Lateral NOT Literal

At university, in the Anxiety in Sport module, we were given an outline of the course work at the start of the semester. There were two essays (45% and 55% of the total mark), with the option of an ‘oral exam’ forming part of the second essay’s portion. When the first piece of work had been returned, the second  was presented. The lecturer explained that we could opt to have this work constitute more or less of the overall mark by opting for the oral exam or not. This exam would comprise 15% of the total 55%. The exam would be an hour or so and involved sitting in the lecturer’s office with two hats: one with a theory on Sport Anxiety, the other with a number of sporting scenarios. You’d pick a theory and apply it to the scenario. You were given some kind of concession with the essay too. I thought that was a gift – a chance to get 15% on the board in an hour and an easier essay.  Bargain!

It turned out that I was the only one out of about 80 students to take him up on the offer. I really enjoyed it; we ended up chatting for ages. To me it was easy, and it is – as long as you understand the theory. I was interested in the subject and I enjoy sport. He explained, however, that it was unusual for students to be able to apply theories in that manner. I found that difficult to believe, as I found it easy. He explained they had trouble thinking laterally. At this point I didn’t really understand what he meant as I thought it was normal to apply theory. The lecturer was sufficiently impressed  and ended up offering me a PhD studentship.

lateral thinking

In the Martial Arts, literal thinking is rife, while lateral thinking is stifled. It’s odd that normally intelligent people will be bamboozled and over impressed by ‘no touch knockouts’, pressure point ‘fighting’ and the like. Often they simply believe the instructor, as they may be famous or whatever but, rather than questioning and thinking laterally, or out of the box, they show an all-encompassing faith in the extraordinary or rather ordinary (see below) similar to that of a Spiritual Church congregation.

Although it doesn’t stop there, the literal interpretation of kata or forms in Martial Arts is shocking. The complete lack of imagination in design of kata interpretation, such as these beauties from Gekisai dai Ichi, are fairly common. OK, these are extremely literal and they are from the first kata, but this illustrates a point. This, coupled with an intelligence deficiency when passing them on, is commonplace. I have been guilty of this myself, in the past, but not now.  Give me lateral every time.

Training with others, and then particularly Steve Morris, has made me more lateral than ever. I now don’t really think of kata in terms of techniques, but rather as principles with examples provided, which can be played with. I’ve explained before some of my views on sanchin underpinning Goju, which gives an indication of how I now use kata.

This thread*, posted by Ken Milling concerning a Morris post on Sanchin, shows a lack of lateral thinking in differing degrees fairly representative of that virtual karate playground and probably of the vast majority of the traditional martial arts world. The irony is, that there are only so many ways to skin a cat, and, as such, traditional martial arts have the ‘secrets’ there but people just don’t have the curiosity to look for them. They seem content to be spoon-fed literal kata interpretations for whatever reasons.

This literal attitude is exemplified in the KU thread when someone says:

“but grappling in sanchin?? A little too abstract IMO. It would be nice to include grappling (or rather takedowns) in karate, but that would require a paradigm shift which might not sit well with organisational/stylistic convention or hubris”

In my honest opinion karate could do with a paradigm shift – from literal to lateral.  Just use your imagination, ignore the limitations of style and get some science into your art.

*I actually mention the advantage of lateral over literal thinking on that thread somewhere.

Inspirations and Limitations

This tale reminds me of stories that have inspired me. Firstly, a good friend of mine was run over by a bus in 1989 and also suffered a shattered pelvis. I went to see her in hospital many times as she recovered. Natural childbirth was not a post-op option but she is now married with a son and teaching kids in India. A little mundane in comparison to marathon running, but I have always been impressed with her ‘get on with it’ attitude. The second episode concerns an article I read in a paper. A blind man sailed round Cape Horn – I’ve looked but can’t find this story, which blew me away at the time. The sailing trip in itself is pretty good but doing it blind! Last year, there was the story of the ‘blind Dave’, from very close to home, running seven marathons on seven continents in seven days. Amazing stuff regardless of disability.

Dave Heeley and Malcolm Carr

There are countless stories like these, which can be described as awesome, in the true sense of the word. Inspiring, of course, but how come some people manage these things while others are content with Coronation Street. Human nature I suppose, although the Coronation Street fan is likely to impose self-induced limitations, which reduce him/her to a sofa-led life fuelled by crisps, cake and coke. That may be a little over-damning but you get my point, by settling for the ‘soaps’ there’s less time for more adventurous pursuits.

In the Martial Arts we often have limitations prescribed by the systems we ‘study’. We are told that a certain technique/principle/attitude is just not xxx. In karate, kata (forms) and kihon (basics) are considered important, in fact more than important, they are considered key, while the link to kumite (fighting/sparring) is often blurred or lost. For a flavour of this I refer you to two Karate Underground threads on kata and bunkai and kihon/kumite respectively. There, at the very least, seems to be a lot of confusion.

The point of this post is not to enter the argument over the merits of the karate model (the three K’s), rather to point out the limitations this system imparts. The outcome of being bound by ‘traditional’ training methods and absolutes means progression as a system is reduced. By concentrating on kata performance, for example, any lessons contained within can be lost, ignored or misinterpreted. Form is emphasised over function; a crime that leads to techniques and practices that look good/pretty but are sub-optimal in a fighting situation.

An emphasis on absolute performance criteria results in a stifling atmosphere, any progression is underpinned by form constraints, limiting them critically. However, lateral over literal thinking inspires and aids progression. Personally, by training with inspiring individuals and adopting a scientific approach to training our club is free of limitations, hopefully.

Progression within a system, whether internally or externally led, is essential for a system to survive. If not, you are left with an archaic, self-perpetuating, sub-optimal martial art. And art seems to be the correct terminology as systems limited by archaic form-related practices tend not to be scientific. Rather, they have more akin to the blind faith of those believing in psychic ability or whatever. I’m right, you’re wrong. Why not have a look and test it, see how a ‘new’ technique/principle/attitude works in comparison to what you currently use, you may even learn something……

I wonder if the two blind people or the two people in the road accidents I referred to earlier were limited by their afflictions?