Training, techniques and true combative behaviour

[Benjamin Peters]

Great Question!! This deserves its own thread - however I will answer in short that most systems which foster a true combative efficiency are indeed natural, but not always intuitive. Houston Haynes

Thanks buddy, I thought this might be a good place to start this thread.

By way of introduction, my question was posed in another forum:

Would it be true in anyone's opinion that often we train in ways which negate natural combative behaviour?

For instance, wrist locks and fancy take downs often found in older traditions.

_______________
Benjamin Peters

[Kit LeBlanc]

Ben,

I think that indeed we do, and most martial arts are far removed from combative efficacy...for the main reason that most martial arts instructors have little or no realistic experience with which to judge.

A recent article written by a combat veteran in the International Hoplology Society newsletter summed it up really well...he said he hasn't seen ANY system which properly mimics combat. I think he is probably right.

To do our best, we have to train in systems which have training elements that come closest to our experience of actual fighting, or in the techniques within our systems, which are closest to what we actually use in real confrontations. Any martial art has to be adapted to the way man actually fights, under stress and threat of serious injury, and to the best of his individual abilities.

I don't necessarily think it is a matter of particular techniques, though certainly there is plenty of stuff out there that is just plain unworkable. While certain wristy twisties and joint locks may be of little use in a knock-down drag out brawl (especially with drugs, alcohol or mental illness killing the pain for the other guy), they may be more effective in less motivated encounters, or if the element of surprise is on your side

But just ask yourself, would a wristlock prevent you from countering it, or simply ignoring the pain and perhaps a broken wrist in a honest to goodness personal encounter in which you were not sure what the other guy was going to do to you once he had you under control?

I don't doubt EVERYONE on E-Budo would offer that it would not deter them, they would not give up, they would refuse to be pinned in place for some other guy to administer a coup de grace...even if it meant sacrificing the wrist.

Then how can we expect the bad guys not to do the same?

Then again, you mentioned something else in the other thread that is very important...do we really wanna be pretending we are animals, or basing our abilities in powerful sounding images such as "immovable as a mountain" or having "hands like steel hooks?"

I think not. I constantly see people in kung fu magazines demonstrating self defense movements that they apparently have a lot of faith in, and acting like they are leopards or monkeys, or pointing to the mental images they use in training and how it develops certain combative attributes like hard hands or speedy kicks. I think this is the worst kind of martial art, closer to fantasy role playing than developing realisic skill.

Not only is not realistic in terms of actual fighting, I think it lacks an understanding of what the founders of some of those arts meant, or at least demonstrates that they cannot understand that many of the proven fighters in those arts lacked another vehicle with which to pass on their ideas....things were couched in poetic analogies to better explain them, or even to obscure their real meaning....not so people would pretend they were tigers or think about a mountain and voila! their stance would be immovable. Cultures that are used to using images to demonstrate certain things (kanji are after all, "pictures") pass on what we would probably use very mundane terms for thru poetry or songs or vivid descriptions.....when taken literally it shows immaturity, a lack of understanding of the culture, and a suspension of disbelief that people who want to be effective in an actual confrontation would do well not to adopt.

[Aaron T. Fields]

Just as a side note, it is also important to remember that the "street” experience comes in a variety of packages. In other words, the neighborhood shoot-em-ups, etc are quite different than the police intervention/combative experience. That is not to say that there are not skills that carry over from one to the other. “Street” experience comes in many packages and one person's truth, based off their particular circumstances is not the "last word" across the board.

[Tetsutaka]

Aaron,

You make a good point. Certain types of experiences (such as military kill-or-be-killed combatives) may not be directly applicable to walking-down-the-street scenarios.

Likewise, would it then be safe to say that no man could ever be qualified to teach an assault/rape prevention class? Then, can we extrapolate that only women who have been assaulted (and successfully defended themselves) can teach such a course?

It's a slippery slope. I think that style, or even the "vocabulary of techniques" that you learn are less important than the intensity of training. People who have had real-life experience tend to gravitate toward the more intense styles, so it is definitely a factor.

[Aaron T. Fields]

I'm not saying who can teach what. All I mean is that experience comes in many different forms and the approach that an individual has will be determined by their background and needs.

[Amir]

I personally believe that most MA are effective in a real fight situation, and particulary the older and more traditional ones.

I am more familiar withJapanese MA, so you'll excuse me if I refer to them.
Most traditional MA were tested in battle by samorai, or at least the art's they originate from were. And at those times there were no guns, so MA made the difference between life and death for the warior.
It's true, most battles were armed, and often even armoured. This has affected thetraditional ju-jitsu significantly. and one may claim that the changing circumstances has made other technics practical, while they wouldn't have workd against an armored person. And othe techniches may have become obsolete, as they rely on specific circumstances which are unrealistic in the modern enviroment (I don't imagine many would claim Iiado to be a practical dayly self defence art). But the basics reamin the same : the body mechnics havn't changed, nor has the existence of gravity nor the nature of the human mind.

As an aikido-ka, I would like to refer to the issue of a wrist lock:
Don't you think that if a wrist lock technich could have stopped an armed samorai, willing to dye rather then dye in dishonor, it could stop a determined attacker today as well ?
A correct application of a wrist lock doesn't work only on your wrist, it must start with taking you out of balance. And if you will be willing to sucrifise your wrist - No problem, you would have to find yourself thrown towards the ground with a broken wrist, and the fight would have cotinued with you in a significant disadvantage.

The real problem with most of these techniches isn't in the technic, nor in the martial arts. But in us being amatours :
High level Martial training was once a matter of the few who dedicate thier life to it. Most samorai would hardly learn empty hand combat, it was less then usefull for them. Only the highest level of samorai learned it. Those who were both gifted and dedicated, who trained every day and for many hours, since this was thier job. They were the elite army units.
Today, everyonewhom enters a dojo may learn the same technics, on the basis of once or twice a week. Do you really think one could get to a real understanding of the MA this way ? expect to achieve a comparable level ?

Some arts - Aikido is among them, rely on the practitioner being at such high level. Being able to realise the attack as it starts, adjust your body movment to the attack and be were the opponent doesn't expect you. All are very sound principles. But are extremely hard to achieve. Few aikido-ka will be able to use thier art in a real fight. But you shouldn't replace the art with it's practitioner.


When thinking of MA effectivness for self defecne other issues to be considered are:
Your guide in the MA
Your personality and phisical structure
The situations you are likely to cope with
All of these have at least as much to do with your getting out of a real sitation as the particular MA you are learning.


Amir


P.S.
I know Aikido is not a traditional MA, but it is based on several such traditions.

[Kolschey]

Mr. Amir,

Thank you for joining us to share your insights in this discussion.
If you would be so kind as to sign your full name to all of your posts, this would be greatly appreciated. You can even set the signature editor in your profile to do this automatically.

Many thanks!

[Soulend]

I feel that ideally a system should be comprised of techniques which are natural to perform, limited in number, and usable in many situations.

This is just my opinion on what works for me, and not intended to degrade any art, but standing on one leg in an effort to emulate a crane or curling my fingers into "tiger claws" just doesn't come naturally to me. Nor do joint locks (for others this may come completely naturally though!). I know some joint locks and submission holds, and if you give me a minute I can demonstrate, but in a critical situation I honestly won't remember...or probably even be thinking about them. A lot of arts seem to practice techniques which are unnatural from an ergonomic standpoint, have too many completely different techniques, or use a lot of small manipulations.

Stress brings about a number of bodily changes. Tachypsychia(the sensation of time slowing down), auditory exclusion(temporary blocking of sounds), degradation of peripheral vision and loss of fine motor skills are among these. So, a system utilizing large muscle groups and simple, natuaral, easy to remember movements which are applicable in a wide variety of situations would be good. Not that the response for all given attacks would be precisely the same, but similar. I reckon if you can run 3-5 miles, then use your techniques to defeat (or at least put up a good showing against) a fresh attacker, you're on the right track. Near exhaustion brings about some changes similar to stress, so it seems a pretty good test of ability.

If I could take an untrained guy and launch an attack against him, then take what he did in (natural) response and refine it a bit to be most effective, then practice..I would have an ideal response to that attack. And most other attacks, with a little modification.

What is simple is what works for me. Others may differ :)

[Tetsutaka]

Originally posted by Soulend
...if you can run 3-5 miles, then use your techniques to defeat (or at least put up a good showing against) a fresh attacker, you're on the right track. Near exhaustion brings about some changes similar to stress, so it seems a pretty good test of ability.

Excellent post - and good points all around, but the one above is the crux of it all. The quality of the technique will also be affected by the goal of the "tuckered out" person. If their objective is to subdue a person, and they've been training in Tae Kwon Do for 10 years, then they may not have all of the "ingrained" tools to respond appropriately. However, if you beat them until they stop moving, then I *guess* they're considered subdued.

:smash:

Tanemura sensei refers to ability coming from training to the point of regurgitation. He also mentions the need to repeat a technique 1000 to 2000 times before it can be considered "learned". There's *head level* learning, and then there's *bone level* learning.

:nin:

[Kit LeBlanc]

Good Points. That is what I mean by "high percentage" techniques, those that can be performed with a reasonable chance of a successful outcome under the stress of an aggressive interpersonal confrontation and all that brings. I firmly believe the only way to identify what techniques are high percentage, for a particular individual most of the time, is to use them in actual confrontations and then refine the training of those methods from that experience. Then look at what training overall offers through those eyes.

Though I have heard more in the 3,000 to 5,000 range for bone level learning (nice turn of phrase.)

Another point re: stress effects. Ongoing experience will lessen these effects. By this I mean real world experience...though high level/high stakes training helps, as in for example the kind of training Surefire does....nothing will better hone you than repeatedly being successful, and adapting to lack of success, in actual application. No martial art can teach that however. This goes back to a point I made on another read re: "the battlefield" being an important teaching and learning tool for the bushi.

Now they don't fully go away, or should I say I can only point to what I have experienced, and that is that sometimes these effects are more pronounced than others....even when you have been there before.

I feel that for most, what a lot of this stress results from is not being comfortable in the environment of a violent engagement , and not knowing what to do, or whether what you do will work, or being in it and finding that what you are doing ISN'T. No matter what a teacher or tradition teaches, you will never know that until you experience it for yourself.

But I also think a lot goes to how prepared we are at the moment the confrontation sets off.....the better (more realistically) trained, and the more experienced we are goes to having a higher base level of preparedness for those moments. I have argued before that no matter how much you may think your training or art prepares you, or how successful you have been 'til now, you are never at 100% in the real world and assuming you necessarily will be is detrimental to improvement.

If it was only the art itself that taught this, I don't think the bushi would have also relied so heavily on magic, prayers, charms, etc. when it came to actual battle. Instead I think they realized the limitations of tactics and techniques and recognized initiative and chance, and tried their utmost to find some way of preparing their minds for controlling the latter to better serve the former.

[Soulend]

The quality of the technique will also be affected by the goal of the "tuckered out" person.

Exactly what I mean. Flamboyant, extraneous technique tends to fall a bit flat once you're wore out. In the Marine Corps MA Program, this is just what they do, too..wear your butt out, then expect you to fight :( 'Bone-level learning'..that's cool! More descriptive and less clinical sounding than 'muscle memory'..I've gotta use that :)

[Amir]

I believe it takes much more then a few thousand times of practice to get a technic to this "bone level".
I know a research was done for Olympic judo and they came to the conclusion the techniques used to win a championship were trained nearly a million times overall.
I remember a shihan who came to our dojo and told us that to learn to perform the basic cut with a sword, we should practice a thousand times a day for an year or two - about half a million times.

And I must say that fighting for my life seems a much more stressful situation then in a judo match. So I would expect a similar amount of practice to be necessary.
Further, out on the street there are no rules and one must confront a much wider spectrum of possibilities.
And since I but a civilian, and not any police officer etc. and being a non aggressive type of person, I am most likely to be confronted by violence only if the aggressor believes he has a major advantage over me - some weapon, a friend nearby, or he is much larger ...
These circumstances are more challenging in a way then a judo championship.

The only advantage one may hope for is that unlike a match, your opponent is likely to be untrained, which should give me some advantage.

The one thing that keeps me hopeful to achieve a high enough level for a real self defense. Is that maybe there is some cross effect of training in different techniques, which allows one to get to the “bone level” (nice expression) of the technique, in less then the few million repetitions, which would have been required learning only one technique.
Besides, having a large arsenal of technique might mean that I could find a suitable technique for a given situation, which may succeed even though I don't control it perfectly. Rather then do a technique I know perfectly but is less suitable for the situation.

I haven’t learned any fancy moves like you refer to, Korindo Aikido bases itself on having both feet on the ground. On the other hand we do use wristlocks and throws of various types all the time, rather then punches and kicks. And the teakwondo I learn, at least in my current level keeps everything at the basic level.
I doubt any style really intends one to fight standing on one feet and doing "fancy movements". But these may be important exercises meant at achieving some other thing, such as balance, coordination or control. Or it may be a particular solution to a specific situation.

An important comment, while I am far from this amount of repetitions. I must say that I do feel an improvement in my level long before that. And believe my chances of successfully resolving a violent confrontation are increasing. I don’t think anyone can reach the 100% we are all humans and have lapses of concentration and faults. But a dramatic increase in our chances is achievable through rigorous training in the MA.

You wrote about the impact of stress, I believe one of the aims of MA practice is to allow us to relieve some of this stress. Trough many means such as: the increase in our self-confidence, our heightened fitness, the feeling of having been there (despite the vast difference between dojo and street), and the training which should allow us to think under duress. This is at least as hard to achieve as a perfect technique and requires endless practice onto itself.


Finally, I Must admit, I haven’t been to any real fight since I started learning the MA, I was in a couple of them before that, as a teenager. But haven’t had to participate in one since. I hope to keep this score but it may be clouding my judgment.


Amir

P.S.
i added my full name to the automatic signature, hope it will write it now.

[Soulend]

Perhaps the number of repetitions/training time to get to the 'bone level' also depends on the difficulty of the given technique and how natural the movement is. Any thoughts on this?


Besides, having a large arsenal of technique might mean that I could find a suitable technique for a given situation..

I am not at the level where I can respond instantly with one of an arsenal of hundreds, or even scores of completely different techniques, and I don't think there are many that can in a combat situation. For me, K.I.S.S. is the principle to follow. Then again, I'm a simple kinda dude :)


I doubt any style really intends one to fight standing on one feet and doing "fancy movements".

White Crane Gung Fu. Also there was a stle of karate a buddy of mine took (I could e-mail him for the name of the style...can't recall now) that used a one legged sideways stance, except your leg was cocked as if to execute a low side kick. They would literally hop towards their opponent in this manner. Truth be known, the sensei was extremely good with this. I can only speculate that he had been doing it so long that it had become a "natural" movement for him..while to a beginner it would be unnatural. But I used the one-foot thing only as an extreme example. There are many styles which use fancy movements.

I agree that MA can help us to relieve stress in our daily lives, but I was referring to the stress caused by surge of endorphines, adrenaline, and accompanying 'fight or flight' syndrome of a deadly confrontation. Along the lines of what Kit was saying, many martial arts do not do much to lessen the effects of this. Kumite might be the closest thing. I have known black belts that froze in actual confrontations or couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag...yet in the dojo they were excellent.

But back to the original question, there may be styles which contradict "natural" combative behavior, but I'm of the mind that what is 'natural' can be changed through diligent and long practice. A wrist lock may not be natural for me, but to Amir it may come as the most natural thing in the world and work effectively for him. Some Gung Fu styles may be incredibly hard to use effectively for someone who has only been training in them for a few years, but to the person who has been doing it for 15 or 20 the movements come freely. I think the learning curve and amount of practice required to become effective just differs from art to art. I just like that which is simple, direct, and with as little unneccesary movement as possible. Conserves energy :)

[Dojorat]

Greetins,

Mr. Peters wrote...
"For instance, wrist locks and fancy take downs often found in older traditions."

I'd be interested in hearing from some exponents of those older traditions as to the bases for their application. My limited experience with Koryu seems to recall that yawara and empty hand techniques were a limited part of a comprehensive battlefield oriented system, almost last resort or under very special circumstances (eg indoors)

There's plenty of you out there better at the history... but I do believe Jujitsu came into its own after the samurai came off the battlefield and with nothing better to do, proceeded to get drunk and rowdy in the local bar (excuse the broad generalization). This brought in the local constabulary charged with establishing and maintaining order without resorting to killing their "social betters"

I can't lay claim to a wide variety of experience with UFC-type matches. However, I remember several bouts where somebody ended up going/or being taken down and some joint (may not have been the wrist) being locked (Gracie on his back with Severn's elbow locked on his chest comes to mind).

My Judo instructor tells a story from 1964 when he, a strapping Marine Corps champion and Parris Island H2H & Defensive Tactics instructor in his prime training at the Kodokan had the occasion to go 'round with this little old white haired/bearded fellow named Uyeshiba. Seems the application of a wrist lock was quite convincing to my Sensei.

Cheers,

[Benjamin Peters]

I'd be interested in hearing from some exponents of those older traditions as to the bases for their application. My limited experience with Koryu seems to recall that yawara and empty hand techniques were a limited part of a comprehensive battlefield oriented system, almost last resort or under very special circumstances (eg indoors)

:toast:

This is one of these posts that crosses a few lines of interest so it's hard to get attention drawn from all sides.

I can only comment from my quasi-koryu experience. Different schools focus on different aspects of combat - true. I am almost certain that many kata are designed with the focus of retaining knowledge for future genereations (as well as teaching principles of combat).

For instance, I have recently purchased a Takeuchi Ryu video which displays 'ha-te'/Jujutsu methods. Within the first technique demonstrated, we can see clearly that (1) at least 3 aspects of techniques are within the kata (2) it is not 'as-real-as-it-will-be' on the street and (3) clearly the way people train. In koryu dojo I would expect that people train strictly this way.

I guess it's not that is isn't realistic - the principles are sound, but the training (kata) may negate the more natural combative instincts of attackers/defenders. Sometimes, it may be the instructor's roll to provide a different approach - but then it may not be called a traditional school. What I am saying is that combat is dynamic and the ranges of combat are blurred and not as defined as we would like it to be.

As for the comment above regarding 'high-percentage-techniques', I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. I'm grateful someone thinks the same and has at least coined a term for it. (I'm not crazy afterall :mst: )

If I've still got your attention :D I'd like to say that I think of techniques in terms of high-percentage, as well as MACRO and MICRO; the difference being MICRO techniques focus on smaller joints or parts of the body eg finger or wrist, MACRO on larger portions is torso or shoulder.
________________
Benjamin Peters

[Kit LeBlanc]

MACRO vs. MICRO:

I think that is more a question of function, as you describe it.

Some examples from my experience:

You have a disorderly suspect, you move in to slap a wrist lock or small joint control hold on him, and he may (more often than not ) give up. Analagous to that would be a simple escort hold, where you have control of the elbow and wrist but not necessarily a lock (say the beginnings of one...) or a hair hold without a takedown...these types of moves can often establish control very quickly against what we call "maybe" people...not the knock down, drag out, fighters. Personally I think the uniform and a show of authority has a LOT to do with these things working...some people wisely reconsider fighting with cops.

I think a lot of jujutsu, from what I have seen maybe more the later styles, or those styles which have elements of "protecting the lord" type holds, have these things in them....they are designed to be used against minimal resistance, or as a way of preventing a suspect from getting further ideas or deciding to just go for it...kind of like a pre-emptive stop.

At the recent Don Angier seminar in Portland he made some very interesting comments RE: rope tying arts.....generally the tactics were done in teams (i.e. one guy holds the guy down and puts a sword to his throat, the other guy does the tying.) I thought that this is analogous to modern high risk arrest teams, where one guy does the cuffing, another guy covers the bad guy with his weapon.

He also said that in general, the idea in society was that once the authorities had you, you acquiesced. That's why some of the nawa stuff we see looks funny....as in the guy could just get up and run away or fight back, or they take way too much time tying fancy ties while he just sits or lays there passively. It simply means the guy knew he was caught and really wasn' t gonna fight much more. If the argument is that this is what would happen on a battlefield, well, that's just poppycock. They also had hayanawa for that kind of thing...very quick and while maintaining total control.

In short, it is pretty much the same today, most people give up once they are had, some give token resistance but after a little reminder, like a small joint lock, they give up.

Then there's the stuff for the "never going back to prison, I'll take the cops with me" people. MACRO stuff is for these people, and the other "no" types. Now, sometimes that starts off of an escort hold, or a small joint lock....I get a get a guy in an escort, he tries to pull away or turn into me to commit some mayhem, and the MICRO goes to MACRO...I take him down, whether with the lock or with the lock plus a little something more along MACRO or striking lines. Once he his down I don't take any chances and he gets all MACRO, body control stuff, mainly targeted at controlling the neck and the hips and the hands. If I took him down with a straight arm bar I do not stand up and hold him in the arm bar....those seriously motivated to do so WILL get out...instead I will put my body weight on his shoulder, his back, his neck, etc. to pin him to the ground as tightly as possible. Knees are good for that, and I think a lot of what we see in the pinning techniques before the coup de grace in some koryu styles go right along with this.

But many times it STARTS in MACRO....the fight just erupts or he moves in such a manner that a fight, not a wristy takedown, is imminent...then he gets whacked and/or a MACRO takedown at high speed, followed by the same.

I was lucky enough to have several years training in one of the oldest koryu methods. It was trained by kata, but the instructor required that his students practice resistive grappling arts as well....it made the kata and the understanding of realistic resistance far rougher and far more practical. Clearly from watching and being exposed to other koryu, that is not the case with all of them.

I noticed that MOST of the methods that I was exposed to were MACRO. Those that contained MICRO technique were done as surprise attacks, and then led directly into MACRO....generally MACRO that included bringing a weapon to bear. There was a LOT of ground stuff in this school (there seems to be in many older koryu..pins and ground control stuff that you will see in any BJJ school, if not in the ring), and the instructor described it essentially as being geared around "Oh Sh*t" techniques...you are in a bad spot and gotta do what ya gotta do to get as much control of the guy as possible in order to get to your weapons and kill him. While you start in seated positions (not seiza, though), they were battlefield techniques, the seated posture was a formal way (it is training after all) to simulate starting on the ground from that "bad spot."

Now, I will point out that sometimes I think MICRO techniques are misunderstood. We often hear how MICRO techniques such as wrist locks, escapes from locks, etc. were derived from weapons based stuff...I agree. The bad guy goes to draw his blade, you better grab his arm if you can't beat him to the punch....but I don't think the MICRO was meant to be the end of the technique.....you would simply draw your own weapon and finish him off. Same thing with a lot of wristy twisty escapes and takedowns...a very different animal if you have a knife or sword in your hand. There is problem when you don't, and your training assumes the same results will occur...I think the same is true with a lot of kyusho stuff we hear about...I think it derives from what having weapons in your hand will do to those vital points, not empty handed stuff. This latter is just my opinion, though.

[Mike Williams]

Great post, Kit - thank you.

Cheers,

Mike

[Benjamin Peters]

the uniform and a show of authority has a LOT to do with these things working...some people wisely reconsider fighting with cops.

Command presence right? "Resect my authori-tie!":cool:

But really, Kit - I am glad (again) that we are thinking along the same lines re Macro v Micro - I thought I might throw this self-coined concept out there to see what sought of reaction I might get. I thought it would be ignored honestly, but it's great to hear your experiences with this concept.