Three approaches to Martial Art Training Styles! I.e. The differences!

[Corporal Hicks]

Yo,
I was just looking up exercise routines and I came across this on Bodybuilding.com. I know there are basic differences between Martial Arts but I've never had somebody explain it like this before.
If I'm training for self defence which one should I be training for, or to put it differently which one would be most useful?
Would that be the same for police training?

Here are the three approaches:



Reaction Based Approach (I'm guessing is something like Karate?)

A number of reactionary techniques are presumably rehearsed and memorized to be called upon in crisis for application to an attacker's action. Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does "A" the defender reacts with technique "B."

Reflex Based Approach (I would guess would be Wing Chun?)

Built upon reinforcing and positively utilizing the autonomic and hormonal arousal as a platform for counter-aggression. Reflex-based approaches are context-free: regardless of the attacker's specific weapon launched, the defender once determining imminent danger proceeds indiscriminately until the attacker is neutralized; if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics.

Response Based Approach (I actually have no idea! Tai Chi?)Diminishing relative autonomic and hormonal arousal, diminishing response time, increasing efficiency and proportionality, and increasing kinesthetic, position and force/tension sensitivity. Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated 'skills' but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.

Kind Regards

 

[Eldritch Knight]

I like it. It sounds comprehensive, but I have a feeling that they're still missing something...

 

[Bigshadow]

Response Based Approach (I actually have no idea! Tai Chi?)Diminishing relative autonomic and hormonal arousal, diminishing response time, increasing efficiency and proportionality, and increasing kinesthetic, position and force/tension sensitivity. Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated 'skills' but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.

Kind Regards

I have read that article. I think it was written by Coach Sonnon, who has some excellent books and videos for physical training. Anyhow, I wanted to say that Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu is Response Based.

 

[ginshun]

I was thinking responce based as I read through those as well.

 

[James Kovacich]

Yo,
I was just looking up exercise routines and I came across this on Bodybuilding.com. I know there are basic differences between Martial Arts but I've never had somebody explain it like this before.
If I'm training for self defence which one should I be training for, or to put it differently which one would be most useful?
Would that be the same for police training?

Here are the three approaches:



Reaction Based Approach (I'm guessing is something like Karate?)

A number of reactionary techniques are presumably rehearsed and memorized to be called upon in crisis for application to an attacker's action. Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does "A" the defender reacts with technique "B."

Reflex Based Approach (I would guess would be Wing Chun?)

Built upon reinforcing and positively utilizing the autonomic and hormonal arousal as a platform for counter-aggression. Reflex-based approaches are context-free: regardless of the attacker's specific weapon launched, the defender once determining imminent danger proceeds indiscriminately until the attacker is neutralized; if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics.

Response Based Approach (I actually have no idea! Tai Chi?)Diminishing relative autonomic and hormonal arousal, diminishing response time, increasing efficiency and proportionality, and increasing kinesthetic, position and force/tension sensitivity. Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated 'skills' but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.

Kind Regards

It could be argued that REACTION, REFLEX AND RESPONSE approaches are all one and only truly work as one.

Ones reaction is a reflex. So a reflexive reaction to an assault is one. The same can be said for a "responsive" "reaction."

When attacked we react. Defining a "reaction" as a defense (singularly by their definition) does not make sense. It requires thinking. Technique only works without thinking beforehand. So if the technique worked. That would make the "reaction" a "reflexive reaction."

I think "their" definitions may work for them but in reality training dosen't mean much.

When we train for a reflexive response to a certain encounter it is also a reflexive reaction.

 

[Franc0]

It could be argued that REACTION, REFLEX AND RESPONSE approaches are all one and only truly work as one.

Ones reaction is a reflex. So a reflexive reaction to an assault is one. The same can be said for a "responsive" "reaction."

When attacked we react. Defining a "reaction" as a defense (singularly by their definition) does not make sense. It requires thinking. Technique only works without thinking beforehand. So if the technique worked. That would make the "reaction" a "reflexive reaction."

I think "their" definitions may work for them but in reality training dosen't mean much.

When we train for a reflexive response to a certain encounter it is also a reflexive reaction.

I think I agree with Akja

 

[Dragon Fist]

Here is a question that you guys might find interesting.

What do you think is more important, when to move, or how to move?

I have my own answer to this, I was just wondering what you guys feel.

Regards,

 

[Franc0]

To me, neither one is "more" important, they are both equally important.

Franco

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Yo,
I was just looking up exercise routines and I came across this on Bodybuilding.com. I know there are basic differences between Martial Arts but I've never had somebody explain it like this before.
If I'm training for self defence which one should I be training for, or to put it differently which one would be most useful?
Would that be the same for police training?

Here are the three approaches:



Reaction Based Approach (I'm guessing is something like Karate?)

A number of reactionary techniques are presumably rehearsed and memorized to be called upon in crisis for application to an attacker's action. Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does "A" the defender reacts with technique "B."

Reflex Based Approach (I would guess would be Wing Chun?)

Built upon reinforcing and positively utilizing the autonomic and hormonal arousal as a platform for counter-aggression. Reflex-based approaches are context-free: regardless of the attacker's specific weapon launched, the defender once determining imminent danger proceeds indiscriminately until the attacker is neutralized; if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics.

Response Based Approach (I actually have no idea! Tai Chi?)Diminishing relative autonomic and hormonal arousal, diminishing response time, increasing efficiency and proportionality, and increasing kinesthetic, position and force/tension sensitivity. Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated 'skills' but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.

Kind Regards

this almost sounds like stages of training. people have to start somewhere, so you would get them going on reaction based movement, until those movements became more natural. then you would move onto reflex approach, using the tools that have become the easiest and most applicable for you personally. finally moving onto repsonse based where you do not think about the counter or the situation, you just act accordingly.

 

[Bigshadow]

I think "their" definitions may work for them but in reality training dosen't mean much.

There are very real differences in the training of the various martial arts. I have read that article and it is very interesting. You may want to actually go read it, you may find as I did, there are distinct differences in training methodologies.

A good example of reflex training is the type of training given to people like law enforcement and soldiers. These techniques can be taught in a relatively short amount of time. The techniques rely on muscle memory in the large muscles of the body. Without long term consistent training, a person loses fine motor control of the limbs and body under high stress situations. Resulting in muscle movement limited to the large muscles such in preparation for the fight or flight response. Fine and subtle movement and sensitivity goes out the window, in this fashion. (tunnel vision is another one of those things affected).


Response based training, teaches how to control the mind and body in such a fashion that maintains fine motor control of the body, sensitivity, and awareness of the surrounds (no tunnel vision). Scott Sonnon explains this scientifically and I think it was a very good article.

I think on the surface, things might look similar, but IMHO, they are radically different.

 

[Bigshadow]

Here is a question that you guys might find interesting.

What do you think is more important, when to move, or how to move?

I have my own answer to this, I was just wondering what you guys feel.

Regards,

I my opinion with regards to Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu, knowing when to move is worthless if you do not know HOW to move! In early training, one must learn HOW to move, then when they don't have to think about HOW to move, they can work on WHEN to move. I think this is the natural progress. Kind of like learning to walk before you can run.

 

[James Kovacich]

I read the article. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sonnon12.htm

And I have to agree with BlackCatBonz on this.
Scientifically one could "beleive that they are differant but they really do all go together. A training progression is a simple way of saying it.

Based on the article. I see any system based solely on "their" definition of the "reaction approach" would be incomplete and ineffective. It order to do as the say
'Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does "A" the defender reacts with technique "B."'
one would need to think beforehand. To have "functional" technique and using Sonnan's definitions. The reaction approach will only work in conjunction with the reponse approach as they define it.
'Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated 'skills' but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.'

It's a natural training progression. I think their "scientific definitions" make it almost beleivale but clouds the perception of what they are actually saying.

Their reflex approach is almost coming out of left field and reminds me of a fighter named Tank Abbot.
'Reflex-based approaches are context-free: regardless of the attacker's specific weapon launched, the defender once determining imminent danger proceeds indiscriminately until the attacker is neutralized; if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics.'

 

[MJS]

It could be argued that REACTION, REFLEX AND RESPONSE approaches are all one and only truly work as one.

Ones reaction is a reflex. So a reflexive reaction to an assault is one. The same can be said for a "responsive" "reaction."

When attacked we react. Defining a "reaction" as a defense (singularly by their definition) does not make sense. It requires thinking. Technique only works without thinking beforehand. So if the technique worked. That would make the "reaction" a "reflexive reaction."

I think "their" definitions may work for them but in reality training dosen't mean much.

When we train for a reflexive response to a certain encounter it is also a reflexive reaction.

Good point and I was thinking along the same lines. In a way, they are all the same, but not really the same. IMO, ultimately, we want to acheive the Response Based Approach is the best way to go. Ideally, we don't want to have to stop and think about what to do, but instead just react. We are still Reacting, but not to the point where we have to stop and think, "Ok, here comes a punch! What kind of punch is it? Which one of my defenses do I do?" Instead, we use the tools that we have learned, to create a response. As for the Reflex, well that kind of rolls right in with the Response.

Mike

 

[Bigshadow]

I read the article. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sonnon12.htm

OK Cool!

Before I begin, let me quote his article....

"There are three types of educational approaches in martial art. Years ago, I created this distinction in order to categorize not the "style" (which is only indirectly related to how an individual teaches martial art) but the method - which is of the greatest importance. There are no secret "techniques" - only more powerful educational methods for the appropriate situation. To understand these distinctions below is to gain access to that power."

And I have to agree with BlackCatBonz on this.
Scientifically one could "beleive that they are differant but they really do all go together. A training progression is a simple way of saying it.

At first I disagreed with it as a progression. After reading the article again and what I quoted above, I agree that for some it might be progression. It depends on the teaching methods.

I do agree that the martial arts as a whole and probably from style to style do have all three types of training involved in varying amounts.

However, there are people such as soldiers and law enforcement (i.e. police officers) who are taught for just a few hours a year in basic hand to hand. This would be without a doubt "Reflex based" training.

Those of us who practice martial arts on the other hand are training in the long term and the other two bases of training require much more time to train the mind and body.

As an added note, I don't think Sonnon meant using tension and force, when he talked about sensitivity to tension and force. His background is in Systema and I am sure he was referring to relaxed natural human movement as a catalyst for sensitivity to other's tension and force.

Their reflex approach is almost coming out of left field and reminds me of a fighter named Tank Abbot.

Nah, I think he means training such as police and military boot camp teach. They have limited time and they need to maximize the survivability of the trainee if they find themselves in life and death hand to hand combat (not sport fighting).

 

[James Kovacich]

OK Cool!

Before I begin, let me quote his article....

"There are three types of educational approaches in martial art. Years ago, I created this distinction in order to categorize not the "style" (which is only indirectly related to how an individual teaches martial art) but the method - which is of the greatest importance. There are no secret "techniques" - only more powerful educational methods for the appropriate situation. To understand these distinctions below is to gain access to that power."



At first I disagreed with it as a progression. After reading the article again and what I quoted above, I agree that for some it might be progression. It depends on the teaching methods.

I do agree that the martial arts as a whole and probably from style to style do have all three types of training involved in varying amounts.

However, there are people such as soldiers and law enforcement (i.e. police officers) who are taught for just a few hours a year in basic hand to hand. This would be without a doubt "Reflex based" training.

Those of us who practice martial arts on the other hand are training in the long term and the other two bases of training require much more time to train the mind and body.

As an added note, I don't think Sonnon meant using tension and force, when he talked about sensitivity to tension and force. His background is in Systema and I am sure he was referring to relaxed natural human movement as a catalyst for sensitivity to other's tension and force.

Nah, I think he means training such as police and military boot camp teach. They have limited time and they need to maximize the survivability of the trainee if they find themselves in life and death hand to hand combat (not sport fighting).

I think we have some common ground here but your post does back what I said about

Based on the article. I see any system based solely on "their" definition of the "reaction approach" would be incomplete and ineffective. [/B]

Law enforcement training is far from complete and as a whole is ineffective with the only exception being that it is enough for their job. But as a martial art, incomplete.