A review of approaches to martial engagement

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

Post Reply
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

A review of approaches to martial engagement

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I recently became aware of Scott Sonnon's website, where he advances his approaches to fighting, fitness, and training. Scott's knowledge base starts in grappling, and evolves through his understanding of both psychology and physiology. He presents a number of intriguing theories about approaches that I believe all should contemplate as they conduct their study of martial arts.

I expect to spend more than one post on this topic, so be patient (with me) as I unfold my thoughts. But feel free to comment as I post.

I start with a piece from the following Webpage.

THE MEDIA MYTH OF THE FLINCH REFLEX

Hmm... It appears Scott's not the kind of person that sits on a fence. ;) In any case, you do need to give the guy credit for thought. From this WebPage...
REACTION BASED APPROACH
A number of reactionary techniques are presumably rehearsed and memorized to be called upon in crisis for application to an attacker's action. Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does “A” the defender reacts with technique “B.”

REFLEX BASED APPROACH
Built upon reinforcing and positively utilizing the autonomic and hormonal arousal as a platform for counter-aggression. Reflex-based approaches are context-free: regardless of the attacker’s specific weapon launched, the defender once determining imminent danger proceeds indiscriminately until the attacker is neutralized; if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics.

RESPONSE BASED APPROACH
Diminishing relative autonomic and hormonal arousal, diminishing response time, increasing efficiency and proportionality, and increasing kinesthetic, position and force/tension sensitivity. Response-based approaches are context-sensitive: awareness, sensitivity and improvisation spontaneously create an appropriate solution to the event as it unfolds without any predesignated ‘skills’ but a deep internalization of natural laws and efficiency.
The first approach above is used quite a bit by many, many traditional and contemporary martial methods. Schools that teach myriad techniques to specific attacks teach it. Many self defense courses and even military training regiments use it. If I do A, you do B. If I do C, you do D. Now, practice...

The second approach has become quite popular these days. One uses scenario training and/or various "venues of terror" to elicit a sympathetic response and teach students to use the gross motor movements that naturally come forth. Things are kept simple. It's power over precision.

The third approach is used in many styles that teach partner flow drills, sticky hand drills and train various forms or "kinetic chain" routines. The idea is to teach the body how to flow and respond specific to what is felt and sensed at the time.

Before I go on, I think it's fair to say that many styles do NOT operate only in one of these modes. These are three different approaches, with varying degrees of popularity and use in the martial community.

- Bill
benzocaine
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas

Post by benzocaine »

I have never trained with the reflex based approach. I'd be interested to see how many dojo use this. I would also be interested in hearing the best way to do this without accidentally hurting someone... wait just answered my own question ...
"if they use techniques, they restrict the number to one-handful of biochemically-augmented, gross-motor, large target oriented tactics."

Basically closed fist stuff,or arm locks ect. right? We wouldn't want to demonstrate a Nukite to the eye huh? :wink:

Bill. I have sent you an off topic PM.
Sonnon
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Pacific North West
Contact:

Post by Sonnon »

For clarity's sake, I do not to disparage Reaction-based and Reflex-based approaches. They each have their place dependent upon the needs of the student. I use them. I discuss balancing these approaches here: Incremental Progression from Soft-Work to Hard-Work... and Back Again

If a teacher intelligently applies all three prudently and judiciously, s/he has the most effective educational approach of all. However, as I have written in other articles such as the one referenced above, these approaches have become polarized and associated AS "styles" rather than merely as educational modalities to be used as any pedagogical tool.

Moreover, there is the same pettiness and territorialism in educational approaches as their is in martial art technical preferences. And as a result, the media becomes engorged in a frenzy of fad and fashion. The current trend is of course Reflex-based approaches... a necessary swing of the pendulum away from the pharmaceutical precision and gymnastic aesthetics dominating the land of "Forms Competitions." However, the media for some strange reason always hyperbolizes... "the best way to train"... or "the best martial art"...

Never... the most balanced way to train and teach.
Scott Sonnon
www.rmaxi.com
User avatar
Walkman
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:21 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by Walkman »

This thread ties into something I've been wondering about.

What is your mind doing while you're sparring? Does your mind do the same thing when you're in a real situation?

I had my first sparring match in the dojo in about ten years recently. It seems to me that I was doing a lot more analysis during the match than I remember during my previous training. I wasn't sure if this is a positive result of "maturity in combat" or if it's a negative result from a dimished "reflexive/reaction" capability from not being in the ring for a while.

Here's the other side-outside the ring what do you do? I've never been in a real combat situation on the street (luckily). I've ducked sucker punches from buddies and what-not, but that's as far as it goes.

Hopefully I'm not hijacking this thread too much...

-Walkman
Sonnon
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Pacific North West
Contact:

Post by Sonnon »

Walkman,

I've been sitting on an article I need to dust off in this regards. I'll be able to clean it up and post it for you tomorrow morning before classes
Scott Sonnon
www.rmaxi.com
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I had my first sparring match in the dojo in about ten years recently. It seems to me that I was doing a lot more analysis during the match than I remember during my previous training. I wasn't sure if this is a positive result of "maturity in combat" or if it's a negative result from a dimished "reflexive/reaction" capability from not being in the ring for a while.
* Maybe you were just operating at a different psychological and physiological point for one of a number of reasons - irrespective of training methods. More analysis = more higher brain function = less "stress," for whatever reason. That could be a good thing. Lethal force, LEO, and SD instructors often teach myriad pre and mid-battle methods to manage one's level of stress so as to operate in a more ideal zone where the neurohormonal response isn't so great that it compromises your performance.

* Maybe your accumulated experiences and the time to internally process them have allowed you to see more.

Scott

You said...
If a teacher intelligently applies all three prudently and judiciously, s/he has the most effective educational approach of all.
I'm beginning to like your thoughts more and more...

- Bill
User avatar
Walkman
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:21 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by Walkman »

So Bill, it sounds as if you're thinking my mental state was an advantage?
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Perhaps...

Research on this subject (Siddle et al) suggests there's an "optimal" operating point. Being "overjuiced" can lead to debilitating responses (severe tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, total lack of fine motor coordination, severely limited cognitive funciton, etc.). Being "underjuiced" can prevent one from tapping into the natural energy reserves that ideally would be there if your life depended on it.

In another post, Ron Klein mentioned how he went to a "tough man" contest, and noted that the flailing rednecks with an attitude did better than a few "apparently" well-conditioned martial artists. Now it's difficult to make much of this anecdote, and toughman contests are essentially boxing matches (format predetermined for legal reasons), but he brings a good point forward. A terrified but aggressive young man with an attitude can do a lot of damage, even if he misses a lot. But as a counter to Ron's anecdote, I put forward my own. One of our former U.Va. Uechi karateka (Mack Fischer) won his IM boxing division and was voted most valuable boxer two years in a row. And Mack always seemed to make it look easy when in the ring.

The word "it depends" applies to all SD situations, as well as sparring situations. Folks like Bobby Campbell had "been there, done that" so much that when he sparred, he could toy with people and execute the most incredibly sophisticated responses to scenarios. That's great if you are that talented, that well trained, and that bright. But "your average Joe" entering boot camp and soon to be sent to the front lines might do better with the "reflex based approach." He could deliver good gross motor responses in the field in a short period of training time. But given that he'd ONLY have gross motor skills with such a short training period, he'd better be pretty juiced. The less precise the targeting and/or the grappling execution, the more energy needed to get the job done.

If your skills are good, I'd say it's a plus. Chances are, your body is more in tune with its needs by now (and it was just sparring after all...), and can put you at the physical and psychological level that you need.

- Bill
User avatar
gmattson
Site Admin
Posts: 6069
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Lake Mary, Florida
Contact:

Very interesting

Post by gmattson »

Scott's approach to training makes lots of sense and I like his positive approach to improving whatever methods, styles and systems people favor.

Keep it coming...
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

The reaction based approach is something all martial arts dabble with at some time or another.
Reaction-based approaches are context-specific: if the attacker does “A” the defender reacts with technique “B.”
To some extent, this is "priming the pump" for the martial artist, LEO, or soldier. If you walk in with a blank slate, you need to start somewhere. First you teach the techniques w/o partner. Then you create the situation where partner responds to an attack with a specific technique.

It's a start...

I think the thing that intrigues me most here though is the difference between the "reflex based approach" and the "response based approach." The major difference here is the degree to which one utilizes autonomic and hormonal arousal (a.k.a. "the dump"). As Scott alluded, the reflex approach with dependency on arousal and gross motor response has been very popular lately. Its strengths appear to be the following:

* Learning "sticks" quicker when the student is under stress.

* The student learns how to and becomes confident with performing when under extreme stress.

* The number of options (techniques) tend to be pretty minimal.

What are the weaknesses?

* Stress training is difficult to maintain without some constant level of danger.

* Too much exposure to stress may elicit a stress response.

As I understand it, the response based approach is intended to be developed over a much longer period of time, and is designed to teach an individual how to improvise given context. There are no recipes; there is no reliance on or expectation of an extraordinary physiologic state. It's turning the classical martial artist into a "jazz" musician.

Advantages?

* It seems like where all martial artists eventually want to be. Manage stress during a conflict, and rely on one's ability to improvise.

* Given a LEO and a citizen's legal (and life-saving) need to function in a force continuum, it's where one MUST be in most situations that don't require a lethal response.

Disadvantages?

* It takes much longer to achieve results, and my sense is that one must first operate in the other two venues before proceeding.

* It's not clear to me (and perhaps others) exactly what exercises may deliver these benefits. Freeform work helps, but not without an information base. Prearranged contact partner and general coordination exercises may help, but which ones work best?

Just a stab... Comments welcome.

- Bill
Sonnon
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Pacific North West
Contact:

Post by Sonnon »

Bill,

Holy Toledo! That was a beautiful post! I wish you would post such on my forum.

Because of your earlier question, I took some of my staff out for a filming session of some Response-based "Soft-Work" drills. I'm having our web guy upload some choice segments.
Bill Glasheen wrote:* It's not clear to me (and perhaps others) exactly what exercises may deliver these benefits. Freeform work helps, but not without an information base. Prearranged contact partner and general coordination exercises may help, but which ones work best?
There are two primary protocols which I employ to accomplish this. Working up the Competitive Protocol Pyramid with Incremental Progression of Soft-Work to Hard-Work, and working up the Drill Progression Pyramid: from Static Drills (conventionally described as "technique") to Fluid Drills (improvising within set parameters the mechanics demonstated by the "techniques") to Dynamic Drills (introducing randomness and chaos into the Fluid Drills to expand them outside the limited scope: such as scenario, simulation and replication drills.)
Both are introduced in this article: The Experience Before You Need It.
ImageImage
Scott Sonnon
www.rmaxi.com
Sonnon
Posts: 311
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Pacific North West
Contact:

Post by Sonnon »

If you come from a martial art background which predominantly used the Reaction-based approach to teaching, then you may be able to expand your work on a "technique" (let's call this a Static Drill) to apply those mechanics in different ways.

Let's keep fighting basic: to apply force to an opponent, you must effectively and efficiently integrate your breathing, movement and structure on the opponent in such a way that it dis-integrates his breathing, movement and structure.

If you have your students perform a Static Drill. Instead of having them try and replicate your performance, require them to apply their understanding of the mechanics of that Static Drill in a more fluid environment... a Fluid Drill. I don't know the Static Drills in your martial art, so let me give an example that I understand. :wink:

Let's say you teach the mechanics of an underhook: where to place the hand, how to pull his shoulder down to slide out his scapular and close pack his shoulder so that you can control his shoulder plane, how to roll his shoulder forward to pack in underneath your own shoulder, and how to use your elbow to parry his slipping underneath to release the hold.

You then demonstrate a high-percentage/frequent block to the application of this hold, say pinching the elbow, pec/lat-lock, rolling the shoulder back and oxjawing the opponent's elbow so he can't slip in for the underhook. From there you place them in a Fluid Drill and require them to pummel in to apply the underhook while fending off the opponent's identical intention. You have a Fluid Drill.

Throughout rotating partners, you remind students of the basics underpinning the ability to apply any static hold in a fluid environment. You remind the students about their foot work, about creating an angle to create or compress space. You remind them that if they change holds, they move their body. You remind the students of changing levels/frames, while keeping form. You remind the students to exhale on effort, exhale when moving, exhale on bending, and "control pausing" (not inhale) when maneuvering in for the hold. You remind them that they should only keep tension necessary to "zero out" an opponent's advance, only enough tension to stick the hold. You remind them that once they apply the underhook that they must USE it to keep the opponent off-balance... for if it is not used, it is not a hold, it's a hang.

Through all of these basics, the student works to apply the mechanics to constantly changing opponents, situations and foci (on various performance goals.)

Then you decide to move the Fluid Drills to a more Dynamic sphere... incrementally. Incremental Progression means that you only add one new variable of chaos at a time, gradually enough that the students never become overwhelmed.

You allow the students to add in a snap down on the neck. You allow the students to try and pass behind the opponent. Then you allow the students to add in some sort of reap, trip, sweep, hook or post... and so on. Maybe then you back down restricting behavior again, and you add in another opponent. The two on one requires that the two attackers have specific agendas and must not defeat the drill by dog-piling on the rabbit.

Maybe you add in a knife for the attacker. How does this require the mechanics to be adapted again? A baseball bat? A 2X4? A garbage can?

Now remove the weapons, ramp down the behaviors and begin again with the basics, but now on stairs, one person high, the other low... and slowly expand the dynamic sphere incrementally once again.

Now change that to wet grass, to low-light conditions, to one person blind folded, to one person with a unhelpful innocent like a spouse or a child, to holding a bag of groceries, to opening the car door, snow, gravel, sitting, at the ATM...

Obviously this moves you into the Dynamic Drills capstone of the Drill Progression Pyramid. Image

It's like a positive version of the Boiling Frog analogy. Throw a frog in a pot of boiling water, and he leaps out. Put a frog in mildly warm water, and slowly turn up the heat. The frog will willfully bathe until he's cooked to death. The Reaction-based approach would teach the mechanics of methods to effectively jump out when it became too hot. The Reflex-based approach to training, is to throw the frog in the boiling water and teach him how to use the jump offensively for survival. The Response-based Approach teaches you how to increase your toughness (physical, mental and emotional) so incrementally that you unhinge the flinch reflex.

This of course doesn't address the protocol of the drilling - with what time-framing and tension/force production... which is the subject of Incremental Progression from Soft-Work to Hard-Work. I'll get some of that footage uploaded ASAP.
Scott Sonnon
www.rmaxi.com
Halford
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2002 6:01 am
Location: CLAREMONT,NH,USA
Contact:

drilling and juggling...two mind expanders!

Post by Halford »

:D I just read the latest report on improving the grey matter of the brain and perhaps some of you also did. Seems that juggling does this! Well, using Indian Clubs, arnis sticks, and so forth and doing drills that are intricate,etc probably have the same effect on the brain? :?:
benzocaine
Posts: 2107
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
Location: St. Thomas

Post by benzocaine »

Bill,

I have a PM for you.

Thank You,

Ben
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”