The eco/anti-eco debate is gaining steam. Perhaps it’s just my algorithm, or a loud select few that make it seem that way. I have participated in the debates, arguments and mudslinging. I’ve probably contributed to the perception that the Eco crowd are a bunch of insufferable pseudo-intellectual nerds.

More recently, I’ve had little interest in further polarizing the debate, even though my conviction in the ecological approach and CLA is as strong as ever. I still like to navel-gaze with some of my fellow nerd pals on my podcast. And I continue to nerd out on my fascination with human skill development. But I’m learning that the gap between both camps and both approaches really needn’t be thought of as a gap at all. In fact, I am reluctant to now even consider it a gap.

And it is with that realization that I’d like to give a nod to those who say, “This is nothing new; this is what we’ve pretty much all done.” I’ll even happily concede some ground to the most seemingly reasonable group of them all who advocate for a hybrid approach. The following post is my attempt to reconcile somewhat with the other side and make a case that Eco is not a reinvention of the wheel or some radical new approach, but rather a reprioritization of the values and truths we all collectively hold as coaches and athletes alike.

Now, what I am not saying is that the theoretical assumptions that support the different theories (ecological vs cognitive) are compatible. That’s not the point. Where I once would have employed direct perception, affordance-based control, dynamical systems theory, perception-action and self-organization to highlight both IP and ED’s ontological differences. This kind of talk in MMA coaching circles is neither helpful nor apparently convincing. So, going forward, we are done with the fancy words and academic jargon. I’ll keep them for my personal nerd outs.

Now then. If all coaches pretty much share the same core beliefs, what is the practical difference between a traditional approach and an ecological approach to developing our students?

Here is my best current attempt to present this difference. And to do so, I will make some statements that I believe speak for all coaches and, actually, for all sports. Now let’s get our pants off!

Statement 1: In order to become skillful at something, we must practice doing that thing and we must practice it repeatedly.

Statement 2: As coaches, we can TELL our students things, we can SHOW our students things and we can have our students DO things.

Statement 3: There are better and worse ways of doing things. Techniques have and continue to be discovered, refined and shared over time. Coaches may have different interpretations of these techniques, but there is a historical and community consensus on what are better and worse techniques.

Statement 4: Any technique, regardless of its ideal, must be adaptable and flexible. It’s never going to be the ‘exact’ movement every time.

Statement 5: Skill development takes time. Getting the body to move efficiently requires a lot of repeated practice. Coaches can help guide and support this development, but it still takes time.

I’ve tried to make these statements clear, which likely lack nuance. But I would be surprised if there were many coaches that would disagree with the 5 above at face value.

That’s how close we are. As an Eco coach, the above statements are completely aligned with my coaching approach. And when I coached from a traditional or IP perspective, these above statements were also fully aligned. I tell, show and have my students do things. I believe there are better and worse ways of doing things. I know it all takes time, and I understand that techniques have to be adaptable and flexible.

The difference between eco and traditional doesn’t require adding anything new to these statements. It doesn’t reject these statements. It doesn’t even have to reinterpret them. What it does is reprioritize them.

We all prioritize them as coaches. We prioritize how much we show and tell. We prioritize what areas and kinds of practice we make them do. We prioritize different levels of detail and how much we refine technique.

What an eco coach does, is hold the first statement as being truly sacred. The repeating of the practicing of the thing. Critically though, the thing we are trying to get better at, is the combat. The battle itself! And by prioritizing the practicing of the actual thing; the unscripted, dynamic, competitive thing! This means we change the value we attribute to the telling and the showing. And most crucially, we avoid doing the other thing.

The other thing:

Statement 6: If you are not doing the actual thing, then you are doing something else. And if you are doing something else, then you’re no longer doing the thing. You are doing the other thing.

So, if we agree with statement 1, and we are doing another thing, then most likely we are getting better at that other thing. And that puts us in a position where it’s not as clear if doing the other thing is helping us get better at the actual thing. And this is where we are left as coaches. By all means, do other things, but at least acknowledge that it is, at best, unclear what effect it has on making us better at the actual thing. And I am not saying it can’t. I am saying it is unclear.

That’s coaching. That’s what we all do. We prioritize how we structure practice, how we tell and show our learners things, and how much time we spend doing the actual thing and how much time we spend doing the other thing.

The little big difference.

So, my position is that Eco coaches are not really bringing anything new to the table. Certainly, task-focused positional sparring and goal-orientated sparring were always a staple of martial arts curriculums.

So, what’s the difference? Why are Eco dudes so damn sure their way is more defensible? Well, for me, it comes down to the where-ness and when-ness of movement.

Statement 7: Our bodies are always doing something. And whatever they are doing, they are moving towards and acting towards the next thing.

Statement 8: Lots of things influence how our bodies move: what we are trying to do, the instructions from a coach, our previous experience, what we are capable of, and crucially, one of the primary influences in how we move (in grappling/striking/MMA) is the movement of our opponents.

Statement 9: To achieve our movement goals, we must coordinate our bodies to a specific position in space (where-ness) in a certain time frame (when-ness).

Here again, I have tried to make reasonable statements that few coaches would disagree with. And again, I point to a reprioritization of these beliefs by the ecological coach. We also hold sacred that the biggest influence on where and when we next move our bodies is the live opponent themselves.

This is it. This is the (practical) difference!

We fundamentally believe that as long as we are practicing repeatedly doing the actual thing, we trust that we are becoming more experienced at, and sensitive to, the influence of our training partners and opponents, and more effectively learn where and when our bodies need to move. And here’s the kicker. Regardless of an understanding of motor-learning theory or how you actually believe we best learn, nothing informs the where-ness and when-ness like a live training partner.

Beyond that, the debate isn’t very interesting. Coaches have, and always will, argue and disagree on ways of telling, showing and doing. Science will continue to better answer what other things are effective. The community consensus will still discover and refine better and worse techniques. It’ll all still take time. Yet coaches will never influence the where-ness and the when-ness that a live partner offers. The eco coach doesn’t try to.

I mostly skip past social media Eco debates these days. It’s all a mish-mash of mischaracterizations, talking past each other, the same trotted out strawmen (on both sides) and a salad of science-washed buzzwords. So, if you’ve found the eco debate exhausting and annoying, even if it’s only due to some of the unbearable dorks that promote it (including yours truly), perhaps this attempt at highlighting common ground might be a step towards reconciliation. We are all trying to do our best. None of us truly know what the fuck we are doing. We are all making best guesses.

Perhaps eco would be better received if it wasn’t sold as a reinvention of coaching. Perhaps it would become more accessible if we talked about it differently. Not as a radical new method, but as a reminder to spend more time doing the thing we are actually trying to get better at.