Keith Johnstone - Impro

Friend Scott Phillips studied with this guy, and brought up his work quite a while back as having many parallels with great martial arts training. It's taken me this long to post a few thoughts.

I have not read his book - 'Impro', though intend to. Here is part of an interview talking about his work and the book:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgfXUS0US9Y&list=PLTmosN2JBG7gpX7bCVazJNxS37QxUQqP3

In the first 30 seconds of this interview you pretty much get the core of the method by which Sonny taught Eskrima -
Keith Johnstone says "Get rid of the fear"..... Sonny would say "Get rid of the freezing points"
"Make the right answers obvious" - This is what 'seeing' is.

"You have to fail" ..... There really is no learning without failing. Rote learning is not the same. You have to find the 'edges' of what you know to truly own it.

Don't be angry when you make a mistake, be happy .... Not Ha!Ha! happy, understand that mistakes may be gifts, so learn to surf them and use them to your advantage. Do not deny them.

"Learning to accept ideas is not good enough" .... Learn what your partner wants and give it to them. If it seems a little bit of a stretch to give your dueling opponent what they want .... think of giving them 'enough rope' instead ... But the key here is communication, not just playing by yourself.

Take risks ... "It's the goals you don't get that make it worthwhile ..." This is what training is for - it's a place to experiment, try, fail .... and gain skills.

Incremental

All the small things matter, for though they may be inconsequential when taken individually, together they can create big effects.

The most obvious one is power generation - If I can get all the elements that create power - gravity, turning and twisting and whipping to work as one, then I can generate more power than if I just control one of them.

Other less obvious chains include the same power generators, but this time used to accelerate evasive movements, or changing the start angle of the blade edge to change the arc of the cut (basically connecting the blade to the twisting capability of the arm .. and torso ... and leg ... and step).

The so called Internal Arts talk about the 'chain of pearls' and 'if one part moves all parts move' to describe this concept, and the big thing to note is that it's the connections between the increments that create the chain, not just the pieces themselves ... and a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.

Connecting pieces efficiently involves relaxing, because it's the previous increment that pulls or pushes the next piece into action, and timing the connections so they all work in concert is what makes the chain possible.

The timing is related to physiology and distance ... all colliding at the point of impact, or out of the line of fire in direct relationship to the arc of the target to hit, or the incoming threat to evade.

Add a fake or a bait to the chain of motion and there will be at least 2 possible chains that need to be accessible - the direct line, or with a bounce/cusp, a curve or a slingshot used as the change in direction.

Again. Relaxation is the key to preserving or amplifying the power/torque, and timing is the key to achieving precision at the point of (no) contact.

For practice, it's worth remembering that it's much easier to make big and long into small and short than the other way around.

Slacking

Been slacking on the blog recently. My creative allotment has been twirling trying to get this book that's still partly lodged in my head, down onto paper.
Showing how deception works is hard enough .... talking about it is easier, but probably not to the point of actually conveying all that is necessary ... and writing - no body language, no gestures, no questions to answer ... Sheesh!
The sounds of my own voice reading different versions of the same thing is making me crazy. How do I know which version is best? They all makes sense to me :-)
Some days it seems simple, clear, short ... barely anything worth talking about ... On others there is SO much to explain it's hard to know where to start, which parts are most important and what goes before what .....
This would be much easier as a conversation.

Teaching vs Fighting

Many fighters do not make good teachers … and vice versa. Some can do neither.

Sonny was, in my opinion, someone that could do both, and not only that, considered them the same thing in a sense - Making a stranger do what you want them to do - Physically, emotionally, and mentally.

His famous line : 'If I know what you are going to do next I can beat you,' plays right into this - Remembering that one does not need to wait to find out what they are going to do, just make them an offer they can't refuse.

In a fighting context, it's a case of manipulating circumstances to one's benefit, making the opponent predictable and in the dark about one's true motivations.

In a teaching context, it's a case of manipulating the circumstances to lead the student to making the correct choices at each challenge.

The process is the same - The motivation and outcome are different: Fighting, the opponent needs to lose; Teaching, the student needs to learn how not to lose …. by understanding what losing looks and feels like

Fighting, you do not advertise the impending loss; Teaching, you show them what it looks like, and have them avoid it.

The only difference is the coaching you give to the student, so they can learn to see what they need to avoid …..  At first you have to make the experience of impending loss visible, and this will have to be done bigger  - longer strikes, bigger angles, more telegraphing. Later, it becomes as subtle as it needs to be to replicate an opponent trying not to be seen.

What makes this good practice for the teacher is that to improve the student's fighting skill, one gets to know what the student can see and what they cannot comprehend, and learning this will facilitate the teacher's ability to work inside, or outside, visible parameters …. whatever is necessary at the time.

This ability to read an opponent, and calibrate one's actions to fit the situation is a hugely important skill set. The reason why, is that you need to be able to work both sides of the 'event horizon'. Most people understand the necessity to be able to act without telegraphing intent - This is hard enough to perfect, yet many perhaps many do not understand the equally important skill of setting an opponent up. This skill REQUIRES that one is seen, and is vital to the ability to fake and bait.

If you do not know what your opponent can and cannot see, this line is arbitrary and subject to error. This is a big problem.

In hand to hand arts, the visual signals are replaced by the tactile, and the sells, the tells, the fakes and the baits, are all communicated through touch. Striking arts use visual clues, Bagua has a host of tactical stratagems used before contact, boxing does it too. It is most important in the weapon arts however, where tactile clues have their value, but where the most dangerous distance to close through is (at least partly) in visual range.

If one can lead a student to start understanding what is going on, how they are undefended, why they get hit etc, one can also learn how to make others a.k.a opponents 'do things' without words.

As a simple example, I say to myself - 'I will make my training partner block high right', and I see what it takes to make them do this. For them to succeed in the block (and remember I want them to see the strike and be able to block it) I need to express a strike to the right side of their head in an arc, and at a speed that they are certain that this is the problem they need to solve. I strike too fast and they cannot block. I sell a weak strike angle, and they cannot see it and so ignore it ….. From this I learn to understand what they can see, and what they cannot, i.e. which action results in which reaction. If they counter attack by striking to my arm I learn that the timing was not correct and that the target was not open, and thus pointless to aim for.

I don't know what will work, so I need to experiment, and Random Flow Training is the format in which to work on this. I cannot keep throwing the same strike over and over …. then there is no natural reaction possible, just a preset one … so we must move, and engage, pendulum in and out, and I must throw the strike to get the react I am looking for, within this random interaction. When I have a good idea what will work, I mix it up in between other things and see if I can get it again.

As the student gets more wily, I will have to try harder and harder to get the reaction I am trying to create, therefore both of us are improving our skills.

This then means that over time, the teacher can train the student to see faster and less obvious strikes .. and once they have those down, one can start to fake them with more and more subtle movement that they have to deal with. The teacher, in turn, learn what they can see, how to fake them, and how to fake them better and better.

We both have a question to answer - Their question is - How do I block a strike coming in? My question is - What makes them see the angle that I am striking?

But this is the key - Name the thing you want to happen, and make it happen:

I want them to back up. I want them to cut to my sword hand. I want them to block low left. Whatever you want, but keep it simple. This is why sticking to even 4 basic strikes invokes such a wide field of play. Especially when the student gets better … certain things become harder and harder to get. This is the goal. Quite naturally this becomes closer and closer to a meaningful interaction bearing resemblance to one on one combat …. remembering that the student does not need to wait, or stay defensive ….. they can attack and evade, counter and press, as is their want. This more active role in itself then leads to the problems inbuilt into any movement, and the problems to solve can be thrown back at the student.

"If I know what they are going to do next I can beat them" ….. This is how you practice knowing. You MAKE things happen, and understand what you need to do to create that reaction in your opponent. I decide to create a reaction, then I do what needs to be done to have it come to pass.

It's a simple and elegant solution that engages all the aspects of sword play, the most important parts of which I consider to be not being seen, and being seen, and all the parts that go into achieving both.

The Sword is an Extension of the Feet

The sword is the primary weapon of my system.

My teacher thought that the sword required the greatest accuracy and finesse to use, that the margins of error were the slimmest, and that the price of failure the greatest. Hence to get the most efficient learning curve, it was taught first, not last as in many styles and systems.

His method was - Accuracy first, then power, then speed, believing that if you could learn to understand range to such a degree of accuracy that you could differentiate a graze from a hit you would be far ahead of the game when playing with impact weapons or empty hand. Same with identifying angles, and thus lines of threat and safety - much more immediately obvious with swords than any other weapon.
Lastly, he wanted us to understand the use of evasion in gaining superior position, and there is nothing like an edged weapon to give the incentive to move out of the way.

He was a small man, and skinny - not of the body type to be able to take damage, and this was honestly one of the reasons I wanted to train with him. He understood the importance of protecting himself from damage way more than perhaps some larger, heavier practitioners who are able to absorb more impact.

He had to be certain, accurate, and have a means of entering and exiting range safely, or risk taking potentially fight ending damage in the process, and unless he had the advantage of surprise, the first hit was rarely the finisher because he did not like to commit all his power without having options if 'Plan A' was not enough to end the fight or give him the opportunity to get away.

His way was - Gain advantage/time, then drop them .... whether with edged weapon, impact weapon, or empty hand. To be clear, if he had the advantage of surprise, the first strike was often all that was needed, but the dueling paradigm assumes they see you coming ... or are coming for you ... and thus that you are behind the curve from the get go.

Once the accuracy was there, he worked on combining movement with torque and other methods of power acceleration .. so that the first hit would produce an advantage through either destroying the opponent's balance/structure or getting behind them, so that the NEXT strike would be possible, and that would be the one to finish or incapacitate to the extent that an exit was possible ..... Because as he always pointed out - it is easier to get in than to get out, easier to hit than to avoid being hit.

Gaining advantage could come in the form of shocks to the nervous system, perhaps hand hits with their potential to disarm, hits/kicks to the knees and feet to unbalance, perhaps showing flashes of movement in the peripheral vision to unsettle, other threatening moves/jukes etc, or even something subtler like a sleight of hand or some other way to steal range without the opponent noticing. All the time looking for the opening to 'take out the computer' .... that would be the head and brain stem.

But it was always movement that was the key. Movement gave you position. Movement gave you evasion. Movement gave you power. Movement gave you cuts. Movement gave you an exit.

They say the sword is an extension of the arm and thus of the whole body, but it is the feet that really give the opportunity for the sword to do it's work .... or the stick, or the cane, or the hands.

Precision

"Accuracy first" Sonny would say .... "I don't care how big your gun or how powerful your bullet, if you can't hit me it means nothing".

Same could be said for opinions, critiques and commentary.

We all have opinions about subjects we care about, and some about things we find less engaging, but they are only opinions ... they are not 'true' or 'false' or 'the one and true way' .... they are just opinions.

I personally think it is important to have a point of view about things as it gives me a place to speak from. It also gives me a place to move away from if convinced to do so, because right alongside my opinion should lie the space where the opinion can change. This can happen from internalizing new information, or from a change of viewpoint created by time/age/circumstance/whatever.

Most importantly, this open mindedness should in no way dilute my opinion. I like to be clear and reasoned, and if there is no reason, admit that it is a gut feeling, or simply a personal preference with no more reason than 'I just like it', or 'I find it beautiful/compelling/fascinating' whatever.

Also, I want my opinions to be as precise as possible. I like to know exactly what I have problems with, and what I do not, what I like about something, and where that 'like' ends, because it is far easier to debate a point when both parties know which particular element forms the disagreement.

I say all this as a plea to those who throw out blanket statements, ill thought out critiques or avoid having opinions at all.

Most will be familiar with the lowest form of critique - the point and laugh approach, or the erroneous extrapolation from "If A is no good, then everything that sounds like A is also bunk".

However, almost as bad (though perhaps one step up from the screaming monkey mob) is 'Politically Correct Land' where everything is valued and praised, and though this may encourage, 'An open and positive environment of acceptance' .... really it is almost as useless as the cheap laugh in moving understanding forward.

Please, instead of choosing 'being nice' over 'being an ass', how about pointing out, PRECISELY, what you find worthy and what is bunk .... in your opinion .... You really are allowed to have one, like I am, and just for the record, you are also allowed to be wrong, ignorant and naive - all totally acceptable, just don't be malicious, bigoted or close minded - These are not.

And remember, my personal opinions come from my personal experience and my skillset, so they only have worth as far as that reaches ... they need not effect anyone else unless they resonate or annoy enough to open a new point of view to look out of.

And lastly, please have a sense of humor and let your opinions have enough thought behind them to be robust. I can give you reasons why I believe as I do and how far I've thought things through (or not) .... and if you care to listen, feel free to agree, or point out to me why you disagree with me ....

It's called a conversation, perhaps a debate or an argument. It's all good. Perhaps we'll both even learn something ...

Edges

This post could be a part 2 to the previous post on coaching, injury and 'negative' experiences.

Lately I have become fascinated by the idea of the edges of things - the edges of truth, the edges of experience, the edges of actions.

It could be argued that many ideas are true, just that their truth is very very limited. What can be true once, for one person, at one time, may never be 'true' in a broader sense. What is true on a small scale, may not be true on a larger one ... Even the idea of a flat earth is 'true' on an experiential level for someone that never leaves their village .... So the idea I am playing with is how the edges of things can define truths, and that finding the edges, where things start to fall apart, is a far more useful endeavor than staying within their boundaries.

For instance in real life, near misses are fabulous learning opportunities because they are by their nature 'on the edge' of things. The lessons learned here are powerful and generally hold us in good stead throughout our lives.

I think the concept also transfers to teachable subjects like martial arts and even to the gym, and perhaps creates a faster path to competence than working in 'center field'.

Here's what I'm thinking, and I'm not done with thinking it all through yet, so apologies in advance if it is all a bit scattered ....

There is a 'best' way to do something - from flipping a tractor tire, to swinging a sledgehammer, to striking or parrying with a sword, to applying a joint lock - You + an object + a goal.

The reason to learn how to perform these actions is that you want a skill that is repeatable, and useful for you in the real world.

In other words (when done right) a skill that  -

1) Achieves the goal
2) Is efficient
3) Does the least amount of damage to you (so you can do it over and over again)

Once you have this part, this optimum solution, you can repeat and practice to your hearts content .... But there seems to be something missing, something much more compelling to explore, perhaps something much more useful than just repeating the correct form ....?

Though it's absolutely reasonable to practice something correctly, absolute perfection is rarely attainable, and even more rarely repeatable in real life.

More likely changing conditions will alter the outcome - Perhaps environmental conditions, personal health and capacity, or mental focus/distractedness, etc - So would it not also be worthwhile to spend some time practicing at the edges of things? To understand the point at which things go squirly, and if they do, how to best to deal with them?

After all, there is nothing more potentially chaotic than a fight, and all the perfection and precision achieved in training gets thrown into the blender when stuff starts flying back at you (What's that famous Mike Tyson quote? "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth").

So how about spending more time looking at when things start to fall apart? How to mitigate errors, save bad situations, turn bad into good, and default strategies to resort to when things go severely south?

That's where I personally need a coach. Of course to tell me how to do things right, but absolutely to give me ways to deal with things when they go wrong.

Even in a controlled environment like a gym where I can practice flipping my tractor tire or lifting my kettlebell, I still have a limit, an edge, to my ability, and a coach that can show me how to fail safely as well as show me how to succeed I reckon will have me progressing far faster than one who only focuses on performing the action for the proscribed amount of repetitions.

If I feel confident in what to do if I slip, get unbalanced, start to fail, and that I can avoid hitting myself on the head with a 35lb weight, or avoid a sledgehammer landing on my toe, or tweaking my back when I fail at a tire flip ... the less likely I am to 1) Injure myself, and 2) To be afraid of failing and finding the edges of my capabilities .... And thus how to expand them ...

And definitely in sword play - The moments when all is in your power, where chaos is contained and a smooth series of perfect moves is all that stands between you and victory are few and far between, and if as Sonny said "It's the one you don't see that hits you", then practicing playing at the edge between success and failure surely gives you far greater aptitude in recognizing how to save yourself, and thus is a faster path to functional competence than purely practicing winning.

It gives you control of so much more of the game if you are comfortable with the unexpected as well as the expected ... And in the end it's all about having the option to continue .... For the fight not to be lost, for the limit not to be reached .... yet ..... Right?