Fist Position a la 7 Key Components of Movement

[Peter Mitchell]

Hi Coaches...

Have just come back from a workout with my MA partner and we have a question regarding hand position. Both of us have been attempting to use the 7 Keys as a self-diagnostic tool in our CST practice and have now started using it for our MA practice as well.

Here are the questions that were raised. How can we maintain shoulder pack during a strike or if it shouldn't be strict shoulder pack how should we manifest that tool in our striking? Should we be throwing (specifically jabs and crosses) with the elbow pit pointing upwards or inwards? And should our fist (depending upon the placement of the elbow pit) be more vertical or horizontal?

Ultimately we are not drawing from any specific delivery system (eg: boxing, thai boxing, etc...) but are looking at creating efficient striking from any position. I suppose that begs the question of developing specific types of strikes or just learning to throw efficiently... I am seriously curious about that one.

Some resources / tools we have access to are: Softwork, Hardwork, Integrating Structure, PYB, Intu-Flow, FlowFit, and Clubbells (10's & 15's). FlowFit 2, and the GTM will be ordered shortly.

Any insight would be appreciated!

[Scott Sonnon]

A moderate slap can knock someone unconscious if you have the fortune or timing to apply the right amount of force at a critical moment.

But you shouldn't depend upon luck. And timing can only be developed through practice against resistant opponents.

The more that you shrink the box of potential options, the greater the safety of the athletes, and the greater the rate of development of neurological timing. It only takes about 200 matches before you have the timing down. That may sound like a lot, but really you're only talking about a couple to a few years of actual 'competition'.

You can spend a few decades developing timing very slowly through cooperative drills but it doesn't have a high percentage chance of success with only approximately 5-10% of its proponents actually developing any timing. The rest of the lot suffer decades of skill practice only to be reduced to a pile of slop under the pressure of an opponent with only months of wrestling, boxing or fencing competition. But again, there are exceptions to this. Some people manage to develop timing this way - about 1 or 2 out of 20.

If you're going to reduce the box to controlled parameters, you need to practice within those contexts. For instance, if you're boxing, you shadow box, work the bag, and work the pads; if it's wrestling, you shadow grapple, and drill takedowns, reversals and holddowns; if it's fencing, you shadow fence, work the line (drills), and attack the target (dummy). In each of these, you're learning the mechanics which will help you establish proper structure to deliver force within their respective contexts.

That is not to say that these are how you fight. It is not to say that these structures are superior. It is not to say that the point of structure is delivering or receiving greater force. The point of establishing biomechanically effective structure is so that facing resistance (opponents), you can develop neuromuscular timing... so that over time you can use less and less orthodox structure and less and less force to accomplish the same objective.

When audiences see RMAX athletes performing very 'un-structured' exercises, they assume that structure is unnecessary. However, this is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of "softwork."

When audiences see RMAX athletes in tough sparring or rolling sessions, they assume that we abide by orthodox structures for fighting. However, this is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of "hardwork."

After you've had your 200 or so fights, then you'll see that you can depart from structure. This is one of the dangers of trying to 'copy' the movements of seasoned fighters, and the reason that ineffective coaches try to teach new athletes to fight like seasoned athletes, and the reason that athletes should never consider themselves to be good coaches simply because they are seasoned fighters.

[Peter Mitchell]

I am speechless. You have just facilitated a huge “A-HA! That’s what he has meant all this time!” moment for me!

Much respect… and thank-you very much! :)

[KD Jones]

...
You can spend a few decades developing timing very slowly through cooperative drills but it doesn't have a high percentage chance of success with only approximately 5-10% of its proponents actually developing any timing. The rest of the lot suffer decades of skill practice only to be reduced to a pile of slop under the pressure of an opponent with only months of wrestling, boxing or fencing competition. But again, there are exceptions to this. Some people manage to develop timing this way - about 1 or 2 out of 20.
...
That is not to say that these are how you fight. It is not to say that these structures are superior. It is not to say that the point of structure is delivering or receiving greater force. The point of establishing biomechanically effective structure is so that facing resistance (opponents), you can develop neuromuscular timing... so that over time you can use less and less orthodox structure and less and less force to accomplish the same objective.

The nature, possibilities and errors of the 20-year program, the reason so much work goes into being a poor fighter, the reason a very few are very good, when meaningful resources say it should not be so (see HERE (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E83414B7F4945)), the meaning of "the formlessness in the form," and something of the nature of physical freedom and its relationships to discipline... stuff I've been trying to get sensible answer for - with no luck - for quite some time... just sitting here like it fell off of someone's plate.

Just amazing. Blessings for this, and much else.

[wadem]

A moderate slap can knock someone unconscious if you have the fortune or timing to apply the right amount of force at a critical moment.
I have had this happen more than a few times and must say that it is extremely disconcerting. Many do not believe it is possible until someone who can do so demonstrates.


But you shouldn't depend upon luck. And timing can only be developed through practice against resistant opponents.
I agree. Though I believe that in order to learn timing in new skills does require some cooperative practice in order to have opportunities pointed out to the student. In my experience, proper use of cooperative practice has improved many skills vs. more resistant partners. If people start out training against resisting partners, some or a lot of the potential finesse of technique may not develop. I have seen this in a lot of eclectic martial artists who study "real" stuff. But people DEFINITELY have to practice against resistance at some point to learn what really works and where the holes in their game are. From what I have seen, I think the Softwork and Hardwork methods provide a nice balance of these approaches. :)

You can spend a few decades developing timing very slowly through cooperative drills but it doesn't have a high percentage chance of success with only approximately 5-10% of its proponents actually developing any timing. The rest of the lot suffer decades of skill practice only to be reduced to a pile of slop under the pressure of an opponent with only months of wrestling, boxing or fencing competition. But again, there are exceptions to this. Some people manage to develop timing this way - about 1 or 2 out of 20.
I TOTALLY agree here. It has long been my belief that the number of people who actually absorb their discipline and actually "get it" are around 2%.


The point of establishing biomechanically effective structure is so that facing resistance (opponents), you can develop neuromuscular timing... so that over time you can use less and less orthodox structure and less and less force to accomplish the same objective.
Very well stated!


When audiences see RMAX athletes performing very 'un-structured' exercises, they assume that structure is unnecessary. However, this is a basic misunderstanding of the nature of "softwork."
I think most people do not realize that structure is present because of how something looks on the outside. The eyes have a way of deceiving the brain and our own individual filters of experience and belief tend to alter the "truth" of what is being watched. "Hidden" structure is getting into the IMA area. We also have to remember that in a dynamic situation, structure is momentary and transitional. But the timing of when the structure is employed — along with relative position and angling — are very important, and that skill comes from a lot of unpredictable free-sparring (like Softwork).

Just my humble 2 cents.

[Coach Jones]

Wade,

I just wanted to comment on the point you made here because I think it's a really important one.



If people start out training against resisting partners, some or a lot of the potential finesse of technique may not develop

This is an opinion that I find a lot of people share. Mostly those with more "traditional" backgrounds. The trouble with this is that you can't develop finesse in combat or sport against resistance by training without resistance.

What happens instead, is that an illusion is created in which the practitioner believes he/she are developing transferable skills when in reality they are developing a very specific skill. They are learning to apply a technique in the vacuum of a static environment.

Now, this doesn't mean that on day one you want to go out and go 100 mph in training. You still have to follow the rule of incremental progression. The Softwork to Hardwork continuum. The goal is to incrementally increase resistance because, without it, it's merely a coopertive "dance" and little more.

You can develop finesse in technique by working with a totally coopertive partner but you can only develop finesse in combat/sport through increasing resistance. To a large degree, the idea of finesse in technique is an illusion. This is illustrated by the old "ringrust". If you're a combat athlete who hasn't fought in a while, you know what i'm talking about. Even if you were at the top of your game when you took that break from competition, it takes a while to get back in the groove...and it takes resistance and competition. I've seen some very talented and well known martial artists who fall to pieces when faced with resistance. Experts who can prefer beautiful forms/kata but couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Many a technical virtuoso has been put to sleep by rank beginners who train against resistance.;)

[Scott Sonnon]

I just also wanted to throw in a potential reframe here that will help, as when working with pros coming from a more formalized background some redefinition often aided their training more significantly than the drills themselves.

Finesse can develop with cooperative resistance, timing can only develop under uncooperative resistance. The "timing" of neuromuscular firing (or reaction time, movement time and response time) is specific to velocity cues. Finesse is not velocity specific, which is why an expert martial artist can perform technique with grace at variable speeds.

People use softwork to develop finesse, and hardwork to develop timing. The dialing-in process of the work continuum (soft to hard) is the realm of effective coaching, and what separates the mere instructor from the master coach.

[wadem]

This is an opinion that I find a lot of people share. Mostly those with more "traditional" backgrounds. The trouble with this is that you can't develop finesse in combat or sport against resistance by training without resistance. I agree that this probably a more traditional practitioners' belief, and I would be lying if I told you my background was anything but traditional. When I mentioned the eclectic MAs, I was referring to the large number of strong, young men out there who want to brawl from day one. A lot of them can fight proficiently very quickly, but they will eventually suffer the consequences of reckless practice. Injuries are guaranteed, but they will also only know how to "bang." You have to explore both ends of the spectrum, as I believe they compliment one another.


What happens instead, is that an illusion is created in which the practitioner believes he/she are developing transferable skills when in reality they are developing a very specific skill. They are learning to apply a technique in the vacuum of a static environment. I am in total agreement here. I have (and still often do) suffer from that delusion. But I still think performing new skills in a vacuum can be beneficial to get around sticky spots. Otherwise (as I have seen) the individual tries to fix the problem the best way they can figure out, which is hardly ever the best way, and bad habits can develop.


Now, this doesn't mean that on day one you want to go out and go 100 mph in training. You still have to follow the rule of incremental progression. The Softwork to Hardwork continuum. The goal is to incrementally increase resistance because, without it, it's merely a coopertive "dance" and little more. This was exactly the core of my post. Thank you for saying it better than I was able. I was certainly not implying that one should practice one way or keep the cooperative and resistant types of training separate. I think back to when I studied Wing Chun. If my teacher did not practice cooperatively with me ever, and just hit me at will, I would have never learned any of the basic skills. I would have only learned how to tighten up for the impending blows, because that would be my only honed reflex. I really think we are saying essentially the same thing. If we were not, I think we are at least in agreement. :)


You can develop finesse in technique by working with a totally coopertive partner but you can only develop finesse in combat/sport through increasing resistance. To a large degree, the idea of finesse in technique is an illusion. Again, I am in total agreement. I know more people who can perform in class, but couldn't apply the skills outside of the class environment. What I tried to say was that finesse is relative between the opposing parties. I could be clunky as hell, but if I am more sensitive and finessful than my opponent, I am definitely at an advantage.


Many a technical virtuoso has been put to sleep by rank beginners who train against resistance.;) Oh, I know! I have been on both sides of that coin many times! ;)

[Coach Flanagan]

Pearls...

Coach Jones' post is as usual, right on. In a certain russian martial art I was practicing for a period of time, I had developed a lot of finesse in gracefully taking down my partner in various drills, having a couple of times initated what seemed to be effective throws with just a flick of the wrist. Much to my suprise, after working on being so darn graceful, that I had no access to it while grappling with friends,etc. It turns out its not so easy to throw people :D.

I believe Coach Sonnon explained it pretty well recently
Good mechanics are good mechanics... which is what I refer to when I say, "good movement is good movement." Poor mechanics is not good movement (no matter how 'graceful') (emphasis mine)

Back when our FlowFighting™ training group was heavily softwork-centric, we got REALLY lazy regarding biomechanics. We may have appeared to be graceful or whatever, but the lack of resistance allowed as to be arm punchers and to not use our entire structure in our movements, i.e: pretty crappy mechanics. We're at a point now where we feel its more important to be graceful when the leather is flying at our face than it is to be graceful in static, stable environments.

[Scott Sonnon]

Wade,

A definition of terms would help here. Please see my above post, since we posted simultaneously.

Finesse refers to the technical efficiency (useful work / total work) of performance of a specific skill or response.

Timing refers to the neuromuscular firing of reaction, movement and response time:
* reaction time: the interval between application of a stimulus and selection of an appropriate response
* movement time: the interval between distance traveled divided by the time of travel.
* response time: reaction time + response time

The two are only related through the response selection, not through application.

[wadem]

Thank you for the extra definitions, Coach! I think I may be having trouble getting my head around the distinctions being made, which is my personal challenge (an perhaps bias). For me, the lines between various forms of practice have been blurred for years as I view everything from a quality of movement and concept/principle. Because of this, I always look for the similarities in skill development between different arts to distill everything down to the universal core movements and principles. So perhaps I am not making distinctions I should be.

I often wonder if we are not all making statements based on our personal beliefs and experience, as it seems like assumptions are made about what each other is saying. But I will try to step out of my paradigm more and absorb/more clearly take in what is being said as I think it will only help me overall. Thanks for your patience. :)

[Scott Sonnon]

We only ever make statements based upon beliefs and experience. Only anthropologists from the 30s believe that we can be objective. :D

That is the role of defining terms: so that we can come as close as possible to actually communicating and understanding eachother.

Honestly, I find it absolutely fascinating that we are even capable of communicating (that is without considering the belief that we are not distinct and separate at all.)

[wadem]

Well, I think the ability to communicate in this arena is made possible by the caliber of people that make up the Tribe. It isn't often that people can agree to disagree or refrain from arguing so that something new may be learned. Everyone still seems to get along, even when discussions get heated. There ia a lot to be said for that. :)