I thought this Twitter thread was interesting. Low Tech Combat asked, “Who thinks "Aliveness" is not important?” To which Jason Crouch of The Martial Explorer answered, “what is aliveness.” My reply was:
tdatraining RT @jessecrouch: @lowtechcombat what is aliveness- Great question! Is it rhetorical? I will answer anyway: There is no hard and fast definition, like most things in martial arts, unless you isolate it to a particular system, e.g. JKD. It may be easier to define by asking what is dead in MA? Most think that a "dead" drill is one where the feeder, for ex, is not responding, but simply feeding an attack or responding with a defense without thought or emotion. He may as well be a machine.
An "alive" drill may be closer to sparring, in that a partner gives feedback or resistance. Is it important? Yes, of course it's important, but the "dead" is important too, because it develops basics, skills, and tactics and "aliveness" when learning something new can actually be detrimental to developing a technique or skill before the correct time. Does that make sense? I know their are lots of other perspectives and would love to hear them.
Being the expert researcher I am, I used the search term “aliveness,” and found this video on YouTube. Watch.
What do you think?