Ave atque vale Wally Jay

Ave atque vale is latin for hail and farewell. Wally Jay, internationally renown jujutsu master, passed away on 29 May 2011. He was 93. A good innings by anyone's standard, and a quality innings at that.

I had the good fortune of meeting Wally Jay. The photograph above is of Wally Jay and myself at the end of a seminar he conducted in England in the early 1990s.

In a previous blog, I wrote about the cognitive sciences suggesting that the core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. While I may not have learnt a lot about jujutsu from Jay's seminar, I did take a great deal away from the experience through the identification of similarities and differences.

Wally Jay and Jan de Jong were similar in that they had a great depth of knowledge and experience in the martial arts. They were similar in that they were held in great esteem, not only for their knowledge and experience, but also for their compassion and humility. They both treated the beginner and the advanced student equally. They both had a genuine love of teaching.

Wally Jay and Jan de Jong were different from so many others in the martial arts for the very same reasons they were similar to each other. While humility and compassion are often stated as being 'destinations' that martial arts training is suppose to lead us to, many obviously fail to complete the journey. Wally Jay and Jan de Jong stood out from the crowd because they were genuinely compassionate and humble. They genuinely had a love of teaching, and didn't do it for egotistical, status, or for financial reasons.

Wally Jay and Jan de Jong are good examples of 'best practice' that we could all benefit from by comparing ourselves against and identifying similarities and differences in order to become better people.

After Wally Jay's seminar, I consciously compared his efforts to those of Jan de Jong in order to reap the benefits of the lessons the comparision promised. Wally Jay conducted world tours. Jan de Jong conducted tours of Western Europe and Australia. What was the reason for the difference in the geographic scope of their tours? One of the reasons is that Wally Jay published a couple of books on his jujutsu. They are not big books, and they are not great books. They did have a relative uniqueness in that there were not many books published on jujutsu at that time. They also had a relative uniqueness in that some thought had gone into the theory behind the tactics and techniques of his 'small circle theory'. Most, then and now, simply teach a collection of tactics and techniques. Jigoro Kano's development of Kodokan Judo is the 'poster child' for the benefits that theory offers the martial arts. Wally Jay developed his small circle theory that defined his jujutsu. Jan de Jong taught his tactics by dividing them into three phases (albeit unwittingly): bodymovement-unbalancing-technique.

Jan de Jong did not publish any books. Not for the want of my urging let me tell you. He felt that people would not 'need' him if they had a book of his. And he did love his teaching, particularly teaching in Europe. I could not change his mind with regards to publishing a how-to book on his jujutsu. It has to be noted however, that the last time I saw Jan de Jong, he expressed an interest in my work in writing a how-to book on his jujutsu and wanted to contribute to the project. I believe that if he had published a how-to book on his jujutsu, he would have been conducting world tours, just like Wally Jay.

While I was living in London in the early 1990s, I was invited to headline a seminar celebrating a significant milestone in the school of Wim Mallens in Rotterdam, Holland. I had been to many seminars in England and Europe. I'd assisted Jan de Jong on many seminars in England, Europe and Australia. I'd been teaching in Australia since 1985. But I knew I could still learn something by identifying the similarities and differences between teaching/seminar methods.

One thing I learnt was that Wally Jay and Jan de Jong had a 'hook'. People went away from their seminars feeling as though it was time and money well spent. They taught a relatively unique technique that could be 'mastered' during the seminar and the effects/benefits were demonstrably obvious. Wally Jay did it with finger techniques. Apply a force to someone's fingers to move them towards, but not beyond, their range of motion and pain is experienced by that person forcing them to 'tap off'. Jan de Jong did the same, but with a unique twist (pun intended). He taught, among other things, yoko tekubi hineri (side wrist twist). Some refer to it as a 'z' wrist twist. There is a subtly to the technique that once known and applied increases the effectiveness of the technique (the pain experienced) by an appreciable magnitude. Demonstrate the technique and the seminar participants do a reasonable facsimile with mediocre results. Demonstrate the subtle aspect, and wow! People are dropping like flies.

It's a seminar technique. It's something I learnt from Wally Jay and Jan de Jong. It's something I learnt by identifying the similarities and differences between Wally Jay and Jan de Jong, and other martial arts 'masters'.

Ave atque vale Wally Jay. And a belated ave atque vale to Jan de Jong. Giants, upon whose shoulders I strive to stand.

http://www.smallcirclejujitsu.com/2011/05/professor-wally-jay-dies-aged-93/).

Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods

In my last blog, I explained how Kano looked for a universal theory of jujutsu techniques that applied at all times in every situation. I also explained that the 'theory' or 'principle' he ultimately came up with was not so much a universal theory or underlying principle of all jujutsu techniques, but came to be the universal theory and underlying principle of the techniques he selected for his judo. The blog then went on to suggest that I'd identified the mechanical concept of force as being the universal theory or underlying principle of all physical techniques in every martial art. I explained that the next few blogs would test the veracity of this very broad claim.

The last blog introduced my veracity argument. A former student, with a great intellectual capacity, was kind enough to provide some feedback. She wrote that she 'was surprised to find how clear and understandable your biomechanical explanation is.' I've chosen not to take umbrage to her 'surprise' at my abilities or application of biomechancial principles to illuminate martial arts methods. She went on to write, 'What isn't clear to me yet, though, is whether your explanation is too broad. But then, I suppose you have an entire book to go over how useful it is as an explanation.'

In response to her last comment; no, I don't have an entire book to go over how useful it is as an explanation. The book I'm currently working on is regarding injury science and the science of pain and how these sciences can, and do, facilitate the understanding and study of the physical techniques taught within the martial arts and used in violence generally. The chapter where the subject of force is introduced is intended to show that while injury is defined by injury science in terms of tissues being exposed to physical energy in excess of their tolerance levels, many others conceive of injury in terms of force being absorbed in excess of tissue tolerance levels. I then go on to reconcile the two mechanical concepts of kinetic energy and force and show how both are involved in the injury process and how both illuminate different aspects of physical techniques taught by the marital arts or used in violence generally.

But force is an important topic. One that facilitates the understanding and study of every physical method taught within the martial arts or used in violence generally. I don't have a book planned to explore this all important subject. It is obviously included to a certain degree in my book, Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques of ALL Martial Arts, but only with respect to a subsection of martial arts methods. It doesn't really have a place in my as yet un-named planned book on 'the stress process', or 'the evolved response to threats, challenges, and harm.' I was attempting to verify the veracity of, what the abovementioned students appreciated, this very broad claim. I was attempting to do so in the abovementioned chapter, but, it didn't really fit in with the subject of the chapter. It wasn't an 'interesting' side note; it distracted the reader from the subject of the chapter. The other morning I awoke with the answer. Put it in an appendix and do justice to the subject. This is what often happens. After working for days on an issue, I awake with the answer.

The abovementioned student kindly referred to the clarity of my argument. I constantly work on that aspect of my writing. After working on the veracity argument, I've discarded the Sun Tzu and Arabian proverb references (at least initially). While poetic, they are unnecessary. So, lets start again. Here is the first small section of my veracity argument in Appendix 1: Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods.

Note: Ubiquitous means 'present, appearing, or found everywhere.' Aka Kano's universal theory that applies at all times in every situation.

Appendix 1
Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods

Forces are ubiquitous within the martial arts and physical violence. Forces are involved in every physical method taught within every martial art and used in violence generally. They are the principle driving 'force' behind the development of all the physical methods taught within every martial art. If these statements are true, it stands to reason that an understanding of forces provides an insight into all the physical methods taught within every martial art or used in violence generally. Let’s take a look at the veracity of this very broad claim.

Balance
The father of modern-day combative, Colonel Rex Applegate (1976), suggests there are a number of fundamental principles in hand-to-hand combat and the most basic fundamental of all is that of balance. He suggests that 'physical balance must be retained by the attacker and destroyed in the opponent' (1976, 11) . The internationally-renowned Japanese master of Shotokan karate, Masatoshi Nakayama, states in the very first line in the very first chapter of his now classic text, Dynamic Karate: 'If the body lacks balance and stability, offensive and defensive techniques will be ineffective' (1966, 23). Balance must be retained by the attacker in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques, and balance must be destroyed in the opponent so they cannot execute effective offensive and defensive techniques.

In Sport Mechanics for Coaches, Carr defines balance as, 'the ability of an athlete to control his movements for a particular purpose' (2004, 222). In this case the athlete is the combatant and the particular purpose is the execution of effective offensive and defensive techniques. Carr explains that 'athletes with great balance are able to neutralise those forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances' (2004, 98). What are the forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances? He explains that the enemy the athlete must fight in order maintain their balance is any external force: 'Gravity, friction, air resistance, and forces applied against them by opponents can all destroy their performance' (2004, 98). The enemy the combatant fights in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques is any external force – gravity, friction, and forces applied against them by opponents. Ways and means have been developed to neutralise these forces that threaten to compromise a combatant's ability to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques. Ways and means have been developed to utilise these forces to compromise an opponent's ability to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques.


Reaction Forces
One of the enemies the combatant must fight to maintain their balance in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques are the forces applied against them by opponents. These forces include both action and reaction forces. Recall from chapter two that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a force is applied to an opponent when executing an offensive or defensive technique, an equal and opposite reaction force from the opponent is experienced. Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996) advise in Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement that the reaction force on the body must be anticipated when a force is applied to a body. Applying this idea to the martial arts, Watkins suggests in An Introduction to Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise: 'The boxer needs to ensure that he has adequate stability so that he can apply a large force without losing his balance as a result of the equal and opposite force exerted on his fist' (2007, 30). Nakayama provides the same advice with respect to karate techniques: 'All parts of the body must harmonise to provide the stability necessary to sustain the shock of delivering a kick or punch' (1966, 15). Kanazawa (2006), 10th dan founder of Shotokan Karate-do International Federation, follows suit when he explains that stances which are not performed properly leave the body unprepared for the reaction that accompanies an attack. Ways and means have been developed within the martial arts to deal with the reaction forces experienced when executing offensive and defensive techniques.

Notes:
1. I won't include the details of the references in this blog. Please contact me if you'd like the details.

2. Within my work, I incorporate numerous references. I do not have the credentials to make certain claims or to support certain arguments, so, I support these claims and arguments with references to authoritative sources.

3. My work is also aimed, as my MBA was described to me as being aimed, at using theory and research to inform practice. Hence, frequent reference to biomechanical authorities is made. These biomechanists 'flirt' with the martial arts, and there is a lot of flirting going on, its just that the practitioners never get to reap the benefits of this flirtation - until now.

4. Two of my heroes are Kano and Nakayama. In their books they flirt with mechanics to facilitate the understanding and study of certain aspects of their martial art. Kano, the original martial arts biomechanist, uses the concept of forces to explain kuzushi. Nakayama uses force-related concepts of balance and stability to explain stances and footwork, or ways of moving. Jan de Jong also flirted with mechanics when he'd ask 'what are the forces involved in a particular joint-locking technique' in his jujutsu theory gradings. It is these giants upon whose shoulders I'm attempting to stand in order to see further.

5. I received a phone call last night from a former fellow student who is a keen martial arts practitioner and aficionado. While she was very interested in my work and applying science to understand and study the methods of the martial arts, when it came down to the specifics of applying mechanics to understand and study these methods, she was 'unconvinced'. This is a common response I've received to my work. She, and others, suggest that my explanation of certain methods in terms of mechanical forces is 'my opinion' which she and they, amicably, disagreed with. 'My opinion' is based on the irrefutable laws of nature. I don't have an 'opinion' in this regard. The laws of nature are what they are. For instance, the force of gravity and its effects on bodies and objects is not my opinion. I am constantly astounded at the resistance that experienced and knowledgeable martial arts practitioners put up to having their concepts and explanations of techniques clarified (and sometimes corrected) with the use of the concepts of science. Interestingly enough, I also note the same martial arts practitioners often refer to 'science' (often poorly conceived) to explain the 'why' of their 'how-to' instruction in order, presumably, to increase the depth of their how-to instruction. I perversely enjoy these conversations as they direct me to the areas that I should direct my 'controversial' work. The areas that will most challenge the experienced and knowledgeable martial arts practitioners.

6. I watched a program this week on fractal geometry, a subject which I have the minutest of knowledge about. Interestingly, the program was about how fractal geometry was being used to better understand and study a vast array of natural phenomena. They showed how fractal geometry was being used to better understand and study the rhythms of the human heart, and they tellingly suggested, this science provided a 'deeper understanding then ever before.' Not a bad introduction to my books.

7. The next blog concerning my veracity argument will look at how forces are responsible for the stances taught within every martial art. This will be followed by how forces are responsible for the methods of motion that have been developed within the martial arts, unbalancing (kuzushi), the principles of ju and ai, throwing techniques, takedown techniques, joint-locking techniques, percussion techniques, and strangulation techniques (shime waza).

8. You might check out SueC's latest blog (kickasssuec.blogger.com) and her explanation of the use of the term 'art' to describe the martial 'arts'. Very insightful if I do say so myself.

Forces are ubiquitous within the martial arts and violence generally. An understanding of forces provides a deeper understanding of these methods than ever before.

PS: Feedback is gratefully appreciated and invaluable in the writing of my books.

Understanding All Physical Techniques

In the previous blog we looked at Kano's search for an underlying principle of all jujutsu techniques, or a universal theory that applies at all times in every situation. It could be argued that Kano's result applies only to the techniques of his judo and is of questionable practical value in understanding and studying these techniques.

Is there a concept that can be used to understand and study all physical techniques taught within the martial arts and used in violence generally? I concluded the previous blog by suggesting there is.

In Fundamentals of Biomechanics, Ozkaya and Nordin (2010) explain that 'a force acting on an object can deform the object, change its state of motion, or both.'

The Committee for Trauma Research (1985), in Injury in America: A Continuing Health Problem, provide the following explanation of what causes injuries from impacts: 'Impact injuries of the human body occurs by deformation of tissues beyond their failure limits, which results in damage to anatomic structures or alteration in function.' Note the reference to deformation. Forces can deform a body or object, therefore, forces can cause injuries.

The four basic types of tissue are epithelial (e.g. skin), muscle, connective (e.g. tendons, bones, and ligaments), and nervous tissue. Forces can cause the deformation of all these tissues, and an injury will result if the deformation is beyond their failure limits.

The deformation does not necessarily have to result in injury. An understanding of the effects of loads (external forces) on tissues is illustrated in a load-deformation curve. As loads are applied to tissues they deform to varying degrees. Hall (2007) explains in Basic Biomechanics that 'if the force applied causes the deformation to exceed the structure's yield point or elastic limit, ... some amount of deformation is permanent. Deformations exceeding the ultimate failure point produce mechanical failure of the structure, which in the human body means fracturing of bone or rupturing of soft tissues.'

As the applied forces deform a tissue towards its yield point, pain is often experienced even though injury does not result. Joint-locking techniques (kansetsu waza) are techniques where the joint is moved towards but not necessarily beyond their range of motion to deform the joint tissues and inflict pain without damaging the affected tissues.

Changing the state of motion is referred as acceleration in mechanics. Acceleration is a term used in mechanics that has a definite meaning which differs from its everyday use. McGinnis (2005) provides a very accessible explanation of acceleration in Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise: 'Mechanically speaking, something accelerates when it starts, stops, speeds up, slows down, or changes direction.' Mechanical speaking, acceleration includes everyday acceleration, deceleration, and changes in direction. A force is something that can cause a body or an object to start, stop, speed up, slow down, or change direction.

In Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement, Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996) suggest:

Because forces account for the motion and changes of motion of all things in the environment, including the body and the body segments, it is important for the movement specialist to understand what forces are and how we can picture them as they are applied to or by a body. The visualisation of forces ... is a necessary skill for professionals in sports medicine, physical therapy, exercise evaluation and prescription, work safety programs, and teachers and coaches.

Forces not only account for the changes in motion of all things in the environment, including the body and the body segments, they also account for the changes in shape, or deformation, of all things in the environment, including the body and the body segments.

When you think about every physical technique taught in every martial art and used in violence generally, you will find that they are designed to cause a change in the motion of an opponent and/or to deform their tissues. In addition, there are other techniques or methods that are designed to avoid having our motion changed and/or our tissues deformed.

Because forces account for all changes in motion and deformation of all things in the environment, an understanding of what forces are and how we can picture them as they are applied to or by a body or object can facilitate the understanding and study of all physical martial arts techniques and those used in violence generally.

The absolute beauty of using the mechanical concept of force to understand and study these techniques is that it is a very simple concept to understand and apply - very simple. For more details you'll have to purchase a copy of the books I'm writing.

The next few blogs will demonstrate the veracity of the rather expansive claim that every physical technique taught in the martial arts and used in violence generally is designed to cause a change in the motion of an opponent and/or to deform their tissues.

Lets wet your appetite a little by referring to the father of modern-day combatives, Col. Rex Applegate. In Kill or Get Killed (1976), he wrote that there a number of fundamental principles in hand-to-hand combat and the most basic fundamental of all is that of balance. He instructs that 'physical balance must be retained by the attacker and destroyed in the opponent.' The 1971 U.S. Army’s close combat manual, Combatives FM 21-150, commercially reproduced under the title Deal the First Deadly Blow (n.d.), follows suit and suggests the hand-to-hand fighter needs to understand balance in two important aspects: (1) how to strengthen and maintain his balance during a struggle, and (2) how to exploit the weakness of the enemy's balance to his advantage.

What is balance? Carr (2004) explains in Sport Mechanics for Coaches, that 'balance implies coordinate and control. Athletes with great balance are able to neutralise those forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances.' He identifies the enemy the athlete fights to maintain balance is any external force: 'Gravity, friction, air resistance, and forces applied against them by opponents can all destroy their performance.'

The legendary karate master, Masatoshi Nakayama, wrote that 'if the body lacks balance and stability, offensive and defensive techniques will be ineffective' (Dynamic Karate 1966). We want to retain, maintain, and strengthen balance in ourselves so our offensive and defensive techniques will be effective. The enemies of balance, external forces, threaten our balance and the effective execution of offensive and defensive techniques. Sun Tzu, in strategy classic The Art of War, suggests that 'if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.' Methods have been developed within the martial arts to retain, maintain, and strengthen balance by neutralising disruptive forces. Knowing the enemy in this case means knowing something about disruptive forces. This knowledge can facilitate the understanding and study of these methods and increase our odds of success in battle.

We want the opponent's body to lack balance and stability so their offensive and defensive techniques are ineffective. We want to destroy balance in our opponent or exploit the weakness in their balance to our advantage.An Arabic proverb states, 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Methods have been developed within the martial arts to destroy an opponent's balance and exploit the weakness in their balance. The enemy of balance is any external force, thus, external forces that disturb balance is our friend when engaged in combat with an opponent. Extending Sun Tzu's advice, knowing the enemy of our enemy, external forces, can facilitate the understanding and study of these methods and increase our odds of success in battle.

In the next blogs we will look at specific classes of techniques and methods taught within the martial arts.

'Universal Theory That Applies At All Times In Every Situation'

I'll share with you what I wrote yesterday.

I was struggling with presenting an idea that can facilitate the understanding and study, and teaching, of all physical techniques taught within all martial arts and used in violence generally. I'd been struggling with this for a number of days, deleting the previous days work over and over again. Then Jigoro Kano came to my rescue. He is - 'The Man'. He didn't always get it right; but he asked the right questions. Sometimes, he is one of the six blind men of Indostan attempting to describe an elephant they have never seen before: 'Though each was partly in the right,and all were in the wrong!' But Kano is one of the giants upon whose shoulders I am attempting to stand to see further. And what a giant he was. I may not be a fan of his judo, but I am most definitely a fan of the way he thought.

Kano encountered difficulties when he first started studying jujutsu:

In my youth I studied jujutsu under many eminent masters. … At that time, each man presented his art as a collection of techniques. None perceived the guiding principle behind jujutsu. When I encountered differences in the teaching of techniques, I often found myself at a loss to know which was correct. (1986: 16)

Kano refers to one teacher who 'did not teach me anything about what principles were involved, or how to apply those principles' (2005: 46). What one teacher taught differed from what another taught and he found 'there was no basis upon which to decide which one was correct' (2005: 46). This situation does not sound all that dissimilar to the martial arts being taught today.

Kano went in search of an underlying principle that explains all jujutsu technique: 'one that applied when one hit an opponent as well as when one threw him' (1986: 16). He first looked to the expression ju yoku go o seisu, which can be translated as 'softness controls hardness' (2005). The name jujutsu, he suggests, was derived from this expression. Ju means gentleness or giving way and jutsu means art, so jujutsu can be translated as 'the art of giving way', with the implication of first giving way to ultimately gain victory (1986). Kano refers to this as the 'theory of ju yoku go o seisu' (2005). However, Kano also found that the theory of ju yoku go o seisu could not always explain things. He refers to the example of an opponent grabbing a person’s wrists who then disengages using leverage, or when a person grabs a person from behind and they escape using leverage. These defences, he suggests, cannot be explained by the theory of ju yoku go o seisu.

During competition a person may kick his opponent. This cannot be called ju yoku go o seisu either. This is a case of actively putting energy to work in a certain direction and kicking the opponent in his vital points to cause damage. It is the same when thrusting with an arm, when slashing with a sword, or when thrusting with a pole – these attacks do not adhere to the theory of ju yoku go o seisu. (2005: 40-41).

Kano concluded that the techniques of jujutsu are based on various theories, ju yoku go o seisu being but one small part of the theory of jujutsu. He then asked the question: 'Is there a universal theory that applies at all times in every situation?' (2005: 43). 'After a thorough study of the subject’, he explains, ‘I discerned an all-pervasive principle: to make the most efficient use of mental and physical energy' (1986: 16). This all-pervasive principle is expressed as seiryoku saizen katsuyo (best use of one’s energy) or abbreviated to seiryoku zenyo (maximum efficiency) (Kano 2005).

Is seiryoku saizen katsuyo (SSK) the universal theory that applies at all times in every situation that Kano was searching for? It would appear not to be as all-pervasive as Kano suggests because he then used this principle to screen the 'methods of attack and defence' he had learned, rejecting those that did not conform with this principle. Given Kano used the principle of SSK to screen the techniques that came to form the body of techniques of judo, it may be the universal theory that applies at all times in every situation for judo techniques.

Does SSK provide the basis upon which one can determine which teachings are correct when different teacher's teachings differ? SSK is based on efficiency, not effectiveness. If a technique is effective but does not make the most efficient use of mental and physical energy, presumably it would be deemed to be 'incorrect' under the principle of SSK. How do you determine what is the most efficient use of mental and physical energy? Does SSK facilitate the understanding and study, and teaching, of all techniques in all martial arts?

Let's revisit Kano's initial question regarding the existence of a universal theory that applies at all times in every situation; not just for judo and/or jujutsu, but for all martial arts and physical violence generally.

The following is not drafted in the book. I asked the above question of Peter Clarke a short while ago, although, I do lose track of time so it may have been a little longer than a short while ago. Clarke answered the question in the negative. That there was no theory that applies at all times in every situation.

Presumptuously, I beg to differ. Can you hazard a guess concerning what the theory, principle, or concept is that can explain all physical techniques taught within the marital arts and used in violence generally?

References
Kano, J. 1986. Kodokan Judo. Tokyo: Kondansha International.
Kano, J. 2005. Mind over muscle: Writings from the founder of judo. Complied by N. Murata. Tokyo: Kodansha International.

An Attitude of Professional Scepticism

What attitude should one adopt with regards to martial arts teachings?

Much to your horror, dear reader, I'll refer you to the Australian Auditing Standards for guidance. ASA 200 requires an auditor to adopt an attitude of professional scepticism.

Professional scepticism means an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions which may indicate possible misstatement due to error or fraud, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.

Is an attitude of professional scepticism fostered within the martial arts? To a large extent, it is not. To a large extent, the attitude that is fostered is one of unquestioning acceptance.

Can scepticism be taken too far? A 2010 discussion paper on professional scepticism thought so:'Scepticism can be taken too far; challenging everything in a well run company will slow down the publication of its financial statements and risks unnecessary costs.' Challenging everything is counterproductive. This discussion paper talks about an 'appropriate degree' of professional scepticism.

The international auditing standards state in relation to detecting fraud that an auditor 'neither assumes that management is dishonest nor assumes unquestioned honesty.' This could be extended to errors and that an assumption is not made as to the unquestioned accuracy or error of statements. This I take to mean that you approach things with an open mind but with an appropriate degree of professional scepticism. This is the attitude I adopted when attending a seminar held by George Dillman in London while I was living there in the early 1990s.

Dillman is a karateka who tours the world giving seminars on pressure point techniques. He is the author of numerous books and articles on the subject. We didn't get taught a lot of pressure point techniques at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, even though they were the rage at the time. I was eager to learn more.

The following National Geographic Channel documentary is representative of Dillman's seminar:



Dillman taught the technique demonstrated in the documentary where a person falls to the ground after their forearm is hit. He demonstrated this technique on a student who had travelled to London to attend this seminar from Germany where he was based with the US Airforce. Dillman hit the student's arm who then hit the ground, just as in the documentary. Very impressive.

We paired up to practice this technique. My partner tried it on me several times with no success. Frustrated, he asked Dillman for help. Dillman demonstrated the technique on me, hitting my forearm, and turned to explain the technique to the student. He turned back only to find I was still standing. He then hit my forearm again, though this time with some considerable force. Dillman is a powerful man. I felt pain and staggered due to the power of the strike (and ended up with a decent bruise) but there was nothing there that would cause me to fall to the ground. When I explained this, he simply turned and walked away without saying anything.

At the end of the seminar, Dillman demonstrated the hit to the jaw to knock a person out, which can also be seen on the documentary. He proceeded to demonstrate the technique on every student at the seminar - including the teenage girl that was trying to hide behind another student.

There are suppose to be two pressure points under the jaw that are responsible for rendering a person unconscious when they are hit. Before he hit us on the jaw, we were instructed to clench our jaw shut. Many were either rendered unconscious or were dazed and staggered. When it came to my turn, I wasn't rendered unconscious but I certainly felt a jolt and experienced a mighty headache. Not inconsistent with movement of the brain within the skull (the subject of a previous and future blog) after receiving a blow to the head.

When the techniques do not work on the scientists in the documentary, Dillman explains this by suggesting they were sceptics or non-believers. Does that mean these techniques are only successful if executed on a person who adopts an attitude of unquestioning acceptance?

I approached this seminar with an open mind. I was not necessarily a non-believer or sceptic, though I did approach the seminar with a degree of professional scepticism. I didn't place my tongue in a particular position or raise either big toe to 'nullify' these techniques. A critical assessment of the evidence does not tend to support the statements presented at this seminar.

PS: Is it any wonder that the martial arts are often not taken seriously within main stream society.

History of Jan de Jong - Peter Clarke

Peter Clarke was a senior instructor with Jan de Jong.

Peter is unique. He was the first to complete the final technical grading of Jan de Jong's jujutsu, third dan, and was immediately, and quite rightly, upgraded to fourth dan. He was also the highest grade in Jan de Jong's pencak silat.

Peter and myself assisted Mr de Jong in developing his grading system for his aikido, and were graded shodan by actually engaging in the grades that De Jong developed. We were also involved with Mr de Jong at his dojo at home where we were 'encouraged' to undertake the Australian Ju Jitsu Association (AJJA) dan grades that he and Mr de Jong developed. Congratulations - we were graded fifth dan.

Peter has included his speech and a commentary about his speech on the Southern Cross Bujutsu website concerning the history of Jan de Jong: http://southerncrossbujutsu.com.au/articles/jan-de-jong-history.aspx.

To Peter's credit, he prefaces his speech with the following comment: 'There are now matters in the speech which I now know to be either quite wrong or perhaps dubious.' How often do you hear or see someone, let alone within the martial arts, qualify their previous statements with this sort of comment? This speaks volumes for Peter's character - and comes as no surprise.

Mr de Jong would sometimes expressed his exasperation with Peter because of his 'lawyerly' approach to jujutsu. He is a lawyer (don't hold that against him). It's no secret that I often exasperated De Jong, and his senior instructors, with my 'analytical' approach to jujutsu (I am an accountant, among other things, don't hold that against me). But our analytical approaches dovetailed with De Jong's evolving analytical approach to his jujutsu.

Peter is the only instructor I ever requested to assist.

The general rule within the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, post 1970s, was that you gain a black and white belt and assist an instructor before you teach a class on you own. I remember a conversation with Maggie de Jong (Mr de Jong's daughter and now principal of the Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness school) in which she explained this general rule to me. I reminded her that I was asked to teach my own branch after two years, and only being an orange belt and having never assisted any instructor whatsoever. She responded with the comment that I was 'exceptional'. I appreciate her comment, with gratitude, but suggest what she probably meant was that I was the exception.

I commenced jujutsu in 1983. By 1985 I was teaching, and I never stopped. I ended up assisting Mr de Jong in his classes, and of course in the numerous seminars I accompanied him on throughout Europe, Australia, and Indonesia. But there is only one person I ever requested to assist - Peter Clarke. I attended his Saturday afternoon classes, but I knew I could learn, and wanted to learn, more from him. I wanted to be his apprentice of sorts. So I requested, and the request was granted, to assist him in one of the northern suburbs on a Saturday morning.

I recently watched a DVD the Jan de Jong school produced which included footage of Peter demonstrating techniques along with his fellow senior instructors. In my professional opinion, he is a class above. I always recall Peter performing a simple technique in one of the Friday night instructor classes where his movement were so fast that they appeared, and are remembered, as segmented frames in a movie reel.

I believe we've never seen the best of Peter Clarke. Why? Because he's had 'average' attackers throughout his career. This is a controversial statement as the majority of the time his attackers have been his fellow senior instructors. Don't get me wrong, they are exceptional practitioners; it's just that they are rubbish attackers. I know. I wanted to test myself for my gradings by asking Peter and another senior instructor to attack me for my revision grading for my revision black and white grading. Unheard of. They provided 'strong' attacks, but, with no commitment. The attacks were strong, but, there was a huge degree of 'control' involved. No full commitment. From that, I've learnt that attacking is an art in itself.

I would give anything to see Peter go full tilt with attackers that had no regard for their own safety - like me, Jamie Francis, Dave Palmer, Marcus. The senior instructors talk of the commitment of their instructors and how it is not exhibited in their students. I would give anything to see those former instructors go full tilt with Peter Clarke just to see what he is truly capable of. I have no hesitation in suggestion that I would not have been disappointed.