Richard Langridge wrote:
I just came across this video, and wondered what people think about what this guy is saying...
<mild language used>
Personally I can see why he's against "dead" training, but I think he fails to acknowledge the fact that it's helpfull (or even necessary) for beginners to know what's coming in order to learn the techniques.
Well you can learn and practice in a live setting that is at first fluid but measured resistance then you quickly progress to full resistance. Many techniques are functionally useless against full resistance. It is up to the individual to learn, realize and come to judge in his own travels why some things continue to exist and why some men would even be taken seriously and have a following.
I think his points are perfectly fine. On any given day it sounds like much of what I say in training. I think his ending commentary on the journey of a martial artists from fear and uncertainty-to self doubt and more fear is accurate for many, as well as his reasons why..
His thoughts on those who based an art on agreement of form and involuntarily offering a mind set for trained, conditioned response that is largely an agreed re-action to a known stimulus is fine.
But in fairness, everything thing is "measured" from many arts: Gi, no Gi, strikes, knees, etc etc. We have increased levels of more realistic aggression to the more passive agreements. Thus randori that is never truly randori is born. It is a stepped, staged and controlled level of aggression meant to foster a feeling of empowerment. Some dismal by any measure.
If one wished to get heady and intellectual about the discourse of trained aggression-and the typical passive/ aggressive commentary frequently offered in response "Buy a gun." or "Use a bomb." The reality is more mundane. You can spend equal time training to fight -to learn to fight as you can learn a moving meditation rather tame form. The two will never meet. And that's fine as long as its honest and self assessed. Some could care less about fighting and are having fun.
For those who do not coldly look at the differences- the only way to make a fast point for comparisons is to imagine inviting a group of experienced guys in with MMA training and light gloves on and offer them to many martial artists as fodder for the next "randori" session. It makes the understanding of "stepped, staged and controlled levels of aggression, meant to foster a feeling of empowerment"
easier to grasp.
For many people they would feel overwhelmed and undone. and not in the least way able to "actualize" clean technique or principles, they have been using and working in their "randori." Nor perhaps "empowered" in any measurable degree.
But as I said there is ALWAYS some measure of agreement or control. I almost got my jaw broken this Sat. by an elbow strike from the mount. Strictly speaking, I slipped up and I was grateful for our "agreement."
Overall his take on aggression and conditioning matches my own.
Aggression is not just an action it is a mindset. Triggered in some, trained in others. It can be daunting, and difficult to overcome.
But......Conditioning allows for sustained delivery of aggression. As is posted on the wall at the West point gym-and noted by military trainers; "Fatigue makes cowards of men." If you play with experienced guys, who will stall you, wet blanket you, and keep nailing you from a distance till you gas out, then take you down or out. There is a skill in using conditioning as a weapon.
No road work, no heavy bag work, and no gym? No game. You're only kidding yourself.
What is left is perfectly fine though...."stepped, staged and contolled levels of aggression, meant to foster a feeling of empowerment"
His Skill and intelligense catagories I agree with, but the use of these as skill sets is far more complex then was allowed for in his speach. Hopefully he had something equally valid to offer in those areas.