Safety vs Performance vs Drawing the Line

This question was posted by Butterfly on the Open Mat thread:

"However, what if someone wants to learn, but not to the same extent? And because of the competitive nature of these arts, not everyone, despite the same education, will be able to do the techniques as well as the top level atheletes. In other words, there will always be a loser...how do you accomodate the weak link? And improve his ability?"

First thing is to realize that training alive does not necessarily mean you are beating the crap out of each other.

Second thing is to embrace the concept of Non Attribute Based Training.

Finally, know that training should hurt but it should not injure.

What does all this mean? It might mean that you need to be creative in finding or developing a way to keep your training intensity in check. This could be by working positional sparring for escapes, pins or counters. It could also be by working at an "honest" 50% with the understanding that noone has anything to lose.

As far as bringing up those who are less athletically gifted? I would pair them up with the more skilled students who can offer a less aggressive but more technical game. I train with all of my students regularly. I find that pairing lesser skilled students up too much is a breeding ground for injuriy.

In regards to injury. Sometimes they are or they seem unavoidable. Guage the skill level of your students against what you expect from them in a particular drill or event, evaluate and balance the risks vs the benefit. For example, we experienced significantly higher injury rate when we work full power takedowns into our regular sparring. Many schools neglect takedowns because of this. We just isolate them and monitor the intensity. We work clinch and takedowns every class, safely.

Hope this helps.

I have often said that aliveness doesn't mean brutality. That's the key point to focus on folks.

The SBG uses a three tiered approach to training (the "I Method") and, all three should be present within the training process.

The I method means, "Introduction, Isolation and (finally) Integration (which is essentially sparring).

The majority of time is spent in the Isolation mode (after the Introduction of a technique, etc). You're working for specific objectives using "Progressive Resistance".

Progressive resistance is the approach you take with newer guys, as well as people who want to work technique (getting some "alive" reps in) while gradually building up intensity. This is where having adequate coaching and supervision comes in!

There IS a method to the madness. And, it's not as mad as it may appear.


-John

John, Fletch.

Thanks for the info...and insight.

-B

Just to build on what John said in regards to the I method.

Introduction is where it starts. The instructor introduces the skill and the steps involved and explains why it is needed and where it fits into the game. Reps are slow and deliberate with careful attention to detail under static conditions. Many schools do most of their training this way.

Isolation is where you add resistance to the reps in drills. Resistance can range from simple "moving target" exercises to 100% efforts in escapes, counters, etc. This is where most of the work gets done and where you develop most of your skill. This is where we isolate problem areas and capitalize on strengths. Many schools skip this phase.

Integration is where you bring it all together in a match, simulated event or scenario. This is where many schools spend the most time. Unfortunately, without the support of the Isolation phase, it can be an ego builder or killer because this is where you pass or fail. Your stuff works or it doesn't. With the support of the Isolation phase, Integration is just anbother level of experimentation. It shouldn't have to be psychologically defeating.

The whole thing should be work, but also fun.