Teaching Methodology

[Ryan Murdock]

Coach Sonnon,

My question involves the response-based approach to martial arts instruction as outlined in your article http://www.circularstrengthmag.com/21/sonnon4.html. I understand the clinch example in the article, but I’m still uncertain on some finer points of how to apply it as an overall teaching strategy.

Background
In my training group of three, two of us have been training together for 17 years, the third guy has about 3 years experience, all of it with us, beginning around the time we discovered your materials. My partner and I have a background in Bujinkan as you know, with a primarily hard work centred self-defence/combatives slant. We immediately latched onto the drills and concepts presented in the various RMax series and were able to apply them to our base. As I’ve said elsewhere, this material seemed like the grad school of martial arts, and it was exactly where we were headed at the time.

The new guy had mixed results. Initially he made great progress with the drills and situations that we set up. His ability to improvise solutions improved rapidly, he became very fluid and he quickly uncovered his natural abilities, especially in leg fencing type work. But he seemed to hit a wall. Some things were missing. I wonder if it was because he had no classical base? No tools or movement template on which to build?

Specifically, he seemed to be lacking things like: a sense of distance in striking (always falling into surface hitting from the periphery), no feeling of forward pressure / of dominating the joint mass centre (his opponent was rarely off balanced in the clinch, taken control of)… These were things that we had built with classical exercises like basic striking drills, how we acquired that crucial sense of distance and of striking with the body. He had none of that.

I think one answer to my question may be based upon p. 54 of 3DPP, under “You need to flow to know”. You state that

“There must be the movement palette upon which skills blossom. The student must be acquainted with the movement potential of the game, so structure must be in place.”

Am I correct in assuming that basic strikes form the movement palette in this venue (in the same way that the movements in GT form the palette for grappling)?

When I read that we immediately included some static work on basic strikes, taking them into fluid drills right after. Before we had done this he was trying to apply the concept of non-intentional striking, but his strikes had nothing behind them, they were always on the surface. Our non-intentional strikes were solid. Do you have a different way to develop these skills in a response-based approach, or is this the right track?

Questions
My first question would be then, when teaching striking in this manner, do you first need a movement template to build upon? Is it necessary to have some classical base, or does a response-based approach preclude such a base?

Second, how do you program which biomechanical exercises to explore, as outlined in the article? I understand how the screwing arm drill teaches locking arm power transfer. Or how you might use the lateral screwing arm press and the hi-leg roll to explore moving into the mount when both fighters are lying on their sides. Is there a more systematic way to program this in RMax? Some sort of progression?

When we first began to work with the GT series, when we found these movements showing up suddenly on the mats we explored them more purposefully. Or, if one guy had a particular sticking point we would try to find a biomechanical exercise that might address that movement pattern. But this depends on our ability to see it. Is this the way it’s normally done, or are there more systematic ways to build this?

Thanks very much, as always.

Also, my question was addressed to Coach Sonnon and what he wrote in his article, but it's not exclusive by any means. If other members of the Tribe have thoughts or experiences to share I’d be really interested to hear them. :!: :!:

[Chuck Kechter]

Ryan,

Like you I've come to RMax from previous experience. So there is some of your questions I can't answer.

You wrote:

My first question would be then, when teaching striking in this manner, do you first need a movement template to build upon? Is it necessary to have some classical base, or does a response-based approach preclude such a base?

In my opinion you don't "need" to have a movement template to build on. Especially if your partner (client/student/whatever) is over the age of ten. What I mean by that is that by the middle of childhood a child has already "patterned" how to throw out his/her arms in normal everyday movement. Put your hand out and say stop--this is almost identical to "throwing" a jab (or palm thrust). Catching a flying insect with a forehand motion is not that dissimilar to a "hooking" punch. Reaching over your shoulder to grab your seatbelt is almost identical to an upwards/diagonal elbow strike. You get the idea.

Of course there are power generation issues to work out with these examples. Stepping into, dropping weight, weight transfer from foot to foot, torque, overlapping joint recrutement, et cetera. But those can be addressed as bio-mechanical exercises as well, and then match, patch or hemmed to the "striking techinique" being worked.

Second, how do you program which biomechanical exercises to explore, as outlined in the article? I understand how the screwing arm drill teaches locking arm power transfer. Or how you might use the lateral screwing arm press and the hi-leg roll to explore moving into the mount when both fighters are lying on their sides. Is there a more systematic way to program this in RMax? Some sort of progression?

Do you know that the Screwing arm is applicable to striking as well?

What I do is, when there is a specific "technique" being played. . . I break it down into its elementary components--sort of reverse engineer it. And then build a progression off of that. Then add in isolation (fluid) drills, force mutipliers, environmental concerns, et cetera. Finish with dynamic integrated force-on-force training (or sparring depending on venue).

When we first began to work with the GT series, when we found these movements showing up suddenly on the mats we explored them more purposefully. Or, if one guy had a particular sticking point we would try to find a Biomechanical Exercise™ that might address that movement pattern. But this depends on our ability to see it. Is this the way it’s normally done, or are there more systematic ways to build this?

As far as I can see, there are three ways to develop this skill.

1. On the front end. You "know" what you're looking for and design something to fit the bill.

2. In the middle of it. You're working something, and either get, or don't get the result you were looking for. You stop and play with things till you find what you're looking for (keeping your results honest--no force beams form your eyes, or telekinetic "mind push," no super-chi Iron Fist death smash :wink

3. On the back side. This would be reverse engineering. You get into something and have a "what the hell" was that? I want more. . .

Hopefully this helped.

V/R,

Chuck [/quote]

[jphaas]

Hi Ryan,

Since we both come from a similar, Bujinkan background I thought I would throw my $.02 into the mix. Just looking at your first question about the necessity of having a movement template to base a strike on, I would say yes you do need one. My rationale comes from looking at the traditional Japanese martial art educational model that exponents have used for centuries to develop skill in combat and relating it to CST's concept of Recovery, Coordination, and Refinement The Japanese model is based on the principle of Shu, Ha, Ri, which translates to “Protect, Break, Leave Behind.” This refers to the form or techniques of Budo. The beginner to taught a specific form exactly and encouraged to protect it. He must reiterate it and keep it exactly as shown by his teacher in order to begin to teach his body these new skills. This is known as the Recovery stage in CST. You cannot increase your skill in Clubbell® swinging if you do not learn the correct form of the exercises first. After a time, when the student has understood the form, he now begins to break the form. This stage of learning corresponds to the Coordination phase in CST. Here we can begin to move into combination routines and Match, Patch, and Hem various Basics Clubbell® exercises together to create our own original movement patterns. When the practitioner has understood the form, learned how to break the form to begin to create his own techniques, his own combination routines, if you will, he is then encouraged to move on to the final stage in which he leaves the form behind. Due to his prior training protecting and the breaking the form, when he now leaves the form behind, all his actions emerge spontaneously and he has become efficiently, effective (in Coach Sonnon’s words). Now all of the martial techniques he performs seem to come from nowhere, yet they are all soundly based on the principles of the art which he understood and made his own during the Protect and Break stages of training. This last area directly relates to the Refinement stage of CST.

Hope this comparison made sense, I was trying to write while my 4 year old was sitting here on my lap waiting to use the computer... and man is she patient!!

Jon Haas

[bob_stra]

There's an article on this topic that I like...

http://tinyurl.com/3kkuj

I'm kinda in two minds, to be honest. On one hand, one needs words and letters before they can begin forming sentences and paragraphs. On the other hand, who knows what strange and wonderful things we could come up with if we didn't have them.

Unlike language, the human body has it's own constraints, it own 'words and letters' built in. So with proper guidance, there's little chance of recreating the tower of Babel. (and to be honest - even with language there are certainly bodily constraints. However, unlike the spoken word, we don't need to codify how we move. Or do we?)

Perhaps you friend simply is not familiar with this? The 'basics' then might be one way to familiarize him? What might really be fun is to use the basics to illustrate the concept, then guide the guy find various applications.

*shrugs*

[Coach Billew]

I was working on just some of these issues last night. The two guys I'm working with are teenagers, and have backgrounds in Wing Chun and Thai Boxing. As a result they are very quick to try to turn movements into techniques, but they also struggle with power generation and striking through the point of impact.

The solution I have been experimenting with so far, has been to use the Prime Your Bioenergy arm infinities as a base. We work the drills for ROM first and then add in hand targets. The work with the hand targets allow us to start working on the coordination of full body movement necessary to generate power. By increasing and decreasing the distance of the targets from the person doing the drill they begin to see that they can strike with any part of the arm that makes contact, and that they don't have to choose specific strikes for specific distances, but simply move and the weapons will take care of themselves. Using the targets also allows them to generate full power without fear of hurting each other(something they both struggle with).

Then we take the infinities and apply them with a partner who is working on shock absorption. The strikers goal in these drills is to improvise along the infinities and focus on having each strike disrupt their partners structure or movement. Disruption of breath happens too, but I don't emphasize it at this point. From there we incorporate inoculation and later doing the drill symmetrically incorporating Softwork through Hardwork.

We have been working this sequence of drills in different ways and at different depths(or ranges) for the last few weeks. Last night I was specifically trying to get them more comfortable with moving towards their partner. So I made up this drill and it seemed to work pretty well. Starting from the inoculation level of the above drill, the partner doing the inoculation had to find an opportunity to move in as close as they could to their partner and shut down the partners ability to strike without grabbing them. This seemed to work well and also started to incorporate Joint Mass Center.

To me the infinities are a big key to teaching movement without techniques. I am going to explore their use in teaching locking arm/power transfer as well as leg fencing. We will see how that goes.

I know this is a specific example rather than the more conceptual answer you seemed to be looking for, but the conceptual answer is very long, and Coach Sonnon has addressed it much better than I can in his various materials especially 3DPP.

I hope this helps.

[Ryan Murdock]

Some really great stuff here!

Chuck:

Of course there are power generation issues to work out with these examples. Stepping into, dropping weight, weight transfer from foot to foot, torque, overlapping joint recrutement, et cetera. But those can be addressed as bio-mechanical exercises as well, and then match, patch or hemmed to the "striking techinique" being worked.

These were the things I was referring to as a movement template. I saw basic striking drills as something like that, not as set techniques to memorize but as movements to experience. Some lights went off when I read that, as to how to start incorporating these things as biomechanical exercises. I liked your examples above of natural reactions and patterns. In examining the combatives system of Carl Cestari, he shows an example of turning to the side (body off line of attack) and throwing up a covering elbow when grabbed. A good example of building on a natural flinch reaction. I can see better how to set up situations so that the student can refine these natural reactions.

Do you know that the Screwing arm is applicable to striking as well?

Yeah, been doing some mean screwing arm shock engineering off number two type innoculations :twisted: It just springs in there!

As far as I can see, there are three ways to develop this skill.

Yeah, that's what we've come up with too. I wondered if others were using this way, or if there was more to it that we haven't seen yet. The interesting thing about this approach is that it also depends upon the ability of the instructor to recognize what's happening re: biomechanics, and to come up with something to set the experience the student needs. It's such an enjoyable way to train. It seems most times that the teacher is learning more than the student! (incidentally, there are no student/teacher roles in our group, just levels of experience, shared exploration - I think everyone here relates to that).

Jon:

I think the response based approach that Coach Sonnon is working with goes far beyond traditional martial arts teaching methods. I agree that Hatsumi-sensei teaches from the perspective of "Protect, Break, Leave Behind", but I wonder how many people actually get that? I heard a lot of people talking about it, but I saw very few who could do it on the mats (BTW, since email is so easy to misread, I don't want to leave the impression that I feel I'm one of the elite few or anything, just trying to critique what I saw as weaknesses in the system).

Rather than memorize and perfect a technique which you will later discard, Coach Sonnon is talking about uncovering the unique movement potential within each person and building on that. Rather than molding a person to fit a system, he is allowing that person to create their own unique system.

In the end I became dissatisfied with the traditional Japanese teaching approach because: there are more direct ways, there was too much cultural baggage, and it seemed to produce so few successes. That latter point bears repeating. Think of all the people you saw come and go in your training lifetime. And think of how many actually reached some level of mastery. In my experience, the first numbered in the hundreds, and the latter numbered exactly four. Coach Sonnon's approach is designed to produce that mastery in everyone, right now. So far, after three years of working with his materials, I can honestly say that I've never seen or experienced results like this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not coming down on the Bujinkan, I think that for my goals it was the best possible thing I could have studied, and I was lucky to find excellant teachers. And I feel that Hatsumi-sensei is one of those rare martial artists that comes about once in a generation or two. But I feel the teaching methodology is the biggest weakness of the entire system.

Bob:

I'm kinda in two minds, to be honest. On one hand, one needs words and letters before they can begin forming sentences and paragraphs. On the other hand, who knows what strange and wonderful things we could come up with if we didn't have them.

Of all the opinions expressed here, I think what you've said in this paragraph comes the closest to my present position. I was very lucky in my Bujinkan experience, in that I had such a great teacher. He had a wide range of other experience, and he only went to Japan once every year or two for a month, so he was forced to bring back everything that he soaked up and really digest it, really try to find his own way. As such, we were never sold a system. Also, Hatsumi-sensei put out such a wealth of videos that we never had time to memorize anything (beyond the basic techniques of the Bujinkan template, which always seemed to change slightly depending on when he went to Japan, who was teaching them...). By working through Hatsumi's tapes, trying the stuff a few times and moving on to the next example, we were giving ourselves a bunch of experiences. We got to feel different sorts of grabs, throws, changes when things weren't working. I think that's why I can relate to Scott's approach so readily, to the idea of setting up drills to communicate an experience directly, because that's really what we were getting. Only now we're setting up drills on purpose to elicit specific experiences. But I still can't quite see how you can do it all without some platform, like basic strikes,...I suspect I may just be missing a couple pieces. This discussion has clarified things considerably.

Excellant article too, thanks. Great food for thought, and I really appreciated that tennis example.

Slade:

It seems we're working with the same sort of stuff. We've been approaching it in a very similar way to what you've outlined as far as drills. And you've given me several more ideas to work next time we hit the mats, thanks 8)

One thing we did that didn't seem to work so well was to introduce the arm wave and then casting. Resulted in a lot of surface hitting, because he didn't grasp the idea of penetrating through among other points. So he would pepper his opponent with fast, smooth strikes from the periphery, never closing in, and doing little if any damage. We dropped that and came up with more basic drills involving just moving in with no arm involvement,... It's working much better now. This is why I posed the theoretical question, I wondered if the sort of exploration that we are doing is on a par with how others are approaching this, or if there was another way that hadn't occurred to us. Seems like we're on the same page here.

Coach Sonnon:

I'm still left with one question, was hoping you'd chime in here when you had a minute :wink: I don't know if my original post was clear. I didn't mean that I wanted you to reinterpret 3DPP or anything, I've been pouring over that. I guess what I'm looking for is more confirmation than anything. Are there pieces of the puzzle that we still haven't seen, or is this in a nutshell how you would go about implementing a response-based teaching approach? And are there other ways of exploring biomechanical exercises within martial arts lessons (a la your article The Experience Before You Need It), or do Chuck's three ways summarize how you personally work it? (sorry, two questions, but hey, I'm not an accountant. I can account to ten, that's about all :roll: ).

It may just be that my vision is still somewhat clouded by the filters of a technique based approach. Working to really grasp this inside out. This discussion has been very helpful. Thanks very much to all

[Scott Sonnon]

These are seriously intelligent questions which deserve intelligent responses.

But he seemed to hit a wall. Some things were missing. I wonder if it was because he had no classical base? No tools or movement template on which to build? Specifically, he seemed to be lacking things like: a sense of distance in striking (always falling into surface hitting from the periphery), no feeling of forward pressure / of dominating the joint mass centre (his opponent was rarely off balanced in the clinch, taken control of)… These were things that we had built with classical exercises like basic striking drills, how we acquired that crucial sense of distance and of striking with the body. He had none of that.

Remember that each new individual taken through RMAX will encounter his own unique challenges. Don't look at this as a mere technical hurdle for him. It is a signpost to a profound discovery. You may not consider it profound, but it will be for him - just like what is profound for you, may not be for him. Each of us has a lock, or series of locks, dependent upon the issues which we have prohibiting our release of self-mastery. Your friend should consider himself very fortunate that you can articulate so acutely the issue he faces.

Each style having been created by one who had mastered himself possesses its own matrix of profound discoveries. This is the problem with "styles" in that what may have been profound for the master who created his style may not be profound for the students studying his style. They may have similar obstacles to their mastery. Or they may just benefit greatly from those unique challenges which the style's founder needed to face in his life/performance/process of self-mastery.

The problem with styles is that it's hit or miss if you "vibe" with the same challenges that the master of that style needed to face. If you don't jive with it, it's probably because those challenges don't resonate with you - sure, they're respectable discoveries, but they're not profound to YOU. Have you ever encountered something that someone else faced and it just rang with absolute truth to you? I've seen these gems across many styles with many grandmasters and masters with whom I've trained.

But the problem with styles is that they were never systematic in addressing OUR unique challenges. In other words, they were never OUR STYLE.

What you're encountering with your partner is his profound encounter with the challenge(s) which block his personal mastery - in other words, with the locks to his own style. Framed this way, you can be a better partner to him in understanding WHY you are studying RMAX together. RMAX is not a style, but a style-generator... a meta-system for creating a formula to address the specific, unique needs of each and every individual.

Most people just feel "lost" in martial art, because they don't even know how to ask the questions you've asked. You are profoundly "found" (by your own volition) because you can identify the stumbling blocks. Now, just looker deeper into the technical, to see the underlying tactical, strategic and ultimately doctrinal wiring issues which are preventing your friend from tapping his innate flow.

I think one answer to my question may be based upon p. 54 of 3DPP, under “You need to flow to know”. You state that

“There must be the movement palette upon which skills blossom. The student must be acquainted with the movement potential of the game, so structure must be in place.”

Am I correct in assuming that basic strikes form the movement palette in this venue (in the same way that the movements in GT form the palette for grappling)?

Shock absorption, basic to advanced, should evolve into dependent striking drills (mutual shock absorption.) This will address the innate striking capabilities, rather than mere technical "ideas" which styles offer. The Softwork seminar addresses this particularly. I'm beginning to think more and more that I must release this on DVD. I'd rather not because I would prefer to work with people in person at the seminars, but that may be problematic.

When I read that we immediately included some static work on basic strikes, taking them into fluid drills right after. Before we had done this he was trying to apply the concept of non-intentional striking, but his strikes had nothing behind them, they were always on the surface. Our non-intentional strikes were solid. Do you have a different way to develop these skills in a response-based approach, or is this the right track?

Yes, see above. Also, the "light" striking may be a result of not tapping forward pressure. Forward pressure is not always forward 'pushing'. It is also 'heaviness' in striking, throwing, etc. Heaviness is an attribute gained through deep shock absorption work.

My first question would be then, when teaching striking in this manner, do you first need a movement template to build upon? Is it necessary to have some classical base, or does a response-based approach preclude such a base?

Yes, people benefit from a movement base for all aspects of martial art. Yes, RMAX precludes the necessity of a classical base.

Second, how do you program which biomechanical exercises to explore, as outlined in the article? I understand how the screwing arm drill teaches locking arm power transfer. Or how you might use the lateral screwing arm press and the hi-leg roll to explore moving into the mount when both fighters are lying on their sides. Is there a more systematic way to program this in RMax? Some sort of progression?

Yes.

When we first began to work with the GT series, when we found these movements showing up suddenly on the mats we explored them more purposefully. Or, if one guy had a particular sticking point we would try to find a Biomechanical Exercise™ that might address that movement pattern. But this depends on our ability to see it. Is this the way it’s normally done, or are there more systematic ways to build this?

Yes.

[Scott Sonnon]

My rationale comes from looking at the traditional Japanese martial art educational model that exponents have used for centuries to develop skill in combat and relating it to CST's concept of Recovery, Coordination, and Refinement The Japanese model is based on the principle of Shu, Ha, Ri, which translates to “Protect, Break, Leave Behind.” This refers to the form or techniques of Budo. The beginner to taught a specific form exactly and encouraged to protect it. He must reiterate it and keep it exactly as shown by his teacher in order to begin to teach his body these new skills. This is known as the Recovery stage in CST. You cannot increase your skill in Clubbell® swinging if you do not learn the correct form of the exercises first. After a time, when the student has understood the form, he now begins to break the form. This stage of learning corresponds to the Coordination phase in CST. Here we can begin to move into combination routines and Match, Patch, and Hem various Basics Clubbell® exercises together to create our own original movement patterns. When the practitioner has understood the form, learned how to break the form to begin to create his own techniques, his own combination routines, if you will, he is then encouraged to move on to the final stage in which he leaves the form behind. Due to his prior training protecting and the breaking the form, when he now leaves the form behind, all his actions emerge spontaneously and he has become efficiently, effective (in Coach Sonnon’s words). Now all of the martial techniques he performs seem to come from nowhere, yet they are all soundly based on the principles of the art which he understood and made his own during the Protect and Break stages of training. This last area directly relates to the Refinement stage of CST.

Awesome, Jon! This should be archived!

[Scott Sonnon]

I'm kinda in two minds, to be honest. On one hand, one needs words and letters before they can begin forming sentences and paragraphs. On the other hand, who knows what strange and wonderful things we could come up with if we didn't have them.

Unlike language, the human body has it's own constraints, it own 'words and letters' built in. So with proper guidance, there's little chance of recreating the tower of Babel. (and to be honest - even with language there are certainly bodily constraints. However, unlike the spoken word, we don't need to codify how we move. Or do we?)

Bob, I would only tweak this analogy slightly to say agree with you that we have constraints with "built in words and letters." As a result, I would say that the human body has a pre-incorporated language soft-wired, so martial art in this analogy isn't "language". Martial art in my mind fits better as being understood as "grammar." You don't need to 'know' grammar to communicate. How refinement of grammar can release an eloquence which stuns us slack-jawed when observing it - from the movements of Olympic gymnasts to Cirque.

[Scott Sonnon]

to use the Prime Your Bioenergy™ arm infinities as a base

Exactamundo, amigo!