Aliveness Vs Sports training methodology

[Shinshoryu]

huh?

proper judo (or mt, etc) is 'alive' because every single technique used under the ruleset is trained in an 'alive' manner. whether or not that ruleset covers striking, grappling, takedowns, tea ceremony or trampolines doesn't (directly) bear on whether or not the training is "alive."

Please notice the question marks at the end of the sentence implying that I DON'T BELIEVE THIS, I just wonder if this is what KempoFist meant (I don't believe he meant that either I just don't quite get what he meant)

What I get here is, taking your own example, that Muay Thai fighters don't learn how to grapple because they don't need it to win their type of competition, Judoka don't learn how to kick & strike for the very same reason, since they have those weaknesses they are only sports but not alive???

you need to differentiate between tkd as in "we kick the air and do poomse, KIYAP!" and "we are a competitive sport tkd school." the former is generally dead training, and the latter is usually quite 'alive.' suckitude does not preclude 'aliveness.'

When you say "suckitude does not preclude aliveness", do you mean aliveness =/= Effectiveness?. Because I generally understood that sports training methodology is very goal oriented, being the ultimate goal in every sport to win, and in MA in particular "to win" meaning defeating your opponent, I would suppose that combat sports fighter would be very good at winning, and therefore very effective.

[fanatical]

To use overly intellectual verbiage to make yourself appear more knowledgeable than you really are....that is the true meaning of "art" in martial arts.

This is true.

[Japolo]

When you say "suckitude does not preclude aliveness", do you mean aliveness =/= Effectiveness?. Because I generally understood that sports training methodology is very goal oriented, being the ultimate goal in every sport to win, and in MA in particular "to win" meaning defeating your opponent, I would suppose that combat sports fighter would be very good at winning, and therefore very effective.

Okay, I'll take a crack at explaining this.

According to Thornton, Aliveness has three components, Energy (Resistance), Motion, and Timing.

Resistance means you're trying to execute techniques against someone who is actively trying to stop or defeat you. The opposite of compliance.

Motion means you're moving around, and your opponent is moving around, to simulate what would be happening in a real fight.

Timing is reacting spontaneously to what your opponent/partner is doing. Knowing a particular technique is useless unless you can execute the technique at the right moment.


Sports training is composed of two types of training: Alive training and sports-specific conditioning.

For example: I just started training at a Muay Thai gym. The policy at this particular gym is that you have to go to regular classes for six months before you can start sparring. So the regular classes consist of jumping rope, followed by punching and kicking mitts and pads in pre-set sequences, ending with pushups and sit-ups. None of this is Alive, it's all sports-specific conditioning. (And it's really intense) If I just continued to train like this, and didn't go to the sparring classes, I wouldn't be training Alive, and wouldn't develop the timing necessary to land my techniques well on a resisting opponent, though I would be in good enough physical condition to fight.


Aliveness doesn't preclude suckiness. Olympic TKD is alive because the two combatants are moving around trying to defeat each other. What makes it suck are the excess of padding worn by the fighters and the limits on contact, ie: no punches to the head and no leg kicks, which leads to bad habits. Every combat sport ( Judo, BJJ, San Shou, even MMA) has restricted techniques, but that doesn't mean they're not alive.

To get away from martial arts completely, there are sports that are non-alive. Figure Skating, Gymnastics, Skateboard half-pipe, etc. are sports where athletes simply execute difficult techniques without any interference, so they are not alive. Tennis, basketball, wrestling, etc., all involve two or more opponents trying to actively counter and block each other's techniques, so they are alive.

I like Thornton's theories, I think they're very useful guides for how to train. For example, my MT gym won't push people to spar if they don't want to. Apparently there are people who are perfectly happy just doing the conditioning portions. Knowing about aliveness means I know I HAVE to spar in order to develop real skill. I know some people find that self-evident, but I'm a poor fool who wasted 4 years training compliant taijitsu in the belief that it would work in real life, because my teachers told me it would.

[Torakaka]

I'd like to point out that when you train under a coach specifically to have them train you to fight, your training is (or at least has been in my experience) entirely different from the training you get merely from taking a class, even as a beginner. Aliveness plays a much larger role in fighter training than in class training.

[Pojac]

When you say "suckitude does not preclude aliveness", do you mean aliveness =/= Effectiveness?. Because I generally understood that sports training methodology is very goal oriented, being the ultimate goal in every sport to win, and in MA in particular "to win" meaning defeating your opponent, I would suppose that combat sports fighter would be very good at winning, and therefore very effective.

There's no contradiction. Aliveness is necessary for effectiveness, but it is not sufficient. Fencing is a good example: every now and then olympic fencing comes up on Bullshido in the context of "Har har olympic fencing isn't like actual swordfighting they just flick at each other and go back and forth in a straight line." And this is true. Fencers train in a completely alive, athletic way (they ARE athletes, training for sports competition), but the rules under which fencers compete are so restrictive that GOOD competitive fencing isn't close enough to GOOD real swordfighting.

People training for the Olympic sport of TKD absolutely train in an alive way; like all athletes who want to be successful, they can't do otherwise if they want to win competitions. But the rules of Olympic TKD are considered so artificial that good competitive TKD is not considered by most at Bullshido as close enough to good real fighting. MMA, Kickboxing, boxing, and submission grappling are considered to have less restrictive or artificial rule sets, so that becoming a competitive athlete in those sports IS considered to be conducive to being good at fighting.

I mean, badminton and ping pong are both trained "alive," but since ping pong doesn't have much of an overlap with fighting, no one is surprised when those guys suck at fighting.

[Japolo]

I'd like to point out that when you train under a coach specifically to have them train you to fight, your training is (or at least has been in my experience) entirely different from the training you get merely from taking a class, even as a beginner. Aliveness plays a much larger role in fighter training than in class training.

I bow to your greater experience in Muay Thai. My point is that understanding aliveness means that even a hobbyist like me knows that they need to move to sparring after the conditioning period is completed, in order to get functional skill.

[Shinshoryu]

Well guys, from what I've read so far my conclusion is that "aliveness" is indeed, as Kidspatula stated, the shiny new word for the old term Sports Training Methodology but apply to MA; being the former basically distinguished from the latter, by those same characteristics that distinguish combat sports from any other sport.

Now, what I 've found interesting (talking back to my friends) is how combat sports, through this "aliveness", manage to combine the theory and the practice, making them more... complete I suppose. What I mean is that, while most sports are minimal theory and lots of practice, the regular martial art is lots of theory (not book theory of course, but theory in the sense of untested suppositions) and minimal practice (or testing if you like), which is why this "aliveness" actually adds to combat sport, allowing them to integrate theory and practice.

I'm making this whole monologue because I didn't see it that way before, and now that I do, oooooh ****, I'm starting to feel like the college nerd of martial arts...

[DCS]

I think Thornton explains it better.

http://www.straightblastgym.com/newbook.htm

[Shinshoryu]

Very interesting. It somewhat changes the image of football coach that I had of this guy.

[Matt W.]

I too believe that sport training methodology is pretty much the same thing as aliveness. In fact, in describing how proper training should be done, I've always found it easier to just say "(Eastern) MA should be trained the same way that boxers and wrestlers train."

Olympic TKD sucks, not because it isn't alive, but because the rules are so restrictive.