Matt Larsen
2nd March 2002, 03:31
Science in the Martial Arts
1. Stating the problem
2. Gathering information on the problem
3. Forming a hypothesis
4. Performing experiments to test the hypothesis
5. Recording and analyzing data
6. Stating a conclusion repeating the work
In the spring of 1998 I was assigned as the Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge of Combatives training for the 75th Ranger Regiment. I had been hired to implement a new system of Combatives training I had helped to develop while at my previous job as NCOIC of Combatives training for the second Ranger Battalion. There was however already a Boxing program in place as part of the integration of new Rangers. In order to implement the new program I first wanted to proof its viability.
1. Stating the problem. What is the most efficient method of training new soldiers in Combative techniques
2. Gathering information on the problem. The existing Boxing program involved approximately ten hours of instruction and then matches between the students. There were on average two or three injuries each class
3. Forming a hypothesis. Standup-fighting skills are more difficult to learn than is commonly thought and may not be the most efficient form of training.
4. Performing experiments to test the hypothesis. A group of 100 students was broken down into two equal groups. One group was given the ten hours of Boxing instruction as per the existing program. The other group received no instruction. At the end of the instruction period, the trained boxers were paired up with untrained soldiers for Boxing matches. Victory was to be measured by the first soldier knocked down.
5. Recording and analyzing data. The results were a surprising 27 victories for the untrained Boxers, 23 for those who had received the training. There were 3 injuries, 2 from the trained group and 1 from the untrained group.
6. Stating a conclusion repeating the work. My conclusion was that a small amount of Boxing instruction yielded very little if any gain in technical proficiency. The experiment was conducted two more times with different Boxing instructors and with slightly different amounts of instruction. One time they were given 6 hours and the other time 8. The results were 24 victories for the untrained boxers with 6 hours of training and 28 with 8 hours with similar rates of injury. I further surmised that the largest determining factors for who would win were natural aggression and athletic ability and that training was almost inconsequential. Further experiments were performed on different training methods.
Believe it or not the point of my mentioning all of this has nothing to do with the viability of a small amount of boxing instruction as military training. The point is that this kind of scientific analysis is conspicuously absent from most of the martial arts world. Even in arts and systems that include the words scientific in their names you would be hard pressed to find any actual science.
One notable exception to this is a man named George Weers. He is the former director of the United States Judo Association's Coaching Development Program. Mr. Weers developed a new system for both the teaching and classification of Judo throws based on throwing opportunity. The method he used was a detailed statistical analysis of throwing from video of several years of world class judo competition. The experiment will be the performance of Judo players trained with his system.
His work is admittedly directed specifically at sportive Judo where it is much easier to gather data than in the world of self-defense or military combat. The problems of applying the scientific method however are not any greater than in many other areas of study. Why then is it so rare in the world of the martial arts. There are several reasons.
Of the various martial arts styles out there, There is one thing that they almost all have in common. They all trace their origin back to a person or group of people who, through there diligent study, early mastery, and finally their genius, figured out the very best way not only how to fight, but how to train to fight. Most claim not only to have figured out the best way to train and fight, but how to make you a better person in the process.
The Idea that someone has all of the answers or that it was all figured out long ago is very seductive. It frees us from our intellectual burdens. "If I only diligently follow the path…" This is a very common thing in the martial arts community. It ignores the possibility that most of what a system is, comes about after its inception. Do you suppose for a minute that the Judo of Kano is exactly the same as the Judo of today? Is Shotokan Karate the exact same as that practiced by Funokashi? The answer is of coarse not. Even if they were however, is this even desirable? Is what we want an exact replica of the techniques in use years ago?
For many practitioners, the joy of training in the martial arts is the connection to the past. After all training to fight with a katana is not very practical from a modern self-defense perspective. It is however enjoyable. This is the same enjoyment that historical reenactors get by learning to use period weapons such as a Civil War musket or a medieval broadsword.
I would propose that even if it were possible to exactly replicate the training and techniques of the past, there would still be a fundamental difference. That difference is one of motivation. To imagine that the hobbyist who immerses himself two or three times a week in the techniques of the past for enjoyment is the same as the warrior of the past who trained at the peril of his life is ludicrous. It is akin to comparing historical those same reenactors to real soldiers and marines who are training for the realities of war. To quote John Clements, the author of a book on medieval swordsmanship, "Historical men were real warriors who over hundreds and hundreds of years passed on lifetimes of accumulated experience, both good and bad, learned in life threatening warfare." This is not to denigrate the practice of historical arts. It is simply to point out that for the sake of actual fighting there is probably a better way.
My first several years in the martial arts came as a young Marine stationed in Tokyo. While there I studied both Shotokan Karate and Kodokan Judo. Several years latter I saw video footage of Funokashi performing Kata. I was amazed to see that he performed the Kata differently than I had been taught. So if the techniques of Shotokan had changed in the very organization and at the very school of the founder, how much had it changed as it spread around the world?
If we can admit that the techniques will change over time, and that for some reasons change is good, it is then a question of figuring out how and why change occurs, and directing it.
Another obstacle that we must overcome is the lack of intellectual honesty of the martial arts community. By that I mean that no one is willing to challenge the work, conclusions or methods of any one else. The martial arts publications that you can pick up at the newsstand are hardly scientific journals. There is no concept of peer review, or even the idea that assertions must be backed up by verifiable facts. Every time I hear of some supposed fact of martial technique, I assume it is not true. For instance, 97% of the time this or that happens. It takes 26.5lbs of pressure to break this bone. Let us see the data. Let us try to recreate your test results. The martial arts community is very fond of spouting off "facts" with absolutely no proof that their fact is indeed. "This technique will break your opponents neck" How many necks were broken to prove that technique actually breaks necks? Did they use cadavers in the experiment? Or did they just keep very good notes of their after action reviews?
The navy uses the results of aircraft crashing into and onto carriers to figure out the survivability of ships against cruise missile attacks. In this same way we can keep records of training injuries to test the effect of techniques on the body. It may be harder to model and test than some other areas of study, but that is not the main problem. To move forward we must all step away from our preconceived notions, and use the techniques that have advanced every other area of human endeavor.
I posted the new manual on these pages for these vary same reasons. I invite your criticisms, and critiques.
Maybe this can be a step toward a martial arts community that is searching for the truth and not trying to protect and expand our individual territories.
Matt Larsen
1. Stating the problem
2. Gathering information on the problem
3. Forming a hypothesis
4. Performing experiments to test the hypothesis
5. Recording and analyzing data
6. Stating a conclusion repeating the work
In the spring of 1998 I was assigned as the Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge of Combatives training for the 75th Ranger Regiment. I had been hired to implement a new system of Combatives training I had helped to develop while at my previous job as NCOIC of Combatives training for the second Ranger Battalion. There was however already a Boxing program in place as part of the integration of new Rangers. In order to implement the new program I first wanted to proof its viability.
1. Stating the problem. What is the most efficient method of training new soldiers in Combative techniques
2. Gathering information on the problem. The existing Boxing program involved approximately ten hours of instruction and then matches between the students. There were on average two or three injuries each class
3. Forming a hypothesis. Standup-fighting skills are more difficult to learn than is commonly thought and may not be the most efficient form of training.
4. Performing experiments to test the hypothesis. A group of 100 students was broken down into two equal groups. One group was given the ten hours of Boxing instruction as per the existing program. The other group received no instruction. At the end of the instruction period, the trained boxers were paired up with untrained soldiers for Boxing matches. Victory was to be measured by the first soldier knocked down.
5. Recording and analyzing data. The results were a surprising 27 victories for the untrained Boxers, 23 for those who had received the training. There were 3 injuries, 2 from the trained group and 1 from the untrained group.
6. Stating a conclusion repeating the work. My conclusion was that a small amount of Boxing instruction yielded very little if any gain in technical proficiency. The experiment was conducted two more times with different Boxing instructors and with slightly different amounts of instruction. One time they were given 6 hours and the other time 8. The results were 24 victories for the untrained boxers with 6 hours of training and 28 with 8 hours with similar rates of injury. I further surmised that the largest determining factors for who would win were natural aggression and athletic ability and that training was almost inconsequential. Further experiments were performed on different training methods.
Believe it or not the point of my mentioning all of this has nothing to do with the viability of a small amount of boxing instruction as military training. The point is that this kind of scientific analysis is conspicuously absent from most of the martial arts world. Even in arts and systems that include the words scientific in their names you would be hard pressed to find any actual science.
One notable exception to this is a man named George Weers. He is the former director of the United States Judo Association's Coaching Development Program. Mr. Weers developed a new system for both the teaching and classification of Judo throws based on throwing opportunity. The method he used was a detailed statistical analysis of throwing from video of several years of world class judo competition. The experiment will be the performance of Judo players trained with his system.
His work is admittedly directed specifically at sportive Judo where it is much easier to gather data than in the world of self-defense or military combat. The problems of applying the scientific method however are not any greater than in many other areas of study. Why then is it so rare in the world of the martial arts. There are several reasons.
Of the various martial arts styles out there, There is one thing that they almost all have in common. They all trace their origin back to a person or group of people who, through there diligent study, early mastery, and finally their genius, figured out the very best way not only how to fight, but how to train to fight. Most claim not only to have figured out the best way to train and fight, but how to make you a better person in the process.
The Idea that someone has all of the answers or that it was all figured out long ago is very seductive. It frees us from our intellectual burdens. "If I only diligently follow the path…" This is a very common thing in the martial arts community. It ignores the possibility that most of what a system is, comes about after its inception. Do you suppose for a minute that the Judo of Kano is exactly the same as the Judo of today? Is Shotokan Karate the exact same as that practiced by Funokashi? The answer is of coarse not. Even if they were however, is this even desirable? Is what we want an exact replica of the techniques in use years ago?
For many practitioners, the joy of training in the martial arts is the connection to the past. After all training to fight with a katana is not very practical from a modern self-defense perspective. It is however enjoyable. This is the same enjoyment that historical reenactors get by learning to use period weapons such as a Civil War musket or a medieval broadsword.
I would propose that even if it were possible to exactly replicate the training and techniques of the past, there would still be a fundamental difference. That difference is one of motivation. To imagine that the hobbyist who immerses himself two or three times a week in the techniques of the past for enjoyment is the same as the warrior of the past who trained at the peril of his life is ludicrous. It is akin to comparing historical those same reenactors to real soldiers and marines who are training for the realities of war. To quote John Clements, the author of a book on medieval swordsmanship, "Historical men were real warriors who over hundreds and hundreds of years passed on lifetimes of accumulated experience, both good and bad, learned in life threatening warfare." This is not to denigrate the practice of historical arts. It is simply to point out that for the sake of actual fighting there is probably a better way.
My first several years in the martial arts came as a young Marine stationed in Tokyo. While there I studied both Shotokan Karate and Kodokan Judo. Several years latter I saw video footage of Funokashi performing Kata. I was amazed to see that he performed the Kata differently than I had been taught. So if the techniques of Shotokan had changed in the very organization and at the very school of the founder, how much had it changed as it spread around the world?
If we can admit that the techniques will change over time, and that for some reasons change is good, it is then a question of figuring out how and why change occurs, and directing it.
Another obstacle that we must overcome is the lack of intellectual honesty of the martial arts community. By that I mean that no one is willing to challenge the work, conclusions or methods of any one else. The martial arts publications that you can pick up at the newsstand are hardly scientific journals. There is no concept of peer review, or even the idea that assertions must be backed up by verifiable facts. Every time I hear of some supposed fact of martial technique, I assume it is not true. For instance, 97% of the time this or that happens. It takes 26.5lbs of pressure to break this bone. Let us see the data. Let us try to recreate your test results. The martial arts community is very fond of spouting off "facts" with absolutely no proof that their fact is indeed. "This technique will break your opponents neck" How many necks were broken to prove that technique actually breaks necks? Did they use cadavers in the experiment? Or did they just keep very good notes of their after action reviews?
The navy uses the results of aircraft crashing into and onto carriers to figure out the survivability of ships against cruise missile attacks. In this same way we can keep records of training injuries to test the effect of techniques on the body. It may be harder to model and test than some other areas of study, but that is not the main problem. To move forward we must all step away from our preconceived notions, and use the techniques that have advanced every other area of human endeavor.
I posted the new manual on these pages for these vary same reasons. I invite your criticisms, and critiques.
Maybe this can be a step toward a martial arts community that is searching for the truth and not trying to protect and expand our individual territories.
Matt Larsen