Catching upon blogs and news, tgace had a brief blurb about aliveness training. He links to this post at TDA Training that contains a video discussing “aliveness” training. Here’s the video:

I must admit I laughed at the use of chess to explain aliveness, because it makes a good point. The way a lot of martial arts are taught (traditional or modern, doesn’t matter — it’s not the art itself, it’s how the art is taught and trained) is that sort of static pattern memorization and following, and that’s not going to make you a better martial artist. There is a place for “dead” (to use the opposite term) training. You do need to learn basic movements, basic concepts. You do need a compliant partner so you can learn the basic movements, how the mechanics work, the subtle factors (e.g. “if the arm is angled this way it’s not going to work…. try it here, now try it there, see?”). There is certainly a place and requirement for dead training.

But it shouldn’t stop there.

Once you get the mechanics down, now you need to take it into alive training. It can be as simple as a your partner providing some resistence so you can really refine the mechanics from the dead training, or it can be a full-out freestyle sparring session. It’s an attempt to take the movements and concepts into actual application.

This is one reason I had a problem with how my Kuk Sool training was taught. It was all fancy dancing and compliant partners. The vast majority of the training was dead training. There might have been a night now and again where something alive happened, and I relished those classes. But the majority of emphasis both in the school (depending who was teaching; Dewain did like aliveness) and moreso the WKSA (witness the “Houston testing” sessions that were little more than memorization-regurgitation dance-offs) was dead training. I do recall before I had even heard the term “aliveness” training that I was seeking this sort of training because I realized that me doing a lock and throw and my partner just falling to the mat was not the way to do things. My partner should go to the mat because I took them down through proper technique application not because “step 5, I the partner fall down on the ground”. There were attempts to improve this in the school, but it just didn’t happen before I had had enough. Again tho, this isn’t necessarily about the art. While Kuk Sool may be taught that dead way as a majority, I know it is not the only way it’s taught. There are schools, both past and present, that certainly do teach in an alive way. It is not strictly the art, it’s the school, it’s the teachers, it’s the students, that ultimately determine how things go.

But that all said, is aliveness some holy grail?

Nope.

Those that preach aliveness seem to forget that people can and do practice martial arts for reasons other than sport or combat or self-defense. Some people just enjoy it as a healthy activity that stimulates both body and mind. I know some people just cannot stand Tai Chi because there’s no throwdown hardcore kombat, and true there may not be as much martial application in how Tai Chi is practiced today and thus probably doesn’t have much for aliveness training. But does that make it any less valid an activity for someone to participate in?

Aliveness is a worthwhile concept, but it must be kept in perspective. It is just another tool, another training aid, not a holy grail. Depending upon your goals, it may be a useful tool or it may be one worth discarding. Just be honest in evaluating the use of the tool against your goals.