I need some help from experienced instructors on how to stop students from focussing on one thing.
I've always complained that when you try to teach strikers to grapple, they just piss away their striking skills. The strikes work great on the ground, but it's like the students cross a line in their mind and just do one class of technique.
We were working scenarios the other day, backed into a corner, 2 on 1, interview with ambush/weapon, stuff like that. Everyone was waiting to the point where they could justify acting and then fighting like... doing very well. But there was no verbal, no attempt do deescalate or overwhelm, no thought to how to involve witnesses or bystanders. (And no attempt to just leave!)
So we talked about verbal (again!). Went over some strategies, had them monitor their innner thug as I presented different miens and they would decide if they would go for it if they were criminals.
Back to the scenarios, and they were all verbal. Even when it had gone clearly to the point that force was the only option, they were still trying to deescalate.
I think this is a related problem to the striking/grappling schism.
How do you get through to your students that it is one big thing and not a bunch of diconnected little things? I need some strategies.
Thanks,
Rory
Stopping Focus
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail
That's a tough one, Rory! Allow me to ramble a bit if I may.
We compartmentalize our training out of necessity. A striker's training venue is often the polished oak foor or the boxing ring. A grappler's venue is the mat room. We spend time with verbal deescalation while fully clothed. We ponder theory while sitting on our butts in front of a computer screen or reading on the couch. Etc., etc. How do we put it all together?
I think there are times, Rory, where it's necessary to tell people to focus on one venue. When I was learning aikido, we trained multiple partner randori in such a fashion where the BG wasn't "dead" unless you threw him. That was necessary because we were all a bunch of Uechi/Goju/Shotokan guys learning aikido from a green beret. It was too easy to bash; we'd never grapple if not forced to do so.
But as you stated, this gets to compartmentalized thinking.
I don't have easy answers for you, but I do have some knowledge and wisdom to share.
First... I sit here procrastinating on the web before getting some mathematical modeling work done. Actually that made me think of some possible ways to think about the problem.
The most important thing to stress when attempting to achieve an end is to define that end as clearly as possible. When I'm constructing a statistical model to predict who's going in the hospital next year, I give the statistical software (regressions, trees, neural nets, etc.) as much information as I possibly can. Understand that I'm not feeding "garbage" or "unrefined" data. Whenever possible, I attempt to hypothesize the drivers (many...) of my dependent variable (say an admission to the hospital). So I feed information on illness, demographics, interaction of illnesses, propensity to seek services, support systems, etc., etc. But then I turn the software loose on the data, and let the data tell ME what the best model is to predict my dependent variable.
A little off the track? Maybe, and maybe not.
You see, a striker comes into the arena with one goal in mind (perhaps get a KO). The grappler comes in with another (a submission hold or joint dislocation). The verbal defense expert yet another (perhaps reduced rage of those around him/her) . They are trained to achieve these objectives, and have spent years being rewarded for achieving them. But each of these may not be the ultimate goal; rather those intermediate outcomes may be merely means to another end, or drivers designed to determine something else. What IS the goal (dependent variable) of the scenario (model)? If that isn't clear to the person (a walking nerual net maker), then you may not get what you want.
There's nothing wrong with a person recognizing strengths and employing them, just like there's nothing wrong with me the modeler using mostly one kind of data because that's mostly what's available. But as more capabilities come to the data, the options should expand. As more skills are available to the SD practitioner, the options should expand. Soon you are dealing with developing good "chess" skills on top of the single capabilities in the toolkit. Now you the teacher need to layer strategy on top of these multiple foundations.
But again, the goal must be kept in mind. We must define success not in terms of our ability to use any one skill, but in terms of achieving a clear objective.
Military planners and managers (like myself) alike talk about workplans to achieve an objective. But these plans - if done right - should have "branch points." We think we know what will work and we start along a path to that end, but we must constantly be capable of cutting our losses and choosing different paths should certain avenues give us less than optimal results (as defined by the overall goal).
Back to the scenario training. At some point it may be fruitful to define the "end" and "score" someone's ability to achieve that end. This final score may take the shape of positive (best health) and negative (injuries, litigation, etc.) points awarded based on the choices made and consequences of those choices (and our ability to implement them). In bridge tournaments, one thing people do is deal a set number of hands out over a number of tables. A whole bunch of people get to play the same hands. The winner is the person who got the best total score - regardless of the method used to achieve it. Analysis of the various games can be quite revealing.
Interesting stuff, Rory!
- Bill
We compartmentalize our training out of necessity. A striker's training venue is often the polished oak foor or the boxing ring. A grappler's venue is the mat room. We spend time with verbal deescalation while fully clothed. We ponder theory while sitting on our butts in front of a computer screen or reading on the couch. Etc., etc. How do we put it all together?
I think there are times, Rory, where it's necessary to tell people to focus on one venue. When I was learning aikido, we trained multiple partner randori in such a fashion where the BG wasn't "dead" unless you threw him. That was necessary because we were all a bunch of Uechi/Goju/Shotokan guys learning aikido from a green beret. It was too easy to bash; we'd never grapple if not forced to do so.
But as you stated, this gets to compartmentalized thinking.
I don't have easy answers for you, but I do have some knowledge and wisdom to share.
First... I sit here procrastinating on the web before getting some mathematical modeling work done. Actually that made me think of some possible ways to think about the problem.
The most important thing to stress when attempting to achieve an end is to define that end as clearly as possible. When I'm constructing a statistical model to predict who's going in the hospital next year, I give the statistical software (regressions, trees, neural nets, etc.) as much information as I possibly can. Understand that I'm not feeding "garbage" or "unrefined" data. Whenever possible, I attempt to hypothesize the drivers (many...) of my dependent variable (say an admission to the hospital). So I feed information on illness, demographics, interaction of illnesses, propensity to seek services, support systems, etc., etc. But then I turn the software loose on the data, and let the data tell ME what the best model is to predict my dependent variable.
A little off the track? Maybe, and maybe not.
You see, a striker comes into the arena with one goal in mind (perhaps get a KO). The grappler comes in with another (a submission hold or joint dislocation). The verbal defense expert yet another (perhaps reduced rage of those around him/her) . They are trained to achieve these objectives, and have spent years being rewarded for achieving them. But each of these may not be the ultimate goal; rather those intermediate outcomes may be merely means to another end, or drivers designed to determine something else. What IS the goal (dependent variable) of the scenario (model)? If that isn't clear to the person (a walking nerual net maker), then you may not get what you want.
There's nothing wrong with a person recognizing strengths and employing them, just like there's nothing wrong with me the modeler using mostly one kind of data because that's mostly what's available. But as more capabilities come to the data, the options should expand. As more skills are available to the SD practitioner, the options should expand. Soon you are dealing with developing good "chess" skills on top of the single capabilities in the toolkit. Now you the teacher need to layer strategy on top of these multiple foundations.
But again, the goal must be kept in mind. We must define success not in terms of our ability to use any one skill, but in terms of achieving a clear objective.
Military planners and managers (like myself) alike talk about workplans to achieve an objective. But these plans - if done right - should have "branch points." We think we know what will work and we start along a path to that end, but we must constantly be capable of cutting our losses and choosing different paths should certain avenues give us less than optimal results (as defined by the overall goal).
Back to the scenario training. At some point it may be fruitful to define the "end" and "score" someone's ability to achieve that end. This final score may take the shape of positive (best health) and negative (injuries, litigation, etc.) points awarded based on the choices made and consequences of those choices (and our ability to implement them). In bridge tournaments, one thing people do is deal a set number of hands out over a number of tables. A whole bunch of people get to play the same hands. The winner is the person who got the best total score - regardless of the method used to achieve it. Analysis of the various games can be quite revealing.
Interesting stuff, Rory!
- Bill
Thanks, Bill.
It sounds like my students (walking neural net makers) are shooting for the dependent variable of "making sensei happy" instead of "walking out in one piece"... which is both a more logical goal for the dojo and very natural for any learning environment.
That actually explains a lot of the stories about poor performance in actual encounters from good performers in the dojo... they had actually become very skilled at "making sensei happy" but believed that they had trained for the encounter. Maybe. Speculation.
If they are just made aware of this difference, might it help guard against falling into the trap?
Rory
It sounds like my students (walking neural net makers) are shooting for the dependent variable of "making sensei happy" instead of "walking out in one piece"... which is both a more logical goal for the dojo and very natural for any learning environment.
That actually explains a lot of the stories about poor performance in actual encounters from good performers in the dojo... they had actually become very skilled at "making sensei happy" but believed that they had trained for the encounter. Maybe. Speculation.
If they are just made aware of this difference, might it help guard against falling into the trap?
Rory
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Don't have time for a long post, but what I do or would do is try to use the person(s) acting as the threat to achieve the skills you want. The threat may be programmed to back off if the defender uses the correct verbal tools. On the other hand if the defender uses poor verbal tools or doesn't apply whatever concept you are working on well then let the threat take it to the next level. Using specific programming of the threat(s) can create all kinds of variables - dialog - reactions, different kinds of attacks, etc, that the student defender is not aware of. Therefore in this kind of simulation the student will be forced to contend with the unknown programming of the threat instead of what he/she may think you want.
I read a funny story about a police officer who was taking a SD class and proclaimed that he felt he was above working the knife defenses because he was already fully trained at expert level. He further stated that the small woman partner he was forced to work with was not a sufficient challenge to him. So the instructors told him to please humor them and play along using his small partner.
He agreed and the instructors took the woman aside and told her to give them their full attention and believe what she was about to be told as true, though clearly it was for the drill. She agreed and they told her (to imagine) that the man she was about to face in the drill was responsible for raping and @#$@ her only child and that the only thing that could save her child is her and her knife. "Do you understand?!?!"
The drill began and the woman went berserk, screamed leaped toward the defender landed on her knees negating upper defenses and destroyed the defender who got stabbed like 18 times or something comparable.
Anyway I think that programming your attacker and guiding the defender can go a long way.
Jim
I read a funny story about a police officer who was taking a SD class and proclaimed that he felt he was above working the knife defenses because he was already fully trained at expert level. He further stated that the small woman partner he was forced to work with was not a sufficient challenge to him. So the instructors told him to please humor them and play along using his small partner.
He agreed and the instructors took the woman aside and told her to give them their full attention and believe what she was about to be told as true, though clearly it was for the drill. She agreed and they told her (to imagine) that the man she was about to face in the drill was responsible for raping and @#$@ her only child and that the only thing that could save her child is her and her knife. "Do you understand?!?!"
The drill began and the woman went berserk, screamed leaped toward the defender landed on her knees negating upper defenses and destroyed the defender who got stabbed like 18 times or something comparable.
Anyway I think that programming your attacker and guiding the defender can go a long way.
Jim
Last edited by Shaolin on Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Moy Yat Ving Tsun Kung-Fu
Rest in peace dear teacher: Moy Yat Sifu
Rest in peace dear teacher: Moy Yat Sifu
Just a quick and very un-expert view:
I think it's a mistake to think like a grappler, think like a striker, think like a hero, victim or WWF wrestler.
There is also not time in a quick situation to sift through a vast repertiore of techniques, stances, throws, locks or strikes.
There is only time for whatever comes naturally (or un-naturally, as Mr. Mattson pointed out, commenting that Karate techniques are equally alien for both sexes.)
Whatever reflexes you have programmed via your training method are what will, at best, come out.
In a perfect world, your reflecting mind would turn off your logical brain, and the "correct" response would come alive in your limbs; you would be impartial, disconnected, dispassionate.
When all is said and done, it is your habits which will determine your response: for better or worse.
If those habits/responses are formed in the Dojo, your performance under reality-pressure will reflect the efficacy of the training of those habits.
I think it's a mistake to "think yourself into a corner."
NM
I think it's a mistake to think like a grappler, think like a striker, think like a hero, victim or WWF wrestler.
There is also not time in a quick situation to sift through a vast repertiore of techniques, stances, throws, locks or strikes.
There is only time for whatever comes naturally (or un-naturally, as Mr. Mattson pointed out, commenting that Karate techniques are equally alien for both sexes.)
Whatever reflexes you have programmed via your training method are what will, at best, come out.
In a perfect world, your reflecting mind would turn off your logical brain, and the "correct" response would come alive in your limbs; you would be impartial, disconnected, dispassionate.
When all is said and done, it is your habits which will determine your response: for better or worse.
If those habits/responses are formed in the Dojo, your performance under reality-pressure will reflect the efficacy of the training of those habits.
I think it's a mistake to "think yourself into a corner."
NM
