"Soft and Slow"..is it martially valid?

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Guys,

Tony I has it as far as I am concerned. I made that post as extreme sounding as possible to both parody Shane's (sorry Shane you have to admit it was mildly amusing though) and to show that the extreme in either camp is a poor choice.

I prefer to drill slow and soft. Then pressure test with a set rhythm a little faster, then amp up the speed so that defences have to be made crisply and precisely. Then start using broken rhythm to train perception skills, then start introducing options for the attacker. You either introduce another play that is already known or you train up a new one to the above standard so that you can then make two possible attacks, as close to full speed as armour, weapon and the target area will allow. This means that the defender is training close to real fighting conditions but only having to make two movements and without breaking and making measure. Lastly bouting can happen first allowing only what has been learned in the lesson and then all out for advanced students.

This makes logical use of all of the above approaches and means that the player has a technique well ingrained by the time freeplay comes around. If at any point the student fails consistently during drilling, pressure testing or bouting, you can drop back to the previous level or simply turn down the speed.

This is the method I use when teaching private and small group lessons.
Cheers,
Stu.

[Shane Smith]

Stu,

Now we're on the ground I intended when I originally posted. I cannot see where we disagree .This Art of ours does indeed call for both soft and slow training in combination with training with realistic speed and motion with intent.That is my position entirely! Crawl,Walk,Run. Since you hold Dan as I do,I'm sure you must be familiar with at least one school that teaches EXCLUSIVELY soft and slow as a rule...You know,the one where they never hit heavy bags or practice striking focus mitts or the like and are content to perform kata to teach economy of motion while neglecting freeplay entirely.That is the totality of their curriculum in pursuit of martial excellence and for that reason,they never get passed "Walk"....and the trend is in that direction in most commercial schools, in my area at least.

It is the limiting nature of that approach that I am questioning. I am further questioning whether there is a danger in the HES community of our Art devolving into that sort of half-hearted endevour.I further wonder if any of the various Masters of the western sword taught in such a manner in period.On the other end of the scale,having our Art devolve into the devil-may-care sort of state you allude to in your previous post would be just as fruitless and undesirable in my opinion. It seems to me that the nature of all martial endevours as they "mature" outside of the battlefield for which they were created, eventually causes them to polarize some practitoners into a couple of extreme factions that are no longer so much commited to martial practicality ,but rather to social hospitality.That is a shame.There is a real danger of that I'm afraid.

[Ray Brunk]

I do not have half the credentials or certifications of many on this forum. I have however boxed and fought full contact in the ring. Although I did include half & the quarter speed sparring into my training, I cannot imagine ever stepping into the ring never having fought at full speed.Some fighters did keep the speed down to elude injury. The majority of them suffered from "sparring mentality" which I'm sure many of you have heard watching pro boxing. They lose the ability to step it up as they are overwhelmed. Although this is not life or death combat, it is the closest to a full out fight we will ever see(along with K1, mixed mm and pit fighting) Those of you out there that have fought full contact(not tournament or points) understand that everything changes when another man rushes toward you with the sole intent of causing you harm. Without the ability to fight full out.....you will lose miserably. I do understand that we will never face another man with a sword to the death...but isn't training to do so what WMA is about. To truly get in touch with our heritage it seems that we should attempt to slip into our ancestors mindset and purpose fot learning WMA.
I am not saying that we should not train at partial speed to learn our techniques, only that we must speed them up when we are ready to test those technique's validity. Even being new, I have found that with many techniques..the blades do not react properly until speed and strength is enforced.
2 1/2 cents from a new guy
Ray

[Gene Tausk]

Hey Shane!

I think what we are talking about here (and I am oversimplifying the matter to be sure) is...is something like Taijiquan an effective martial art in combat and if it is, can it be replicated in WMA?

I am not an expert in Taijiquan, in fact, except for a few quarters at Ohio State (we are probably the last university in North America that still use the quarter system), I never studied the art. The martial art I used to teach Ship Pal Gi, was a system that used kicks a great deal and I suppose that if we were to classify that art by obsolete classification systems, it would be a "hard" martial art.

Having said the above, however, I notice that no combat-tested art of which I am aware exclusively uses slow movements. Slow movements are used in some phases of training, such as in TKD, certain forms of wushu, boxing, etc., but I do not know of any art that is used in combat or in full-contact sporting events (like TKD and judo) that rely on slow movements entirely. Also, from what I understand of Taijiquan, much of this art is tied up into various aspects of traditional Chinese medicine and Taoist philosophy, which has no place in WMA.

So - is Taijiquan an effective martial art in combat? I can only state that I have never seen an exponent of the art use it to defend him/herself in a combat situation. Therefore, from my list of experience, I would have to answer "unknown." Therefore, the next question - can it be replicated in WMA? I guess another answer to this is: why bother? If I am uncertain as to whether moving exclusively slow in a martial art, like in Taijiquan, is combat effective, why would I wish to duplicate this philosophy when I would rather go with the training I can be certain is effective - mixing soft practice at various phases with practice that use intent, focus, speed and strength?

Any Taijiquan practitioners out there - I am not trying to offend, but merely make an observation. Based on my knowledge of Taijiquan, I don't see the philosophy and practice of this particular martial art as being applicable to WMA.

Certainly I can't imagine that the Mid and Renn masters of defense would advocate a system based solely on slow movement. I am perfectly willing to stand corrected, of course, but why would the philosophy of Western swordsmanship and fighting arts pursue what seems to be an art that fits well with the Taoist ideal of harmony?


------->>>>>>>>>gene

[Shane Smith]

Hello Gene, I think you have a pretty good grasp of what I'm getting at and where I'm coming from.I would only clarrify that I'm not so much asking if a heavily-leaning soft and slow approach "could" be replicated in the WMA,so much as I am in dread of it actually coming to pass. <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> ...I suspect it WILL come to pass in certain circles given another decade or two of development and (unfortunately) factionalizing that will be brought about as some groups move farther and farther away from the martial reality of the Art and more towards a touchy-feelie kind of affair in which the teeth of the art are broken by some misguided individuals . I have watched this happen with the ASian systems over my relatively short lifetime and I am concerned that this sort of watering down will affect the HES in the future.In that sort of environment,the ARMA and other martially-minded organizations will be ever more neccesary as we work to roll back the veils of historical ignorance. We've only beginning to understand this Art,yet some minds in our community are seemingly already closing the door on practical application in favor of other less demanding/realistic approaches.The danger lies in others being led astray by that mentality in my opinion.Fortunately this sort of mindset remains a comparative rarity...for now.

[Shane Smith]

Ray,

That bit about the "sparring mentality" is intriguing.I had never thought of it quite that way but it sure seems reasonable.So what you're saying is that people become inseparable from their half-hearted approach to a pursuit because they have trained that way for so long(both physically AND mentally), that when the time comes,they're pre-programmed to fail because they remain bound by a mindset that hasn't prepared them to dig deep and "gut it out" to victory? If I understand you correctly,here's the next(and larger question).If not,please set me straight.

Why do you think that some individuals that are seeking training in the martial arts are drawn to this sort of training as opposed to more vigorous and realistic methods? I wonder...

[John_Clements]

Ray said it all. Really on target.

As many of you know, there are “hard” and “soft” styles of traditional Asian martial arts. (and the two don’t often see eye to eye). And let’s be honest, we also know that today there are individuals as well as historical fencing groups who have no real interest of doing their study at an intense physical level. They are comfortable with a “soft” approach. That’s fine for them.

In ARMA, we intentionally chose the “hard” approach.
Our reasoning is that this is what was needed in real combat –combat which required force and speed. …I have yet to encounter a sound argument against this reasoning.

Further, the historical source manuals we all follow do not describe in detail their teaching systems or their training methods. They do not tell us exactly how they practiced nor how they learned, nor really how they passed along their skills to others. All we know is that their techniques were intended for real combat and were invariably lethal.
Again, I have not encountered any reasonable arguments against this view.

So, while we all utilize a slow approach for instructing beginners, and even for veterans exercising at a slower pace to perfect their form, in ARMA we emphasize the violent nature of personal combat and the necessity of brutal efficiency in performing techniques with earnest intent –that is, in range, at speed, and with force. It takes practice. But the results are spectacular.

We believe the historical fighters we wish to emulate –who trained for real combat –surely must have followed this same logic, and to an even higher degree. The records of historical sword deaths and injuries support this view. Our test-cutting experiments support this.

So, in ARMA we like to say, if “running” is your goal, then you certainly have to walk before you can learn to run. But you don’t learn it by “running in slow motion.” And the best way to understand how to run is to be shown an example of it by someone who can really run.

Wrath in their hearts, and vigor in their hands:
Valor, success, strength, hardiness and art,
– Tasso, 1575

JC

[John_Clements]

Let me also add, that part of the “soft” view I believe stems from classical fencing, where the light weapons and etiquette of class play proscribes extraneous force or too violent an action. This attitude, directly descended from the safety requirements and concerns for poise and deportment within 17th century smallsword academies, and has little to do with the reality of 15th and 16th century battlefield encounters or self-defense with different arms and armors [in fact I document this in detail in one of my new books]. Add to this attitude, influences from the non-martial character of much reenactment combat and theatrical fencing, as well as influence from soft Asian styles, and I think we understand the origins of the “soft and slow” approach that some wish to advocate for Renaissance martial arts.

Personally, after more than 24 years of this, I have really never been all that impressed by fighters who uses the “soft and slow” approach, nor found them particularly effective in free-play or test-cutting. In contrast, I have seen talented novices using well controlled energy who’s intensity was very intimating to the “soft and slow” practitioners, and very effective in both test-cutting and sparring.

Training exercises are about developing muscle memory –reflexes and familiar actions. Because of this training exercises must be dynamic. At some point in order to develop flexibility in responses training exercises must permit things to happen that are unexpected. They eventually must become unpredictable, and not just about repetitively getting into position moving from point A to point B and so on. If you do something different in training, such as changing the location, timing, or speed of an attack, you alter the anticipated rote pattern so that the opponent has difficulty adjusting (hence, the reason for free-play or sparring). As well, at some point a fighter must practice for improved speed, strength, accuracy, and deceptiveness. No training, no matter how good, can prepare a man for the reality of battle. The most that can be done is instill basic responses, physical conditioning, and mental toughness.

(Those combative systems intended for modern military organizations also invariably involve hard styles that train with energy and full speed. …Wonder why that is?)

JC

[Gene Tausk]

Hey Shane!

Thanx for the kind words. I hope I understood the posts you were making.

In response to your second post (which was in response to my first), I would like to point out that in many EMA, the idea of moving slowly, continously, makes a certain amount of sense in the martial systems being studied. Once again, to use Taijiquan, the practitioner (at least in many styles of Taijiquan) is attempting to move slowly to cultivate his "chi." Now, whether one accepts the idea of chi or not (and this term by no means has only one definition), the idea that moving slowly can improve balance, harmony, clarity of mind and overall health has been verified in many medical tests. However, does this mean a Taijiquan practitioner is skilled in combat? Well, if the idea of combat is to display "grace under pressure," namely, the ability to remain calm in a danger situation, then I suppose, yes, this is combat effective. However, if combat effective means the ability to go toe-to-toe with the psycho who wants to take your head off, then we have a different definition of "combat."

I guess what I am getting at here is that for many practitioners of Taijiquan, the idea is not so much learning how to fight per se, but develop the internal skills that one needs to practice a type of "combat." Keep in mind once again, I am not an expert in this by any means, but I have practiced it enough and read enough of the literature to understand that this is certainly one theory behind the practice of Taijiquan. As I said in my previous post, this is something which fits in with many traditional Chinese theories, although the benefits of such practice is not limited to China, of course.

Now, in Western swordsmanship, I think we can all agree that one is preparing to learn how to fight. The guy across from you is not going to be content with just upsetting your balance - he (or she) wants to decapitate you. Therefore, I think it reasonable that the introduction of other methods of training, including learning how to fight with intent at realistic combat speeds, is certainly appropriate and necessary. Just learning how to move slowly in combat may give you good technique, but I have a hard time seeing how such good technique, practiced at slow speeds, is going to help a practitioner when the other guy is certainly moving at full speed.

Quite frankly this takes me back to the days when I used to collect comics. Back in those far-off memories, I remember reading the ads on the back covers for "Kuh-Roddy" courses that would guarantee you would be able to rip apart your opponent without worrying about size or strength or speed. Yeah, right.

BTW - notice the Navy SEALS and other special ops guys that learn martial arts as part of their training never really seem to concentrate on fighting slow? It seems to me that if this were a valid method, special forces operators would pick up on it.

Just a thought.


------------&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;gene

[Ray Brunk]

Shane,
The "sparring mentallity" term is very common in the boxing world. You will many times hear a fighter referred to as a good "gym fighter" which is virtually the same thing. You have understood my point 100% You are also right that it is both mental &amp; physical. The mental aspect may even be the bigger hurdle. One may have the physical tools but cannot use them due to the mind.It may never had to react that fast. As for physical , the nerves have never needed to fire that fast , so the muscles cannot react as quickly.Bottom line: you have to train at the speed, strength and intent in which you would use in reality.
As for the larger question. I have asked myself that same question for years. It seem that martial arts have a few inherant problems. It is widely acceptable to train in ama for the interest in the art, a secondary workout or for fitness alone. The vast majority of ma students will never take it to the highest level....the ring. In fact, most ama dojos in my area have no active full contact fighters. They practice technique,hit bags at full speed but never go full bore against an opponent. The fitness classes such as cardio kickboxing &amp; Tae bo have also hurt the core of ama heritage.I fully understand that they do it for the money.In comparison: in boxing....if you train, you are expected to and will fight. These are a few examples, but to answer the question at hand: Why do people train to fight, yet never fight, or at least train as if they will......I cannot fathom why. On a side note: I believe that any and every healthy young man should train and fight in the ring once or twice. I cannot begin to describe how much one can learn about himself in just one 3 round fight. It's not about being a tough guy, it's about self awareness.
I am in no way implying that one discipline is better than another, they all have there place.I trained in a gym of full contact kickboxers in the early 90's At a local exhibition 8 fighters from our gym sparred 8 representatives from 2 other dojos. They all practiced the half speed rule in training. Our school went 8-0 all "fights" ending in the first round. Although we were told that it would be full contact and no one was really hurt(a few bells rung) we were then called bullies &amp; fanatics, and were black balled from future sparring exhibitions ...............Sounds a little too familiar, huh?

Ray

[John_Clements]

Hey Gene,

Yes. Consider our modern bayonet training...the first thing the Marine Corps does is get their recruits to learn how to stab forcefully and angrily (emotional content anyone?) at a test target with a real bayonet. Then they start teaching and working two person drills with wooden weapons at slower safe speed, and then some full force sparring with padded pugil sticks.

Why?

Becuase they want them prepared to kill people in real combat if necessary.

....oh yeah, that's right. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

JC

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi John,

I look forward to reading your views on 17th Century Smallsword.
Folks who have played with 17th Century weapons usually have little interest in earlier period weapons and it will be good to hear the views of someone who has studied both in depth.

I have read that the long rapier was in use for at least half of the 17th Century and that the smallsword only really came into fashion in the latter half of the 17th Century.

Can I ask which manuals and/or secondary sources you used when studying the smallsword?

Smallsword would be an interesting study that I one day intend to pursue because there really is a verfiable lineage for this weapon through Classical and Sports Fencing.

It should also be mentioned that in the 17th Century, most smallsword and rapier academies were teaching folks for the duel as they were in the 15th and 16th. Puncture wounds in the 1700s (as today in fact) are extremely difficult to treat and were often fatal long after the duel was finished.

Duelling in France during the 17th century reached epidemic proportions and I would not be surprised if the illegal duel was conducted far more often than in the preceding centuries.

I look forward to your response.
Regards,
Stu.

[John_Clements]

Hi Stu
Oh, I haven't studied smallsword “in depth,” I just respect the heck out of the little bugger --vicious, nasty little needle that is often underestimated by other types of martial artists and sword enthusiasts. Being an old sport fencer, and having handled a few dozen real antique smallswords, plus knowing what I know of how much grappling and close in fighting occurred with that weapon, when I read the accounts of how violent such duels and fights with it were, I don't underestimate it. ...Yet, the period literature and the smallsword manuals (from Hope to Angelo to L'Abbat and Liancour, a few Brits, etc.) make abundantly clear the nature of teaching swordplay underwent tremendous changes in the 18th century to reflect very different concerns and conditions, even influencing military swordplay.

JC

p.s.
you ever finish your article on historial training?

[Mike Cartier]

too late shane it has already come to pass.

There is a group working on Runes that has created a taichi style slow movement runs stances.
Wish i could find the link its hilarious.
They also think its martially effective.

[Shane Smith]

Mike,that is truly disturbing! How would one rationalize a link between the norse alphabet(and it's alleged magical properties) and the practice of HES? That seemingly would require a bit of a stretch! This is how it all starts I'm afraid...Every step deeper into the imagination is a step further away from reality.If you ever find the link,please share.