Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zefff I only had one eye on the clip as I was at work when I watched it but the chess analogy confused me. The bloke said that the best way to learn chess is to play it. I understand why he says that but what confused me is that the way I see it, you still have to learn and understand the rules and moves before you can play - otherwise I would be doing any move I like.
Why cant we do both? Sometimes I prefer 'dead' work so I can concentrate on my body mechanics without the distraction of having to compete. |
He did actually cover that within the video. He mentioned that you would need to know the rules of chess and how each piece was supposed to move. His point was that once you knew all this, you couldn't run drills in which you just move your pieces to a certain spot and your opponent does the same, because you'd be missing the essential part of chess competition, and thats outwitting your opponent.
If you think about it, the techniques themselves are the easiest parts of martial arts. I'm sure we both know people who know all the techniques and can do them well in drills and on the bag, but can't fight at all.
The idea of Aliveness, as SBG uses it, is that you don't go full contact resistance from the minute you pick up a new technique. The resistance builds gradually, but you spend very little time in the first "learning" phase. Its like the focus pad example. I can still learn the proper mechanics of a punch when my pad holder is is moving around and throwing punches, but at the same time I'm also developing timing and reflexes.