I have this response

[gmattson]

comes to mind Bill.... It must be your kyu/dan kumite training!

On the other hand.... why in hell didn't you move back, as you have been teaching yourself??? Isn't that what Jim is saying will happen when you train improperly, with bad tools?

[Stryke]

didnt realsie you were such a David Bowie Fan ... aint he cool

You've been so long
Well, it's been so long
And I've been putting out fire
with gasoline
putting out fire with gasoline

[Bill Glasheen]

Fair is fair, George. Jim graciously bit his lip, so I believe we need to let sleeping dogs lie.

Thanks in no small part to Marcus being a gentleman.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

A Kiwi gentleman. I thought that was an oxymoron...

- Bill

[Stryke]

HAHAHAHAH !!!

It`s like a worldly American ....

you americans still cant tell the difference between a Kiwi and an Aussie .


theres a great line in the movie Gallipoli from the English commander .

to paraphrase form my rusty memory

POHM : I`ve never met a bigger bunch of ill disciplined rude , obnoxious etc etc ....

KIWI : Christ ... you wait till you meet the Australians

[JimHawkins]

I sure wish we could get the likes of Rory, Darren, Van, and others to think about this a bit. You just have to know that there are a handful of folks out there who have these "responses" that - IMO - are part low road and part high road. I guess you can say it's a good thing, and - now and then - an unfortunate thing.

A few decades back, I had a really good conversation with Jimmy Malone about this.

How much is nature, and how much is nurture? Why would I do this, and others not? What part of my training makes this happen?

I have looked into some of the science and also applied some ideas from off shoot disciplines..

I believe that "the flinch" represents a default "please wait" that is programmed into the primal brain, but not limited to the primal brain. When you use your computer most of the time you will click something and whatever you wanted happens instantly. Other times you may make a request that causes processor or subsystem intensive action to be taken. In these cases you see the hour glass or similar icon appear which essentially means "please wait I am really busy.”

In human day to day life we are solving problems much like a computer. Walking down the street we see a person walking in our way and we navigate around them. While doing this we are processing all kinds of information and solving problems as they are recognized. Normally as in using the PC most of the time we solve these problems so fast that there appears to be no delay, we simply adapt.

Okay why? Most simple problems are quickly recognized and solved they are familiar and the solution to these problems are commonly used. On occasion however a problem may present itself that we are not able to instantly process and therefore do not have an instant solution for. The problem may be singular or complex, but in either case it causes an overload in the demands it places on the brain. It this case what happens? You get a default reaction, a flinch, and a "please wait" from the system, as our brain processes this information. The default response here is the flinch, which it seems is not always the same, for all folks under all conditions. The “flinch” may change depending on the stimulus. Given this variation in flinch responses one could say that the flinch is a best guess response spit out by the brain as it continues to process "please wait" the problem in order to find a better solution if it can.

If this is close to the truth then what is needed to address the flinch issue is to first train the subject to, as simply and as quickly as possible, identify and solve problems, while also working in a couple of generic but tactically useful “default” or generic reactions.

The speed of problem identification can be increased by teaching folks how to perceptually breakdown a variety of different problems into a handful of classes or simplified problem types that break down the classification problem. In other words instead of seeing 1000 different kinds of tactical situations you see only a handful. This has been done in CMA though the use of 6 Gate Theory, 5 line theory, Centerline Theory, energy studies, etc, in order to simplify how the mind “sees” problems that it encounters.

After problem identification the problem must be solved and so solutions must be simplified and relate a small set of solutions to the initial classification system used to identify and classify the problem. The solution set should be small, simple, tactically sound but also use a common thread/concept that joins all parts as one. This is addressed in some systems by quadrant defense, filling the centerline with attack, using hands together in certain ways, and in general using a small and similar solution set that relate back and correspond with the problem classification system.

To refine the process the subject trains to identify and solve many different kinds of problems using the same one or two concepts and small solution set. Through simplified classification and common thread problem solving one can maximize the efficiency of our problem solving ability and reduce significantly system freeze “please wait” time and time needed to react.

Lastly no matter how good the problem classification and problem solving is there will be occasions where time is too short to fully process the information coming in. In these cases our “system” will still respond with a “best guess” or default response, AKA the flinch. Now if the initial solution set is small enough and simple enough this may replace the flinch but I believe one may gain further control of this default response by training one or two very generic “best guess” safety responses. These genetic reactions, could take the form of a cover that is very general but still incorporates a clear useful tactical component that can allow the transition from “please wait” to working solution much more effectively than what the “system” may have had heretofore in a “best guess” situation.

So in short I am saying control the flinch and forge it into what you need by simplifying problem classification; Simplify problem solving and the solution set and also by programming in sensible and tactically sound general purpose responses that require little or no real assessment for when there is simply no time at all to assess.

I have looked into some of the science and also applied some ideas from off shoot disciplines..

I believe that "the flinch" represents a default "please wait" that is programmed into the primal brain, but not limited to the primal brain. When you use your computer most of the time you will click something and whatever you wanted happens instantly. Other times you may make a request that causes processor or subsystem intensive action to be taken. In these cases you see the hour glass or similar icon appear which essentially means "please wait I am really busy.”

In human day to day life we are solving problems much like a computer. Walking down the street we see a person walking in our way and we navigate around them. While doing this we are processing all kinds of information and solving problems as they are recognized. Normally as in using the PC most of the time we solve these problems so fast that there appears to be no delay, we simply adapt.

Okay why? Most simple problems are quickly recognized and solved they are familiar and the solution to these problems are commonly used. On occasion however a problem may present itself that we are not able to instantly process and therefore do not have an instant solution for. The problem may be singular or complex, but in either case it causes an overload in the demands it places on the brain. It this case what happens? You get a default reaction, a flinch, and a "please wait" from the system, as our brain processes this information. The default response here is the flinch, which it seems is not always the same, for all folks under all conditions. The “flinch” may change depending on the stimulus. Given this variation in flinch responses one could say that the flinch is a best guess response spit out by the brain as it continues to process "please wait" the problem in order to find a better solution if it can.

If this is close to the truth then what is needed to address the flinch issue is to first train the subject to, as simply and as quickly as possible, identify and solve problems, while also working in a couple of generic but tactically useful “default” or generic reactions.

The speed of problem identification can be increased by teaching folks how to perceptually breakdown a variety of different problems into a handful of classes or simplified problem types that break down the classification problem. In other words instead of seeing 1000 different kinds of tactical situations you see only a handful. This has been done in CMA though the use of 6 Gate Theory, 5 line theory, Centerline Theory, energy studies, etc, in order to simplify how the mind “sees” problems that it encounters.

After problem identification the problem must be solved and so solutions must be simplified and relate a small set of solutions to the initial classification system used to identify and classify the problem. The solution set should be small, simple, tactically sound but also use a common thread/concept that joins all parts as one. This is addressed in some systems by quadrant defense, filling the centerline with attack, using hands together in certain ways, and in general using a small and similar solution set that relate back and correspond with the problem classification system.

To refine the process the subject trains to identify and solve many different kinds of problems using the same one or two concepts and small solution set. Through simplified classification and common thread problem solving one can maximize the efficiency of our problem solving ability and reduce significantly system freeze “please wait” time and time needed to react.

Lastly no matter how good the problem classification and problem solving is there will be occasions where time is too short to fully process the information coming in. In these cases our “system” will still respond with a “best guess” or default response, AKA the flinch. Now if the initial solution set is small enough and simple enough this may replace the flinch but I believe one may gain further control of this default response by training one or two very generic “best guess” safety responses. These genetic reactions, could take the form of a cover that is very general but still incorporates a clear useful tactical component that can allow the transition from “please wait” to working solution much more effectively than what the “system” may have had heretofore in a “best guess” situation.

So in short I am saying minimize and control the flinch forging it into what you need by simplifying problem classification; Simplify problem solving and the solution set and also by programming in sensible and tactically sound general purpose responses that require little or no real assessment for when there is simply no time at all to assess.

[gmattson]

Excellent observation and evaluation of the flinch.

My take: Any surprise attack will elicit a flinch. Please note in the "brother" clip, there was a "one note" withdrawal and a beautifully executed "response". But nevertheless, there was a "flinch".

I suspect that Bill's water throwing, punch response followed this same pattern.. a "one note" flinch with a response, programmed by his training.

The object of our training should be to "handle the surprise" by "distancing" ourselves to compensate for the other person's advantageous move, followed by closing and putting your best hurt on the bad guy.... or hopefully processing the data in time to realize the hand moving toward your shoulder was a "pat on the back" and not a knife in your belly.

[JimHawkins]

Excellent observation and evaluation of the flinch.

Thanks George..

My take: Any surprise attack will elicit a flinch. Please note in the "brother" clip, there was a "one note" withdrawal and a beautifully executed "response". But nevertheless, there was a "flinch".

I agree and I beleive in training to minimize the flinch.

The object of our training should be to "handle the surprise" by "distancing" ourselves

Can't agree here because as I believe this is contradictory to the unified solution set of moving into a tactically superior position/state, which I do not feel distancing does most of the time. If in many cases the flinch is the undesirable portion of the response, a "best guess" passive defense often associated with rearward movement then it should be reprogrammed or eliminated. Training an initial response backward which is often the default flinch anyway, is negatively redundant as I see it, and does not address training the solution <the entry> to occur asap.

In the case of the bro the half beat or quarter beat flinch we see and agree was very brief, and was interrupted by his attack..the solution. We agree and see that the brevity of the flinch here and fast conversion to attack as good, right? Yet I do not see first training to distance as the way to minimize this passive defensive flinch but rather as a means to lengthen it. If one agrees that lengthening the passive defensive reaction prior to conversion to offense is good, say to deploy a weapon, then training to flinch back would be good.. Otherwise...not.

If it is advantageous to shorten or even eliminate the defensive passive "best guess" then logic dictates that this best guess passive response is best "adjusted" to be as tactically conducive to offensive as possible, again not something I see as being congruent to giving=increasing=disengaging, since this does NOT provide a tactically sound transition. In this very case, had the "bro" distanced himself he could never have landed on the half beat as he did.

[gmattson]

I disagree because "not" allowing your body to compensate for the attacker's initial surprise attack will "get you hit". Moving with the surprise attack (flinch) should not be seen or viewed as a weakness, rather than a valid use of the flinch.

The "brother's" flinch might have included some type of arm movement, but because the 'surprise' move was so minimum and brief, the flinch was simply a coordinated move to the rear. (maintaining a safe distance while being in harm's way.)

Had the surprise attack included a punch or kick, the brother's flinch would probably included some kind of arm movement and more body reaction.

For most "average/normal" individuals, I strongly believe this reaction would be something they cannot fully train to short-circuit. . . nor do I think they would want to change.

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm glad we have folks jumping in and picking this video apart. This I believe is where some good learning can come because we are viewing a very real (and quite effective) response.

First... I have wished in the 3 or so times that this response happened to me (not counting sparring) that there could have been a camera recording what happened. I will repeat this again, as I believe it is very important. In my case, there was nothing conscious about the response. I viewed my work after the fact rather than thinking "The schithead just did such-and-such to me so I'm gonna..." It was almost as purely low road as pulling a hand off of a hot surface. A small part of me even wonders if I might have done the same thing (perhaps less effectively) with absolutely no training at all. I guess we'll never know.

Back to the discussion between George and Jim. I find these discussions fascinating because I see the back and forth, and sometimes think "None of the above." And that's cool, I guess. I have yet another set of views to ponder.

Getting to the yakusoku kumites... My goal never is to disengage per se. Rather my goal is to understand and get off the line of force. That can be done many ways, depending upon what technique is being thrown. Sometimes that means going forward. Sometimes it means going to the left or right at any number of angles. And yes, sometimes it means going backwards. What bothers me is the idea that anyone would think that any particular direction to go is a good thing. Always think going forward is a good thing and someone will come up with the perfect technique to defeat you (or one day you face someone twice your size who enjoys body slamming). The same is true for any other direction. The goal IMO is to address the threat and work to a position of advantage - wherever that may be. I have my opinions about how sophisticated those perceptions and responses can be, but that IMO is the topic of another thread.

That being said...

There's another thing I'd love to address here. I haven't yet figured out how to do this frame by frame. But what I do see is congruent with something I am trying to train in my students.

From a purely athletic point of view, what you see is the perfect load and explode. It's like someone going up for a rebound. The first thing they do is to squat down so as to prestretch the jumping muscles and also to trigger the stretch reflex. Those engaged in the practice of plyometric training understand that you can enhance these neuromuscular reflexes to the point that what you see goes way beyond strength per se. This is where we get into medicine ball training, bunny hops, jumping off of and onto benches, Olympic lifts, etc. It's about developing explosive power.

Back to the brother... What you see here is the perfect example of a flinch transitioning optimally into a forward explosion. This guy couldn't have done that hit better if he had tried. The flinch back/up was purely low road. However what did it accomplish? The striking hand came up (to cover) and back (to chamber), and then exploded forward/down - just as if he meant it all along. There is no hiccup in the movement with respect to his core muscles and striking arm. Yes, you see the head jerk back involuntarily at first, but that's a good thing IMO. The amygdale is getting command and control the hell away from that bad, scary thigamabob. But the body simultaineously loads for bear right through and after the arm flinch, and then delivers.

Can you train this? I do.

My Goju (former Green Beret) instructor had this theory about breathing and blocking. He often would teach us to inhale on the block, and exhale on the subsequent thrust. When I got to think about it, I saw how right he was. I can't recall if he discussed it with me, but I totally get it. Take a normal, average person, and do the BOO!! thing to them just like what happend to the brother. What do they do? There quite predictably is a gasp for air - an involuntary diaphragmatic contraction. So... Why not go with the flow? Why not have that as a preload to an explosive exhale with a thrust? Makes sense to me. (Right, Van? ) Now taking one of Jim's arguments above, he might say "No, you are being redundant." Actually no, the way I see it. It isn't important that I am modeling what I naturally will do without my permission (because the amygdala takes over). What IS important is that I get a chance to practice the smooth and biomechanically optimal TRANSITION to the powerful explosive response. We don't want to pee away what the amygdala started if we don't have to, right? The best way not to do that IMO is practice the transitions so no energy is lost.

This is also why I spend a LOT of time practicing transitions in kata.

And on the plyometric exercise thing, I work a lot these days on a kind of angling back and exploding forward plyometric stepping exercise. The idea I see is you training your body naturally to go from the low road flinch you CANNOT control right into the low/high to high road motion that you can. Just like the brother popped up and then hammered down, so too can we load back and explode forward. I actually had that happen on one of my "without permission" punches to an attacker's nose. My initial reaction to a vicious attack sequence was an involuntary backward movement, but then I noticed them sitting on their a$$ with hand to face. I HAD to have exploded forward. I just don't know for sure, but it's the only thing that could have caused the mass of the BG to go in the opposite direction the way it did. Newton's laws prevail, unless you want to try to convince me that it was my chi...

Food for thought.

- Bill

[Van Canna]

Interesting. But what about tony Blauer's extensive study and research on the flinch response, after examine 20 thousands fights among other studies?

What does Blauer teach and why? And why what he teaches has been validated over and over by law enforcement and civilians alike?

That being said, I agree that we should familiarize ourselves with handling the 'being forced back' and response action.

As Bill says_ it's all good_

[Bill Glasheen]

What does Blauer teach and why?

Frankly what I stated about transitioning from flinch to explode is EXACTLY what Blauer was preaching in the Black Belt magazine article. That's my understanding anyway. You may not be able to control what your body does involuntarily when first sucker-attacked, but what you can and must do is transition into your game plan as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Please re-read what I wrote above and see if this isn't consistent with what I said.

I will say however that it's probably more complex than that. In the fall 2004 article on Russian Special Forces and training the slow, high road method, they talk a lot about training responses (such as a perfect break fall) that are VERY CLOSE to what you do low road (such as reaching your arm out when you fall). The idea is to get just enough high road input into the powerful low road response to optimize your situation. The art of ukemi depends on that being possible.

- Bill

[JimHawkins]

I disagree because "not" allowing your body to compensate for the attacker's initial surprise attack will "get you hit".

In a true surprise attack the victim will not have time to respond at all and THEY WILL BE HIT.. If they move back they have still not attacked or taken any counter offensive initiative and they will be hit AGAIN, and AGAIN, unless and until they convert into attack. Moving backward as a countermeasure also means you are moving toward some area that you cannot see, it might be a staircase, a busy street, a train platform, an armed adversary, a banana peal or perhaps there is a crowd or other object preventing rearward movement at all. The only guarantee of space and time is to attack the space and time held by the opponent – if there is no escape possible.

Training to reduce, eliminate or convert the flinch into attack or training to convert into attack asap means training attack in whatever tactically sound manner one's system advocates, how ever attack is attack not disengagement and certainly not multiple linier disengagements. Training to disengage based on all the studies, science, katas and common sense says this kind of passive and blind tactic will result not in a faster conversion to attack but rather a slower one, or worse no chance to convert. Taken literally in combat linier disengagement completely eliminates the possibility of quick conversion to attack because of this enlarged window of passivity “given” to the opponent – the attacker is then free to take advantage of this empty space and time.

Compensating or adapting is the key. The question is how to adapt. Of all the tactics to train those who attack first = soonest come up surviving more often then those who give distance and offer no counter attack. Moreover one must take into consideration the entire system strategy, if there is one. When that strategy involves programming something other than linier rearward movement then training linier rearward movement as a primary “option” is not congruent with the common thread or core concepts of the system.

The "brother's" flinch might have included some type of arm movement, but because the 'surprise' move was so minimum and brief, the flinch was simply a coordinated move to the rear. (maintaining a safe distance while being in harm's way.)

He did not move to the rear.. The flinch in this case was about 2 tenths of a second before the conversion to counter. No time to move the entire body backward <off the steps?> and then backward or even backward and forward and initiate a counter attack conversion within a fraction of a second. The bro barely moved at all in his micro flinch, rather the conversion was almost instant and the way you train folks to convert to attack instantly or close to it is to train to attack not to disengage. Training attack over and over, to solve the problem not let it grow into a malignancy.

For most "average/normal" individuals, I strongly believe this reaction would be something they cannot fully train to short-circuit. . . nor do I think they would want to change.

They certainly will have a tough time short circuiting it if they reinforce it and then exaggerate it in training. Attack wins defense loses. Imagine me telling a WCK student who spends 80% or more of his/her time learning how to FEEL the opponent's intent and use this contact to adapt and control via attack that they should disengage.. even multiple times by going straight back where they can’t even see.. It of course would not compute. They have spent most of their time in training to close, feel and attack.. Can't do that by disengaging and backing up and without even knowing what is behind you; That alone could be quite fatal depending on what's back there that you can't see..!

Again tactically sound attack must be the primary response trained over and over from the word go. This is the only way to minimize the reaction time delay in attack conversion. In other words if the primary goal is to attack ASAP then that must be in the primary tool/concept set. Training the opposite of attack will not program attack nor will it even begin to chip away at reducing and converting the passive flinch into attack which must be the primary objective.

[JimHawkins]

Back to the discussion between George and Jim. I find these discussions fascinating because I see the back and forth, and sometimes think "None of the above."

Please note I never wrote forth or forward.. I wrote attack. If there are no other options..then one must attack. There are a million ways to do that, but none of them involve passive disengagement except if one wishes to give distance to "deploy" and that is another matter.

[Van Canna]

Points to remember...

CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS
Muscle-memory model for learning and deploying techniques. An assumption that space exists (reactionary gap) or the space can be created (almost all DT systems recommend creating space at the first sign of a furtive gesture).

Some of you might recognize this concept as Tony Blauer's "Spear," we prefer Bob Orlando's term, and call it the "Wedge".

The idea is very old and integral to many Indonesian, Malaysian, Chinese and Filipino fighting systems. In fact, this position is literally "Introduction to angles 101."

Putting this structure in front of you and charging forward was aptly described as "rudimentary silat."

No matter what you call it or where you got it from, what is important, is that the principle works for altering your opponent's orientation and off-balancing him.

The truth is, however, if you think that is effective, wait until you get to the good stuff. With a little bit of practice you can spin an opponent like a cue ball with english and put him exactly where you want him.


Your body movement in combination of your hand work creates a multi-directional force that disrupts your opponent's structure.

The end effect is you move him in such a way that -- for the next second -- he must be more concerned with staying upright and/or reorienting on you than launching another attack.

It sounds simple, but unless you consciously work at learning how to move in this manner you will not get it. But once you see the effectiveness and ease of combining forces like this you will never go back to doing things the old hard way.

A prime example of this kind of thinking is if someone throws a punch. Under normal circumstances one of two things will happen, either it will miss entirely or it will land.

In the latter case, the only thing that changes is the degree of the hit, because the physics of a block still constitutes a "hit."

As long as these are the results, then the odds are that the person will continue to attack.

On the other hand, when the person throws a punch and is suddenly whirled around hurled off balance and finds himself facing another direction it causes a mental hiccup as he attempts to deal with all these unexpected results.

On a physical level, were he be allowed to, he would have to regain his balance, reorient himself and then continue attack. On a mental level all this confusion keeps him from noticing that you are putting him into a position that prevents him from continuing to resist.