After the reviews section that was introduced in my previous post, today I am proud to present one more new feature of the Göteborg Dynamo blog, namely that of interviews. The title I gave to this series of interviews is 'With a little help from my friends', for a very simple reason: since the training methodology we use at the Dynamo Club is, more or less, an 'open source' system, that has incorporated elements from the work of various instructors I have had the privilege to meet and train with through the years, I thought I might try and pay back all these generous friends for their help, by presenting them in the Dynamo blog and promoting their work.
The first friend I chose to interview is Luis Preto, instructor of Jogo do Pau (the Portuguese staff fencing art), a sports science geek, and writer of a series of most insightful books on training for technical and tactical martial arts skills. I have had the opportunity to personally meet and partner-train with Luis about eight months ago, during a training seminar in Norway and I was impressed by the depth of his knowledge on biomechanics and also his politeness and humbleness. Later, I got to read his book 'Fencing Martial Arts: How to Sequence the Teaching of Technique and Tactics' and his approach to designing an effective training curriculum influenced quite a lot the way we organized the contents of the section of teaching throws and takedowns at the Dynamo.
Here's how our online conversation turned out:
Luis, could you please introduce yourself to the readers of this blog and could you provide some information about your background?
Hello fellow martial artists! My name is Luis Preto, I’m 33, I was born in the UK and later raised in Portugal. I started practicing martial arts at the age of 9, with karate. Fifteen years ago I opted to dedicate myself to the exclusive practice and study of Jogo do Pau, the Portuguese fencing combat system.
I have always been at the opposite end of the so called ‘naturally gifted performers’, so I always felt the need to analyze my shortcomings and come up with specific drills to correct them. However, I came to understand later that my shortcomings were pretty common for a lot of practitioners, which in turn led me to conclude that the most commonly used training methods needed improvement. Initially this turned into an obsession but, as I underwent an undergraduate and master’s degree in Sport Sciences, it transformed into a passion.
Although as an active teacher I’ve researched basically every single training factor there is, I would have to say that my main field has been skill development, namely the application of the ecological perspective of human movement to martial arts so that students learn techniques by understanding the natural contextual logic of affordances and constraints that gave birth to the techniques in the first place.
How about Jogo do Pau? Could you briefly share a few historical details about this art and your personal course in it?
Jogo do Pau is commonly known as the Portuguese staff fencing art. However, according to the information that I’ve had access to that is not entirely the case. First of all, it is actually a European rather than Portuguese fencing art, since the same art has also been practiced and used by the French. The thing is, it became extinct everywhere else except in Portugal. Secondly, it is an art which focused on techniques that can be applied both to staffs and bladed weapons, such as long double hand and short single hand swords.
However, its main characteristics are that:
• It is an art with its origins in skills development for combat in outnumbered scenarios, with applications to both battle-field and self defense contexts.
• It was preserved through the use of the staff, since this weapon was being used by civilians until far later than the swords. Nowadays, its practice is still mostly done with staffs because, although swords look cooler, staffs are way more exciting since the level of skill required for parrying techniques is much more complex and demanding.
As for me, I’m just an instructor - perhaps an instructor who benefited from access to unique sources such as Masters Russo, Mota & Saramago as well as Soviet sports science researchers such as Yuri Verkoshansky, but still, I’m just an instructor looking to improve each day and help my students the way I would like to have been helped as a youngster.
I have always been at the opposite end of the so called ‘naturally gifted performers’, so I always felt the need to analyze my shortcomings and come up with specific drills to correct them. However, I came to understand later that my shortcomings were pretty common for a lot of practitioners, which in turn led me to conclude that the most commonly used training methods needed improvement. Initially this turned into an obsession but, as I underwent an undergraduate and master’s degree in Sport Sciences, it transformed into a passion.
Although as an active teacher I’ve researched basically every single training factor there is, I would have to say that my main field has been skill development, namely the application of the ecological perspective of human movement to martial arts so that students learn techniques by understanding the natural contextual logic of affordances and constraints that gave birth to the techniques in the first place.
How about Jogo do Pau? Could you briefly share a few historical details about this art and your personal course in it?
Jogo do Pau is commonly known as the Portuguese staff fencing art. However, according to the information that I’ve had access to that is not entirely the case. First of all, it is actually a European rather than Portuguese fencing art, since the same art has also been practiced and used by the French. The thing is, it became extinct everywhere else except in Portugal. Secondly, it is an art which focused on techniques that can be applied both to staffs and bladed weapons, such as long double hand and short single hand swords.
However, its main characteristics are that:
• It is an art with its origins in skills development for combat in outnumbered scenarios, with applications to both battle-field and self defense contexts.
• It was preserved through the use of the staff, since this weapon was being used by civilians until far later than the swords. Nowadays, its practice is still mostly done with staffs because, although swords look cooler, staffs are way more exciting since the level of skill required for parrying techniques is much more complex and demanding.
As for me, I’m just an instructor - perhaps an instructor who benefited from access to unique sources such as Masters Russo, Mota & Saramago as well as Soviet sports science researchers such as Yuri Verkoshansky, but still, I’m just an instructor looking to improve each day and help my students the way I would like to have been helped as a youngster.
In your website, you are referring to your How to Sequence the Teaching of Technique and Tactics as a book that will allow one “to overcome the standard training of learning an art, by developing functional combat skill”. Which is the standard way of learning a martial art? Why do we need to overcome it?
Regardless of the techniques of each martial art, most striking styles have two common mistakes in their teaching methodologies:
The first mistake has to do with teaching technique and it simply boils down to the unproductive distinction that is usually made between the movements of an art and the environment in which they must be applied. As Humans, we do not elaborate our movements by thinking of activating muscles in sequence a, b or c; and we do not build our movement skills by thinking of placing our limbs in certain positions in space. Techniques develop as a result of the task that needs to be performed, in combination with the constraints and affordances of the environment and the person performing the task. There is a logic behind each movement and, if this logic is communicated through training, it allows the students to learn techniques from a perspective of performing tasks (such as parrying a strike with certain characteristics), thus becoming combatants rather than merely performers of ‘empty’ movements. The instructors who understand this are able to grasp the overall combat logic which connects every single factor, from offensive and defensive techniques to context specific tactics, which therefore allows them to properly structure teaching sequences that successfully build upon previous ones.
The second main mistake has to do with the inability of martial arts’ most common training methods to develop tactical skill. Both the commands method, with the practitioners behaving like puppets, executing techniques at the instructor’s cue, as well as the instructional teaching method, with the instructors making all the tactical decisions and providing the practitioners with all the information that they are supposed to merely implement in combat, utterly fails in developing tactically competent practitioners. Since combat requires that participants interpret their opponent’s behavior and make instant decisions on how to respond, training methods must be reformulated so as to promote active thinking from students in the sense of evaluating their opponents’ traits and finding an adequate solution. This will promote the development of tactically competent combatants and, may even help develop some true martial artists, those people who are able to think outside the box and present us with technical or tactical innovations.
I feel that the drawbacks of these training methodologies must be overcome because students who are investing money and effort in pursuing their goal of developing effective combat skill deserve to have access to the most effective methods available. Additionally, improving the training methods used by previous generations does not constitute an insult to them. These previous generations simply had to start from scratch and couldn’t possibly cover everything before time caught up with them. Were they alive today, I am of the opinion they would be their most fierce critics and would constantly look to improve their own ideas to new heights.
To my understanding, your three recently published books and one training DVD are part of your answer to the need there is today for improved training methodologies in martial arts. Could you shortly describe which specific problems in training methodologies each of the books and the DVD is addressing?
First I would have to say that the common trait between them is that I tried to approach combat techniques not as movements, as seen from an outside observer, but as tasks being performed by a person who is submitted to a specific context (combat) that elicits also specific tasks (injuring the opponent while avoiding being injured) in order to be successful.
Regardless of the techniques of each martial art, most striking styles have two common mistakes in their teaching methodologies:
The first mistake has to do with teaching technique and it simply boils down to the unproductive distinction that is usually made between the movements of an art and the environment in which they must be applied. As Humans, we do not elaborate our movements by thinking of activating muscles in sequence a, b or c; and we do not build our movement skills by thinking of placing our limbs in certain positions in space. Techniques develop as a result of the task that needs to be performed, in combination with the constraints and affordances of the environment and the person performing the task. There is a logic behind each movement and, if this logic is communicated through training, it allows the students to learn techniques from a perspective of performing tasks (such as parrying a strike with certain characteristics), thus becoming combatants rather than merely performers of ‘empty’ movements. The instructors who understand this are able to grasp the overall combat logic which connects every single factor, from offensive and defensive techniques to context specific tactics, which therefore allows them to properly structure teaching sequences that successfully build upon previous ones.
The second main mistake has to do with the inability of martial arts’ most common training methods to develop tactical skill. Both the commands method, with the practitioners behaving like puppets, executing techniques at the instructor’s cue, as well as the instructional teaching method, with the instructors making all the tactical decisions and providing the practitioners with all the information that they are supposed to merely implement in combat, utterly fails in developing tactically competent practitioners. Since combat requires that participants interpret their opponent’s behavior and make instant decisions on how to respond, training methods must be reformulated so as to promote active thinking from students in the sense of evaluating their opponents’ traits and finding an adequate solution. This will promote the development of tactically competent combatants and, may even help develop some true martial artists, those people who are able to think outside the box and present us with technical or tactical innovations.
I feel that the drawbacks of these training methodologies must be overcome because students who are investing money and effort in pursuing their goal of developing effective combat skill deserve to have access to the most effective methods available. Additionally, improving the training methods used by previous generations does not constitute an insult to them. These previous generations simply had to start from scratch and couldn’t possibly cover everything before time caught up with them. Were they alive today, I am of the opinion they would be their most fierce critics and would constantly look to improve their own ideas to new heights.
To my understanding, your three recently published books and one training DVD are part of your answer to the need there is today for improved training methodologies in martial arts. Could you shortly describe which specific problems in training methodologies each of the books and the DVD is addressing?
First I would have to say that the common trait between them is that I tried to approach combat techniques not as movements, as seen from an outside observer, but as tasks being performed by a person who is submitted to a specific context (combat) that elicits also specific tasks (injuring the opponent while avoiding being injured) in order to be successful.
Therefore, in the book on parrying skill I present partner drills that enable practitioners to naturally develop parrying motions according to the constraints that influence their practice. This allows understanding of the combat applications for each of the different parrying options, namely by transmitting the pros and cons of different parries available to intercept the same strike. Additionally, I also explain and present training drills on the topic of defensive timing and distance management.The book on footwork follows the same line of thought, explaining how to develop 
footwork under a combat utility perspective, which is attained by focusing on distance management, speed and adaptability to opponents of different characteristics. I also included an additional section in which I look to breakdown footwork’s biomechanical issues so that practitioners are able to optimize this combat variable once their distance management skills are well developed. Again, I look to use exercises with a partner so that practitioners are presented with problems and tasks to solve, which enables them to develop the footwork movements by understanding the environment’s constraints the make it logical and natural to move in a given way.
footwork under a combat utility perspective, which is attained by focusing on distance management, speed and adaptability to opponents of different characteristics. I also included an additional section in which I look to breakdown footwork’s biomechanical issues so that practitioners are able to optimize this combat variable once their distance management skills are well developed. Again, I look to use exercises with a partner so that practitioners are presented with problems and tasks to solve, which enables them to develop the footwork movements by understanding the environment’s constraints the make it logical and natural to move in a given way. 
The book on combat in outnumbered scenarios is mostly on technique and tactical skills to fight against multiple opponents when using a long two handed weapon or a short single hand one (staffs and batons). Once again, both techniques and tactical options are explained within their natural combat context and practiced in such a way. Hence, the contents presented focus on free fighting instead of establishing rules or principles that the group of combatants has to go by. The DVD looks to present the fundamental topics for any martial artist who does weapons sparring, such as, distance management in striking, perceptual strategies in parrying, tactical application of different parries, the relationship between defensive parrying footwork and parries and, finally, principles for the development of tactical skill.
It is my feeling that the majority of people perceive martial arts or combat systems not simply as a set of tasks that arise out of a set of strategic imperatives, but as crystallized and closed systems of knowledge comprising of techniques AND teaching methods. Why do you think this happens? What would you reply to someone who ‘accused’ you that your art is not Jogo do Pau anymore?
I have had the enormous privilege of teaching alongside Mr. Robert Liles, who was by the words of Mr. Ed Parker (the founder of American Kenpo) his Kenpo adoptive son. I know for a fact that Mr. Liles has been praised that his Kenpo is better than the founder’s, but mind you that he has also been criticized, since he had the “nerve” to make adjustments on Mr. Parker’s technique. When confronted by such compliments he simply claims that his Kenpo isn’t better, in his words his Kenpo is just Kenpo from “year two thousand and something”, while his instructor’s was kenpo from the twentieth century. To that he adds that the reason he managed to progress further was because he benefitted from his instructor’s initial work. Today’s medical science is the result of the enormous improvements made ever since the time of witch doctors and such. People can’t wait for medicine to progress even more so the cure for diseases such as AIDS and cancer can be found. In a similar way, when combat systems are subjected to objective evaluation in the form of combat, be it in the street or in the competitive arena, the mentality of questioning knowledge is maintained and the systems continue evolving. However, questioning things and trying to make progress is hard work and, therefore, those who happen to practice martial arts under the comfort of not being pressed to show results in a combat situation, find it easier to merely keep everything the same and ultimately criticize those who look to continue their instructor’s unfinished work as a sin, when it really is the higher tribute that can be paid to them.
Should someone state that the JdP that I teach is no longer the traditional JdP, I would start by reflecting on the criticism - should I conclude that changes had been indeed introduced, changes that actually led to enhanced combat performance, either by improved technical contents or by better teaching / training methods, I would embrace this comment as a complement. I would hate to end up stagnating, especially since during the fifteen years I was lucky to be in contact with Master Russo, there was never a single season in which the technical program didn’t require at least one minor adjustment.
It is very often claimed that the ‘old martial art masters’ knew everything and modern day science actually has nothing new to add in martial training methodologies. Where do you think this notion comes from?
I would have to say that two factors contribute to this. The first has to do with the fact that martial arts are mostly practiced by people whose professional commitments forces them to study subjects such as, for example, law and engineering. This means that most people have insufficient knowledge about human movement sciences to analyze technical skills and teaching methods, just as I am not knowledgeable to comment on the construction of a bridge, a doctor’s surgery technique, etc. Hence, sometimes practitioners place their previous instructors on a pedestal and due to lack of knowledge fail to detect components that can be improved. Think about it this way: when kids are ill, their parents take them to doctors, because they naturally acknowledge that they need help on a field that they don’t know much about. Unfortunately, when it comes to training, very few people show the same attitude, as if admitting one’s lack of knowledge on human movement analysis and skills acquisition should be a cause of shame and ridicule. In addition to that, there is this quite popular sports myth according to which, a talented performer can also teach and analyze his activity from a theoretical standpoint – well, this is a quite silly myth. I can easily transform someone who does not even know how to read or write – let alone be knowledgeable about biomechanics and physiology - into a formidable fighter. However, I can also guarantee that this formidable fighter won’t even realize how he actually performs many of his skills, much less be able to teach them. Nevertheless in the world of martial arts he would be considered a master and proficient teacher solely on the basis of his fighting performance skill.
Secondly, in general we, human beings, like to feel safe. In this regard, quite a lot of people would rather believe in a fair governing entity such as God, or be convinced that Nature will always find a way to mend our mistakes, than face the possibility that we might be here on this planet by ourselves and that the planet might be on the verge of collapsing. The belief that the system we train at emanates from a superior entity who knew everything allows us to feel safe that we won’t get lost in the search for martial skill, thus being destined to succeed.
What are you currently working on?
Currently I am working on three new writing projects. The first one is about functional physical conditioning for elite sports performance. However, when I say elite I don’t refer to professional international level athletes. I’m referring to getting all enthusiast competitors to learn how to get the most out of their training by laying the physical foundations that enable them to optimize their technique and stamina. Additionally, this won’t just be one more book on physical conditioning - it is meant to work as a teaching course that will get readers to apply the contents covered to practical training scenarios and therefore develop real and useful training management skills regarding the topic of physical conditioning. The second document I’m working on is about the prescription and practice of the squat for sports and, last but not least, the third one is about understanding how to merge all biomechanical, physiological and contextual variables in one complete and coherent way, in order to diagnose what makes effective offensive and defensive techniques in striking martial arts.
Would you like to close this interview with some advice for aspiring martial arts instructors, whether that would be books to read, subjects to study or habits to acquire?
From a scientific perspective I would advise the following reading:
• To develop a more critical view on sports training in general: “Sports: Is it all BS?” By Dr. Michael Yessis
• On performance psychology: “Fear: The friend of exceptional people” by Geoff Thompson
• Regarding physical conditioning I would only advise “Supertraining” by Dr Mell Siff and Dr Yuri Verkoshanski, but it is a quite complex hardcore scientific reading. Hopefully, my document on physical conditioning, which will be available at the start of 2012, will be a cheaper option as well as an easier read for those interested on this subject
From a personal perspective, I would like to ask people to start acknowledging the fact that performing is different than teaching and, secondly, to be open minded to the point of constantly looking for ways to improve their teaching methods so as to help their students the same way they would like to be helped, as opposed to merely teaching so as to use the students for their own personal training. By doing this, everyone will benefit: the arts, the students and the instructors, in the satisfaction they derive from teaching.
I have had the enormous privilege of teaching alongside Mr. Robert Liles, who was by the words of Mr. Ed Parker (the founder of American Kenpo) his Kenpo adoptive son. I know for a fact that Mr. Liles has been praised that his Kenpo is better than the founder’s, but mind you that he has also been criticized, since he had the “nerve” to make adjustments on Mr. Parker’s technique. When confronted by such compliments he simply claims that his Kenpo isn’t better, in his words his Kenpo is just Kenpo from “year two thousand and something”, while his instructor’s was kenpo from the twentieth century. To that he adds that the reason he managed to progress further was because he benefitted from his instructor’s initial work. Today’s medical science is the result of the enormous improvements made ever since the time of witch doctors and such. People can’t wait for medicine to progress even more so the cure for diseases such as AIDS and cancer can be found. In a similar way, when combat systems are subjected to objective evaluation in the form of combat, be it in the street or in the competitive arena, the mentality of questioning knowledge is maintained and the systems continue evolving. However, questioning things and trying to make progress is hard work and, therefore, those who happen to practice martial arts under the comfort of not being pressed to show results in a combat situation, find it easier to merely keep everything the same and ultimately criticize those who look to continue their instructor’s unfinished work as a sin, when it really is the higher tribute that can be paid to them.
Should someone state that the JdP that I teach is no longer the traditional JdP, I would start by reflecting on the criticism - should I conclude that changes had been indeed introduced, changes that actually led to enhanced combat performance, either by improved technical contents or by better teaching / training methods, I would embrace this comment as a complement. I would hate to end up stagnating, especially since during the fifteen years I was lucky to be in contact with Master Russo, there was never a single season in which the technical program didn’t require at least one minor adjustment.
It is very often claimed that the ‘old martial art masters’ knew everything and modern day science actually has nothing new to add in martial training methodologies. Where do you think this notion comes from?
I would have to say that two factors contribute to this. The first has to do with the fact that martial arts are mostly practiced by people whose professional commitments forces them to study subjects such as, for example, law and engineering. This means that most people have insufficient knowledge about human movement sciences to analyze technical skills and teaching methods, just as I am not knowledgeable to comment on the construction of a bridge, a doctor’s surgery technique, etc. Hence, sometimes practitioners place their previous instructors on a pedestal and due to lack of knowledge fail to detect components that can be improved. Think about it this way: when kids are ill, their parents take them to doctors, because they naturally acknowledge that they need help on a field that they don’t know much about. Unfortunately, when it comes to training, very few people show the same attitude, as if admitting one’s lack of knowledge on human movement analysis and skills acquisition should be a cause of shame and ridicule. In addition to that, there is this quite popular sports myth according to which, a talented performer can also teach and analyze his activity from a theoretical standpoint – well, this is a quite silly myth. I can easily transform someone who does not even know how to read or write – let alone be knowledgeable about biomechanics and physiology - into a formidable fighter. However, I can also guarantee that this formidable fighter won’t even realize how he actually performs many of his skills, much less be able to teach them. Nevertheless in the world of martial arts he would be considered a master and proficient teacher solely on the basis of his fighting performance skill.
Secondly, in general we, human beings, like to feel safe. In this regard, quite a lot of people would rather believe in a fair governing entity such as God, or be convinced that Nature will always find a way to mend our mistakes, than face the possibility that we might be here on this planet by ourselves and that the planet might be on the verge of collapsing. The belief that the system we train at emanates from a superior entity who knew everything allows us to feel safe that we won’t get lost in the search for martial skill, thus being destined to succeed.
What are you currently working on?
Currently I am working on three new writing projects. The first one is about functional physical conditioning for elite sports performance. However, when I say elite I don’t refer to professional international level athletes. I’m referring to getting all enthusiast competitors to learn how to get the most out of their training by laying the physical foundations that enable them to optimize their technique and stamina. Additionally, this won’t just be one more book on physical conditioning - it is meant to work as a teaching course that will get readers to apply the contents covered to practical training scenarios and therefore develop real and useful training management skills regarding the topic of physical conditioning. The second document I’m working on is about the prescription and practice of the squat for sports and, last but not least, the third one is about understanding how to merge all biomechanical, physiological and contextual variables in one complete and coherent way, in order to diagnose what makes effective offensive and defensive techniques in striking martial arts.
Would you like to close this interview with some advice for aspiring martial arts instructors, whether that would be books to read, subjects to study or habits to acquire?
From a scientific perspective I would advise the following reading:
• To develop a more critical view on sports training in general: “Sports: Is it all BS?” By Dr. Michael Yessis
• On performance psychology: “Fear: The friend of exceptional people” by Geoff Thompson
• Regarding physical conditioning I would only advise “Supertraining” by Dr Mell Siff and Dr Yuri Verkoshanski, but it is a quite complex hardcore scientific reading. Hopefully, my document on physical conditioning, which will be available at the start of 2012, will be a cheaper option as well as an easier read for those interested on this subject
From a personal perspective, I would like to ask people to start acknowledging the fact that performing is different than teaching and, secondly, to be open minded to the point of constantly looking for ways to improve their teaching methods so as to help their students the same way they would like to be helped, as opposed to merely teaching so as to use the students for their own personal training. By doing this, everyone will benefit: the arts, the students and the instructors, in the satisfaction they derive from teaching.
To find more about Luis Preto, visit his website at www.pretomartialarts.com. His books can be purchased from Amazon.
No comments:
Post a Comment