Thoughts on Bruce Lee [Archive]

Coach Tran

02-18-2006, 06:06 AM

Thomas,

I am a huge fan of Bruce Lee. He was my childhood idol and the reason why I started exploring the physical cultures of martial arts and health and fitness. As a CST instructor, I do not look at styles anymore. I look at movements. "If you understand movements, you do not need a style." So if your friend feel comfortable with the instructor and liked what he is studying, then Jun Fan/JKD is a good thing for him. Flow fighting will help anyone go deeper into their own personal practice so they can understand their own movements. When your friend really understand his own movements, he will be his own master. The beauty of Flow-Fighting is it is not technique based, it progressively allows you, the artist, to access your fighting skills in a creative manner, and also give you options for personal growth in whatever direction you want to go in your practice.

Scott Sonnon

02-18-2006, 06:29 AM

JKD carved the path of personal liberation 30 years ago. As much as MMA is a product of that legacy, so too is FlowFighting resulting in part from that social transformation.

We believe FlowFighting is the most accelerated, non-superfluous, and direc system of personal transformation and physical preparedness, based upon the contemporary edge of research and development not that of 30 years ago. That does not derogate JKD or any other, but rather puts it into chronological perspective. If one follows the maxim of "remove the non-essentials", FlowFighting has less non-truth.

Coach Tran

02-18-2006, 08:27 AM

If one follows the maxim of "remove the non-essentials", FlowFighting™ has less non-truth.

nice statement...

Robert V

02-18-2006, 08:44 AM

"If you understand movements, you do not need a style."

Nice statement!

And JKD is was not a style.

KD Jones

02-18-2006, 08:57 AM

The folks I've known who were "closest" to Bruce Lee (trained by his first-generation students, Jesse Glove and James DeMile) don't feel that JKD is really a legacy to Bruce Lee. Anyone who was near him remains amazed, but for various reasons, it appears that he left no clear "legacy."

(As for myself, I barely have a right to say anything about anything martial, so this is really just a report based on what I've heard and learned from those more evolved than me.)

On the other hand, what we have here is a legacy being built from the ground up, open to question, alive and kicking.

Coach Tran

02-18-2006, 09:01 AM

Robert,

I understand JKD is not a fixed style like wing chun, boxing, and etc. I understand Bruce Lee wanted a meta-systems for his personal self expression what he believed to be the essense of martial arts. But for all practical purposes it is a method when you teach it and certified others to do the same. The quote that you liked is from the late master himself.

Coach Jones

02-18-2006, 09:24 AM

I'd throw in that JKD wasn't a style, but it most assuredly is now.

This topic seems like a good oppurtunity to point something out. Flowfighting is specific. At the root is regaining, coordnating and refining flow. Developing the ability to attain and maintain flow against resistance, however that resistance manifests.

Being smooth in technique is not, nor does it translate to flow in fighting. Being technically sound within a prescricbed drill, does not equal flow in fighting or against varying resistance.

While Bruce Lee was a great fighter and a great athlete and teacher, as are many in JKD today, it has become a style. Just because one doesn't follow one specific style but blends together various ones doesn't mean that it isn't still technique specific.

Flowfighting is different from anything out there. It has to be experienced.

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. Even if you religiously practice all the material available to this point from RMAX to the point that it becomes part of you...you are only scratching the surface of Flowfighting. I wanted to make this point so there is no confusion. There's a reason it took so long to get this out on the street even though it's been asked about for years.

If you get serious and deepen your daily personal practice with the RMAX resources and your training group...you'll be ready to attend the seminar.

Now, back to the original question...

Nothing wrong with JKD, but don't have any illusions that it's not technique based, that it's not a style. It is a style now. If your buddy likes it and enjoys hios practice...tell him to go for it and have fun. It's never a bad thing to have a good movement base and to have bodies to practice with. How does iot compare to Flowfighting?......

Apples and oranges.

Scott Sonnon

02-18-2006, 01:08 PM

Brandon, respect.

I'd only say the difference is Apples and Orchards.

StuMcD

02-18-2006, 02:15 PM

JKD carved the path of personal liberation 30 years ago. As much as MMA is a product of that legacy, so too is FlowFighting™ resulting in part from that social transformation.

JKD carved "a" path of personal liberation 30 years ago.

try these trailblazers.

E.W Barton Wright. Studied boxing, wrestling, fencing savate and the art of the stilleto and combined them into his own system of Bartitsu around 1900.

Fiore dei Liberi. Wrote his manuals circa 1410 on wrestling, dagger, stick, sword in one hand, sword in two hands, poleaxe and mounted combat. He claims to have learned from many Italian and German masters in the creation of his art. (see www.fioredeiliberi.org for their free online translation of Fiore's manual).

Bruce Lee was not the first to do anything. He was just fortunate to be doing what he did in the age of mass media.
Stu.

Scott Sonnon

02-18-2006, 02:51 PM

JKD carved the path of personal liberation 30 years ago. As much as MMA is a product of that legacy, so too is FlowFighting™™ resulting in part from that social transformation.

JKD carved "a" path of personal liberation 30 years ago.

try these trailblazers.

E.W Barton Wright. Studied boxing, wrestling, fencing savate and the art of the stilleto and combined them into his own system of Bartitsu around 1900.

Fiore dei Liberi. Wrote his manuals circa 1410 on wrestling, dagger, stick, sword in one hand, sword in two hands, poleaxe and mounted combat. He claims to have learned from many Italian and German masters in the creation of his art. (see www.fioredeiliberi.org for their free online translation of Fiore's manual).

Bruce Lee was not the first to do anything. He was just fortunate to be doing what he did in the age of mass media.
Stu.

Stu,

I did not claim that he was the "First". I stated that he "carved a path." Do you really think that he was "just fortunate" to do this in the age of mass media??? Let me ask this question another way. Do you really think that I was "just fortunate" for the same reason to do "what others had done" for centuries and millenia with clubs?

Don't underestimate the work required, the challenges faced, or the hazards encountered. There is MORE to be done in the age of modern media. Think of it this way. Imagine that your only competition you had to face comprised those in your geographic vacinity. Now, imagine that you had to face the best competition from around the world, and moreover that you had to address thousands upon thousands more because of that global exposure. Do you think that you would have more work or less work, be better or worse skilled, be more or less challenged?

I've come to have great respect for anyone who manages to succeed in the mind numbingly competitive modern era, because having gone through it personally, I know for a fact that what I face now is a 1,000 fold what I had to encounter when I was just traveling and competing from my own school, for example.

My respect goes to Bruce Lee for stepping up in the light and facing the prejudice of millions. THAT is carving a path. What we are doing here, now, with RMAX is that challenge magnified by billions, because the incredibly powerful venue of the internet.

"Carving a path" refers to the dense, nearly impenetrible forest which stands in front of those who intend to succeed in the modern day, moreso than ever before in history.

Coach Tran

02-18-2006, 07:59 PM

JKD carved the path of personal liberation 30 years ago. As much as MMA is a product of that legacy, so too is FlowFighting™™™ resulting in part from that social transformation.

JKD carved "a" path of personal liberation 30 years ago.

try these trailblazers.

E.W Barton Wright. Studied boxing, wrestling, fencing savate and the art of the stilleto and combined them into his own system of Bartitsu around 1900.

Fiore dei Liberi. Wrote his manuals circa 1410 on wrestling, dagger, stick, sword in one hand, sword in two hands, poleaxe and mounted combat. He claims to have learned from many Italian and German masters in the creation of his art. (see www.fioredeiliberi.org for their free online translation of Fiore's manual).

Bruce Lee was not the first to do anything. He was just fortunate to be doing what he did in the age of mass media.
Stu.

Stu,

I did not claim that he was the "First". I stated that he "carved a path." Do you really think that he was "just fortunate" to do this in the age of mass media??? Let me ask this question another way. Do you really think that I was "just fortunate" for the same reason to do "what others had done" for centuries and millenia with clubs?

Don't underestimate the work required, the challenges faced, or the hazards encountered. There is MORE to be done in the age of modern media. Think of it this way. Imagine that your only competition you had to face comprised those in your geographic vacinity. Now, imagine that you had to face the best competition from around the world, and moreover that you had to address thousands upon thousands more because of that global exposure. Do you think that you would have more work or less work, be better or worse skilled, be more or less challenged?

I've come to have great respect for anyone who manages to succeed in the mind numbingly competitive modern era, because having gone through it personally, I know for a fact that what I face now is a 1,000 fold what I had to encounter when I was just traveling and competing from my own school, for example.

My respect goes to Bruce Lee for stepping up in the light and facing the prejudice of millions. THAT is carving a path. What we are doing here, now, with RMAX is that challenge magnified by billions, because the incredibly powerful venue of the internet.

"Carving a path" refers to the dense, nearly impenetrible forest which stands in front of those who intend to succeed in the modern day, moreso than ever before in history.

Preach! Church! Amen, brother Sonnon! Preach! Church! I am feeling ya, brother Sonnon.

KD Jones

02-19-2006, 12:29 AM

Being smooth in technique is not, nor does it translate to flow in fighting. Being technically sound within a prescricbed drill, does not equal flow in fighting or against varying resistance.

Really nice. If this were to be digested, really understood, it would be a souce of peace for a lot of folks who work their tails off drilling, and can't use the skills they believe they should now know. It's as I believe you've mentioned before - a person who trains like this, when fighting, in a sense is always waiting for the precise combination of circumstances (breathing, movement, structure?) in which a given technique/s will suddently become available. The chances of this ever occuring are slim.

(But this does leave quesiton on the nature of drilling in my mind... can't a drill - used within the instructional confines of "stimulation withou stimulation" - be used to make ingrain a new {hopefully useful} general biomechanical "set," which can then be incrementally trained against resistance?)

Just because one doesn't follow one specific style but blends together various ones doesn't mean that it isn't still technique specific.

Which point out what looks to me to be an interesting effect of MMA on the martial arts consuming public: the more do-ryu-mo-foos you've got on your billboard, the more "real-world" the school is taken to be. Sometimes the sufffixes barely fit on the t-shirts. Maybe it's the weight of the dye that gets in the way?

...Apples and Orchards.

(ooooh. nice.)

Coach Jones

02-19-2006, 08:56 AM

Which point out what looks to me to be an interesting effect of MMA on the martial arts consuming public: the more do-ryu-mo-foos you've got on your billboard, the more "real-world" the school is taken to be. Sometimes the sufffixes barely fit on the t-shirts. Maybe it's the weight of the dye that gets in the way?

Well, there's two separate dangers here. The first is in thinking that the drills transfer absolutely to fighting. The second, is in believing that all traditional training methods are completely devoid of value.

With most traditional (and those based off of traditional) arts we run into the first problem. Believeing that a drill where the majority of variables are removed, somehow prepares you for the dynamic variables that occur in a fight. Overspecialazation occurs when a specific drill is trained over and over again with the same rules and structure. You become very good at the drill. In the beginning you gain benefits, you sharpen and improve. After that, you start to become better at that particular drill within that partciular framework.

The other problem pops up when people take that idea too far. We see this more and more and frankly it chaffes my a** more than a little bit.

Traditional training is not necessary to develop fighting ability, but it IS valuable in that it can bring you closer to what you're after. It establishes a base, from which to work from. It can be a very useful beginning to developing your abilities and attributes. The next step is then realizing that you are an individual and that in order to continue to progress you need to focus on your own ideosyncratic movement rather than continuing to try and learn to fight within the framework of a particular style or set of techniques. RMAX is, hands down, the best source out there for the continued personal evolution of your individual practice.

Flowfighting represents the next step in the journey. All the RMAX materials are present within Flowfighting, but they are not all the components. There are many more aspects involved. I want to hammer this point home so people don't misunderstand this.

At this point, no one other than the HCS can teach, share, show or demonstrate Flowfighting.

Not because they don't have permission, but because they haven't been exposed to it.

(But this does leave quesiton on the nature of drilling in my mind... can't a drill - used within the instructional confines of "stimulation withou stimulation" - be used to make ingrain a new {hopefully useful} general biomechanical "set," which can then be incrementally trained against resistance?)

Depends how you define "set". If you're trying to impose a pre-concieved movement pattern on an opponent...NO. IF you're working towards applying principles and/or tactics within a dynamic framework responding to the situation at hand rather than a "I go, you go" thing. Then YES.

...Apples and Orchards. Exactly!!

Scott Sonnon

02-19-2006, 09:23 AM

http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/forum/images/smiles/smiley_013.gif

Coach Jones

02-19-2006, 10:11 AM

Thanks!

Oh, and another thing... :lol:

In addtion to what I said above, I wanted to throw in one other thing regarding drills that is of vital importance.

"Training drills" should be looked at like perscriptions. Sometimes, there are similar problems that a group might have that can be addressed with a specific drill. The majority of the time, a drill needs to be used to address a specific issue for a specific person. This is what's missing in a lot of TMA approaches. They miss the forest for the trees.

It's easy to fall into this trap when there is no actual threat. No competition, no resistance.

With MMA, you can watch the eprformance of the athlete, evaluate it, find where their holes are, and devise drills to plug these holes. It's a very cut and dry situation. If you keep taking kicks to the head, some training drills that address the specific issue need to be devised and worked. You wouldn't give this fighter hours more of trapping drills, would you?

If a fighter drops his left after throwing a jab, drills need to be created and used to correct the problem, more push hands is not the efficient answer.

The usefulness of drills is dependant on how succesfully they are applied to the individual.

sames

02-19-2006, 02:21 PM

Nice!

SAB

02-19-2006, 02:25 PM

My respect goes to Bruce Lee for stepping up in the light and facing the prejudice of millions. THAT is carving a path. What we are doing here, now, with RMAX is that challenge magnified by billions, because the incredibly powerful venue of the internet.

Very true, Bruce Lee never had to deal with internet trolls...

I loved Lee as a kid, and where as other martial arts movies I loved as a kid, I cringe at now, I still marvel at Lee when I put on his movies every now and then.

His charisma and athletic ability is STILL just off the chart !

Ryan Murdock

02-19-2006, 02:37 PM

it would be a souce of peace for a lot of folks who work their tails off drilling, and can't use the skills they believe they should now know. It's as I believe you've mentioned before - a person who trains like this, when fighting, in a sense is always waiting for the precise combination of circumstances (breathing, movement, structure?) in which a given technique/s will suddently become available. The chances of this ever occuring are slim.

In addition to the brilliant replies by Coaches Jones and Sonnon above, I'd like to add one thing about this point. The Static, Fluid and Dynamic drill progression directly addresses this deficiency in technique-based training. Techniques are just studies in mechanics. Most TMA never go beyond training these Statically, hence the difficulty in applying them to situations where "perfect form" is absent. Taking those mechanics Fluid and then Dynamic will give you the experiences necessary to make those mechanics work for you - to own them, in other words.

On the subject of Bruce Lee, I agree with what my colleagues said above. All Lee's efforts were still thinking from within a technique-based mindset. What I admire about Lee is that he put the focus on the individual, he shopped around for the bits he needed, he looked for ways to meet his individual needs. He was also a pioneer in applying physical conditioning to TMA. I admire his experimentation, the way he tried so many new angles. Things have gone well beyond the discoveries that Bruce made, which is only the nature of evolution. His physical conditioning regimes (published in that series that began printing volumes of Lee's notes) were very cool for his time, but sports science has gone well beyond this now. This takes nothing away from Bruce Lee's achievements, as he certainly helped blaze trails in these directions. But in the end, the MA trail that he blazed, unique as it was, still came from within technique.

StuMcD

02-19-2006, 02:56 PM

I did not claim that he was the "First". I stated that he "carved a path." Do you really think that he was "just fortunate" to do this in the age of mass media??? Let me ask this question another way. Do you really think that I was "just fortunate" for the same reason to do "what others had done" for centuries and millenia with clubs?

If that is the case then we are quibbling over one word in your original statement. "The Path" sounds very different in meaning to me than "A Path".

Don't underestimate the work required, the challenges faced, or the hazards encountered.

I'm not saying that it was easier for Bruce than people who came before him in terms of workload, just that mass media made it easier for him to become famous, and especially so amongst those who aren't even involved in martial arts at all.

I agree with you that the health, fitness and MA markets are completely saturated right now and that offering something unique and effective enough to rise above the rest is a great challenge indeed.

"Carving a path" refers to the dense, nearly impenetrible forest which stands in front of those who intend to succeed in the modern day, moreso than ever before in history.

Absolutely it does. By saying "the path", I assumed incorrectly that you were saying that Bruce Lee was doing something that nobody else ever had. A whole lot of typing here over one little word.
Stu.

BackAgain

02-19-2006, 03:06 PM

I want to thank you all for the depth at which you answered my question. I went to Books-a-million the other day an brought a copy of Bruce Lee's book - ARTIST OF LIFE. I have really gain so much more respect for the man, the legend, the thinker. But I also want everyone here to know that what I've read from his book compared to whats present at least what they describe on the net as JKD today, is not what Bruce intended it to be. It's intent was to be more of what Coach Sonnon has created with Rmax. Coach you are truely a carving your path which is in return allowing us to do the same through your products and teaching. This is where I think Coach separates himself. For all those in the tribe who have been following Coach, the forum and the online magazine you will find a lot of what Bruce says very familar. I believe if he lived longer he would have restructured the game the way coach is finally doing, and I understand beyond the films why he is considered the best ever. So below I'm going to list some of the things Bruce says in his book. If I'm wrong on any and how they relate to what Coach is teaching please feel free to correct me. I think Bruce was on his way to creating something simular to Rmax way back then. But through error his intent of JKD had been changed an was lost but found again through another great our Coach Sonnon. I think after he past they tried to structure JKD.

FROM BRUCE LEE'S BOOK:

" The understanding of jeet kune do comes through personal feeling from moment to moment in the mirror of relationship and not through a process of isolation. To be is to related. To isolate is death."

" To set the record straight, I have NOT invented a new style, composite, modified, or otherwise; that is, set within distinct form and laws as apart from "this" style. Jeet kune do is not a form of special conditioning with a set of beliefs and particular approach. It does not look at combat from a certain angle but from all possible angles, and although JKD uses all ways and means to serve its end-after all efficiency is anything that scores-it is bound by none, and is therfore free from them."

" When one has no form, one can be all forms: when one has no style, one can fit in with any style."

" To define JKD as a style-gung fu, karate, kickboxing, Bruce Lee's style of street fighting, and so forth-is to miss the point completely, because its teaching simply cannot be reduced to a system. If JKD is not a style or a method, some might think it is being neutral or maybe it is indifference. However, this is not the case either, for JKD is both at once "this" and "not this," so it is neither opposed to styles nor not opposed to them."

" True observation begins when one is devoid of set patterns; freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond system."

" One cannot express himself fully and totally when a partial set structure or style is imposed upon him. Combat "as is" is total, including all "that is" as well as all "that is not," without favorite lines or angles, having no boundaries, always fresh and alive, [it] is never set and constantly changing."

" Thus any special technique, however classically correct or cleverly designed, is in reality a disease, should on become obssessed with it. Unfortunately, many martial artists are often trapped in such obsessions. These seekers are constantly on the search for that teacher who "satisfies" their particular desires."

Scott Sonnon

02-19-2006, 03:15 PM

Stu,

Yep. Just a word.

I disagree with you on fame though. Mass media doesn't make fame more easily attained, it makes it LESS attainable! When people actually gain a degree of fame, they come to realize its much more work than they could ever imagine. The recent situation surroundinig Dave Chappelle is an ideal example.

KD Jones

02-19-2006, 05:48 PM

Coach Jones - you are, like on fire. We all need to pay you for typing.

Coach Murdock - thank you for the clarity on that point. I can see that it's very, very important, though I don't understand it yet. The chance to be incrementally introduced to these things, as a beginner, is invaluable.

Glenn Sunshine

02-19-2006, 06:11 PM

This seems like as good a place as any to post a question on Lee's JKD training approach and the drill progression in RMAX. I read once that one of the ways Lee trained was to isolate a technique (definittely not RMAX!), say a backfist, work it solo, then work it against backfist, then against a jab, then against a reverse punch, then against all punches, then against a front kick, ..., until he was eventually using the backfist and the backfist alone against any attack. Then he'd move to the next technique and do it the same way. It's still technique based and has its limitations, but is this something like the drill progression from static to dynamic in RMAX?

Scott Sonnon

02-19-2006, 06:17 PM

Not at all, Glenn. The pedagogy of Instruction -> Isolation -> Integration of technique is still limited to codified, rote technique. I can see where you would think this, amigo. One could possibly assume parallels between Static -> Fluid -> Dynamic Drill Progression, but erroneously.

We're about the publish the new issue of CST Magazine. If one of the other coaches doesn't get to this first, I'll try later. I have a big day in Seattle tomorrow, but at least, I'll try and address it tonight or tomorrow morning.

Glenn Sunshine

02-19-2006, 06:44 PM

Thanks for the quick reply. Obviously, I'm still trying to get a handle on how to apply the static-dynamic drill progression, and I'm just not getting it yet. When I can train live, I'm sure all will come clear. I do look forward to a more complete reply here when you or one of the other coaches can get to it.

Have a great day in Seattle.

Coach Jones

02-20-2006, 09:44 AM

Glenn,

On a very basic level, the difference comes down to purpose. If we isolate a technique, then proceed to a drill for this technique, and finally try and impose this technique we loose our purpose.

We want to develop our skill to specifically address varying actual threats dynamically.

When we follow the above progression, the focus and purpose becomes being able to perform a series of movements. What happens then, is that you have to separate from the conflict entirely and address issues of stance, balance, positioning, distance, etc with the purpose of applying the specific technique.

It's a difficult thing to try and explain in text, but I hope this is shedding at least a little light on the question.

In essence what happens is that you end up creating a performance gap. What happpens when your training partner moves in such a way as to make the codified techinque less efficient? With that type of progression, you will try and make it work, because that's the goal or purpose.

Now with RMAX static - dynamic, it's a bit different. In a static drill, variables are removed in order to provide a solid understanding of the biomechanical relationship. Like a study, if you will. From there the progression would go through as many incarnations as necessary to drive the points/concepts home as the individual practitioner needs, finally ending up in a truly dynamic framework. The goal then isn't to perform his "trick", but to use what was learned in the more static drills to achieve an intended result as well as the ability to recover when things go wrong.

Now this is where Flow comes into the picture. It is impossible to achieve "flow" within a pre-existing pattern, you can get better at it, faster, stronger or whatever, but it's not flow. I like to use the analogy of a conversation.

A conflict, fight, whatever - is nothing more than a converstion. Your goal then is to become a good conversationalist. A good conversationalist doesn't just keep stating his point over and over again, he has to listen as well. Not just wait for his turn to talk. He has to respond to what the other person is saying and respond accordingly. Same thing here.

Like I say, this is a difficult topic to try and address in print and one that's immediately obvious in practice. I'd suggest getting to the Flowfighting seminar if you can. It's the best way to experience it.

KD Jones

02-20-2006, 10:44 AM

The pedagogy of Instruction -> Isolation -> Integration of technique is still limited to codified, rote technique. I can see where you would think this, amigo. One could possibly assume parallels between Static -> Fluid -> Dynamic Drill Progression, but erroneously.

In essence what happens is that you end up creating a performance gap. What happpens when your training partner moves in such a way as to make the codified techinque less efficient? With that type of progression, you will try and make it work, because that's the goal or purpose.

Now with RMAX static - dynamic, it's a bit different. In a static drill, variables are removed in order to provide a solid understanding of the biomechanical relationship. Like a study, if you will. From there the progression would go through as many incarnations as necessary to drive the points/concepts home as the individual practitioner needs, finally ending up in a truly dynamic framework. The goal then isn't to perform his "trick", but to use what was learned in the more static drills to achieve an intended result as well as the ability to recover when things go wrong.

Lights coming on... maybe.

The statement of the problem with "Instruction -> Isolation -> Integration" as a method, and the concept of "performance gap" are beginning to click for me...

To restate, as a test of my understanding:
>> The essential error of the the "instruction phase" is that that a technique is presented as a snapshot of response, in response to a snapshot of circumstance. The error here is similar to that of "Zeno's Paradox," in which any motion can be cut into infinite subdivisions - and since there are thus infinite midpoints between the start and finish of the motion, and given that "infinity" can't be traversed, then the motion can simply never occur.
In this case, the problem is that the technique occurs as one of these subdivisions, divorced from space and time preceeding. Being so divorced, we are practicing a technique at whose necessity we can never arrive - it's just a theoretical motion 'hanging in space.'
>> The error of isolation would just be ingraining the above error. The analogy in Zeno's paradox, in which an arrow must traverse infinite points in space to reach its target, would be that of an archer attempting to perfect every possible point of the arrow's trajectory - an infinite number of performance points - thus the 'performance gap;' training for a series of events which are either illusory, or which we do not have the computational power to percieve.
>> The error of integration would be simply the deeping of the illusory positive effects of the above errors.

NOW... here's where my understanding begins to stumble (if it hasn't already)...
>> The "static" phase differs from the "instructional" phase only in terms of it's philosophical presentation? The problem I'm having here is that both of the phases must be 'idealized' in some sense, in order to be presented at all. The only possible difference in presentation I can see is that in "instructional" presentation, we attempt to reperesent real, more or less precise circumstances. In "static" presentation, we attempt to represent a possibly, approximately occuring combination of structure/movement/breathing.
It might be said that this distinction is TACIT in the presentation of any drill, and for some it may be...

BUT... I can't quite build in my head a meaningful difference between the fluid/dynamic and isolation/integration phases. I seem to be stuck with the idea that if the biomechanical principle is to occur at all in the fluid and dynamic phases, then we're right back to imposing an arbitrary occurance into a real set of circumstances.

So... bearing in mind that :

...this is a difficult topic to try and address in print and one that's immediately obvious in practice. I'd suggest getting to the FlowFighting™ seminar if you can. It's the best way to experience it.... is there a way (other than experience) to clarify the bridge (or distinction) between these paradigms?

I hope this makes some sense, and I'm OK with being told that everything here looks like absolute nonsense...

Ryan Murdock

02-20-2006, 01:46 PM

I just have time for a quick reply before heading out to hit the mats.

I'm sure Coach Jones will be delighted to get back here and clarify these points. In the meantime, I thought I'd throw in a couple things off the top of my noodle...

would be that of an archer attempting to perfect every possible point of the arrow's trajectory - an infinite number of performance points

:wink: Nicely said. Further, see my replies to this thread: http://circularstrengthmag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9409

>> The error of integration would be simply the deeping of the illusory positive effects of the above errors.

Yes, that's a major part of the problem of a technique based approach. You couldn't possibly train for every possible variation in a situation, let alone many situations (ie. many techniques).

BUT... I can't quite build in my head a meaningful difference between the fluid/dynamic and isolation/integration phases.

In Static drills we're studying a particular mechanic. A technique is an example of a mechanic in action, if you will. For example, taken together, the several wrist locks of taijutsu are studies in the function and disfunction of the wrist (to grossly simplify for the sake of analogy). These techniques illustrate a mechanic; you're meant to look beyond the surface to see that mechanic. But in an RMAX static drill we're looking directly at the mechanic, divorced of a predetermined context in many instances. A study of hyperfunction is a good example.

The most obvious difference between a Static and Fluid drill is the absence of resistance in the Static drill. In a Fluid drill we're isolating the variables a bit so that you can work with that mechanic against a resisting opponent - in a safe way, and in a manner that's not totally overwhelming. By this I mean that we remove some variables so that the athete isn't overwhelmed. We add these variables incrementally as they progress. In a Fluid drill everything is improvised, and you're working against resistance.

When we get to Dynamic in the progression, we're working with friction, chaos, call it what you will. Surprise, and training the ability to recover from perceived errors and to stay in flow.

I seem to be stuck with the idea that if the biomechanical principle is to occur at all in the fluid and dynamic phases, then we're right back to imposing an arbitrary occurance into a real set of circumstances.

We're not seeking to impose an occurence. We're waiting for the opening to fall into our laps. And it does. Accept the offering, don't seek the bounty.

Trying to force an occurence, and the tunnel vision that goes along with it, is one of the problems that crops up when trying to apply a technique based skillset.

... is there a way (other than experience) to clarify the bridge (or distinction) between these paradigms?

This is pretty tough to write about accurately, and looking back over my post I'm not sure that I've done that. As Coach Jones said, the best way is to experience this, there's really no substitute.

That being said, we'll keep trying to produce resources that will help enterprising athletes to set up the sorts of sessions where they might get a taste of this. One of my major goals with the RMAX Training Group Manual is to give entry-level CST Athletes ways to apply the major conceptual models of the 3DPP - a 'how-to' for applying them to their practice. Obviously deeper engagement with the material means getting together with a Head Coach or FF Coach, but it's a start.

The difficulty of relaying parts of this process in print has prompted me to consider filming a video companion to the manual. It will come later, as I'm trying to get the manual out there as soon as possible, given the vast need. But it's something that could probably be completed late this year or early next year if there's enough interest.

Now, I've gotta go train. I'll turn it back over to Coach Jones. :wink: :D

Glenn Sunshine

02-20-2006, 02:23 PM

I think I'm getting some of this, though figuring out how to apply it in my own training is a bit different. If I'm getting it right, it sounds like the very fact that Lee's drill was based on technique (a "trick") means that it effectively cannot be used in the static-dynamic drill continuum. The initial premise--mastering the backfist in my example--automatically creates a gap that cannot be effectively bridged, and is so far from RMAX's starting premises that they are "incomensurable paradigms" to quote Kuhn--in other words, they can't really be fit together no matter how hard you try. Is that at least reasonably close?

Coach Jones

02-20-2006, 02:45 PM

I couldn't say it any better than Ryan did. When you look at the backfist example, the backfist itelf is the technique. A technique that can and will work in many situations. By understanding that it is the "mechanic" as Ryan stated, that's important and not the one specific example that may or may not work as more and more variables are introduced, we can improve efficiency in teaching, learning. practicing, recovering. etc.

KD Jones

02-20-2006, 03:33 PM

In Static drills we're studying a particular mechanic. A technique is an example of a mechanic in action, if you will. For example, taken together, the several wrist locks of taijutsu are studies in the function and disfunction of the wrist (to grossly simplify for the sake of analogy). These techniques illustrate a mechanic; you're meant to look beyond the surface to see that mechanic. But in an RMAX static drill we're looking directly at the mechanic, divorced of a predetermined context in many instances. A study of hyperfunction is a good example.

Again, there is too much good in this response to be commented.

But this section particularly struck me. Just a bit ago, I got a bit of a physical flash of this "mechanic" vs. "technique/trick." Basically, I felt myself at a previous MA class, attempting to get the "form" of a drill down, rather than understanding the principles which make the movements useful/effective.

Such as: here is an arm / here is how it works / here is how it may approach you / here is how you may approach it / here are the possible outcomes.

Go.

Close?

I remember a very simple example my instructor performed once, when I expressed my concern that I might not know how to deal with a particular trajectory of an opponent's fist (which is in itself a very technique-based concern). He said "you already know what to do..." and stood me in front of him, and told me to relax. Then he threw a hook at my head. Very naturally, I used one of our typical blocks and shut it down, thinking nothing. He threw it again, same thing (but - oops - thought and anticipation crept in). The he went to the side, and converted to a jab (or something like that). AND BEHOLD! I - having in the course of the 2nd hook mentally exited reality for the safety of the "technique zone" - attempted to block the hook, and found a line of knuckles nested happily against my nose. At which point he said "you just have to let yourself do it."

Which brings to mind... when I first came here, I was extremely and somewhat obsessively puzzled by the descriptions of the "ARTHROKINETICS" series: Spontaneously improvise tactical control? Internal architecture of the hip, knee and ankle? A body of theories built on sound (and complicated) physiological analysis that can be used by the viewer to improvise joint manipulations?

What? What am I supposed to do with concepts like this? I'm no physicist, no theorist, no 3D-physical-projection genius...

But it's beginning to make sense now. NOT viewing things in this way is perhaps like insisting that it is NOT important for a journeyman carpenter to know what makes wood adhere to wood, or how a structure is made either rigid or flexible, as may be needed, but rather that it is ONLY important that he hold the wood like this, hold the nail like this, strike it really hard with this tool, repeat as instructed... and go home.

Even though this appears to be exactly the journeyman who built our current house... but that's another story...

(I should note here that I do not yet own "ARTHROKINETICS." So I'm still in the "getting the idea" phase.)

Scott Sonnon

02-20-2006, 10:55 PM

Superb comments. As my brain is jelly from a long day, I submit only the following in addition:

1. Bruce Lee carved a path with his life. At the time though his life had to be dedicated to demonstrating what he believed martial art was not. In essence, he concentrated on discussing the problems with the "classical mess."

FlowFighting, having been contributed to by that legacy (and that of many others since it was a contemporary shift of old paradigm thinking across the socio-cultural board), isn't about what martial art is not. FlowFighting concentrates specifically on what martial art actually is: a macro-vehicle for micro-transcendence, a collective experience of idiosyncratic self-actualization through interpersonal and intrapersonal resistance. FlowFighting is a deliberately crafted system, not a collection of theories

2. A "technique" is to be repeated whereas a mechanic is to be studied and applied. One should be able to manufacture an infinite number of applications of a mechanic. There is only one application of a technique. Unless of course, when one says that in order to make the technique work, you must 'adapt' it to you, in which case we're no longer discussing a technique, but rather a mechanic. This is an example of what I discussed in #1 above. Whereas Bruce Lee discussed that technique must be adapted (which is still trapped within old paradigm speak), FlowFighting directly addresses the study of the mechanic divorced of technique memorization.

3. The goal of Isolation is to limit the parameters where a technique is used in order to give the users an opportunity to include it in one's arsenal. The purpose of Fluid Drills is to incrementally increase resistance so that the mechanical options remain a seamless aspect of one's abilities.

The goal of Integration is to include the technique into the style's full definition of a "fight" (presumably through the slow overlap of the Isolated "parts" of the full fight.) The purpose of Dynamic Drills are to test the individuals to see if the mechanical principles can withstand and be present within the incremental addition of emotional friction and mental chaos.

KD Jones

02-20-2006, 11:46 PM

Clarity achieved, rest imminent.

(If I could think like that when my brain ISN'T jelly, I could happily die without dessert.)

Doc

02-21-2006, 02:42 AM

The difficulty of relaying parts of this process in print has prompted me to consider filming a video companion to the manual. It will come later, as I'm trying to get the manual out there as soon as possible, given the vast need. But it's something that could probably be completed late this year or early next year if there's enough interest.

You've got my interest! Can't wait to see the training manual. A video companion would be great! :D

Glenn Sunshine

02-21-2006, 07:24 AM

A "technique" is to be repeated whereas a mechanic is to be studied and applied. One should be able to manufacture an infinite number of applications of a mechanic. There is only one application of a technique. Unless of course, when one says that in order to make the technique work, you must 'adapt' it to you, in which case we're no longer discussing a technique, but rather a mechanic.

OK, now I understand the terminology here. It's starting to click.

The goal of Isolation is to limit the parameters where a technique is used in order to give the users an opportunity to include it in one's arsenal. The purpose of Fluid Drills is to incrementally increase resistance so that the mechanical options remain a seamless aspect of one's abilities.

So in my example, we're moving from technique to mechanic in one sense, but the bigger concept we're dealing with, because it is tied to technique, makes the drill radically different from RMAX's approach. The object isn't to learn how to apply the "technique" against a variety of attacks, thus transforming it into a mechanic, but rather to learn to apply the mechanic against greater and greater friction.

The goal of Integration is to include the technique into the style's full definition of a "fight" (presumably through the slow overlap of the Isolated "parts" of the full fight.) The purpose of Dynamic Drills are to test the individuals to see if the mechanical principles can withstand and be present within the incremental addition of emotional friction and mental chaos.

I may be slow, but I can be taught. (I ought to put that into my signature!)

Thanks!