HOW DO ONE-STEP TECHNIQUES FIT INTO YOUR CURRICULUM?

[Bushido-Ruach]

I'm just curious...in another thread (I can't remember which one or where), the number of one-steps within a system came up in the conversation. Someone said, if I am remembering correctly, that they only had something like 37 one-step techniques total by the time the student tested for black belt.

 

In my self defense class, just between Yellow Belt and it's first degree we have 60 one step techniques, 33 from basic escapes, 27 from punches (besides basic sticky hands training). By the time someone picks up their black belt in my school, they have a total of 1,033 one-step techniques filling their brains.

 

Our philosophy is as follows...a fight, when broken down to its simplest constituents, is an attack followed by a blocking or cleansing technique, followed by a counter attack. Basically, a fight is one one-step followed by another, followed by another, ad infinitum until one of the two combatants is taken out.

 

Since a fight consists of such, 10% of our training is learning the basics, and the following 90% is all learning one-steps and then drilling them into the student's brains and reactions.

 

My questions to ya'all is this...how important is one-step techniques to your training? What ratio to one-step training does your school practice in comparison to kata, basics drills, and sparring? And, #3 - do you feel this is adequate in your ability to defend yourself against an attack?

[tallgeese]

We don't use one steps in the traditional sense. Drills that train the body to adopt certain principles are in the core of our system from white to purple belt but aren't one-steps per se. They are teaching tools, that's all. There are about 4 at each level.

Rather than have complex sequences built into the system that can be foiled by an unexpected movement from the attacker, or misses movment by the defender, it's best to cultivate the ability to respond spontaneously to attcak. This should be, in my opinon, the end result of drilling,not rotly memorized resonses.

So while different tactics are trained often, there is no set number of the. THey are chianed together to poractce good transition from one to another until the student can imploy a proper tool at the proper range and moment. This lends itself to less memorizing and more reactive capability.

[DWx]

We practice one steps a fair bit but we only have one that you learn, you're expected to make them up yourself. They're used in testing from around blue belt (I think) and you're supposed to come up with the defense and counters through taking techniques from the forms and sparring. Usually in a grading the examiner can ask the attacker to use any technique they know up to their grade or they can tell the attacker to use anything they like so its not just like drill work as you have to be aware and able to react to any attack. I find its a good prelude to free SD senarios as its a bit more controlled.

[bushido_man96]

We use one-steps in our training, but I don't like anything about it.

We have around 7 one-steps to learn per belt level, counting the high and low ranks together (lo orange, hi orange). However, they are all done against the straight punch with the right hand. The one-steps we do as higher ranks also tend to get a bit flashy, and wouldn't be very practical for SD purposes.

I don't think that learning tons of one-steps is the best route to take in learning effective SD. If you have over 1000 sequences to choose from, when the time comes, your mind has to rifle through all those files to find the one that fits. I would rather train response strategies, like tallgees mentions, as opposed to learning tons of "if this, do that" defenses.

I have an article pending on how I think one-step training should progress in a curriculum, but it doesn't happen at my school. I think that they can be a good tool, but they have to be used correctly.

[joesteph]

At my belt level, there are eight one-steps, but I really think of them as four sets; they're mirror images (to block and counterattack from your left side; to block and counterattack from your right).

They start with the lunge punch (which I call the "sitting duck"), but that's to have a point of reference. The first set has you knife hand blocking while getting off center line. It's simple, it's sensible, and it gets it into your head that you've got to get moving if you're attacked. The first counter-strike against the opponent is a punch to the ribs, turning your body into it for more force. It's interesting because it's natural to think of a shot to the head first, but my instructor, who's 5'10", will shoot to one side, her knife hand barely blocking because she's moved that fast, and when she fires off that punch, it's right to my lower ribs--despite the 4" height difference between us. Then there are other strikes. This first move of blocking while moving, then striking immediately, is actually put into our warm-up exercises ("air" opponent).

The second set starts off with a block that has never been explained as to how it's anything other than "traditional." I've thought of ways it can be interpreted, but it's never been satisfactory.

The third set has a front kick as the first defensive move, then there's an immediate punch to the face. It's followed by another kick. I think it's fine to consider that the opponent coming at you might be dealt with by a simple, straightforward kick to the midsection to take the steam out of him, especially if he's rushing into it. (Like walking into a punch.) I understand that Muay Thai fighters maintain distance using a pushing front kick.

The fourth set, IMO, is really a training exercise to use the same leg to kick with twice, incorporating changing from one kick into another.

What I like is that there's an assortment of simple sparring exercises that don't employ the lunge punch and are kind of fun. When they're part of the lesson for the night, they pep things up.

[bushido_man96]

Using the lunge punch is part of what takes away from the usefulness of one-steps, in my opinion. You don't get attacked like that. You are also not likely to be attacked from that distance.

They can be used well to introduce the tool, but eventually, the attacks must be changed, in order to improve and develop more useful skills.

[Traymond]

Are you talking like Ippon Kumite Kata?

We have about 20, five set, sets. They are mostly for self defense against a punch or a kick and a couple on knives.

[Bushido-Ruach]

Rather than have complex sequences built into the system that can be foiled by an unexpected movement from the attacker, or misses movment by the defender, it's best to cultivate the ability to respond spontaneously to attcak. This should be, in my opinon, the end result of drilling,not rotly memorized resonses.

Sorry, I didn't give a good accounting of myself in the beginning...we still train for responsive spontinaity because, as you have rightly acknowledged, a fight is a "living, breathing animal" that can change and move with every different response that takes place. The purpose in our training so many one-step techniques is in developing effective counter responses in the event you can carry one out...but we also train in such a way that if a one step can't be initiated, a proper spontaneous response can still be accomplished.

What I have found in practicing multiple one steps vs. not practicing one steps, is that one-steps gives you a better hand (in my opinion) on an effective response than can end the fight before it goes too far. Also, our one-steps aren't rigid and fixed so that any deviation from the way it is practiced totally destroys the ability of the defender to complete the technique. What I find is practicing one-steps helps one learn body mechanics and learn - spontaneously - techniques they can use in actual combat vs. techniques that are virtually useless in a street fight.

Respectfully!!!

[bushido_man96]

Like you, I think that one-steps can be a good tool for introducing self-defense concepts. However, I think that by doing too many of them, the brain can become overwhelmed with choices. I think that it would be easier to use the strategies by training from a smaller number of one-steps, and just making sure that good strategies are used from start to finish.

[Traymond]

Rather than have complex sequences built into the system that can be foiled by an unexpected movement from the attacker, or misses movment by the defender, it's best to cultivate the ability to respond spontaneously to attcak. This should be, in my opinon, the end result of drilling,not rotly memorized resonses.

Sorry, I didn't give a good accounting of myself in the beginning...we still train for responsive spontinaity because, as you have rightly acknowledged, a fight is a "living, breathing animal" that can change and move with every different response that takes place. The purpose in our training so many one-step techniques is in developing effective counter responses in the event you can carry one out...but we also train in such a way that if a one step can't be initiated, a proper spontaneous response can still be accomplished.

What I have found in practicing multiple one steps vs. not practicing one steps, is that one-steps gives you a better hand (in my opinion) on an effective response than can end the fight before it goes too far. Also, our one-steps aren't rigid and fixed so that any deviation from the way it is practiced totally destroys the ability of the defender to complete the technique. What I find is practicing one-steps helps one learn body mechanics and learn - spontaneously - techniques they can use in actual combat vs. techniques that are virtually useless in a street fight.

Respectfully!!!

In my schools we use Ippon Kumite Kata just as that, a kata. Its like showing Oyo Bunkai in response to someone doing a predetermined attack....spontaneity is a result of sparring Jissen style.