Pride's Price

[jobo]

Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.

That's the problem with resisting a drill. You're not actually testing the technique, since the person doing it only has one option: the drill.

Only if he understand how the technique DOES work. It's not speeding his development if all he gets is that the technique doesn't work (which is probably, based on my experience, what he's thinking). You see, you're assuming since it doesn't work on that specific resistance, that "it's pointless to learn". Every technique (all of them - no exceptions) fails under at least one kind of resistance. The real skill is feeling/recognizing the resistance and choosing a technique that works against/with it. Here's a vague example: if a technique is intended to work after a person has been pulled through a step, but they lean back and away (stopping the pull), the technique simply isn't available. But some other technique is, and if they aren't giving that resistance, the original technique is available and will work. So, if the drill is a leg sweep from a pull, inappropriate resistance would lead to the conclusion that a leg sweep is worthless. But in the right circumstances, that same leg sweep is pretty dependable. Under the resistance that defeated that leg sweep version, a pushing version might be the right answer.

That's the problem with resisting a drill. You're not actually testing the technique, since the person doing it only has one option: the drill.

no not all techniques work, at least not for all people, your a " master " of your art, I'm learning mine, i sort technues into three main classes, 1) not a hope in hell would i ever try that in the real world, 2) that might work when I'm better at it and 3 yes that works, i can only make that selection with a fully resistant partner,

if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strengh, = work to do, if they come because they are co operating then i have no idea if i have mastered that or not.

i want really punches to block and i want a partner to not fall over unless they really have to, other wise at some point I'm going to be in deep ####,

i have problems as it is, as they keep complaining I'm to rough with them and they cave rather than resist as Il only pull harder till they do fall over

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no not all techniques work, at least not for all people

I never said all techniques work. You are correct that some techniques are better suited to some people (taller, shorter, more solid, faster, whatever).

, your a " master " of your art,

Hardly, but I appreciate the compliment.

I'm learning mine, i sort technues into three main classes, 1) not a hope in hell would i ever try that in the real world, 2) that might work when I'm better at it and 3 yes that works, i can only make that selection with a fully resistant partner,

I like those categories. There are techniques that "just work" and some that "work if you are skilled enough". Your first category I refer to as "esoteric techniques" - I use them to teach principles, with the understanding that they have very limited direct application (except if you do something bad wrong - sometimes that puts you in position for them).

if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strengh, = work to do, if they come because they are co operating then i have no idea if i have mastered that or not.

Not necessarily. I'm not a big guy, but if I know you're supposed to pull me into a position, I can make it impossible to do so. You might pull me, but not into that position, so the technique won't be available. More to the point, if I'm resisting in that direction, there's not much sense in trying to pull me. You should be doing something easier. Learning when to abandon a "wrong" technique (wrong for the circumstances) is one of the more important skills in application.

i want really punches to block and i want a partner to not fall over unless they really have to, other wise at some point I'm going to be in deep ####,

YES! The only time I want them to fall over when they don't have to is when I ask them to (because I'm trying to demonstrate something that has nothing to do with making them fall down). And that goes for the newest student, learning their first throw, too - they need to know when it works, so they can figure out why.

i have problems as it is, as they keep complaining I'm to rough with them and they cave rather than resist as Il only pull harder till they do fall over

That might be a problem with how they feed the technique. Let me see if I can give an example that's less convoluted. If you are going to practice a block against a roundhouse punch, it doesn't do any good for me to feed you a straight punch (or backhand, or kick, or whatever). If the block fails, that's not your fault - you were working on a drill for a specific block, and I didn't give you something to work with for that drill. The same is true of locks and throws - the feed should be appropriate for the technique. If it isn't, you (the person trying to do the throw) don't learn the right feel for when to use that technique. What you learn is how to force a technique, and that can be defeated by weight and/or strength, without skill.

 

[Anarax]

Agreed. In order to learn a technique, I have to have it done on me. Otherwise, I just won't learn it. I won't get the placement right, I won't be using my muscles properly, I just won't be doing it right. It's why I know that I could never learn on my own.

Yes, I'm the same way

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if i pull and they don't move, then there is a problem with my techneque or strength, ...

Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.

 

[Anarax]

Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.

Yes, that's how I see it. You flow from one technique to the next, being overly committed to one technique is dangerous in an altercation.

 

[jobo]

Most of the time when you pull, you don't care if you can move your opponent or not. You just want your opponent to resist, so you can borrow his resistance force, and add into your pushing.

well i care, if a techneque is to use body movement to generate enough power to pull you oppoinent forwards, then i expect that techneque to result in my oppoinent moving forward. If it doesn't the techneque is poor or I'm doing it wrong, saying that you could do something else instead doesn't change that

 

[jobo]

Yes, that's how I see it. You flow from one technique to the next, being overly committed to one technique is dangerous in an altercation.

no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly dangerous

 

[Martial D]

Students are their biggest obstacle when they are more concerned for their pride than training. I've seen this in multiple schools over the years. There are numerous drills that are crucial in developing your skills as a martial artist. Drills are to train muscle memory, improve technique and/or to improve a physical attribute(speed, power, etc). For example; if a student gives maximum resistance in a basic flow drill, they think they are achieving or proving something. A fencing student that only wants to do bouts and not train the basics thus don't improve their skills.

However; when they spar they lack technical expertise because the drills they either don't do or do incorrectly doesn't build the fundamentals. Usually the students are humbled after sparring and start to see the importance of the drills and why they are designed the way they are. However; there are the occasional few that never seem to reach that conclusion. They keep training the same way thinking something will change

Has anyone else seen or experienced this?

Drilling is forging the sword, while sparring is learning to wield it. To me it's really that simple.

 

[jobo]

Drilling is forging the sword, while sparring is learning to wield it. To me it's really that simple.

yes but,,,,, if you cant make a techneque work in a flow drill, because your opponent isnt cooperating then, then your,sword is not forged at all well

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well i care, if a techneque is to use body movement to generate enough power to pull you oppoinent forwards, then i expect that techneque to result in my oppoinent moving forward. If it doesn't the techneque is poor or I'm doing it wrong, saying that you could do something else instead doesn't change that

Or, you're just doing it in the wrong situation. Every technique is the "wrong technique" until the situation fits the technique.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly dangerous

Okay, let me try to be clear on this: if you are doing ANY technique I know, and I know you have to do that technique, you will not be able to do it. Every technique has counters, and unless you greatly outskill me, I can counter that technique. But, if I don't know what technique you're going to use, your chances of it succeeding are much greater.

Using a technique against a resisting partner doesn't always (in fact rarely does) mean a partner resisting that specific technique. It means, for instance, they're trying to stay standing, and you're trying to make them fall. You find the weak spot in their defense to make them fall - you don't keep forcing a technique until it works. If you do the latter, you'll always be bested by someone whose counters are as good as your technique (counters always win), and often by people who are simply stronger or too heavy for your force.

 

[jobo]

Or, you're just doing it in the wrong situation. Every technique is the "wrong technique" until the situation fits the technique.

well yes and no, its a mechanism of dynamics, it either works or it doesn't, maybe there is a case for saying if the weight differential between you and the other, is grossly out of proportion, then its the wrong techneque or maybe you have to work on your strengh and dynamic and then it might become the right techneque.

these techneque have to stand alone, as either working or not, giving some equality in size and strengh

 

[jobo]

Okay, let me try to be clear on this: if you are doing ANY technique I know, and I know you have to do that technique, you will not be able to do it. Every technique has counters, and unless you greatly outskill me, I can counter that technique. But, if I don't know what technique you're going to use, your chances of it succeeding are much greater.

Using a technique against a resisting partner doesn't always (in fact rarely does) mean a partner resisting that specific technique. It means, for instance, they're trying to stay standing, and you're trying to make them fall. You find the weak spot in their defense to make them fall - you don't keep forcing a technique until it works. If you do the latter, you'll always be bested by someone whose counters are as good as your technique (counters always win), and often by people who are simply stronger or too heavy for your force.

there is a perspective problem here, your a master of your art, i wouldnt reasonably expect to knock you over if you know what is coming or not. Unless you co operate or i sucker punch you

for people who are some what less advanced than you are, then i should be able to tell them what I'm going to do and still be able to do it, particularly if its a drill and then can't move away from me.

if its as simple as a dynamic pull, then if they don't move as they are resisting then the pull wasn't dynamic enough, someone of even roughly equal weight to me should move , if they are expecting it or not.

we were light sparing last night with the guy who is lightning fast, and i kept telling him what i was going to do, which was a left followed in very quick time by a right, no matter how many time i did it, he blocked the left and i hit him with the right.

the learning point was for me, that i have gained some speed, for him that his blocking techneque is pants and doesn't work against someone who has less speed than him

 

[Gerry Seymour]

well yes and no, its a mechanism of dynamics, it either works or it doesn't, maybe there is a case for saying if the weight differential between you and the other, is grossly out of proportion, then its the wrong techneque or maybe you have to work on your strengh and dynamic and then it might become the right techneque.

these techneque have to stand alone, as either working or not, giving some equality in size and strengh

But that's the thing - it's not a matter of "it works or it doesn't". Used in the wrong situation, it doesn't normally work. Used in the right situation, it normally does. If someone has their forearms covering their face (MMA cover), a straight punch or jab doesn't work. If their hands aren't there, there's a chance it does (unless they block it - a counter). A basic single-leg can be defeated every time by someone with more skill who knows for a fact it's coming and how. Sometimes knowing that it's coming is enough. That doesn't mean a single-leg doesn't work - just that it's being used in the wrong situation (because of the counter the person uses). Continuing to try it after they've sprawled doesn't improve the situation, nor your single-leg technique.

That same is true of pulling someone into position. It's not a useful technique when they are pulling away, unless you are much stronger than them (and their weight).

 

[Gerry Seymour]

for people who are some what less advanced than you are, then i should be able to tell them what I'm going to do and still be able to do it, particularly if its a drill and then can't move away from me.

Okay, then I'll make it easier. I could take one of my students, who is probably lighter than you, and teach you both a technique. I could then tell him how to counter it, and you wouldn't be able to do it more than 10% of the time. That would be true of any grappling technique I know.

I can even take that a step further. I can tell him how to make that technique unavailable, and you'd only be able to pull it off by using every bit of force you have, if you ever pulled it off, at all. Again, that would be true of every grappling technique I know.

 

[jobo]

Okay, then I'll make it easier. I could take one of my students, who is probably lighter than you, and teach you both a technique. I could then tell him how to counter it, and you wouldn't be able to do it more than 10% of the time. That would be true of any grappling technique I know.

I can even take that a step further. I can tell him how to make that technique unavailable, and you'd only be able to pull it off by using every bit of force you have, if you ever pulled it off, at all. Again, that would be true of every grappling technique I know.

but in the instant case we are discussing, the person isn't using skill to counter, just resisting being pulled, no one has taught him that, its just an instinct, just as any one on the street would know, therefore the techniques doesn't work against untrained people, arguing that it doesn't work against trained individuals is pointless, if it doesn't work against anyone who invokes the push pull reflex

 

[Gerry Seymour]

but in the instant case we are discussing, the person isn't using skill to counter, just resisting being pulled, no one has taught him that, its just an instinct, just as any one on the street would know, therefore the techniques doesn't work against untrained people, arguing that it doesn't work against trained individuals is pointless, if it doesn't work against anyone who invokes the push pull reflex

That resistance to being pulled is how you make that particular technique unavailable. Making a technique unavailable is basically a counter before the technique can start. It doesn't usually require much skill - that's why I said I could just tell a student how to make it unavailable and you wouldn't be able to do it. Understanding that is how you actually make techniques dependable. If someone in the street is pulling away, that's not a good time to try that technique - you have other tools for that situation. And that can happen even after you start a technique, because it is a reflex - that's where a smooth change of techniques is important.

I had a similar discussion with a new NGA black belt more than 10 years ago. He was marveling at the skill of a more senior black belt, who could defeat his techniques. I demonstrated that I could do the same things, when I know what's coming (which is what the senior BB was doing). I could have taught a yellow belt to defeat all of them, too, so long as he's restricted in what he can do (so, no changing techniques). That's why drills require a certain level of cooperation. Cooperation isn't falling down for someone, it's feeding them the situation the technique applies to. What makes techniques work with a resisting opponent - skilled or unskilled - is using them where they are applicable.

 

[Martial D]

yes but,,,,, if you cant make a techneque work in a flow drill, because your opponent isnt cooperating then, then your,sword is not forged at all well

Agreed, there are many sorts of drills to give you weapons, not all are equal, and not all ways of doing them equal. The resistance part needs to come after the weapons are there, else it'll just be flailing. Some guys can fight be flailing, but only against other flailers.

 

[Anarax]

no having techniques that you don't know if they work against a resisting attacker is dangerous
having techniques that you know though drills definitely don't work against a fully resistant attacker is beyond dangerous and moving in to being stupidly dangerous

That's why I've said multiple times we execute the techniques in sparring and live practice.

 

[JR 137]

@jobo
When I was playing (American) football in high school, we'd run plays during practice. One day we ran the play wrong against our defense. So our coach stopped us and had us immediately run it again. We ran it correctly the second time, but guess what? The defense immediately stopped it. Our coach threw his clipboard in the air and said "off course you'd stop it, you knew exactly what was coming at you!"

Failed miserably against a fully resisting partner in practice. Worked perfectly against our opponent that week who didn't know it was coming. Actually, the play worked against several teams when we ran it at the right time and the right way. Never worked when they were expecting it though. Same as every play we ran throughout my career.

Odd... something didn't work against a fully resisting partner/opponent when they knew it was coming, yet it worked very well when they weren't expecting it. Remind you of anything?