Of the many criticisms lobbed at the Eco/CLA crowd, one of the most common is the idea that we just let our learners “figure it out.”

While this may imply that lazy eco coaches simply hit the clock, say “spar,” and hope students magically develop skill, there is also an element of truth here.

Not only do we let them figure it out, we understand that this is largely what skill is: figuring out where and when to move your body next.

Yep, we are back to the where-ness and when-ness of martial arts development.

Figuring It Out = Decision-Making in Action

I want to again spare the reader the buzzwords: direct perception-action coupling, attunement to affordances, self-organization, and so on.

These principles may support the ecological/CLA framework, but we do not need to lean too heavily on the theoretical underpinnings here. We can simply acknowledge this:

Figuring it out is a critical component of skilled action in martial arts.

And by decision-making, I’m not talking about a conscious, mental process where the athlete stops, thinks, and chooses what to do next (though that happens too). I mean the ongoing process of figuring out where to move, when to move, what to attend to, and what movement opportunities the opponent is making available.

Regardless of which learning philosophy a coach operates within; ecological, information processing, what worked for them, or how they were coached, we cannot get away from this part.

Competing Assumptions

Traditional information-processing approaches generally assume that skill is best developed over time through structured and progressive development of ‘fundamental’ techniques, movement patterns, tactical knowledge, and eventually increasingly context-rich training activities.

Fundamentals → interactive drills → sparring.

This works. No argument here.

Ecological/CLA approaches generally assume that skill is best developed by keeping interactions live and unscripted, while also progressing over time toward more complex and representative practice activities.

This also works.

Whether we believe athletes develop, store, and retrieve motor programs and techniques, or whether we believe skill emerges from the interaction between the task, environment, and both athletes, the performer still has to solve the next movement problem.

This is unavoidable.

Coupled and Connected

Take any exchange between two martial artists.

They can be coupled; meaning one person’s movement is influenced and shaped by the movement of the other, either informationally, (physically disconnected) or mechanically (physically connected).

To highlight the “figuring it out” part, we can look at both.

Informationally Coupled: Most obvious in Striking

Two fighters begin the game, drill, or round.

Before they even throw or defend a strike, they must decide where and when to move their body. This can be influenced by previous experience, intentionality, a coach’s cue, accumulated knowledge, and what movements they are capable of producing.

Do they move closer? Further away? Do they shift their weight? Do they probe and feint? Do they punch, kick, or shoot?

Whatever they do (and they are always doing something), they have to solve the where-and-when problem.

Is this a conscious mental process they deliberate over on the fly? Or do they simply act instinctively and intuitively?

Probably both.

But either way, they are deciding; consciously, intuitively, or somewhere in between, where and when to move next.

Mechanically Coupled: Most obvious in Grappling

Two grapplers begin the game, drill, or round.

All the same influences are present here. But now it is also the feel of the opponent, the movement of the opponent, and the experience of past grappling exchanges, drills, techniques, cues, and instructions that shape where to move and when to move.

More often than not, martial arts involve a mix of both informational and mechanical coupling.

So far, so good?

I haven’t shit on traditional approaches or assumptions. But I am insisting that decision-making is a critical component of skill.

And if we acknowledge this as coaches, then we may design practice more mindfully; not only to foster increasingly effective decision-making, but to better shape the decision landscape for the different athletes we coach.

Again, the body is always having to figure out where and when to move next.

In shadowboxing. In shrimping. In drilling. In sparring.

Always, always, always!

And this for me is where the Eco/CLA framework shines.

By keeping interactions live and unscripted, athletes are constantly required to become more effective decision-makers. They get better at solving the where-and-when problem in real time.

Letting athletes figure it out is not negligent coaching. It is embracing and acknowledging a critical component of skill.

And it does not need to be full sparring either. We can and should meet learners where they are.

Hand fighting in grappling or shoulder tag in boxing can collapse the decision-making space into a much more manageable and safer learning experience for the athlete.

So regardless of which approach you coach from, or which approach you think is best, we cannot escape the where-ness and when-ness problem of movement.

Our students are always figuring it out, no matter what we tell them.

The real question for coaches is not whether athletes should figure it out.

They already are.

The real question is:

What problems are we giving them to solve?