There can't possibly be "the" way ... a continuum of "**** to excellent" is possible but it will only apply to that individual in "a" specific context. I think it's possible to loosely identify "chunks" of the continuum and forego doing things that really aren't that useful in MA skill development. To advocate for specific approaches in a general fashion.
Originally Posted by Ronin
People have the notion that I'm dissing all adjunct work and I'm not. I started the thread on fire in order to jar peeps out of slumberland where it's the same old same old because that's the way it's always been.
Given the strides made in body amour and the like I don't see why anyone should be adverse to spending the overwhelmingly vast majority of their time sparring. I banged away heavy for years, 3 - 5 times a week, and we had **** for protective gear. Bunch of jerry rigged stuff that was hard pressed to make it through the session.
Even at that, the "Old Guys" were difficult to convince that using protective gear was a wise thing to do. Since they were "there" long before I was their views were certainly something I considered. Then I went with protective gear whenever possible.
BTW, are we doing christmas themes again?
I do a lot of fitness work so that I CAN spar round after round after round without getting fatigued. Up until fairly recently my endurance has been piss poor and I'd end up gassing out after 2 rounds of sparring. After adding more conditioning work to my training I can now make my sparring more worthwhile since I have the endurance to do it full speed, continuously without suffering from a lot of fatigue.
It should also be noted that the amount of conditioning I've been doing vs sparring/live padwork/sparring drills changes. I've gone through periods of very little conditioning work and almost entirely technique work to a greater amount of conditioning and lately working sparring drills and technique. There's no illusion that skipping rope is teaching me how to fight, but it has helped my ability to train.
Originally Posted by KungFuDoesWork
Again, John's empahsizing his dialectical approach. If its engaged with honestly and reflexively, we can all learn from it.
Originally Posted by JFS USA
Originally Posted by Kidspatula
See, that's pretty common for people who are just getting started in a combat sport / MA.
Specificity will be appled later, probably when you start training for a fight.
BUT, there are still many pointless things done in MA, look at all the road work, and yes, MA wise, fighting wise, skipping rope is useless, BUT like Ihave always said, if you like it and you are NOT taking time away from the important training, knock yourself out.
Originally Posted by Steve Richards
And those od us the know him, love him for it.
In a strickly hetrosexual way.
Not that there is anything wrong with homosexuality.
Speaking of Bisexuality, two sexy women kissing and then rubbing baby oil all over their firm naked bodies, now there is no fallacy there !!
Steve, you've emphasized the significance of visual cueing. Now, I would have thought, especially since you mentioned the frog/fly thing, that this cueing was more about cueing on patterns of movement, rather than form. However, I've got the sense from reading things both you and JFS have said, that you believe the actual form itself is very significant. One thing in particular is JFS's point about pad work being detrimental due to the fact that pads do not represent the human form, yet a proper feeder can replicate human movement patterns.
Originally Posted by Steve Richards
My question is this. In the post above, JFS mentions training in body armor. Much of the body armor I've seen distorts the human form. So Steve, do you believe training with protective gear that distorts the human form is detrimental in the same way that pad work can be detrimental?
Edit: I'm not sure why I quoted you. The quote's obviously irrelevant to the question. Sorry!
Last edited by lawdog; 12/01/2005 3:35pm at .
There might not be a fallacy but I do see a Phallus in their future. :new_birth
Originally Posted by Ronin
Hello Lawdog, nice intelligent question - thanks
Originally Posted by lawdog
Obviously, humans are primarily visual processors, so sight is pretty hard to override. However, what is actually seen in a sensory receptive sense, and what is 'seen' in a top-down interpretative sense is often different.
I was emphasizing visual input in the context of how little you actually need in data terms to map a human form. There's been a lot of work on this over the years but pattern recognition of the human form, especially in motion really only needs a handful of 'map points'. Professor Colin Blakemore (Oxford Physiologist) presented an old experiment on TV back in 1981 at the Royal Society. where he placed lights on the shoulders, elbows knees and wrists, and on the hips, knees and ankles of a group of volunteers dressed in black, moving against a black background in a darkened room. He had instructed them to move chaotically, so the viewers saw only a bundle of lights. When they stopped moving, they took on a recognizeable 'shape' - by virtue of relative spacing and position. Then, when they moved again it was easy to fix the shape and relative position despite their chaotic motion.
This is a basic overlay template. If you experiement with the joints described as map points, orinetated and moving in various ways and at various angles relative to one another and to you, you can quickly shape a human form, and, locate the position of any other point realtive to these. This can be done because despite its variation in size, proportion is always present so finding only two points will give you the realtive distance to all, and to any point or place of the human form inbetween.
You can add a 'torso clock with the point at which the hands articulate being teh solar plexus and you have an equidistant distance to the head/throat, both shoulders, both hips and the groin. Once mapped, you can locate blindly by feel or by 'hypothesis' so that you move quickly to strike, control, grapple or whatever.
Add three transverse conrol planes: the feet as the base, second thru the hips (to take in 5, 6 and 7 o'clock on the torso (left and right hips and groin), the shoulders to take in left and right shoulders, the throat/head (head as a fifth limb articulation).
The ankle, knee and hip, and the wrist, elbow and shoulder become limb control points.
All of these can be modeled as differentially aspected to you, and in relative motion to you.
You build up a 'HUD' overlay - a 'Head Up Display' analog to entrain your cue discrimination. You should extrovert your model so that it is aggresively overlain onto the target, this makes the information processing 'want' to act autonomously, as if with devolved control (this frees up centarl processing capacity for error-correcting feedback). Some Eastern systems have a passive 'gate' model which they project into the space between fighters so that incoming lines pass thru the gates. The HUD model is faster because it goes to the target, it acquires it and is driven by an aggresive program that has deconstruction of teh opponents shape and structure as its prime directive. The Eastern method is introverted and comparatively passive. In some cases it even doubles itself up by projecting two sets of gates, one for the opponent and one for you. The HUD has one overaly and gets immediately to work.
There's much more to it, but the basics of shaping are entrained as above. The detail is in how the map is built, and for that you need to configure (polish) your platform (style/system).
About the armor, so long as teh overall shape and proportions, as well as relative motions are intact, then it should ransfer the full impact aspect of entrainment. Its imortant to shape with 'targets' of different sizes and motion styles - simply in order to develop teh capacity to deal with variation by reference to underlying similarity.
The spare capacity issue is very important - a cluttered mind breaks down very quickly.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO