SCA Combat Curriculum Development - Skill Identification - General

Based on recent reading, I've decided to develop a curriculum for teaching anyone under the sun how to fight, within individual limits.  As this develops further, it will be developed into a heavy combat specific curriculum, but the general structure should allow the development of a program of instruction for heavy and rapier as general fields, and for specific styles.  This first post is about identifying the skills required for all fields which can be taught or trained.

1. Basic requirements to get on the field in the first place

First is situational awareness; normally "how to conduct oneself safely" would go here, but because much of training safely is an awareness of what conditions may be unsafe and because situational awareness is also a vital skill in combat, situational awareness goes first.  It is also a hard skill to drill.  This is mostly accommodated by pre-session reminders to pay attention to what is going on around you, and, in any particular drill, by clear communication by both partners - for entry-level training, for instance, "I'm changing targeting" before targeting a new target, or "good, now speed it up" for accelerating the drill.  As an example from recent sparring of why situational awareness matters both on the part of participants and bystanders, I found that my son had maneuvered himself back against my knight's pell, and stopped him about three feet out from it to reposition.  Similarly, there's an unofficial rule at any fighting demo about "watch out for small children and idiots with cameras," for exactly this reason.

Second, for much the same reason as the first, is appropriate conduct.  This includes everything from how to render a salute and treatment of other fighters to recognizing what "hold" means.  This needs to be trained before the actual physical conduct of training ever begins, partly because appropriate conduct will help guarantee appropriate training.  This may mean that clear identification of who is giving instruction, and respect for the instructor of the moment, is a clear part of a training program.  Note that "appropriate conduct" is largely a matter of institution and place - a boxing gym isn't going to require you to bow to the gym's founder, the coach, and your opponent, for instance, and yelling "hold" in a wrestling ring isn't going to do anything but make people think you're very excited about whatever hold was executed.

Third, and only third because the first and second act as risk-reduction agents, is safety.  Trainees who are not in control of themselves and their equipment are not displaying appropriate conduct, but trainees who are not aware of their surroundings and back into an obstacle are not displaying situational awareness.  It is a cliche, but everyone is a safety officer, and everyone has the authority to call hold.  Training in, and training to, that mentality is essential.  However, safety goes beyond merely this and encompasses avoiding the "cult of the fighter" mentality - do not do things that would injure yourself, do not do things that would aggravate an injury, do not encourage others to do those things.  On a mental level, this includes knowing when to back off from participation to avoid burn-out, and how to recognize the difference between simple fatigue and a deeper issue.

Fourth is being appropriately equipped for the activity at hand.  For instance, pell work, slow work, and most drill work can be done without armor, but some tasks, such as practicing face thrusts, should be done with facial protection just in case; I've learned this the hard way by blocking a "slow" shot with my hand and no gauntlet.  Similarly, if the lesson at hand is "how to throw a flat snap," both to save heartache and money in case of damage, and for safety reasons, a steel sword, dull or sharp, is probably not the appropriate tool for the job, while a waster, rattan sword, or even a broomstick can be used both to teach and to practice the lesson.  However, a practice sword is probably not the tool for the job if it is a sharps day or tamashigiri (literally "cutting stuff," but there are standards for "stuff," rather than "pumpkins, pigs, or ballistics gel") session.  Knowing the kind of training you're getting into, and being equipped for it, is critical to being able to participate in the first place, and to getting the maximum benefit.

 2. Common physical curriculum elements

Combat involves moving bodies in ways that are not natural to most people, and many of the muscles, skeletal alignments, and body attitudes required must be trained into a person.  For instance, most people are not used to standing knees-bent for an extended period, or keeping their spine close to straight when doing so.  Those are, however, essential skills for fighting.  Note that these do not deal with attributes - the things you need to be in order to be a successful fighter - but rather the things your body will need to know to be a successful fighter in the "be-know-do" model.

Correct stance is critical.  There is no one "right" stance, as there are as many fighting styles and situations, each with their own "right" situation, as there are falsehoods on the Internet.  However, there are a number of common factors in all stances.

1. Stance should be, when fully trained, comfortable, not a way of causing long-term joint damage or pain, and not dangerous to the user. Discomfort during training should be limited to stretching or muscular-training level, not structural or muscle-damaging level.
   
2. Stances are a place to move to and from, and should remain fluid.  No stance is fixed; that is, while there may be stances meant to keep a person "rooted" to the ground under impact, the fighter must be able to move from the stance into another position.
3. Pursuant to #2, the fighter must be able to shift their weight in order to move where they want.  Weight is commitment; being fully committed in one direction means that you cannot redirect.
   
4. Knees are bent.  The degree of bend is a matter of individual taste and has a number of different possible answers, but the legs are the fastest way of shifting weight, generating mobility, and generating power, which will be critical skills in any fighting situation.  Additionally, locked knees and perfectly straight legs have a habit of getting in the way of blood flow and will be uncomfortable in the long run.
   
5. Spine is straight and carriage is upright.  In this context, this is because the body's weight positioning is "neutral" in upright carriage, not committed in any direction.  This will also assist with power generation because straight, upright carriage gives the longest possible paths for muscles to develop power.
6. Weapon position is appropriate to its use and the rules that are in play.  A rapier stance that involves, for instance, the rapier being extended far behind the body is probably not an effective one (although given how situational combat is, I guarantee I could find exceptions, like multiple opponents).  This also means that even simulated killing surfaces should not endanger the user, so unorthodox positions that lead to, for instance, a point-down, hammer-grip dagger stance where the point is aligned to the thigh is a bad idea.
7. There is no one magic stance.  There may be stances appropriate to a given technique - it's marginally harder to shift to half-sword from posta longa than posta breve, for instance, for purely mechanical reasons, and most kata have a specified stance, so the rules of engagement may require it, but as a combat measure, stances are meant to be flexible, and what works for one may not work for another.

The second component, once you have learned to stand up, is how to move.  Movement is common to all combat systems, because the fight rarely comes to you.  It is also, at least at first, an exhausting process, and some training systems may involve a great deal of focus on training the legs to move to exhaustion long before a weapon is ever engaged.  I find that the weapon being engaged early in the training process helps keep the student involved and helps remind the student of "why we fight," but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.  There are a number of movement systems, but they have the following common factors.

1. Steps are controlled.  Even in systems with long lunges, the lunge is to the furthest-forward recoverable point of balance, not to complete, overbalanced extension.
2. Steps encourage control of footing.  This is related to #1 above, because it is impossible to manage that extension to the limit of balance if the feet can't sustain balance.
3. Steps encourage the technique being used.  For instance, a push off the back foot to extension in rapier combat is more likely to result in a penetrating wound than launching that same thrust while dragging the back foot forward.
4. Steps conserve energy.  Even in systems that encourage constant ground contact with some part of the foot, the foot lifts slightly and doesn't drag.
5. Steps minimize exposure.  Taking a big through-step rather than a series of short, collected steps in stance is a good way of exposing the middle of the body to attack.  Thus, the through-step, even in systems that rely on the through-step, is usually paired with something to keep your opponent from taking advantage of it.
   

Note that I have not actually described a single step, stance, or power-generation technique.  What I have instead described is ways to evaluate the effectiveness of those that are taught, and to focus on in training regardless of system.  This is because at this level, this is system-agnostic, and power generation, while there are some universals (legs are stronger than arms), there is little point teaching a rapier fighter to swing from the hips, or a wrestler point control.  The steps and stance of a heavy fighter tend to be radically different from a rapier fighter from a sumo wrestler from a boxer; what they have in common is what I have tried to describe above

All combat systems wind up requiring you to stand in funny ways and move in funny ways, even those that don't explicitly describe their stances or movements.  Most of those non-descriptions are because it was just assumed that the average user would already be familiar enough to do those things automatically.  Modern fighters do not have that luxury, so Lesson Zero is really "how to stand" and "how to step."

3. Common psychological curriculum requirements

In addition to the basic elements identified way back at the beginning - situational awareness, correct conduct, and safety-mindedness - there are at least two mental skills which every program should address in training.  First is fear management (boldness, courage, audacity), and second is prudence or foresight.  Note that I'm stealing these shamelessly from Fiore, and your own definitions may change.  I include these here in the idea that terrible people can be excellent fighters, and so these are value-neutral.

I describe boldness, courage, or audacity as fear management because they are explicitly not the absence of fear, they are the acceptance of fear and the management of its consequences.  As an example, my house once burned to the ground.  I could not get in through the middle of the house to pull out two of my children - although my wife did make that mad dash.  What I could do, though, was find other ways into the problem - through a window, into their bedroom - and haul them out through a position that was still at risk (by the time my wife climbed out after them, the fire was in their bedroom doorway) but at much lesser risk than through the middle of the house.  That was the level at which I could function through the fear.

What this has to do with combat training is this: There will always be a risk, no matter how small, of injury, and a certainty of pain.  Training so that the fear is still there, but is managed, is essential.  There will be people for whom that is simply not worth it.  There is no shame in that; I know people for whom even minor blows to the head are migraine triggers and can incapacitate them for a day at the minimum.  That's not a risk worth taking to them, and I happen to agree with their decision-making.  But anyone who steps into a fighting situation and is unable or unwilling to accept the risk of pain, injury, or death has not trained sufficiently.  A great deal of words have been spilled on this subject; suffice it to say that "you will get hit" should be part of any training program, up to and including working up to reasonable, safe impacts to demonstrate what not to let fear govern, and where lethal implements are concerned, full-speed, full-power demonstrations to show why safety really matters.

Prudence or foresight is much harder to train in.  On the one hand, this is the Sun Tzu "the highest way is to win a hundred battles without fighting."  Avoiding the fight entirely is foresight.  On the other, this assumes that the fight will happen, if only because practice-fighting your friends is fun.  This is also the attribute that says "their shoulder dropped a fraction, they're going to hit my leg" and blocks appropriately.  I am uncertain that this can be trained directly, but I do believe that it can be trained into every fighter as a part of regular practice, so long as they practice regularly, because learning how the movements feel, and how they look, is a key part of every training opportunity in martial arts.

4. Conclusion

This covers the basic psychological, physical, and fundamental requirements for any program of instruction in martial arts, or at least a first-draft pass at it.  There's probably more that I could add, and probably will, because this is merely the beginning of a process of figuring out how to teach, but I feel it's enough to get started in developing the skills of a heavy fighter, and it's also a lot of stuff that both manuals and students just like to fast-forward through.  I also want to fast-forward through it, but years of not paying attention to things like spine alignment and keeping my shoulder back hampered me as a fighter, so I am carefully not fast-forwarding through it here.