On Combat

[Connovar]

I was glad to see people reading and discussion ON KILLING and thought I would open a thread on his followup work. Personally I think as martial arts ethusiasts his second book is even more practical. If we take his summaries of research as valid what does that mean regarding martial arts and realistic self defense. Here are some of my conclusions based upon his summary of research.

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

Anyway just some initial quick jots. Agree, disagree, discuss.

 

[Bigshadow]

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

Agree.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

Disagree.

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal.

Disagree. In fact a tense body is... among many things, SLOW.

Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

Disagree. That can inhibit the learning process. Training all stressed out can teach you alot of bad habits.

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo.
but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

Disagree. You will fight how you train. Constant noise and stress will incorporate bad habits in the training.

IMHO, the reason some self defense systems and training routines (such as the military boot camp) focus on gross motor skills is those are most easily taught in a short amount of time (few gross motor techniques = shorter training time = limited capability). This gets the soldier ready for the battlefield faster. However, if they had longer time to train the fine motor skills, they would fare far better in the stresses of hand to hand combat.

Just my opinions.

 

[Connovar]

The reason for the issue of gross motor vs fine motor is based upon the physiologic reality of combat. When you are under attack your autonomic system goes into arousal. As such you have no choice but you lose fine motor skills. The research indicates that the only way to retain fine motor skills is repetively training the individual finer motor skills while under high stress. This conditioning can preserve some fine motor skills. Training fine motor skills in a relaxed environment does not have the same results.

Therefore it is not a question of which is better. Its a question of what is realistically available to the person in combat. Advanced fine motor skills are great and may be better than the gross skills but the research indicates they simply arent very feasible when the **** hits the fan.

There are breathing techniques which can be used to reduce the arousal level as to much arousal can ulimatelly lead to a person "freezing". However these are best practiced during high stress training.

Elevated arousal levels are needed at different levels depending upon the action required. An example in the book is the difference btw the assault helicopter pilots need versus the assault troops themselves.
Arousal as it increases tends to increase strength and reaction time with a loss of fine motor and general awarness. As such a pilot needs to retain is fine motor skills but loses some of the advantages of arousal.

Perhaps in the pre firearm days battle was less chaotic than now although I doubt that. My presumption is that most of what we call martial arts are actually taken from dueling which is not the same as the chaos of warfare and as such the techniques are less suitable to warfare or unexpected combat.

 

[Bigshadow]

The reason for the issue of gross motor vs fine motor is based upon the physiologic reality of combat. When you are under attack your autonomic system goes into arousal. As such you have no choice but you lose fine motor skills.

You do have a choice. This article immediately comes to mind....

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sonnon12.htm

By: Coach Sonnon
Two issues ago, I introduced the concept of the development of emotional control through physical training in my article, Circulo-Respiratory Distress. Last issue, in Panic Control for the Warrior Athlete, I expanded upon emotional management of stress. Understanding how to control one's emotional arousal is paramount to victory... and survival.
Many martial artists come to Circular Strength Training? (CST) because it is the only system ever created to specifically prepare one for the trials of combat; a system deeply entrenched in the language of science and wrapped in empirical study and personal experience of combat and fighting. Due to the nature of martial arts, I intended CST to provide a means of not only off-setting negative affects combat causes the body, but also to help the body better perform within the cauldron of fighting.

Advanced fine motor skills are great and may be better than the gross skills but the research indicates they simply arent very feasible when the **** hits the fan.

So then you are saying that "you WON'T fight the way you train"?

 

[Connovar]

The question is where have Sonnons theories been tested and proven. Perhaps he has some East block research that can support that. Myself I would rather go with whats proven by science. If a theory has been proven then its time to add to your training regime but not before.

I saw some clips of him sparring recently. I congratulate him on his win. However it appears he may have been to relaxed because he didnt fare so well in the first round. Combat is fundamentally different than sparring in the intensity and duration of the fight. A hand to hand combat fight should not exceed 15-30 seconds. The attributes needed here are significantly different that a dueling match that last minutes and even multiple rounds

Its not that I am against sport. My favorite MA is BJJ. However it isnt what I would mainly rely upon to survive in self defense.

 

[Bigshadow]

If a theory has been proven then its time to add to your training regime but not before.

Battlefield tested martial arts have been proven.

 

[Connovar]

Looking at your profile I assume you are talking about bujinkan arts. So when, where and it what context were they tested. Please be specific as I hope this thread will be based upon facts and not just myth, stories or traditions.

 

[arnisador]

Battlefield tested martial arts have been proven.

But aren't always trained the same way they were 'back in the day', which can be an issue.

 

[Connovar]

But aren't always trained the same way they were 'back in the day', which can be an issue.

Very good point. Its not just the techniques themselves, but the training methods that go with them. Often the training methods have been diluted in order to be acceptable to more types of students or be less cause for legal liabilty from training injuries. There is nothing wrong with that in itself as Martial arts can be a great form of exercise and that is certainly preferable to being a couch potato.

However I get concerned when I see unacceptably easy training methods being used for training students but the students then are told they are warriors. The results can be serious since they can be deluded about what they are really capable of. One of the worse examples was attending a seminar with two very high ranking practioners. They training was non resistive. The techniques were extremely complicated. After the training the highest ranking practioner said (my paraphrase): See, dont you all feel good because now you can go anywhere and people will be safer because of your presence!

 

[Bigshadow]

I am not going to debate with you. You are obviously trolling for an arguement. Believe what you will.

 

[jdinca]

I was glad to see people reading and discussion ON KILLING and thought I would open a thread on his followup work. Personally I think as martial arts ethusiasts his second book is even more practical. If we take his summaries of research as valid what does that mean regarding martial arts and realistic self defense. Here are some of my conclusions based upon his summary of research.

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

Anyway just some initial quick jots. Agree, disagree, discuss.

Number one, I agree.

I disagree with number two. Fine motor skill movement requires a high degree of coarse motor skill control. You have to start with and refine the coarse motor skills before you can work on the fine ones, therefore, the better you are at the fine motor skills, the better you will be at the coarse motor skills. Do you think that the coarse type movements taught in bootcamp is the extent of the instructors abilities? I would say no, that they also have a high level of fine motor skill as well as coarse motor skill movement.

Semi agree with number three. It's not just arousal, it's controlled arousal. Going berserk is not going to help deal with the situation, if control and reasoning go out the window. Think being the calm at the eye of the storm with your bodies movements being the storm. Use the arousal but maintain control of it. A mind not blinded by emotion will be able to deal with a situation better than if pure emotion is in control. These are skills that cannot be trained if the student is in a constant state of emotional arousal.

I disagree with number four. Trying to teach skills with someone screaming in my ear or with all kinds of distraction is just going to make it more difficult to learn. Once the skills are developed, yeah incorporate some distractors but don't do it before you've ingrained what you've learned in your mind and muscles.

 

[Connovar]

jdinca actually I think we agree more than we disagree. Too much arousal puts what they called the black zone. It had too much loss of fine motor. To much tunnel vision etc.

I also agree that training is in stages. You teach the moves first, then add resistance. Then add resistance with distractions and unfavorable enviroments. Then the warrior is capable of applying his skill sets whether it in the chaos of modern battlefield or the noise and chaos of rowdy nightclub.

 

[Connovar]

I am not going to debate with you. You are obviously trolling for an arguement. Believe what you will.

Yes it would probably be best for you not to continue this discussion. Thank you.

 

[Cryozombie]

-Mod Note-

Please Keep the conversation Polite and Respectful.

Thank you.

-Technopunk
-MT Super Mod

 

[Sapper6]

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

1) i agree. sparring is a game of tag; "who can hit who where, first". it's a joke. i spar rather often, but hate it. it proves nothing. often, you'll hear "anti-kata" people say, "kata and forms don't help anyone, you must get on the mat and spar for your training to be worth anything". i get more out of technique forms in an hour than i'd get out of sparring in a month.

2) not really sure. i see what you are trying to say but will disagree, sorta. to the MA'ist that constantly trains fine motor skills, he would fare much better than the one who does not. to say, "arts based upon sensitivity training fare worse in SD situations" is gross misunderstanding of such arts. i'd suggest actually studying such disciplines before making or reinforcing such statement.

3) well that would depend on the art. i'm assuming you are equating arousal with "adrenal dump"? sure it can improve your fighting, but most often, especially with the unexperienced fighter, will hinder performance. you gotta train what you know, period. that's the only way to increase such chances of survival, i don't care what you study. systems that focus on relaxation take advantage of things differently. relaxation and sound judgement during an altercation can save your life and keep you out of prison. it's up to that individual how far they take a specific technique. refer to my signature below for a better understanding. i would advise against a martial artist reacting to an adrenal dump in the wrong manner and going ***-wild with strikes. it's about strike placement that will make or break your chances of survival. and the only thing that will ensure that is the control of fine motor skills, which, is honed with constant training on such matters.

4) not really. here's an idea folks: during your next class, crank up the heat to 90 degrees, pop in a slayer CD maxed out in volume, invite your local high school marching band to play a 20 minute number...at the same time, get in your students face and scream "drill sergeant style" while he performs such technique. you're saying this should resemble realistic training? do that and see how much information your students actually retain.

repetition breeds success; and it doesn't have to take place in the middle of a busy freeway during the rush-hour.

 

[Kacey]

repetition breeds success; and it doesn't have to take place in the middle of a busy freeway during the rush-hour.

I agree with what you posted - and most of all with the last statement; as a school teacher (middle school math) I find that some students can perform in a noisy, disruptive environment, but not unless they have been given the opportunity to practice in quiet - and I find the same thing with my TKD students. Do you mind if I borrow your last statement for discussions on classroom management with some teachers I work with?

 

[Sapper6]

i would be honored. just a statement that makes common sense, which happens to be an ingredient in everything i do.

good luck with the students. i can only imagine what you deal with on a daily basis. now that i think about it, i should really call Ms. Robinson and apologize for my actions in 1992.

 

[DeLamar.J]

I was glad to see people reading and discussion ON KILLING and thought I would open a thread on his followup work. Personally I think as martial arts ethusiasts his second book is even more practical. If we take his summaries of research as valid what does that mean regarding martial arts and realistic self defense. Here are some of my conclusions based upon his summary of research.

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

Anyway just some initial quick jots. Agree, disagree, discuss.

There are 3 main reasons why people train, self defence, sport, and fitness. I know there are a few more but these 3 normally apply to most everyone. The sport trainers such as point fighters, can suffer in the self defence part. People like san shou and thai boxing is a different story.
The fitness people seem to suffer in all areas but cardiovascular training, but that is nice to have on the street. Some of those cardio kickboxers would break there hand or foot if they kicked someone using the the poor technique I usually see from them.
There are some schools such as the one in my area that is dedicated to never train for sport purposes. They are strictly combat only. These types of schools have the best in all areas. Because in order to be combat effective you must be in good shape and have nice tecnique.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I was glad to see people reading and discussion ON KILLING and thought I would open a thread on his followup work. Personally I think as martial arts ethusiasts his second book is even more practical. If we take his summaries of research as valid what does that mean regarding martial arts and realistic self defense. Here are some of my conclusions based upon his summary of research.

1) We fight like we train. So the more rules, the less the contact the less valid the art is for real self defense.

I agree whole heartedly.

2)Gross motor ability is better than fine motor. So arts that are based upon sensitivity, complicated maneuvers fare worse in self defense.

I'd like to believe otherwise, but I have to believe, for the most part, that this is true.

It's been my personal experience that during a physical confrontation on the streets, gross motor skills seem to be the most effective for me. The fine motor skills seem to go out the window.

I've found that defensive tactics programs built around complicated, fine motor techniques fail on the street the majority of the time. Gross motor skills, for whatever reason, seem to be most effective. KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid.)

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

Agree for the most part. Arousal is an evolutionary adaptation FOR physical combat, so of course it actually improves combat success. Over-arousal is what we need to guard against, but optimum arousal improves reflexes, strength, speed.

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

Anything that simulates, as closely as possible, the combat environment will improve performance. When learning the basics, it is best to focus, devoid of distraction. When we master the basics, it's time to proof-test by simulating the environment. You don't learn to shoot, for example, in a combat simulator, but you learn to shoot at the right time, at the right people.

Anyway just some initial quick jots. Agree, disagree, discuss.

Your assessements seem sound.

 

[Martial Tucker]

3)Arousal actually improves success in combat if not overdone. So systems that promote being very relaxed etc. actually dont take advantage of some of the physiological plus' with arousal. Also need howerver are ways to maintain physiologic arousal to optimum levels depending upon type of combat

4)Training for combat involves not just techniques taught in a quiet dojo. but require noise, distractions or other stressors to condition the individual to be able to perform optimally in combat.

The first two points I generally agree with.

I think in point#3, you need to differentiate between being "physically relaxed" and "mentally relaxed".
If you are mentally aroused it is a good thing, up to a point, as was stated. Beyond that point, panic sets in and everything starts to break down.
Physical relaxation is very important. Without it, your muscles will be tense, and your movements will be slower than normal. You will get injured more easily, and you will tire very quickly. I think this is why reality training is so important. It trains your mind to be alert and handle stressful situations, while your body remains relaxed. This comes from having repeatedly experienced the stress of an attack.

Point # 4, I think ties in with #3. Noise and other distractions are just additional layers of stress to be dealt with as in point #3.