Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Non-Aikido Martial Traditions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-09-2008, 04:31 PM   #76
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
William

Mmm, pretty much more of the same - very cool looking developmental exercises that I would actually like to see turned around and applied in a legitimate force on force context - sportive or combative.

Seriously, this will derail the thread. FWIW, I am open about my skepticism because far too many people do so in conversations behind people's backs, or in PM or private e-mail. I have friends who disagree with me, people I respect who like Systema, and others who know people who think very highly of it - I welcome any correspondence and opportunity to train with people who think they can convince me - a friendly "challenge" as it were - in which I will very much put to the test the professional applications that anyone who cares to offers.

Most of them aren't interested in convincing anyone. Which is fine, but I would strongly encourage them to consider whom they are teaching. Systema intentionally markets itself to "armed professionals" and I believe this can be dangerous to those (most of them not martial artists or combat athletes) who accept what they are taught without legitimate pressure testing at a relatively high level. I am not interested in what the grand poobah can do if the people he has certified as instructors can't.

My personal view is that the Chinese IMA and Japanese Aiki offer a more promising path to realizing modern "internal" results.
I totally agree Kit which is why I put Ninja-Russki last on my wish list of Aiki-Web folks.

Now will you stop talking about Systema Heck don't forget I also mentioned James Williams LOL

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 05:01 PM   #77
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

To get back on track, I'd like to go back to some of what Mike talked about:

Certainly I don't think that even amongst specialists you are going to find "internal masters" capable of feats beyond the ken of mere iron pumping, cardio-training, sparring/grappling mortals;

But even a modicum of quality training, properly explained (as for example Rob John does in very clear fashion), could help in ways that really aren't even directly related to hand to hand applications.

Mere structural training/tune ups could help a great deal. As operators must move in a dynamic fashion often under great loads - tac kit, trauma plates, long gun, extra mags (five or so LE, many more for combat soldiers), other gear, THEN adding specialty stuff like say a ballistic shield, 37 mm munitions launcher, dozen or score of ferrets of gas, breaching tools, ram, etc.etc. injuries are routine and get worse as age creeps in. Being able to organize your body to support such loads while also engaging in forceful movement (or even moving smoothly at all while in tight quarters and attempting to keep a stable shooting platform) is a real benefit. Guys end up doing all sorts of disconnected/awkward movement during operations and searching and the like that knees and especially backs go quickly.

Building a solid combatives platform, optimized for carry weapons and deployment options as well as hand to hand engagement potentials, while under these loads and sometimes in precarious positional and movement dynamics can be an area where IMA principles, correctly taught and adapted to the professional's reality, could come in handy. As with any skill, it is up to the indivual to mine the depth he chooses from the skills offered. We teach all of them shooting, we teach all of them defensive tactics, but only a small percentage ever get what would be termed proficient at either one - still, they learn and grow from what is taught.

So long as we don't start from the premise of making soldiers and cops into internal masters, I think there is a lot there that can be adapted and applied in a beneficial manner.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 05:48 PM   #78
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

And the same training that teaches you how to support weight and carry it , and remain balanced walking, running, jumping, and firing, while moving in odd postions goes along with how to absorb force and stay on your feet when being attacked and not going to the ground.
And the same force that generates power to carry load can make a man dig, hoist or hit with force with less effort. All done with exercises that we teach on the weekends. All of it basic. I can't see why you guys couldn't incorporate things as needs be. Of course over time a D.I. (are they still called that?) could become higly proficient in more advanced means of moving or fighting. And Kevin? He could roll with younger guys with nary a sweat. All while controlling them better than he does now. And no one will want to get hit by him as it will feel like an anvil.
And it's all more fun to do than PT. Can it work in the time frames you have to teach people. I wouldn't have a clue. You guys have to make those 'command" decisions. Sure seems that your are talking about more than a few weeks of training, or some type of extended training. I have had a guy who trained with me for years who had plenty of time to train on Gitmo with a whole bunch of folks. Is it basic only, or is there an extended program for fitness?
Mikes was Marine. Pull some strings to get him re-upped. Draft him.

Last edited by DH : 06-09-2008 at 05:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 05:59 PM   #79
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
To get back on track, I'd like to go back to some of what Mike talked about:

Certainly I don't think that even amongst specialists you are going to find "internal masters" capable of feats beyond the ken of mere iron pumping, cardio-training, sparring/grappling mortals;
Actually, I disagree. See this URL that's been discussed before.

http://www.qigonginstitute.org/html/...20Stanford.pdf

Bear in mind that the "Chen master" in the clip is not really "chen master", but is a strong guy with a background in other conditioning and arts. But roughly speaking this guy has enough expertise to allow him to do things that the researchers are only guessing at. The point being that a lot of these studies and conclusions and assertions are probably premature. I would make some more observations, but I think the background would have to be established in order to get there, so let's leave it at this point: the total range of training and skills has not been seen by a lot of the people drawing the conclusions, IMO.
Quote:

But even a modicum of quality training, properly explained (as for example Rob John does in very clear fashion), could help in ways that really aren't even directly related to hand to hand applications.
I agree with that. One of the real problems I see is that people get a whiff of this stuff and they seem to immediately want to relate it to something they already know. I think that's how we wound up with the "Hidden in Plain Sight" mentality that pretty much shot everyone in the foot in the first place.
Quote:

Mere structural training/tune ups could help a great deal. As operators must move in a dynamic fashion often under great loads - tac kit, trauma plates, long gun, extra mags (five or so LE, many more for combat soldiers), other gear, THEN adding specialty stuff like say a ballistic shield, 37 mm munitions launcher, dozen or score of ferrets of gas, breaching tools, ram, etc.etc. injuries are routine and get worse as age creeps in. Being able to organize your body to support such loads while also engaging in forceful movement (or even moving smoothly at all while in tight quarters and attempting to keep a stable shooting platform) is a real benefit. Guys end up doing all sorts of disconnected/awkward movement during operations and searching and the like that knees and especially backs go quickly.

Building a solid combatives platform, optimized for carry weapons and deployment options as well as hand to hand engagement potentials, while under these loads and sometimes in precarious positional and movement dynamics can be an area where IMA principles, correctly taught and adapted to the professional's reality, could come in handy. As with any skill, it is up to the indivual to mine the depth he chooses from the skills offered. We teach all of them shooting, we teach all of them defensive tactics, but only a small percentage ever get what would be termed proficient at either one - still, they learn and grow from what is taught.

So long as we don't start from the premise of making soldiers and cops into internal masters, I think there is a lot there that can be adapted and applied in a beneficial manner.
I agree with that, too.

Best.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 08:42 PM   #80
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Good discussion. One of the demos Ark did was have the biggest guy in the seminar get on his back and he moved around pretty darn freely. His point was (I think) to discuss how you learn to carry the load on your frame by aligning it properly and letting gravity and the structure support it. I was very intriqued with this as I sometimes have to carry large loads.

Kit, I agree with you on your assessment criteria, wrt your discussion on Systema. I cannot personally comment on it, but agree that whatever you do training wise it must be analyzed against the right "model".

This is a good discussion. thanks!

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 08:59 PM   #81
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
One of the demos Ark did was have the biggest guy in the seminar get on his back and he moved around pretty darn freely. His point was (I think) to discuss how you learn to carry the load on your frame by aligning it properly and letting gravity and the structure support it.
One of the big problems that I see is that Akuzawa is sort of a "first time" glimpse for many people of how really strong and powerful really good Asian martial artists can be. Most people think like "Oh, kung fu... I saw some of that in the UFC. Ho Hum. I understand Chinese martial arts because I saw it in the UFC and I read a book"... or something like that.

Personally, I've seen a lot of junk passed off as Asian martial arts too, but I've been kicking around long enough to have seen people that are powerful, if not more powerful in some cases, than Akuzawa. They're scarey and unbelievably powerful. That's been the whole point of why I'm interested... for many years. The question is how to develop that kind of power.

It's the power that interests me; not the techniques. If you get the correct power you can integrate it into pretty much anything that you want to focus on... ground techniques, power releases, Aikido, you name it. But that should be obvious.

Maybe I'm just short of patience about cutting to the chase because I've seen all this stuff so long. However, let me point out that for the last 3 or 4 years I've suggested several people that Kevin and others should have gone to see... we'd be 3 or 4 years ahead in the conversation if that had happened, I think.

The application to military? Someone might check out some of the elite Chinese Army training methods. I know some of the things they do and practice and frankly, it is not something like putting a lot of time into submission grappling. Of course the immediate reply from the submission-grappling proponents is "then why haven't we seen elite Chinese Army rangers (or whatever) kicking but in the UFC?". And that, to me, is how absurd some of these conversations can get. BTW.... how the elite Chinese Army guys train (and a lot of it is Xingyi based) is very top-secret, don't let the westerners see it, topic. They're not talking about whether this stuff is useful... they've been using it for generations.

Until some background and understanding of these skills gets acquired, though, I think we're going to have these discussions that only vaguely aim in the direction of the target.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 09:02 PM   #82
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

My apologies, by "specialists" I mean the military/LE operators who are not going to put the time in to become "internal masters."

Hyperbole aside (and by that I mean hyperbole needs to be set aside for this to become a fruitful reality rather than simple discussion), I think the key is about making the more efficient, less fatigued, less injured, "no sweat" etc. thing a tangible reality. BTW, many BJJ black belts do the "not breaking a sweat" thing routinely against much larger, stronger, and skilled practitioners of other arts, on the ground at least.

And scientific tests aside, those things rapidly go by the wayside when the "master" can't hang with a couple of the unit's MAC-P/BJJ studs, or the agency's DT instructors who are MMA fighters or purple or brown belts in BJJ.

The guys watching that happen will simply dismiss the valuable things that an IMA practitioner can offer if he can't deliver in a demonstrable test.

That is why it needs a meeting of the disciplines, and a meeting of the minds. The IMA guy either earns the "cred" he needs in the actual combat athletics world, (or the combat athlete embraces and "proves" the efficacy of IMA training methodology in the same format);

Or, and more likely, the highly skilled/qualified combat athlete (or operator with extensive real world experience) embraces the concepts through a practitioner of IMA that he partners with in order to "build a better operator." In the latter case this may be divorced from hand to hand practicality depending on the operator.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 09:12 PM   #83
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Mike I definitely see your point of view concerning the arguments, and you are right I believe that I would be further ahead in my understanding had I been exposed a few years ago. At least now I have a better point of reference.

However, the reality is as Kit puts it...right or wrong...legitimate or not. You walk into the gym at Fort Benning they expect to see it work within the parameters that they establish. You convince them, then they are very quick to get on board. If not, regardless of how well the Chinese are doing it within their Spec Ops community, they are not going to buy into it.

Even if they did, you have a huge culture issue and paradigm shift you have to deal with in the instituion.

I am not getting into the validity of internal training, just the realities of what you face in the environment of the institution.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 09:32 PM   #84
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
However, the reality is as Kit puts it...right or wrong...legitimate or not. You walk into the gym at Fort Benning they expect to see it work within the parameters that they establish. You convince them, then they are very quick to get on board. If not, regardless of how well the Chinese are doing it within their Spec Ops community, they are not going to buy into it.
OK... let me use a comparable example. There are a lot of guys in Judo competition in the military. You may have seen them; I used to be one of them and I knew people in various martial arts in the military. On the whole, you can't tell these guys anything because they already know all the answers. Many of us have seen it time and time again. I've also been to demonstrations where they did their stuff and I've seen some really bad Chinese dudes just watch them and not say a word.... but I knew they were quite happy that the military guys thought the judo and karate they did was the top of the heap. Do you think anyone is really anxious to show the military guys anything?

As a general rule, the guys who are really good don't step out into the limelight. Notice that bit where I said the elite Chinese Army training is not shown. That's more the traditional Chinese approach to things... not to show the other guy what you can do.

Heck, believe it or not, there's a lot of stuff I know that I'm never going to show some people, either. But I'm particularly happy to know there's guys who are not going to get off their butts to learn anything new unless I come to them and show them on their terms. Let 'em wait, Kevin. I couldn't care less. They're part of the problem, not the solution to anything.
Quote:
Even if they did, you have a huge culture issue and paradigm shift you have to deal with in the instituion.

I am not getting into the validity of internal training, just the realities of what you face in the environment of the institution.
Great. But we're back at the original problem I had. I see the mechanics and what it can do. I see the advantage even if a 14-year old girls shows me unusual strength, etc. I see it if an 80-year-old weakened man shows me. I can extrapolate quickly whether something is useful or not. I don't need to sit and wait for someone to side-mount me before I can see the immediate utility of something like these skills. That was my whole point and why I got into these things. And not surprisingly, after I get deeper into these skills and looked harder, I found aspects of them that aren't apparent at first.

In a lot of ways this is all sort of a re-play of the mini-world of Aikido and other arts. Use Rob Liberti (if he'll pardon the presumption) as an example of all the people that simply fought tooth and nail against the idea that there was something they didn't already know. At one time he told me that Gleason Sensei had showed and taught him these things. Finally here it is what, four years later? And he's apparently getting some good and useful skills. Suppose he hadn't wasted that time and had started looking earlier AND applying what he'd found out? Where would he be now? But look at how many people the same thing could be said about on this forum and on other m.a. forums. I simply get fascinated watching this stuff go on and on, year after year. Your scenario that someone would need to *convince* the USA guys that there's something there is a similar example.

Fascinating discussion.

Best.

Mike Sigman

Last edited by Mike Sigman : 06-09-2008 at 09:43 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 09:33 PM   #85
Aikibu
Dojo: West Wind Dojo Santa Monica California
Location: Malibu, California
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,295
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

I grew up as a young pup in the era of Mike Echanis and his attempts to have SF adopt Hwrang Do (Spelling) as part of thier H2H game. He used to demonstrate his internal power by have a jeep with a few troopers ride over his abdomen. I was impressed at the time....

Like I discussed with one of the good folks here NO MASTER worth thier salt is going to share thier secrets with you without you first proving worth it... I know Dan has gone into great lenghts about transmission so why should anyone be surprised that even after ten years of devoted hard training Your teacher has not taught you crap about what he really knows...You have two choices

Steal It

Earn It

When it comes to the Warrior Secrets of the Chinese SF or Spetsnatz or all the shiny new Ninja Stuff the Teams are using to smoke terrorists...Joe Trooper will never know... Unless he's earned the right...

Personally I would jump on Dan's idea and get him a Per Diem over to Benning and in front of Matt.

William Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2008, 10:56 PM   #86
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Mike Sigman wrote: View Post
On the whole, you can't tell these guys anything because they already know all the answers.
Exactly. A sword that cuts both ways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 08:54 AM   #87
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

To a point it isn't a sword that cuts both ways in this debate though, Kit.
Some know how to fight and how to do internal training-to whatever degree. and have a better handle on the values of both.
I know this stuff and I know how to fight. Whether on the ground or standing, or with weapons of all kinds; guns, knives, sticks, to archaic Japanese weaponry. While I don't claim to be an expert at anything, or even close, I at least can demonstrate either to a degree that is considered unusual by most I've met. But I was thinkng my experience Hiking and in building stone walls and working on my property while moving from the spine and outworking everybody while digging earth would be MORE interesting than rolling around on it.

Mike has internal training and from what I hear can handle himself as well.
You and Kevin can't say the same.
You both can fight, but do not have an understanding of the values of internal training-yet. I hope that changes.
But I think this type of training is more important for other things than simply training to fight hand to hand. Although it is an advantage there to, I think that is a side beneift. I'd think learning to fight in your world has allot to do with energy expendature and retained readniness for other more important things than CQC..

Kevin’s idea of the Fort Benning gym test would have to include a cross section of guys working, running, carrying loads and statistical measurement energy expenditure.
Fighting would have to include equally trained people over a control group in a certain time frame.
No experts allowed on the floor!!

The lines will always be blurred in fighting as good technique allows one not only to relax more, but also to win through the understanding of the game. Of course a Gracie won't gas as soon as a new guy. Fighting skill will allow someone to keep expending energy against positional superiority until they offer an opening or until they’re gassed . Good internal skills does the same thing, and adds to any fighting game as the internal guy "feels' freakishly strong and fast and the opponent gasses. This was just demonstrated a while back in pride with several guys commenting on a Chinese fighter- a skinny kid who was freakishly strong and so was harder for guys to 'fight." The guy was very relaxed in motion. Good waza will always matter, but so does conditioning. And anyone can get hit.

Where the sword may cut both ways is in your mission goals. I donlt begin to understand them, and don't pretend to. I'd rather just thank you both and be on my way. I just can't understand all this focus on fighting. I'd think moving under loads over long distances, having superior balance and maintaining a better energy level for a mission to support a team would be far more important than CQC.
What’s that saying I saw up on the wall in the gym at West Point “Fatigue makes coward of men”
But that’s why I never enter in to these discussions. I leave that up to the experts training these guys. Again good luck in figuring out how to demonstrate it statistically in a control group. I imagine it was tough to make the last set of changes.

Last edited by DH : 06-10-2008 at 09:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 02:02 PM   #88
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Dan Harden wrote: View Post
Whether on the ground or standing, or with weapons of all kinds; guns, knives, sticks, to archaic Japanese weaponry. While I don't claim to be an expert at anything, or even close, I at least can demonstrate either to a degree that is considered unusual by most I've met. But I was thinkng my experience Hiking and in building stone walls and working on my property while moving from the spine and outworking everybody while digging earth would be MORE interesting than rolling around on it.

Mike has internal training and from what I hear can handle himself as well.
I was thinking this morning about breaking this stuff down for the military. It's like a step or two more basic than the analysis and definitions I've been doing for Taiji, Aikido, karate, etc., for a number of years and it's a good challenge to break things down to their simplest, teachable components.

One thing I'd say is that I also build stone walls, do construction jobs around the house, do landscaping, hike in the mountains, etc. And every step of the way I analyse these skills, how they come into play, and so on. In my Occam's Razor way of looking at things, I think it's a lay-down bet that these skills are derived from efficient methods of agrarian culture that have been handed down and developed over a very long time. Methods that we're running into via martial arts, but the derivation is almost certainly agrarian. However, I'd hasten to interject that they're more than simple, efficient farming methods... they're sophisticated skills that got their *start* in farming methods, etc., and then worked their way into religious-focused body developments, cosmology, and martial arts.

I tend to, for ease of discussion, break the umbrella-term "ki" or "qi" into two components, the vector strengths and the body/breath/stretch/'suit' strengths. An example I like to use is one of Tohei's demonstrations where he used his "ki" and couldn't be pushed over, yet he easily pushed over some seiza-sitting Buddhist monks: my comment is that Tohei knew how to use the vector forces with his "ki", but while the monks probably had plenty of body/breath/stretch/'suit' ki, they didn't know how to use the vector strengths. Hence these things are separable and clearer in discussion if they're looked at as two distinct items.

In both of these aspects of "ki", I think (after looking at it and working with it for many years) that both aspects are interesting developments in "body technology" that derive from tricks *some* early people happened on in the agrarian cultures of India, China, and those parts of Asia.

The fact that the derivation is (IMO) labor-derived indicates to me that in terms of body efficiency and strength, yes, these skills could be taught in at least a simple form to military troops. The more sophisticated forms take longer to develop. The use in martial applications for the military would take a certain amount of focus and, again IMO, would be limited to certain applications, etc.

Still, thinking about how to break this down for large numbers of troops is an interesting mental exercise. It gives me some insights in how to break it down in a dojo setting because it tends to remove the constraints of particular styles.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 07:41 PM   #89
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Dan,

I don't think it is difficult to demonstrate it or measure it by any means. For fighting you simply set up the scenarios with adequate controls for safety and to keep it within the parameters that you set throw on a Blauer suit and then go for it.

The OPFOR that you fight along with feedback from Observer/Controllers and video works very well.

Same with loads, we simply throw a 120 lbs of gear on you and then have you carry it for extended periods of time an set you up against a clock.

We have a competition called "Best Ranger". This venue is a 72 hour grueling event that would serve as an adequate test.

http://www.bestrangercompetition.com/

I don't think things need to be scientifically measured, only results an endstate measured.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:34 PM   #90
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Likewise the numerous regional and international SWAT competitions and "toughest cop" competitions as well, testing a range of job related abilities.

The venues are there, for those willing to test themselves and show what they can do under pressure - hopefully to benefit those whose livlihoods, or very lives, might depend on just such an edge.

I'll tell you what: since I know Dan has a training connection out here and does make it out this way, and has a direct line to contact me, as an Arrestling instructor I am personally inviting you to the Burien Washington State Criminal Justice Training center next time you are out. (Its actually in Seattle). This way we can plan ahead of time.

You can train with the principals of the Arrestling group - or if you are more comfortable some of the new "boots" from one of the recruit classes. There will be a lot that both sides can share that would benefit each other. We can even get you some range time, even time with King County SWAT if you'd like, I know their firearms instructor is also a ranked competitive shooter and might also benefit from some of what you have to offer. Or, force on force with sim and or airsoft.

Perfectly willing to meet your stipulations on some exercises and tests that you think will best showcase the IMA stuff you do, just be willing to accept some exercises that will go toward answering the questions we want to ask from a direct tactical/officer survival standpoint. Hint: those will mostly be force on force training like demonstrating how you would do weapon retention, how you would use your stuff to function from the ground in a weapons based environment, etc. Basically from the sounds of it, you are already doing these things, it will just be edu-ma-cating us on how to do it better.

You'd be in good company, the likes of Erik Paulson, Burton Richardson, Rickson Gracie, and even some *gasp* RUSSIAN cops and military have trained with Arrestlers, bringing what they had to the table and making the discipline better.....and professionals safer.

Last edited by KIT : 06-10-2008 at 10:37 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 11:04 PM   #91
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
Perfectly willing to meet your stipulations on some exercises and tests that you think will best showcase the IMA stuff you do, just be willing to accept some exercises that will go toward answering the questions we want to ask from a direct tactical/officer survival standpoint. Hint: those will mostly be force on force training like demonstrating how you would do weapon retention, how you would use your stuff to function from the ground in a weapons based environment, etc.
Just for the fun of it, let's simplify what Dan does and say that in essence it's some very beneficial form of weight-lifting or cardio, etc. In other words, he's trying to say (as I understand him) that what he's doing can contribute to the physical "conditioning" (or something like that) of various encounters. Of course I realize this isn't really the case, but let's say it sort of is. What you're essentially getting back to are "how does this apply to our in-house techniques"... and you want to base your evaluation on techniques, pretty clearly.

What if Dan is some 75-year-old guy and couldn't hack it on the mat with some young buck... would that mean that what he knows wouldn't cut it? Or let's say that Dan is clueless about standardly acceptable force-on-force encounters that are acceptable protocol for LEO's.... what conclusion will the 'evaluaters' make other than "his techniques don't work for what we do?". You see my point... you've gone back to a techniques discussion and evaluation format, as far as I can see.

Rob John never really trained in submission-grappling and made the mistake (in my opinion) of "rolling" to show some of the advantages of some of the strength/conditioning and jin training. The evaluation I read from you was more about how good his ground-game was. Where Rob made the mistake, in my opinion, was in being a good guy and trying to play the other guy's game... and he got judged on the other guy's game as a result.

One suggestion I've made a number of times is that these forms of strength are just being explored and developed by westerners. No one is an expert in the full curriculum of these strengths, among all the westerners I know. In other words, it's more of a "hey look at this.... maybe the Asians weren't so shallow after all". Instead of acknowledging that, we get back into this "see if you can play our games and beat us" discussions. It really bothers me because it's been pretty openly declared that no one is claiming high-level expertise, but time and time again it goes back to "let's see you prove it in our choice of format".

On the other hand, when I have suggested, again time after time, that if someone wants to see a real martial expert do some of these things, go see Expert A or Expert B... but no one really wants to do that. If they do go see a real martial expert, they don't really want to try them on.... it comes back time and again to "let's get the western proponents to prove it in our arena or it's no good."

How about if I arrange for a real big-dog to come in, a real known bone-crusher, and I suggest that you meet him at the arena of my choosing and we'll evaluate whether all of the Arrestling curriculum is any good? Sounds sort of insulting when it's put like that, so of course I would never say it like that. But I read some of these suggestions about jin/kokyu and ki discussions being tested in technique-oriented environments the same way. It's like several years of conversation keep coming back to the same topic time after time.

Kevin, as an example, could very clearly have said to a much smaller Akuzawa something like "I want to try it out and see if it works.... I'll do my thing and you do yours". But he wouldn't get to set the "rules of engagement" and get Akuzawa to play by the rules he knows, if he'd done that. Wait.... Akuzawa doesn't know the rules of engagement that Kevin (I'm using this as an example; don't take it personally) wants to use and he might do something sudden and very damaging, so that's not really acceptable, is it? So my view is that both offers to meet up with Dan, etc., want to not only focus on technique, but the further implication is that the technique will be tested in suggested areas that Dan (or me, or Akuzawa, or Chen You Tse, or whoever) haven't trained to engage in.

So why do we always return to technique when the discussion is about strength skills? Basically all you need to see are probably a few examples of hitting (Kevin saw some already, though), personal engagement in a few basic examples, etc., that show the advantages of the general strengths, and that should clarify what everyone is talking about. Go back and read Dan's post... it was actually pretty funny in that he was saying sort of the same thing. Read the last sentence or two in order to see his punchline.

FWIW

Mike Sigman

Last edited by Mike Sigman : 06-10-2008 at 11:08 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 12:36 AM   #92
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

The offer stands.

If you are unwilling to discuss the subject on our terms, bow out - again. The discussion is about Military Training Methodologies - to include TECHNIQUE and strength skills.

Based on what I have read from Dan over the years, he has more potential for meaningful exchange in this area than you do, anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 08:02 AM   #93
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
The offer stands.

If you are unwilling to discuss the subject on our terms, bow out - again. The discussion is about Military Training Methodologies - to include TECHNIQUE and strength skills.

Based on what I have read from Dan over the years, he has more potential for meaningful exchange in this area than you do, anyway.
Missed the whole point again, didn't you?

"Meaningful exchange"? I've been around long enough to understand who is capable of meaningful exchange and who is never going to get the point.

Ask Kevin if punching/hitting ability has any place in military combat training. See if he got enough data from an exchange with Akuzawa to be able to form an opinion about whether Akuzawa had something in the way of just hitting that would be useful in the military. I suspect he did, but I don't see any comments about where that might be useful or how.

Good luck in finding people who feel compelled to meet your criteria before they'll teach you anything.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 08:57 AM   #94
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

No, Mike, once again, you have. Please bow out again if you have nothing further to offer, you repetition of the same themes and rationalizations is not furthering the discussion.

Of the people posting on this thread, the ones who HAVE stepped forward to train (and yes roll) with Rob and Ark and attempted to meet with others on their terms are - Kevin and I.

We have discussed "punching/hitting ability" and many other things, as our respective professions require much, much more to keep people safe.

Dan, I thought of perhaps a better idea. George Ledyard, whom I believe has trained with you, also is a Washington State DT Master Instructor.

If he is reading this thread, and is willing to accomodate, that may be a better venue for this discussion both on and off the mat. They would have a better appreciation of how IMA may apply specifically to LE and may be able to bridge any perceived technical versus theoretical gaps we might encounter coming from our individual perspectives. George has some students who do systema, too, as I recall, which may make for an even more interesting exchange.

Would you be willing, George?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 09:13 AM   #95
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
Of the people posting on this thread, the ones who HAVE stepped forward to train (and yes roll) with Rob and Ark and attempted to meet with others on their terms are - Kevin and I.
You rolled with Ark? Kevin rolled with Ark? Ever gone to see someone like Chen You Tse, Wang Hai Jun, or others? Take a look at someone like Jim Sorrentino or Ellis Amdur and how when they're really interested in something they immediately branch out to take a look at the real experts, not just the students, as part of their training curiosity. You guys might look into some wider data gathering.... if you're really interested.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 11:09 AM   #96
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Ark? Not yet, that couldnt happen last time due to a scheduling conflict. Soon, I hope.

Dan - he never called me back when last he was in Seattle, but I have it on good authority that he was trying to pack in as much time as he could with his teacher, his reason for being there, so no issue there. This way I am trying to get a jump on it and schedule something beforehand.

Since you mention Ellis, whom I trained with for a few years, I will point out that he specifically sought and seeks out skilled grapplers (wrestling, Judo, BJJ, sub grappling) in order to hone his training. He is no quibbler when it comes to "gathering data" globally - with experts of all approaches. On the mat in conditions he doesn't control. He routinely does sumo and rolls with his students!

Toby Threadgill - another man whose answer to similar requests was "sure, let's hit the mat!"

Tim Cartmell - IMA/BJJ expert and successful competitor at the highest levels of the sport.

I've also trained with Don Angier, Chuck Clark's "aiki-newaza," Jim King, a senior student of Vlad, rolled with another instructor at a Cartmell seminar (another man bold enough to step outside his own little world)

And of course Rob - a student, to be sure, but one with a willingness to challenge himself and test his stuff outside of his comfort zone in order to expand what he can do.

One can only wonder how much further along he will be when he is say, your age. By then he may be a BJJ black belt, Ark's Aunkai successor, and have a winning record in MMA!

Imagine that! Actually, turns out I must thank you, Mike this discussion has ended up being more fruitful than I thought!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 11:54 AM   #97
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
Ark? Not yet, that couldnt happen last time due to a scheduling conflict. Soon, I hope.

Dan - he never called me back when last he was in Seattle, but I have it on good authority that he was trying to pack in as much time as he could with his teacher, his reason for being there, so no issue there. This way I am trying to get a jump on it and schedule something beforehand.

Since you mention Ellis, whom I trained with for a few years, I will point out that he specifically sought and seeks out skilled grapplers (wrestling, Judo, BJJ, sub grappling) in order to hone his training. He is no quibbler when it comes to "gathering data" globally - with experts of all approaches. On the mat in conditions he doesn't control. He routinely does sumo and rolls with his students!

Toby Threadgill - another man whose answer to similar requests was "sure, let's hit the mat!"

Tim Cartmell - IMA/BJJ expert and successful competitor at the highest levels of the sport.

I've also trained with Don Angier, Chuck Clark's "aiki-newaza," Jim King, a senior student of Vlad, rolled with another instructor at a Cartmell seminar (another man bold enough to step outside his own little world)

And of course Rob - a student, to be sure, but one with a willingness to challenge himself and test his stuff outside of his comfort zone in order to expand what he can do.

One can only wonder how much further along he will be when he is say, your age. By then he may be a BJJ black belt, Ark's Aunkai successor, and have a winning record in MMA!

Imagine that! Actually, turns out I must thank you, Mike this discussion has ended up being more fruitful than I thought!
I think once again we're back into "rolling" as being your primary concern. The puzzling part to me is that I don't see any confusion with most other people in the difference between "rolling"/ (or you name your favorite martial art) and the fact that the internal-strength concept is separate from any individual martial art. These forms of body-skills can be trained into any martial art and used from rudimentary levels to sophisticated levels, from weak levels to very powerful levels... depends on how and how-hard you train.

So we're looking at a particular form of strength-building (and it also has a very important aspect of force-vector handling that makes it formidable in martial arts). So how many of the people you've personally seen are real experts in that strength/forces-manipulation skill? And why is it you can't understand that the topic is these skills and not whether someone who does those skills must be able to do sports-grappling, etc.? Are you able to see that it's a separate topic? As I've said, if you want to see some martial devastation, I'll be happy to do what I can to arrange a meetup with you and some really powerful guy.... but frankly, I'm at a loss why you and Kevin can't divorce the skills from the need to "roll".

Incidentally, I appreciate MMA. I think it's a step forward, and I've been watching those steps forward for many years, from judo to karate to Silat to Wing Chun to BJJ to MMA, and so forth. Each step of the way, a big crowd thinks that they've reached the ultimate stage... and each time some improvement(s) come along. Or often, like in the case of Silat, there is a legitimately great fighting system among the true higher ups, but the western "experts" tend to all wind up doing parodies of the real art... so the real art fades from view after a while.

The one thing I think that MMA and submission-grappling miss is this kind of power. Dan wants to put this kind of power into submission grappling, but I don't think they're ready for it, frankly. And besides, I don't know how much of this stuff Dan really knows or the training procedures for the bigger power. What he shows may or may not be incomplete... it's his business. But I don't have much urge to try to show these training procedures to military or LEO people. Mainly because I don't think it's been fully systematized yet... it's too early. Maybe the next generation.

I get a lot of insights by watching videos and seeing things that I simply couldn't see before I had trained a lot and I had met with people like Chen Xiaowang and a few others. Most martial-arts is sort of bogus in its effectiveness when you see a guy in person, as opposed to when you see some video performance. This problem is made worse by the number of "masters" who have students who shill for them, take dives, etc. Then I met someone like Chen Xiaowang who threw me vertically straight up in the air after he let me try to take him down... he brought me face down into the floor to show that it could have all ended right there. It's not the techniques (although those are superb in the way he uses the power, I'm saying it's not the techniques that are important)... it's the power. The correct and traditional approach is to study the power first; then worry about the techniques.

BTW... here's one of those innocuous-looking videos. At 2:15 there's a casual comment about a "horrible" repercussion from the height he has. In the old days I wouldn't have even noticed that. Now that I've felt him personally and seen him literally shake a whole building with the amount of power he can release, I realize that he could very easily break the skull of the guy in the video. That kind of power is not known, trained, or developed in MMA. It ends fights. Because you've never seen someone able to do it doesn't mean it's not there... it's just not taught to people outside of these secretive arts. It is not shown off just to satisfy someone's curiosity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J85ARLul9h8

And not that I'm trying to convince you or Kevin. As I've said before in many posts, the reason I sometimes get into discussions is not because I want to argue a particular point; I do it so that I can be certain the younger, upcoming generation gets to hear an important (IMO) side of the consideration.

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:16 PM   #98
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Wow.

took me a while to read through this. I will see if I can summarize my points decently....

1. First, I have never "rolled' with Rob, Ark, or Mike. I have never gotten with Dan either so can't comment on anything there. So, any comments concerning their abilities or skills in this area go without comment.

2. To summarize my limited exposure to Rob, Ark, and Mike. Interesting skills, very good body skills, lots of power, demonstrated very well the skills that they said they could demonstrate. I think they have been very generous in their teaching, enthusiasm, and sincerity.

3. I found that I have many weaknesses in the areas that they teach and they presented many exercises and things to do to improve those things. I have started working on some of them, plan to fully implement them as I form new habits in conditioning and ways to move.

4. From an aikido perspective training with them has enhanced my understanding of what it is we are trying to accomplish in aikido and how to improve what we do. In some cases I have been able to make some small adjustments immediately that I feel have made some benefit already.

5. From a BJJ and Combatives perspective very little of this has been of help so far. I don't necessarily attribute it to the fact that it does not work in that environment, only that the level of conditioning necessary to move with the level of speed, timing, and cooperation, postion are much greater and thus it will take some time.

6. I am interested in how this training overlaps or integrates into the military combatives environment.

7. There has been much implication and conjecture about the realitive value of this type of training and what it will do for you. Anything from carrying a rucksack further with more weight, to making you a better, stronger, faster fighter in a way that gives you a competitive advantage over someone that has not trained in this manner.

8. Guys like Kit and I say, "fine" you have us sold....now show us...in that environment. We are not saying that to debunk or to discredit you, but in all sincerity as we have the best interest in improving not only our own training, but those of our fellow soldiers and officers.

I am not sure why this always degrades into a fight. I think it is because we simply look at different evaluation criteria?

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:22 PM   #99
Mark Kruger
Dojo: Aikido of Eugene
Location: Eugene/Springfield, Oregon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 40
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

I suspect that neither Kevin or Kit are hung up on technique. It is a question of mission statement, and how _anything_ can be applied towards achieving the mission statement. It isn't about side controls or striking, it is about controlling and arresting suspects or defeating a member of the opposing force that has closed to contact distances. How these objectives are achieved... that can vary. I suspect that part of the reason they are here is to look at other ways of completing the objective.

There has to be a metric (I prefer objective ones) in order to make comparisons. These metrics must reflect the objectives of the mission statement to be of any use at all. If the mission defeat a member of the opposing force that has closed to contact distance, measuring my ability to shoot small groups at 50 yards with a pistol is a complete waste. I think this is where the rolling, FOF, and "Best Ranger" or "toughest cop" competitions come in.

Finally, I think that neither Kevin or Kit are Bruce Wayne in disguise. They, like me, have a job and obligations that mean they have to be very careful about how they expend their training time/effort/dollars. Do I spend the weekend in Seattle with Rob and Ark, or do I go to Portland and get my backside kicked by Southnarc? (I got luck on that one and trained with Southnarc in Portland one weekend and went to Stanford to train with Ark and Rob the next.) Do I spend $1100 to train for 4 days with Larry Vickers, or do I spend the same money on an airline ticket to visit Wang Hai Jun?

Kevin, Kit, if I've misread your intent, please accept my apologizes.

Respectfully,
Mark Kruger
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:57 PM   #100
Kevin Leavitt
 
Kevin Leavitt's Avatar
Dojo: Team Combat USA
Location: Olympia, Washington
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,376
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

No, Mark, your dead on.

I was getting ready to write a on the topic of technique which you already mentioned. Correct we are not addressing technique at all.

We used to have a technique based system in the Army. We got rid of it. Not because the techniques were not valid ones, it was just the CONDITIONS in which they were practiced in were static in nature.

I excelled in that environment with my Karate background and several years of aikido under my belt. As well as every TKD BB, Kempo BB, Wing Chung BB.

Ironically wrestlers, grapplers, and BJJ guys were disenfranchised because they never got the opportunity to work on their skills in this environment!

Anyway, SOF guys and Ranger Battalions that actually deployed dismissed the training as irrelevant.

So, a few guys, one in particular were asked to re-assess the program and figure out what needed to be done to improve the program.

So, that is where we are today. We apply combatives in a dynamic, full spectrum, live training environment.

We took (and still do) alot of heat from those that thought that the old method was the way to go. They thought that teaching the "macro" techniques that we were teaching were detrimental and could easily be defeated by a groin kick, or an eye gouge.

The typical response from a technique perspective is "well I would never fight on the ground or from that position and if I did well I would eye gouge, (insert your favorite technique here).

To be honest I went through this stage as well. I went to the Combatives school with over 10 years of solid TMA experience under my belt with my aikido "multiple opponent", I am too lethal for school house to actually do it perspective.

I had guys with less than 4 months training in Army Combatives dropping me and putting me in rear naked chokes, or in positions in which they could really hurt me.

It was embarrassing and humiliating and left me wondering about the value of my 10 years of training.

Obviously I got over it and got on the wagon.

Suprisingly it did not cause me to abandon my training. I came to realize that it was still relevant, I just needed to consider it from a different perspective in timing, speed, force, aliveness.

Conditions make all the difference in the world.

So, today I have a different perspective on the Conditions of training. I split my time between Combatives and Aikido. I work different aspects in each of those environments.

Combatives we focus on training conditions that help us improve our abilities in Combat. It is not technique focused, but Conditions focused. We focus on "points of failure". That is you have a guy on your side, back, on top of you, closing the distance etc. We then work on developing successful strategies, skills, and habits to successfully commit to muscle memory.

Aikido, which "should" be "internal" training allows me to focus on structure and alignment, movement, and a slower pace.

Occassionally we wil gear up to a situational environment that more closely represents the combatives environment, loads, and stress.

Anyway, Techniques do not rule the training we do, it is the Conditions.

  Reply With Quote

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What technique would you apply to neutralize Brazilian Jujitsu attacker Tijani1150 Techniques 483 03-16-2016 08:02 PM
Self-defense art? Michael Varin General 227 08-21-2012 10:22 AM
Knife Randori Videos ChrisHein Training 308 05-10-2008 03:07 PM
Resistance training overview: the four basic levels G DiPierro Training 17 11-04-2007 04:18 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 PM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate