A gentle swing of the Champ arn

Source: Photo: Graham Hartley

In this post, I continue to examine former world champion boxer John Famechon’s lived experience of acquired brain injury, recovery and resistance.

Famechon suffered an incapacitating brain injury in August 1991 when a car, estimated to be traveling at 100 kpm (62 mph), hit him while crossing a road near Warwick Farm in Sydney. Famechon was immediately placed in emergency intensive care. During this time, he also suffered a stroke on the left side of his body.

After being released from hospital in October 1992, Famechon and his then-fiancée Glenys were told that John would be severely disabled for the rest of his life.

As a result of a chance encounter with Famechon, I started a new form of complex brain-based movement. therapy with him. My sessions with Famechon lasted anywhere from an hour to three hours. The first session, on December 18, 1993, began by slowly and gently opening the left fist and then massaging the open hand. At first, his fist felt cold; however, once the hand was opened and with additional massage of the hand and forearm, I could feel the tonal tension leave the hand as it became more warm, natural and flexible.

The fist that shook the world opened up to a new and new form of therapy

Source: Photo: Graham Hartley.

After this, I placed my left hand and interlaced my fingers with Famechon’s left hand. I then began flexing and bending his wrist, fingers and left hand with slow vertical arm lifts, all the while explaining to John what I was doing and why I was doing these actions.

From the beginning, even before we met, I had an idea of ​​what was required in Famechon’s life if he was ever going to recover (and I didn’t know if he would); I was firm in my thinking that if we didn’t try, then there was only one outcome: nothing would change. With that, I was also of the opinion that he should move as much as possible.

In addition, the movement had to be complex and complicated. I also intuitively “knew” that the movement must be (as far as possible) self-initiated by his thought. This meant that I would initially move his member and then ask him to continue moving on his own initiative.

This would mean that neurons in John’s brain and body would fire and make connections. I had no proof of this, but it sure made sense to me.

I was also instinctively very strongly of the opinion that Famechon’s self-initiated thought and movement was to be the brain-based driving engine that would help make the necessary neurological and neuromuscular connections that and ultimately , to bring about severe changes in the state of incapacity, up to that of not being seriously incapacitated.

I also intuitively understood that this self-initiated thinking and movement (on Famechon’s part) was the power that needed to create the complex neurological connections needed to lead to neurological and neuromuscular connections and complex improvements in recovery.

Movement, especially self-activated movement, was the only way to access and influence the brain, which would then bring corresponding benefits to the body. The result would be for Famechon to recover and eventually return to the condition that existed before his accident.

I had no idea if any of this would work. However, instinctively, it seemed to make sense. It was better to try – and fail – than not try at all. This way of thinking has expanded to state the following: “Only when possibilities and potential are actively pursued do positive changes promise to take place.”

Academically, the most influential author and theory (from my university studies) was Johann Huizinga (1955). Huizinga was an academic who studied and wrote about play and children in his book: Homo ludens, Man, the Player. Huizinga argued that movement is imperative if children are to develop as needed. “Well, then,” that must mean, as far as I was concerned, movement – especially complex multiple movements – was and is a universal imperative.