What is Aliveness?

[Kittan Bachika]

I was reading a thread on another forum where this guy saying Olympic style sparring was hard core fighting and attacking one poster who was big on forms. He kept saying that TKD sparring is full contact and has aliveness. He also forms are dead and useless.

He was basically a troll who was looking for attention. But it has got me thinking.

But what do people mean by aliveness?

In my mind aliveness is everywhere. Not just sparring. I have seen karate black belts who just do kata and Bunkai and full contact drills. Even if they do not kumite much, they seem pretty alive to me. Even if they are not fighting, you can feel their fighting spirit coming out of them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

When they shovel dirt on your face, no more aliveness.

 

[Touch Of Death]

I was reading a thread on another forum where this guy saying Olympic style sparring was hard core fighting and attacking one poster who was big on forms. He kept saying that TKD sparring is full contact and has aliveness. He also forms are dead and useless.

He was basically a troll who was looking for attention. But it has got me thinking.

But what do people mean by aliveness?

In my mind aliveness is everywhere. Not just sparring. I have seen karate black belts who just do kata and Bunkai and full contact drills. Even if they do not kumite much, they seem pretty alive to me. Even if they are not fighting, you can feel their fighting spirit coming out of them.

i would liken it to sensitivity.
Sean

 

[MJS]

I was reading a thread on another forum where this guy saying Olympic style sparring was hard core fighting and attacking one poster who was big on forms. He kept saying that TKD sparring is full contact and has aliveness. He also forms are dead and useless.

He was basically a troll who was looking for attention. But it has got me thinking.

But what do people mean by aliveness?

In my mind aliveness is everywhere. Not just sparring. I have seen karate black belts who just do kata and Bunkai and full contact drills. Even if they do not kumite much, they seem pretty alive to me. Even if they are not fighting, you can feel their fighting spirit coming out of them.

Alot to read, but here ya go.
http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html

 

[K-man]

Alot to read, but here ya go.
http://www.straightblastgym.com/aliveness101.html

Although the article is not attributed it seems that it was probably written by Matt Thornton. His background was boxing followed by 3 years of JKD then BJJ. http://www.straightblastgym.com/where.htm
Much of what he says is spot on, but there is a lot he says that you could argue.

Aliveness is timing, energy and motion.

For something to be truly alive in what we do then it has have three key elements, movement, timing, and energy (resistance). If you are missing any one of these then it is not Alive.
Movement means real footwork, not contrived, not in a pattern... on the ground it means exactly that also... movement... if the person is just laying there, not moving as you apply your lock or move....that is not Alive. In the clinch its the same... pushing, pulling, moving.
Timing is of course just that... if its in a predictable rhythm, a pattern, a repeatable series of sets, then you are not acquiring or developing timing, just motion speed.
And of course energy... swing the stick like someone would really swing it... don't stop at centerline. Punch with the energy of someone who wants to hit you. Not locking your arm out so your partner can look good doing the destruction, or trap, or silat sweep, etc.

Basically he is saying that MAs should be reality based but all that he talks about is sport. Interesting ....​

:asian:​

 

[Steve]

Matt Thornton is synonymous with Straight Blast Gym. He's the head cheese over there.

If, after reading the article, you guys have any questions, I can do my best to answer them. I'm not an expert, by any means, but I've been reading about aliveness for 5 years now and have been training in BJJ for about that long, too. I think I've got a pretty good handle on what it is and isn't.

 

[ATACX GYM]

Matt Thornton is synonymous with Straight Blast Gym. He's the head cheese over there.

If, after reading the article, you guys have any questions, I can do my best to answer them. I'm not an expert, by any means, but I've been reading about aliveness for 5 years now and have been training in BJJ for about that long, too. I think I've got a pretty good handle on what it is and isn't.

There is another discussion on this forum regarding the utility of Kenpo karate's "Ideal Phase" sequences or lack thereof,and I and MJS cited significant aspects of Aliveness including the link to Matt Thornton's articles on Aliveness as part of my response.

And Matt goes beyond sport,he simply uses sport as the most recognizable vehicle for performance and the healthyness of the kind of activity that he's referring to.He goes way beyond sport.He cites philosphers and the many police officers,the stickfighting,and other non-sport applications of his Gym...but he focuses on performance as paramount.You should see the articles that his Coaches write regarding the Street v Sport debate.They're very well written,and I agree with lots of it.I'm sure stevebjj can elaborate on the matter quite eloquently if he chose to.

 

[Balrog]

When they shovel dirt on your face, no more aliveness.

That pretty much says it all!!!

 

[Steve]

Aliveness boils down to learning in context. Martial arts is unique among adult activities in that it's the only thing a grown up will allege expertise in without ever having applied in context.

The concept centers around learning with resistance. Introduction, isolation and integration. This just happens to correspond to the first three stages of learning under Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge, Comprehension and Application.

In other words, he's really just pointing out that we should teach Martial Arts the way we teach... pretty much every thing except martial arts.

I like golf as an analogy. Knowledge/Introduction level training in golf would be equivalent to learning the rules. Learning about golf... the theory... the vocabulary. What each club does. Introduction or Knowledge level understanding is superficial. It can sound impressive to someone with no knowledge, but in application, it's easily exposed in application. In other words, someone can know everything there is to know about golf, but if they've never swung a club, it's going to be clear that their understanding is theoretical.

Knowledge level learning is marked by the ability to recite knowledge, to list things, to identify.

Isolation corresponds directly to the comprehension level of learning. Comprehension learning takes theoretical knowledge deeper... closer to application. So, where a knowledge level learner could list or recite information, a comprehension level learner can explain something. They are still not at the point where they're transferring understanding to actual performance... this transfer, in fact, is the biggest challenge that professional trainers face, but they're getting close.

In the sport of golf, this would be like learning to hit a golf ball on the driving range. Conditions are always perfect. You're learning in a vacuum. No bad lies. No rough. And if you make a bad shot, you aren't required to recover.

In MA, this is like a targeted drill. We've been shown a technique and have gone through it without resistance. Now we're drilling that technique in isolation against some increasing resistance.

Application. As I said before, this is where most adult training fails (in business), but it's the easiest to get to, really. It's doing something, measured by applying a technique in context, computing something, or producing a result. The result will depend on the desired outcome. This would be actually going out on the golf course and playing a round of golf. It could be executing techniques while sparring. It could be defending oneself in combat.

Application isn't expertise. It's the beginning's of competence. Beyond application are other layers of learning. Analysis and then Synthesis. Analysis level learning IS competence. It's functional ability. Synthesis is expertise (in simple terms).

So, here's the big problem and where conflict comes up in Martial Arts. If we continue the golf analogy, many martial arts stop at comprehension, but call it synthesis. If my goal is to be a golfer, I must play golf. So, I'm going to learn golf under a traditional martial arts model. I go to the driving range and meet up with my golf sensei. He gets me going with some drills that are designed to teach my muscles the motion of a golf swing. I don't get to hold the golf club yet, but I'm learning the vocabulary of golf. I am learning theory. After my introduction, I get to the real meat of my golf lessons. I'm at the driving range, driver in hand, and I'm learning the grip... the swing. I don't get to hit a ball yet, but I'm practicing my golf kata... countless repitition until my form is perfect.

I'm anxious, but my sensei assures me that my swing is coming along well. My form is shaping up, and when I do hit the ball (which is after I get my 1st dan), I will be ready to BEGIN my journey in golf. In the meantime, we talk a lot about strategy. If you're on the golf course (which I've still never seen), there are dangers. ANYTHING could happen and you have to be ready. So, we talk a lot about being ready. What if my ball goes into the rough? What if a ninja jumps out and steals my ball?

A year or two has elapsed and I have a terrific golf swing. I'm a black belt now, and in a big ceremony, my sensei presents to me my first golf ball. So, I set up to hit this ball. I can't wait. Wiff... wha? I missed? How can that be?

"It's okay, Steve. This happens to everyone. Black belt isn't the end of your journey. It's just the beginning. You'll get it. Just keep practicing, and I'll help you."

I'm reinvigorated, so I begin training in earnest. I hit golf balls like crazy... I pull out every club in my bag, and hit hundreds... no thousands... of balls with each club. I still practice my golf swing kata dilligently, but now I'm doing it. I'm swinging the club, and my balls fly straight and true.

One day, I ask my instructor, "Sensei... it's been 5 years. Shouldn't I... play a round of golf? You played rounds of golf for years."

"NO! That's the LAST thing you want to do. Anything could happen on the golf course. Your technique will degrade. It will be a free for all. What would happen to your perfect swing if you have to hit off of a 30 degree hill? What if you had a deep lie in a sand trap? You're not ready... but. You are one of my best students, and I wanted to talk to you about an opportunity. I need help, and I'd like for you to start teaching the new guys how to swing the club. In fact, I'd like for you to open your own driving range. You'd be affiliated with me, but you'd be your own sensei."

"Wow. I'm in! Awesome." And so, I start teaching a new crop of people. I've never applied my knowledge. It's comprehension level only, but I'm teaching from a position of expertise. When challenged, I can hit the ball well on the range, and if asked about playing a round on a golf course, I tell my students what my teacher told me. "No. That's the LAST thing you want to do. It will ruin your swing. My teacher played golf for years, and if anyone knows what it will do, it's him." I might or might not mention that I've never done it myself... but either way, I'm implying personal expertise by proxy through my instructor's expertise. I have comprehension level skills that are easily exposed on a golf course, but I'm presenting as someone who has synthesis level expertise and am careful to avoid putting myself in a position where I will be required to demonstrate this expertise.

Then, eventually, I give out some black belts and these guys open their own driving ranges, and they're two generations removed from playing golf. Their students become the third generation....

I've said many times that the techniques we learn have less to do with ability than how we train. If you're learning ninjutsu at a school that integrates techniques against pressure so that, as much as you possibly can, you're applying your craft against resistance, you're going to be well ahead of someone who doesn't.

The reason sports come up often is in sports, this is all self apparent.

 

[MJS]

Although the article is not attributed it seems that it was probably written by Matt Thornton. His background was boxing followed by 3 years of JKD then BJJ. http://www.straightblastgym.com/where.htm
Much of what he says is spot on, but there is a lot he says that you could argue.

Basically he is saying that MAs should be reality based but all that he talks about is sport. Interesting ....​

:asian:​

True, but I dont see any reason why those ideas can't be applied to a non sport art. For example....instead of me just going thru the motions of my Kenpo katas or Arnis anyos, I should be breaking down aspects of them, and making them work in a SD situation. That IMO, is more alive than just running thru something in the air. Just like techniques. Sure, someone could learn a tech, do it 20 times in the air and say they have it, but when someone is standing in front of them, really punching, are they going to still have it? Thats what Matt is talking about.

 

[WC_lun]

Aliveness is adding a bit of realism and unknown to what you are training. If when you spar or god forbid fight, your martial arts training goes completly out the window, then what you are training is static or dead. If you retain and use what you trained while in an unpredictable situation where force is being used correctly, then your training is alive.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Sounds like psychobabble hoo-hah to me. I just don't go for that jive.

 

[Steve]

Sounds like psychobabble hoo-hah to me. I just don't go for that jive.

I can't tell, Bill. Are you being serious?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I can't tell, Bill. Are you being serious?

Yes, I am. New Age-speak makes me itchy.

 

[Steve]

Weird that it sounds new agey to you. Sounds more common sensey to me.

 

[Josh Oakley]

I think Steve's post hits the nail on the head. From what I've seen, the one thing that sets competent martial artists apart is application. A person can be a very pretty,technical practioner of martial arts techniques, but have no real understanding of how to actualy fight. That's why I'm incredibly thankful I have training partners that will kick the crap out of me!

 

[ATC]

Aliveness boils down to learning in context. Martial arts is unique among adult activities in that it's the only thing a grown up will allege expertise in without ever having applied in context.

The concept centers around learning with resistance. Introduction, isolation and integration. This just happens to correspond to the first three stages of learning under Bloom's Taxonomy: Knowledge, Comprehension and Application.

In other words, he's really just pointing out that we should teach Martial Arts the way we teach... pretty much every thing except martial arts.

I like golf as an analogy. Knowledge/Introduction level training in golf would be equivalent to learning the rules. Learning about golf... the theory... the vocabulary. What each club does. Introduction or Knowledge level understanding is superficial. It can sound impressive to someone with no knowledge, but in application, it's easily exposed in application. In other words, someone can know everything there is to know about golf, but if they've never swung a club, it's going to be clear that their understanding is theoretical.

Knowledge level learning is marked by the ability to recite knowledge, to list things, to identify.

Isolation corresponds directly to the comprehension level of learning. Comprehension learning takes theoretical knowledge deeper... closer to application. So, where a knowledge level learner could list or recite information, a comprehension level learner can explain something. They are still not at the point where they're transferring understanding to actual performance... this transfer, in fact, is the biggest challenge that professional trainers face, but they're getting close.

In the sport of golf, this would be like learning to hit a golf ball on the driving range. Conditions are always perfect. You're learning in a vacuum. No bad lies. No rough. And if you make a bad shot, you aren't required to recover.

In MA, this is like a targeted drill. We've been shown a technique and have gone through it without resistance. Now we're drilling that technique in isolation against some increasing resistance.

Application. As I said before, this is where most adult training fails (in business), but it's the easiest to get to, really. It's doing something, measured by applying a technique in context, computing something, or producing a result. The result will depend on the desired outcome. This would be actually going out on the golf course and playing a round of golf. It could be executing techniques while sparring. It could be defending oneself in combat.

Application isn't expertise. It's the beginning's of competence. Beyond application are other layers of learning. Analysis and then Synthesis. Analysis level learning IS competence. It's functional ability. Synthesis is expertise (in simple terms).

So, here's the big problem and where conflict comes up in Martial Arts. If we continue the golf analogy, many martial arts stop at comprehension, but call it synthesis. If my goal is to be a golfer, I must play golf. So, I'm going to learn golf under a traditional martial arts model. I go to the driving range and meet up with my golf sensei. He gets me going with some drills that are designed to teach my muscles the motion of a golf swing. I don't get to hold the golf club yet, but I'm learning the vocabulary of golf. I am learning theory. After my introduction, I get to the real meat of my golf lessons. I'm at the driving range, driver in hand, and I'm learning the grip... the swing. I don't get to hit a ball yet, but I'm practicing my golf kata... countless repitition until my form is perfect.

I'm anxious, but my sensei assures me that my swing is coming along well. My form is shaping up, and when I do hit the ball (which is after I get my 1st dan), I will be ready to BEGIN my journey in golf. In the meantime, we talk a lot about strategy. If you're on the golf course (which I've still never seen), there are dangers. ANYTHING could happen and you have to be ready. So, we talk a lot about being ready. What if my ball goes into the rough? What if a ninja jumps out and steals my ball?

A year or two has elapsed and I have a terrific golf swing. I'm a black belt now, and in a big ceremony, my sensei presents to me my first golf ball. So, I set up to hit this ball. I can't wait. Wiff... wha? I missed? How can that be?

"It's okay, Steve. This happens to everyone. Black belt isn't the end of your journey. It's just the beginning. You'll get it. Just keep practicing, and I'll help you."

I'm reinvigorated, so I begin training in earnest. I hit golf balls like crazy... I pull out every club in my bag, and hit hundreds... no thousands... of balls with each club. I still practice my golf swing kata dilligently, but now I'm doing it. I'm swinging the club, and my balls fly straight and true.

One day, I ask my instructor, "Sensei... it's been 5 years. Shouldn't I... play a round of golf? You played rounds of golf for years."

"NO! That's the LAST thing you want to do. Anything could happen on the golf course. Your technique will degrade. It will be a free for all. What would happen to your perfect swing if you have to hit off of a 30 degree hill? What if you had a deep lie in a sand trap? You're not ready... but. You are one of my best students, and I wanted to talk to you about an opportunity. I need help, and I'd like for you to start teaching the new guys how to swing the club. In fact, I'd like for you to open your own driving range. You'd be affiliated with me, but you'd be your own sensei."

"Wow. I'm in! Awesome." And so, I start teaching a new crop of people. I've never applied my knowledge. It's comprehension level only, but I'm teaching from a position of expertise. When challenged, I can hit the ball well on the range, and if asked about playing a round on a golf course, I tell my students what my teacher told me. "No. That's the LAST thing you want to do. It will ruin your swing. My teacher played golf for years, and if anyone knows what it will do, it's him." I might or might not mention that I've never done it myself... but either way, I'm implying personal expertise by proxy through my instructor's expertise. I have comprehension level skills that are easily exposed on a golf course, but I'm presenting as someone who has synthesis level expertise and am careful to avoid putting myself in a position where I will be required to demonstrate this expertise.

Then, eventually, I give out some black belts and these guys open their own driving ranges, and they're two generations removed from playing golf. Their students become the third generation....

I've said many times that the techniques we learn have less to do with ability than how we train. If you're learning ninjutsu at a school that integrates techniques against pressure so that, as much as you possibly can, you're applying your craft against resistance, you're going to be well ahead of someone who doesn't.

The reason sports come up often is in sports, this is all self apparent.

For those that don't want to read all of the above, too bad, because it is very good and spot on.

Here is the short version in hope that you go back and read the long version.

Practicing how to puch, kick, grab, throw, or lock someone that is in perfect range and not resisting as if for real is not alive. It is pre staged and setup for you to succeed. Sport, however limited, is "ALIVE"! because the person on the other side is not going to be at the perfect distance nor will they simply allow you to do something without trying to counter or move in ways that force you to perform techniqes from angles and distances that you never even thought about, let alone practiced.

There is a certain aliveness to any sport vs. simple back and forth drilling. Stevebjj's golf analogy post above is spot on and I recomend everyone read it.

 

[K-man]

True, but I dont see any reason why those ideas can't be applied to a non sport art. For example....instead of me just going thru the motions of my Kenpo katas or Arnis anyos, I should be breaking down aspects of them, and making them work in a SD situation. That IMO, is more alive than just running thru something in the air. Just like techniques. Sure, someone could learn a tech, do it 20 times in the air and say they have it, but when someone is standing in front of them, really punching, are they going to still have it? Thats what Matt is talking about.

I agree 100% with what you say here. It is not the positive ideas he puts forward that concern me.

Matt seems to have only done three years of JKD and basically within that style he was just at beginner level. I'm no expert on JKD and I'm not sure how accurate the Wiki page is, but one of Bruce Lee's maxims was " absorb what is useful, and discard the remainder". Once again, if Wiki is right, JKD does not contain kata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do

Matt dismisses kata as something that has no use and for him that is true. He does the same for chi sau and hubud. He discards ordinary MAs as fraudulent and links their practice to the magic of Uri Geller and invokes the myth buster James Randi as 'proof' that what he says is the truth and everything else is false.

"I felt much the same about Martial Arts as I think Randi and many others felt about the scams of Uri Geller. I felt like I had been deceived, whether intentionally, or through ignorance. But deceived either way. And that is never a good way to feel. And it can, and does, happen to us all. Uri Geller deceived a large pool of highly educated scientists at the Stanford Research Institute, using what amounted to poor magic tricks. Just as thousands of people have been deceived by fraudulent Martial Arts, only to find out later that what they where being taught might in reality get them hurt. Especially if they believed it worked! (Witness the first few UFC's for an example)."

Then he uses an interview with a pressure point 'expert' to debunk 'pressure points'.

I have a good friend who recently sat in on an interview with a major Martial Arts figure. This man being interviewed is known as one of the leading authorities in "pressure points". . .which he claims are hidden within 'katas'. When asked why we don't see this amazing pressure point knock outs in full contact sports, he said "they have been banned". When pressed as to why that would stop a grappler from striking a point on the body which was legal within most sports, he said "well you have to hit three points almost at the same time, and it depends on what time of day it is!". I am paraphrasing from memory, but I promise the exact quotes would be equally absurd. He then explained how these points are different on men and woman, and which order they need to be struck. My friend then asked, "what if the guy you are fighting was gay? Would you use the male points, or the female points?" And this person sat very still for a moment, and then he said "use the female points."

Now I'm the first to admit there is a lot of crap spouted about 'pressure points'. The truth is, most people teaching 'pressure points' do not teach 'vital point' striking because it could be lethal. They teach so called 'humane' pressure points and I recently attended a seminar by one of the leading exponents (no names, no pack drill) and his stuff didn't work on me. It worked on all the others, for on reason or another, just not on me. From my point of view, it doesn't mean the stuff he was showing doesn't work but it demonstrated that they don't work all the time, and for me it means I would not teach those techniques in isolation. The 'vital points' that work well are the ones that most people already know about such as the neck, the temple or the jaw.

Prohibited in MMA:
Strikes to the back of the head and spinal area.
Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Grabbing the clavicle
So in a limited way he is right in saying that certain vital point striking techniques are banned in MMA. How accurate his quote is, is also subject to question.

The biggest concern for me, apart from his assertion that it's his way or the highway, is that it is all delivered in the context of competition. He is contantly referring to 'sport' in his articles. Kata are probably not relevent in competition, nor chi sau or hubud. In a real life confrontation they are relevent, if you are trained in their application. He is also right in his condemnation of most MA schools, but that does not mean they are 'fraudulent'. The instructors are just teaching what they know. The fact that their knowledge may be incomplete does not constitute fraud.

His ideas on movement, timing and energy are all valid, no question. To dismiss everything that he does not find useful as 'hocus', is the problem for me. :asian:

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Thanks for that post steve, that made a hell of a lot of sense and was a very interesting way of looking at it. But it got me thinking, within 2 generations of the original sensei, wouldnt many of the students have had a proper round of golf by then? Eventually isnt one of them going to play a round of golf and realise it doesnt work? If I trained somewhere in a class of 30 or 40 students and none of them had ever got in a "real" fight Id be very surprised. I would imagine the average class would have quite a few "thugs" or crowd controlers or police officers etc who would actually attempt to use what they are taught, and surely if it failed miserably then by now we really wouldnt have martial arts because they all would have been "found out". Personally, I avoid fights like the plague and will do my best not to put myself in positions where I may end up using what Ive been taught, but I do train with some young guys who get in the odd fight here and there plus some police officers who regularly do what we are taught to do and it obviously works for them. Would it work for me? I guess there is only one way to find out and I dont see that happening anytime soon hopefully.

 

[Steve]

I agree 100% with what you say here. It is not the positive ideas he puts forward that concern me.

Matt seems to have only done three years of JKD and basically within that style he was just at beginner level. I'm no expert on JKD and I'm not sure how accurate the Wiki page is, but one of Bruce Lee's maxims was " absorb what is useful, and discard the remainder". Once again, if Wiki is right, JKD does not contain kata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeet_Kune_Do

Matt dismisses kata as something that has no use and for him that is true. He does the same for chi sau and hubud. He discards ordinary MAs as fraudulent and links their practice to the magic of Uri Geller and invokes the myth buster James Randi as 'proof' that what he says is the truth and everything else is false.


Then he uses an interview with a pressure point 'expert' to debunk 'pressure points'.
Now I'm the first to admit there is a lot of crap spouted about 'pressure points'. The truth is, most people teaching 'pressure points' do not teach 'vital point' striking because it could be lethal. They teach so called 'humane' pressure points and I recently attended a seminar by one of the leading exponents (no names, no pack drill) and his stuff didn't work on me. It worked on all the others, for on reason or another, just not on me. From my point of view, it doesn't mean the stuff he was showing doesn't work but it demonstrated that they don't work all the time, and for me it means I would not teach those techniques in isolation. The 'vital points' that work well are the ones that most people already know about such as the neck, the temple or the jaw.

Prohibited in MMA:
Strikes to the back of the head and spinal area.
Striking downward using the point of the elbow.
Throat strikes of any kind, including, without limitation, grabbing the trachea
Grabbing the clavicle
So in a limited way he is right in saying that certain vital point striking techniques are banned in MMA. How accurate his quote is, is also subject to question.

The biggest concern for me, apart from his assertion that it's his way or the highway, is that it is all delivered in the context of competition. He is contantly referring to 'sport' in his articles. Kata are probably not relevent in competition, nor chi sau or hubud. In a real life confrontation they are relevent, if you are trained in their application. He is also right in his condemnation of most MA schools, but that does not mean they are 'fraudulent'. The instructors are just teaching what they know. The fact that their knowledge may be incomplete does not constitute fraud.

His ideas on movement, timing and energy are all valid, no question. To dismiss everything that he does not find useful as 'hocus', is the problem for me. :asian:

If it helps, from everything I've read about Matt Thornton and this concept, it really has very little to do with specific techniques. Pressure points, for example, are used in BJJ to a degree. I put pressure here and you tend to open your guard. I put pressure somewhere else and it makes you very uncomfortable, often leading you to do something predictable.

The point isn't techniques, it's training method. Boxers do different things than wrestlers. Completely different techniques, but both are taught in a way that Matt Thornton would say is alive. And that's because they actually take the techniques that they do learn and transfer them from comprehension level to application level.

For the purposes of this conversation and to understand aliveness better, I'd really recommend that everyone google bloom's taxonomy of learning. It's pretty much the golden rule in professional training, regardless of topic. That includes martial arts.