2 cents on RESISTANCE in training

[shirkers1]

I’m sure some will surly disagree and some will agree but this is just a thought about resistance during our training.

I don’t know why I didn’t think of this answer before but I actually had a dream about it last night and wanted to put this down. Then I saw –N- hit apon it in another thread.

The reason we don’t train with full on resistance with an individual tactic is because we are trained to be sensitive to our opponents actions. If we are applying a tactic and the opponent resists in any way, be it by pulling, pushing, etc, we use that energy to feed another tactic. We don’t try to force the original tactic if the opponent is aware of what you’re doing. (hence set ups and fakes in mantis) You use the training to fine tune that tactic, then apply the tactic during sparring or sticky hand sessions when applicable. When working with the drills, if I’m fed any type of energy that would alter the tactic I’m training, I point out how I would do something different and show why. What this seems to do is individualize each tactic in training rather than generalizing movements together. It also starts to teach you that you aren’t dedicated to one tactic, you start to see other things open up when you are resisted in any way. You flow with what you are fed and are feeding the opponent.

Each drill has a reason for being drilled. Each one is a building block in the training giving you different abilities along the way. It may take a little longer than say a MMAst way of training. But it’s a different animal. Forms, individual tactics, individual tactics 2 man, sticky hand and feet drills, sparring, etc. All of these things have a reason and are building from the foundation up. Some training doesn’t call for 100% resistance, some training does.

As for the deadly tactic argument, a punch can be deadly and you can practice a punch at all levels of resistance. Just because I practice at med power doesn’t mean that when I hit someone just right full force they aren’t going to go down for the count. Same with locks and breaks. Arm bars and locks hurt even if you don’t break the opponents limb you are causing harm and doing what is intended, even if you want to break the limb and don't. Every time you punch someone your intention is to hurt them, knock them out, break a bone or whatever. But it doesn’t always happen with one punch or four for that matter. So you keep going till it’s over, does that mean that I can’t train punching anymore because I didn’t knock him out with one punch? No it doesn’t, there is a time and a place for certain training. Just because you can’t train a certain tactic at 100%, doesn’t mean you won’t be able to apply it when the opportunity arises.

[mantis108]

first and foremost I really appreciate the candid and forthcoming post sharing the intricacy of drilling from a Mantis stylist point of view. Be that as it may I think that "traditional" Kung Fu supporter (including myself) is facing a challenge that is unlike other times and places that we as CMAist in the Americas have seen. We are certainly not living during Ming or Qing dynasty. We are most definitely living in the Americas not Shandong, China. That, my friends, is the reality. We certainly can savor the past and bathe in its "wisdoms" but living in the past is in my mind a self imposed obstacle leading to acquiring a conditional truth rather than the whole truth.

I like playing chess. I have heard time and time again that BJJ is like a high speed chess game. BTW, MMA people tend to function and think alike as the BJJers. Once, I thought it was over rated and I thought Kung Fu was really the real deal when it comes to high speed chess game because there was a highly mental process beyond the pure physical. Then years later, I have come to see the source of my ignorance as good old Brucy would say. The truth lies in the balance between the mental process and physcial excution - higher conciousness through harder contact. Awareness and aliveness are like mother and son, which is a concept that can even be found in Lao Tze's Dao De Jing and subsequantly ancient pugilistic art of Tongbi that is intervined with modern day Tanglangquan.

At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I ask "what is the point in exercising the same opening sequence of a chess game over and over again?" By repeating that same sequence (3 or 4 moves), does that really help us to improve the opening game better? Do we actually "out smart" the opponent who would repeat the same counter over and over just as you do? Are we having a chess match or are with just wasting our precious time?

We have been conditioned to see the closed end system such as Kung Fu as the only truth. Kung Fu has come a long way from an utiliterian to an almost platonic entity. It was meant to be a chess game but since Ming and Qing dynasty, the evolution of Kung Fu has literally took a dramatic turn. We spend much more time worrying about how the move would look or it makes you look than how it actually would work against a really resistive opponent. We drill as if we are in control with the help of the drill or form that is designed to dictate the outcome. At time same time we look good. It's a win win situation. It is ideal for the paying customers. It is not a high speed chess game that is a battle of the wits any more but rathe a theatric play to entertain our egos and the masses.

Ford model T-1 or a 2005 Honda Civic would take you from point A to point B just the same. The Civic might give you more travel pleasure while the T-1 perhaps gives you a reality check in its design. When you get to the destination, you still have to step out of the darn car(s) and continue your life taking the experience with you. Simply admiring the destination sitting in the car is or think the scenary looks much better with the car is pretty much ludicrous IMHO. I appreciate the cars and what they do for me but that's about it. Life goes beyond that point. Don't fall in love with the tool; Leave it behind.

In closing, I have to stress that this is sharing of my opinion only. This is not to undermind Shirker 1's well thought out post. Certain there is no personal attack whatsoever. So please don't stone me.

Sincerely,

Mantis108

[Shaolinlueb]

i think its important to train against easy resistance first because the technique is new. but you should learn to do it against all resistances and all size people. because on the street, most chances, you arent going to encounter a kung fu master. most people do things with all strength. especially in drunken bar fights, or when a person is intoxicated. thats when most fights take place i imagine.

like mentioned above me, mma and bjj, those are a lot of strength resistence sports. so you have to train against those things.

[shirkers1]

If I'm getting what you are saying (which being a monday I might not) you are saying out with the old and in with the new so to speak?

I'm in no way saying resistance training is wrong or useless. What I am saying is that it has it's place and that is during sparring or sticky hands training. The reason to drill each tactic this way isn't to make it "look better" it's for proper execution of the drill when applicable. Like I said if you train with resistance the mantis practitioner would alter his tactic to combat the given resistance. So once you have a hand full of tools in your arsenal and you start to spar when the opportunity arises you apply that tactic, if resistance is given you alter the tactic and do something else. Hence the chess game you speak of, it is a thinking mans art. But eventually it becomes more of a feel and action after years of training your tactics. Just like anything it takes time and constant practice.

With the mindset of out with the old and in with the new would mean to wipe the slate clean and start over with "what works" for the individual training. That is his choice, and may work just fine for the individual. But to say that the way I train my mantis is useless and the tactics will never work in a real situation just because aliveness and full resistance isn't being used 24 7 is ignorant.

Again this is just my thinking and that's about all it's worth. Hopefully someone who thinks other wise can see another point of view.

[Shaolinlueb]

Originally posted by shirkers1
But eventually it becomes more of a feel and action after years of training your tactics.

not a bad post. are you categorizing resistance and sensitivity training into one? with one comes the other it sounds.

[shirkers1]

Well you gain sensitivity through resistance for sure. Other wise the tactic you are generally applying should always work and we know it doesn't work that way because of resistance by the opponent, improper execution, etc. That's all sensitivity is really, feeling what your opponent is doing. Sensitivity to what is going on in the altercation, whether it's physical or mental. To be able to adapt on a whim is the goal of sensitivity training, not thinking what you are going to do next. It's all about being able to react and attack without having to think about it. That is where sensitivity comes in. So if you are facing a completely resisting opponent why would you continue to try a certain tactic? You would adapt and move on to another tactic, that would best fit that situation.

During sparring and sticky hands etc is where you would train with resistance. You can train with aliveness on single tactics as long as you don't completely alter the intent of the drill. Other wise it becomes something else. Make sense?

Aliveness, resistance and sensitivity are all part of the same equation.

[SevenStar]

Originally posted by shirkers1
I’m sure some will surly disagree and some will agree but this is just a thought about resistance during our training.

I don’t know why I didn’t think of this answer before but I actually had a dream about it last night and wanted to put this down. Then I saw –N- hit apon it in another thread.

The reason we don’t train with full on resistance with an individual tactic is because we are trained to be sensitive to our opponents actions. If we are applying a tactic and the opponent resists in any way, be it by pulling, pushing, etc, we use that energy to feed another tactic. We don’t try to force the original tactic if the opponent is aware of what you’re doing. (hence set ups and fakes in mantis) You use the training to fine tune that tactic, then apply the tactic during sparring or sticky hand sessions when applicable. When working with the drills, if I’m fed any type of energy that would alter the tactic I’m training, I point out how I would do something different and show why. What this seems to do is individualize each tactic in training rather than generalizing movements together. It also starts to teach you that you aren’t dedicated to one tactic, you start to see other things open up when you are resisted in any way. You flow with what you are fed and are feeding the opponent.

if you are referring to posts made by knife and I, this isn't what we are referring to. What you are posting here makes perfect sense. We do the same thing. Sticking with the judo example in the other thread, if I am attempting you push you so that I can throw you backward (like o soto gari) and you resist, I'm not going to keep forcing you that direction. I feel your resistance and change direction - if you are resisting forward, I switch to a forward throw, like tai otoshi.

What we are referring to by "lack of resistance" is drilling techniques, but not working them into sparring. for example, a joint break. you can't kick my knee at full speed and power or it'll break. since it is a swift kick, there is no time for your opponent to tap. Consequently, you can't practice these safely against full resistance.

sticking with the knee break, I can do a knee bar in grappling with full resistance. We are sparring at full intensity and I set it up. after I have it applied, I can apply it slowly, because I already have the lock. I can afford to do it slow and let you tap - I control both you and your limb. with stand up, you can't say that. Heck, you don't even know if you are striking precisely, unless you are recording it and reviewing it later, as you can't actually do the technique fully.


As for the deadly tactic argument, a punch can be deadly and you can practice a punch at all levels of resistance. Just because I practice at med power doesn’t mean that when I hit someone just right full force they aren’t going to go down for the count.


you're right. the issue there though is that you practice how you train. I've seen MA get mauled in the street beacuse they pulled strikes the way they do in class.


Same with locks and breaks. Arm bars and locks hurt even if you don’t break the opponents limb you are causing harm and doing what is intended, even if you want to break the limb and don't. Every time you punch someone your intention is to hurt them, knock them out, break a bone or whatever. But it doesn’t always happen with one punch or four for that matter. So you keep going till it’s over, does that mean that I can’t train punching anymore because I didn’t knock him out with one punch? No it doesn’t, there is a time and a place for certain training. Just because you can’t train a certain tactic at 100%, doesn’t mean you won’t be able to apply it when the opportunity arises.


that's not the same. I CAN practice punching 100% in general. I can't, however, practice striking 100% to the throat. That's what the whole "deadly" debate is always about.

[shirkers1]

Yeah I was bringing up the point made by knife and yourself mostly. I understand how you guys train, sometimes I just think that you guys see some traditional kung fu and think all train stagnant material. Because I see your point and I know we think along the same lines even though we execute it differently. I hope that you now have a little insight as to how we train and why. I generalized a bit instead of giving exact tactics because it really doesn't matter what tactic you are drilling, it's how and why. As well as not everyone here trains in the same style.

Any way, I know exactly what you are talking about with the whole thinking you can do something and getting your ass handed to you for I have seen it as well, along all lines of styles and fighting. That is because of improper training in the long run, as you already know. But we can't generalize everyone into this ball just because they study a "traditional style of kung fu" or a certain style period.

The throat is just a target. Whether you hit it or not, you mean to do damage. I'm not thinking about a death blow when I'm hitting someone in the head. Sure I want to hurt them if I'm in that situation and end the altercation. I never think about a fight ending blow as an individual tactic. You can't do that. So I can say that by training say a cutting palm to the throat after a trap. If that ends the altercation great, if not there is something following up for sure either way. You can look at it as that cutting palm if pulled some set up the next tactic, just like a jab sets up a cross, etc. This is applied to everything. It's not one thing it's setting up or continuing on to the next tactic.

[mantis108]

First off, I don't judge a method. To me there is no right or wrong method per se. It is how and why we train or use such method. That way I feel is more objective.

I hear what you are saying and I believe I understand where you are coming from.

I believe it is not a matter of out with the old and in with the new. Otherwise, I won't be still training Mantis and strive to learn as much about it from other high calibur people some of whom frequant these forums. So I welcome this discussion that we are having regardless.

I'm in no way saying resistance training is wrong or useless. What I am saying is that it has it's place and that is during sparring or sticky hands training.

Interesting point. May I ask what's the difference in your opinion between randori type of training, sparring or sticky hands training (I take it you mean Wing Chun Chi Sao?) which is not Mantis methodolgy of old but rather an adaptation more or less after 1970s when Bruce Lee made Wing Chun world known? The reason I ask is that are we not in danger of fast tracking the acceptance of one training approach over the other? I think we need to be careful with oppotunistic discrimination against methodologies.

The reason to drill each tactic this way isn't to make it "look better" it's for proper execution of the drill when applicable.

So it's more or less one strike one kill right? You are saying it is about "efficiency" of the execution is it not?

Like I said if you train with resistance the mantis practitioner would alter his tactic to combat the given resistance. So once you have a hand full of tools in your arsenal and you start to spar when the opportunity arises you apply that tactic, if resistance is given you alter the tactic and do something else. Hence the chess game you speak of, it is a thinking mans art. But eventually it becomes more of a feel and action after years of training your tactics. Just like anything it takes time and constant practice.

I am not sure I follow you here. If this is indeed what we are training for and that a resistive (randori) type of method will almost naturally bring out that mantis in us, then why are we rejecting that idea? So what is it more important, one strike one kill (like Karate) or being able to change and adapt, which is it? I can only see a problem when a student wasn't given enough "tactics" or counters to train resistively. But then who's fault would that be? The teacher, who holds on to techniques or tactics are like gold that is hard to part with or it is the ignorant of the studnet? BTW, I think we need to define tactics and techniques. I take it that by tactics you mean combinations (of techniques).

With the mindset of out with the old and in with the new would mean to wipe the slate clean and start over with "what works" for the individual training. That is his choice, and may work just fine for the individual. But to say that the way I train my mantis is useless and the tactics will never work in a real situation just because aliveness and full resistance isn't being used 24 7 is ignorant.

I hear what you are saying. I am not saying out with the old and start with a clean slate. Other systems or style might need to do that but I am 200% possitive that Mantis has what it takes to stay as it. Personally, I see no conflict in harmonizing some of the modern training subtle science with mantis' ancient exact art. Beside there is nothing wrong in understanding thy enemy. It may even be an edge if we do so. The importance here is that could help to make our art relevant in facing the challenges and demands of today and not at the expense of tradition.

I certainly respect your dedication and openness in sharing your experience and insight. We have to remember that sometimes we are the lucky ones who have not been burnt by Mckwoon or Mcdojo. Others, who are not so lucky but are able to see the light through something like MMA, BJJ, etc., might just want to save others in going down the dead end alley. So we don't need to be upset about their kindness that is often expressed in cut dry fashion. Bitter medicine is most of the time good medicine.

Mantis108

[shirkers1]

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion, believe me I don't want to start an argument. I welcome your imput and don't take it personal. What I do take personal is when certain individuals flood a thread taking it off topic and getting my threads shut down. When a lot of good information is displayed.

Quote:Interesting point. May I ask what's the difference in your opinion between randori type of training, sparring or sticky hands training (I take it you mean Wing Chun Chi Sao?) which is not Mantis methodolgy of old but rather an adaptation more or less after 1970s when Bruce Lee made Wing Chun world known? The reason I ask is that are we not in danger of fast tracking the acceptance of one training approach over the other? I think we need to be careful with oppotunistic discrimination against methodologies. End Quote:

I will give you an example of what we do rather than speculate or say what another school or style does for their training. Sparring can be a range of things. Whether it be full contact anything goes with gear on. It can be anything goes light contact and on down the line. Sticky hands in our famiy isn't like chi sao per say. It may have it's roots in the basic idea of contact at the wrist and using sticky hands to flow with the tactics. Deflecting sticking and feeling the energy of your opponent. Single hand then double hand then adding feet into the mix once you are skilled at the aformentioned. I know that our family has picked up a lot of modern training stratagies dou to the people involved in the classes. If it works then we use it, that is why someone made a referance to JKD when they saw how I moved, well that's because it's there. If it works and makes sense why not use it. I'm not and have never said that these training methods are wrong. I'm just saying we do them a little different but we still do it.

Quote:So it's more or less one strike one kill right? You are saying it is about "efficiency" of the execution is it not?End Quote:

Yes and no, you have to train the tactic individually to know what the tactic is for. Like I said if resistance is there than another tactic will come into play.

Quote:I am not sure I follow you here. If this is indeed what we are training for and that a resistive (randori) type of method will almost naturally bring out that mantis in us, then why are we rejecting that idea? So what is it more important, one strike one kill (like Karate) or being able to change and adapt, which is it? I can only see a problem when a student wasn't given enough "tactics" or counters to train resistively. But then who's fault would that be? The teacher, who holds on to techniques or tactics are like gold that is hard to part with or it is the ignorant of the studnet? BTW, I think we need to define tactics and techniques. I take it that by tactics you mean combinations (of techniques). End Quote:

I'm not rejecting the idea at all. I support it, but applied with certain steps in the training. If you introduce it in the wrong stage it changes the tactic you are training is all I'm saying.

I was trying to generalize so we didn't use judo tactic or mantis tactic. It could be anything. hook grapple strike, punch, combos, individual strikes or movements, in mantis you are usually doing more than one thing at the same time so the back up is there. Which is why there really is no one strike one kill. I hit apon this in my last post with the idea of never really thinking about that one strike being the final blow, your just feeding the next move.

Closing, I'm the last person to talk about tradition. I know our school isn't 100% traditional. As well as WHF himself, calling it northern mantis instead of 7 star for example. I do know that what is being trained is very useful.

[mantis108]

Thank you for the clarifications. It is very clear now.

You are right that I am not a purist although I support traditional material. I also have to stress that I don't represent others in my style nor do I represent the style. All comments, opinions and/or mistakes are my own responsibility.

Warm regards

Mantis108