Spyro: Today, I am really proud that my blog features a guest post from Dragan Milojevic, a veteran martial arts practitioner and instructor, fellow training science geek and blogger. In August 2011, Dragan started the 'Talking the Edge' blog, which I personally place among the most insightful ones out there, regarding martial-arts-related topics, so make sure you check it out. For now, enjoy Dragan's post!
Nowadays it is not uncommon anymore to see people who had belonged to a group of similarly-minded people or an association, deciding to go their own way at one point. It is not different with martial arts, and even the relative newcomers in the global (actually western) MA scene, like Russian arts, have by now grown enough to have those occurrences. However, not everybody who does it seems to have similar success, either commercial or “professional”, in the sense of coming up with satisfactory level of instruction. This rant will be my attempt to discuss what it takes to make one’s own chosen path in martial art fruitful.
First of all, I want to point out that this text does not relate particularly to the phenomenon known as eclectic styles/schools, meaning the instructors who had trained in several different martial arts (although it is pertinent in that regards just as much), but also those who believe they have something new and improved to say and show within one system. Before we move on, I want to state clearly that in my opinion, the budding school founder should have had some serious time under the tutelage of a qualified instructor before, as otherwise it is really hard to gain the proper understanding of general principles in martial arts, i.e. to form the necessary “filters” that make sure everything else is in right place.
Now, that said, if those foundations to be solid, the instructor should have had practiced a fighting system that meets his true interest (excuse the plug, but go this article for more details). Otherwise, it will just be one of those futile attempts to “weaponize” and/or “lethalize” the arts that are simply not meant to be that way (like taijiquan or aikido for example). If these very basic criteria are met, then we can take a look at what really makes a new approach to martial art(s) meaningful. For the sake of simplicity, and assuming that most readers of this blog have some background and/or interest in the Russian martial art of Systema, I will draw the examples to illustrate my points from that environment.
One thing that is conspicuous is the fact that in more than 15 years since Vladimir Vasiliev has opened his school in Canada and made the world aware of Systema, the only “renegade” instructors so far are those with extensive previous experience in other martial arts. I do not wish to risk being drawn into politics of it, so instead of speculating about the reasons why there are no true examples of “systema-only” trained instructors who had decided to try making something new out of it, I will try to focus on the reasons that make those who stand out as positive examples of finding their own voice in it.
First of all, I want to point out that this text does not relate particularly to the phenomenon known as eclectic styles/schools, meaning the instructors who had trained in several different martial arts (although it is pertinent in that regards just as much), but also those who believe they have something new and improved to say and show within one system. Before we move on, I want to state clearly that in my opinion, the budding school founder should have had some serious time under the tutelage of a qualified instructor before, as otherwise it is really hard to gain the proper understanding of general principles in martial arts, i.e. to form the necessary “filters” that make sure everything else is in right place.
Now, that said, if those foundations to be solid, the instructor should have had practiced a fighting system that meets his true interest (excuse the plug, but go this article for more details). Otherwise, it will just be one of those futile attempts to “weaponize” and/or “lethalize” the arts that are simply not meant to be that way (like taijiquan or aikido for example). If these very basic criteria are met, then we can take a look at what really makes a new approach to martial art(s) meaningful. For the sake of simplicity, and assuming that most readers of this blog have some background and/or interest in the Russian martial art of Systema, I will draw the examples to illustrate my points from that environment.
One thing that is conspicuous is the fact that in more than 15 years since Vladimir Vasiliev has opened his school in Canada and made the world aware of Systema, the only “renegade” instructors so far are those with extensive previous experience in other martial arts. I do not wish to risk being drawn into politics of it, so instead of speculating about the reasons why there are no true examples of “systema-only” trained instructors who had decided to try making something new out of it, I will try to focus on the reasons that make those who stand out as positive examples of finding their own voice in it.
 |
| Spyro, Alex, Kevin: three corners of the same triangle |
While the level of skill and efficient movement as demonstrated by Vasiliev himself is awe-inspiring, to me his teaching approach has always had me somewhat frustrated and wanting for more. Obviously, it was the same case with some other people, so a few of them have taken steps to try and improve on it. I have been blessed to have tasted at least a modicum of what they have to offer, and in the process to recognize some of the important common threads that make them sit well with my own understanding of martial arts. In attempt to make my introductory notions clear, I will address the work (as I understand it) of Alex Kostic, Kevin Secours and our own host Spyro Katsigiannis, with attention to their training methodologies.
No, make that methodologies! This is the operative key word here. Namely, the single most frequent and decisive factor that tends to lead the “make it or break it” equation among the failing “innovators” towards the latter part is the lack of a well though out and implemented methodology of training. All the cool or “street proven, battle tested” techniques and tactics in the world are worth zilch if the student is effectively impeded in learning them by the haphazard and disconnected manner of instruction.
So, we then need something that will be a central pillar of the teaching and training method within a particular school. While there can be many options in this regard, depending what the instructor wants to focus on, in my view there are three essential areas than need be covered, and any of those can then be utilized as the central “axis” that keeps everything else in place – physical/mechanical aspect; mental/emotional aspect; and tactical/contextual aspect. Please understand that all three are parts of one greater whole, such that stands bigger than the simple sum of its parts. To make sure that the interrelation of all parts is depicted properly, I will show it this way:
No, make that methodologies! This is the operative key word here. Namely, the single most frequent and decisive factor that tends to lead the “make it or break it” equation among the failing “innovators” towards the latter part is the lack of a well though out and implemented methodology of training. All the cool or “street proven, battle tested” techniques and tactics in the world are worth zilch if the student is effectively impeded in learning them by the haphazard and disconnected manner of instruction.
So, we then need something that will be a central pillar of the teaching and training method within a particular school. While there can be many options in this regard, depending what the instructor wants to focus on, in my view there are three essential areas than need be covered, and any of those can then be utilized as the central “axis” that keeps everything else in place – physical/mechanical aspect; mental/emotional aspect; and tactical/contextual aspect. Please understand that all three are parts of one greater whole, such that stands bigger than the simple sum of its parts. To make sure that the interrelation of all parts is depicted properly, I will show it this way:
For example, Spyro chooses to build a strong physical foundation – sound understanding and command of mechanical principles of power delivery and efficiency of movement, upon which the students can later add their own individual expression of those principles. In line with such focus, Spyro’s innovation was to actually implement the results of the sport science and its accomplishments in improving the development of human performance, instead of just paying lip service to “scientific” methods and roots of Systema, while in effect having no grasp of it. Again, it is not to say that the students in the Dynamo Club will be cut short of their understanding of emotional and tactical facets, it is just that they will draw their emotional control and tactical “level-headedness” from the confidence in the understanding of how their bodies will operate in an optimal manner.
Alex certainly starts his students on the proper mechanical principles, but the main “angle” of his approach is the emotional state of the individual in the situation of combat. Therefore, his methodology deals mostly with guiding the students in the series of gradual and challenging drills that represents various “phases” of possible technical continuum, thus exposing them to the need for acknowledging the state they are in, and developing the confidence to then experiment with possible mechanical applications. The students are forged in both symmetrical and asymmetrical types of situations, thus providing insights into tactical possibilities, so none of those will present a shocking novelty in case of a real confrontation.
Among the three instructors mentioned here, Kevin is probably one with the most extensive professional experience in “force application” and teaching military/LEO, so it is only natural that such background has yielded an instructional approach that uses various tactical scenarios to instill adequate technical and mental attributes into his students. Again, all the critical elements are there, it is just the matter of picking out one to function as the foundation for the overall training and teaching method.
To wind up this lengthy discussion, I will just add my own view on how all those aspects can be worked within a training season and over a longer period of time (periodization anyone?). The way it seems to me, the logical order of instruction would be the following: mechanical → mental → tactical, which forms one cycle of instruction. It is then repeated, starting with mechanics again, but on a HIGHER level, i.e. integrating all the previous material and experience into the new criteria and requirements for another turn. For those of you image driven learners out there, it would look like an ascending spiral for example, with each new coil going exactly over the previous one.
In conclusion, in hope of having offered something worth reading, I would like to thank all those who have taken time to bear with me on this one and to Spyro for inviting me to do this. Train hard, train smart and have fun doing it!
No comments:
Post a Comment