Sparring vs. Kata

[Tom Douglas]

It's one thing to learn and develop excellence in practicing aikijujutsu techniques against fellow aikijujutsu students in your dojo. What about working in non-cooperative practice scenarios against people using approaches from other arts, or even just techniques used in basic "street" or bar attacks? Is this useful to broaden the range of self-defense situations aikijujutsu is practiced in?

I'm asking because I came across the following post (at www.shenwu.com) from Tim Cartmell, a well-respected teacher of Chinese martial arts and Brazilian jiu-jitsu, commenting on sparring and the experience of one of his students who came to his school from Don Angier's Yanagi-ryu dojo.

"By Tim on Tuesday, January 08, 2002 - 03:36 pm


[snip]

This is a very interesting topic, the sparring vs. too deadly to spar dichotomy. My students also get into this discussion with practitioners of other arts that believe they are too lethal to spar. I suppose their is no 'answer' short of no holds barred death matches, but it is important to look at the evidence we do have so that students can make an informed decision, especially students that want to prepare themselves for a real and violent confrontation.

I'll preface my comments by saying I have trained all different ways. I've studied traditional styles of martial arts in which all techniques were supposed to be potentially lethal, and which forbade sparring, as well as traditional arts which allowed contact sparring. I've also practiced several combat 'sports.'

One of the most, if not the most important aspect of success in a fight is mindset, next is experience, then physicality, finally specific technique. Without the will to fight, the greatest fighter in the world will lose to the most mediocre fighter. This is a common sense observation. It is extremely difficult (although probably not impossible) to develop a fighting mindset without some experience approximating a real fight. Like the boxers say, everyone has a plan until they get hit. If you have never been hit hard, crushed under someone's weight or been on the receiving end of a painful and unrelenting attack, how do you know how you will react? You may imagine you will respond appropriately and fight back, but you will never know for sure. Sparring will never be as intense as a real fight, but it is the closest approximation you will find within the bounds of relative safety (although you will be injured on occasion, it's an inevitability of learning to fight).

Getting hit, strangled and thrown hard by a determined and resisting opponent will condition your mind and body for the realities of a fight. Taking out your opponent with the initial attack is obviously the ultimate goal of a fight (and learning how to sucker punch is something I believe should be practiced often), but the reality is one punch knockouts almost never occur. When they do, the fighter doing the knocking out is usually always much bigger and stronger than his opponent. Despite the popular 'deadly martial arts' idea that a fight will be over in seconds with the opponent lying unconscious and broken on the floor, fights often go on for minutes, with both fighters injured as third parties pull the fighters apart.

Contact sparring and grappling are also a 'laboratory' for you to experiment with which techniques YOU can actually apply against a resisting opponent. Just because your teacher or classmates can smash bones with a blow doesn't mean you necessarily can. You will never know what you can really do unless you have really done it. You must also practice sparring in all ranges and situations (striking and wrestling both standing and on the ground).

It is not that the techniques in most martial arts won't work, all legitimate styles have potentially useful techniques. The problem is the method of training. Anyone can make a technique work against a non-resisting partner, and, of course, that is how techniques are learned. The actual execution of a technique is the easy part. The hard part is the set up and entry. The method of learning how to successfully set up and enter a technique for real cannot be learned without a non-cooperative, fully resisting partner. Because that is the situation you will be in in a real fight. In a real fight, your opponent will be doing everything he can to stop you from applying your techniques. If your method doesn't take this into account, it is not realistic. The best fighters in the world use relatively simple techniques, most often the same techniques they learned during their first few months of training. The reason they can actually apply these techniques is that they have learned to set them up against trained, resisting opponents. They have confidence because they have been successful for real.

Physicality is also extremely important in a fight. Size and strength do matter, and, especially if you are smaller than your opponent, superior endurance could save your life. Besides regular conditioning exercises for power and endurance, sparring practice will teach you how to conserve your energy and expend it when it will have the greatest effect. When the adrenaline is pumping, it is very important not to use up all your energy to no effect. Anyone who has ever been in a combat sporting event can tell you that whoever gasses first loses, no matter his or her level of skill.

Another place to look for answers is with men who have a great amount of experience in real fights (street fights). If you read the literature, men like Peyton Quinn and Geoff Thompson (who worked as bouncers in rough places, and who had the 'benefit' of hundreds of real fights) assert that contact sparring and grappling are absolutely essential to preparing martial artists for real fights. Geoff Thompson is especially interesting in that he has liscences to teach over a dozen Asian martial arts. But what he advocates practicing for real fighting ability is Western boxing (combat sport), wrestling (combat sport) and Judo (combat sport). The main focus of training in all three is non-cooperative free sparring.

In my own experience, I feel I developed more practical fighting ability from a year of Xing Yi Quan training in Taiwan (we sparred full contact on a regular basis) than years of training in other styles without non-cooperative sparring. Do I believe Xing Yi Quan is technically so superior to the other styles I studied? No, what made the difference was the method (we sparred).

Finally. I'll leave you with a real world example. Meynard is passionate about this subject because of his background in the martial arts. He spent years studying a 'traditional' martial art (with an excellent teacher) that did not allow sparring practice because of the 'deadly' nature of their techniques. When he first came to study with me we could basically strike, throw and submit him at will (sorry Meynard, the truth hurts sometimes). He has practiced very hard the last few years, and is now one of the best fighters in my school. He's done well in combat sporting events (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and submissions grappling) as well as a street fight he got into with a gang member a few months ago (two leg kicks and a Pi Quan knocked the guy down. He had had enough and Meynard let him get up and limp away. Like Water Dragon said above, this is how most real fights end up, no reason to kill anybody).

I want to make it clear to my friends that posted above that I respect different methods of training. There is something to be learned from all drills, ancient and modern. What's important is to be honest about why you practice martial arts in the first place (for example, people who practice for health or recreationally don't need to spar) stay open minded and look at all different methods of training to see what works for you."

[Kit LeBlanc]

Tim is speaking the truth. Though I disagree that fights go on for minutes. They usually are much shorter, one guy overwhelms the other, somebody breaks it up, or one or both get the heck out of there.

[Mark Jakabcsin]

There is certainly a lot of validity to the above post, one small comment I disagree with is:

"Because that is the situation you will be in in a real fight. In a real fight, your opponent will be doing everything he can to stop you from applying your techniques. If your method doesn't take this into account, it is not realistic. "

I've heard this line of thinking before (especially from sport oriented peole) but believe it is flawed. I don't believe in real fights that the attacker is normally attempting to stop you from applying your technique or overly concerned with your technique at all. An attacker attacks. This mind set of fully resisting techniques is defensive in nature is not found in an attackers mind set and is found in sporting competitions. In sporting competitiions the enviroment is controlled, predictable (no third parties jumping in, beer on the floor, furniture, hidden weapons, etc) and a competitor has the opportunity to play defensively until the perfect opportunity presents itself. In the real life fights I have been involved in or witnessed, very few last minutes, most last seconds. Generally the person that wins is the more aggressive not the more defensive.

Now how all this relates to aikijujutsu is the same as any other martial art. The more realistic the training methods the superior the results. I am not sure that aikijujutsu lends itself well to sparring. Nor do I feel that sparring in and of itself is the end-all be-all to realistic training. It has it's place and ueses. Personally I feel one of the best tools to realistic training is a well trained and fearless uke. One that attacks with the proper attackers mind-set and not a grab-ass competition mind set. I frequently feel that learning to be a quality uke is harder than learning technique. Oh, well, just thought I would stir the pot a little.

mark

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Mark Jakabcsin
There is certainly a lot of validity to the above post, one small comment I disagree with is:

"Because that is the situation you will be in in a real fight. In a real fight, your opponent will be doing everything he can to stop you from applying your techniques. If your method doesn't take this into account, it is not realistic. "

I've heard this line of thinking before (especially from sport oriented peole) but believe it is flawed. I don't believe in real fights that the attacker is normally attempting to stop you from applying your technique or overly concerned with your technique at all. An attacker attacks. This mind set of fully resisting techniques is defensive in nature is not found in an attackers mind set and is found in sporting competitions. In sporting competitiions the enviroment is controlled, predictable (no third parties jumping in, beer on the floor, furniture, hidden weapons, etc) and a competitor has the opportunity to play defensively until the perfect opportunity presents itself. In the real life fights I have been involved in or witnessed, very few last minutes, most last seconds. Generally the person that wins is the more aggressive not the more defensive.



I both agree and disagree.

Setting aside the tired old "controlled/predictable/hidden weapons/beer and furniture/third party" argument, which applies equally to non-sport, non-sparring martial arts training, you are right, the opponent will most likely not really be concerned with your technique. Playing defensively is an excellent point, and probably is what is the most maladaptive of sporting methods when applied to real fighting. Not sure the same doesn't hold true of non-sport MA training, too though.

Bad guys most certainly do resist techniques, however, but I agree not in a "defensive" manner. It is simply that under stress, in unfamiliar circumstances, with an unfamiliar and truly aggressive attacker, the arm bars etc. don't necessarily take, nor do the pressure point strikes, etc. And the bad guy often is not affected by them in the way he is supposed to be.

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Kit wrote:

"Bad guys most certainly do resist techniques, however, but I agree not in a "defensive" manner. It is simply that under stress, in unfamiliar circumstances, with an unfamiliar and truly aggressive attacker, the arm bars etc. don't necessarily take, nor do the pressure point strikes, etc. And the bad guy often is not affected by them in the way he is supposed to be."

Kit,
I agree with you on this and that is why I am sure you agree realistic training is of the utmost importance. The problem is how best to simulate real conditions and yet remain reasonably safe (kinda hard to defend yourself for real if you are all broken up from training). To date I have not seen a 'best method', each method seems to have certain limitations or drawbacks. As always a quality instructor to facilitate the choosen training method/s is a must.

mark

[Kit LeBlanc]

Mark,

I agree 100%, but that isn't that where the problem lies?

NO training adequately replicates a real honest-to-goodness aggressively motivated confrontation. So we have to come close without actually injuring one another (HURTING one another is something different...).

Many are convinced that their training is a realistic replication of combative circumstances. I don't know how anyone who has been in a variety of real world situations at many different levels can think this way, but even some experienced people do. A lot in martial arts is based on faith, and on what we want to believe, about ourselves, our training, and our potential opponents.

I think it is best to use a variety of training methods to develop the attributes called on in actual aggressive physical encounters. But in so doing, realize that it is only training, with friends and partners, and that no one is actually trying to injure one another. Some methods are better than others at developing more of those useful attributes, but none addresses them all.

Only repeated experience in many different kinds of actual encounters can really demonstrate what does and does not work, for the particular practitioner, "for real."

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Tom Douglas]

Thanks to Messrs. LeBlanc, Jakabcsin and Scott for their insights. Nathan Scott's post was particularly interesting, attempting to set partner practice in traditional ryu-ha in its historical context.

In following up on Mr. Cartmell's approach, it seems like he introduces "light" sparring fairly early on, even in the first week of practice. I don't know what is allowed in this "light" sparring. Students later on are encouraged but not required to participate in "full" contact tournaments. It's a different training philosophy with some different methods and aims than "traditional" bugei schools.

[Ron Tisdale]

Hi Nathan,

You should archive that post somewhere...I'd hate to see it get burried. Good Job!

Ron Tisdale

[MarkF]

Ron is right..already saved to file.


1) Nearly all traditional Japanese arts (not including modern variants like judo and modern karate) are, or were adapted from, methods designed to kill an opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Please, I promise not to put in a good word for judo here. My problem is the chicken/egg thing.

Leaving out everything from meiji on, or whenever, how were these techniques practiced, how did they come about? Perhaps the adapting part should be the other way around, I'm not sure.

All methods designed to kill were practiced...how? While I'm positive many held contests where keeping one's head was how to win, while the other got the head as a trophy.

If you say it was from the sword or short sword/knife, surely they were practiced to get to areas which were not armored, and by doing this didn't they involve some kind of pracitice *approaching* something similar to today's version of not getting hurt, per Tim's post on the other web site?

So I suppose it just comes back to the chicken/egg thing. Was it the attack which sponsored the killing arts, or was it defense of the killing technique which gave birth to the arts. I agree that almost all technique had killing in mind, but when did self-defense (go no sen) come into the picture, or was it all sen, or sen no sen?

From my perspective, keeping one's own life is always preferable, and always has been IMO, then taking another's. So doesn't it make sense that life was/is a series of "techniques" to keep one's life, and not the other way around? It wasn't war that took everyone's life.

That said, then yes, they did come from some sort of combat, but when attacked, the first thing one does is get rid of the threat; IE, the attack. That is self-defense, even when one strikes first, the next technique used if the wound wasn't fatal, was defense, striking first, also is a form of self-defense.

So I may be arguing a semantics topic, but I've always found it is better to let the attacker to go into motion and defend from there. It's like a foot race, in a way. Don't dismiss any manor of practicing self-defense too quickly. Even then, the idea was to keep your life, even to go on attacking, you need to defend yourself first.

(OK, wise guy, was the "judo" remark meant for me, or not....errrrrrrgh);)
***

Again, it was a good post. Anything which gets one thinking is a good post.

mark, where've you been? I looked everywhere for you.:)

I'll drop you an email. Still haven't downloaded the IM thingy.


Mark F.

[TyroneTurner]

Good day everyone. This is a great discussion and I'd like to add my two cents.

I started training in the martial arts primarily for self-defense reasons. My background is in Jujitsu and sparring is generally discouraged because joint locking and attacking pressure points isn't necessarily conducive to sparring. A lot of you had great things to say about what happens when an opponent resists your technique but I'd like to follow-up on what Tim Cartmell said about being hit.

I took a free class at a San Shou kickboxing gym recently and they encouraged me to spar. I'm 5'9" and I weigh 207 lbs. My opponent was about 6'2" and about 235 lbs. This guy really hit hard. At that momment I realized that I need to cross train in a full contact combat sport (i.e. boxing/kickboxing/san shou/muy thai, etc.) to better prepare myself to have composure under fire. I'm pretty strong but that isn't everything. Like Tim's post read, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit."

In closing, I'm not a masochist or anything, but I think that being hit and figuring out how to continue when you're hurting, is a crucial to simulating a REAL fight.

Tyrone Turner
Queens, New York

[Kit LeBlanc]

Sorry guys, I had to re-do the post. I don't know how to break up the posts into individual quotes that are still in bold and showing as quotes.


Nathan,

RE: KILLING vs. RESTRAINT

I dunno, it seems that with the existence of hojojutsu, and with many classical methods that can involved a coup de grace WITH and edged weapon or without, or that involves an armlock and pin, for example, that many techniques, even on the battlefield could have ended as restraint OR with the dispatching of the enemy. Thoughts?

RE: FREESTYLE TRAINING

And as we have seen in discussions of kata vs. freestyle training in the works of Dr. Friday and Cameron Hurst, many members of classical methods adapted/adopted these methods for MORE REALISTIC training. Others seem to develop later after the ryu members were no longer actually fighting on a battledfield...they needed some way of practicing that more closely approximated the aggression and explosiveness, and unpredictability of combat.

Ellis Amdur recently pointed out in a post RE: the history of jujutsu something along the lines that it is reasonable to believe that many bushi were not only practicing jujutsu methods for the battlefield in kata form (and with weapons, no doubt), but practicing sumo both recreationally and for the battlefield. So they WERE probably practicing freestyle resistive grappling along with the more dangerous methods in kata form.


RE: COMPLEX ARTS, EFFICIENCY, AND TRAINING TIME.

I strongly disagree here. Complex arts, by definition, are LESS efficient, particularly when considering training for combative effeciency. In trying to train people for battle, "taking far longer to learn" makes little sense. Regardless of social status, battle between men is battle. The higher social classes may have had more training over a longer period of time, and a better understanding of principles than the lower, but that does not mean that their arts were more complex.

I would point to Liam Keeley's excellent article in Koryu Books Sword and Spirit RE: the Tojutsu of the Tatsumi-ryu, in which he expounds on the KISS principle. I would also point to his discussion on pp. 112-113 where he discusses the much shorter period of time for transmission of a ryu's teaching in times of warfare than in times of peace. I submit that this due to a number of reasons, one being that the teachings were far LESS complex than they became during the Edo period and after, and there was probably a lot smaller of a curriculum to learn at that time as well.

I think Aikijujutsu, like Judo, and many of the classical jujutsu methods which continued to develop after the beginning of the Edo period have far too large a curriculum to be considered "combative" arts. They seem more to have identified principles and use their extensive repetoire of technique to explore variations in how those principles are applied. They are more "art" (or sport, I guess, with Judo) than "martial." The actual combat-efficient methods found in both arts need to be separated out and adapted.

A curriculum concentrating on just the latter methods would be far smaller, but no less an expression of the overarching principles of the art. Training in the various other techniques within the dojo DO give a greater understanding of the principles, but the dojo is not the field. What is good for training is not necessarily good for fighting, just as training methods are not necessarily fighting methods. Confusing/not seeing the difference between the two is in my opinion one of the biggest problems in martial arts training.

RE: PROLONGED ENGAGEMENTS AND STRIKING BEFORE THE ATTACK BEGINS


I think this is an EXCELLENT point and one which is rarely broached when discussing actual physical confrontations. In the real world, strike first, maintain the pressure, and you have a decided advantage. But again, simplicity is key. The more complex your techniques or chains of techniques and the more chances the other guy has to counter.

RE: BEING EASIER TO KILL THAN RESTRAIN

I think this is ENTIRELY dependent on individual circumstances.


RE: WHY DON"T TRADITIONALISTS FARE WELL IN FREE SPARRING>

I think the answer to this is actually: because they have a training method which is one sided. If they were to live like their warrior forebears, that is, train in their kata, probably train or at least recreate with resistive sumo/sportive wrestling, AND/OR actually go out and use their stuff in actual fights, they would fare much better both in free sparring AND in combat.

RE: NOT SPARRING BEFORE DEVELOPING FUNDAMENTALS

Whereas I view proper sparring as reinforcing an understanding kihon and riai in a much more immediate way.....against someone trying to undo their every effort.

RE: BASIC AND ADVANCED COMBATIVES AND POLICE TRAINING, AND THE EASE OF RESTRAINING SOMEONE NOT TRAINED/FAMILIAR WITH YOUR ART

Well, I would disagree with that last point. It is not necessarily easier to deal with and control someone who is NOT moving in a manner that is trained, or that you are familiar with, and vice versa. I think that is dojo-budo thinking.

In reality it is kind of a catch 22. Certainly I would not want to fight a skilled judoka/jujutsuka trying to hurt me when I try to make an arrest, but I can tell you that I have dealt with several untrained, but very motivated people that it was not any easier to control. It is in the motivation, not in their training.

Most modern police training deals with simple responses. I do not think this is an issue of higher vs. lower level, though. It is simply that is what experience has shown will actually work against resisting persons. The more advanced you are is revealed in how you better use the basics in the widest variety of situations. Being advanced allows you better control and thus more options may be available.

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Tyrone wrote: "At that momment I realized that I need to cross train in a full contact combat sport (i.e. boxing/kickboxing/san shou/muy thai, etc.) to better prepare myself to have composure under fire. I'm pretty strong but that isn't everything. Like Tim's post read, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit." "

As I pointed out in my first post I agree with a great deal of what Tim Cartmell wrote in the post that Tom Douglas pasted in for us. I agree that experiencing contact is important, however I don't feel competitive sports is the only training method to achieve this reality. Don't get me wrong I spent a great deal of time doing competitive martial sports and enjoyed that time greatly. I still do on occassion but my body doesn't seem to ignore the after affects as easily as in the past.

My initial point was/is that sparring/competitive sports also has limitations when training for reality. Each training method has limitations and short comings and using a mix of training methods to perpare for reality seems best to me.

I did note that Mr. Cartmell mentioned Peyton Quinn's stance on full contact sparring which may not be totally accurate. Peyton has been extremely verbose on the AOL martial arts forum for a number of years and discussed this topic several times. From what I have read of his posts I don't think he feels dojo sparring in general is all that valuable for preparing someone for a real life encounter. It goes back to the mind set of the attacker. In a sparring match, full contact or not, both parties start on an even footing and generally feel each other out without fully committing. Sparring matches can last a long time while real violence is generally over quickly or at least decided quickly. The attacker attacks full out and the defender either takes advantage of an opening created by the initial attack or is pummeled by a continuous onslaught. Does this happen sometimes in sparring, sure, but it is not the norm imho.

Again this is not to say sparring is bad or does not contain valuable training lessons for surely it does, but like all other methods it has limitations. Scenario training is one method that can be used to bridge the gap. This is where a quality and fearless uke is invaluable. Likewise a dojo made up of people with various backgrounds (wrestling, boxing, judo, kick/punchers, etc) comes in handy.

mark

ps. Mark F. I have been reading the boards just haven't had much to say or ask lately. Perhaps this is because I haven't been traveling as much lately therefore I don't have as much time in hotel rooms to sit and think. The mind is a terrible thing.

[Arman]

2)There are relatively simple arts, and relatively complex arts, depending on who the art was developed for (farmers/goshi or hatamoto/daimyo). The complex arts are more efficient and require less effort, but take far longer to learn and become proficient at. Aikijujutsu is one of these, and as such very few people train hard and long enough under qualified instruction to reach a level where they can apply the methods with a consistent degree of success in a real confrontation. - Nathan Scott

I completely agree with this assessment, Nathan. For example, one can utilize the techniques of boxing in self-defense far faster, easier and more effectively, in a short period of time than can an aikijujutsu exponent in the same amount of time. I would add that this is partly due to the combative theory of aikijujutsu, partly due to the combative principles of AJ, as well as the teaching methodology.

Of course, nobody has yet brought up the issue of AJ as a pure combative art. Was it? Is it today? Perhaps the answer to this question also has a large bearing on the teaching methodology.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

Hi Guys,

I think the following statement by Tim Cartmel is misleading and frankly untrue although I'm pretty sure he didn't understand the particulars due to the fact that the source of his info was probably pretty one sided.

by Mr Cartmel: "I'll leave you with a real world example. Meynard is passionate about this subject because of his background in the martial arts. He spent years studying a 'traditional' martial art (with an excellent teacher) that did not allow sparring practice because of the 'deadly' nature of their techniques.

The truth here is that the individual making this statement was not an advanced enough student of Yanagi ryu to be allowed freestyle practise. It had nothing to do with the so called "deadly" nature of Yanagi ryu techniques. Thats just horse pucky. Don Angier is very strict about the level of expertise and control a student must achieve before he is allowed to participate in open randori at speed. Other Yanagi ryu practitioners with significantly impressive levels of freestyle ability train in the dojo and have practised feestyle there fairly regularly since I first started hanging around the Yanagi rtu hombu dojo in 1987. Heck , Don himself used to take part in freestyle practise with Kickboxer's James Williams and Dave Slocum who were among the first people to train with the Gracies upon their arrival in the U.S.. They both tell pretty impressive stories of "rolling around with the old man of Yanagi ryu". If anyone doubts me ask anybody who's ever met Dave Slocum. He'll scare the hair right off your head!

Given my experience with Wado ryu , Muay Thai, Yanagi ryu and Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu, you guys probably aren't suprised to find that I believe the importance of freestyle practise is absolutely unquestionable. In the case of traditional or classical Japanese samurai arts it is simply a matter priority. Often freestyle street application is not the driving force of an art that has historical links to an antiquated past. Thats fine as long as the student and the teacher are both on the same page in respect to this. In the case of the above mentioned student and Don Angier, the fact that this student left the dojo over a disagreement and was not permitted to return demonstrates that he never really was on the same page with his teacher. There are plenty of Yanagi ryu guys that can rock & roll with you just fine and others who train in the art for a completely different reason. At least Yanagi ryu offers that option albeit at only the highest levels of expertise and dedication. In the Takamura ha SYR freestyle is an obsession of ours.

Vive le difference.


Toby Threadgill

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott


Hope this helps clear it up!

Clear as a bell. That doesn't mean we agree!!

RE: Classical Arts Being Adapted.

Yes, certainly. Though I do not necassarily agree that the nature of lethal attacks have changed that much. Training methods certainly have, and some have frankly fallen behind. It's like with all the rage for WWII combatives....fine, if that is what you want to do, but our understanding of lethal conflicts, human psychology and physiology and the technical development of fighting tactics has progressed a long way since that level of understanding...how much more has it progressed since the 1500's - 1800's?

RE: Stiff And Unbending Classical Kata.

Agreed, many are fluid and a little more realistic, but that does not necessarily make it an effective teaching method for RESISTIVE grappling. I have always thought kata make more sense for weapons training....because the level of damage done by a strike or a draw cut with an edged weapon, for example, is a little more (though not totally) concrete. This is NOT true with unarmed methods.

RE: Complex/Complicated

Understood. But a "complex" theory which is not repeatable under 100% resistive conditions against a variety of opponents is still useless. Kendo is resistive training, springing directly from classical kenjutsu as practiced in shinai geiko, which developed with that very understanding. That is sparring.


RE: Long TIme to Learn.

You DID say the complex arts take far longer to learn and become proficient at, so I would assume you mean that it should not take a long time for them to become EFFECTIVE. I agree with this. Judo takes a long time to get good at , but it is effective virtually immediately.

RE: Daito-ryu (or really any traditional/classical primarily kata jujutsu.)

Understood. I think they would be MORE effective QUICKER if randori was included.

RE: Classical Methodology vs. Modern Methodology, and that Critical First Move.

Okay, I see where you are coming from. But I think you are thinking of dojo methodology.

A big issue with kata jujutsu (actually most traditional non-sparring methods) is the faith in that critical first move, or that "deadly" finishing move. That the methods will always have the expected effect. This armlock/strike WILL put the guy out of commission. Follow up moves are often predicated on the expected reaction to that first move.

This very often DOES NOT happen. Indeed, it is probably a crap shoot in the real world. The ideal situation as laid out in kata/cooperative practice will not occur in the real world. Angles change slightly, or that believed-to-be devastating technique is not so devastating, for whatever reason, or it has the desired effect on his body, but he continues to fight ANYWAY.

RE: BJJ: Don't confuse the feeling out of a ring fight with the instant application of a finishing move in a real fight. Just because someone practices BJJ does not mean the ring fight strategy IS the street fight strategy. The fact that it embraces both is actually one of BJJ's strengths, not a criticism, because by and large the TECHNIQUES can be practiced the same way. You just add the nastier stuff as needed.

Kit

[Dan Harden]

Another "go round the bush" again on this topic.
Kit, Toby, and Nathan I have nothing to add. Do you realize your perhaps having this conversation with some who consider wrist grabbing randori with fake atemis; freestyle fighting! Then we have the jujutsu and sword guys who think every Koryu Kata technique is combatively valid. I suspect that there were both arts and artist that were as inane then as they are now people just lapped it up then as they do now. Discussing it is pointless. It has become nothing more than an intellectual exercise here, just like the physically level playing field they try to create in Dojos.
You simply don't know who your talking to.

And why pick an art?
In every art you will find:
functionally useless people
Kata kings who can't fight
People who would would piss themselves if faced with heightened sustained aggression
Technique junkies who.er...uhm...teach well
Then you have people who can handle themselves somewhat
and then you have the real fighters, the guys who can seem to make most anything work.
And most of the former see themselves as the later.

Dan

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Dan Harden
In every art you will find:

(clipped the middle)

and real fighters

And most of the former see themselves as the later.


Now, here are two interesting (to me, anyway) questions:

1) How many of the people here see themselves as "real fighters"?
2) How many of the people here are training with the intent of becoming "real fighters"?

For myself, I don't think of myself that way, primarily because I almost never get into any kind of fights (except those with my wife :) ). I guess that this is probably pretty standard for most people these days, unless you're in certain lines of work. I suppose that I would probably do better in a fight now then I would have before I started training (if nothing else, because I'm more fit now), but there's really no way to tell without trying it out, and, while I might have taken the risk when I was young and single (and a little bit stupid), I don't think that I could accept the risks now.

Now, I wonder which of the types that makes me...

Best,

Chris

[Dan Harden]

Chris writes
For myself, I don't think of myself that way, primarily because I almost never get into any kind of fights (except those with my wife ).
snip
but there's really no way to tell without trying it out, and, while I might have taken the risk when I was young and single (and a little bit stupid), I don't think that I could accept the risks now.

*****************************

Hmmm....
Am I to assume then that those of us (and there are many)who accepted the risks are stupid? Or just a little bit stupid?
As an aside I have met and trained with some NHB fighters who were highly intelligent and put their careers on hold to fight for awhile.




Chris writes
Now, I wonder which of the types that makes me...


Untested, unproven, and risky in certain venues that you are not in by your own (I guess you think intelligent) choice. In any event you may freely qualify yourself to be what you want. Others will most certainly decide what your abilities are on their own. And they will all be different opinions based on their own levels of understanding and ability-perceived or otherwise.

Dan

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Dan Harden
Am I to assume then that those of us (and there are many)who accepted the risks are stupid? Or just a little bit stupid?

As an aside I have met and trained with some NHB fighters who were highly intelligent and put their careers on hold to fight for awhile.


I'm not talking about sparring, even of the NHB type. Maybe you were, I don't know, but I took the "real fighters" bit to mean real fighting, not sparring in a controlled situation. I was talking about taking it out on the street the way that someone like Musashi did (or at least so the legend goes). There are a lot of nutty folks out there, and who knows what they might be carrying. I won't take the risk. Sparring, (NHB included) is not (and never had been) really a problem for me, although that depends on the rules, because there's really no such things as "no holds barred" outside of a real situation.

Would it be stupid? In today's world, maybe, maybe not, depends on what your aims are. For someone with a family I'd probably vote against it unless it were very necessary.

Would sparring be stupid? Well again, I suppose that it depends upon the person and the situation. I would bet that there are any number of scenarios that you would refuse to participate in without some kind of significant motivation.


Originally posted by Dan Harden
Untested, unproven, and risky in certain venues that you are not in by your own (I guess you think intelligent) choice. In any event you may freely qualify yourself to be what you want. Others will most certainly decide what your abilities are on their own. And they will all be different opinions based on their own levels of understanding and ability-perceived or otherwise.

Dan

Hmm, since firearms are highly probable on the street then I assume that you have experience with conflicts with live firearms in an urban situation (not simulated experience, mind you, but the actual type). Otherwise I guess that all of the above applies to you as well...

If you do have such experience would you then recommend that others actively seek it out to further what is essentially a hobby?

Best,

Chris

[Chris Li]

As an afterthought, I wanted to comment on my use of the word "stupid", since it appears that there may be some misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say that someone who takes risks is necessarily "stupid", I meant to say that younger people often take risks that older (and hopefully wiser people) refuse to take. There are plenty of things that I would try when I was 17 that I wouldn't try twenty years later.

Back on topic - no, I don't buy the "too deadly to spar" argument that's sometimes used. Otherwise there would certainly be more deaths then there are, people being as they are. It sure does sound tough, though :) .

In "Aikido Ichiro" K. Ueshiba talks extensively about his opposition to adding a competitive element to Aikido. Interestingly, he never even comes close to the "too deadly to spar" argument. Mostly his opinion was based upon a belief that competition would eventually lead to a technical degradation of the art.

For me, that sounds more reasonable, although, like anything else, there is always a downside.

Best,



Chris

[Arman]

In closing, I'm not a masochist or anything, but I think that being hit and figuring out how to continue when you're hurting, is a crucial to simulating a REAL fight. - Tyrone Turner

Partly true. This encapsulates the entire problem with "simulation." The bottom line is that you cannot know how you will react in a real fight, and if you will survive in a real fight, unless you have been in a real fight. The best students and teachers are those that have been in real fights (assuming realistic self-defense is your goal).

That is why boxing is an excellent fist-fighting art/sport for the modern world. NOT because of the techniques (well, partly), NOT because of the principles, but because you routinely get pounded in the face. Hard. Over and over again. The boxing student learns how to take a punch and keep attacking and responding. In fact, the boxing student learns how to retake the initiative even while absorbing blows to the head.

Now, I am not advocating boxing as the supreme martial art, nor am I advocating boxing at all, really. I don't like it, personally (See, I don't like getting hit:) ) All I am saying is that boxing has the singular virtue of training the student to absorb blows.

Given that, even boxing is no substitute for the real thing. From the few real fights I have been in, I can say in all honesty they were the best martial learning experiences I have ever had. I wouldn't trade the knowledge from those fights for anything. Even the ones I lost (especially the ones I lost:) ).

BTW, Chris, I agree with you regarding avoiding fights if at all possible. No matter how well you train or practice for a real fight, all it takes is one good sucker punch when you aren't looking and that's it. And I was just really lucky that my opponents weren't armed. Let's also not forget it only took three punches from that hockey dad to kill his opponent, and I doubt he had any formal unarmed combat training. A very sobering thought.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Tom Douglas]

Dan Harden wrote:

"Discussing it is pointless. It has become nothing more than an intellectual exercise here, just like the physically level playing field they try to create in Dojos.
You simply don't know who your talking to."

Actually, Mr. Harden, they do know who they are talking to: Messrs. Threadgill, Scott, Jakabcsin and LeBlanc address their posts to each other. Presumably they have either played together or are confident they know enough about each other's experience and skills from this or other forums that they take considerable time to think about this set of issues and post their ideas. For me, a venerable beginner, this kind of discussion between people who are highly skilled, experienced and who teach their respective arts is quite valuable. For you, if this discussion thread seems like an inane repetition of previous exchanges, then you are free (like the rest of us) to participate or not.

It seems to me that the thinking of the gentlemen named above has probably evolved from whatever (considerable) discussions on this general topic have taken place before. It may seem like a tiresome and futile intellectual kata to you, but katas have their place for beginners like me. And good katas are a rich source of continuing exploration of basic considerations even for more experienced budoka.

Because of business and other commitments, my time to visit this forum is pretty limited. I've almost always found something of worth when I come to browse. I'd like to thank the contributors to this thread for their time and effort in discussing the value of sparring and non-cooperative partner practice scenarios.

[TyroneTurner]

Arman:

I agree with what you said about one not really knowing how one will react in a real self-defense situtation until actually confronted with one. As they say, "Attitude is everything." My instructor tells us to visualize confrontations in our head so that when one really jumps off, you will be ready.

Visualization has helped me in self-defense situations in the past. I think about my wife, my son, and other loved ones constantly. They give me the reason to "lay the smack-down" on someone if I'm threatened with violence.

You can master a million and one techniques and could have been doing so for 50 years, but if you don't have heart, your goose is cooked in a fight.

All the best,

Tyrone Turner
Zujitsuka
Queens, New York

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Chris Li


Now, here are two interesting (to me, anyway) questions:

1) How many of the people here see themselves as "real fighters"?
2) How many of the people here are training with the intent of becoming "real fighters"?



I like to think of myself more as an armed professional(LEO/SWAT) rather than a "real fighter."

Frankly I personally consider this to be the highest calling of a martial artist, as well as the greatest test. I wish more martial artists would get involved in such work.

The primary objective of my training is how does it help me dominate real world confrontations with people who might be armed (and often are)...with minimal risk to myself, and maximum control of the opponent.

Along those lines I think much as Arman laid out with his boxing analogy...Judo and BJJ (i.e. full contact arts) have taught me more about real fighting than any other art I have practiced, though not necessarily in terms of technique.

I AM interested in more than just practical application...I find the traditions to have many parallels to day to day work as an armed professional, and to be an interesting window into the mind of those who did the same thing. Unfortunately, without direct experience, it is hard to know how to separate the the need to know from the nice to know, and the practically proven from the hopeful fantasy in even the most revered fighting traditions.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Meynard Ancheta]

Hey Toby,

I don't remember being asked to leave or of being expelled from the Yanagi Hombu dojo. I left on my own accord. It was the most difficult decision of my life. I don't know how stories got twisted around or who's telling what, but Don NEVER formally asked me to leave. I could scan his last letter to me and post it up on the bulletin board if you want.

On my last phone conversation with Don I asked if I could come back to Saturday classes only. He said that he didn't think it was a good idea. I asked why. He said a student can't serve two masters. His own words. I replied, I understand sensei. That was it. I wanted to learn how the second sword kata ended. I don't regret leaving the Yanagi dojo. I only regret that people misunderstand why.

It's annoying that people don't have their story straight and don't even bother to ask my side of it. Don't make statements about me without knowing the facts. I was expelled? I was asked to leave? That's total B.S. and a big stinking lie! What disagreement are you talking about?

As far as getting my ass whopped at Shenwu; At the time I left, I doubt that any of my classmates at the Yanagi dojo could've done any better using any of the aiki jiu jitsu techniques that we learned.

Oh yeah, you also said "considering the source of the story, it was probably one side." I guess you figured that Tim never saw Don in action and don't know what Yanagi Ryu is all about? You are so wrong. You should really get your story straight. tsk, tsk, tsk.

[Kit LeBlanc]

Nathan,

I agree, time to move on. We are coming from very different places. I think the devil is in the details, unfortunately here it's the details that are the most important point!

While I have only been briefly exposed to classical methods of teaching and fighting, I was fortunate enough to be exposed to them with a man who was an expert...much of my way of thinking on this comes from what he taught me, some of which does not square with yours, so I don't think it is necessarily modern vs. classical...seems more dojo vs. field.

Again, I think two men trying to kill each other, with whatever weapon, will look pretty much the same no matter what era they are in, with some minor technical details changed. Not thinking so is, in my opinion, the dojo talking. Different teaching methods do not mean that the experience of interpersonal aggressive armed violence FELT all that different; their nervous systems were the same ones we have. This is what technique and principles will conform to in real life, not the idealized practice of a kata.

BTW, Wayne Muromoto, who certainly does know quite a bit about classical methods, has just posted in the Member's Lounge Tantojutsu thread about how he sees the battlefield tanto techniques of the Takeuchi-ryu of being very much applicable against modern body armor, for example. Seems he sees much more commonality than do you.

I also can't really identify with your LEO references..since I live it, have applied classical methods in in that capacity, in some ways I have a different take on it.

To clarify, I never mentioned 100% techniques. I don't believe they exist. In real aggressive, potentially murderous encounters, techniques are more like 50-50, and that is if you are really good! 100% resistance, however, very much does.

The folks that talk about classical "killing methods" and speak with authority on the methods and psychology of centuries old battlefields, without benefit of ongoing personal knowledge of what it is like to be in harm's way , or mention developing sakki without being in a position where at any time they might actually have to kill someone, and indeed have come very close, or have someone trying to kill them, are very much theorizing and basing what they know on an idealized, empowering image that is much more a hobby than a way of "living life in danger."

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott


I don't see how talking about historical application of obsolete methods or the development of martial principles like sakki is theorizing if the speaker is not "living a life of danger".



I think this is why we are at an impasse. I very much do, as the talk and theorizing is generally confused with an understanding of the actual dynamics of a violent confrontation, in whatever era. It is not.

Nor is a fleeting experience of something that we *think* is "it" without testing it, again and again to know if it is "the thing." I can tell you there are many people that ARE involved in military, LEO, and security work that NEVER get it and don't recognize what is going on, or are unable to learn from repeated exposure to it. I think the best combination is the professional experience COMBINED with the organized study of the theory and undertanding of historical context found in the fighting traditions....very few people ever attempt this combination. Usually people do one or the other.

Feeling and tasting the real thing, repeatedly, in a variety of dangerous circumstances is a much better yardstick for what it is "really like" than any theoretical exercise (physical and mental) ever will be. Again, in whatever era. The reaction of human beings to the threat of death or serious injury has not changed, if the tactics and methods of delivery have. You can know everything there is to know about the training, the equipment, the fighting tactics, the objectives and the manuevers on a Civil War battlefield, but it provides none of the understanding of what it is like to have someone shooting at you or trying to bayonet you and having to perform trained responses under the stress of that hand-quaking fear. The men that fought in Vietnam, for example, have far more in common with the Civil War combat veteran than does any Civil War historian or aficionado of Civil War battle re-creation, though the latter can discuss the particulars of tacticsm, training and fighting methods much more knowledgeably.

I agree history is documented, and feel that some of the teachings passed down in martial traditions *may* be a window into some of the tactics and mental strategies of warriors of old (which is the reason I continue to be interested). I submit someone with experience with violence may have a different take on what is written and passed on, very different from those with a historical understanding. Having direct experience of aggressive, potentially armed violence provides a much better and much more direct understanding of the physical and psychological ramifications of such an encounter than mastering any amount of history, or knowing intellectually why a sword was worn this way or a cut was performed that way because the armor looked like this, etc.

I think in person and over beers we could probably better understand where each other is coming from, though I still don't think we would be in total agreement...then again, that's why E-Budo is so cool, we get to see other perspectives and the benefit of different points of view!!

Meynard,

Johnny called me about you're leaving the dojo and the innacuracy of my post. I would like to point out that I did not mention your name. Still, I quickly edited it as per his info. I apologize for the inaccuracy of the statement. The fact remains that you did leave the dojo and were not allowed to return and one reason was definitely the tension in the dojo surrounding your departure. That comes straight from the man himself. Thats okay. We all have to find our place in the world. I hope you find what you're looking for.

As far as this statement:

"As far as getting my ass whopped at Shenwu; At the time I left, I doubt that any of my classmates at the Yanagi dojo could've done any better using any of the aiki jiu jitsu techniques that we learned. "

Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it but I see it a little differently. Again it's a matter of perspective and purpose. I was hanging around the Yanagi ryu dojo long before you showed up and was just there last week. Yanagi ryu's focus is definitely broader (Given all the weapons and such) and therefore of such a complex nature that quickly learning to apply just the AJJ in real world situation is unrealistic and therefore only taught at advanced levels. If this weren't so how do you explain Don's separating the jaw of so talented a groundfighter as James Williams during freestlye matwork or going toe to toe with so talented a boxer/kickboxer as Dave Slocum years back?

And this statement:

"Oh yeah, you also said "considering the source of the story, it was probably one side." I guess you figured that Tim never saw Don in action and don't know what Yanagi Ryu is all about? You are so wrong. You should really get your story straight. tsk, tsk, tsk.

No tsk,tsk,tsk to you.

I "know"for a fact that Tim does not know what Yanagi ryu is "all about". He was never a student of Yanagi ryu. He may have seen Don and even talked to Don. That does not make him qualified to evaluate it at it highest levels, just as I am not qualified to evaluate Tim's art at its highest levels even though I've seen him in action. Right?. You yourself have publicly admitted that you were only a beginning student in Yanagi ryu. His post concerning you appeared to me to present you as being representative of more than that and obviously that was due to some sort of communication or miscommunication between you and Tim. We all make mistakes and I imagine Tim is just as human as the rest of us. I feel that Tims presentation of the event concerning you was less than fair to you or Yanagi ryu.

Again I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding concerning the events surrounding your departure from the Yanagi ryu hombu dojo. I wish you all the best on your quest in martial arts.

Toby Threadgill

[Meynard Ancheta]

Toby,

Thanks for the apology. You've always been a true gentleman.

"how do you explain Don's separating the jaw of so talented a groundfighter as James Williams during freestlye matwork or going toe to toe with so talented a boxer as Dave Slocum several years ago?"

There's only one explanation that comes to mind. Don Angier is a true martial genius. He is at a totally different level than everybody else. Nobody else could do what he does.

"His post concerning you appeared to present you as being representative of more than that and I suspected that that was due to some sort of communication or miscommunication between you to him."

I don't think I misrepresented myself as being more. I guess after almost 5 years of Yanagi Ryu, he expected that Don's student should have some a kind fighting ability. Heck a guy doing Brazilian Jiu Jitsu for 2 years could mop the floor with most blackbelts from other arts. Knowing about Don's ability, maybe he was expecting Don's student to have a little more talent. It's my fault that I'm not talented enough. Maybe somebody else should've stepped up to the mat. The problem is nobody else did.

[Arman]

Excellent discussion between Nathan and Kit - I, for the most part, have simply enjoyed sitting back and reading the exchanges.

Finally, here is my brief take on it. EVERYTHING in the dojo, or training hall, is theory. Period. It doesn't matter how much or how little "freestyle sparring" is going on. They may represent different levels of martial theory, but they remain theory, nontheless.

"Practice" is the fight in the real world. This is composed of unfamiliar terrain, unfamiliar opponents, surprise, potential lethality, fear, and general chaos (I'm sure we could add many more elements to this list - these are just a representative few).

The question then becomes, not whether theory in the dojo can prepare you for "practice," but what martial theory may best prepare you for different types of "practice." Hence, kata vs. freestyle sparring. Unarmed vs. armed, etc. Here also, the central principles of a particular fighting art come into play.

The old adage, "there is no substitute for experience," remains true. Experience being "practice." Most people, myself included, seek to avoid real martial practice. We seek to avoid true martial experience. Why? Because as early 21st century fellows and ladies living in relative comfort from pain and disease, we value our health, we value our lives, and as such are generally risk averse (some more than others, of course).

Historically, the best sword schools were the ones that survived (talking pre-Edo period, here). They survived because their exponents survived. We are talking about a time when life was very, very cheap.

Unarmed schools are a different matter altogether, simply because historically there has not been the same crucible of life and death that existed for armed schools. As evidence of this fact, note that generally speaking, the unarmed component of many koryu are either a) non-existent, or b) quite limited and of secondary importance to the armed portion of the curriculum.

Since the end of the Tokugawa, tournament has been the main determination of martial effectiveness for Japanese arts (whether by shugyo, or formal contests). Unfortunately, a contest is still theory (albiet very low theory), and not true practice, unless one agrees to a no-holds-barred fight to the death (or the mercy of the winner). Even then, the contest lacks the element of surprise, and the uncertainty regarding terrain, opponent, etc.

High-theory arts (and I consider Daito-ryu to be high-theory), spend years emphasizing martial principles in controlled kata form. They are severe and effective within the kata form, but they are far removed (at least at the early stages) from real martial "practice," as defined above.

Judo, or boxing, or BJJ, on the other hand, are low-theory arts. Little time is spent on martial principles before the introduction of sparring or contests. These come closer, earlier on, to approximating martial "practice."

Which is better? Is this the real question? If so, the real answer is, unfortunately, relative. If one expects to encounter a real fight on a regular basis, or expects to encounter dangerous situations on a regular basis, then high-theory arts are probably not the best approach. If one, (like most people, I suspect) does not expect regular confrontations, or regular situations of danger, then high-theory arts may be a respectable avenue.

I, for one, wake up, go to work, come home, spend time with my wife and kid, spend time at the movies or with friends, etc. I experienced far more dangerous situations when I was in college. Of course, you never know when some angry driver, or some drunk patron, or some obnoxious movie goer, will get upset and get in your face. For such encounters, I rely on my past experience (practice), and my wits. Sometimes it is better to avoid that 250lb. meathead, and sometimes it is better to teach the loudmouth drunk to shut up.

In short, and contain the gasps of shock here please, I do not currently train in martial arts primarily to be a super street-fighter, or an unarmed combat specialist. I'm a lawyer, for godssake (although maybe that is a reason to be better prepared for physical confrontation :) ). It was not always so. In the past, I spent a lot of time in low-theory arts for the express purpose of becoming a better fighter to handle immediate concerns (I miss college). I did not have the time or inclination to spend years in an art that MIGHT make me a better fighter, or better at self-defense, years down the road, no matter how rich and beneficial the results such a long-term commitment might bring to me.

But with age and stage, many things change. I have found Daito-ryu to be the most effective high-theory art out there. It would be easy to modify the art to include more low-theory application, but it is not necessary. The principles are there. Any good exponent of the art can do that on his own time. Once you have the principles, the rest is simply adaptation. I prefer the curriculum the way it is. It utilizes an ingenious progression, based on rational principles, to impart the exponent over years of practice with astounding martial application. But it is not judo (which is, I believe, one of the best low-theory arts out there).

The upshot of all this is, nearly all training is theory, either high or low. Neither can claim superiority over the other. The benefit of one over the other depends on your relative situation and needs.

In conclusion, I would just say that my advice is to either cross-train, or have some experience of both high and low-level theory arts. The more experience the better, especially when the time comes when you are faced with real "practice."

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[MarkF]

[b]Judo, or boxing, or BJJ, on the other hand, are low-theory arts. Little time is spent on martial principles before the introduction of sparring or contests. These come closer, earlier on, to approximating martial "practice."
[b]

Nah, it isn't worth it. And I'm beginning to think Dan was right. God help me, but I found myself agreeing with him.:)
*****

BTW: Kit, when I was a kid, believe it or not, I wanted to enter the academy, but the height minimum was 5'7."

But then, the other side was much more fun in those days so I don't feel too bad about it.:kiss:

Your buddy,

Mark

[Dan Harden]

Hi Ya Mark

I just cant help it. I love Budo. I will talk and listen about techniques and styles pretty much all day and really be quite happy doing so-but when I see the conversation change to actual confrontation both in a freestyle fight in Dojo setting or in streets where you don't know who you're facing I just turn off. You've seen the same thing Mark. Big shot,big talk-can't survive an afternoon with a good judoka.
I have always been on Kit's side of the arguement-but then again Kit and I have been to the same place from different sides. The only difference between Kit and I is that I keep telling him there are people in the arts that would hand most MA's their heads. That there is relevant (old)technique that works right well today- he just hasn't seen it. Kits still doubting if its a reality.

I gotta admire your restrain about the "Judo has low theory" remark. I'll leave itup to you as to whether its worth it or not. But there is the key point in my last post.
Who would say that?
Where has he been?
What does he know?
I think if we all met and rode the tiger together- 90% of the talk would stop. Over the years a few of us have probably been more critical and demonstrative about fighting (not budo)than most others. And there are many guys who have been on the mats with those same people here on E-Budo. Funny how no one has ever countered those opinions. If you repeatedly find yourself on your ass contrary to all your intentions-you tend to listen a bit more to the guys who put you there.
If (x)MA Shihans came on here and wrote a lengthy post on Budo and theory I would read it and love it. If they wrote a lengthy post on fighting and confrontation I would probably skip it. Unfortunetly these days Budo and fighting ability are too different topics.

And what did you say? "God help you if you agree" with any of this Mark. You may get "sucked in to the dark side and ruined for Budo."

Hey I just caught the remark about the height limit-so your under 5'7"?
You do know that Martial arts are ruled by short guys don't you?

back to work
Dan

[Ron Tisdale]

Hi Guys,

Dan Said: Unfortunatly these days Budo and fighting ability are too different topics.

Well, in a way, I consider it fortunate. The reason the two can be separate topics is because we live in relatively safe times. Times where, as Arman so eloquently stated, we can go to work, come home, go to practise, spend time with family, and get up more or less healthy and do it over again. If Budo and fighting ability were as closely intertwined as in the past, I suspect our lives would be quite different.

As to low theory...well, almost everything has depth to it if you look for it. I suspect that judo has more depth than many things. And its solid base prepares you to survive to find that depth. I'm no longer as sure about other arts. But I like them anyway, so I keep working at them. Kudos go to those who kept a tense topic from getting out of hand.

Ron Tisdale

[Arman]

I would like to provide a bit of clarification on my "low-theory" comment since it seems to have annoyed a few people. I do not mean an art that is low-theory, like judo, is low in terms of martial principles or philosophy. "Low" does not, in my usage, denote "lack of."

What I mean by low-theory is that such arts spend far less time, generally speaking, on martial principles before engaging in freestyle sparring. Perhaps this is not as it always has been, but even back in the 1970's, Draeger was complaining about the lack of emphasis on good kata training in judo. Most judoka will engage in free-style sparring in the first month of joining a school. Compare this, say, to Daito-ryu. Quite different.

Therein lies my distinction between "low-theory" and "high-theory." These are not value-laden terms. They are purely descriptive. The term "high" theory as I use it denotes an art that devotes nearly all, or a substantial portion, of its curriculum to kata form. Why? Because common usage of the term "theory" implies a rarefied and impractical form. Thus, I needed to distinguish between types of martial theory: the lower the theory, the closer to real contest. The higher the theory, the more removed. The systemic analytical measure is, obviously, training methodology. Consequently, I can't think of two better distinct arts to compare and contrast in these terms than judo and Daito-ryu.

If anyone disagrees, I am happy to engage in a discussion where you would like to argue that, generally speaking, judo exponents spend most of the time training in kata vs. free-style sparring.

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Kit LeBlanc]

Dan,

I pretty much agree with your comments. But it's not that I doubt there is relevant old technique (I've seen it), but rather, that there are more relevant, more concrete TRAINING methods.....which I would bet the "head takers" you mention have quite a bit of experience with over and above the more theoretical training.


Arman,

That's what I thought you meant, but I had to think about it for a minute.

[Dan Harden]

Dan,

I pretty much agree with your comments. But it's not that I doubt there is relevant old technique (I've seen it), but rather, that there are more relevant, more concrete TRAINING methods.....which I would bet the "head takers" you mention have quite a bit of
experience with over and above the more theoretical training.

************

Hi Ya Bud

Your post, Armans, and Rons are somewhat the same since you talk about theoretical methods or training as opposed to what I assume to be applicable methods in force on force.
My point with you is rather specific Kit-very specific and always was. You're in a minority- you always will be.
With respect I offer another friendly reminder.
You need to steal what you can, work what you find, and make it your own. Look it bud-you know how many of these teaming martial masses can be taken apart with relative ease? You found that out. So ignore them or use them-if only to refine your own skills. That's what I meant when we talked about this a while back. You have to find something for you that is hyper-rational, body and intent controlling, extremely violent yet affords measures of control. Nothing is fool proof-you found that out too bud-the hard way. So just sweat it out. While you're at it, learn all you can about the mind game. Its even more important than the rest.
Make it happen for you Kit.
Think of the last couple of years in your work...do you really want to keep having these conversations about force on force with guys who don't want to get hurt and just want to have fun at their hobby? I mean, what's the point? Half of em can't differentiate between what is the truly good stuff they teach and what is the nonsense. Mostly for the simple reason that it's all theory to them. And you have learned that as well haven't you? How many times have they stared you right in the face with more inane MA whooha thinking it was good- while you knew it was ridiculous and then you found other things they knew that were jewels in waiting....Go find the other guys who know what their doing.
Just talk about Budo here. Its a wonderful world full of theory and history with many tales of legend and some very sweet people.

Try to be careful about some of our opinions though bud. Some of us know right well how to man-handle and control people. Always remember, it is YOU who cautions US about real world engagements. You have had some rough encounters yes?
Who were they with on the street?
US!
Very upset John Q publics.
So if "Johnie nobody" can give you a hard time, imagine what some of us are capable of. Like the old saying goes "Catch as catch can"


The general topic at hand -and a general "you"

Kata vs freestyle
You use Kata to lean principle
You fight to learn how to fight
you can talk your heads off on the rest.
Yes, some of the teachers who taught you Kata and know it real well can't fight-they just know the kata.....
Others know them and can make them work........find them.


While ya'll had fun making light of techniques too deadly for freestlying....Well that depends on who is doing the fighting dudn't it. I have seen DR leg techniques, sutemi, and strikes; tear knees, break legs, cause concussion,tear retina, cause standng knockouts, break shoulders, invert throat cartiledge and wreck elbows.
MANY ARTS have such technical possibilites-you just never know who is capable of pulling off what, at any given time, and/or who is able to defend adequately at that given moment.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DANGEROUS

Anyway
If you don't freestyle, there is "for sure" one person who will never know what your made of.....You!
You can be as confidant as you like-boxing rings are full of losers who were sure too.

And if you don't care?
then neither do I.....go be a martial "artist"
or physical movement hobbyist
or combative theorist
or what ever you want to call yourself. In twenty years you'll have a slew of people validating your "expertise" about fighting too.

***********************
Nathan writes
So the question is simply, which techniques and which methodology. I say modern methodology is more appropriate for modern self defense applications, for the reasons presented previously.

It's not often I get to dissagree with you Nathan. How does one go about that :)
I got to see a neat little student of mine-a guy about 5'5" 150lb. nail a 267 pound 6'2" (14 years in) judoka over and over and over with Koryu jujutsu in a freestyle match. We went to lunch after and the Judoka was very gregarious and very funny about the whole thing mostly cause he got ticked off when it happened. It didn't matter to any of us that the smaller guy won....just that he was greatly outmatched and accounted for himself right well. If he lost but gave the guy a hard time I think we would have all thought the same.
I've already told you about some of my encounters privately.
I have always considered the questioning of Koryu jujutsu, heck even most of the modern jujutsu variants methods, to be a moot point.
Jujutsu and its modern derivation-Judo-is just good stuff.
But you can give some people really good equipment-just to see them shoot themselves in the foot.


Arman
I see your point now, But not all Judo is like that. Judo theory,in the hands of the great teachers, can be a most highly refined practice-affording much practical real world use of Aiki.

cheers
Dan

[Kit LeBlanc]

You usually cut through the bull. Funny I just got off the phone with a good friend and former LE brother who is a koryu practitioner, and he says some of the same things.

Suffice it to say, I have been coming around to your line of thinking. I can be a little thick sometimes. I have for a long time looked for an art or teacher that can give me what I think I need to know.

I know now that doesn't exist....so I am looking for that something, or that combination of a few somethings, that I know *I* can make work...cause it will be me, not my teacher, that is down there in the blood and the guts and the beer. A teacher can teach me about budo, I will have to be the one that turns it into something that works! You've said as much to me publically and privately several times now...it is finally sinking in.

Problem is, I don't know enough about BUDO to make any meaningful contribution.

[James Williams]

Tom,

If you are interested in or judging the capabilities of Don Angier's students, Meynard is not the one to judge the system on. If you want to see the most practical applicaiton of "Aiki" then take a look at the Systema of Mikhail Ryabko and Vladimir Vasiliev. They do no use the word aiki, however that is what they are doing and at a very high level. Systema is very functional and in my opinion the fastest way to practically access the concepts and principles of "aiki" that I have seen.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Walker]

Doug has decided that having had the flu all weekend this post was only the virus talking so now he’s referring to himself in the third person.:burnup:

[Meynard Ancheta]

I wish some aikijiujitsu guys would fight in a submission grappling or Mixed Martial Art tournament. Personally I'd like to see somebody show the effectiveness of aikijiujitsu techniques against a trained and motivated opponent. Some "advanced" students/teachers should step up and uphold the reputation of aikijiujitsu against all comers. It would cool to see a submission grappler pinned down by an aiki master. It would be even better to see an aiki master throw down a submission grappler with flick of a wrist. I wait for that day...

[Dan Harden]

Meynard
I have done some of the things you have listed-and you are mistaken if you think that AJJ people cannot differentiate between Kata training as opposed to the real deal. Some train Kata only-others don't. Most I've met are very grounded, well rounded artists who moved to it from other arts-many kick boxers, BJJer's, judoka etc etc.. Others are like the typical cross section MA hobbyist-people wanting to have an involvement in Budo without risking much. I like my expression of my arts to be edgy. I have fought freestyle with different fighters. While most people don't want to play with Boxers, PKers judoka and what not I think its fun. It has been my experience that the principles work-if not the artists involved. Sorry it requires a little more than a flick of the wrist for me though. I will say that the principles and body mechanics in AJJ work very well fighting in a heightened aggression environment and work to control an opponent to a choke or lock. But I don't think many will train to use the techniques in that venue. Many people just won't go that far in their training. Nor do they have to.

You shouldn't judge nor dismiss an art for its ability in the ring only. Many things I would personally do with a fighter (hell many things I do every week in the dojo) an LEO could not do without getting into >serious< trouble.
Hence you need a broad cirriculum.
And other things that work to restrain a drunk or out of control spouse -would not come close to controling a fighter-hence a broad cirriculum
See what I mean bud?
Different things have their place. And AJJ offers that, as it had the same problem in dealing with a general populace in its history.

It seems that you-like me, want more edgy training. That's great. Go do it-I do. But that doesn’t sell all styles of grappling in my book. There is a new wave of floor moppers in jujutsu. I love ne-waza like the rest of them-but going to the floor to fight in public is the stupidest thing a human being should ever do these days. I got a boot in the head once by an uninvolved bystander for my trouble. Do I say BJJ is no good now? Of course not!! Even the Gracies acknowledge that the U.S. is different and they need to concentrate on more stand up Jujutsu in their Aikido Journal interview. Free style one on one is a very narrow field of focus for a complete art don't you think?.
As for its ability to train fighters -it- like everything else has limits in both the people involved and in the art itself. Do you go all out in the dojo to train in grappling? Most don't Meynard. Your not going to punch, elbow and use temple shots in the dojo to train-only to fight. Nor will you use many throat/face/Jaw options that are just as easy to apply as a choke but destroy the training partner.
Training is training
Fighting is fighting.
The real key is finding someone who knows the difference and doesn't have their heads in the clouds. It has been my experience that there are quite a few fellows in Aikijujtsu who know the difference right well from experience - as well as those who couldn't fight their way out of the proverbial sack.
But the same goes for any art bud.
I happen to think the world of Good Judo-but I have met my share of inept peple who do it. Doesn't change my opinion of Judo.
I do not like Aikido much at all-But I have met some capable people who happen to love it and can handle themselves quite well-hasn't changed my opinion of Aikido though.

Overall, good jujutsu (which is the basis of AJJ) is just simply good. As a broad and complete art I will take jujutsu /judo over anything I have seen. A common mistake people make in viewing or even those who demonstrate AJJ is to go right for the Aiki. The tradional approach- to be grounded in jujutsu and work your way through it learning the proper angles, vectors and sensitivety to an opponents movement as well as learning to to deal with agresssion-and then to move through this with Aiki training has validity on many levels. Seing someones ability to control a limited attack in a dojo or demo is indicative of their level of skill "in" AJJ-not fighting. The same goes for any art.
Though I dearly love Judo-I had to make this point to a "Judo is the best ever" friend of mine-he wanted to fight to show Judo could handle realistic encounters- and it can very well in the right hands.
First thing he did was lunge and grab me. I slapped him (sumo cupped style) really hard in the head and controlled his neck with it. He got all pissed off. I said "I thought you said you wanted to fight?"

I don't know if this helped explain my point of view, think you need a broader outlook-though I appreciate your doubts.
Good luck in your training

Dan

[James Williams]

Gentlemen,

After reading the initial post on this thread I feel compelled to put some things into perspective. The first being that jujutsu/aikijujutsu from a classical perspective is a lethal force engagement art. This means that they were designed to be used in conjunction with edged weapon combat in a multiple opponent environment. In this environment size means very little just as it does not in modern lethal force engagements. As my friend and Army buddy Nick Saganis used to say, a hundred pound gook with an AK is as big as anybody your ever going to meet.

The time to solution in these environments virtually precludes grappling in the BJJ/UFC sense as a solution. You may be winning the engagement and lose the war as solutions that take longer than a few seconds will get you killed by someone else in that environment. Holding space also leads to real problems, when the mail is being delivered at 2,700 fps it is best not to spend any time in a force vector.

Punching and kicking also has little effect when faced with class 4 body army, ballistic goggles, kevlar helmets etc. And even if your opponent is out of ammo in his primary weapon, an 8 pound piece of steel that makes a pretty good striking tool, he usually has a knife and a sidearm. The last time I tried it a knife made passing the guard pretty easy.

Bjj is a sport art that has fighting applications in controlled one on one environments. UFC style competitions are also sport based that have fighting applications, neither are suitable for combat and neither work well against multiple opponents. Judging a system based on one practitioner outside of the prime parameters of the art, i.e. edged weapons combat, is short sighted and smacks of being self serving.

James Williams

[James Williams]

Gentlemen,

After reading the initial post on this thread I feel compelled to put some things into perspective. The first being that jujutsu/aikijujutsu from a classical perspective is a lethal force engagement art. This means that they were designed to be used in conjunction with edged weapon combat in a multiple opponent environment. In this environment size means very little just as it does not in modern lethal force engagements. As my friend and Army buddy Nick Saganis used to say, a hundred pound gook with an AK is as big as anybody your ever going to meet.

The time to solution in these environments virtually precludes grappling in the BJJ/UFC sense as a solution. You may be winning the engagement and lose the war as solutions that take longer than a few seconds will get you killed by someone else in that environment. Holding space also leads to real problems, when the mail is being delivered at 2,700 fps it is best not to spend any time in a force vector.

Punching and kicking also has little effect when faced with class 4 body army, ballistic goggles, kevlar helmets etc. And even if your opponent is out of ammo in his primary weapon, an 8 pound piece of steel that makes a pretty good striking tool, he usually has a knife and a sidearm. The last time I tried it a knife made passing the guard pretty easy.

Bjj is a sport art that has fighting applications in controlled one on one environments. UFC style competitions are also sport based that have fighting applications, neither are suitable for combat and neither work well against multiple opponents. Judging a system based on one practitioner outside of the prime parameters of the art, i.e. edged weapons combat, is short sighted and smacks of being self serving.

James Williams

[kenjgood]

Awesome dialog!!!

Nathan, Kit, thanks for taking the time to so eloquetly state your opinions and relate the facts. It is great to have your perspectives.

A couple of posts indicate some axes to grind...those are fun too! :laugh:

I have been is a limited number of ‘street fights’ 8 that I can think of, won seven, lost one, and spent plenty of time in the dojo with those as reference points. Folks from a variety of disciplines come in to the dojo and we regularly let them try their hand.
I have operated in serveral countries and along the U.S./Mexican border as part of a Naval Special Warfare SEAL platoon doing what SEAL's do.

I know of several more real world engagements represented by a couple of posters on this thread that also see practicality of AJJ. The real value of AJJ for me is its absolute relevance to modern CQC in multiple adversaries, lethal force environment. That is all participants in the fight have weapons.

Don Angier has repeatedly stated that Yanagi Ryu AJJ was originally a school of military strategy. The techniques were “merely” physically manifestations of the principles.

Although I only know a few of them, the ones I know have proven to be spot on in the small realm that I deal with. I have also had great success passing them on in a relatively simplistic manner and training methodology to operators that have to function in the real world vice the dojo. I have many, many e-mails from folks that have prevailed in gunfights, prison riots, and arrest and control situations following the training they received through the SureFire Institute. They attribute much of their success to the specific training that they received. I attribute much of the personality of my training to James Williams and Don Angier. Although Don has never directly worked with me in my unique environment, his perspective of combat has permeated my psyche.

Boxing, BJJ, Judo strategies don’t apply in a projectile-based conflict as I see it, as they are specifically tailored toward defeating one adversary in a relatively controlled situation.

Caveat: I think boxing, BJJ, and Judo are awesome in their own right and the study of them definitely assist any practitioner of Combatives to be more proficient in a variety of situations and environment.

I am not studying self-defense per se. I KNOW there are many, many out there that can mop the floor with me in a format of 1 on 1, octagon. Nor could I consistently execute clean AJJ techniques against a skilled adversary in a 1 on 1 confrontation. That is not my focus. Working on it when I can.

My understanding of the history of Daito Ryu AJJ reads that Takada did mop the floor with all comers. Wish I could do the same!!!

The last time I was teaching a Combatives class out at Fort Campbell Kentucky with 5th Special Forces Group, I specifically asked if anybody had BJJ experience or had taken the Gracie courses that were being offered. Several folks raised hands. I was wearing body armor, a helmet, 3 weapons, boots, tac-vest etc. I let one of the individuals who had this experience with the Gracie methodology get really close. I told him that my M4 carbine was no longer functioning and asked him to execute his techniques to finish me. As he went for a double leg takedown and tried to cover my pistol, I simply unveiled a 7” tanto, which I simulated to everyone else that was watching that this gentleman’s overall strategy was not going to be sufficient in this environment, it was not formulated to be.

Boxing, Judo would also have little to offer in terms of solutions.

I also believe in order to train to be truly functional you must fight. You must hit and be hit, thow and be thrown, joint-lock and be locked. Fear of pain is a wonderful teacher. I like to think there is a better way, but I have not seen it. Technique after technique in isolation of unknown variables is a recipe for disaster in my opinion. What is obviously missing is the psychological pressure and physical reality of making a mistake.

That being said, you can train in AJJ through progressive sparring methodologies once you have the proper understanding of principle and technical proficiency. I cannot say what goes on in the Yanagi Ryu dojo as I have never had the privilege to train there. As James has mentioned Systema in a previous post, the Systema folks have addressed this reality through their “slow sparring” practice and other methodologies.

We have altered our AJJ training to include some of training practices based on Systema. I don’t want to turn this into a what is Systema post, but if you seriously look at Systema, in my opinion you are looking a living, breathing AJJ principle-based art expressed in the modern era that is coming out of Russia that is highly effective and has a steep learning curve.

I will leave you with this. My own personal view of the boyz at Yanagi Ryu. With a sword or any other classical edged weapon in their hand, I would not like to venture too close. Unarmed, they understand the technical details and can articulate principles that will help any serious practitioner who is listening. Delivering the goods in the moment against a mixed-martial artist specialist or BJJ practitioner in a ring setting, I think a few of them would have a difficult time. This is not their focus as I see it. I could be wrong.

I plan on learing from and respecting folks reguardless of whether or not I think they can kick my ass or submit me in this format or that.

Hell the other day, Jame's 21 year-old son submitted me with an arm bar when I got a little sloppy. I LEARNED from the kid who I can still see as a 12 year old. When I tried to regain my pride it took 20 minutes for me to submit him. I absolutely loved it!
He is a good grappler. Next time I might not fair so well. Can he apply AJJ in my realm, nope not yet.

Just because one can or cannot grapple does not mean they understand the dynamics of close quarter, mulitple adversary, weapons based, lethal force environments.

I hold all of the Yanagi Ryu students in the highest respect and plan on learning more from them in the future. They work hard, train intelligently and are willing to pass on what they know to others that are seeking. For that I sincerely thank them. They have unknowing probably saved the lives of a few that I have interacted with.

I apologize for any thread drift.

I stand ready to be recalibrated….

[Cady Goldfield]

James wrote:

"Bjj is a sport art that has fighting applications in controlled one on one environments. UFC style competitions are also sport based that have fighting applications, neither are suitable for combat and neither work well against multiple opponents. Judging a system based on one practitioner outside of the prime parameters of the art, i.e. edged weapons combat, is short sighted and smacks of being self serving."

That's a point I have been trying to make for years -- not just in respect to multiple opponents, but for arena competition vs. combat and/or survival in general. It's understandable that people see what goes on in a UFC arena and think, "Wow! That's the most effective thing I've ever seen!" when a BJJer gets his opponent on the mat. They forget that the rules, environment and purpose of the "fight" all influence its outcome as well as the way that the "combatants" both train and engage. This is true for the PKers as for the grapplers.

Ritual battle begets its own curriculum and mode of engagement. The world of life-or-death combat by necessity is different. Its only rule is the "law of the jungle."

If competition using multiple opponents were to become popular, we would likely see a whole new curriculum and set of rules emerge regarding such competitions. Hmmm... I think football already has them. ;)

This isn't to say that you can't adapt an individual art or system into something effective *for you* in the circumstances you're in. As Dan said earlier, a good fighter can make a system work for him, despite the flaws in that system. You work with the tool kit you're given, and refine it as best you can.

However,in the way we develop and utilize our tool kit, we can't have it all. We either train for sport, and stay within that focus, or we train for "street survival," for military combat or for law enforcement and make that our specialty. Each area has its unique set of issues that must be addressed in and by the strategic and tactical methods tailored to those disciplines.

[Kit LeBlanc]

Keep getting drawn back in...

I can point out several classical grappling methods with a great deal of ground control tactics, many similar to those of BJJ (which comes from Judo, which came from those self same classical jujutsu schools...).

Certainly they usually include the use of weapons....but BJJ/Judo has many techniques and strategies which are readily adapted back to combative forms, yet with still more technical savvy.

I have, repeatedly, used a handful of methods and tactics learned from BJJ and Judo, informed by a few years study in a classical art that addressed a lot of ground positions with weapons, and it works just fine for me.......in situations which began and finished without weapons being presented. Though they were certainly present in all of them (mine) and for both of us in a few of them.

Would I choose Judo or BJJ against a guy that came running at me with a knife, or sword, or gun drawn? HELL no. I would use Heckler Koch-jutsu, and use tai sabaki and other things much more in common with weapons arts than close body contact grappling. Different tactics for different situations.

Would I "pull guard" and bring a combative suspect on top of me in the street . No. BJJ does not recommend doing so in a street fight, either, and considering the guys getting pounded unconscious in the ring by trying this tactic on wrestlers and strikers, you are seeing less and less of it.

In a real fight, I want to be on top. Training in BJJ and Judo gives me a tremendous advantage in gaining just that top position from a close grappling situation...plus the ability to change to a top control position from the bottom if I end up there, and KEEP it once I get on top.



Things don't always START armed. Weapons are presented in some but lethal force is not always justified...this DOES occur in reality, and fairly frequently for law enforcement. Remember it is VERY easy to sit back in the knowedge that chances are infinitesmal you will ever have to make a lethal force decision, but speak in terms of how you WOULD use it while critiqueing those that actually have to make such decisions on a regular basis (Ken and James exempted, as they are aware of this environment and experienced in it.)

NEWS FLASH, except for an armed lethal force tactical environment (which I am experienced and trained in, though only the past few years), the rest of you will most likely be faced with an unarmed combatant in a non-lethal force environment. That encounter will also often occur by surprise, and at very close range, and thus very quickly be a body contact to body contact fight. It will start with the beer bottle smashing against your head from the back, you will be bulldogged over, and several people may jump upon you, kick and knee drop you in the head in a manner of seconds. This is a COMMON type of assault call that we run to in law enforcement.

ANY unarmed martial artist (okay, I'll give you a tactical folding knife since most carry this, it won't change things), including the BJJ-er, is toast in this situation. You will have only your will to survive, and no martial art can give you that.

NO martial arts skills can defeat multiple motivated opponents without a weapon. There is a well known story about a Rickson Gracie seminar in which an aikidoka in attendance pointed out that his art was created to deal with multiple opponents. Rickson asked him to demonstrate this vs. Rickson and his son, who was at the time something like 13 years old. Rickson whispered to his son and the test commenced. Rickson began moving toward the aikidoka and this man, not entirely with his head up his ass, focussed on the more dangerous threat while attempting to position out to keep Baby Rickson in his sight. Ultimately he was forced to deal with the oncoming Rickson and as he turned his attention to him Baby Rickson took out his legs from behind. The denoument I will leave to your imagination. I submit even the unarmed aikijujutsuka would suffer the same fate.

I think it is a hollow sentinment indeed to say "well, I woulda beat 'em if I had a sword!" Besides, add the sword and Rickson would probably say "fine, I'll just use my gun."

BJJ/Judo CAN apply in law enforcement and street situations with certain caveats. You can't think of the street as the competition or training mat, however. SImply because someone practices BJJ does not mean they are unable to transfer skills to the street, or fight in a different manner on the street. Frankly Judo/BJJ TRAINING has made the more classically oriented controls I use in the weapons based environment MORE effective, because I am used to working against active resistance. As a police officer and tactical team member I cannot simply toss someone down and hope they will stay there, I have to control them once they get to the ground while also trying to be aware of the environment, his possible weapons and the ones I KNOW I have. BJJ has tremendously helped me in this area. Being skilled in a top control position also makes it easier for me to DISENGAGE if need be to transition to a different level of force.


The guard can be useful on the street. It is admittedly a bad position to be in for the real world.

As I type, I am looking at a Surefire Institute Training Course Catalog (don't have the date) showing Arrest and Control Defensive Tactics and Prevailing in a Ground engagement (pp. 6-7) which shows James in:

- Mounted position with the "Cobra" position from BJJ. This is the primary street engagement and MMA ring position BJJ teaches because you can control the opponent completely and strike at will. James looks like he's ready to throw a palm strike, but it also allows weapons deployment.

- On his back using the Spider Gaurd against a man attacking with a hand strike from standing position. Again, a BJJ technique, though I was taught a similar method in a classical art against a knife attack when you are on your back, and, INDEPENDENTLY, in a law enforcement ground survival course.

- On his back with the subject in his guard and performing a reverse ude garami. This particular lock/position is also useful in weapon's retention.

- On his back, with the subject in his gaurd and performing kata gatame, a staple of Judo and BJJ training.



The guard is also better than other positions that someone untrained in effective groundfighting methods will almost certainly end up in against a halfway decent grappler. Don't worry, though.....people with high school, college, or outside of school wrestling experience NEVER get into fights.

Our department is now training weapon retention from the ground while accessing backup weapons....easier said than done when dealing with a striking, struggling person locked with you on the ground. BJJ helps a great deal in this area. It is utterly foolish to convince yourself you will never be there.

Ken, your example with the military BJJ-er is well taken....but in reality I cannot simply cut a man's throat who has taken me down, even in a tactical environment. I also wonder what would happen if as you were going down and transitioning to your blade HE produced his...I don't doubt you would probably use some form of guard in conjunction with knife methods to solve that situation.....your alternative is to give him a superior position, with you on your back on the ground and both armed with an edged weapon.....

The gaurd used properly also provides opportunities to gain the space to transition to handgun if need be. The handgun will be much quicker to deploy from a side carry position than the tactical folder in your pocket. Probably not quicker than a vest mounted combat knife, but then again I am not in a position to deal with EVERY fight I get in wearing a tac vest.

Indeed due to the shock troop nature of SPEED, SURPRISE and AGGRESSIVE ACTION dynamic entries, (DD's or "flash bangs" really mess with people who are not used to them going off ) rarely do you have to go hands on with actively resisting subjects. They tend to be so freaked out they drop like 10 lbs of shite in a 5 lb. bag with a push, a head control takedown or the good 'ol front kick.

[kenjgood]

Actually Kit,

The example I gave was not to cut his throat but to plunge the knife into his kidney and then spine...it that O.K. in your line of work? :laugh:

Seriously, I am not down on BJJ quite the contrary. I am glad it is a regular part of our training. In many situations, the skill set and jujitsu strategy is MOST USEFUL.

What I was trying to address is the original post that because one member of an AJJ dojo went to another system/dojo and found out that he could not deal with the realities of BJJ or whatever, that that AJJ approach was not sufficient. And furthermore that the person or his teacher has the ability to properly access the relevance of AJJ in the modern realm of military combat. AJJ was bred out of realities of military close quarter combat, not bar room brawls or sport competition.

Competitions\simmulations come when you can't really do it for whatever reason. UFC IS NOT reality in terms of CQC. Are the participants formidable, capable of ramping it up further? In many cases the answer is a resounding yes! Would I want to face many of them? No. Does UFC - mixed martial arts teach us anything, absolutely. Do I abandon the study of AJJ because they can kick butt in the octagon? Nope. Two different worlds and end games.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the strategy of BJJ is to establish the proper distance, close safely, take the opponent down, maintain full body contact, establish position while maintaining full body contact, finish.

Try holding somebody in the closed guard when they have body armor w/plates covered with fully loaded tac vest. It adds a whole new dimension to "rolling around". Everything is a weapon, your helmet, his helmet, your loaded M16 mags, your flashlight. All can be produced and employed from a wide variety of angles. Bringing this type of engagement to the ground as a primary strategy is a mistake.

IF you find yourself down there, the ability to maintain composure from having been there before is a definite plus and only comes from being there, but I am essentially going to employ Aiki. Not going to fight per se, just calmly call my partner over to put a bullet in his brain bucket, while he is grappling with me.

Different point: Kit, I agree with you, that most are not armed most of the time. I think that is a mistake in and of itself.

I therefore study that which is most relevant to me as well as the clients I deal with, who are armed. Everybody finds their niche and works it.


Different point:
Getting smashed in the head with a beer bottle at a bar. Easy for me, I take the “classical approach” and generally stay away from them unless I am armed and keep my back to a wall as much as possible and a keep an eye on a known exit.

One of the more recent engagements I was involved in was in a pool hall/bar. Just went to play pool after some CQC training. Apparently I was at somebody else’s table, although they were not using it for the past 30 minutes. Push came to shove. I pulled out a SureFire 6P flashlight, flashed it in the guys face, that was quickly followed up with a ASP strike to his clavicle which he never saw me produce with my other hand. I then moved quickly (as in ran) to the exit and left the place with my partner. I was not going to wait to find out how the local Police were going to react to me using an ASP in the state of Texas.

He buddies had pool cues and pool balls, but they were so stunned at how fast it was over that the never assisted their friend. Their will to fight was over.

In my opinion, this is Aiki in action in terms of strategy. I don’t like taking it up the teeth…generally not a smart thing to do. Blending, flanking, producing weapons quickly, “not being there” for your opponent to base himself, unbalance your opponent (in this case the light did it), are all basic, basic Aiki concepts.

Aiki is not technique in my mind. Aikijujutsu strategies are not the only ones out there and therefore I don’t "hide behind" them giving myself a false sense of security. For me, fights are always extremely serious and I go into them with the reality that I may get maimed or killed. I plan to prevail and don’t look back. It gets down the one who can make his or her strategy stick in the heat.

[Kit LeBlanc]

Ken,

We are speaking the same language.

Some will see the UFC and a BJJ-ka and assume that is all BJJ is useful for, or that the BJJ approach will be exactly the same in the Octagon as in a combative engagement. Then again, it takes some experience in the field to understand how to begin adapting BJJ methods to modern CQC, and when they would be appropriate, and HOW they would be used with what desired outcome, if at all. Same with classical jujutsu, I would argue.

For an classical JJ-ka to feel that because he got submitted on the mat in groundwork, or even a one on one streetfight that went to the ground, that he therefore does not know how to apply CJJ to an armed environment is also not true, and I would hark back to your personal examples.

When I visit, I hope to hit the mats with you. I *may* (I don't know) have more chops on the ground in Judo/BJJ matwork than you do. I don't for a minute believe that I would be able to translate that into being able to come even close to you head to head in an armed confrontation environment when we are both in tactical gear and gunned up. Even if it did go to the ground.

I would argue that besides James and some in your immediate circle that practice this all the time, no aikijujutsuka/classical jujutsuka would either.

Personally I would rather be able to function at some level in both situations. While some of us may go about armed everyday, it does not mean that even a decent percentage of confrontations will be resolved through lethal force. Most will be far more appropriately dealt with using simple takedowns and pins which both CJJ and Judo/BJJ have, many of which are similar technically and tactically.

In either instance, CJJ and BJJ are better adapted to CQC by those with an actual understanding of the CQC environment. Simply stating "CJJ is a battlefield art. I am skilled in it, therefore, I have an advantage or am therefore more skilled in a lethal CQC encounter" doesn't make it reality. When BJJ/Judo is narrowly dismissed as only useful for sport due to the way they are practiced for and shown in competition, it doesn't address how ANY martial art needs to be viewed thru the appropriate lens to understand their application in CQC situations.

I am trying to say that NEITHER position is correct. BOTH have useful elements applicable to different facets of the totality of CQC when evaluated with the right experience and understanding.

Clearly Surefire understands this, as I mentioned above, you guys teach some of the same methods I am talking about in the course description and have photos of James using them.

BTW, funny you mentioned the partner administering the bullet in the brain bucket while you remain calm...we just trained the very same thing in our last SWAT CQC training block....funny how it is that AJJ-ka and BJJ-ka /Judoka came up with the same thing when looking at the CQC environment.

[Arman]

pulled out a SureFire 6P flashlight, flashed it in the guys face, that was quickly followed up with a ASP strike to his clavicle which he never saw me produce with my other hand. I then moved quickly (as in ran) to the exit and left the place with my partner.. . . In my opinion, this is Aiki in action in terms of strategy.

This is great stuff.:D This is the best description of "aiki" that I have yet come across. Surely, you must have a menkyo kaiden in aiki?

Best,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[matt little]

Excellent posts so far by Mssrs. Williams, Good, and LeBlanc. Even though much of what I feel on this subject has been already stated by one or more of you, I felt inclined to drop my $.02 into the mix.

Two essential doctrinal suppositions for all those in the profession of arms, whether police or military, when engaged in CQC:

1) ALL participants are assumed to be armed

2) there is ALWAYS more than one opponent

Training drills should reflect the doctrine and strategy required in one's anticipated operational environment.

Having said that, I feel that training drills besides kata are essential to developing practical fighting ability. sparring is an important drill. (actually more than one-there are many kinds of sparring) Others, such as a Tony Blauer's Panic Attack drill, are also invaluable when developing the attributes necessary to apply skills learned in kata in real situations.

BJJ is a wonderful art with many sublimely effective techniques, and I fully intend to continue learning as much as I can from it. I have also trained in Judo, JKD, and Kali/Arnis as well as teaching Shotokan Karate. I have found all of these arts to have techniques and training methods which are efficient and valuable. But the only art I have trained in which doctrinally matches what I have experienced in my law enforcement and military career is Aiki. techniques and tactics from the other arts have been invaluable, but doctrine and strategy are what carries the day.

And, yes, a civilian streetfight does require different doctrine from a military or police CQC situation. but it also requires different doctrine from sporting events, NHB or not.

Just my humble opinion...

Respectfully,

Matthew Little

[Kit LeBlanc]

Matt,

Welcome, brother. We have quite a few laterals from your neck of the woods working for us now. Great guys, almost to a man.

I should re-state my comments...agreed you should always proceed with the plus 1 rule, (plus one weapon, plus one bad guy) in ANY arrest situation. But that does not mean we can shoot anyone we THINK is armed, or has a buddy that intends to blindside us. We will then have to adapt our tactics to being sound for a lethal force engagement, even when lethal force is not an option.

You'll probably have to get around to having to state what you mean by aiki....your profile says aiki-DO. The folks here mean aikiJUJUTSU.

I am not an aiki-jujutsuka, but it seems I have heard, more than once, that aiki-DO doesn't count in terms of "combative" doctrine ... :eek:

[kenjgood]

Arman,

Yes I do have one laying around somewhere, ordered from a study group for $2.99.

Not worth much though....

You got me though. My first mistake was not wearing a hakama. What I should have said "Now that I understand universe reality and fundamental dynamic of energy transference, once I perceived in my inner man that there was a rift in the space/time continuum; I blended with the hostile forces to harmonize all seen and unseen movements with the violent attackers intentions. The proper use of stance, distance, eyes, breath and intention all culminated in an orgasmic eruption of perfect technique sending the now unbalanced attackers flying in all directions. The engagement ceased. Once the smoke cleared all was as it should be…..

Kit,

Work me on the ground baby! I am going to make your work for it though!!! First you must get through the Ol’ man James first….

[matt little]

Kit,

Thanks for the welcome. I couldn't agree with your lethal force comments more. Shame though for trying to get me embroiled in yet another internet "I'm more Aiki than you are" war...:nono:

Respectfully,

Matt Little

P.S. What neck of the woods are you in? While I am quite sure you are most likely far better than I at newaza, I'd love to play also.:D

[matt little]

Ken,

Will you be training at the Aiki Expo or only demonstrating? I'm going to try and attend, and would love the chance to train with you and James if possible.

Matt Little

[Kit LeBlanc]

James is a lot bigger than me and trained with the Gracies for a couple years! :cry:


Matt,

I work in Vancouver, WA.

No aiki-baiting here....just figured I'd give you fair warning!! It can get UGLY......LOL

[matt little]

Kit,

Vancouver huh? I do know some people up your way, but they are old army buddies-not CPD. And I guess I'll just have to be a non-aikijujutsu verbal sparring partner. :look: In all seriousness, I would agree that most Aikido is not practiced practically or martially. In my case, I would rather train with an excellent and practical Aikido instructor than an Aikijujutsu instructor who lies about his credentials and the lineage of his ryu-ha. (OOOOOH! that sounded mean even to me-am I bitter?) which is the choice I have been given.

UH OH here comes the AIKI-FLAME...:burnup:

[Kit LeBlanc]

THAT's a whole 'nother thing!!!!

[kenjgood]

Matt: Demo yes, not sure if we are going to train. As long as I am there, training sounds like a good plan. Who should we hook up with?

Kit: Size, experience...that should not matter with a man of your skills!!! ;)

[matt little]

Ken,

I will glady train in any class you choose, just let me know.
I am most interested in Kondo Sensei's and Angier Sensei's classes, and from personal experience I can strongly recommend Ikeda Sensei.

Matt

[Kit LeBlanc]

Another hotly debated thread descends into a group hug!:p

[James Williams]

No group hug is complete without Big Tony.

[Arman]

Yes I do have one laying around somewhere, ordered from a study group for $2.99. .Not worth much though....

-ouch!- :) I'll take that in good humor. But if you paid $2.99, you got robbed.

You got me though. My first mistake was not wearing a hakama. What I should have said "Now that I understand universe reality and fundamental dynamic of energy transference, once I perceived in my inner man that there was a rift in the space/time continuum; I blended with the hostile forces to harmonize all seen and unseen movements with the violent attackers intentions. The proper use of stance, distance, eyes, breath and intention all culminated in an orgasmic eruption of perfect technique sending the now unbalanced attackers flying in all directions. The engagement ceased. Once the smoke cleared all was as it should be…..

Nah. I liked your first description much better.

Cheers, :toast:
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Dan Harden]

Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
Another hotly debated thread descends into a group hug!:p

Seems to be the way with both Jujutsu and Kenjutsu exponents dudn't it?
It's hard to have substantive dissagreement over things that are designed to work.

Dan

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott


I've got to go rest my brain bucket in a direct gravitational force vector with my pillow (man, you guys have the coolest phrases. How come we don't have this kind of stuff in Japanese?).

Regards,

Nathan,

My favorite one of Ken's is "high velocity lead poisoning."

[James Williams]

When the mail is being delivered at 2,700 fps it is better to be the mail man than the mail box.

[kenjgood]

Can't we all just NOT get along...it is more fun....

O.K. I will hug as long as Nathan takes a bath for a change!

Matt: Kondo Sensei's and Angier Sensei's classes it is and whatever else we can slide into.

Arman: All in good humor it is, I came up swinging as I was not sure how to take your 1st comment. Shows you how balanced as in unbalanced I am.

Kit: In the military there are schools that teach you all the proper charge calculations for various targets and materials. In Naval Special Warfare we have synthesized all this vast knowledge and precision into one unifying theory -

When in doubt.....OVERLOAD. (We are always in doubt! :laugh: )

James: Please stop throwing me down, hitting me, kicking me, slapping me, poking me, joint locking me, choking me and we will have a much better relationship...

[Dan Harden]

James: Please stop throwing me down, hitting me, kicking me, slapping me, poking me, joint locking me, choking me and we will have a much better relationship...

Ahhhhh.....but they all begin with a hug. And as I always say
"A hug opens up a world of opportunity."
What a better begining to a relationhsip.....heh heh

Dan

[Cady Goldfield]

""A hug opens up a world of opportunity."

Yeah, does it ever. Last night I was training with some guy, he's all nice and everything -- walks up and gives me a nice friendly hug. Next thing I know I'm on my back with a knee in my kidney, my head wrapped in a choke and my lungs and diaphragm compressed so tight that I couldn't breathe. I was gonna ask him for just a handshake next time... but thought better of it and told him just to give a friendly nod from ACROSS THE ROOM from now on.

I just love these complex relationships that start with a hug. LOL

[scott nichols]

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
Hi all,

Thanks for the interesting contributions and words of encouragement. Say, why don't we all exchange valentines cards?

:)

I know I'll catch flak for this, but personally I don't have any problems with Ueshiba Morihei sensei's original "Aikido" - aside from perhaps the degree of Omoto influence on the art. I believe that what is practiced today is, in some cases more and in some cases less, a shell of what Aikido was intended to be on a technically martial level. I've got some writings I've been trying to get around to regarding this subject that I'll be sure to post here for further discussion.

I've got to go rest my brain bucket in a direct gravitational force vector with my pillow (man, you guys have the coolest phrases. How come we don't have this kind of stuff in Japanese?).

Regards,


Nathan, Please post the writings you mentioned above. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say on the subject. I must agree with your opinion of Aikido. As a relative newcomer to the practice, I find myself feeling more and more that something is missing. The techniques are simply too easy to counter. I feel as if I am missing something very important, that should be inherent in the technique, but that has been removed...Scott Nichols

[Arman]

Scott,

Something removed, eh? I can't imagine what?;)

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

[Maximilian]

Tom although I agree with you in many principles.
I will subscribe from experience that non Daito-Ryu
partners will incur the danger of serious harm or
injury. Having practiced Daito-Ryu for a long time
I and survived 2 deadly encounters thanks to it I
must disagree with you as to allowing non practicioner
practice. At best in Aikijiujitsu you control the power
of your technique to stun or temporary disablement of
your opponent.

When those of us who understand this practice with each
othe we still manage from time to time to incapacitate
or class mates on a temporary basis. This not an art
that you experiment with it in the mat with you refine
it carefully with your classmates and keep it simple
and to the point.

As to deadly nature of the art I can vouch for it's deadly
nature and not for the "sport of it" Martial Arts are that
a Martial form of Combat developed not for sport but maim,
cripple or dispose of your opponent depending on the situation
at hand.

Some people are born warriors and understand this and never
have to prove anything. Others because of insecurities and
other issues feel that they must prove to the world how
tough they are and that is fine. The true Martial Artis will
never have to do this as they know what they can do and how
without causing harm to others.

I do like your text on the mental attitude which is the
primordial urge. Fear is the mind killer the little death
that defeats you before you go into combat.

Thanks,

Maximilian Schell

[Maximilian]

Nathan I agree with your comment about traditional
Martial Arts and Modern Arts. The traditional Art
focuses in the part of not wasting time on more
than one waza it was developed for full combats.

I am for one practicing both Traditional and Non
Traditional Arts. And have gained a healthy respect
for non violence. The knowledge of what ones mindeset
can do is very important. I for one quit competitive
sports a long time ago because the realization that
Martial Arts are not one I have focused on the Art
as it was inteded to be one of Combat and where an
opponent makes his/her decision to engage you that
you must do what is necessary to stay alive.

Street encounters are not fun and can develop rather
quickly into a deadly situation and to adapt the Higher
level Arts to modern instruction is really no feasible.
I commend your attitude in how you teach your students.
I only wish there were more teachers like you.

Maximilian Schell

[Cady Goldfield]

Maximilion wrote:

>snip< At best in Aikijiujitsu you control the power of your technique to stun or temporary disablement of your opponent.

When those of us who understand this practice with each other we still manage from time to time to incapacitate or class mates on a temporary basis. This not an art that you experiment with it in the mat with you refine it carefully with your classmates and keep it simple and to the point."

This is not an art you play with -- it is one that was designed with lethality or at least physiological disruption as its prime objective. Even under the most controlled and safeguarded dojo situations, there are serious injuries.

The higher the degree of skill in aikijujutsu, the more cautious one has to be. It gets to the point where the practitioner doesn't realize how much power he is generating, because it requires so little effort or movement. That's when serious injury can occur to a training partner unless everyone maintains constant vigilence.

There are exponents who have no idea how much damage they are doing to others, because it "feels like nothing" to them. It's not until they themselves experience the technique of advanced students that they understand and realize that things need toning down. Even at my low level of experience, a practice session becomes exhausting because of the intense concentration and control required.

I'd never suggest that an aikijutusuka spar with a non-ajj person. It's too risky. You can't "pull" technique the way PKers can to create a sparring situation. You either "do" or you "don't do." As Maxmilian wrote, the best you can manage is to control the opponent so that he/she can no longer spar. That seems counterproductive to the whole notion of sparring, since sparring is meant to be prolonged. AJJ is meant to end things before they even begin.

[Dan Harden]

I think the conversations taken a left and gone way over the top.


X art______________fill in blank; Isn't anything that is an absolute. To say "this" is always "this or that"- obfuscates the largest variable-PEOPLE. Selling AJJ as this "deadly art" may well be a problem for some people to back up with more than words. As such, I would be very circumspect in my statements in consideration of some of the people you are talking to here. Don't get me wrong I love it too. But making statements like this will always beg the question from experienced men. I have taken apart that very same "deadly art" position more than once. In person.

I don't know who you guys play with but I have met my share of AJJ people, BJJ people, Goju and Judoka who were rather inept fighters. And then I have met the same who were a handful.
AJJ, as a whole, is more than just hand to hand-see the above posts-and needs to be intelligently discussed in that manner. It has a very wide cirriculum with a plethora of finishing techniques that can be trimmed to a persons needs or mission statements.


When dealing with an art you need to describe its principles, tactics and techniques and its potential as a whole.
Whether those same principles are fully explored by any one branch or exponent is highly variable.
Also, learning anything "only" through a strict Kata process makes anyone’s fighting abilities open for question.

Ms. Goldfields experiences are her own and may not fairly reflect the kata offered in standard DR or other AJJ training.

Lets be a little more balanced in our statements. And discussions of injuries in a dojo setting don't impress me much. On the whole they may not adequately reflect the standard "effectiveness question" for the simple reason of "Who's doing the teaching?" They can be had from inept cooperative style training, inept receiving of technique or highly challenging training that does reflect the effectiveness question.
So for any practical means of communicating a point-they are merely injuries in training. Judo and Aikido have them too.

So I guess the question isn't does "it" work-but rather can you make "it" work. And even then, that isn't enough. Can the majority of the people you have met in "it"__________(fill in blank) make it work in any highly stressed force on force venue?
If not be careful what you say.

cheers
Dan

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Dan Harden
I think the conversations taken a left and gone way over the top.


X art______________fill in blank; Isn't anything that is an absolute. To say "this" is always "this or that"- obfuscates the largest variable-PEOPLE. Selling AJJ as this "deadly art" may well be a problem for some people to back up with more than words. As such, I would be very circumspect in my statements in consideration of some of the people you are talking to here. Don't get me wrong I love it too. But making statements like this will always beg the question from experienced men. I have taken apart that very same "deadly art" position more than once. In person.

I don't know who you guys play with but I have met my share of AJJ people, BJJ people, Goju and Judoka who were rather inept fighters. And then I have met the same who were a handful.
AJJ, as a whole, is more than just hand to hand-see the above posts-and needs to be intelligently discussed in that manner. It has a very wide cirriculum with a plethora of finishing techniques that can be trimmed to a persons needs or mission statements.


When dealing with an art you need to describe its principles, tactics and techniques and its potential as a whole.
Whether those same principles are fully explored by any one branch or exponent is highly variable.
Also, learning anything "only" through a strict Kata process makes anyone’s fighting abilities open for question.

Ms. Goldfields experiences are her own and may not fairly reflect the kata offered in standard DR or other AJJ training.

Lets be a little more balanced in our statements. And discussions of injuries in a dojo setting don't impress me much. On the whole they may not adequately reflect the standard "effectiveness question" for the simple reason of "Who's doing the teaching?" They can be had from inept cooperative style training, inept receiving of technique or highly challenging training that does reflect the effectiveness question.
So for any practical means of communicating a point-they are merely injuries in training. Judo and Aikido have them too.

So I guess the question isn't does "it" work-but rather can you make "it" work. And even then, that isn't enough. Can the majority of the people you have met in "it"__________(fill in blank) make it work in any highly stressed force on force venue?
If not be careful what you say.

cheers
Dan

Thank You, Dan Harden.

[Maximilian]

:o Dan I won't beat around the bush with you. AJJ is deadly it's main principle during Imperial Japan was to cripple or permanently eliminate your opponent. It is not a Sport and it is very dangerous under the best of controlled circumstances.

The strategy of AJJ is not one of subduing your enemy, I practice with some very adavanced people and we do our best, inuries happen and not by design but because the way the Waza are designed. With that I am not saying AJJ is the best or the worst. But in the context of those of us who take a traditional Art that has been handed down for over 900 years and understand the principles.

In a force on force deal AJJ works just as good, why? Use the amount of energy and force you generate internally to overcome your opponent are sufficient. Your opponent may be physically stronger yet by applying the proper body motions and dynamics you will overcome them.

Ask any Marine that came across a japanese infantryman in hand to hand combat and lived to tell. Size does not matter, why do you think the American Gen. MacArthur forbade the practice of Martial Arts? specially in the context they were taught during WWII? They were effective, deadly, and almost impossible to counter.

In AJJ the majority of us are above 30 professionals and with a commitment to the Art that goes beyond simple sport, that was in the begining we have outgrown Martial Sports now we practice Martial Arts.


Thank you,

Maximilian Schell

[Dan Harden]

Yawn!

cave quid dicis, quando, et cui

Dan

[James Williams]

Maximilian,

Who do you study AJJ with and what style?

James

[Maximilian]

James I have studied AJJ for several years in Japan. As to who my Teacher is that is not for me to reveal as he is well respected. As such my opinions here are my own. I will not question anyones credentials in here as I epxpected everyone in here to be Martial Artists and true professionals where we can espouse our views without having to be questioned as to who we represent and who we learn from.

If the Titles Mean everything in hear I am sorry to have joined this place. I will humbly retire my name and my opinions from here. And ask everybody's forgiveness if I have offended anyone. I never said
AJJ is the best or worst. It was created for the purpose of war and that is all.

Respectfully Maximilian Schell.


a humble student of martial arts

[James Williams]

Maximilian,

What a strange reply to a simple question. Why would you bring up the question of credentials when all I asked was who you trained with and what style? If you wish to retire from this forum when asked simple questions that of course is your choice. When people voice opinions here it is nice to know who they are and where they trained, no big deal. When Karl Friday, Ellis Amdur, Toby Threadgill, Dan Hardin, etc. post we know who they are and where they trained. This gives credibility to their opinions and helps everyone to understand their viewpoint. This in turn leads to positive discussion, if not always agreement. and we all usually learn something from that discussion. It has been my experience over the last four decades of study in martial arts that secrecy greatly diminishes credibility.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Maximilian
Ask any Marine that came across a japanese infantryman in hand to hand combat and lived to tell. Size does not matter, why do you think the American Gen. MacArthur forbade the practice of Martial Arts? specially in the context they were taught during WWII? They were effective, deadly, and almost impossible to counter.

Apparently that's more or less a myth. Kendo and Judo were deemed inappropriate as part of the public school curriculum, and many martial artists (Japanese ones) became confused as to what and wasn't allowed. However, there was no general ban on the practice of martial arts (according to K. Ueshiba in "Aikido Ichiro", which discusses the post-war situation in detail).

Best,

Chris

[Maximilian]

Dan I like latin:toast:


Haec ego non multis (scribo), sed tibi: satis enim magnum alter alteri theatrum sumus.

[Maximilian]

I study Martial Arts for my own general
knowledge. But I also research a lot on
many of these Arts, as such the words I
write here are taken from the text of those
books my research has taken me into in the
bookstores, and libraries of Japan.

I have studied at the university of Munich
as psychologist, Loyola University MBA in
philosophy. And currently going back to
Japan to finish my studies in Oriental
Civilizations.

As such my writings here are more from
a learned perspective into the Arts of
War of Oriental Culture rather than practical
knowledge.

Every name you mentioned here Mr. Williams
well respected in the US and abroad as
Martial Artists who understand the Arts of
War from a practical Perspective. Me on
the other hand have gained my knowledge
from reading and conversing with those
whose families were there and survive
today.

Thank you,

Max Schell

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by Chris Li


Apparently that's more or less a myth. Kendo and Judo were deemed inappropriate as part of the public school curriculum, and many martial artists (Japanese ones) became confused as to what and wasn't allowed. However, there was no general ban on the practice of martial arts (according to K. Ueshiba in "Aikido Ichiro", which discusses the post-war situation in detail).

Best,

Chris


Hi Chris Here is this:

The aftermath of the 2nd World War was a dark era for Japan and things Japanese. As part of Japan's war effort, instructors had been ordered to teach unarmed combat. In retaliation the occupation forces prohibited all practice of the martial arts in schools and public institutions. The ban remained in place until 1951 although there had been a gradual relaxation of the rule. Private instruction in judo was tolerated and the police were excepted from the general prohibition.

And web link:
http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/hist.html

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Chris Li
Apparently that's more or less a myth. Kendo and Judo were deemed inappropriate as part of the public school curriculum, and many martial artists (Japanese ones) became confused as to what and wasn't allowed. However, there was no general ban on the practice of martial arts (according to K. Ueshiba in "Aikido Ichiro", which discusses the post-war situation in detail).

In a follow-up to my own post, I'd like to note that the apparent reasoning for the elimination of Kendo and Judo from the public school curriculum was not that they were too "deadly and dangerous", but the military manner in which they were presented.

Best,

Chris

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Maximilian
The aftermath of the 2nd World War was a dark era for Japan and things Japanese. As part of Japan's war effort, instructors had been ordered to teach unarmed combat. In retaliation the occupation forces prohibited all practice of the martial arts in schools and public institutions. The ban remained in place until 1951 although there had been a gradual relaxation of the rule. Private instruction in judo was tolerated and the police were excepted from the general prohibition.

And web link:

http://www.britishjudo.org.uk/hist.html

The above quote says exactly what I said, they were excluded from the public school curriculum. There was no general ban on martial arts practice. Private dojos and even private schools can and did continue training throughout this period.

As a side note, a number of things with military connotations where excluded from the public school curriculum.

Best,

Chris

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by Chris Li


In a follow-up to my own post, I'd like to note that the apparent reasoning for the elimination of Kendo and Judo from the public school curriculum was not that they were too "deadly and dangerous", but the military manner in which they were presented.

Best,

Chris

Chris during WWII some of the most vicious
hand to hand encounters happened in the
Pacific Theater. During this encounters
it was noted that the japanese will attack
with the bayonet or confront a marine
without hesitation.

The effective unarmed capabilities of the
japanese infantryman led the occupation
forces to ban the public practice of the
Martial Arts in public venues. After all
they did not want the world to know that
an average japanese infantryman could beat
a well built 6 foot marine in
a fast and furious encounter. In which the
japanese soldier was able in many occasions
able to kill the marine.

These are historical accounts from both sides
that I have compiled.

Thank you,

Maximilian

[Cady Goldfield]

Maximilian,

Not to be nitpicky, but I couldn't help noticing that your name is identical to that of the Austrian-born, Oscar-winning actor, Maximilian Schell. I admired his performance as the attorney for accused Nazis in "Judgement at Nuremburg," as well as his lesser roles in other movies such as "The Odessa Files." A fine and mannered actor to the core.

Were you named for him, or is this a nom de plume you have chosen to conceal your identity (from your perhaps conservative system/dojo as well as from us)?

As James said, the senior exponents here are all identified and we know with whom they have trained. Some have revealed their lineage at a cost, being from conservative systems that eschew public identification of ryu, teachers and exponents. If you choose to post opinions publically here, then it is a risk you too must make, to identify yourself and your source. Otherwise, perhaps it is best not to participate in recreational public forums.

[Chris Li]

Originally posted by Maximilian
Chris during WWII some of the most vicioushand to hand encounters happened in thePacific Theater. During this encountersit was noted that the japanese will attackwith the bayonet or confront a marinewithout hesitation.The effective unarmed capabilities of thejapanese infantryman led the occupationforces to ban the public practice of theMartial Arts in public venues. After allthey did not want the world to know thatan average japanese infantryman could beata well built 6 foot marine ina fast and furious encounter. In which thejapanese soldier was able in many occasionsable to kill the marine.These are historical accounts from both sidesthat I have compiled.Thank you,Maximilian

As I said, there is confusion on this issue even among Japanese. There 's a pretty good summary of the issue at http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~masaki-o/thesis3.html if you're interested. The short answer is that GHQ pressured the Ministry of Education to remove such things from the curriculum, and prohibited public competitions. There was no ban on private practice.

The reasons given in the Japanese press at the time were the military presentation of those arts. There may have been other reasons such as the ones you named above, but knowing what I know of American thinking and the history of the occupation I very much doubt it.

Maybe they eliminated Kyudo from the public school curriculum because they didn't want the world to know how deadly those medieval Japanese archers could be :) ?

Best,

Chris

[Meynard Ancheta]

Wow. This thread is still going...

Hey Maximilian, I didn't know that anyone can get an MBA in Philosophy. :confused:

Could you list the source of the accounts you have compiled? It might make interesting reading.

I personally knew/know several elderly Filipino gentlemen who were fighting against the Japanese and they don't seem to recall them quite as undefeatable as you described.

I doubt the average Japanese infantryman knew AJJ.

Maybe what we are dealing with are your own personal fantasies and delusions of grandeur.

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Max wrote: "The effective unarmed capabilities of the
japanese infantryman led the occupation
forces to ban the public practice of the
Martial Arts in public venues. After all
they did not want the world to know that
an average japanese infantryman could beat
a well built 6 foot marine in
a fast and furious encounter. In which the
japanese soldier was able in many occasions
able to kill the marine.



"These are historical accounts from both sides
that I have compiled. "

Max,
Please send me or post the historical accounts you mention. While I am in no way a historian I have studied and continue to study this era of history and to date I have not read much to support such claims. The Japanese infantryman was for the most part willing to attack and give his life with everything he had but I haven't seen anything to suggest the superiority you suggest. Actually the opposite, the poor supply lines into the south Pacific led to malnutrition, which led to physical weakness. As the war went on this increased. Anyway, I would sure like to read your references and learn more.

As for who you trained with and which style, I to would be interested. I was about to post such a request but James beat me to it. Many of us that participate on this forum and others have met or at least know about the others. Some have shied away from the opportunity when it was presented to them but we still know something about their background. James's question is reasonable and germaine since you initially claimed first hand knowledge of the subject matter. Your subsequent post has left me questioning if you have any experience outside of books. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated and helpful in understanding your perspective.

Like Cady I wonder if you have given your real name. This is important simply because those that hide behind false names have zero accountability for their posts and therefore frequently post inane material. I am not saying you have done so, you have not, just trying to understand for future discussions. Thanks.

Since I am being nosy I am also curious if English is your first language. Please don't be offended if it isn't, your language skills in English are far superior than anything I will ever accomplish in a second language.

mark

[MarkF]

Max (My brother and grandfather's name),
Let's just get to the route of it and say it is a rule at E-budo to sign one's post with one's full, real name. You may continue to do so manually, but it would be simpler to set the signature editor to do so for you. Once it is set as your default, you don't have to sign manually.

The others are correct in that you gain much more credebility by disclosing your name and your budo.


Mark

Max,

On your bio it says, karate, kobudo & aikido. Yet you post here some rather mighty bold talk concerning AJJ. You also make some bold statements about AJJ's purpose and effectivenmess during "Imperial Japan".

Humm? How can you make such a claim.

You were politely asked to identify your teacher.You instead eschewed providing us your qualifications to present your claims.

Where in Texas do you live? I'm curious, as I believe I am familiar with every legit AJJ instructor in Texas. Maybe there is somebody out there I'm not familiar with. If you're close by, is your dojo and sensei available to the public?

Toby Threadgill / Soryushin Dojo
Dallas, Texas

[Maximilian]

Gentlemen, my Aikido study comes from the Ki Society,
Karate from Goju-Ryu, and Kobodu from the same School.
Daito-Ryu was more or less acquired by watching Soke
Angier's videos. Need more practice.

As for my other credentialas they are academic as I
hail from Germany (West side that is). My interest
in oriental arts have brought me into doing more research
about it. As such I have access to documents and files that
most people do not have.

Many believe the japanese soldier was ineffective, not so,
many think they were not well supplied. Explain how a bunch of them escaped an island without being seen and so on.
I am merely seeking more information fact from what I read
As all of you in here have access to things. Another thing
is I am only visiting Texas not living here. And yes my
english is not very good as I speak german, italian, and
romanish. So forgive my grammar and language skills. Any
and all information will be appreciated, my apologies for
causing such a stir. And yes this my real name I would not
hide my identity.

I will be departing for Japan in about 2 weeks I have been here 6 month. Thank you and again my sincere apologies

Maximilian Schell:toast:

[Mark Jakabcsin]

Max,
Thank you for your clarificatioin post, it helps a great deal. I think your first post came off a little authoritative and strong, which I believe is what everyone was reacting too. Probably not what you intended but I can only imagine that conversing in a second or third language can lead to such a miscommunication. By the way, a very impress list of languages, I feel a little dim witted to be stuck with only one (and not very good at that one). Welcome to e-budo and best of luck in your travels and studies.

mark

[Meynard Ancheta]

:laugh: So basically you lied.

[Kit LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Maximilian
Gentlemen, my Aikido study comes from the Ki Society,
Karate from Goju-Ryu, and Kobodu from the same School.
Daito-Ryu was more or less acquired by watching Soke
Angier's videos. Need more practice.

As for my other credentialas they are academic as I
hail from Germany (West side that is). My interest
in oriental arts have brought me into doing more research
about it. As such I have access to documents and files that
most people do not have.



That about says it all.

I seriously doubt that you have access to documents regarding Japanese military history that professors Bodiford and Friday are not at least familiar with, or could not put in their proper historical light, they of course being not only budoka but doctors in Japanese history as well as academically reviewed and published.

The good doctors have gone a long way toward dispelling the popular historical notions, some of which you are repeating, about Japanese budo and martial arts history that seem to plague those with with marked enthusiasm, but less circumspection than is generally expected of folks claiming academic credentials.

I seriously doubt that after some Ki Aikido, and watching some videos of Don Angier, you are in any place to inform Toby Threadgill, James Williams, Ken Good, or several other direct students of Don Angier anything about Aikijujutsu.

I can tell you your comments about combat effectiveness strike a sour note with the Navy Seal, the SWAT team member, and the Military Pistol expert/tactical combatives trainer among the posters on this thread alone. Perhaps you have direct, extensive combative experience with the Aikijujutsu you saw on Angier's videos?

Y'see, Max, your contribution IS welcome. Just understand how much weight it will be given is in direct proportion to what you can demonstrate you actually DO know. Most of us can read a lot between the lines.

Don't think that you have some kind of learned perspective that will bring light to this bunch of ignorant budo barbarians. You are not impresssing anyone so far with what you think you "know," but you are indeed making a distinct impression with how you put it across.

BTW isn't the accepted modern academic reference ASIAN instead of ORIENTAL?

[R Erman]

Originally posted by Maximilian

Daito-Ryu was more or less acquired by watching Soke
Angier's videos. Need more practice.



When did Don Angier start putting out videos of Daito Ryu? From everything that I've read, or heard from his students, he is quite adamant about the Yanagi Ryu's distinct/separate history from the Daito Ryu. James, Toby, or Ken correct me in I'm wrong, but I believe Stanley Pranin said that only about 40 percent of the Yanagi Ryu seems to have a base, or common bond, in Daito Ryu.

Someone needs to get their story straight before they post to people in-the-know.

Cheers,

[Richard Elias]

He doesn't, never did. In fact all of the videos that have been produced by Don Angier are on weapons, and not as practiced by Daito ryu. The only tapes out on empty hand are bootlegs, and those put out by Tony Annesi, from seminars.

[Brently Keen]

Pardon me if I take the conversation back a page, I've been away for a little while, and all I can say is Dan, you sure nailed it in the thread that started with this comment:

"I think the conversations taken a left and gone way over the top."

I'm almost tempted to join the hug-fest now!

Having said that, my own experience is a little different than what some people have expressed. I have sparred on occasion, with some of my seniors as well as other non ajj practitioners, and I believe that experienced practitioners can and generally do control the delivery of their techniques quite well. It's the less experienced, less skilled, and/or occasional mean-spirited people that usually cause and/or recieve injuries.

Let me just say that while accidents and occasional injuries can and do happen while training, I don't think that should ever be the norm. Experienced practitioners and especially instructors ought not to frequently injure their training partners/students - I recommend staying away from dojo's that do. Each individual ought to take responsibility for their own safety as well as actions in this regard.

Real Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is completely foreign to most people's experience and even experienced martial artists and fighters are often surprised and completely taken off guard by it's sly effectiveness. "Don't dish out more than you can take" is good advice for newcomers. Ajj is best learned gradually.

Someone who is not familiar with ajj who attacks a skilled ajj practitioner in a committed all-out fashion, is liable to injure themselves unless they have a high enough level of sensitivity and expertise to match the intensity of their attack. A skilled practitioner should be able to deflect such an attack however, without injuring his opponent (imo). He may not be able to apply aiki in such a situation to control and/or defeat the attacker without injuring him (unless he's a real master).

I have had to do this on a number of occasions. Because of the relative skill of who I was training with in those instances, I sensed I could not apply aiki without the individual injuring himself so I had to "miss" so to speak just enough so that the angles and/or connection weren't quite precise - the result then is usually a deflection of the attack (enough to protect me), but not enough to decisively defeat or control my opponent, because no aiki was actually applied. (This is one reason I don't recommend sparring regularly because it encourages a lack of precision in order to prevent injuries.) I personally prefer to train for and practice the application of more precise movements and techniques.

There are instances then, when I'll intentionally swallow my pride and desire to "win" while training in order to protect my opponent from more serious injury. So, I'd say that I can generally control my techniques well enough that I don't injure whoever I'm "sparring with", as long as we're sparring in good faith, and the person is not truly malicious.

Frankly, I just don't have that great need to "prove" my skills by going around injuring people who are skeptical. If an individual isn't aware that I'm intentionally protecting them - and therefore thinks that my aiki isn't working all that well, I'll sometimes just hit them with atemi or some basic jujutsu technique and then explain that given the way they're coming at me, I don't even need to use aiki. If they're still skeptical, I just don't care what they think - they can just persist in their "ignorance" - it's their loss if they don't get it.

I'm generally looking for people with an open attitude and ability to discern things (at least a little) right away. Ajj is just not for everybody. Quite often though, people don't think you're being effective if you're not hurting them in some way, I usually don't care what these people think because typically, they are the kind that tend to hurt other people too. And I'm generally not too keen about facilitating their ability to do so. Why should I bother taking the time and effort to explain and show them any of the the finer points of ajj?

Since real fighting is another thing altogether (compared to sparring), I don't advocate or practice sparring on a regular basis - the mindset is just too different. In real situations you have to have NO qualms whatsoever about hurting your opponent(s), and you have to instinctively be able to apply aiki to control or defeat them without hesitation or reservation. You have to be simultaneously mentally/emotionally detached and yet physically and spiritually present and engaged in such a way that you can connect with your opponent(s) completely and appropriately in a decisive manner.

Having said that, if the opponent has not attacked in such a way to incapicitate himself at the outset - once aiki is applied, his position and ability to continue to attack would likely be compromised enough that the end result - or finishing move(s) would be left up to the choice and discretion of the ajj practitioner. I might add however, that I think few ajj practitioners these days really have the skills or ability to apply effective finishing techniques, probably because they aren't practiced or taught very frequently in most dojos.

Brently Keen

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Kit LeBlanc]

No disrespect to Otake sensei, but , say, someone like Sakakibara Kenkichi didn't seem to feel that way. According to Cameron Hurst it doesn't seem like the Tokugawa shogunate felt that way, either, when seeking more effective swordsmanship instructors as borne out by experience in combat.

I don't know about Otake sensei's actual combative experience, but between Sakakibara and his student Takeda Sokaku, who was also trained and experienced in a freesparring/taryu jiai manner, perhaps they had more?

Of course they are dead now so it is kind of a mute point.

I am firmly convinced this issue will never be resolved, that is, until we can all get together and try to kill each other and see who is left standing. The BJJ/JJJ thread in JUJUTSU just kicked off again, and the Oldest Koryu Jujutsu thread addresses many of the same things.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Dan Harden]

Nathan places some kindling on a well established fire

just came across an interesting reference regarding the subject of free-sparring in "deadly" arts. I figured I'd post it here to offer this viewpoint from someone who is more experienced, known and respected - and most importantly, to further annoy Dan!

*******************


Nathan Nathan
Do you play well with others? Thank goodness you have someone like me with a sweet and gentle nature to keep your volitile nature in check. I really need to talk with your mother.


Actually when presented with an arguement on why Kata is all thats needed I argue the benefits of freestyle. When told that the Kata training method is dead and useless I argue for Kata. And you can present well with either side. Your postulating that you would have to "pull" techniques in freestyle I would argue with. I find no trouble with using a shinai in almost any of the techniques. There are some displacing and winding techniques that work much better using a curve of a bokuto- even a mild one. That said most others work well. True that even with Bogu guys have been knocked on their asses from kiri-orishi and tsuki- and we have had severe bruising- but so what? What's the big deal with that?
Its all good
Cuts, kata, Shiai, Iai.

As an aside
Kit or Nathan-- Ever felt Shinto ryu? Get involved with a single kata sequence of 90 moves-at speed- and you may agree with Otake Sensei's point of view. Shinto ryu is very rational and pragmatic with much natural movement.
Anyway
Good, stressful Kata training in anything makes things happen automatically. The more stressful the better. That's what Kata are designed to do.
Some drive Piper-cub single engines "automatically"
Others F-15 Eagles.
Shinto Ryu simply works. I have felt other things-never been moved to want to change.
Any comments on freestyling with it are my own. In that format-it works quite well. Closing Maai for te-ura to the laces or okkachi-dachi to thighs, wrists or what have you makes the rationale ever apparent.
And with shinai no one gets hurt.
Were I ever going to give in on the freestyle arguement it would be with Shinto ryu. I believe its teaching method and tactics are that good. Of course that's just a personal opinion and there are many other gentlemen here with their own arts and opinions.
So freestyle needed?
Nope!
Fun?
Yup!

Dan
Jujutsu and knives is a whole other story.

[wmuromoto]

I gotta reply to Max's posts about the postwar ban on Japanese martial arts because it was so "deadly." With all due respect, I have to beg to differ.

The ban was primarily because SCAP thought (perhaps rightly so in a lot of cases) that such endeavors created a militaristic, fascist mentality in the Japanese public. So kendo and judo, because they were once required sports in public schools, were banned. They couldn't figure out karate and aikido, so they left them alone. SCAP also sent censors out to ban certain kabuki and noh plays that glorified militarism (such as the Chushingura), and books, etc. It wasn't so much the "deadliness" of the budo, although they did have a healthy respect for judo and a somewhat mystified concept of kendo. (Some aspects of judo were incorporated into US military training partly because of a match between a US judoka (Tamura) and a wrestler...it was written up by Joseph Svinth in Furyu).

The Butokuden in Kyoto was converted to a parking shed and then a dance hall, at that time.

The ban itself was kind of ill-ordered, with lots of exceptions. The police could practice martial arts, for example.

My own iai teacher said that they really, really wanted to practice kendo so a bunch of them simply drove out to the countryside, a few miles outside of town, where the GIs never ventured, and would do kendo during the ban. One day, a GI showed up and caught them practicing before they could hide their bogu. But he was the American military's local recreation supervisor, and he was mad about kendo and judo, so he offered them a deal. If they let him practice kendo with them, he'd fix it so they could do it in the open. How? He told his bosses that they were part of a troupe performing sword dances for "chanbara" style "samurai" shows and had to rehearse their bits.

Same with a person who was supposed to be a theater censor. He told me he was assigned to censor Japanese kabuki. He went to some shows, fell in love with kabuki, hung out with the actors and went drinking with them, and pretty soon, he was telling his superiors, hey, Chushingura is a love story! His bosses probably couldn't understand Japanese or they didn't go to the theater, so they let it pass.

In some ways, the cultural and literary ban overseen by sports crazy Americans who were interested in Japanese culture was a kind of tatemae farce perpetrated by both the Americans and Japanese. As long as the semblence of a ban was kept, it was okay on both sides. In other ways, it did eliminate a lot of the prewar excesses of training in judo and kendo. It used to be pretty brutal; and bullying, hazing and ijime were real problems in budo training before the Occupation. Still was, even up to the 90s, in some college clubs.

The fighting in the Pacific was brutal for various reasons, but not solely because, as Max says, the Japanese soldier was some kind of martial arts superhero. Most footsoldiers were brutally trained poor farmer's sons or middle or lower class draftees who did not have a lot of martial arts training. They were simply brutalized to fight hard, even stupidly, if you ask me. One veteran said that one common drill was to have the soldiers stand in two rows and then just keep on slapping each other in the face to make them tough.

I also heard (I'm not sure of this fact) that Japan was never a signatory to the Geneva Convention, so their army's wartime actions in the field of combat was really dependant on the intent of the CO in charge of operations sometimes. That said, it also led its own officers to treat their soldiers to a degee of sadistic brutality that was appalling. Faced with that kind of brutality (the same veteran said, "If I wasn't beaten at least once in a day by my sargeant, I thought something was wrong"), it is no wonder that the Japanese Army also committed atrocities in its Pacific and China theaters of war. Beat a dog all the time and he's going to bite somebody.

IMHO, however, there is a difference between brutality and martial capability. The Japanese Imperial Army recruit may have been a competent soldier, and at times under certain officers these soldiers performed acts of wanton cruelty, but that doesn't mean they were superior martial artists or vastly superior fighters. Less bound by the conventions of warfare, perhaps, but genetically gifted in martial arts? No. I'm living proof of this. I'm ethnically Japanese Okinawan, but until a round eyes and a Filipino became my karate instructors, I had no idea how to perform a Pinan kata. It wasn't in my blood.

What worries me, Max, is that your post hints at a kind of racial superiority on the part of the Japanese, possibly fed to you by some Japanese teachers. Perhaps this is unintentional, but Japanese are no more or less capable of being superior martial artists compared to anyone else.

That kind of thinking led to the Japanese military's gross miscalculation in thinking it could fight a holding war with the US and then gain enough strategic superiority to sue for peace. Militarists thought they had better "seishin" (spirit) that could defeat American industrial and numeric superiority. Seishin only goes so far. Then you need to have enough guns, ammo, bombs and food. Yes, the Japanese soldier was tenacious. So were the Russians, at times (especially when, as in the Battle of Stalingrad, their own officers shot them down if they retreated), so were the Americans at Iwo Jima, so were the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge, so were the British pilots at the Battle of Britain. American soldiers who faced them had a healthy respect for the Japanese soldier, yes. But I've heard American veterans (Nisei vets, actually; Japanese Americans who fought in Europe in some of the bloodiest fighting against some crack German paratroop korps) say the same thing about German soldiers: they were professionals, they fought hard, and you didn't want to underestimate them at all or you'd be dead.

I love Japanese budo and culture, Max, don't get me wrong. But they are human endeavors and are as flawed as anything else we human beings have devised. And remember: the Japanese military, in the final accounting, LOST to the US military, on the battlefield and in the hearts and minds of the average Japanese after the end of the War. While some nutty diehards who infest some reactionary wings of Japanese budo may have some loopy nationalistic attitudes about resurrecting the glory of Imperial Japan, most Japanese would rather not go back to those bad old days. They're too happy with McDonalds and their vacations to Hawaii and California, and their sale of goods to us to give all that up. Plus, we still make the best movies and prime time TV shows. I doubt that Machiko chan in Harajuku would give up her posters of Tom Cruise and Britanny Spears to take up martial arts and join a new Imperial Army. Thank God.


Yours with respect,

Wayne Muromoto

[wmuromoto]

For the sake of historical accuracy,

I was being facetious about the chushingura story. The person I interviewed didn't really say it was a love story. He basically winked at its possible feudalistic tendencies because he loved its storyline and let it pass through his censorship ruling. A small point, but on second thought, I wanted to clarify this.

Wayne Muromoto

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Tom Douglas]

I really wanted to applaud Mr. Muramoto's post responding to Maximilian's Japanese-jingoistic meanderings. It's great to see him back in the swing of writing again (the same for Ellis Amdur's insightful contributions as well). Other than disagreeing with him that America produces the best movies (although we do tend to elect consummate actors to political office, the immediate past president coming to mind), I appreciate his refreshing insight into the realities of WW2 for Japanese (and all) soldiers.

Thanks.

[James Williams]

Wayne,

Excellent post.

James

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[wmuromoto]

Tom Douglas wrote (snips):

" Other than disagreeing with him that America produces the best movies (although we do tend to elect consummate actors to political office, the immediate past president coming to mind).."

What? You mean the Three Stooges never won an academy award?

On the subject:
I've been bounced around by the two different martial arts types of practitioners all my life; the "free sparring" guys and the kata geiko guys, and the only difference I can see is the kata geiko guys have more ways to dump me on my behind even if I resisted. I tend to think it's not an either/or but an either/and/or decision for the individual nowadays. Some people get really good from jiyu geiko, others prefer kata geiko. Personally, I would not want to take my chances against someone like a Jon Bluming or Donn Draeger when they were in their judo prime no matter how much kata training I ever had. On the other hand, at my age, I really can't do much of free sparring any more before something gets twisted out of whack. So...

And thanks, Nathan for the note. I am meeting with some people here who have said they are going to help me get my magazine back in gear...I needed a whole heck of a lot of time to get my head back in shape due to personal problems, and some professional therapy, just to let you know...

Wayne Muromoto

Wayne Muromoto

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Hissho]

Excellent post, Nathan, I would split hairs with you on one or two things, but by and large you make a very good point.

[Eric Joyce]

Eric Joyce posted the following off-topic question in the following thread:

Aikijujtusu vs Aikido (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42130&page=10)



This thread contains a lot of commentary on this subject, but let me add a bit more to it that hopefully is not repetitive.

Though kata is basically a teaching tool, some of the what it is taught is training and conditioning in proper body movement, distancing, timing, blocks, and attacks. Increasing the intensity, speed, and power in a kata (at the appropriate point in training) against an increasingly uncooperative opponent is necessary at some point in developing effective methods. Also beneficial is limited free-style exchanges incorporated into a given kata, or spontaneous variations based on a kata. One of the most important aspects of correct kata training though is to create a realistic *mindset* and control of energy, breathing, and physical condition. Most people when confronted with a real threat begin to breath rapid and shallow, and tense up both physically and mentally. These are some seriously negative conditions that a trained martial artist trains to condition themselves against. In kata, you try to sink into a zone where you believe (more or less) that you are actually engaged in a life threatening conflict. This is an extremely important and useful conditioning tool for real life encounters if trained correctly.

The problem with shiai training is it greatly reduces the perceived threat level, and becomes a mindset of working within the rules of the competition to win. Another problem is engaging in shiai before becoming highly skilled at the kata will cause the exponent to fall back on old habits when things aren't working in their favor, such as using only muscle, speed, and/or weight. This becomes counter-productive to the conditioning found in kata. Also, techniques must be changed to be more safe during shiai, and rules must be established so nobody gets hurt. These can also ingrain bad habits, since you "do as you train". Furthermore modern shiai encourages a Western strategy of "vying for position and opportunity", rather than the more Japanese strategy of setting the opponent up to lose due to a decisive action. So now you are mixing two opposing strategies as well.

Mixing kata training with some degree of free-style exchange (at the appropriate times, and in the appropriate amount) seems to me to be the best of both worlds. But structured competition mixed with kata appears to be the worst combination. The more rules there are, the more misguided the "combative" mindset becomes.

For those that are kata purists, and wish to verify their training method is correct and techniques effective, there is really only one way to find out. Fight. Not in a controlled atmosphere, but in a situation in which there is a clear threat to life, or serious bodily injury. This will provide the the kata exponent with honest attacks, and honest reactions.

I've heard of some going to bars and picking fights with drunks to test themselves, but this seems to me to be the least ethical method. There are, however, professions and details in which one can place themselves in situations in which their abilities can be tested on a regular basis: military, military contractor, police, federal agencies (US Marshals, ICE, DEA, FBI, Border Patrol, etc.), bouncing, security, any position in which one interacts with the violently mentally ill, and even loss prevention agents (subduing shop lifters). Even if you study a weapon art, the most important parts of a real conflict (IMO) do not involve the weapon anyway.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting budo-ka go pick fights with the general public, but rather, for those who wish to be "kata purists" AND develop practical skills, to consider professions or side-jobs in which such conflicts are sometimes unavoidable. Technically, there is no better (legal) feedback! Those who study with teachers who have tested their skills can often walk away with pretty effective methods themselves (based on the teacher's experiene), but when it comes down to it, there is no substitute for direct experience. Such testing need not be a life-long career choice - just at least long enough to provide well-rounded feedback (IMO).

It is true that those who embrace shiai tend to develop better practical skills than those who embrace kata these days, but my personal opinion is that this is not due to a superiority in shiai practice as much as it is a neglect of proper kata training combined with real world testing.

Hope this helps clarify my point of view better,


Hi Nathan,

Thanks for the quick reply. I understand what your saying, but doesn't Judo kinda do this with the appropriate amount of balance between: kata, randori and shiai? I know Judo has become very sport oriented and follows certain rules in competition, but certainly the strategy of vying for position and opportunity can shift to finishing the opponent in one decisive action during a combat situation. The key is how well the judokas are trained to handle the stress of combat (in randori or shiai) in order for them to execute that "practical kata" we were discussing previously.

[Hissho]

Eric

Yes and no.

As a judoka, I can attest that judo training is an excellent base for combatives. Combined with kata, and realistic combative training, it is perhaps among the best out there for a practical, realistic, and adaptable art. Nothing in the martial arts I have experienced has mimicked the pace and dynamic of a real world hand to hand fight as judo shiai. I would take a purely sport focussed judoka over a purely kata trained classical martial artist or "modern combatives" type as my backup any day of the week.

Position is critical in close combat. "Position before submission" is true of Judo, BJJ, as well as armed combatives with weapons in the mix. Judo, though not directly addressing this, trains many fundamentals that are directly applicable.

That being said, shiai exists for shiai's sake, and it ingrains very bad habits among many judoka who simply do not see it as primarily a combative art. Depending upon the judoka, and his ability to see beyond the competition mat, this could have deleterious effects on "real world" fighting ability.

I have met both types on the judo mat. Some of the best competitors are the best "real world" fighters I have ever met, and have proven it.

I sometimes wonder what judo would be had Kano been a professional soldier or police officer rather than an educator. In some ways it would be very different. In others, I think the most important ones, it would be the same.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Hissho]

[b]

Nah, it isn't worth it. And I'm beginning to think Dan was right. God help me, but I found myself agreeing with him.:)
*****

BTW: Kit, when I was a kid, believe it or not, I wanted to enter the academy, but the height minimum was 5'7."

But then, the other side was much more fun in those days so I don't feel too bad about it.:kiss:

Your buddy,

Mark

Sorry for the interlude, but re-reading through the old posts and wanted to bump this one. Made me chuckle again.

Rest in Peace, Mark.

[Eric Joyce]

Hi Kit and Nathan,

I just re-read some of the old posts (thanks for the quote from MarkF (RIP). Great amount of information which I will read in more detail tonight. Good discussion too :)

[drmarc]

I would strongly recommend the following book:

Karate and Ki: The Origin of Ki- The depth of Thought. Kenji Ushiro

This book specifically addresses issues related to Kata. Nathan's position would be elaborated and expanded.

Respectfully,

Marc Abrams

[lucky1899]

As an add to Dr. Abrams, the book also notes sparring is part of practice at Shindo Ryu dojo and describes how kata came through in sparring for Ushiro Sensei.

Andrew De Luna

[drmarc]

Andrew:

Ushiro Sensei has a logical progression from kata, bunkai kumite (moves from kata in sparring situations) to kumite. He is a strong advocate that if you cannot apply what you learn to kumite then you are not doing something right. The interesting thing is that training under him has made my application of Aikido much improved and capable of being utilized with strikers.

Marc Abrams

[David Slocombe]

I would like to respond to Meynards challenge. First, let me point out that Soke Angiers’ curriculum is completely based on old school techniques. Don has not changed his style since first being taught by Kenji. Believe me when I say that I have tried to elicit change. For a long time, I wanted Don to reverse the first list and get the guys up to speed with hands, feet, and the ground work portions of the curriculum. He sat me down one day and told me that if I wanted to teach my ‘stuff’, I was more than welcome to teach it any way I chose. But, he went on to say, that he started from the beginning in order to build a foundation necessary for what would come later. He felt that if students started their training incorrectly,the foundation for weapon work would fail. It’s difficult to work on one technique ad nauseam, or practice rolling till you bleed, but that is the price one pays for later perfection.

Students with a small amount of training, those that are young and of whole body, want the challenge to perform more technically advanced work. However, they lack the technical training and ability, or patience. In reality, if a student had trained in these systems adhering to the original design structure, they would have started rolling and falling as a child, competently acquiring the basics as a teenager, and training many hours a day. If a student is only training twice a week in the evening, to accomplish the basic technical moves takes a much longer amount of time.

The style of Aikijujitsu that Soke Angier teaches, as James discussed,is a weapons-based system . Soke Angier spent many years as an undercover police officer, working with every imaginable bad element found on the streets. This gave him the unique opportunity to determine firsthand which strategies and techniques were successful, and which needed revision. From this he learned to stick to his own convictions; play his own game. Never, ever get sucked into playing your opponents game. Soke Angier had the basic concept that your hands were made to facilitate tool usage. He felt you should have plenty of tools, be proficient at using them, and know their capability.

Now, to address the issue of open competition. If weapons were used, it would be more in line with the strategic conditions of Yanagi Ryu. Some, but not all of Soke Angiers students have trained in the submission styles and MMA. Some came to the school I ran in Glendale. There were a number of high ranking practitioners of Jujitsu, some from Gene Labells, others from the new MMA groups that were just getting starting.

I firmly believe that people need to be in tune to the current trends in both sport and competition martial training. I applaud the current direction and evolution of the MMA and the resurgence of quality Jujitsu. It brings to the forefront credibility in all aspects of what hand- to-hand conflict can be. Keep in mind, however, this current trend toward hand-to-hand was not used as a primary method historically.

Whether in Europe or Asia, everyone carried multiple weapons. If one was to be successful, training required practicing with a variety of weapons. If you take a look at the the older systems of training that are weapons- based, you quickly realize that sticking out an arm or a leg was ill advised. Damage was usually severe.

Aikijujitsu is a weapons-based system, primarily, with its curriculum developing students’ core movements based on body mechanics. No matter how monotonous and repetitious it might seem at the beginning, ultimately you progress to proficiently in the fundamentals of Aikijujitsu.

Aikijujitsu as taught by Soke Angier is a well principled curriculum, complete with all the disciplines one would expect in a martial system. Having that said, he and his students don’t mind “mixing it up;” the end results might be different than you’d expect. For instance, how about a sharp, pointy item piercing an artery or some other target of opportunity as a primary strategy, instead of just “punching it out.” Like I said, Don likes to mix it up with some nasty “in fighting” just for fun now and then.

I hope I have corrected the misconception that the beginning curriculum; the joint and body manipulation; is not the primary objective but a tool to build the body mechanics necessary for further instruction and a better foundation for the core of the system. As I’ve stated, it is indeed just a tool to cement the foundation necessary for the advanced principles.

Toby. Why is it that out of all of us old guys I am the one without any hair? Perhaps I looked into the mirror to much.

Respectfully to all....

One mans opinion.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[Finny]

BTW isn't the accepted modern academic reference ASIAN instead of ORIENTAL?



Yes. Oriental is considered... distasteful, particularly since the introduction of E. Said's famous text - "Orientalism"

[Richard Elias]

FWIW...

It should be noted that Meynard was only training with Angier sensei for about 2-3 years before he started going to Tim’s. That’s barely getting the basics in body control. Especially since the whole first year is mostly ukemi and solo exercises. It didn’t surprise me at all that they wiped the mat with him, he was just really a beginner at the time. He felt that his technique should work against any opponent, regardless. Rules or no rules he said it should be able to adapt. (Incidentally, I went to observe the training there with him once and they imposed a lot of rules including no dynamic locks, digit locks, and several types of strikes were prohibited… all things basic to Yanagi ryu) When he failed he basically blamed the art and the training, rather than himself.

Barely having a grasp of the basics and then trying to pit techniques you haven’t “mastered” against people doing a completely different system with a different set of assumptions in their training is premature regardless of what style you do.

Put a BJJ guy outside against a teenage girl with comparable training in naginata and I’d put my money on the girl.

You can’t expect to do well when you are taken out of your element, especially when you are a beginner. On the same token, if, after a respectable amount of time training you are so single-minded that you cannot adapt your art to whatever you encounter then you deserve the wake-up call. But rather than change systems take what you’ve learned out of the box and see what it can do. It is called jujutsu after all.

[Nathan Scott]

[Post deleted by user]

[john_lord_b3]

as always, great deal of information to digest and to think about.. more reasons to go Kata & Ohyo training. Thank you very much Scott sensei et al. I will certainly utilize all the information I can get for my next article!