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 06-11-2008, 05:00 PM   #101
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
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.
Heh. Well, if someone claimed to be an expert in submission grappling AND they claim to have internal skills, I'd ask to see the skills before I'd ask to see them out on the mat. I'd have a totally different set of testing criteria I'd use before I'd invite someone to "show how internal strength is used in karate, submission grappling, Aikido, Taiji, Xingyi, or etc. But then, I know what to look for.

If someone like Dan showed up and offered himself as a subject for jin/kokyu skills and offered to show his ki-development, it would only take me a minute or two to see what he knows and also see how far he's worked to develop them (yes, you can have all the way from hobby-level up to olympic-athlete levels of these skills). That's one subject. Whether he is skilled in any particular martial art or can, say, hit a baseball using his ki (this can be done, BTW), that would be a secondary topic that again would include different levels, etc.... as Dan noted himself.

What I'm saying is that it's not clear to me that you or Kit really understand what the topic is, in terms of internal-strength skills. I have yet to see either one of you functionally discuss what the skills are, what you noticed in terms of physical function at a workshop, or what part is in question. All I see is "let's roll". My counter to that is "let me set you up with somebody I know and let's just let you go at it".... because it makes about as much sense to me.

Let me try one more small example. At a few workshops in the past there were among the attendees various women around 65 years old. I treated them like anyone else. In all the instances, I made sure that those women at least learned how to launch a large male backwards through the air. No big deal, but I thought they'd enjoy being able to do it. None of them could even remotely do such a thing when they came in the door to the workshop, so learning this basic jin/kokyu skill was something new and gave them an effectiveness that could potentially be used in some reasonably innocuous encounter.

How do I know that being able to shove a large male away is useful in some sort of confrontation? Well, I think it's obvious enough that I shouldn't have to argue the point nor should I have to show up at her Taiji club or whatever and prove that such a skill/strength might actually be usable. I.e., I'm assuming that most people can extrapolate whether something has martial application or not, regardless of whether I do a follow-up visit and get checked out by her instructor... and tested on whether a strong push is really something that might have a martial application. Of course it has a martial application.... that's kind of a silly way to evaluate it. Will it beat everyone in the world? No. It gave her an advantage that she didn't have before she came to the workshop. Will it make her a world-class fighter? Probably not, but that's a different topic and totally up to her and what she wants to do, is capable of doing, and so forth.

My point is that I have yet to see any meaningful discussion or analysis of what you and Kit have seen.... it seems to always jump to "let's roll" or "let's test you". It's like some gap in the logic chain and I'm pretty sure (as are a few other people) that you guys haven't really thought through exactly what is going on, why it's effective, and so on. Seriously. So far it's like someone has said "weight training will help your boxing training" and you guys keep saying over and over again: "prove it by getting in the ring with our boxers". It's like some sort of disconnect.

Mike

Last edited by Mike Sigman : 06-11-2008 at 05:02 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:10 PM   #102
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

In the army we have the following pedagogy so to speak.

Task, Condition, Standards (T,C,S) and Situation

A Task might be:
Secure a Room

Conditions:
At night in a building replicating a house with furniture and unknown number of people, and full battle rattle. All personnel will be wearing Blauer Gear and Observer/Controllers trained in the scenario are present to ensure safety. OPFOR has no projectile weapon, but can take a weapon from soldiers if they can.

Standards:
All personnel in the building are secured with minimal use of force

The Situation then has to be defined. 4 man team enters building, it is dark, and full of clutter. First man enters the room and OPFOR comes from the right, and grabs soldier 1's weapon. Other 3 soldiers are not allowed to enter the room for 20 seconds. They then enter the room and secure the room according to SOP.

Contraints:

Furniture cannot be used as a weapon. No Knifes for this scenario. Full Contact allowed. O/Cs will supervise and stop fighting if they feel that fighter is not able to fight back or is in risk of serious injury.

Note that there is no mention of any techniques outside of the constraints imposed for safety.

(BTW, I made this up off the top of my head, so it is not a real one that we would use necessarily).

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:42 PM   #103
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
In the army we have the following pedagogy so to speak.

Task, Condition, Standards (T,C,S) and Situation

A Task might be:
Secure a Room

Conditions:
At night in a building replicating a house with furniture and unknown number of people, and full battle rattle. All personnel will be wearing Blauer Gear and Observer/Controllers trained in the scenario are present to ensure safety. OPFOR has no projectile weapon, but can take a weapon from soldiers if they can.

Standards:
All personnel in the building are secured with minimal use of force

The Situation then has to be defined. 4 man team enters building, it is dark, and full of clutter. First man enters the room and OPFOR comes from the right, and grabs soldier 1's weapon. Other 3 soldiers are not allowed to enter the room for 20 seconds. They then enter the room and secure the room according to SOP.

Contraints:

Furniture cannot be used as a weapon. No Knifes for this scenario. Full Contact allowed. O/Cs will supervise and stop fighting if they feel that fighter is not able to fight back or is in risk of serious injury.

Note that there is no mention of any techniques outside of the constraints imposed for safety.

(BTW, I made this up off the top of my head, so it is not a real one that we would use necessarily).
So if some average soldier went to, say, the base gym and got stronger, would he be better or worse at this TCS? Can we figure that out using our noodles or do we have to test it?

Conversely, you've been to at least two workshops where variations of internal strength were laid out for your observation. Using your noodle, would you say those strengths are an advantage or they have no particular relevance in a TCS?

Just to make an assumption, let me assume that you say yes, the types of strength-skills you've seen have some martial application and *possibly* (because you haven't seen them all and let's face it, you just got a quick look at what's there... you didn't see everything well enough to really understand) there are other advantages. The real question is whether you or some other military person can (1.) find someone to teach you a practical way to train those skills and (2.) whether you have time in your working day to practice those things so the the Return On Invested Time makes it worthwhile to your job. Those are the real questions, IMO. Whether these types of skills are a benefit is, or should be, as I've said before, a fairly easy extrapolation, assuming the laws of physics are the same around the world.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:44 PM   #104
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 Wrote:

Quote:
What I'm saying is that it's not clear to me that you or Kit really understand what the topic is, in terms of internal-strength skills. I have yet to see either one of you functionally discuss what the skills are, what you noticed in terms of physical function at a workshop, or what part is in question. All I see is "let's roll". My counter to that is "let me set you up with somebody I know and let's just let you go at it".... because it makes about as much sense to me.
Mike I have openly said this myself. I don't understand, but I see where it might be of application. Exploring this applicaiton is what I am interested in. I have never said "lets roll". I find that simply ridiculous unless their is a teaching point or an objective to be gained from the experience. It is never about proving or disproving anything, only about experiences and lessons to be learned from the process.

Mike Wrote:

Quote:
Let me try one more small example. At a few workshops in the past there were among the attendees various women around 65 years old. I treated them like anyone else. In all the instances, I made sure that those women at least learned how to launch a large male backwards through the air. No big deal, but I thought they'd enjoy being able to do it. None of them could even remotely do such a thing when they came in the door to the workshop, so learning this basic jin/kokyu skill was something new and gave them an effectiveness that could potentially be used in some reasonably innocuous encounter.
What would you define as an innocuous encounter? With a person? a car door? what?

What expectations do you think they went home with?

I think it is wonderful that you showed a couple of 65 year old ladies what is possible or potential.

Skill? Skill implies to me that they now have the ability to affect something on a regular and consitent basis, given a set of conditions/parameters.

What would that be?

Mike wrote:

Quote:
How do I know that being able to shove a large male away is useful in some sort of confrontation? Well, I think it's obvious enough that I shouldn't have to argue the point
I am assuming linkage of this sentence to your above one concerning innocuous.

So did they walk away with the expectation that they had a skill that was really useful? Or did they walk away with a false sense of empowerment?

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 05:52 PM   #105
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
So did they walk away with the expectation that they had a skill that was really useful? Or did they walk away with a false sense of empowerment?
Wouldn't the obvious answer be simply that they walked away with a physical skill that they didn't have before? Is such a skill an martial advantage or not? It was in some of the anecdotes about Ueshiba, but mayby not when it's just old ladies. We seem to be going in an endless circle that always goes back to a focus on a technique... not how something was done and whether the basic skill is useable. This is like 3 years now.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:07 PM   #106
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 wrote:

Quote:
So if some average soldier went to, say, the base gym and got stronger, would he be better or worse at this TCS? Can we figure that out using our noodles or do we have to test it?
Maybe, maybe not, there are so many other factors that come into play. Frankly this is why I am attracted to what you do, I think that these skills might be helpful in many ways that just running and lifting do not help. However, is there a benefit to be gained over other training regimes for this TCS?

I don't know, and I suspect it would not be at this point. lots of the training that is becoming all the rage in "crossfit" www.crossfit.com probably is better suited than your training for the average soldier.

Now, if you can show a distinct ability that ties directly to martial or physical performance...well then you have a case and a new job!

My hope is that what you are doing DOES have a few advantages for those that care to spend the time training.

This weeks issue of Army Times talks about changing our fitness strategies...more core, agility, balance focused. So, I do think you guys are in the right ball park.

Then you have that many soldiers aren't really concerned with being the best they can be...it is a smaller subset.

Quote:
Conversely, you've been to at least two workshops where variations of internal strength were laid out for your observation. Using your noodle, would you say those strengths are an advantage or they have no particular relevance in a TCS?
No they have relevance, just not sure how much and where at this point. I think you tend to get a little offended by this, and you shouldn't not be, as it is not intended to be a reflection upon you, only my own experiences and applications.

You have to focus on the fact that guys like Kit and I are being very specific about the applications. I know this must frustrate you to no end!

Quote:
Just to make an assumption, let me assume that you say yes, the types of strength-skills you've seen have some martial application and *possibly* (because you haven't seen them all and let's face it, you just got a quick look at what's there... you didn't see everything well enough to really understand) there are other advantages. The real question is whether you or some other military person can (1.) find someone to teach you a practical way to train those skills and (2.) whether you have time in your working day to practice those things so the the Return On Invested Time makes it worthwhile to your job. Those are the real questions, IMO. Whether these types of skills are a benefit is, or should be, as I've said before, a fairly easy extrapolation, assuming the laws of physics are the same around the world
Good summation, and I agree with you. the real perspective for me for why I do this is this:

1. It really doesn't take much time.
2. The benefits for my physical conditioning and health are definitely there.
3. If I gain nothing else than a better core and range of motion and sense of self and balance..then they are worth it.

So, in summary, I think the investment outweighs the downside by far!

However, when we get down to brass tacks on martial training, well heck there are so many other factors that enter into it that you must be concerned with that I am not sure there is a signular distinct advantage over other forms of training such as what is offered by www.crossfit.com.

that is where I am right now in my view.

Mike, thanks for your time, and I hope that you will still let me come train with you in the future.

I enjoy the discussion here with you a great deal and value you significantly as a teacher of these skills!

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:19 PM   #107
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 wrote:

Quote:
Wouldn't the obvious answer be simply that they walked away with a physical skill that they didn't have before? Is such a skill an martial advantage or not? It was in some of the anecdotes about Ueshiba, but mayby not when it's just old ladies. We seem to be going in an endless circle that always goes back to a focus on a technique... not how something was done and whether the basic skill is useable. This is like 3 years now.
No I don't think so. I think you and I simply disagree on perspective here. I think it stems around how we measure "skill". I contend that they have no skill whatsoever. (martially) Physically, well I'd agree that they might have "skill" if they could replicate it over and over again, under the same conditions. Philosophically speaking though is it a "skill" if they can only do it under those conditions.

To me it is sort of like showing someone how to pound a nail in a board with a hammer. They sort of do walk a way with a skill I suppose, but if they cannot do anything but pound it in a 2x4 that provides them no utility, then is it really a skill, or a "trick"?

Skill would imply that they could build a birdhouse after the workshop.

I used to run into this logic all the time with Sr Officers that would attend my training course prior to going down range. They would say "hey, I don't need to go to this course...I already qualified on my M-16". (usually JAG officers). I would answer like this.

Okay sir, do a functions check and perform immediate actions right now...GO! DO IT. YOUR BEING SHOT AT!!! DO IT!

They would sheepishly look at me and say...."well, I can't do it THAT way!"

I would respond..."Sir, that is why you are here!' "Can I help you with anything else". (Answer was always NO).

You see, they would make the logical mental mistake of confusing what they could mentally concieve of as what they were physically able to perform. Watching powerpoint, and being able to mentally walk through the steps, or being able to do it calmly in controlled conditions are one thing....

Being able to do it under stress without thought, and replicate it over and over...that is SKILL.

Everything else is an "exercise" or a "trick" in my book.

Yes, we have been going in circles for the last 3 years.

I just think it is simply a different perspective or criteria application.

Nothing to do with how I value you or what you do.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:27 PM   #108
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
Now, if you can show a distinct ability that ties directly to martial or physical performance...well then you have a case and a new job!
I actually can show an increase in physical performance pretty easily. In fact, if you go back a few (or more) posts of mine, you'll see where I mentioned that I (as does Dan) do a fair amount of physical labor and I've evaluated whether these skills are substantially helpful (or whether they're wishful thinking on my part) for quite some time. It's a laydown... they're more helpful and voila', that's exactly what ancient farmers, etc., thought, too. And they went by results, too, not wishful thinking. But... and this has been my point all along... it should only take a couple of examples to be able to see that.

In terms of a new job, thanks, but I really have no interest. I've been involved in martial-arts and the military before and it's not cutting-edge enough to suit me. They have trouble deciding whether weight-training is beneficial or not.

Quote:
You have to focus on the fact that guys like Kit and I are being very specific about the applications. I know this must frustrate you to no end!
Doesn't frustrate me at all. I understand the pro's and con's of that particular mindset. I've been there and seen it before. To me it's tough enough to find the few guys who can get this stuff kick-started in current martial arts and qigong without having to contend with military (and paramilitary) mindsets. Remind me to tell you sometime about my encounter at a local picnic with one of the local police trainer who taught submission and restraint tactics and who was also a BJJ practitioner (according to him; I never checked into that part of it). I'll bet he's got me pegged as some sort of fluke that caught him on a bad day. I.e., he'll never change the way he thinks or the things he focuses on.
Quote:
Mike, thanks for your time, and I hope that you will still let me come train with you in the future.
Well don't forget that the next class in Pennsylvania is for people who have certain basic-level skills already. I.e., they've practiced.
Quote:
I enjoy the discussion here with you a great deal and value you significantly as a teacher of these skills!
Hey, if we don't argue, we don't really think. As Chas Clements once said, "A group of martial-artists get together, a fight breaks out.... quelle surprise." However, I'm no more emotionally invested in an argument/debate than you are in the average roll on the mats. It's what keeps us alive.

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:36 PM   #109
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 wrote:
Quote:
Well don't forget that the next class in Pennsylvania is for people who have certain basic-level skills already. I.e., they've practiced.
Yea, I don't want to be like one of the Sr Officers in my example above now do I!

Thanks Mike.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 06:41 PM   #110
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
To me it is sort of like showing someone how to pound a nail in a board with a hammer. They sort of do walk a way with a skill I suppose, but if they cannot do anything but pound it in a 2x4 that provides them no utility, then is it really a skill, or a "trick"?
It's a skill. I promise. And having patiently put up with a lot of people who want to build things while they learn to hammer a goddamn simple nail, I assure you that that part's the skill. Now whether they can build their own porch-deck or house-extension (what you'd call the real skill), I'll tell you that if they sure they can build those things sooner or later, but they'll be a lot better off if they'd learn how to pound a nail first. That's the primary skill... I don't care what they do with it after that. It's up to them.
Quote:

Skill would imply that they could build a birdhouse after the workshop.

I used to run into this logic all the time with Sr Officers that would attend my training course prior to going down range. They would say "hey, I don't need to go to this course...I already qualified on my M-16". (usually JAG officers). I would answer like this.

Okay sir, do a functions check and perform immediate actions right now...GO! DO IT. YOUR BEING SHOT AT!!! DO IT!

They would sheepishly look at me and say...."well, I can't do it THAT way!"

I would respond..."Sir, that is why you are here!' "Can I help you with anything else". (Answer was always NO).
That is so illogical, but so typical of the military mindset. Different worlds.
Quote:
You see, they would make the logical mental mistake of confusing what they could mentally concieve of as what they were physically able to perform. Watching powerpoint, and being able to mentally walk through the steps, or being able to do it calmly in controlled conditions are one thing....
The basic skill is knowing knowing how to use the rifle. The chosen application is actually a different "skill", not the original one. Like I said, you confuse the basic skill with the secondary skill. Maybe it's my engineering way of thinking in modules? But wait... my way of breaking things into modules also allows me to recombine modules into different "sets", so there's a holistic advantage to modular thinking.
Quote:
Being able to do it under stress without thought, and replicate it over and over...that is SKILL.
Nope... that is really two different "skills". In other words, it's like the difference between being able to think logically and being able to think logically on your feet. Often and usually taught as two different skills.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 07:01 PM   #111
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

I see your way of thinking reference Skill. Makes sense to me. I tend to view things from an endstate point of view these days. Functional Skill is more important than basic skill (to me).

I think it is why we have BJJ guys somewhat martially proficient in 2 years vice guys that train for 10 years in other arts and still are working on the "basics" and cannot really do much with them.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 07:44 PM   #112
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
I think it is why we have BJJ guys somewhat martially proficient in 2 years vice guys that train for 10 years in other arts and still are working on the "basics" and cannot really do much with them.
Yeah, but this is the same sort of comparisons that I think are sort of bogus. Most western parodies of Asian martial arts tend to produce people who do parodies of the arts. Very few are powerful and realistic, which does a disservice to the original arts. Go look at strip-mall karate, as an example (I won't mention a lot of Aikido out there because I'm such a sport. ). If someone compares high-school wrestling to strip-mall karate, the high-school wrestling almost always wins hands-down. Among people who know anything about martial arts, this is a simplistic argument and it says very little when it's made as an example. It just points out the obvious.

I could easily say that high-school wrestling produces in 2 years better fighters than 10 years of karate at a strip mall. No kidding. We could use a number of similar examples. I could also say that I've seen grapplers/wrestlers get damaged in *some* encounters where they went up against someone using techniques that were powerful and which they weren't familiar with. Does that encapsulate grapplers as losers? No. That's why I don't want to get into technique-oriented or style-oriented discussions... it's the discussion-of-choice of teenagers. Besides... anyone can lose a fight (show me one really good fighter that has never lost a fight!).

However, without equivocating I can assure you that it's a certainty that overall strength and conditioning skills give an advantage when all things are tallied. What techniques or applications someone chooses to use strength, conditioning, jin, etc., skills for is their own decision. Those secondary considerations are open to debate and have been for thousands of years. That's why there are so many different Asian martial arts styles.

FWIW

Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 09:45 PM   #113
Timothy WK
Location: Chicago, IL
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 187
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote: View Post
1. It really doesn't take much time.
As I tried pointing out earlier, this isn't really true. There are certain aspects of these skills that can be taught quickly, but those aren't the aspects that allow for the real "magic", like Akuzawa walking around effortlessly with a 200+ lbs man on his back.

The real spectacular skillz that everyone drools over are predicated on a good 2-3 years---if not more---of conditioning. In the meanwhile you'll learn little tricks and make certain developments that will contribute to your strength and power, but it takes time before you'll be able to do the big stuff. At the recent Aunkai seminar, Rob John pointed out more than once that there were limits to what he could do, and in fact he could not resist the bigger people at the seminar (though he made them work).

But as Mike has been trying to say, you guys keep talking about two different things. The internal stuff is about conditioning/ strength building/ etc, not fighting per se. Why bring up how fast a BJJ player can learn to roll around the mat?

Last edited by Timothy WK : 06-11-2008 at 09:51 PM.

--Timothy Kleinert
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 10:49 PM   #114
Upyu
Dojo: Aunkai, Tokyo
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 591
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Timothy Walters Kleinert wrote: View Post
As I tried pointing out earlier, this isn't really true. There are certain aspects of these skills that can be taught quickly, but those aren't the aspects that allow for the real "magic", like Akuzawa walking around effortlessly with a 200+ lbs man on his back.
Not to put words in Kevin's mouth, but I think he was referring to time out of the day. Frequency is more important than length of time of anyone practice session.

There are a bunch of exercises I could think of off the top of my head that could easily kill two birds with one stone, especially since I take it that the military and LE types do train with heavy loads etc.
Given a well thought out methodology, I think it would be feasible to hammer out a PT regimen that could be added or perhaps replace certain parts of the current PT regimen. I think the real kicker would be that the actual shape of a lot of exercises that most people know "squats," "push ups" etc could be kept, as long as you can teach the people doing the exercises exactly what they are working on, and for what effect...

Anyone want to donate some guinea pigs?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2008, 11:13 PM   #115
Tim Fong
 
Tim Fong's Avatar
Dojo: Aunkai
Location: California
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 181
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Hi Tim,

I guess for me, I look at this as another kind of conditioning...like weight training. And just like weight training, I think that there are probably routines/methods that are optimum for particular tactical goals. I.e. one doesn't want to do an isolation/ bodybuilding routine (aimed at maximizing hypertrophy) if one wants to maximize performance at standup wrestling. And there's probably some kind of optimum mix of conditioning for strength, vs. working different engagement scenarios.

But hey, I'm just a skinny guy, what do I know
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 06:31 AM   #116
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

Yes, that is what I am talking bout guys. Frequency (daily investment).

The Army is really disjointed when it comes to fitness. In many ways we are catching on to things. In others we art not. For example our senior leaders going to war college get these type of classes. (Over 40 crowd).

https://apfri.carlisle.army.mil/web/...essClasses.htm

IMO, these program a "okay" but a not integrated into any program or an endstate.

We go back to measuring fitness based on push ups, sit ups, and a 2 mile run. (which does not take much effort to maintain a decent score either).

Rob, check out the instructions for the Army's 1946 test on this link.

http://www.ihpra.org/1946%20(World%2...ess%20Test.htm

it hold you to a very strict way of doing push ups. today, we have alot of latitude for doing them however we want, which allows a testee to target the muscle groups that he wants to, and they can shift around, rest, and move to different places....bad form. Restricted in the manner that of the 1946 test would mean that many would fail.

I think that you are correct and are on to something with your thoughts.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 02:12 PM   #117
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Tim Fong wrote: View Post
Hi Tim,

I guess for me, I look at this as another kind of conditioning...like weight training. And just like weight training, I think that there are probably routines/methods that are optimum for particular tactical goals. I.e. one doesn't want to do an isolation/ bodybuilding routine (aimed at maximizing hypertrophy) if one wants to maximize performance at standup wrestling. And there's probably some kind of optimum mix of conditioning for strength, vs. working different engagement scenarios.
But hey, I'm just a skinny guy, what do I know
[Emphasis Mine]

Apparently a perceptive skinny guy, since you are grasping what we are getting at.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 03:10 PM   #118
Mark Kruger
Dojo: Aikido of Eugene
Location: Eugene/Springfield, Oregon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 40
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

I've talked a little bit about the mission focus of military training. There are some other points I think are relevant to teaching internal skills to soldiers:

Time frame:
US Army combined basic combat training and infantry specialty training takes something on the order of 16 weeks. For US Marines, basic training is 13 weeks long. Marines with an infantry specialty get 8 weeks in an infantry training battalion.

How much skill development can we see in this sort of time frame? Don't forget that while the recruits can spend some time on internal work, they must spend time on all the other skills they are currently being taught. Another alternative is to teach these skills during the selection process for more elite units. While the training periods become longer, the demands placed on the candidates grows at an even faster rate.

The expectation might be that the basics of internal skills might be taught during basic training and that the soldier would continue to develop them during their time in the service. I think that this assumes a rather rosy view of the operational demands placed on the soldier.

Exclusivity and scaling:
Having the master teach the "goods" only to his top student just doesn't cut it. There are about 500,000 soldiers in the regular US army. With the USANG and USAR components included, you are looking at something like a million soldiers. Again, the alternative is to teach these skills to elite units. Even then, there is a vast difference between the size of the typical dojo and the approximately 3000 members of the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Teaching these large number is not the issue... you train the trainers. However, whoever teaches the teachers will have to be vastly more open about what they do without losing the quality we seek.

Respectfully,
Mark Kruger
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 04:06 PM   #119
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:
Mark Kruger wrote: View Post
I've talked a little bit about the mission focus of military training. There are some other points I think are relevant to teaching internal skills to soldiers:

Time frame:
US Army combined basic combat training and infantry specialty training takes something on the order of 16 weeks. For US Marines, basic training is 13 weeks long. Marines with an infantry specialty get 8 weeks in an infantry training battalion.

How much skill development can we see in this sort of time frame? Don't forget that while the recruits can spend some time on internal work, they must spend time on all the other skills they are currently being taught. Another alternative is to teach these skills during the selection process for more elite units. While the training periods become longer, the demands placed on the candidates grows at an even faster rate.

The expectation might be that the basics of internal skills might be taught during basic training and that the soldier would continue to develop them during their time in the service. I think that this assumes a rather rosy view of the operational demands placed on the soldier.

Exclusivity and scaling:
Having the master teach the "goods" only to his top student just doesn't cut it. There are about 500,000 soldiers in the regular US army. With the USANG and USAR components included, you are looking at something like a million soldiers. Again, the alternative is to teach these skills to elite units. Even then, there is a vast difference between the size of the typical dojo and the approximately 3000 members of the 75th Ranger Regiment.

Teaching these large number is not the issue... you train the trainers. However, whoever teaches the teachers will have to be vastly more open about what they do without losing the quality we seek.
Perfect....

William "Ranger" Hazen
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 07:21 PM   #120
KIT
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 140
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

That may be where LE might have an advantage: they are a "captive audience" over the course of a career.

If you could institute even a few exercises a few times a year over the course of a career, they will never realize the full potential (again, as with any DT, firearms, etc.) but may benefit in a small way.

Others may take more of an active interest, and actually put some time into the practice.

Mark

I'm picturing an "internally turbocharged" Default a la Snarc....

We should get together before the next ECQC.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2008, 08:29 PM   #121
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Mark Kruger wrote: View Post
Teaching these large number is not the issue... you train the trainers. However, whoever teaches the teachers will have to be vastly more open about what they do without losing the quality we seek.
I understand your point, Mark, but I'm personally not some outsider to the military and I've been chasing-down and consolidating information on this stuff for more than 25 years, so I know something about it even though I'll be the first to admit that there's always more out there.

Around the general principles, a number of various tangential approaches have been developed in Asia, each thinking it has "the best approach". That's what I've had to sort through for all these years, looking for the common skein, but my point is that the "best way" is a complex analysis.

To help my own research, I've tried "experts" in everything from Aikido to Taiji to Xingyi to Bagua to Karate to Wujiquan... you name it. Along the way, I've spent many hours trying various approaches, taught various approaches, and so on. I've done everything I can to refine the results (and the jin/kokyu stuff is only a part of the whole... you haven't seen the discussions on other parts of it, I'm more than certain). So my second point is that "being open" is really only a part of a more compex problem.

What I'm saying is that even with that many years and thinking that I've got the general framework of not only the jin but the ki development sort of in focus, I'm not sure that it's refined enough (in terms of condensing/codifying) to be presentable to a large-scale training situation, although I'm thinking about it at the moment (and it's an interesting thought-process). I.e, it's an interesting challenge. It's sort of like saying, how could you tailor this stuff so that it's most presentable and useable to, say, the "Boy Scouts", or to "seniors" or to "college athletics". Certainly the traditional, secretive approach is no good. But what if you're very open... how good would the syllabus work? There are a lot of questions not only about the syllabus, but also about the target audience and what their ability to handle it is.

So first of all, as far as someone like me is concerned, you need to ask yourself if someone would be really motivated to show this stuff to hoorah military trainers. Personally, I've been involved with a lot of military trainers in my life. If you have, too, then you should already know that there are problems not only on the teaching side, but on the learning side. The percentage of gung-ho hot-dogs in the training ranks leaves me a little bit cold because this is not some "by the numbers on my count, ladies" stuff that conforms to average PT. I.e., this is sophisticated enough that it's probably like deciding how much medical training you can funnel into EMT trainers while doing the best job at hand for everyone.

This internal-strength stuff is some fairly clever stuff and it's a bigger topic than a few weekend seminars... although I think it can be simplified and codified. It takes some thought to absorb and most of all it takes a repatterning of the way people move, something that is far more difficult. So it is sort of along the lines of a conditioning, but in many ways it's far more sophisticated than that.

Knowing that, the chances of someone gaming a person like me into "being open" are pretty small (just as playing on my "it's for the US military" sentiment are pretty small) because it's a lot more complex than some of these posters seem to realize.

Why would a qualified trainer want to get involved with the military or LEO in the first place? Is there some imperative that I'm missing? Personally, looking at the posts in this thread, I think the real problem is that, regardless of having been to a seminar or two, there is no real understanding of what the topic really is, so far, by some of the people in the discussion. It seems to boil down to "how does this stuff work in submission grappling?". Period. Show me a post that shows a greater understanding of the topic than that. If people have been to a workshop and they haven't really been able to formulate and articulate exactly what the factual aspects of these skills are, then all the talk about "testing", etc., seems premature and is probably more focused on testosterone than anything else.

Go back and look at the post where I used an example of a single, simple, focusable functional aspect, using a 65-year-old woman to make it clear, and yet the idea that an older woman could generate an outgoing force capable of lifting a 200+ pound male up off the ground and away didn't seem to ring the bell about functional usage. If defining and focusing the issues based on a simple example like that don't mean anything to the conversation, then it's not really a productive discussion, in my opinion. I.e., most of this discussion seems to be a thinly cloaked "try it against my style" discussion. And frankly, I'm not the only person that has seen it that way (i.e., if you think you can argue that this is about a serious analysis, please show me the quotes that include both sides of the potentials).

And let me hasten to add that I think it's possible there are gaps in the conversation all the way around, but I don't know for sure if that means that it's accurate to say that the lapses are all excusable.

One thing I do know is that I know I can look back in archived posts over the last 3 years and that I can find examples of the "why's" and "how-to's" that should be part of any discussion *before* there is this "come show me and me fellow trainers" stuff. What stuff, you might ask? The vague and undefined stuff that seems to boil down to a "let's roll with it" topic too often. Before the "show me" becomes an issue, I would think that the people who want to "roll" should show that they have some grasp of what the actual physical aspects are, what the benefits are, what the defining parameters are, and so forth. Someone who has been to one or two workshops should be able to lay out what has happened, how it may have happened, and so forth. In actuality, that's how discussion and testing procedures in the real and professional world actually work.

If I had a better design for a widget and I'd showed the widget to prospective buyers a couple of times, I'd want them to show they understood the concepts behind the widget before I got too deeply into any further discussions with them... in the real world, that's how it works, guys. Some of these proposed "testings" in this current thread only show me that the concepts are simply not clearly understood. That's not a very professional approach to anything. To change it around and suggest that the burden is elsewhere, after a couple of workshops, is not a good sign, at least not to me. But maybe my opinion is too colored by a professional career of how serious enquiries are made. I'm always open to discussion, though.

FWIW

Mike Sigman
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 07:58 AM   #122
Timothy WK
Location: Chicago, IL
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 187
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

I think my earlier posts may seem more confrontational than I meant them to be, I am honestly trying to contribute to the conversation.

If I may expand on something Mike said about "hoorah military trainers"---IME internal training requires a certain amount of, err... intuitive exploration and personalization.

The issue is that teachers have to communicate a kinesthetic experience. Since students start with different physical strengths/ weaknesses, and because they all have different personalities, teachers have to adapt their teaching methods and rhetoric so individual students can relate and develop. It won't work so well to say, "Do A, B, and C and you got it." On the learning side, students have to self-explore to discover how to translate that advice and external movements into internal/kinesthetic feelings.

Maybe I'm being stereotypical (I know a number of military and LE guys, but haven't served myself), but I would think this approach would run counter cultural to what those large bureaucracies are used to.

I think this is also one of the reasons people need "hands-on" instruction.

--Timothy Kleinert
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 11:39 AM   #123
Ron Tisdale
Dojo: Doshinkan dojo in Roxborough, Pa
Location: Phila. Pa
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,614
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

In my limited understanding of both internal dynamics and LEO/etc. environments, the first thing to detail would be how to teach the proper body position/structure to even begin to understand WHAT has to be maintained under pressure. Whatever pressure that is.

And that position/structure is going to be based on an INDIVIDUAL'S body. Not the group mean.

There are already methods in aikido for teaching large groups, and they do address the structure issue to some extent. How sucsessfully that transfers IN GENERAL to large groups relative to internal dynamics is another story completely, which I will not get into.

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
-----------------------
"The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind."
St. Bonaventure (ca. 1221-1274)
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 02:24 PM   #124
Mark Kruger
Dojo: Aikido of Eugene
Location: Eugene/Springfield, Oregon
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 40
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

Quote:
Kit Leblanc wrote: View Post
Mark

I'm picturing an "internally turbocharged" Default a la Snarc....

We should get together before the next ECQC.
Internally turbocharged Default. I like it.

Getting together before the next ECQC in Portland would be good. I don't think I have enough internal skill to really contribute (aside from being a warm body). Tom Wharton would make for an interesting training partner. If we can talk them into visiting, Jeremy Hulley and Chris Moses up in Seattle have been practicing the Aunkai stuff on a regular basis and might be able to contribute as well. There are some other folks I can think of, but I don't really know them personally.

It would be interesting to take Rob or someone else with decent internal skill, teach them enough contact distance handgun work to get by, run them through ECQC, and see which internal skills they used. Not as a test of internal skills, but as a way of determining which skills are most useful. George Ledyard might be an interesting person to have there. He teaches DT, so he has a familiarity with the applications we are interested in and he has trained with internal folks.

I'm sure you know this, but to be clear for everyone, the objective isn't to see who wins or loses the fight (how aikido-like). The objective is to see which skills are applied and under what conditions. Take the car fights at the last Portland ECQC as an example. (A student's jeep was volunteered as a venue, the driver was unarmed, the passenger had a sims gun pointed at the driver. The fight starts.) Which structure skills are important when the other guy is trying to double you up and cram you into the footwell? How does grounding work when you have driven the other guy between the front seats and are on top trying to elbow him with the free arm while keeping the sims gun out of play?

The scenario I described is more applicable to the LEO and private citizen community, but I'm sure that Kevin or someone else could adapt this to the military mission objectives.

Respectfully,
Mark Kruger
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 03:12 PM   #125
DH
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,394
United_States
Offline
Re: Military Training Methodologies

WOW! I sat and read the rest since I posted a while back. I don’t now how I got dragged in but I really have no dog in the fight and no need/ desire/ or interest in defending some idea you guys think I hold and want to convince some military expert about. Again, I almost never enter into LEO / Military discussion as I feel it is almost arrogant to do so. I’d rather just say thanks to all those defending us and move on. I have NO idea what these guys need for the job and don’t pretend to. I bailed a while back as I don’t feel I have anything more to say. I laid out my points as best I could.

All of these comments about rolling are fine on their own but are no proof of anything other than someone knows how to fight. Gee how special Join the thousands of us who have been doing so for many years. My views on more live training or MMA style fighting is well known. Anyone who knows me, or has asked me where to train- I pretty much have never recommended any aiki art of any type. Across all boards, and over many years I ALWAYS recommend a good Judo dojo, and or BJJ or better yet- MMA. I’m not a fan of gi fighting and or rastlin with no strikes but the liveness of Judo /jujutsu is still good stuff. That said “What is there to prove?” That MMA type live drills tailored to specific tactical needs is best? Er..duh! Ok join the club.

All of the comments on load carrying, balance, and energy conservation in use are spot on. You guys just don’t know what you’re talking about because you don’t know the full implications or potentials of these skills or this subject. My point- of the difficulties in trying to prove it statistically in an across-the-board control group can be debated. I just will not take part any more. I think it will be a allot of work, and almost impossible for a large organization to adopt. Why should I personally care when most experienced men already know its true just by feeling those of us that can do it.

Load carrying, work potential and how it relates to knockout power and rolling? Who cares. Taking a group of raw men and training internal power, then training and teaching them how to actually fight in their needed tactical fields, then comparing them to a controal group who trains by lifiting and running and doing the MAC program as it and coming up with any thing definitive will prove to be almost impossible to so. No one will spend the time, on the internal training. no one has the time. Even men who WANT to learn it, don’t do the work. Again I state, not one single man has ever felt it and did not see its worth. For me that includes a host of different players from all different arts. Most want to start learning it -on the spot. Trying to prove it to a bunch of cops and soldiers who don’t need it or want to know is not anything I’m interested in doing. I’ve got better things to do.

I'd suggest Rob made a mistake in rolling with anyone when he didnlt know how to fight yet. nd he was still just learning these skills. Thus he was judged on two levels-neither of which he was yet proficient in.
Kevin went to a couple of seminars. His comments are from a newbies perspective. He really doesn't know enough or has seen enough to understand how these internal skills can relate to everything tactically that involves the human body under load or in fighting. Kit knows even less about it. Both know how to fight but that is not a platform to measure ayntihg from other than fighting ability. You'd have to feel someone who has these skills and can use them in a fight. Even then you would be hard put to know any real difference other than someone will be extremely difficult to throw or move around and will hit you like a freaking truck from small distances. For the most part you don't need that in your job. On the whole, both of their operations and goals can and will do just fine without it. so who really cares?

Good luck in your goals, and try to be safe out there. And …thanks.

Last edited by DH : 06-13-2008 at 03:25 PM.
  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 07:02 PM
Self-defense art? Michael Varin General 227 08-21-2012 09:22 AM
Knife Randori Videos ChrisHein Training 308 05-10-2008 02:07 PM
Resistance training overview: the four basic levels G DiPierro Training 17 11-04-2007 03:18 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.



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