Don Roley's Recent Blog Post On Resistance Training And Sparring!

[Brian R. VanCise]

I think several people here might find this interesting.
These are Don's opinion's only but a very interesting read none the less.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=423858376&blogId=485154872

 

[clfsean]

Don almost always has something interesting to say. Good stuff.

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

I am all for Resistance training and sparing once fundamental concepts are ingrained. Without the pressure testing against a live moving resisting opponent you may not be able to put the training into a reliable self defense. I agree with bad habits but its kinda of a blanket statement. Many schools train in competition and self defense. The average person is not sparing or training with pressure testing is going to have a painful reality check when they go up against someone who has be that in a Dojo or in a street encounter.

People on the street as Gang members are pressure tested due to fights with other gang members and being jumped in. MMA are pressure tested in their sparing and most likely have a better chance in a hand to hand fight then someone who does not incoperate sparing or pressure testing.

Agreed that if you do not train to expect knifes and grapple with knifes and train to expect the unexpected and use what ever you can to win.
It would be great if more MMA school settings practice this type of training.

 

[stephen]

I like this article. It's a rather good, clear explanation.

I think it was Dale who I first heard use the term 'non-compliant' instead of 'resistant' training. I think it's a very fitting term for this sort of training.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I read it a couple days ago, and found it very informative. Coming from western JJ, it was something I was doubtful about when I started in Genbukan.

But Don has a number of good points. Once someone has enough experience under his belt, he or she could engage in free sparring because it will not a detritement to his or her technique.

In western JJ, we started to spar from day one. And while this is something that has benefited me in the past, it has also left me with a couple of bad habits that grew out of the 'drive' to win which made me compensate bad technique by using strength or other 'shortcuts'.

So atm I am content with the practise drills that we have.

 

[Dale Seago]

I think several people here might find this interesting.
These are Don's opinion's only but a very interesting read none the less.

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=423858376&blogId=485154872

Don's entry of 24 October '08 is related to this and, I feel, equally important.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Don's entry of 24 October '08 is related to this and, I feel, equally important.

That one is more important imo, because it explains one of the fundamental differences between e.g. TKD (no offense to the TKD guys) and ninpo, and indirectly it shows why tai sabaki is the most important thing you'll ever learn (imho).

 

[Archangel M]

Ive read Dons stuff around the net and he always makes great points. While I see what he's getting at here and he does have a point, I cant agree with downplaying "resistive opponents". Its my opinion that if you want to get a "new" student "combat effective" (not an "expert" or a "technician" or "artist") as quickly as possible, that nothing is better than getting him facing more and more "resisting" opponents very soon in training. Waiting for that "perfect technique" wont matter if he/she gets attacked before attaining it. Its always been my opinion that a fit person who knows what its like to hit and get hit is going to be combat effective much quicker than the "non-sparring" martial artist.

Bad habits? Maybe, but I think the "I dont want you to get bad habits" thing is a bit overplayed by some. You can balance training against people "who dont play along" with technique honing.

Knives?...if a knife enters into the equation you are ****ed either way IMO. But the person who knows what it is to fight is going to have better survivability in more circumstances IMO.

I kind of think the IPSC analogy plays against his point. Yeah, they may have ingrained some bad habits. But if they had been training against "resistive opponents" with simunitions along with their "game skills" I think that they would have fared better. Simunitions training manuals are great refrences regarding incorporating "active resistance" into your training. Its not as simple as just running around shooting at each other. Its a training process like any other.

Anyway. I dont want to sound like Im attacking Dons stuff. I see where hes going but Im not ready to downplay "active resistance" training. Fighting is fighting and training is training. If you are not trying to get the two as close as possible you are doing a disservice to your students. If THAT is what the goal is. There is really nothing wrong with training in whatever way you like, Im just not going to buy your argument about how effective it is on the street.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Ive read Dons stuff around the net and he always makes great points. While I see what he's getting at here and he does have a point, I cant agree with downplaying "resistive opponents". Its my opinion that if you want to get a "new" student "combat effective" (not an "expert" or a "technician" or "artist") as quickly as possible, that nothing is better than getting him facing more and more "resisting" opponents very soon in training. Waiting for that "perfect technique" wont matter if he/she gets attacked before attaining it. Its always been my opinion that a fit person who knows what its like to hit and get hit is going to be combat effective much quicker than the "non-sparring" martial artist.

No contest. Honestly. I fully agree.
A relatively short time (say 1 year) in Western JJ, kickboxing or something else which emphasizes resistance training or free sparring will make you a fairly effective fighter if you train hard.

A similar time in ninpo will make you good at kaiten (rolling) and tai sabaki (basic evasion ) if you train hard. You can probably evade an attack much better than someone doing another MA, but if it comes to actual fighting, you'll fare worse imo.

It'll take a lot of years you reach the point in ninpo where you become an effective fighter, and the principles will still be the same: get out of the way, and end the fight. I've seen a couple of clips of Hatsumi sensei en Tanemura sensei, and it is extraordinary to see how they only need very minute movements to place themselves in a position where they can kill at leisure.

If you have an immediate need for self defense skills, then ninpo should not be your only choice.

 

[Kajowaraku]

Of course, the advantage of honing technique in a correct way (which is not with a compliant uke, but more a form of ippon kumite) over cultivating "fighting spirit" by sparring, becomes visible after many years.

I mean that in two distinct ways. Firstly, it takes many years to get good enough to get the pressure points, locks, minimalistic tai sabaki, et cetera right from the first time. Secondly, you can probably still defend yourself with this type of discipline once you're 75. The average thaiboxer, to name just one sparring based art, will be far more lethal after his first year than a student of ninpo tai jutsu ( Thai jutsu versus tai jutsu, interesting wordplay), however, I doubt many competitive thaiboxers will still be able to use their experience to the fullest once they are, let's say: 75. No doubt there are exceptions on both accounts, but i think the general trend is as such. Regardless, I would have to agree that at least at a certain point in ones martial art training, pressure training becomes much desired, the form in which it comes may vary though. I like to put students in situations reenacting real situations, some form of roleplay if you wish. It takes a good "uke" to do that though, verbally taunting, prodding and pushing to check control and composure. It's more of a mental training, but it shows how many people simply mess up by (for example) responding ineffectively and with poor timing after the slightest taunt, thus acting in favor of the attacker (who's trying to get some response to justify excessive violence or whatever). Others simply freeze and sob, not the way to go either, and others still get nervous and fail to execute any technique properly at all. It's an intermediate form of pressure training, but if applied with some spirit, it can be productive. Most self defense fights don't last 8 rounds anyway, it's all about initial response and composure in my experience.

(of course, this being said, sparring is simply alot of fun, but not all disciplines are equally suited for it.)

just my humble 2 cents worth of oppinion.

 

[stephen]

The problem with these discussions is that people tend to frame them as 'resistance' vs 'non-resistance', the problem is that this is not the debate.

This is, I think, the point Don was trying to make. It's very difficult to explain.

 

[Dale Seago]

The problem with these discussions is that people tend to frame them as 'resistance' vs 'non-resistance', the problem is that this is not the debate.

This is, I think, the point Don was trying to make. It's very difficult to explain.

Right, that's why I prefer terms like compliance vs. noncompliance.

 

[jks9199]

Right, that's why I prefer terms like compliance vs. noncompliance.

I'm kind of liking that phrasing myself. "Resistant" gives kind of a competitive/stubborn mindset, and doesn't really lend itself to different tiers of resistance. You can start totally compliant, and gradually shift to increasing non-compliant training as both partners skills progress.

 

[Dale Seago]

Yes. "Resistance" implies directly opposing forces, and we pretty much never oppose an opponent's force directly with our own unless our strength is much greater. If the opponent is able to resist a technique it means that the positional relationship is outside the parameters within which that technique was designed to work. At that point, the only way for it to succeed is for you to be stronger than his resistance.

 

[Cryozombie]

Yes. "Resistance" implies directly opposing forces, and we pretty much never oppose an opponent's force directly with our own unless our strength is much greater. If the opponent is able to resist a technique it means that the positional relationship is outside the parameters within which that technique was designed to work. At that point, the only way for it to succeed is for you to be stronger than his resistance.

Right. Thats how I see it... if an opponent is resisting, its time to change techniques.

 

[ElfTengu]

Flowing around resistance rather than meeting it.

The problem is that when you are asked to show how something might work for real, it won't when a non-compliant resisting uke is being used who A)knows what's coming and B)has already had it done to him 5 times in a row in the last few minutes. They will either change their attack or resist your application of that particular 'technique' by flowing with it, tensing up, or even countering.

So you end up flowing around his resistance and doing something else altogether, which works fine but doesn't show how the previously demonstrated technique will work.

If you are clever you can put enough flow into what you are doing so that you lead the action back to a point where you can apply the original technique, but so that uke is not expecting it this time. You know when the time is right to do so and only do so when the time is right.

Technique 1 flows into technique 2 flows into technique 3 flows into technique 4 flows into technique 1.

To oversimplify: We could all put an omotegyaku on someone who has already committed themselves to flipping out of an uragyaku and using their inertia to pretty much rip their arm off, but it wouldn't prove the effectiveness of uragyaku. But to go uragyaku-omotegyaku-uragyaku would be better.

Of course all of this would be formless taijutsu and not just a rigid sequence.

 

[Kajowaraku]

To oversimplify: [...] using their inertia to pretty much rip their arm off [...]

Interesting how you operationalise "over-simplification"

I do pretty much agree with your argument btw.

 

[stephen]

but it wouldn't prove the effectiveness of uragyaku

Sure it would. You've effectively used it to create a situation that is to your advantage, that is, they have now committed to an action that you can take advantage of.

Just because I use a rife to lay down covering fire doesn't mean that my rounds are not effective.

 

[ElfTengu]

Sure it would. You've effectively used it to create a situation that is to your advantage, that is, they have now committed to an action that you can take advantage of.

Just because I use a rife to lay down covering fire doesn't mean that my rounds are not effective.

I actually understand you for once, which is quite something, but you know what I meant, I meant that it doesn't prove uragyaku as a coup de grace on its own, unless you go back to it and finish with it.

I was imagining it in terms of explaining it to a novice or a practitioner of another art. Doing something other than the technique in question is a bit like saying "Paracetomol will cure your headache but here's some aspirin instead".

In your firepower analogy it would be like firing rounds in between normal rounds that somebody else believed were blanks and you were having to prove otherwise.

But I generally don't disagree, I was just trying to dumb it down. The weird thing is that I posted before reading Don's article so I was stunned when I saw similarities. I must be getting better at last!

 

[stephen]

but you know what I meant,

I know, I was snickering to myself when I wrote it. I knew you'd go 'not this *ahem* stuff again!"

I meant that it doesn't prove uragyaku as a coup de grace on its own, unless you go back to it and finish with it.

To be serious here for a moment, I think that thinking about techniques like this is a big mistake. Who says any of this should be a 'coup de grace'? Once you get that technique 'on', that's when you could be in trouble. That's when your mind stops while the other guy's is still going. That's a sure fire way to get behind the 8-ball.

Doing something other than the technique in question is a bit like saying "Paracetomol will cure your headache but here's some aspirin instead".

Maybe it's a bit like saying, 'If you have a headache, there's a bunch of things that can help. Check your medicine cabinet and see what you got first. Aspirin will work, Ibuprofen will work, Aleve will work, a cold washcloth may work; the point is to get rid of the headache.

In your firepower analogy it would be like firing rounds in between normal rounds that somebody else believed were blanks and you were having to prove otherwise.

Gone are the days of attrition warfare, I think many units now are focused on using firepower in order to allow movement rather than to wear down the enemy. Think of Rommel's Blitzkrieg rather than rows of soldiers lining up and shooting at one another.