to saying that conversation is sparring). There needs to be a connective thread… going from one statement to another, from one impetus to a response, to a response to that, and so on. In that regard, the application in the video can be seen as a series of very short conversations… or can be strung along for a longer one, perhaps involving others as well. But a conversation can be just as scripted as those training drills, you realise…

So, with all that in mind, you might want to take another look at the video (and other bunkai forms), and look for the give-and-take… call and response. If the first action (statement) is ignored so the defender can do whatever, it's not "conversation"… if it's taken on it's value, and the response is geared towards answering in the same context, then it can be seen as a form of it. None of this says that conversation itself is sparring or kata… but it is showing that sparring and kata can be seen as a form of conversation, depending on how you want to stretch the analogy.

This all started when k man had an issue with being called coy. And i said conversation is like sparring. You get smashed in the head trying something new. It is part of the process. You cant take this stuff to heart.

If your idea of all conversation and communication is that you get smashed in the head, so don't worry about it, then I heartily recommend you expand your idea of communication… especially here.

Oh, and for the record, you were told that then as well, while being told that conversation is not sparring… how you've continued to here, I have no idea…

and turned into an idea that drop bear hates people.

Where has anyone said anything close to you hating people? I might say your communication skills need work, but that's about all I'd say from this vantage point…

sparring happens like that anyway. I trained in a Santa Claus onsie over Christmas.

Er… okay…

but otherwise yes and no. If i am sparring hard. I don't want things around that can unnecessarily hurt me. If i am in a car park i would not be sparring hard.

I think perhaps you missed the point… there was nothing about adding unnecessary danger… the point was to allow you to prepare for, or at least be somewhat aware of, different environments.

i am not overly effected by the o.o.d.a. Loop. And believe it is the hard sparring that causes a resistance to it. Because of the problem solving element attached.

Ha! Okay…

Look, you are just as affected (not "effected", for the record…) by the OODA loop as anyone… without it, you couldn't make a decision or act. That's just the reality. You may feel that you have sped up your processing of the loop, and you may indeed have… but to ascribe it to "hard sparring" and any associated "problem solving" is to assume a connection that, honestly, doesn't likely exist. You may very well have had your reflexes improved by such methods (not the only way to do so), you may have had your ability to read an opponent honed by them (again, not the only way), as both are very good benefits from sparring training methods. But to say that you're less affected by the OODA loop? Uh… no.

thanks for the olive branch.

i certainly have wasted my time on training something that would not fulfill my primary needs.

Or to put that better. I employed a method that got the job done. But through observation and experience. Am employing a better method now.

Yeah, this is where it gets tricky… you can't necessarily ascribe a universal value judgement to training methods in that way… you have found a training method that makes more sense to you, and that you get more value and benefit out of… it's frankly not a "better" method… it's just one that works better for you. I do recommend you recognise the difference there, as much of the heat that you and Hanzou have taken has been over the comments you've made that imply such definitive "better and worse" ideas.

when street fights work exactly as they do in training. I look at that training as useful.

See, we look at that, and see very different things… sure, it looks very similar to the form of technical methods seen in MMA… hardly surprising, really, as there are a range of reasons for it's taking the form it has today (which isn't just to do with the source systems, you understand)… but, to be frank, I see nothing that impresses me at all. I see someone who attacks another person, the one being attacked doing essentially nothing back, and, despite absolutely nothing stopping the techniques, there being almost no effect whatsoever. Which is something I don't find particularly useful…

Now we can have a tactical vs technical debate. But the technique looks sound. Showing me the core of the training is sound.

Again, not to me… the technique was rather lacking (and ineffective), despite the apparent "control" he had… all of which showed me that the training is lacking on a number of levels… both tactically and technically.

from sound training and good basics. Then i can come up with solutions to fight on stairs or in the dark.

And what makes you think that couldn't be done with other systems?

But, again, for the record, if that was the result of my guys being able to apply anything they wanted, I'd hardly call it good basics… but this is really far from the idea of "conversation is sparring"… so how about we try to address that topic, rather than what training method is good, bad, better, or worse… it doesn't change anything about what conversation is or isn't, and is just another rehashing of a discussion/argument we've all done many times now. If you want to retread that tired path again, perhaps yet another thread is in order, yeah? I mean, you started this topic… did you want to actually discuss it?
 
If we choose to spar, we must both abide by the same rule set. It wouldn't make for much of a sparring session if you were limited to WTF TKD rules i.e. you can kick and punch but you must remain standing, whereas I use a MMA rule set that allows me to take you to the ground and/or submit you with a lock. That is why two people sparring abide by the same rule set

I just wanted to mention that you can have very productive sparring sessions where the parties involved are operating with different rule sets. When I teach, I very often assign each partner a role with specific limitations and/or objectives. Often this gives better results than purely open-ended sparring.
 
I just wanted to mention that you can have very productive sparring sessions where the parties involved are operating with different rule sets. When I teach, I very often assign each partner a role with specific limitations and/or objectives. Often this gives better results than purely open-ended sparring.

Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?
 
Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?

a) It gets the students focused on building the specific skills that we are currently working on, instead of just trying to "win" by working their "A" game.
b) It allows for working tactics relevant to self-defense situations, which are typically asymmetric.
 
a) It gets the students focused on building the specific skills that we are currently working on, instead of just trying to "win" by working their "A" game.
b) It allows for working tactics relevant to self-defense situations, which are typically asymmetric.

Not sure what you mean by "typically asymmetric" but sounds a good training method :)
 
Not sure what you mean by "typically asymmetric" but sounds a good training method :)
I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.

If I am the attacker, then I have the goal of hurting/robbing/raping you. I get to choose the time and place of the attack, which means I can stack the odds in my favor with surprise/position/numbers/weapons/etc. I have to bring the attack to you - I can't sit back and be a counter puncher.

If I am the defender, then I have the goal of getting home safe. If I can disengage and get away, that counts as a win for me. If you don't bring the fight to me, then I don't have to worry about breaking through your defenses - I can just leave.

(There can be lots of other asymmetric factors based on the specifics of the situation, but the above is pretty typical.)

When you think about it this way, you realize that the standard approach to sparring, where we square up opposite each other and go at it is more like a duel than a self-defense scenario. You can build useful skills and attributes with that sort of sparring, but you can also build some bad self-defense habits if you aren't careful as well.
 
I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.

If I am the attacker, then I have the goal of hurting/robbing/raping you. I get to choose the time and place of the attack, which means I can stack the odds in my favor with surprise/position/numbers/weapons/etc. I have to bring the attack to you - I can't sit back and be a counter puncher.

If I am the defender, then I have the goal of getting home safe. If I can disengage and get away, that counts as a win for me. If you don't bring the fight to me, then I don't have to worry about breaking through your defenses - I can just leave.

(There can be lots of other asymmetric factors based on the specifics of the situation, but the above is pretty typical.)

When you think about it this way, you realize that the standard approach to sparring, where we square up opposite each other and go at it is more like a duel than a self-defense scenario. You can build useful skills and attributes with that sort of sparring, but you can also build some bad self-defense habits if you aren't careful as well.

Wow, that is some reply. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Bad habits I suppose could be with the same drills over and over?
 
Wow, that is some reply. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Bad habits I suppose could be with the same drills over and over?

One form of bad habit is a "dueling mentality", where you get caught up in trying to beat the other guy rather than keeping sight of your current situation and your real objective - getting away unscathed.

Another form of bad habit for self-defense training is "playing to the rules." If you always spar with the same rules, then you can become dependent on tactics which require those specific rules to be in place. One way to avoid that tendency (and develop mental flexibility) is to change up the rules regularly.
 
Are you really suggesting that you are the first to question anything, from training methods, to applicability, to, well, sparring vs kata? Seriously? Have you considered that, perhaps, it's just possible that others have already gone through that phase, gotten answers, and understood them to the point that they don't need to continue in that vein anymore? Or that your questions have all actually been answered, you simply have ignored most of what you've been

i have considered that you are now at the point where you have stopped questioning.

pretty much as you said.

you no longer test or redefine. It is all worked out,laid out and now just needs to be instructed to other people.

like kata.

but that is not conversation.
 
One form of bad habit is a "dueling mentality", where you get caught up in trying to beat the other guy rather than keeping sight of your current situation and your real objective - getting away unscathed.

Another form of bad habit for self-defense training is "playing to the rules." If you always spar with the same rules, then you can become dependent on tactics which require those specific rules to be in place. One way to avoid that tendency (and develop mental flexibility) is to change up the rules regularly.

i spar three or four different systems.

the dueling mentality is a tricky one. People look at a sparring session as a whole. For me that is five minute round. (sort of)

now in that five minutes i may spend ten second sets in a toe to toe brawl.(which is a street fight if we go by some of the popular opinion on this). Or ten seconds wearing a flurry like an ambush attack. And so on.

kata has bunkai. Sparring has,i don't know, bits of fighting inside it.
 
Seems quite normal to me. What the biggest benefits that you yourself find over open ended sparring?

they don't know what you are going to do. So i do mma for the street. I decide i want to try standing arm locks for work to test a method.

i don't tell them. They just fight me. I either get to apply what i wanted or i get my head punched in.
 
Ha! Okay…

Look, you are just as affected (not "effected", for the record…) by the OODA loop as anyone… without it, you couldn't make a decision or act. That's just the reality. You may feel that you have sped up your processing of the loop, and you may indeed have… but to ascribe it to "hard sparring" and any associated "problem solving" is to assume a connection that, honestly, doesn't likely exist. You may very well have had your reflexes improved by such methods (not the only way to do so), you may have had your ability to read an opponent honed by them (again, not the only way), as both are very good benefits from sparring training methods. But to say that you're less affected by the OODA loop? Uh… no.

you are telling me this are you?

how did you come to this conclusion? I have had a heap of fights. I have used a heap of different training methods.

i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)

i have seen peoples first ring fight. They ooda loop. They don't on subsequent fights.

you are using kata as conversation here. The theory defining the practical.
 
i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)
Ummmmmm no that's not how it works. You ALWAYS ooda loop. You may be slightly faster then others but you still do it.

As for the rest of this well you all are getting way to complicated kata is kata sparring is sparring and neither are conversation but carry on

Here is a good article I use when I discuss ooda loop to police recruits.
Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine
 
Ummmmmm no that's not how it works. You ALWAYS ooda loop. You may be slightly faster then others but you still do it.

As for the rest of this well you all are getting way to complicated kata is kata sparring is sparring and neither are conversation but carry on

Here is a good article I use when I discuss ooda loop to police recruits.
Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine

yeah the more complicated part. Was that i switch quickly from plan to plan.

otherwise ooda as in that article could just as easily be applied to sparring.
 
Hey Tony,

In pretty much complete agreement with everything you're saying (I think the distinction could be made between forms of sparring… the most common is really the "sports" style, symmetrical format, which is where the issues are identified… many would consider the asymmetrical format a different type of free-form drill… of course, that comes down to the perspective of the system/individual). Just one thing, though...

I mean that in an actual self-defense situation (as opposed to a Monkey Dance consensual fight), the attacker and defender have different objectives and constraints.

A Monkey Dance isn't a consensual fight… kinda the opposite… it's a display, used to intimidate or avoid conflict, and is rarely symmetrical itself. A consensual fight in this case would be a match fight, whether a challenge in a bar, spilling out to the parking lot, or a sporting form (such as MMA), or anything of the kind.

i have considered that you are now at the point where you have stopped questioning.

pretty much as you said.

you no longer test or redefine. It is all worked out,laid out and now just needs to be instructed to other people.

like kata.

Then you have no idea of how I do things. I question constantly… every time I go through a kata, I'm ensuring it's optimised on both the attacker and defender side, which is done by constantly questioning and checking the technique itself. I also constantly test to see if things need redefining… but frankly, I've been at this some 2 and a half decades or more, so most of the basic questions (that you're dealing with) are well and truly behind me now. That doesn't mean I've stopped questioning, it means that the questions you're bringing up are already answered.

but that is not conversation.

Er… what? What isn't? Kata isn't conversation? Are you still repeating the same thing without any acknowledgement of, well, the fact that no-one has suggested it is, or that you're still showing gaps in your understanding of what kata is?

Let's be clear here. Conversation is neither sparring, nor kata. Constantly trying to equate the two is flawed, and inaccurate. Stating that they're not the same thing is redundant, as no-one is arguing that. The only thing that can be said is that sparring can be seen as a form of conversation (but the inverse is not true), and that some aspects of, or forms of kata can be the same. That's it.

i spar three or four different systems.

the dueling mentality is a tricky one. People look at a sparring session as a whole. For me that is five minute round. (sort of)

now in that five minutes i may spend ten second sets in a toe to toe brawl.(which is a street fight if we go by some of the popular opinion on this). Or ten seconds wearing a flurry like an ambush attack. And so on.

kata has bunkai. Sparring has,i don't know, bits of fighting inside it.

This is possibly the most interesting, and insightful thing you've said here. Personally, I'd suggest that there are better ways to address each of those areas, but I appreciate the approach there. Interesting.

they don't know what you are going to do. So i do mma for the street. I decide i want to try standing arm locks for work to test a method.

i don't tell them. They just fight me. I either get to apply what i wanted or i get my head punched in.

Er, no… that's not really anything to do with "open ended sparring" as Tony described… that's more just you trying to apply a single goal… and has nothing to do with the opponent not knowing what you're going to do… in fact, in the "open ended" (asymmetrical) format that Tony was talking about, often both sides know what the respective aims of each other are… so yeah, they do know what you're going to do.

you are telling me this are you?

Yes, I am.

how did you come to this conclusion? I have had a heap of fights. I have used a heap of different training methods.

I'm sorry, how did I come to the conclusion that you are just as subject to the exact same decision making process that every single person in the world is…? Is that what you're asking? Really?

i don't ooda loop much. (it is more complicated than that)

Er… do you actually get what the OODA loop is?

i have seen peoples first ring fight. They ooda loop. They don't on subsequent fights.

Everyone "OODA loops" (not sure that really makes sense…). Everyone.

Tell you what, let's look at why you have to run through the OODA loop… it's a sequence that is essential to be able to do anything. First, you observe (O)… seeing what's happening in front of you (notice your opponent)… then, you orient (O) towards what's happening (are they attacking, defending, open to attack?)… decide (D)… chose an action (say, your decision that, as you've observed the opponent is a particular distance, and open to an arm bar)… then act (A)… perform your decided action (move in and attempt to apply your arm bar).

If you don't go through that sequence, you will not be able to pick an appropriate action and act upon it… you're going to not observe (not see what's going on), not orient (not give your attention where it needs to be), not decide (fail to select an appropriate action), or not act (don't do anything). I mean, without it, if you're doing anything at all (having any action), it can only be a random, untargeted, thoughtlessly selected, and inappropriate action. You might as well close your eyes, and randomly swing your arms around while spinning in a circle, hoping to hit something… that's not using the OODA loop… anything where you have a selected action, you've used the OODA loop. You really can't get around that.

you are using kata as conversation here. The theory defining the practical.

No, I'm not. I'm using facts to correct your misapplication of various terms.

yeah the more complicated part. Was that i switch quickly from plan to plan.

otherwise ooda as in that article could just as easily be applied to sparring.

Of course the OODA loop applies to sparring… what on earth makes you think it doesn't?!?
 
Of course the OODA loop applies to sparring… what on earth makes you think it doesn't?!?

Is this what you guys are referring to. To me this looks like a business type thing, rather than just applying to sparing/MA.

Stage 1. Observe
At this initial point in the loop, you should be on the look-out for new information, and need to be aware of unfolding circumstances. The more information you can take in here, the more accurate your perception will be. Like an F-86 pilot with a wide field of vision, you want to capture as much incoming data as possible. The kind of questions you need to be asking are:

  • What's happening in the environment that directly affects me?
  • What's happening that indirectly affects me?
  • What's happening that may have residual affects later on?
  • Were my predictions accurate?
  • Are there any areas where prediction and reality differ significantly?
Stage 2. Orient
One of the main problems with decision-making comes at the Orient stage: we all view events in a way that's filtered through our own experiences and perceptions. Boyd identified five main influences:

  • Cultural traditions.
  • Genetic heritage.
  • The ability to analyze and synthesize.
  • Previous experience.
  • New information coming in.
Orientation is essentially how you interpret a situation. This then leads directly to your decision.

The argument here is that by becoming more aware of your perceptions, and by speeding up your ability to orient to reality, you can move through the decision loop quickly and effectively. The quicker you understand what's going on, the better. And if you can make sense of the situation and the environment around you faster than your competition, you'll have an advantage.

And it's important to remember that you're constantly re-orienting. As new information comes in at the Observe stage, you need to process it quickly and revise your orientation accordingly.

Stage 3. Decide
Decisions are really your best guesses, based on the observations you've made and the orientation you're using. As such, they should be considered to be fluid works-in-progress. As you keep on cycling through the OODA Loop, and new suggestions keep arriving, these can trigger changes to your decisions and subsequent actions – essentially, you're learning as you continue to cycle through the steps. The results of your learning are brought in during the Orient phase, which in turn influences the rest of the decision making process.

Stage 4. Act
The Act stage is where you implement your decision. You then cycle back to the Observe stage, as you judge the effects of your action. This is where actions influence the rest of the cycle, and it's important to keep learning from what you, and your opponents, are doing.
 
Is this what you guys are referring to. To me this looks like a business type thing, rather than just applying to sparing/MA.

Stage 1. Observe
At this initial point in the loop, you should be on the look-out for new information, and need to be aware of unfolding circumstances. The more information you can take in here, the more accurate your perception will be. Like an F-86 pilot with a wide field of vision, you want to capture as much incoming data as possible. The kind of questions you need to be asking are:

  • What's happening in the environment that directly affects me?
  • What's happening that indirectly affects me?
  • What's happening that may have residual affects later on?
  • Were my predictions accurate?
  • Are there any areas where prediction and reality differ significantly?
Stage 2. Orient
One of the main problems with decision-making comes at the Orient stage: we all view events in a way that's filtered through our own experiences and perceptions. Boyd identified five main influences:

  • Cultural traditions.
  • Genetic heritage.
  • The ability to analyze and synthesize.
  • Previous experience.
  • New information coming in.
Orientation is essentially how you interpret a situation. This then leads directly to your decision.

The argument here is that by becoming more aware of your perceptions, and by speeding up your ability to orient to reality, you can move through the decision loop quickly and effectively. The quicker you understand what's going on, the better. And if you can make sense of the situation and the environment around you faster than your competition, you'll have an advantage.

And it's important to remember that you're constantly re-orienting. As new information comes in at the Observe stage, you need to process it quickly and revise your orientation accordingly.

Stage 3. Decide
Decisions are really your best guesses, based on the observations you've made and the orientation you're using. As such, they should be considered to be fluid works-in-progress. As you keep on cycling through the OODA Loop, and new suggestions keep arriving, these can trigger changes to your decisions and subsequent actions – essentially, you're learning as you continue to cycle through the steps. The results of your learning are brought in during the Orient phase, which in turn influences the rest of the decision making process.

Stage 4. Act
The Act stage is where you implement your decision. You then cycle back to the Observe stage, as you judge the effects of your action. This is where actions influence the rest of the cycle, and it's important to keep learning from what you, and your opponents, are doing.
Yep that's it. Here's a good article to explain it as it relates to violence and self defense (kinda it's more geared towards police but you get the gist)
Why the OODA Loop is Still Relevant - Article - POLICE Magazine
 
Back
Top