---

 

 

"Training to Lose"

by Ron Collins

 

Training To Win Means Training To Lose:

  In order to grow we must be challenged, we must make
things as hard as possible, with them being too
dangerous. To a few of you this will not make sense,
to others it will. We grow, we adapt, and we evolve.
That’s what makes us alive. We grow stronger when we
need more strength. We become faster when we need to
be fast. This is because in those extreme moments of
fear, pain, or distress we find something inside of us
we never knew was there. Thus we can apply this
knowledge to our lives and our arts (regardless of
what they may be).

When I wrestled in High School my coach decided I
wanted to use too much muscle and not enough
techniques. So he put against someone who was
stronger, and I couldn't out muscle. But in time I did
because I had to. It was only whenl I had to fight a
technically better wrestler that my techniques
improved. I apply this principle to my style as well.

I send my slower students against those faster to
learn speed. I send those in a hurry against those who
are patient and methodical, to learn to be patient.
Even in my own training  I put myself against those
who would be my “superiors”. I don't do it for
bragging rights, ego, or anything else. I do it to
become stronger. We can not rise above ourselves until
we have reached our limits and only then can we push
on to break them.

Thus we must train to lose, fight our superiors,
and push ourselves to the next level. No matter what
that might be. We must forget pride, ego, honor, and
all else. Nothing can exist except what we are doing,
be it fighting, writing, being a friend, or making
love. Because when you reach whatever thresh hold you
think you have and push on past it you grow in ways
you can not understand, physically, mentally, and
emotionally...

Remain Well,
Ron Collins

 

---

 

"Aspects of a Fighter"

By "No Man"

 

 

Here's the factors that determine (by me) whether or
not a technique is outdated.

1.) Who were they fighting? I had a discussion with a
fellow who was retired from the NAVY. We were
discussing Bolo Yeung. He told me that in all his time
traveling across Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, and that
region, he had NEVER seen a man the size of Bolo
Yeung, of Asian descent (excluding Sumo Wreslers). Now
then, I have seen quite a few Americans who are bigger
than Bolo Yeung. So, you must factor this in. (If you
try to tell me that size doesn't matter, I will tell
you that you haven't fought many bigger guys.)

2.) Trained fighters from other systems. Although a
pro-Thai fighter, a Gracie jujitsu wrestler, etc.,
probably won't mug you, there's a good chance that you
might fight someone with a good background in some
martial arts. I remember watching a special on NBC a
few years back, with various prisoners discussing ways
to beat people up more effectively. Also, there are a
large number of people who have taken boxing or
wrestling, and you just might have to face them.

3.) Weapons then versus weapons now. Baseball bats,
machette's, lead pipes, beer bottles, pool sticks,
etc., all are weapons that are fairly new innovations.
You have to defend differently against them than their
older counterparts.

4.) What were they wearing? Obviously, someone wearing
armor moves different than someone who does not. If
you don't believe me, try it out.

It's really a question of not throwing out the baby
with the bath water. There are some techniques, with
minor to major modifications, that can become quite
lethal.

Now, having said that, what determines how effective a
technique is? Well, (to me again), there are seven
factors of a fighter. They are:

Strength (obvious one)

Speed (Speed of initiation, speed of reaction, speed
of recognization, etc.)

Technique (Deception, how you utilize a technique,
knowing when to utilize a technique, using leverage,
etc.)

Dexterity (Being able to hit what you're aiming at
with a punch/kick/elbow, being able to grab a joint
the way you want)

Agility (Being able to evade an incoming attack, being
able to manuever around without falling over, being
able to position yourself to deliver an
offense/defense)

Stamina (Being able to throw a punch or execute a
defense without becoming completely winded.)

Mental and physical toughness (Being willing to do
whatever it takes to win a fight (bite, eye gouge,
stick car keys in a guys eye, kill him), and not
giving up under pain.)

Now, if you rate as a zero in ANY of these categories,
you will not be able to fight. If you have no mental
toughness, then you won't be able to punch a guy
because you are afraid you might hurt him, and that
you'll hurt your hand. (This is a rating of zero). If
you rate zero in strength, you can't put on an armbar
because you lack sufficient force to get the arm
there, and you lack the ability to punch the skin
enough to do more than breeze the epidermis, etc.
Applies for all of them.

Conversely, if you raise one, you increase your
fighting abilities. Make sense thus far?

Okay, let's say your defense against a right cross is
to move to the left, avoiding the punch, and
redirecting it with your left hand to move behind the
opponent for a choke. Now, that technique requires
three (major) things.

Speed: (Speed of recognition, noticing the cross is
coming, speed of reaction, stepping to the left and
redirecting the punch, speed of movement, stepping to
the left, raising the hand, etc.)

Dexterity: (Being able to move your hand into the
right position for the block/redirection.)

Agility: (stepping to the left, stepping to the left
without tripping over a branch, stepping down while
maintaining balance, etc.)

Now, the more unrealistic a technique, the more the 6
other factors have to come into play. If your defense
against a cross is to do a jump spinning reverse hook
kick, you must have tremendous amounts of
speed/strength/agility/dexterity/stamina to make the
technique happen properly. It's an inverse
relationship, the more one goes up, the more the
others go down, and vice versa.