Collective Training Notebook

[301stSpartan]

I thought that it would be good to start a thread within this portion of the forum where people could post some of their own thoughts and discoveries regarding their continued exploration of combatives, fight sports, and martial arts. This is intended to be separate from the personal training logs, which I know are located elsewhere on the forum.

I hope that this turns out to have been a good idea.

[301stSpartan]

This post consists of some random observations that I have made during my own personal training.

It is written in a voice as if I were delivering a lecture; that is how I write in my notebooks. I figure that’ll make selling the movie rights easier (LOL).

Anyway…Please consider these ideas as food for thought and as seeds for further conversation.

Best Regards,

Vern Jeffery



Progressing from Stylized to Humanized

Many martial artists train with stylized stances. The lower and wider the stances, the slower the rhythm of attacks, thus drills in low, wide stances give trainees more time to perceive the movements of their partners and to take appropriate action. As training becomes further sophisticated, some variables that can be adjusted arising from this include stances height, width, and the overall ‘size’ of movements. Eventually trainees can be practicing drills from the kind of stances that they have been in for the largest part of their lives; human stances.


The most efficient base is comprised of three points of contact with a surface.

When you have three points of contact, like the legs of a stool, you have a system of self correcting stability. However, when you add a fourth leg, as in a typical table, you remove this self-correction capability. If all four legs of the table are not equally supporting, the table will rock and lack perfect stability.


Base of Support or Plane of Contention?

In a clinch or tie-up situation with an opponent, the first six points to come together (three of yours and three of his) form the three contact points that define the initial plane of contention. The coupling of points can be made up of a limitless variety of body parts including forehead and clavicle, palm and elbow, or hand and base of skull. The specifics of what makes up the clinch are unimportant. What is important is to remember the simple stability of a three legged stool; adding more legs actually decreases its steadiness. When you are sensitive to the moment when a clinch technically comes into existence, you can you can immediately replace one of the three contact couplings for another. In so doing, you can completely change the resultant plane of contention associated with the clinch to one that the opponent neither anticipates nor is structurally prepared for.


Range or Depth?

The only ranges that I like to define in combatives terms are the range at which I am fighting someone and the range at which I am not fighting them yet. With that said, I think it can be helpful to define depth, so that the concepts of Attack in Depth and Defense in Depth can have meaning for personal combatives. Depth has to do with the relative penetration and passing of opposing forces. In terms of a person’s upper body, it is possible for two opponents to be at any of four progressively deeper levels of engagement; wrist vs. wrist, wrist vs. elbow, wrist vs. shoulder/spine, and wrist beyond the opponent entirely. (You can also opt to use the leg for a contextual reference to define depth in a similar way). As the depth of engagement increases, the opportunities to make contact with the opponent increase too. Here, once again, I think that it is helpful to remember the three-point stability concept. As you attack deeper and deeper into the opponent’s space, your first point of contact gives you your eyes, the second gives you confirmation, and a third forms a plane and provides your assurance. You flow on by just continually replacing one of your three points with another as the situation develops. These point replacements can come in the form of strikes (including grappling tugs) or denial measures. This is how I would currently define Attack in Depth as it applies to combatives.


Keep Your Engine Connected to Your Machine

Stance integrity always involves a driver, an engine if you will. It is probably easier to conceptualize the driving leg in a standing stance, but an arm/shoulder complex can also be a driver if you are in a quadruped position. In action, a fighter’s driving engines are always in a state of becoming; they drive and become transitional as another portion of the body assumes the temporary role of driving engine. Driving engines within the human machine deliver force on a power curve over distance. Beyond a person’s base of support the amount of power that a bio-mechanical driving engine can deliver drops off sharply. It only makes since to consider the impact of this in your training, as many have done so in the past. The Chinese Boxing concepts of rooting and sinking energy partially refer to a requirement not to over extend. This concept is also evident in Western Boxing with its emphasis on Base and Balance.

One of the more challenging concepts of fighting to get a feel for is that of moving two or more limbs at different rates, while starting them at the same time and having each arrive at their separate destinations at the same moment. This can seem like a paradox to the principle of Body Unity, but it is not. For example you may step six inches with a leg, sink and drive, and at the same time, your hand may travel twenty-eight inches to deliver a punch. The key to keeping your engine connected to your machine is to start everything together and complete everything together. The relative velocity of the parts will be different out of necessity.


Attack the Opponent Where he doesn’t have a Leg to Stand On.

What this means is that the structure of an opponent’s stance will always reveal at least two zones that are not supported to immediately absorb external force; for example, in a stride stance as in walking, the unsupported zones are immediately behind his front foot and immediately in front of his back foot. You can use attacks that direct force around the conceptual pillar of his vertical centerline to quickly move enough of his mass beyond the limits of his base of support that he will have to take a step to remain standing.

[David Nicol]

Vern,

Have you used the IOUF resource yet? It seems that this would tie in with a lot of your observations and would be of much use to you.

Dave

[sames]

Range or Depth?

The only ranges that I like to define in combatives terms are the range at which I am fighting someone and the range at which I am not fighting them yet.

You might want to give range a reponder unless your sticking strictly to unarmed fighting. Adjusting the range such that your opponents attacks are no longer appropriate is one of the standard ways of shifting a fight back to your initiative. This is true even in unarmed combat. If your opponent is throwing a lot of kicks, moving into a tighter boxing or grappling range will force your opponent to switch strategies. If he keeps trying to kick at that range he'll lose. It takes practice to be able to switch attack methods and flow from one to another. Most will hesitate enough that you can turn the attack. It helps that you are already in and attacking in a manner appropriate to the range.

This is even more clear when using large two-handed weapons.

[301stSpartan]

Sames,

Thanks for the insight. I like how you present range as a tool that can be manipulated.


-Vern

[301stSpartan]

David,

Thank you for the advice. I haven't got that resource in my library yet, but I plan adding it soon.