One Step Beyond.....

Western music has, for the last 1000 years or so, been founded on a very simple principle - the octave and the standard music stave. This system has been used by everyone from Bach to Lady Gaga. It is at once clear in it's simplicity - it can be read and understood in an instant by any musician. Yet also profound in it's depth. It can convey a simple one line melody or the full glory of a Beethoven symphony for full orchestra and choir.

At it's heart, however, it remains simply an octave. From those single tones are developed chords and their inversions, different types of scale, harmonies, discords and melodies. They have the power to stir emotions, lift spirits or give us a nice tune to whistle.

Anyone who learns how to play music in the "traditional" sense begins with the octaves. Running up and down those 8 notes in their various keys and scales. Correct positioning to play the notes fluidly, correct technique for the particular instrument you are working with are the first steps. Then you start to learn something of the relationships between these tones, how thirds and fifths work, how chords are created.

Of course music is written to be performed, so at some point every musician will play in front of someone, even if it's just family. Now you begin to learn to cope with the pressures of actual performance as opposed to practice. Nerves, expression, ability, not to mention the fun and enjoyment performance brings.

This is within reach of anyone who takes up an instrument within 6 months or so. With  good tuition and a little practice it should be easy to reach this level. But what lies beyond?  Why do some stay at one point and others go much further? There are several factors of course, but for the sake of argument let's make it a level playing field and say all things - time, money, opportunity and desire -are equal. The variables then must be in the people themselves and how they view the playing of music.

We could say that music is a mathematical exercise. After all it was Pythagoras who "discovered" the laws of music. So if a person understood completely the mathematical relationships between all the notes in a piece of music, they would be an amazing composer, right? You could create a score based on tonal relationships and intervals that would be neat, tidy and rational

We could also say that music is an exercise in technique. The faster I can move my fingers, the better. The more notes I can cram in to a phrase, the better I am. People will be amazed at the speed and dexterity of my playing, the flashiness of my performance.

Then again, music is an exercise in theory. See how cleverly the chord in the first section is inverted in the second and a diminished fifth added, which relates to the the harmony of the string part in the fourth movement. The more elaborate and complex the piece the more people will appreciate my intellect and cleverness -  I can discuss it endlessly on internet forums, I don't even have to play anything for people to appreciate my genius.

Perhaps music is all about learning things. If you go to a teacher who just gives you the eight basic notes and asks you to work with them, what use is that? Isn't it far better to have a teacher who has strict rules for everything and can take you step-by step through it all? That way I will never have to think for myself, everything is neatly laid out for me. My work will be exactly the same as my my teacher and can be replicated over and over again.

Music is a language. Through someone else's work or your own,  music is a form of expressing a feeling, an emotion, a sharing of joy, pain, love, anger or just the desire to get up and dance. It touches something deep within us and connects us to something outside of ourselves.  There are aspects of all those previous things I mentioned before in there of course. Understanding theory, technical ability and so on are all valuable - but not at the expense of the necessity of honest self expression.

This is what takes the student "one step beyond" playing simple scales and into the realm of understanding, performance and creativity. But only if  the student  is willing to take that step and has faith in the process. It's easy to look outside and blame others for not showing you things when in fact they are in plain sight.  Of course if you want to keep someone as a student this is how you teach them - step-by-step, keep everything  obvious and mechanical, drip feed  "information".... But if you want someone to become a real musician, you encourage them to imitate... then innovate. A little guidance is necessary here and there but the information is all contained in those eight notes - you just have to open your eyes, ears and heart to see it.

Tactical Training Day

The day was put together by Danny Lines of the Britannia Gym and K9 Security Services. The idea was to give some security professionals training in different aspects of their work.

The day started off with me showing some  Systema close protection drills, including movement of people, movement around people and responding to low level threat. This was later expanded into some basic teamwork for takedown and restraint

Danny Lines showed some pressure point work from Aiki-jitsu and how it fits into pre-emptive striking as well as takedowns. Some verbal /psychological work was also covered

Simon Batty then took the group through Muay Thai striking techniques. Starting with the jab, Simon then moved on to kicks, finishing up with knees and elbows. The group covered pad work and some basic sparring methods

Sujay Bholak then introduced the group to the basics of working with dogs. Very few had experience in this field, so it was very interesting to see how the dogs responded so readily to the commands of the handler and how effective they were in bringing the bad guy to the floor! a few of the lads volunteered to put on the jacket and have a go  and everyone also got the chance to work with the dogs on a hostage scenario

All in all a great day of training and it was good to work alongside some great instructors (especially a fellow Manor Park / Avenue boy lol). All the participants got stuck in with good attitude and spirit and all the different areas complemented each other nicely. 

Fractal Systema

I mentioned in a previous blog the idea of concious / subconcious learning. It's an important aspect of the way we train and perhaps needs a little explanation, especially for anyone new to the System

At his recent London workshop Martin Wheeler was recounting a recent sparring session with Vladimir. They were groundfighting and Martin, despite being no slouch when it comes to groundwork, said he found himself being effortlessly outclassed by Vladimir. When he asked how this could be - after all, Martin has considerable experience in BJJ and other grappling styles, Vladimir replied "you have good knowledge, but my body has more knowledge".

What does this mean? To my mind it means this - through his training Vladimir has arrived at a state where his body "knows" how to react to any stimulus applied to it. At this level technique becomes irrelevant, the work is pure instinct - not only that but the instinct itself is highly tuned to a state of survival. How to arrive at this state? I think by making your work geared to training your instinct to react in the appropriate way - and the main way to do that is through sub-concious training to aquire "body knowledge".

But can't we just rely on our natural instinct? After all, you touch something hot, you move faster than you will ever move in your life. Well yes...and no... the problem is that "natural instinct" can lead us to different reactions. In essence there are only three possible reactions to a stimulus - and this applies on a cellular level upward. Test carried out on cells have shown that they will move towards a source of nutrients and away from a source of poison. Something indeterminate - there is no movement.

So those are our three options when faced with a stimulus - we move towards it, away from it, or stay still. This happens on a subconcious level. We know from studying body language that a person talking to someone they don't really like will manifest that feeling in some way - their feet may point away, they may lean back or frequently glance away. We can be "repulsed" by something - think of something horrible, picture a big pile of dog crap on your desk - how does your body react? You moved back I'm guessing!

The other option is to move forwards. The stronger the bond the more demonstrative the movement. We hug family, shake hands with colleagues, nod and smile at acquaintances. But it is all "positive" forward movement. If we are not sure - we falter. We teeter, back and forward or side to side - indecision (which incidentally is the state in which we are most susceptible to suggestion)

To put this into a conflict / self defence terms we have the option of flight, fight or freeze. The first two are obvious - we try and escape the danger or we tackle it. The freeze option can come about through fear or indecision leading to tension. It might also come about through "if I don't move he won't see me"

These options work at a sub-concious level within us, but can be modified and tuned. For example someone experience in handling firearms is not likely to flinch when one is shot, whereas someone who has never fired a gun will. But how do we access this sub-concious level in order to work with it?

Breathing is the first step and the major link between what goes on outside and what goes on inside. As we know, regulating our breath plays a major role in controlling the psyche. This in itself is a concious act at first - or at least it is in adults, most of us lose the natural abilities of the child in this respect. Over time it becomes the natural reaction to adjust the psyche through the breath - something makes you jump and you are in burst breathing before you know it.

This also has to be translated into physical movement and the first level of this is simply moving away from the source of pain. It may be a stick, knife, chain or fist, but just the "simple" act of avoiding it is informing the body on a sub-concsious level when and were to move. What I mean by sub-concious level is this - when running the swinging the stick drill, for example, we don't sit down beforehand and discuss in detail the bio-mechanics involved in taking a step. Nor do we have people do the movements without a stick present, just pretending it is there. In both cases the body is not learning - in the first because the information is intellectual, in the second because the threat to the body is imaginary.

Now I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with intellectual learning in martial arts. There are many areas of training where studying the how's, why's or mechanics can be interesting and useful. But it should be should be used to back up the physical training, not replace it.

As for the types of practice that rely on imagination such as forms / kata - in my view they are far less useful. You can imagine all you like, at some level the body knows that there is no opponent in front of you. In fact I think they can be counter-productive, in that how you imagine something is rarely how it actually is - and your body will react to what actually is rather than what you imagine.

So we extend this idea out through all of our training. Whatever the drill is, just do it. Don't worry too much about getting it right or looking a certain way,. Iif the drill is to avoid the stick and you avoid it - job done. If you can avoid one stick well, great - then let's try two. Once you have this basic movement idea down and your body can move comfortably, we can add in other factors to the training.

Tactical factors for example - how do you avoid the stick, but move in and take the person down? Or technical factors - what is the best way to apply a lock to the arm? Even here though, the work can be largely "sub-concious" - you learn to do it by doing it, not by reading about it. In this respect the class should be seen as a laboratory where you are free to experiment and find what works best for you. Funnily enough - or not, given we are all basically the same - you will soon find that natural efficiency which characterises the best kind of Systema work. Through training and testing you begin to tune your instinct to the situation. This is where the faith is developed that your body can take care of itself when under threat.

 

I will admit that to people used to a more apparently "structured" approach this method can seem messy and "unscientific". Some people prefer the comfort of syllabus and grades, and that's fine. But once you look under the surface you find there is a whole lot of structure to Systema, not only that but it is very deep. Some talk about "steps" in training, you go up one level at a time. Some talk about "spirals", you go round in a circle but each time you go up a bit. I think of Systema as fractal - each aspect contains the whole. You can zoom in and see individual shapes, or zoom out and see the bigger picture. You can also zoom in and keep going and going and going......

And that is exactly what this approach allows you to do. I've trained in styles where you do basics, then at a certain level you don't do those things anymore. I find with Systema the basics are advanced and vice versa. This is because you are always working on yourself, not on replicating someone else's movement. Your work is always dynamic and in and of the moment - once it's happened, it's gone. It's a truly creative experience (even in a destructive situation) and this, I think is a one of the factors in the "cleansing" aspect of Systema - as one of our guys mentioned last class "I feel so much better after training"

So when training try and let your body learn - don't over-analyse during (post-drill reviewing is good), just breathe, move, enjoy the experience. Learn to take whatever is thrown at you with a breath and a smile, do whatever is neccesary in the situation then move on to the next challenge!

TACTICAL TRAINING DAY

LONDON REGIONS PRESENTS

TACTICAL TRAINING DAY

Sat 25th June

Essex Sports Village Purfleet Rd

Averley RM15 4DT

9am - 5pm

£40 per person £5 spectators

MAT 1 : MASTER DAVE TURTON 10th DAN

SDF MODERN STREET COMBAT /

WEAPONS DEFENCE

MAT 2 : ROB POYTON

SYSTEMA CLOSE PROTECTION /

TEAM WORK

MAT 3 : SENSEI DANNY LINES

AIKI JUSTU / KICKBOXING STRIKING /

PRESSURE POINTS / LOCK AND HOLDS

AREA 4 :SUJAY BHOLAK

K9 PROTECTION

DANNY LINES MBIPDT/NTIPDU

GENERAL PURPOSE DOG PATROL WORK

This Seminar/Workshop is an attendence certificated one day training workshop

Limited places for a QUALITY days training

For booking details contact Danny

Competition or Co-operation?

Martial arts training is usually associated with competition rather  than co-operation. The only time I can think of a co-operative aspect in my pre-Systema training was in group form / kata work for the purpose of a demonstration - everyone moving in synch to create a nice display.

Outside of that all the training I have seen and experienced was either solo work or based around some form of competition, be it sports-based or the idea of defeating an attacker (invariably in a one-on-one situation)

Systema takes another approach. This may be a reflection of the arts modern military use - after all a military or bodyguard unit that can't act as a cohesive force is not going to be very effective.

In basic training terms this takes the form of learning to operate as part of a pair or as a member of a team. This involves learning new skills alongside existing ones. For example -

Communication - being able to relay information in a concise way is important, especially in the pressure of a dangerous situation. This can be verbal or non-verbal and involves not only the method of relaying the communication, but the awareness to receive it

Role - in a team everyone has a role to play. Understanding your role and sticking to it is important for the integrity of the team. However it is equally important to be able to change roles and to recognise circumstances that may require such a change

Accepting orders - when the rubber hits the road, there is no time for a conference. Team members must feel confident in and be able to follow instructions

Accepting suggestions - in training or prior to a situation, team members should have equal input into problem solving. Everyone has their own unique skills and viewpoint

Have a plan - every professional organisation I can think of has procedures for dealing with situations. A little forethought and planning goes a long way to mitigate the "wtf?" factor

Stick with the plan - if the plan or procedure works, then stick with it. Likewise, be prepared to adapt it if necessary and learn from the experience

Empathy - some identity with the team / group helps. This may range from being family members to professional units to just being a group of people who need to get out of a predicament

It's easy to think that this type of training is the preserve of LEOs, special operations units and similar professionals. In fact they are part of everyday life. How do you and your partner act when out with your kids? What happens if a friend in your group is threatened or attacked? How do you react in a situation where someone is injured? These are just a few examples where a measure of co-operation and teamwork can help.

This was the thinking behind our latest DVD release which lays the foundation for teamwork. It covers basic drills for movement, communication and practical work for pairs or more and will hopefully spur you on to create your own drills and training methods

Class Training Spring 2011

Teacher Centred Learning....

Here's a thought for all the instructors and students out there. Who is the primary focus of your training sessions? Or, to put it another way, is your approach teacher centered learning (TCL) or learning centered teaching (LCT)? OK I know it is the sort of nonsense-speak so beloved of "blue sky" thinkers and people who run it up the flag pole, but there is a serious point to consider

It strikes me that the majority of martial art training in the UK is centered around the teacher, style and school. People  come to learn a "style" and  are expected to conform to certain patterns of behaviour, to train in specific ways and to adapt themselves to the requirements of that style. It's similar to someone wanting to learn to "play music". They will typically have chosen an instrument in advance (unless we are talking pure theory) and will learn according to the requirements of the instrument. However once they have learned to play the instrument they can play any style of music, or even compose their own. The same cannot be said of martial arts training

The TCL approach may also involve putting the head teacher on a pedestal -  in which case progression in the style depends on not only learning the syllabus but  how close you can get to the head honcho. Can you become part of the "inner circle"? As you move up the gradings you no longer have to train with the beginners, you get access to the higher level students and become privy to the "secrets" of the style. Some point to  tradition as the reason behind this approach,  I'm not sure that's entirely valid or if it's just an excuse to exercise an unhealthy amount of control over students.

Systema takes more the LCT approach. The class is based around the individuals within it. Everyone works together, there is no formal hierarchy. Drills and exercises can be  adapted on the fly according to the needs / abilities of the student. This means the same drill can be run across the group with differences in intensity to suit different capabilities.

Perhaps most importantly, the teacher is no longer the focal point of the training. There is no standing in rows following what the teacher does. The teacher is there to provide the conditions under which people can learn - in fact when done well the students virtually teach themselves. It's akin to  a director working with actors - he provides the necessary motivation and settings for the actors to act.

Nor, in this approach, is the teacher a distant figure who sits and watches the class and may, if you are one of the chosen few, bestow some words of advice to you. The teacher in  is as likely to be taking part in the drills as the students, stepping out in order to advise the individual or to change the drill. It's a much more hands-on approach to teaching

In order to make a more detailed explanation to the group the teacher may demonstrate something, highlighting specific points of movement, strategy or technique. The overall aim, however, is for the student to discover their own solution to the problem. Which brings us on to the question of problem-solving in training. This can be as simple as how to do a slow press-up with minimum tension through to a full blown outdoor scenario involving a dozen or more people. The job of the teacher is to construct and present the problem in a well thought out, practical and realistic way. By that I mean that the problem should bear some relation to events that the group might expect to be involved in.

Teachers have to take care with this approach that they do not  construct problems that are only relevant to their own situations, likes and dis-likes, or are based on extremely unlikely situations. Of course there are some problem-solving exercises in which the end result of the exercise itself is almost irrelevant, they are constructed to provide a means of team building or similar. But it is more productive, I think, to keep things in a "realistic" context in order to relate skills and training experiences directly back to the outside world.

One other aspect of this approach is the free flow of information in any direction. In the TCL  model, information only flows one way - from the top down. In the LCT model information flows from teacher to student, from student to student and from student to teacher. Nothing is beyond questioning, in fact an enquiring mind is encouraged. A student's real life experiences can be analyzed in class and used as the basis for work. A student may also have expertise in a particular area that the teacher doesn't, which can be tapped into for the benefit of the whole group. Training this way becomes an organic process, it develops naturally along the lines of the experience and skills of the group as a whole. This is why there is no "syllabus" - the people are the syllabus, in the same way that the people are the "system"

I know things are never quite so black and white, but I do feel you can broadly divide training into the TCL or LCT categories. When the two collide or combine things can get interesting! It can be confusing for a person to cross straight from one to the other, especially if there is a prior expectation. I find this sometimes when people come into our group expecting it to be typical "martial arts" - yet no-one is wearing a uniform, no-one lines up and bows and there is a degree of freedom not present in most schools. The vast majority  find this a liberating experience - it's not uncommon to hear " at my last school we were never allowed to do that", "we were never shown this" or most common of all "you mean it is ok to move my shoulder / put my hand this way / move my feet?" (answer - if it works, yes!)

That is nice, but of course this approach is not for everyone and some do prefer a  highly structured TCL  approach. Having to find your own solution (albeit under guidance) does require a measure of self-awareness and self-responsibility from the student. No-one will do your thinking for you and that is not what everyone is looking for in their training.

It has been my experience that very few instructors who embrace the "free" approach go back to the TCL model, though there are always exceptions! While I find this difficult to understand from a self-development point of view, I can understand it much more readily from a marketing / business perspective. Selling self-awareness and self-reliance to the general public is not likely to make anyone rich! The public in general embrace certainty, a concrete syllabus, a snappy name, jargon and terminology (whether technical or foreign language), a measure of progress (such as grading) and a teacher who can  be seen as the expert on every subject. The problem here, with the teacher who makes their own style up, is that they often themselves become the style. When they go, so does the style. Also, everything has roots, and you often find more nourishment from the root than from  the distant branch or leaf.

The TCL approach  speaks more as a method of learning with the conscious mind rather than the sub-conscious - but that is a subject I will talk about next time!