After-Action

AFTER-ACTION Self-administered after-action report. Period covered: my Behind Closed Doors 5 match through the Behind Closed Doors 6 broadcast. Author: the subject. For the record. ———————————————— I have been absent from the federation's broadcast for one full show cycle. I will not characterise the absence. The absence speaks for itself, and any characterisation would be the kind of editorial gloss the document is meant to exclude. What follows is the report. ———————————————— I. THE MATCH I lost to Tomás Reyes-Montoya at Behind Closed Doors 5. The match went twenty-one minutes and twenty-seven seconds. The finish was the Grapevine Ankle Lock, applied at the centre of The Crucible, with no rope-break possibility, after a sequence I had attempted to convert into pin position and which he counter-converted into the submission setup before I had finished the conversion. I want to attend to the technical specifics of the conversion because the conversion is the part of the match the audience does not understand and which is, in my assessment, the part of the match that mattered. I was attempting a transitional pin from a side position. The pin attempt was a probe — I did not expect it to produce the three count, and I had positioned my weight to leave the pin attempt cleanly into a wrist control sequence if the kickout came at the count I expected it to come at. The kickout came at the count I expected. My weight was where I had positioned it to be. The problem was that Mr. Reyes-Montoya had identified the probe before I had completed it and had pre-positioned his lower body for a counter that converted the kickout into his finish on a timeline that did not include my planned wrist control sequence. The setup window I had built was a setup window for him. I want to be precise about what this means. It does not mean I made an error. The probe was correctly identified, correctly timed, and correctly weighted. It means that against this specific opponent, my probe was itself the information that produced the setup. The fact that I executed the probe correctly is, in this case, identical to the fact that I lost the match. The two propositions are the same. A textbook would describe this as a fighter whose game allows the opposing fighter's competence to function as his offense. I am that textbook. I am also that fighter. The discomfort of writing both sentences in the same paragraph is, I would note, contained. ———————————————— II. THE OBSERVATIONS I watched Behind Closed Doors 6 from a hotel room in this city. I was not at the building. I will not characterise the choice. Several things happened on the broadcast that I want to put on the record as the document's analytical content. Tomás Reyes-Montoya competed against Hideo Kuramoto in the main event, non-title, and won via the same finish he used to defeat me. The match went sixteen minutes and fifty-one seconds, which the broadcast desk correctly identified as the longest match of his STRIFE career. I want to add the federation's broadcast a piece of analysis Reginald Graves did not include. Mr. Kuramoto produced an Exploder Suplex near-fall at two and seven-eighths. The Exploder Suplex is a move I also use. When Mr. Reyes-Montoya kicked out of Mr. Kuramoto's at the count he kicked out at, he did so by initiating the same lower-body pre-positioning he used against me. He has now defended against the move twice on the broadcast record, both times in the same manner. The pattern is replicable and the federation should now expect every future challenger to test against it. Wone competed against Dorian Graves at card position eight. Wone won via what his published documentation describes as the third-category extension of his framework — a submission applied without punitive intent. Mr. Graves inclined his head to Wone post-match. Wone inclined his head in return. I want to put on the record that this is the first such moment Mr. Graves has produced in the broadcast archive, and that it occurred under specific conditions I am studying. The conditions are: a defeat without damage, by an opponent whose framework was published in advance, on a finish whose execution did not require punishment of any specific body part beyond what the submission's mechanics require. I do not know what to do with the observation yet. I am putting it on the record so I can return to it. Static competed against "Toxic Waste" Rancid at card position seven. Mr. Rancid did exactly what his published transcript said he would do and Static did exactly what his published note said he would do. The audience saw a code held under direct on-broadcast pressure. I do not have an analytical point to make about this match. I have a categorical observation to make: the federation is currently producing matches in which the published frameworks of the competitors determine the audience's read of the result. Three matches at BCD 6 fit this pattern, including the main event. I will write more about this when the pattern produces its fourth instance. ———————————————— III. THE AMENDMENT My framework, as previously written, was: narrow the possibility space until only the preferred outcome remains. The framework, as previously written, presumed an opponent whose possibility space could be narrowed by sequence control. Sequence control is what I do. I chain holds and offense into arguments, each move the conclusion of the one before it. The argument terminates in the preferred outcome. The amendment, as of this document, is the following. Against an opponent whose finish set is not married to a setup — whose submission is whichever submission opens up in the moment, whose preferred outcome is structurally improvisational — the framework's central operation does not produce the framework's central effect. Sequence control still produces sequences. The sequences still produce position. The position still produces opportunity. But the opportunity is, against this opponent type, also an opportunity for him. The possibility space that I narrow is the same possibility space he is occupying, and his finish set fits into spaces my framework was not designed to close. I lost to this opponent type twice. The first time, in the championship semi-final, I attributed to fatigue. The second time, in my championship match itself, I have now attributed to the framework. The framework was the problem. Not the fatigue. I want to be precise about what the amendment does and does not commit to. It does not commit to a new framework. It commits to a constraint on the existing one. The existing framework is sound against opponent types whose finish set is married to a setup. Against opponent types whose finish set is not, the framework requires the addition of a second discipline — the ability to recognise mid-sequence when my opponent's improvisational set has opened against me, and to abort the sequence before the opportunity completes for him. This is a discipline I do not currently possess at a tournament-relevant standard. I am training it. I will not describe the training. The training is mine. The result of the training will be on the broadcast when it is on the broadcast. ———————————————— IV. THE POSITION I am two and two in this federation. I have been twice submitted by the current World Champion. The federation has, on its broadcast desk's analysis, elevated Hideo Kuramoto to the position of next title contender, a position I held at Ignition and lost at Behind Closed Doors 5. I do not contest the elevation. Mr. Kuramoto earned it on the broadcast. The federation's hierarchy is, in the relevant respect, currently correct. I will not be pursuing the World Championship in the immediate term. I am reorganising. I have identified other work to do in this federation that has been left unattended for too long, and which I have, in private, been thinking about for considerably longer than the period this document covers. I will not name the work in this document. The work has its own timeline and the work will name itself when it begins. For the record: I am not retiring. I am not stepping back from competition. I am not requesting a sabbatical. I am present. I will be in the building. The federation should expect to see me. ———————————————— V. CLOSING The match I lost was the match I lost. The framework that produced the loss has been amended. The competitor who produced the result has been promoted to a position the federation should attend to carefully. The competitor who has produced this report has been promoted by no one — but is, the report would like to note, the competitor with the longest match-history on file against the current champion, and the competitor whose framework has now been amended in response to that history. The amendment is the work. The work continues. — E. M.