PDA

View Full Version : Science in the Martial Arts



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

Kolschey
2nd March 2002, 04:51
While I do not have anything that I can specifically contribute to this thread, I would like to say that I am glad to see that there are people who are willing to look beyond the various "mythos" of martial arts. I just recently had an interesting conversation with some folks about this very question in relation to the claim in BJJ that "90% of all fights go to the ground. Lest anyone think that I question this stat because of any animosity towards BJJ, grappling, or groundfighting, let me say that I am presently training in BJJ and do have serious respect for the various options and tactics that it presents, but without further ado, this was my part of the debate:

Interesting. I bring that statistic up because several years ago, when the
Gracie family was promoting its groundfighting system, they began to quote
that statistic religiously. Since then, it has become a serious bone of
contention insofar as a number of people found that this seemed (in their
experience, either in scraps, or as LEOs) to be a bit generous. Mind you, I
train in grappling, simply because even if the real number (if anyone were
to do a comprehensive, documented study) were closer to 50% or even 30%, I
wouldn't like to be unprepared for that particular situation. At that point,
the numbers go out the window, and all that's left is a big, angry man
sitting on my chest trying to work my face over. There is no question that a
sufficient number of fights end up on the floor as to make it a reasonable
precaution to be prepared for that eventuality. The question is how the
Gracies derived the figure of "90%". Was this a police study? FBI statistic?
Anecdotal evidence? If it was a real study, the question is what
circumstances and variables are being considered or discarded. To
extrapolate from your analogy, if one person runs away, only to come back
later with a baseball bat, is that still part of the fight, or is that a
separate fight, or does the presence of a weapon or other force multiplier
go far enough outside the bounds of the original study as to be discarded
from the final analysis? If a person effectively uses a Daito ryu technique
and finishes with a kneeling pin, is that also within the boundaries of
"going to ground"? Do both people have to end up on the ground, or just one,
and for how long?

These are just the sort of questions I like to ask whenever I hear
statistics being used in a debate or an advertisement, particularly when I
don't hear what their source is.

In closing, I like the questions that you are asking.
Keep up the good work!

Jeff Cook
3rd March 2002, 23:17
Matt,

You said, in part: ""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?"

Actually, countless cadaver experiments have resulted in a plethora of data. Here is one article out of many demonstrating this: http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/special_report/1998/car_crash/newsid_48000/48062.stm

Many cadaver experiments have been done outside of the U.S. specifically concerning damaging the body with martial technique. Just consider how many heads rolled in Japan from the testing of blades! ;) Cadavers as well as prisoners were used for that, and that is just one example...

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Cady Goldfield
3rd March 2002, 23:56
Jeff,

I can't claim any experience with cadavers as martial arts practice "partners," but there was a time when I tried a side and haunch of beef to practice. It was enlightening. The joints, bones, tendons, muscle and fat were an excellent testing field.

But, it sure didn't duplicate the experience of working with a living, moving opponent.

Kit LeBlanc
4th March 2002, 00:49
Jeff,

I'm not sure testing on cadavers will provide accurate statistics, either. Living people resist, move so angles change, people have different tolerances and weaknesses, etc. We have all seen the neck crank that WILL break his neck per the instructor, or that lock will break his arm, etc. and some of us, (you no doubt) have been in situations where it just didn't happen that way, or didn't even get a tap in training!

Besides, one guy may drop if you crush his elbow, another guy with the same injury may beat you to death with his arm like a flail...ya never know, and ya can't tell that from a cadaver.

RE: the Going to the Ground controversy.

I don't know where the Gracie's got the 90% Maybe it came from their own ring fights, which have a tendency to go there, maybe because of the rules or the other guy thinking he could beat them at what they are good at, or the dojo storming from other practitioners answering their challenge and not being able to prevent being thrown or dragged to the ground and finished there.

Then again, it doesn't really matter. If you aren't skilled on the ground, and end up there, whether the percentage is 10% or 90% the statistic will be moot.

If they are going off of the 1988 LAPD study, which I think they are, it breaks down differently. In 1988, 316,525 arrests were made by LAPD. 5,617 (1.7%) required use of force reports, and of these, only 2,031 were what they called "altercations." (0.6% )

They found that 95% of these altercations(so a percentage of those 0.6%) fit one of five specific patterns: (subject tried to pull away when grabbed, subject attacked, subject refused to take search position, subject fled and was chased, subject took fighting stance but did not attack). 62% of these altercations ended with the officer and subject on the ground with the officer appyling a joint lock and handcuffing the bad guy. I am sure that overwhelmingly that meant kneeling on the guy, grabbing an arm, and turning him over...(skills which are drilled ceaselessly in BJJ).

But why? Police are tasked with controlling and restraining suspects. They HAVE to stay in the fight. Takedowns lead to pins and ground control to cuffing. The dynamics are very similar to classical jujutsu (you mention Daito-ryu, but there are many more), 'cause in the classical days they took people down and pinned them to either get out their tanto and cut his throat or tie him up with nawa-jutsu. The sheer number of classical jujutsu kata which end under these exact parameters (takedown, pin, strike (which often is symbolic of a weapon) or lock or choke.)

Kneeling on someone to pin them IS groundfighting, it represents a major portion of the BJJ curriculum (knee to belly (KTB), KTB to cobra (with and w/o striking), KTB to strike to force a roll over for rear mount and choke, kneeling on the legs and/or arms to pin them for passing guard to KTB, mount, or other top control postion...etc. etc. ), and the tactics that are considered by most BJJ people I have trained with to be the ones most practical for real fights, as opposed to both people fully laying on the ground and "rolling," which is for training and sport. Then again, the reflexes and control of another person developed in rolling apply equally well to controlling someone you are kneeling on and trying to restrain, even when he is not cooperating.

Police also need high percentage techniques. Unarmed striking methods often end up in trading blows, which many smaller officers cannot afford to get involved in. They do a lot of damage which is not always telling, and to both parties (really sucks if you just broke your gun hand and the threat now becomes lethal). Plus they look bad when the cameras are rolling ("Those cops couldn't control him so they beat the sh*t out of him!" ). Pressure points don't work on the tweeked out biker just out of the joint and packed with muscle the way they do on the 150 lb. white collar professional martial arts student who trains for fun and enjoyment and does not want to get hurt when you work kyusho in the dojo. With batons, particularly the ASP's, which a recent retiree from our DT program called "Piss-Off Sticks" you get a lot of whacks for little return. With grappling, particularly ground control, I can lock him then handcuff him or put him to sleep with a carotid technique without injury to him OR me. I use my own personal experience, repeated under field conditions over and over again, for those stats.

Now, if all you have to do is take someone down and run away, then you won't go to the ground, unless he pulls you down with him. If he gives up after a hard throw, so be it. Case closed. If you knock him out with one punch, all the power to ya. Doesn't mean that is gonna happen, or is even likely in the majority of confrontations you will be involved in, especially if you get in more confrontations than the average person due to your line of work.

Off Soapbox,

KIT

Kolschey
4th March 2002, 01:17
What you say makes a great deal of sense. Two of the people in the school where I train are involved in law enforcement as corrections officers. One of them, who has been involved in working in some very high security environments, is quick to show that BJJ can be very effective in controls and restraints for the application of handcuffs.
For what it's worth, he also has an appreciation of some of the joint controls found in Aikido. Interestingly enough, a fellow I knew in Madison, Wisconsin was also an LEO (in this case a uniformed police officer) who found that his training in BJJ was an asset in performing effective restraints when dealing with troublesome suspects.
My own first encounter with BJJ was several years ago when a fellow Aikido student who had been cross training invited me to get on the mat with him. In addition to Aikido, I had some previous Shotokan experience, so he invited me to use any techniques (short of pokes, gouges etc.) that I wanted to.
What surprised me greatly was just how quickly my options disappeared when I found myself at his preferred range. As soon as I found myself on the ground, those options effectively evaporated. To this day, I find that training in groundwork with a partner of any experience is a profoundly humbling experience. Just thinking about it actually inspires a new thread that I hope I'll be able to post in the Member's Lounge in the next day or so having to do with the relationship of technique to randori/keiko/rolling.

Kit LeBlanc
4th March 2002, 02:02
Kolschey,

I find that many people who are more into primarily standing systems have just that humbling experience, so long as they are open enough to understand it rather than rationalizing that it wouldn't have happened that way "if only...."

I also discovered after getting in professional security work how having the ability to control a ground fight so that I maintained a position of advantage was absolutely crucial. It was only hammered home after getting into law enforcement.

But I agree, you have to do both. Very often gaining that dominant position and control is predicated on the transition from standing to the ground...either throwing the guy so he lands where you want him, or being able to keep him from gaining that superior position after you have been taken down, and turning the tables on him. BJJ is great for that.

Dan Harden
4th March 2002, 03:19
Just a reminder

As Kit says there are several classical jujutsu people who work the art from standup to take down to control to cutting and or restraining. Though I respect BJJ, their own arguement of "surprise another fighter by taking him to a place he doesn't know" will work on them just as well.
Lets keep it straight
Not all Judoka are Mifune, Not all DR people are Takeda- Not all Aikidoka are Ueshiba-not all Karateka are Mas Oyama and surprise!! not all BJJ artists are Gracies.
NO art is unbeatable-some people are very good others not so much.
Somewhere people have to get it throught their heads that it is not always about fighting another fighter either.
As for military, LEO, or your average Joe- The first priority is to remain on your feet and to control as fast as possible. The more you train to stay there-the more able you will be to stay there. The more you train to resist ne-waza the better you will be at that as well. If you spend most of your time training on the ground you may convince yourself that it is a good place to be. Heaven help you if the guy your nailng has friends. I couldn't see out of my left eye for almost a week and wore a boot print for awhile. Never saw it coming. I would imagine that in LEO (with) backup that is less of a concern. And in war I can't imagine you would find yourself alone that often unless some serious mistakes had been made.
Unfortunately extreme agression is not something most people can use without getting themselves into potential trouble these days.In light of that grappling/striking still seems the way to go.

As for training I don't think too much time should be spent on the ground. Time should be spent in rapid automatic response, standing techniques, transitional techniques to ground and control, then ground techniques.
Never EVER- discount automatic response (AR)
If your autopilot switches on enough to always want to tackle someone-you may find yourself simply "doing" that as a response to stress. But you don’t know what the other guy has-he may have a knife, or you may ride a man in a public venue who (as mentioned above) has friends who may take umbrage to your pummeling their buddy. In short your strategy may get you into trouble.

As you do -so shall you do:
If you have studied enough NHB fights you will notice some very peculiar things. I did-I took notes.
Championship wrestlers who had the guy down and were winning-did not know how to finish, and left openings unused.
A Judoka who was mounted on a guys back and could not make the choke and never threw a punch-kept trying to work the choke instead of striking to make an opening!!-and lost.
Boxers who simply made a mess of everything-when they could have been pounding the guy all through their topsy turvey ride.
And nowhere in all the punching did I see strikes aimed at very exposed kill zones. I saw many land in all manner of places-so don't give me the arguement that they couldn't land them. They just didn't use the places on the head, face, and neck that could have ended it quicker.
Everyone fought as they trained-and you will too.

As the "dead on the scene" cops with their empties in their shirt pockets found out- "As you do-so shall you do."
There is simply no replacement for induced stress training and freestyle.


As for classical methodology on the ground- I just saw a 6'4" 270 pound military guy who also trained in jujutsu for nine years get reversed out of the mount get placed in the guard and get choked into submission by a DR player (using DR principles to create technique)-who was on his back with the big guy in the guard. Done in freestyle in less then 2 minutes.

Never assume
It's about the man-not the art

I would also echo Kits comments on testing on dead unresisting bodies. It would take comparatively little pressure to snap a bone with no supportive tissue flexation. Add to that the ever changing angles and reflexive feedback that can diminish and cause a needed redirection of the force being applied and you have one relatively worthless study.
1.Its harder to break anything with a trained resisting opponent.
2.Most wristlocks can be shaken off before they can be applied and fixed. And even then they can be countered easier than most other options.
Fighter? don't spend alot of time on them.
Cop? spend alot of time on them.
3.Spend alot of time studying how YOU react to input. Learn to separate your shoulders to hip connection. It helps to undo their posture whie making your own feel very strong and "dead" to their best efforts.
4.Throwing is not always clean and pretty.
5.Pressure points do not work on fighters as well as on John Q. and even then they are simply motivators to action- use them for set ups that way.
6. Chokes and strangles should be practiced to the utmost since they are most probably your best weapon.
7. Train to use your legs to scrape, bind, and throw- not kick. While working on two fronts (upper and lower) you increase the chances of something happening that you want to happen.
8. Follow his hip /shoulder/forward leg connection and movement. Most people (including martial artists) have not trained to separate them. Look at him without focusing on him- you'll see movement clearer.
9. Head butts, knees and elbows, and hugs- open a world of opportunity.
10. Study how to wire frame people, trac and anticipate movement. I haven't seen this in print- but it is fundamental to my teaching method.

Anyway
Some basic stuff-some of it an oft told tale.
On the whole-train to know and do alot of different things.
The harder you work-the luckier you may get.
Someone called it "catch as catch can" about a hundred years ago.
Not much has changed since then.

Mat
Welcome

Cheers
Dan

Hey Kit, I may have just scored my first bad Kharma points!

Jeff Cook
4th March 2002, 16:05
Good points! My comments concerning cadaver data were intended to only show that there have been numerous studies done. As for the validity of the data, I agree with you all - cadavers, for the most part, don't hit back! Only in Hollywood.... :)

However, it is sufficient to know that a movement done in a certain direction, in a certain way, may cause a certain effect.

Dan, Kit, Kolschey, great posts! Cady, you are one sick woman; you have presented an image to me that helps reinforce my vegetarian tendencies....;)

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu