"There are no advanced techniques...

[Dismas316]

only advanced application"

Many of you may have heard this from Paul Sharp, but if you haven't, it's a must read and will become a "sticky" in my daily nuggets that I try to refer to on a regular basis. Below is the full article from Mountainguerrilla, but Paul's quote at the beginning which says it all

Hope he doesn't mind me quoting him.

Paul Sharp:
“When people start talking about advanced techniques my eyes cross. There are no advanced techniques. There are fundamentals honed to perfection through conscious effort. Then there is the application of those fundamentals against ever increasing challenges. The mechanics don’t change, our understanding grows so we’re able to apply the technique against higher and higher levels of resistance. As we advance we face greater resistance and better opponents which causes our understanding of the hows, when’s and why’s to advance. The mechanics remain the same. We become advanced.

Article: https://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/advanced-skills/

[blues]

Paul gives it to you straight. I miss his participation around these parts but always wish him well as he winds up his LE career and concentrates more and more on new and continuing challenges.

[Totem Polar]

From BJJ to Yoga (the old astrology to zoology saw being to cliche to use at this point), I’d agree, so far as any applied skill goes. As to Paul, he’s one of those guys that I’ve only spent a few moments around (PeP3), but some of the things he says and writes carries weight with me far out of proportion to any direct relationship.

Same can be said of several of his close friends. Rock stars; all.

[PNWTO]

That's a Musashi-level dose of the right stuff.

I remember when I was still on active duty and just "getting into" CC and whatnot I purchased of Pat MacNamara's books. To quote-paraphase one of his thoughts, "there is no such thing as advanced marksmanship, just basic marksmanship in extraordinary circumstances." This really stayed with me and I like to think I saved some money and time not chasing the latest and greatest bullshit. I believe Kyle Defoor removed "advanced" from his curriculum a few years ago for essentially the same reason.

[Duces Tecum]

The thesis "an expert is only a beginner who's practiced a lot" has been around for a long time and I used to subscribe to it, especially back when I was a new guy and found the thought encouraging. But much time has passed and I no longer believe it.

Now, I really, really hope this doesn't come off as inappropriate, but -- applying Mr. Sharp's observations to the unarmed arts -- I have noticed significant differences between a white belt and a black. These are not always obvious from the "outside". A naive observer might easily believe the black belt is doing the same thing just taught to the newby (faster and smoother, perhaps, but recognizably the same technique) and conclude there is no difference between their skill sets that a little practice and time on the mat won't bridge. Well, the difference is in the quality of the movement.

The white belt attempts a technique and might think that what "he" does makes the technique work. The black belt knows that what makes the technique work is the effect of the defender's actions on the opponent's body, and that requires the black belt to constantly adjust to the opponent's changing posture. In other words, the black belt's focus isn't solely on the gross motor skills taught the white belt, but rather on using subtle movement (unaddressed at the white belt level) to continually place the other guy's body at a disadvantage. These adjustments are done while in motion and use angles, weight shifts, and timing to make the technique internally much different than what the white belt attempts. Don't believe that? Allow a BJJ white belt (not my art, but it makes a great example here) to try a technique on you while you embarrass him by successfully resisting. Then, munching your popcorn, approach his teacher and loudly enough for the entire class to hear, challenge him with "Betcha you can't do that shit to me either, Cecil!"

Now, I'm saying this with great respect for those who, like Paul Sharp, have looked at the data and arrived at a different conclusion. It might be because Mr. Sharp was writing largely in the context of shooting, and this note applies his conclusions to the unarmed skills, something totally different. Or it might be that I misread the points in his excellent article. In either event I would accept his view over mine. Being a married man, I am occasionally reminded of my fallibility.

[Cecil Burch]

The thesis "an expert is only a beginner who's practiced a lot" has been around for a long time and I used to subscribe to it, especially back when I was a new guy and found the thought encouraging. But much time has passed and I no longer believe it.

Now, I really, really hope this doesn't come off as inappropriate, but -- applying Mr. Sharp's observations to the unarmed arts -- I have noticed significant differences between a white belt and a black. These are not always obvious from the "outside". A naive observer might easily believe the black belt is doing the same thing just taught to the newby (faster and smoother, perhaps, but recognizably the same technique) and conclude there is no difference between their skill sets that a little practice and time on the mat won't bridge. Well, the difference is in the quality of the movement.

The white belt attempts a technique and might think that what "he" does makes the technique work. The black belt knows that what makes the technique work is the effect of the defender's actions on the opponent's body, and that requires the black belt to constantly adjust to the opponent's changing posture. In other words, the black belt's focus isn't solely on the gross motor skills taught the white belt, but rather on using subtle movement (unaddressed at the white belt level) to continually place the other guy's body at a disadvantage. These adjustments are done while in motion and use angles, weight shifts, and timing to make the technique internally much different than what the white belt attempts. Don't believe that? Allow a BJJ white belt (not my art, but it makes a great example here) to try a technique on you while you embarrass him by successfully resisting. Then, munching your popcorn, approach his teacher and loudly enough for the entire class to hear, challenge him with "Betcha you can't do that shit to me either, Cecil!"

Now, I'm saying this with great respect for those who, like Paul Sharp, have looked at the data and arrived at a different conclusion. It might be because Mr. Sharp was writing largely in the context of shooting, and this note applies his conclusions to the unarmed skills, something totally different. Or it might be that I misread the points in his excellent article. In either event I would accept his view over mine. Being a married man, I am occasionally reminded of my fallibility.

Paul was very much talking about unarmed arts (as a matter of fact, his post was the direct result of a text conversation we were having and H2H were absolutely part of the question), and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Using your example as an example, that completely proves his point. The technique the white belt is doing is EXACTLY the same technique as a black belt. There is no mechanical difference between the two. The difference is in the actual application of the technique. As you said, the black belt is focusing on other things besides technique. And, you are wrong is saying that those details are not addressed at the white belt level. They are, by pretty much every legit gym in the world. The difference is that the white belt does not understand why all those things are important, and focuses on getting down the mechanical details, and generally fails at grasping the other things. Which is one of the most frustrating things as a teacher - I will tell the new guy all the important bits, and three seconds later they seemingly ignore all of it.

And that goes to Paul's point. The white belt knows all the same technical details that Roger Gracie know, but Roger does the mechanics subconsciously, and instead focuses on the set ups and movements to make the technique work against a resisting opponent. The same with shooting - there is no advanced way to work the trigger smoothly. The difference between the beginner and the advanced practitioner is that the expert does it properly without thinking regardless of the outer stimuli.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I read an article years ago in the context of working memory and performance in skilled behavior. Working memory is pulling up memories (including motor programs to be used for actions). Working memory is thought to be limited to 3 to 4 items. It was noted that in fighter pilot actions, they had screens that had 20 or so different modes. The trained pilots only used about 4 of them. The idea being they could hold the execution commands for using about 4 in working memory and switch between them. While they knew all 20 if they were to sit down and recall them, you can't do this in real time. The article also pointed out that studying championship Judo players, they used about 4 techniques. The more exotic throws and moves were fun for the dojo, but not in a fast fight. The champions could execute the 4 very quickly and effectively. I mentioned this in class and one student turned out to be an armed forces champion (had a lot of service folks in night classes in San Antonio). She said this was right on and the way she competed.

This may be tangentially related. We discuss taking the safety of a gun under stress (OH, God - the Glock vs. something debate). It has been noted that if the gun is drawn in a manner that is not a typical draw - folks forget the safety. Anecdotally, I've seen this happen to a very good IDPA shooter when he had to take the gun out of a box on a table to shoot it. Oops, safety on. The correct motor program was not retrieved by the atypical position. In discussion of red dot sights on pistols, I think Rehn or a comment by of the Insights trainers was that atypical positions made finding the dot more difficult.

When I took Judo classes, 50 years ago - I did manage (once) to take down the instructor with a throw I read about in book. Those times are long gone. Fifty years - ago - Geez!

[Erick Gelhaus]

Actually, I heard that from Awerbuck and Jeans back in the 90s.

[GJM]

Actually, I heard that from Awerbuck and Jeans back in the 90s.


Me too