#1 Thing to know: Big Statement: Read it and see if I am wrong
"Train like you fight; fight like you train", quote by unknown smart dude
" Indecision is the mother of all F....Ups", mantra of all soldiers
" Indecision is the mother of all F....Ups", mantra of all soldiers
INTRODUCTION:
Both quotes above are very specific to this chapter as it deals with how to train to achieve your required goals. Some people actually train to fight, others not so much, worse still many students and instructors alike don't actually know the difference. Whether you train to fight for sport, self defense or just the pursuit of knowledge it is critical that you understand the implicit and explicit training paradigms and how to use both methodologies to achieve your desired outcome.
For the competitive martial artist this understanding will ensure your training regime is optimal for your next fight; it will enable you to identify specific weaknesses in yourself and a known opponent and implement an optimal training program to overcome and exploit those weaknesses.
For the martial artist whose focus is on self defense or defense of others it is even more critical. A failure to understand and coordinate effective implicit and explicit responses will result in a poor initial response followed by an equally poor plan for breaking contact or taking control of the tactical situation; the end result could be extreme as there is no chance of a rematch or umpire intervention.
One example (and my favorite because I am so petty :) ) which proved this point to me was the mugging of one my former training colleagues. He was superb at all his techniques, to this day I doubt I can replicate the perfection of visual form which he could demonstrate. He and many of the other senior belts considered him as the epitome of excellence (you just had to ask him J). Not long after getting his black belt, he turned up to the class sporting a plaster cast and a head which resembled a smashed crab. When asked what happened he explained that he was mugged, he went on to explain that the guy bailed him up and demanded his wallet (in those days there were no mobiles). He refused to hand over the wallet and before he knew it he was getting pummelled on the ground. All he remembered was a sudden movement and an inability to act in a decisive manner. And yes the mugger took his wallet (and a good dose of his self respect and pride). So what went wrong? In his arrogance he assumed it must have been the martial art which was ineffective; yet at the same time I had used the same techniques many times under similar or worse situations to great effect. As it turns out he didn't understand or train implicit and explicit response, rather his training was focused on looking good and being a victim. Once confronted by an aggressor he failed in assessing the situation and coming up with a plan of action which might allow him to control the situation. Worse still once the aggressor lunged at him his only implicit response was the default flinch reflex, and after the first hit his implicit and explicit response loops were in conflict and he found himself in a state of decision lock; the mugger was now in complete control; obviously he was lucky he only lost his wallet. Furthermore after the fact he did not have the knowledge and tools to asses where it went wrong or how to train so this could never happen to him again. But on a brighter note thanks to him I started to figure out the difference between implicit and explicit training and response and hopefully I can share this knowledge with you.
Objectives:
Conscious: denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action.
Subconscious: the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.
Cognitive: of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity; pertaining to the mental process of perception, reasoning and judgment, etc.
Non-cognitive: adjective of cognitive, not cognitive, not related to the process of acquiring knowledge through the senses or reasoning.
For the competitive martial artist this understanding will ensure your training regime is optimal for your next fight; it will enable you to identify specific weaknesses in yourself and a known opponent and implement an optimal training program to overcome and exploit those weaknesses.
For the martial artist whose focus is on self defense or defense of others it is even more critical. A failure to understand and coordinate effective implicit and explicit responses will result in a poor initial response followed by an equally poor plan for breaking contact or taking control of the tactical situation; the end result could be extreme as there is no chance of a rematch or umpire intervention.
One example (and my favorite because I am so petty :) ) which proved this point to me was the mugging of one my former training colleagues. He was superb at all his techniques, to this day I doubt I can replicate the perfection of visual form which he could demonstrate. He and many of the other senior belts considered him as the epitome of excellence (you just had to ask him J). Not long after getting his black belt, he turned up to the class sporting a plaster cast and a head which resembled a smashed crab. When asked what happened he explained that he was mugged, he went on to explain that the guy bailed him up and demanded his wallet (in those days there were no mobiles). He refused to hand over the wallet and before he knew it he was getting pummelled on the ground. All he remembered was a sudden movement and an inability to act in a decisive manner. And yes the mugger took his wallet (and a good dose of his self respect and pride). So what went wrong? In his arrogance he assumed it must have been the martial art which was ineffective; yet at the same time I had used the same techniques many times under similar or worse situations to great effect. As it turns out he didn't understand or train implicit and explicit response, rather his training was focused on looking good and being a victim. Once confronted by an aggressor he failed in assessing the situation and coming up with a plan of action which might allow him to control the situation. Worse still once the aggressor lunged at him his only implicit response was the default flinch reflex, and after the first hit his implicit and explicit response loops were in conflict and he found himself in a state of decision lock; the mugger was now in complete control; obviously he was lucky he only lost his wallet. Furthermore after the fact he did not have the knowledge and tools to asses where it went wrong or how to train so this could never happen to him again. But on a brighter note thanks to him I started to figure out the difference between implicit and explicit training and response and hopefully I can share this knowledge with you.
Objectives:
- Understand the meaning of Implicit and Explicit with regards to Training & Response
- Ability to asses your existing training programs and modify them for optimal response goals
- Ability to disrupt and destroy your opponents decision and response capabilities during a combat situation
- Sense of Humor
- Ability to learn then ignore big words
Conscious: denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action.
Subconscious: the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.
Cognitive: of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity; pertaining to the mental process of perception, reasoning and judgment, etc.
Non-cognitive: adjective of cognitive, not cognitive, not related to the process of acquiring knowledge through the senses or reasoning.
IMPLICIT & EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE
"Learning the techniques without developing the skills
will never bring any accomplishment", Ip Man
When I first started learning martial arts I learned through the traditional model of directed trial and error (in my case lots of error); A technique was described and demonstrated by an instructor and I mimicked it over numerous repetitions then every time I thought I had it, the instructor would correct some aspect and then I did countless more repetitions usually followed by many more corrections. As most of my instructors (and students) will tell you I have a habit of asking questions such as:
Martial arts have been taught this way for hundreds of years with little to no change to the methodology. This type of training is known as implicit training; the teaching is predominantly through demonstration and example with very little technical instruction and it results in a specific physical skill set. Implicit learning and skills are commonly referred to by the term “muscle memory”, and while technically a misnomer it is a very appropriate description as the learning and eventual application is without cognitive thought or knowledge of the technical aspects of the how and why. This is perhaps why many a martial artist can be inspirational in the application and demonstration of skills and yet unable to verbalize or instruct on the true how and why.
In contrast explicit learning is facilitated through rules, descriptions and detailed knowledge of concepts, principles and even the dreaded mathematical formulae's. Explicit knowledge is applied cognitively and analytically. Notice I referred to knowledge not necessarily skills. A person with explicit knowledge can very effectively analyze and verbalize the what, how, why and even the when, but explicit knowledge does not guarantee the person can physically execute the skill with prowess. This is probably where the expression "those that can do, those that can't teach" came from.
The simplest way to understand the difference between implicit and explicit learning is to look at the outcomes: a person who has implicit knowledge of a skill will be able to perform that skill to a high level of proficiency, yet he may not be able to verbalize or describe exactly how or why he does it the way he does, he or she will always do it with very little variance regardless of the situation. On the other hand a person with explicit knowledge can analyze and verbalize the what, how and why relating to a skill, yet the explicit knowledge does not guarantee that the person can adequately execute or demonstrate the skill.
As with all things there is no clear black and white with regards to the explicit-implicit training paradigms. Implicit training occurs largely by example and not through verbalization, it enhances reaction times and performance under pressure, it is however inflexible and the skills have poor adaptability to varying circumstances. Explicit training is concepts or principles based and facilitates greater technical knowledge which makes learning (and teaching) more efficient and enables better decision making (where time permits) in an uncertain situation, of itself it does not however guarantee any level of demonstrable skill or proficiency particularly in a situation under stress.
In any given combat situation success will depend on the unique situation and the ability to respond effectively using both implicit skills and explicit knowledge and decision making capabilities. An effective combination of both can ensure an ability to respond and to decide and act appropriately. Notice I separated the initial response from the deciding and acting. In the worst case where an unexpected attack occurs, there may not be time for a cognitive (explicit) response; the outcome could be assured for the aggressor if you have not trained an effective immediate response (implicit). On the other hand even if you have an excellent immediate response you may suffer from an inability to assess the tactical situation and fail to decide and act appropriately (Explicit response phase).
An excellent example of synchronizing implicit and explicit response is an infantry counter ambush drill: when an infantry section is ambushed the drill is to face the enemy and charge through their ambush line, then regroup for a counter assault. The initial phase has to be implicit (non-cognitive), because who in their right mind would charge towards the guns shooting at you. I hear people thinking this is lunacy, but centuries of warfare have proven this to be the best immediate action. Why does it work? Because the enemy are in a cognitive loop looking, aiming then shooting all with a unified purpose, when the enemy are charged at and now have unexpected rounds coming down range it severely disrupts their cognitive (and probably bowel control) loop, and as they probably haven't trained a counter-counter ambush drill they will all revert back to the most basic non-cognitive response, which for most will be find cover and return fire and survive; but now they are all individuals, having to decide and act themselves, until someone comes up with a new plan. The group which was initially ambushed now have the cognitive advantage, they can most likely decide and act faster than the enemy who are still trying to regroup. So how does the military achieve this: they train it in two parts, the implicit response and the explicit response. While in most self defence situations we don't need to charge guns (although this seems to be changing), the same principles apply; when attacked an effective immediate response creates the time and space to asses the situation and decide and act in the most effective manner.
- What is our goal, what are we trying to achieve?
- How do we do the technique to achieve the specific goal?
- How do different body shapes affect this technique?
- Why do we do a technique this way and how do we modify it for another situation?
- When is the best time to use this technique versus another similar technique, and what are the tradeoffs?
Martial arts have been taught this way for hundreds of years with little to no change to the methodology. This type of training is known as implicit training; the teaching is predominantly through demonstration and example with very little technical instruction and it results in a specific physical skill set. Implicit learning and skills are commonly referred to by the term “muscle memory”, and while technically a misnomer it is a very appropriate description as the learning and eventual application is without cognitive thought or knowledge of the technical aspects of the how and why. This is perhaps why many a martial artist can be inspirational in the application and demonstration of skills and yet unable to verbalize or instruct on the true how and why.
In contrast explicit learning is facilitated through rules, descriptions and detailed knowledge of concepts, principles and even the dreaded mathematical formulae's. Explicit knowledge is applied cognitively and analytically. Notice I referred to knowledge not necessarily skills. A person with explicit knowledge can very effectively analyze and verbalize the what, how, why and even the when, but explicit knowledge does not guarantee the person can physically execute the skill with prowess. This is probably where the expression "those that can do, those that can't teach" came from.
The simplest way to understand the difference between implicit and explicit learning is to look at the outcomes: a person who has implicit knowledge of a skill will be able to perform that skill to a high level of proficiency, yet he may not be able to verbalize or describe exactly how or why he does it the way he does, he or she will always do it with very little variance regardless of the situation. On the other hand a person with explicit knowledge can analyze and verbalize the what, how and why relating to a skill, yet the explicit knowledge does not guarantee that the person can adequately execute or demonstrate the skill.
As with all things there is no clear black and white with regards to the explicit-implicit training paradigms. Implicit training occurs largely by example and not through verbalization, it enhances reaction times and performance under pressure, it is however inflexible and the skills have poor adaptability to varying circumstances. Explicit training is concepts or principles based and facilitates greater technical knowledge which makes learning (and teaching) more efficient and enables better decision making (where time permits) in an uncertain situation, of itself it does not however guarantee any level of demonstrable skill or proficiency particularly in a situation under stress.
In any given combat situation success will depend on the unique situation and the ability to respond effectively using both implicit skills and explicit knowledge and decision making capabilities. An effective combination of both can ensure an ability to respond and to decide and act appropriately. Notice I separated the initial response from the deciding and acting. In the worst case where an unexpected attack occurs, there may not be time for a cognitive (explicit) response; the outcome could be assured for the aggressor if you have not trained an effective immediate response (implicit). On the other hand even if you have an excellent immediate response you may suffer from an inability to assess the tactical situation and fail to decide and act appropriately (Explicit response phase).
An excellent example of synchronizing implicit and explicit response is an infantry counter ambush drill: when an infantry section is ambushed the drill is to face the enemy and charge through their ambush line, then regroup for a counter assault. The initial phase has to be implicit (non-cognitive), because who in their right mind would charge towards the guns shooting at you. I hear people thinking this is lunacy, but centuries of warfare have proven this to be the best immediate action. Why does it work? Because the enemy are in a cognitive loop looking, aiming then shooting all with a unified purpose, when the enemy are charged at and now have unexpected rounds coming down range it severely disrupts their cognitive (and probably bowel control) loop, and as they probably haven't trained a counter-counter ambush drill they will all revert back to the most basic non-cognitive response, which for most will be find cover and return fire and survive; but now they are all individuals, having to decide and act themselves, until someone comes up with a new plan. The group which was initially ambushed now have the cognitive advantage, they can most likely decide and act faster than the enemy who are still trying to regroup. So how does the military achieve this: they train it in two parts, the implicit response and the explicit response. While in most self defence situations we don't need to charge guns (although this seems to be changing), the same principles apply; when attacked an effective immediate response creates the time and space to asses the situation and decide and act in the most effective manner.
RESPONSE & AWARENESS TRAINING: BOYD's OODA LOOP MODEL
A training tool used by the Military and Police is a decision making cycle model known as the OODA loop. The phrase OODA loop refers to the decision cycle of observe, orient, decide, and act, it was developed by military strategist and USAF pilot Colonel John Boyd. Boyd developed the concept to explain how to direct one's energies to defeat an adversary and survive. Boyd emphasized that "the loop" is actually a set of interacting loops that are to be kept in continuous operation during combat. He came up with the theory based on his own experience as a fighter pilot; it worked so well for him he was dubbed "Forty Second Boyd" for his standing challenge that he could defeat any opposing pilot in air combat manoeuvring in less than 40 seconds whilst beginning from a position of disadvantage.
At the individual level the OODA loop is an excellent model of how the brain makes decisions and thus applies directly to the self defence, martial combat, and tactical military or police situation. There has been much debate regarding the OODA loop, unfortunately the common interpretation (used for strategy and business etc) only accounts for the cognitive cycle, yet Boyd's original model also accounted for the ability to train an implicit response which short circuits the cognitive process. Suffice to say the modified OODA loop model I will present is sufficiently detailed for us to assess our training methods and have an understanding of how we can improve our initial response, minimise our adaptive decision cycle and DISRUPT OUR ADVERSARIES ABILITY TO RESPOND, OR DECIDE AND ACT IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER. Now I hope you agree this is an important subject.
At the individual level the OODA loop is an excellent model of how the brain makes decisions and thus applies directly to the self defence, martial combat, and tactical military or police situation. There has been much debate regarding the OODA loop, unfortunately the common interpretation (used for strategy and business etc) only accounts for the cognitive cycle, yet Boyd's original model also accounted for the ability to train an implicit response which short circuits the cognitive process. Suffice to say the modified OODA loop model I will present is sufficiently detailed for us to assess our training methods and have an understanding of how we can improve our initial response, minimise our adaptive decision cycle and DISRUPT OUR ADVERSARIES ABILITY TO RESPOND, OR DECIDE AND ACT IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER. Now I hope you agree this is an important subject.
The above image is a representation of Boyd's original OODA loop. Unfortunately most people in the military or police who have learnt about the OODA loop have only seen the OBSERVE, ORIENT, DECIDE and ACT (Cognitive) loop, but the true brilliance is actually in its ability to explain Implicit response and how both cognitive and non-cognitive (Implicit and Explicit) responses can work together simultaneously; this can be seen by the additional feedback / feed-forward path at the top (Implicit Guidance & Control), this path explains how a boxer or tennis player can with a high success rate respond to a punch or serve which is actually to fast for the brain to consciously process.
To train effectively you need to understand the characteristics (and limitations) of both the OODA (cognitive )portion of the loop and the implications of the non-cognitive implicit control loop:
Cognitive Phase of the OODA Loop
From the above diagram you can see that the cognitive portion of the OODA loop models a decision maker as an entity in a continuous cycle of interaction with their environment. The cognitive portion of the cycle is based on four interrelated and overlapping processes through which one cycles continuously:
The each phase of this cognitive loop takes a certain amount of time, if the environment or situation changes before the action stage is reached the loop begins again at the observation stage. If the situation changes at a rate fast enough that the person never achieves a full cycle then the person will be stuck in a broken loop never reaching the action phase; this is known as decision lock. In many sports the inability to act effectivly is known as choking; in a combat or a self defence situation this is obviously far more serious.
The orient and decide phases of the OODA loop are heavily influenced by existing knowledge and experience, thus with the correct training and experience you can shorten the period of the OODA loop giving you a greater cognitive tempo. The combatant with the highest cognitive tempo can react faster and thereby keep his opponent stuck in a state of descision lock, or create a situation of dominance where the opponent is stuck in a suboptimal reactive loop.
- Observation: the sensing of change and the collection of data by means of the senses.
- Orientation: the analysis and synthesis of observation data and existing knowledge or experience to form one's current perspective or situational awareness.
- Decision: the determination of a course of action based on one's current mental perspective and situational awareness
- Action: the physical playing-out of decisions to shape the situation.
The each phase of this cognitive loop takes a certain amount of time, if the environment or situation changes before the action stage is reached the loop begins again at the observation stage. If the situation changes at a rate fast enough that the person never achieves a full cycle then the person will be stuck in a broken loop never reaching the action phase; this is known as decision lock. In many sports the inability to act effectivly is known as choking; in a combat or a self defence situation this is obviously far more serious.
The orient and decide phases of the OODA loop are heavily influenced by existing knowledge and experience, thus with the correct training and experience you can shorten the period of the OODA loop giving you a greater cognitive tempo. The combatant with the highest cognitive tempo can react faster and thereby keep his opponent stuck in a state of descision lock, or create a situation of dominance where the opponent is stuck in a suboptimal reactive loop.
Non-cognitive / Implicit Control Phase of the OODA loop
As you can see from Boyd's OODA loop diagram there are multiple feedback loops one of which is bidirectional (Implicit Guidance and Control) which can short circuit the OODA loop going directly from the observation to action stage and vice versa. In Boyd's own words
"Fully utilising the OODA loop enables us to execute an agenda of heinous acts upon one’s adversary, ending with generate uncertainty, confusion, disorder, panic, chaos … to shatter cohesion, produce paralysis and bring about collapse”
At the heart of Boyd's theories is the concept of using agility, and uncertainty to shape the mind of the opponent. By acting in a manner that changes the situation faster than our opponent can comprehend we can exploit uncertainty and disorder. Realistically we can use these concepts to produce brief periods of surprise, confusion, hesitation, even debilitating shock and or disorientation. During that period, the opponent does not have an accurate understanding of the situation or the ability to formulate a coherent concept for dealing with it, we can act faster and with little fear of an effective counter-action.
I dont know about you but in self defence or combat terms that sounds like a good outcome (especialy the bit about heinous acts :)
TRAINING USING THE OODA LOOP MODEL
The full OODA loop model becomes an excellent tool for how to train both cognitive (explicit) and non-cognitive (implicit) responses. The four Key points from above are:
Building Implicit Skills from Explicit Knowledge: The making of killer nerds
The key point about an implicit skill or response is the fact that it is not conscious, it bypasses the cognitive phase like a short circuit and hence it is faster than thought. This is simultaneously its greatest advantage and its biggest potential disadvantage. An example of an implicit response is when we touch something hot; we pull our hand away before we even have time to think, had we have waited for the orientate, decide and act loop to finalize we may well be responding to the small of bacon instead :) This example is what many people refer to as an involuntary response, it is part of our default repertoire of survival actions. Another is the blink response and flinch reflex, when something unexpectedly gets in close proximity of our eyes we flinch, it is understandable as vision is our primary sense and its important to protect it; had we have waited for the cognitive loop we would all have probably lost at least one eye by now and we would all look like a nation of pirates. So this survival reflex, its an advantage right? Well what if that unexpected object is a fist initiating an assault? If untrained the average human will flinch (close eyes and pull the head away in the opposite direction). This saves the eyes but creates a catastrophic chain of events which generally spells doom; the head moves off the center, breaking our balance, another involuntary response tries to correct our balance, all the while our eyes are shut and we are in a state of decision lock, before we can recover another strike hits us, starting the whole disastrous cycle again. This is why a jab cross combination is so effective against an untrained opponent. I cross train with many very highly graded martial artists and it still surprises me how many have not overcome their default blink and flinch reflex; be honest have you?
The good news is that we can train implicit skills and responses. The fact that you can walk and talk or think at the same time (although on occasion I make even that look hard) is proof of that. Walking, running, riding a bike, etc. are all examples of implicit skills. Most implicit knowledge and skills are acquired without knowing its happening, that is why many amazing athletes can't verbalize the how and why of what they do so well (also another reason many world champions don't necessarily make good instructors or coaches). Actually all our techniques can eventually become implicit skills if we repeat them often enough, but how do we make sure that what we program is correct? Its just as easy to inadvertently program rubbish (you need only listen to me try and play a musical instrument to confirm this).
The majority of traditional martial arts are taught using the demonstrate and replicate implicit training model and to be honest it has worked for hundreds of years. Unfortunately though in modern group classes an instructor only has so much time for each individual student; in a class of twenty it gives an average of about 3 minutes of focus per student leaving 57 minutes of self evaluation. Even with the best demonstration and description it is highly unlikely a student can actually self correct on each repetition as he doesn't really have any theory or performance indicators to measure against. The majority of repetitions are done without corrective feedback and errors are compounded and reinforced. Much of the instructor and students contact time is then wasted un-programming bad habits and then reprogramming better ones; all in all its inefficient.
If instead we provide theory and practical performance indicators, the student can measure his or her performance and decide on how to correct it with each repetition. This is the principle behind the cognitive training phase of the OODA loop.
"Fully utilising the OODA loop enables us to execute an agenda of heinous acts upon one’s adversary, ending with generate uncertainty, confusion, disorder, panic, chaos … to shatter cohesion, produce paralysis and bring about collapse”
At the heart of Boyd's theories is the concept of using agility, and uncertainty to shape the mind of the opponent. By acting in a manner that changes the situation faster than our opponent can comprehend we can exploit uncertainty and disorder. Realistically we can use these concepts to produce brief periods of surprise, confusion, hesitation, even debilitating shock and or disorientation. During that period, the opponent does not have an accurate understanding of the situation or the ability to formulate a coherent concept for dealing with it, we can act faster and with little fear of an effective counter-action.
I dont know about you but in self defence or combat terms that sounds like a good outcome (especialy the bit about heinous acts :)
TRAINING USING THE OODA LOOP MODEL
The full OODA loop model becomes an excellent tool for how to train both cognitive (explicit) and non-cognitive (implicit) responses. The four Key points from above are:
- It is possible through correct training to speed up and synchronize both the implicit (non-cognitive) and explicit (cognitive) responses.
- Experience and knowledge influences the speed of the orientate and decide stage for the cognitive (OODA) portion of the loop. This is the key to fast decision making at the tactical level.
- By training the implicit response we can effectively bypass the cognitive portion of the OODA loop giving you the ability to respond faster that your opponents cognitive cycle.
- Once you have trained and understand the OODA loop you can attack and exploit your opponents OODA loop rendering them in a state of decision lock.
Building Implicit Skills from Explicit Knowledge: The making of killer nerds
The key point about an implicit skill or response is the fact that it is not conscious, it bypasses the cognitive phase like a short circuit and hence it is faster than thought. This is simultaneously its greatest advantage and its biggest potential disadvantage. An example of an implicit response is when we touch something hot; we pull our hand away before we even have time to think, had we have waited for the orientate, decide and act loop to finalize we may well be responding to the small of bacon instead :) This example is what many people refer to as an involuntary response, it is part of our default repertoire of survival actions. Another is the blink response and flinch reflex, when something unexpectedly gets in close proximity of our eyes we flinch, it is understandable as vision is our primary sense and its important to protect it; had we have waited for the cognitive loop we would all have probably lost at least one eye by now and we would all look like a nation of pirates. So this survival reflex, its an advantage right? Well what if that unexpected object is a fist initiating an assault? If untrained the average human will flinch (close eyes and pull the head away in the opposite direction). This saves the eyes but creates a catastrophic chain of events which generally spells doom; the head moves off the center, breaking our balance, another involuntary response tries to correct our balance, all the while our eyes are shut and we are in a state of decision lock, before we can recover another strike hits us, starting the whole disastrous cycle again. This is why a jab cross combination is so effective against an untrained opponent. I cross train with many very highly graded martial artists and it still surprises me how many have not overcome their default blink and flinch reflex; be honest have you?
The good news is that we can train implicit skills and responses. The fact that you can walk and talk or think at the same time (although on occasion I make even that look hard) is proof of that. Walking, running, riding a bike, etc. are all examples of implicit skills. Most implicit knowledge and skills are acquired without knowing its happening, that is why many amazing athletes can't verbalize the how and why of what they do so well (also another reason many world champions don't necessarily make good instructors or coaches). Actually all our techniques can eventually become implicit skills if we repeat them often enough, but how do we make sure that what we program is correct? Its just as easy to inadvertently program rubbish (you need only listen to me try and play a musical instrument to confirm this).
The majority of traditional martial arts are taught using the demonstrate and replicate implicit training model and to be honest it has worked for hundreds of years. Unfortunately though in modern group classes an instructor only has so much time for each individual student; in a class of twenty it gives an average of about 3 minutes of focus per student leaving 57 minutes of self evaluation. Even with the best demonstration and description it is highly unlikely a student can actually self correct on each repetition as he doesn't really have any theory or performance indicators to measure against. The majority of repetitions are done without corrective feedback and errors are compounded and reinforced. Much of the instructor and students contact time is then wasted un-programming bad habits and then reprogramming better ones; all in all its inefficient.
If instead we provide theory and practical performance indicators, the student can measure his or her performance and decide on how to correct it with each repetition. This is the principle behind the cognitive training phase of the OODA loop.
Using this methodology we start at the most basic level of techniques; each time we perform a technique slowly and deliberately we get feedback via our senses, the better our theory or concepts the better we can measure how good that repetition was. Being able to measure against some specific knowledge or concepts means we can correct our technique on every single repetition, we can increase our proficiency and skill faster than if we just went by trial and error alone. After an indefinite number of repetitions the action becomes implicit, you have an ability to perform the action without thought (yet you can still evaluate its performance cognitively). This is how we convert explicit knowledge of concepts, principles and even formulas into kick ass implicit skills. Once we are proficient at our basic skills we can start experimenting and varying our techniques based on combinations of basic skills and different REALISTIC scenarios (blocking and striking, combinations, single and multiple opponents etc.) Again each time we progress through the OODA loop we get feedback, giving ourselves the ability to self correct against specific goals. It is important to note that we should start slowly and only increase the speed as our response times get better; repeat this process until such time as you are proficient at full speed and realistic contact.
Once you move onto opposed training with a partner you build experience and this compresses the observe and orient stages enabling you to decide and act faster in simulated and reallife situations. How do you know what is the right speed and complexity? Its the speed at which you can still decide and act without having that momentary brain freeze (we all know that feeling when learning something new). The big take-home message is build on basics, get awesome at the not so sexy techniques then build on them, self evaluate and correct against known criteria. Make scenario based training real so that the experience factor speeds your cognitive cycle.
Training for the Response: Non-cognitive Event Programming
There is a great deal of ongoing neuropsychological research into training and response, particularly that of cognitive vs. non-cognitive and the influence of implicit and explicit training. For our purposes the OODA loop model above suffices to explain how to use explicit knowledge to rapidly train an effective non-cognitive skill set, and through repetition build the experience required to enhance our general cognitive response. To explain how to program an IMPLICIT RESPONSE we need to expand on the implicit phase of the OODA loop. Much of the recent neurological research deals with the concept of implicit memory and more importantly how to train it and use it. It turns out our sub-conscious mind is amazing at non-cognitive pattern recognition and it is possible to program a response implicitly; there are many variations on the theory but from my own reading I believe a useful concept is that of IMPLICT SEQUENTIAL PROGRAMMING also commonly referred to as EVENT PROGRAMMING. The theory is often used to explain the reaction time of boxers and tennis players who can respond to serves or punches which are faster than the cognitive cycle. The theory goes something along the lines of our sub-conscious pattern recognition detects events which we have implicitly programmed and this triggers a non-cognitive chain of actions; in the case of a tennis player he recognizes the servers action and implicitly knows where the ball should land with a high probability, this triggers the programmed response and he acts accordingly. The whole response is actually without conscious thought, and when players are asked to describe what the server did and what their actions were, most cannot do so accurately.
So how do we go beyond trail and error and program an effective implicit response? We again use both phases of the OODA loop; however instead of doing a technique and self evaluating, we cycle through the cognitive loop in response to an event, responding with the desired skill we have already programmed. We can already perform the response non-cognitively so now it is just a matter of linking it to the event, and performing sufficient repetitions to make the response implicit. As before we start slowly repeating events such as specific punches or kicks, performing the desired implicit response until such time as it can be done at full speed and contact. It is possible to chain multiple skills to single event triggers, but again it should be a sensible progression. Without knowing it this is exactly what boxers have done for years when preparing for a known challenger, they watch tapes identifying his characteristic moves, then they program the best response over and over through a progression of sparring until that response is without thought. The same technique can be used to overwrite undesirable existing implicit responses such as the flinch reflex (and I recommend that is the first step for everyone who has not already done so).
So now we can modify our training model to incorporate the both the original OODA loop and the Event programming model.
Once you move onto opposed training with a partner you build experience and this compresses the observe and orient stages enabling you to decide and act faster in simulated and reallife situations. How do you know what is the right speed and complexity? Its the speed at which you can still decide and act without having that momentary brain freeze (we all know that feeling when learning something new). The big take-home message is build on basics, get awesome at the not so sexy techniques then build on them, self evaluate and correct against known criteria. Make scenario based training real so that the experience factor speeds your cognitive cycle.
Training for the Response: Non-cognitive Event Programming
There is a great deal of ongoing neuropsychological research into training and response, particularly that of cognitive vs. non-cognitive and the influence of implicit and explicit training. For our purposes the OODA loop model above suffices to explain how to use explicit knowledge to rapidly train an effective non-cognitive skill set, and through repetition build the experience required to enhance our general cognitive response. To explain how to program an IMPLICIT RESPONSE we need to expand on the implicit phase of the OODA loop. Much of the recent neurological research deals with the concept of implicit memory and more importantly how to train it and use it. It turns out our sub-conscious mind is amazing at non-cognitive pattern recognition and it is possible to program a response implicitly; there are many variations on the theory but from my own reading I believe a useful concept is that of IMPLICT SEQUENTIAL PROGRAMMING also commonly referred to as EVENT PROGRAMMING. The theory is often used to explain the reaction time of boxers and tennis players who can respond to serves or punches which are faster than the cognitive cycle. The theory goes something along the lines of our sub-conscious pattern recognition detects events which we have implicitly programmed and this triggers a non-cognitive chain of actions; in the case of a tennis player he recognizes the servers action and implicitly knows where the ball should land with a high probability, this triggers the programmed response and he acts accordingly. The whole response is actually without conscious thought, and when players are asked to describe what the server did and what their actions were, most cannot do so accurately.
So how do we go beyond trail and error and program an effective implicit response? We again use both phases of the OODA loop; however instead of doing a technique and self evaluating, we cycle through the cognitive loop in response to an event, responding with the desired skill we have already programmed. We can already perform the response non-cognitively so now it is just a matter of linking it to the event, and performing sufficient repetitions to make the response implicit. As before we start slowly repeating events such as specific punches or kicks, performing the desired implicit response until such time as it can be done at full speed and contact. It is possible to chain multiple skills to single event triggers, but again it should be a sensible progression. Without knowing it this is exactly what boxers have done for years when preparing for a known challenger, they watch tapes identifying his characteristic moves, then they program the best response over and over through a progression of sparring until that response is without thought. The same technique can be used to overwrite undesirable existing implicit responses such as the flinch reflex (and I recommend that is the first step for everyone who has not already done so).
So now we can modify our training model to incorporate the both the original OODA loop and the Event programming model.
The image above shows a consolidated OODA / Event Programming Model, for both training and response. If we are training, the event is simulated and the response choreographed by chaining all our desired implicit skills into a single implicit response. Repeating this through the cognitive cycle at increasing speed and realism then programs the event trigger and the associated response into our implicit memory.
So the next big question is what do we program? That is up to you or your instructors and it will very much depend on whether your goal is self defence or martial sports. I will provide tutorials for the style I teach and much of it is common across most fighting and locking arts, certainly the basics will extend to any martial art or defensive system.
This ends the theory section, on training and response. Don't worry if you have read all of it and you don't really get it yet, like all the material above the key point is knowledge + practical experience = capability. All of the theory and expected knowledge will be used in practice in all the video tutorials. That being said you will probably want to refer to some of the sections again and again and it will sink in with time and practical experience.
So the next big question is what do we program? That is up to you or your instructors and it will very much depend on whether your goal is self defence or martial sports. I will provide tutorials for the style I teach and much of it is common across most fighting and locking arts, certainly the basics will extend to any martial art or defensive system.
This ends the theory section, on training and response. Don't worry if you have read all of it and you don't really get it yet, like all the material above the key point is knowledge + practical experience = capability. All of the theory and expected knowledge will be used in practice in all the video tutorials. That being said you will probably want to refer to some of the sections again and again and it will sink in with time and practical experience.
