Tim and anyone.

After one of Tims' recent posts, I reviewed again the 'Effortless Combat Throws' book on training, specifically, the need for awareness and feeling in learning movements. There is nothing there with which I disagree, however high repetition training is dismissed as exercise, where time could be better spent. My personal training experience indicates otherwise.

A while ago I selected several exercises/movements to emphasise as core movements and decided to train them 100,000 repetitions each,(left and right, forward and back as applicable, 100,000 each). A couple of movements I started and stopped, one agravated an old previously existing injury, and another I postponed as it used the same muscle groups as stance training, and I wanted to make the stance holding primary at that time. I would work up to one to two thousand repetitions per side per day, five to six days per week.

I had several observations. I had experimented with the footwork before and had a feel for it. However after a year of stance holding I realized that the steps I practiced would not have been 'right' without first having the benefit of stance training, and had I not done the stance training, I would not have known the diference.

For each of the three steps which I have completed in this way, I noticed the same pattern. There was a big breakthrough around the 20,000 mark in 'getting the hang of it'. There would be another significant improvement around the 60,000 mark and again around 80,000.

I used to experience the same thing in running, trying to improve times but stuck in a plateau for months, then suddenly over two days, having a surge/breakthrough to a much better performance level.

Looking at high reps. just as exercise, one can get aerobic and anaerobic benefits but I think it's more efficent by some other exercise more specific for that purpose, such as running.

High reps. also can develop legs and the upper body similarly to stance holding, but stance holding is a more efficient way of doing that and has additional benefits.

I am not questioning the concept of developing 'muscle memory' in 2000 to 4000 reps. of something, or needs for partner training of various types. But I think a lot of us are losing out by not trying this more traditional mode of training.

Seems to me that 2000 to 4000 reps. of something like a Chin Na movement would be very significant, but is it really enough to develop basic movements such as the five 'fists' of Hsing Yi? Are we settling for a lower standard of competency without realizing it?

Mark,
I agree that doing something over and over ad naseum is one way of imprinting a movement set on your muscle memory. My question is, to what purpose.

You could throw one million punches in the air and have no better chance of actually hitting a live opponent than if you had never practiced the punch at all.

After you have the basic movement skill down (a point which comes rather quickly with correct practice), all the subsequent time spent repeating that movement in the air would be much better spent actually trying to apply it on a live and resisting opponent.

After practicing your movements so many times in the air did you ever test your ability to apply them "for real" (against a resisting opponent)? If not, what "significant improvement" do you feel you got after 60,000 air reps?

The quality of a skill is a developmental process usually broken up into a series stages/steps, which is bound closely to the defined purpose of the skill. Here is the first area for problems; some see the series of steps as distinct stages (say 'traditional' Hebei Xing Yi) others as more of a continuum, ramp rather than steps(say 'traditional' Shanxi Xing Yi) or as a mixture of both (individual preference). That still leaves open disagreements on how many steps, how steep, where does it lead to and so on... This is always going to a subjective process.

The quantative assessment of skill is quite easy in athletic type events; how high, far, fast etc.. However for the complex and diverse skills evident in IMA the measurement of these skills is not so easy, may even be a case where progress in one skill decreases another. About the only objective way to measure progress is to fight/spar, but what is the optimum approach (is there one?) as to how often the testing takes place, under what conditions, when should it start (finish?). Again this is a subjective process.

'Basic' skills must be drilled, and there must be some minimum requirement, but this will vary from individual to individual, place to place and time to time, as will an upper limit, law of diminishing returns has to kick in somewhere. For some the returns may be getting smaller, but still be worthwhile, more subjection.

These arguments in IMA will always be subject to..., conditional on..., limited with respect to..., that's just the nature of the game, but i'll continue to play along.

The 'abrupt' improvements I mention involve balance, 'smoothness' and speed though I wasn't necessarily pushing for speed.

I have no training partners nor personal instruction.

I stopped standing in Wu Chi and moved to another stance when it seemed there was no more progress to be made there. I then spent a year in the 'Three Circle Post' but uncertain if I moved on from that too early. In San Ti, I have a long way to go, but that's quite obvious to me.

Compare my concern to that to that of weight lifters, once you can comfortably or reliably meet your goal for X pounds of X repetitions, continuing that doesn't help you to improve, only to maintain what you have. Here, it's not so clear.

I learned (experienced) in stance holding how over a period of months diferent muscles or muscle groups were affected which were not appearently used in the early stages of training. In the 'jump/skip/follow' step, the connective tissues of my ankles gradually loosened and strengthened. Prolonged upper body exercises affected not only deltoids but intercoastal muscles, spinal erectors, etc.

Guess it boils down to this, individual movement practice isn't just ingraining movement but conditioning of the body parts in that movement. (I presume that eventually the cumulative effect would make additional movements have a shorter learning curve).

With weight training it is easy to see when one is ready to increase weight or reps. or start variations of the basic exercise. Not so clear here. Traditional training often is described where masters developed a foundation by performed a basic exercise such 'drilling' or Pan Gen hours per day for months before moving on to something else. (and I recognise this is not necesssarily the best way) But how do we recognise the middle ground for optimum results?(which may differ for each individual)

Especially in karate in this country, being able to go through the motions and look like you can do something is acceptable rather than training enough to actually do it. This is what I am trying to avoid (Yes, you can't do it all with solo practice but you gotta' start somewhere).

Sounds like Tim is saying you really need your training partners to learn where you've got to direct your training. Makes sense. Comments?

No, I didn't miss any references to distancing, timing, reaction, setups, etc.. I agree to all of that.

After much and careful consideration, I have concluded that to test any technique I have trained, I will travel to California. There I will tie chickens to Bob #2 and Meynard. When I am able to avoid their attacks and still explode the chickens I will consider my technique satisfactory and move on to other exercises. Patent pending.

Tim, like Mark, I too have experienced extended training periods increasing my speed and power in certain movements. I attribute this to the isometric nature of many of my exercises. Yes, muscle memory to do the movement correctly can be internalized relatively correctly, but to generate a truly smashing blow seems to take much longer. Is this because of improper body dynamics on my part perhaps? Or maybe my system is too "hard"(?).

Interesting. Jarek's interview with Mr. Ma Chuanxu states something quite contrary:

JS: Does it mean that all Bagua movements are designed in such a way that one must have Neigong first to be really able to use them?

MR.MA: Exactly. Without Neigong all Bagua techniques are good for nothing and there is no use to practice them. For this reason I'm not willing to teach any techniques to students who do not have Internal Skill - it's waste of time for them and me.

Kenneth. Agree, I think the extending training provides the factor of specific conditioning for that exercise, which takes much longer than simply 'learning' the movement. I think you once speculated that some people may have experienced enough training in their past that they don't need this additional training time when learning new movements. Or some of us simply take longer.

I still want to tie chickens on those guys though.

wouldn't a 'traditional approach' be to find a teacher you respect and do what he says?
(a teacher who can test your postures and watch your footwork and make suggestions).

you guys are simply nuts.

That's the problem, Bob. In my life, I've personally only met 2 teachers worthy of that kind of respect that were willing to teach openly(and I've met several "big names"), and they aren't anywhere near me right now.

Bob Long ago I read an article of some karate types visiting Japan. While comparing skills with people there in their own style they did ok and held their own in sparing but were a little dismayed that for basic individual movements such as punching and kicking, their second degree black belts were only as good as the Japanese brown belts. Had they not been pulling their punches, the sparring results might have been different.

Like Tim says, even a million punches in the air, no matter with how much speed or power mean nothing if you can't land one and keep from being hit. Years ago in karate I was the big hitter just because I did 600 punches per hand per day in the air and alternate days on the makiwara, but this was nothing compared to what old masters did.

If I 'reach out and touch someone', I want it to mean something.

Remember too, many traditional teachers never explained, only demonstrated. It was expected that a serious student would figure out the details themself through hard work. High repetitions can help one discover nuiances about body position and movement (thought it still needs to tested against a partner.

Rumbrae may recognise the interview where somebody said they didn't require any specific length of time for students to hold postures, he left it up to the student depending on their strength, patience, and what what level of skill they desired. I think it's the same with basic movements.

Mark,
I agree that repetitve calisthenics will build physical attributes.

On a side note, both Meynard and Bob #2 are allergic to poultry, you'll have to find someone else to hang your chickens on.

What about cats?

Some cats are allergic to poultry. I once had a cat who was allergic to poultry, liver and fish. She could only eat 'lamb and rice' wet food.

Kenneth- it's funny to me that guys who throw around terms like 'traditional training' always follow it up with 'there are no great teachers near me' I think, the tradition was- a student seeks out and goes to a great teacher.

If want to train the traditional way- pack your suit case and shut your pie hole about it.

Bob#2

Jeez. Don't anyone try to explode a cat. If you ever run into one your size, you'll know what I mean.

A few cats are allergic to poultry. Most will just wreak havoc in your chicken coop (eating, not exploding).

Lamb and rice is really nice.

I already did that some time ago, Bob. More training is always nice, different views, etc. But now, I think what I need is more experience.

BTW, I don't think most guys who throw around the term "traditional training" have a clue to what I mean by that.

You're right about that last point, BTFW.

Always lots of teachers around. Some are BS, some are ok but not teaching anything I want to learn. I am looking into trying to schedule vacations so that I might be able to spend even a couple of weeks at Tims' academy. In such a short time I do not expect to 'learn' a number of new techniques but rather to get a good evualation of where I'm at, and where I need to direct my continued training.

Surprisingly, some years ago I met someone right here who I would study under, a third generation Chinese accupuncturist and herbalist. I met him at a work related function and was impressed with him, the person.

Several years later I made an appointment for treatment. He did an examination and stated he did not think his methods would help and suggested an specialized surgeon(which I learned I did). He showed me an exercise which he said may alleviate the symptoms. Even though this was a scheduled office visit and exam, he afterward insisted there was no fee and refused my offer to pay. Insisting that as he had used no supplies or equipment and had used just a little of his time, there was no fee.

Why am I not studying with this man who learned Tai Chi from his family? On our first meeting, he had mentioned about having tried several times to teach Americans and gave up. As I have been writing this, I wonder if I am not at a point where perhaps I should approach him> Hmmmm?