The tree training method

[Flying Crane]

Now there you go sounding like Wang Xiangzhai again

A little known secret: I was him in a past life. Now you know.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But I know that sometimes a curriculum can become cumbersome, and there are reasonable and intelligent ways to restructure the material to make it less cumbersome.

This is why some Taiji people use "push" to replace the term "grappling". When you use both hands to push your opponent back, you don't need to train any "leg skill".

If we don't use any leg skill, the grappling art can be very simple.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is why some Taiji people use "push" to replace the term "grappling". When you use both hands to push your opponent back, you don't need to train any "leg skill".

If we don't use any leg skill, the grappling art can be very simple.

Well I’m not advocating for the ejection of material that is useful. If it is worth keeping, a worthwhile skill, then by all means keep it. But sometimes curriculum clutter gets in the way of efficient training.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

But sometimes curriculum clutter gets in the way of efficient training.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. Could you provide more information on this?

You can use your leg to attack the

- outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side).
- inside of your opponent's right leg (2nd side).
- inside of your opponent's left leg (3rd side).
- outside of your opponent's left leg (4th side).

If you just train one leg skill, when the other opportunity arrives, you may not have the right leg skill to take advantage on it.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't understand what you are talking about here. Could you provide more information on this?

You can use your leg to attack the

- outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side).
- inside of your opponent's right leg (2nd side).
- inside of your opponent's left leg (3rd side).
- outside of your opponent's left leg (4th side).

If you just train one leg skill, when the opportunity arrives, you may not have the right leg skill to take advantage on it.

What you are describing here sounds like probably legitimate variations that would need to be practiced separately because they are rather distinct based on body positioning and choice of target and such.

What I am talking about are when the primary concept of the technique is applied, but minor variations can be done based on an infinite variety of posture or response variations that the enemy may have. Regardless, the primary concept of the technique remains the same, but some kind of follow-up may encourage different finishing moves. That is a rabbit hole from which you might never return. The core concept is what matters, and you need to understand that situational circumstances may dictate some adjustment on-the-fly. But to try to anticipate all of those variations and codify every possible response into the curriculum is a futile exercise that creates cumbersome busy-work.

My example of the Quin-na books by Yang Jwing Ming hits the point I’m trying to make. While I have a lot of respect for Sifu Yang (although I’ve never met him, only read some of his books) I felt that a lot of his examples that were presented as different techniques were actually redundant. They often responded to a similar attack with a similar defense resulting in a similar joint lock. But there would be a minor difference somewhere in the process. To me, those are the same technique with what ought to be viewed as an on-the- fly adjustment, and don’t merit status as a separate technique.

 

[Flying Crane]

I don't understand what you are talking about here. Could you provide more information on this?

You can use your leg to attack the

- outside of your opponent's right leg (1st side).
- inside of your opponent's right leg (2nd side).
- inside of your opponent's left leg (3rd side).
- outside of your opponent's left leg (4th side).

If you just train one leg skill, when the other opportunity arrives, you may not have the right leg skill to take advantage on it.

Ok, here is an example:

This is Al Tracy in 1980 demonstrating a “self-defense technique” from his curriculum, which I used to train. Ignore for this discussion whether or not you feel this scripted combination has merit. That is a separate discussion. Instead, assume for the discussion that it does have merit, but look at all the variations included in this technique. They are simply slightly different ideas on follow-up for hurting the bad guy. Codifying that kind of thing is pure clutter. If the initial evasive move and block are sound, that is what matters. A follow-up finishing move can be included, but adding five or so separate options is pointless and cumbersome. That is clutter.

As to the merit in the technique, well I will just say that the system has some good ideas, but eventually it seems the good ideas have been used up but the curriculum keeps on going.

I found some other examples done by proponents of the Tracy kenpo lineage but I didn’t want to use those because honestly, I felt bad for the people in the video. They were not solid examples by any means, but these people put themselves on the internet for the world to gawk at, and it just felt mean to highlight them as an example of bad material. But since Al Tracy put his name on the method, his own examples are fair game.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

They often responded to a similar attack with a similar defense resulting in a similar joint lock. But there would be a minor difference somewhere in the process. To me, those are the same technique with what ought to be viewed as an on-the- fly adjustment, and don’t merit status as a separate technique.

Here is the concern. When you use 1st side leg skill "cut" to take your opponent down, you may push on your opponent's

- shoulder (1st clip).
- throat (2nd clip),
- head lock (3rd clip),
- shoulder lock (4th clip),
- chin,
- forehead,
- ...

Do you consider these as 1 technique, or 4 different techniques?

1. Shoulder push cut:

2. Throat push cut:

3. Head lock cut:

4. Shoulder lock cut:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

A follow-up finishing move can be included, but adding five or so separate options is pointless and cumbersome.

I agree in your example, the complexity may not be necessary.

In Chinese wrestling, there may be only 60 different leg skills. Just because the hands control points are different, it may end with 230 techniques.

 

[Flying Crane]

Here is the concern. When you use 1st side leg skill "cut" to take your opponent down, you may push on your opponent's

- shoulder (1st clip).
- throat (2nd clip),
- head lock (3rd clip),
- shoulder lock (4th clip),
- chin,
- forehead,
- ...

Do you consider these as 1 technique, or 4 different techniques?

1. Shoulder push cut:

2. Throat push cut:

3. Head lock cut:

4. Shoulder lock cut:

I would say they are one technique. It’s ok to address the variations so people are aware of the possibilities. But I wouldnt codify it.

However, the shoulder lock may be distinct enough to merit its own attention, even separate from this example.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I would say they are one technique. It’s ok to address the variations so people are aware of the possibilities. But I wouldnt codify it.

However, the shoulder lock may be distinct enough to merit its own attention, even separate from this example.

I agree that when using "cut", whether to push on the throat, shoulder, chin, forehead won't make that much difference. Since head lock is to move your opponent's head side way, it should be treated differently. The shoulder lock should be treated differently too.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree that when using "cut", whether to push on the throat, shoulder, chin, forehead won't make that much difference. Since head lock is to move your opponent's head side way, it should be treated differently. The shoulder lock should be treated differently too.

Maybe they get their own treatment separate from the cuts, and at a later stage they are taught as to how you can get creative and combine them with the cut depending on circumstances. I feel like people ought to make their fundamentals solid, and then they can mix it up as they need.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I feel like people ought to make their fundamentals solid, and then they can mix it up as they need.

Agree with you 100% there. The foundation is so important. I like to use the cane bundle to develop my "cut" foundation.

 

[skribs]

Here is a training method that I like. Would like to hear your opinion on this?

You use technique A to attack your opponent. If your opponent responds with method

- 1, you change your technique A into A1.
- 2, you change your technique A into A2.
- ...
- n, you change your technique A into An.

Starting with technique A as the main trunk of a tree, depending on your opponent's different responds, your tree starts to branch out as A1, A2, ..., An.

Next step will be the sub-branches that branch out from A1 (A11, A12, ... A1n), A2 (A21, A22, ... A2n) , ..., An (An1, An2, ..., Ann). After many levels, you will then have a full growing tree.

View attachment 28295

I don't think it's a tree, I think it's a web (or a multidimensional matrix). At some point, A is going to be one of the branches to A13423.

I think this is good as a theory, but I don't like it for a training method. Reason being, you can easily get stuck learning all of the responses your opponent might take. For example, if I throw a punch, my opponent may:

• Press straight inside, diagonal inside, straight outside, diagonal outside
• Disengage away straight to the side, diagonal away, or straight back
• Block with or without intent to grab or counter
• Defend with a number of different guard positions, leaving different openings
• Counter with his own strike, which may be a number of different things

Instead of applying this at the technique level, I think the situation level makes a lot more sense.

 

[punisher73]

I see both points as having value to some degree.

1) Limited curriculum and is up to the student to explore and train possible variations and adjustments to make their art work.
2) Large curriculum that is laid out so students know what the possible variations and adjustments are to make their art work.

Now let's look at both of those ideas and look at some possible downfalls.

In #1, students may not understand based on experience (or aren't very creative) and need more material to connect the dots. Or, don't understand the holes in their system that need to have other material incorporated, either through different training methodology/drills or new techniques.

In #2, students spend more time in memorizing the material than spending time on the mat making it workable. Especially with the "Belt system" in place, students are more than likely just memorizing material to get their next belt.

It should be noted that these two approaches are NOT set in stone and there is more than likely a blending of the two at times and students themselves will vacillate between the two approaches at times as well.

In sticking with Flying Crane's experience with Kenpo and using that to explain further this idea. We can examine 3 branches of the "American Kenpo" tree-Ed Parker's Kenpo, Tracy's Kenpo, IKCA.

Ed Parker learned from Prof. Chow who had a VERY limited number of techniques, but he trained LOTS of variations on those. Ed Parker wrote every variation down on 3x5 cards and when he started to teach on the mainland he taught all of these techniques. Later, he paired down and combined some ideas based on other ideas (heavy influence of Chinese martial arts). When he was done, he had 154 "techniques" (not including the forms). There is still a lot of repetition and an emphasis on tailoring for the student to "create their own" as well.

Tracy's learned from Ed Parker and kept ALL of the variations in place and did not stay with Ed Parker in his approach. They claim that they have about 600 techniques. Some techniques are LITERALLY the same thing just one is done with open hands and the other with closed hands. Others have 5-6 variations based on if the attacker uses his right/left hand or other positioning etc.

Chuck Sullivan and Vic LeRoux were long time Parker students and took all of the concepts/principles/techniques and distilled them down so nothing was repeated and their system is based on 55 techniques. There is no repetition and there is a HUGE amount of exploration placed on the student to flush out the ideas/concepts to gain mastery of the material.

So which one is best? I think it lies with the student. IF a student is spending the necessary time in drilling/practicing and learning to apply the techniques in a fight.

 

[jks9199]

I trained Police Sanda for a bit, and the tree training method was we hit trees

The trees still quiver in fear...

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

So which one is best? I think it lies with the student.

Which one is better? Your opponent punches at you. You

1. dodge or block his punch.
2. attack his punching arm.

IMO, 1 < 2.

How long will it take for a beginner to figure this out?

 

[skribs]

How long will it take for a beginner to figure this out?

To figure out your opinion? Depends on how long you wait to tell them.

 

[Chris Parker]

To my mind, this is not martial arts... it's martial list-making... and misses entirely the way martial arts work. It's an amateur approach, based on thinking every problem has it's own single answer, when the reality is that martial arts are geared up to give one answer (principle) that can be applied to as many problems (situations, attacks) as possible. To go this way (the "tree" concept) is to never develop any understanding or skill in the art itself, even if technical skill is achieved in individual techniques... it's a beginner mentality and understanding.

 

[isshinryuronin]

To my mind, this is not martial arts... it's martial list-making... and misses entirely the way martial arts work. It's an amateur approach, based on thinking every problem has it's own single answer, when the reality is that martial arts are geared up to give one answer (principle) that can be applied to as many problems (situations, attacks) as possible. To go this way (the "tree" concept) is to never develop any understanding or skill in the art itself, even if technical skill is achieved in individual techniques... it's a beginner mentality and understanding.

Thank you, Chris....for one of your shortest posts ..., and for voicing much the same thought I had on the subject. The problem with list making is that its tendency is to grow and grow, whether it be a guest list, a chore to-do list, or a list of my positive qualities - you can go on forever!

Morse code was genius, communicating with just dots and dashes. SIMPLE.

One open hand arm motion can be a block to the inside or outside of a punch, the beginning of a grab, temple strike, a strike to the biceps, ribs, or nose, it can be an eye rake, or be continued to hook the arm into a lock. One move can serve many functions, depending on the context of a fluid situation. Are these twelve techniques, or just one concept undefined until it makes contact. If it makes contact on the head, we call it a strike; on the arm, a block; flex the fingers on contact, a grab. But it's basically all the same move.

Another way to view this is, instead of having 12 different techniques against 12 different punches, have 4 techniques and thru positioning, distancing, angles and movement, limit the opponent to the 4 punches against which your 4 techniques will work. For example, you don't need many kick defenses if you fight close in. And no need to have techniques against a right horizontal back fist if you circle to his left. By doing this you are essentially cutting some limbs off your opponent's technique tree.

Fighting should be as simple as possible. If one understands the basics (principles and techniques) and sees the martial situation in a holistic sense, the pathway becomes less cluttered.

 

[Chris Parker]

No problem... on the subject of Morse Code, it's interesting that you refer to it as simple and short... that was the idea! The creator of it, one Samuel Morse, created it after receiving a telegram that his wife was sick, another that she'd taken for the worse, and, by the time he got to her, the message had been sent that she'd died... so he felt there had to be a quicker way to get messages so no-one else would miss farewelling their loved ones...hence, Morse Code!