Bridging Science and Practice: How Biomechanics Enhances Martial Arts Understanding

The following is taken from the preface of my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques:

On the rare occasion that an attempt has been made to use science to understand martial arts techniques in the martial arts literature, it has generally failed to be related to practice in any meaningful way.

The following was posted on Facebook and is an example of the use of science to understand martial arts techniques failing to be related to practice in any meaningful way:

The following is taken from the introduction to The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques:

McGinnis (2005) suggests that the use of biomechanics can lead to improved performances by athletes and the accelerated learning of new skills by students. In addition, he suggests that a knowledge of biomechanics enables us to better evaluate new techniques in sports that we are familiar with as well as in those sports that we are unfamiliar with. Carr (2004) refers to the same benefits and explains that they may be realised through a basic understanding of biomechanics. These are tantalising prospects that a basic understanding of biomechanics offers in relation to the teaching and learning of fighting techniques.

My article on the biomechanical concept of force and its application to understand, teach, and learn martial arts techniques which was published in the sixth edition of Martial Arts Magazine Australia is an example of the benefits that a basic knowledge of biomechanics offers to the understanding, teaching, and learning of martial arts techniques. 

Martial Arts Magazine Australia Article

It's been a while since I've posted on the Kojutsukan blog. I've been working on completing and finalising my second book, Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat, and I've been posting on The School of Jan de Jong blog.

In addition, I forwarded a contribution based on work in my first book, The Science Behind all Fighting Techniques, to Martial Arts Magazine Australia. My article was based on the use of an understanding of biomechanical force to better understand, teach, and learn martial arts techniques. That article was published in the sixth edition of MAMA. There are many other interesting articles from various contributors in that magazine.

I will be forwarding contributions for future articles based on work in my two books to MAMA for future publication. That work provides unique insights into the understanding, teaching, and learning of martial arts and self-defence techniques and tactics.

Core of All Learning and Martial Arts/Self-Defence Instruction

My last post concerned the PTSD story based on my work for a chapter in my book, Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. That chapter has been put on hold as I returned to the chapter on The Strategic Use of Emotion to Counter Fear in War. The book is a process and product of learning and insight. As I learn more and gain more insights, it impacts on previously written chapters that produced that learning and insights, and thus a re-think and re-write is required.

This post, however, is a return to the core of all learning. The core of all learning is the second chapter in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques because it is such an important concept. This has become so obvious in the past few weeks based on discussions with various martial artists.

In their book on research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) explain that the identification of similarities and differences may be considered the core of all learning. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock explain that research has identified four highly effective forms of identifying similarities and differences: comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. 

We use the identification of similarities and differences to make sense of our world every single day. Understanding this concept enables us to use it consciously and deliberately rather than unconsciously and accidentally.

The martial arts is the very definition of the use of the core of all learning. The Karate Kid's 'wax on, wax off' is the very definition of the use of metaphors to teach karate techniques. Housner and Griffey (1994) use this movie as an example of the use of metaphor in motor skill instruction.

'Horse-riding' stance is another use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques. In each case, as is the case with the identification of similarities and differences generally, the known is used to teach/understand the unknown. 

Of course the use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques has its limitations for a variety of reasons. For instance, wing chun's 'goat gripping' stance does not help me understand this stance given that I have never seen anyone try and grip a goat. Ditto with Mas Oyama's birin, 'tail of dragon' stance. Even after watching Game of Thrones I have no idea what a tail of dragon stance would look like, not initially anyway.

How do you explain aikido? 'It's like jujutsu, but ...' What is pencak silat? 'It's an Indonesian form of karate.' Using the known to understand the unknown by identifying similarities and differences.

One of Jan de Jong's favourite theory questions in his jujutsu shodan grade was, 'What is the difference between o soto gari, o soto otoshi, and o soto guruma?' A more complete and insightful question would have been, what are the similarities and differences between those three techniques. 

The very reason for Minoru Mochizuki's kentai ichi no kata (kata of sword and body) is to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed defences (see here). A sword defence is demonstrated followed with a similar but different (unarmed) defence. A more complete kata would be to focus on the similarities and differences because unarmed techniques can be/are compromised in order to fit with the theme of the kata, that being to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques.

In the current chapter I'm working on, one of the strategic uses of emotion to counter fear in war is the 'inculcation of hope.' Petersen and Liaras (2006), whose paper the chapter is based upon, use fear to understand hope. When those who argue that hope is not an emotion, they base their argument on a comparison between hope and the concept of emotions generally.

I was training some students in certain shime waza (strangulation techniques) from a prescribed attack and one technique did not 'feel' right. These shime waza are the same as those taught in judo so I studied the judo version. What I found was the judo techniques are applied with tori (the applyer) already behind uke (the applyee). The JDJ method was from a high punch where tori started off in front of uke and had to find a way to get behind them in order to apply the technique. This leads to all sorts of questions, however, knowledge and insight was gained through comparing those same techniques used in judo and JDJ's jujutsu.

I was reflecting on JDJ's jujutsu grading system and did so by comparing it to that of his aikido and other aikido, jujutsu, and karate grading systems. Far more insights were gained by doing so then if I'd simply attempted to study that grading system in isolation. In fact, the very concept of 'best practice' is based on comparison.

In another part of my life, I am a financial and corporate governance professional. What is the purpose of financial statements? It's to inform. How does it do so? Through the identification of similarities and differences. FSs are comprised of income, expenses, assets, liabilities, and owner's equity. Those are all classes of financial transactions. To better understand financial performance and financial position, you compare. Compare month to year-to-date, current year to previous year, other companies in the same industry, etc.

While most martial artists are comfortable with this concept, they often baulk at classification. This becomes very evident when I raise the issue that most, if not all, martial arts acknowledge the existence of throwing and takedown techniques but do not know how they are different. The common response is that the difference is academic and/or classification is an administrative exercise and serves no useful purpose (even though the very idea of throwing techniques and takedown techniques is an exercise in classification). Not so.

'Classification is often thought of as an administrative exercise and treated with disdain within the martial arts community. Lakoff (1987) warns against such a dismissive attitude. He suggests that there is nothing more basic to our thought, perception, action, and speech than classification and that without the ability to classify we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives' (extract from my book).

Kano, the founder of Kodokan judo, was an educator (teacher). It is no wonder that he developed a classification system for judo. The idea of classification of techniques is seen in some aikido systems where their founders were also students of Kano.

One example, albeit a good example, of the benefits of classification is its use in 'previewing'. By previewing techniques, whether by classification or comparison, the student already knows what to look for in a defence before they even see it. They can call on their prior knowledge of similar techniques to help in learning the new technique efficiently and effectively.

Learning to think, teach, learn, and explain in terms of similarities and differences improves with practice. You'll notice the improvements in teaching, learning, and correcting/improving performances.

References:

Housner, L.D. and D.C. Griffey. 1994. Wax on, wax off: Pedagogical content knowledge in motor skill instruction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 65: 63-68.

Marzano, R.J., D. Pickering and J.E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Petersen, R. and E. Liaras. 2006. Countering fear in war: The strategic use of emotion. Journal of Military Ethics 5(4): 317-333.

Happoken no Kata

I published a post on my The School of Jan de Jong blog which uses the theory presented in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques to analyse the Happoken no Kata taught by Jan de Jong jujutsu, Yoseikan Budo, and Yoseikan Aikido.

The post is an example of the use of theory to gain understanding and insights into practice. It is also an example of the necessity to always question your teacher's instruction, but only when you understand the theory and the instruction does not stack up to the theory.

The Science Behind Kiai

Kiai is a Japanese term that is used to refer to a short yell or shout uttered when performing an attacking move. Why kiai?

The following is a draft of a passage included in the conclusion to my The Science Behind Fighting Techniques which is in the process of being submitted to a publisher. The conclusion calls on others to build on my work in building a body of knowledge about why a technique works in addition to how to perform the technique.

As I was in the process of concluding this book, Australian Ashleigh Barty played Belorussian Aryna Sabalenka in the 2018 Australian Open (tennis). The Belorussian’s powerful hitting and loud ‘grunting’ was cause for numerous articles on the issue to be published, one of which was by Damian Farrow (2018), professor of sports science at Victoria University: ‘All the racquet: What science tells us about the pros and cons of grunting in tennis.’ He reports that a number of studies have shown that ball velocity increases with hits accompanied by grunting. Can the findings in those studies be extended to kiai, a short yell or shout uttered in Japanese martial arts when performing an attacking move? Increased ball velocity means increased force is being applied when hitting the ball accompanied by a grunt. Can those findings be extended to prove that punches accompanied by a kiai apply increased force on impact? If so, how does a grunt/kiai generate more force on impact with a punch? This is an example of the current lack of biomechanical information associated with martial arts methods and how we may need to be inventive in developing that knowledge base in the absence of direct research.

There are those, many, who will have opinions on this martial arts question, however, they are only opinions. Uninformed opinions at that. My book is designed to turn the many uninformed opinions into informed opinions, which in the process will debunk many opinions.

The studies associated with tennis grunting confirm the increased velocity of the tennis ball accompanied by grunting. They do not explain where the additional force that was applied to the tennis ball was generated from.

The answer to the increased force on impact lies within the concept of kinetic energy. KE is the energy of motion which is transferred on impact. KE is calculated as one half of the product of mass and velocity squared. So which one of the variables of KE does grunting/kiai impact on in order to increase the KE of the arm/racket thereby increasing the force on impact?

The tennis studies limited explanation is highly technical/incomprehensible, however, it would appear to point to grunting tightening the body core which increases the mass behind the tennis strike thereby increasing the force on impact resulting in the increased velocity of the tennis ball. In like manner, a kiai when punching might tighten the body core thereby increasing the mass behind a punch and the force on impact. 

This would fit in with other studies on punching techniques in the martial arts that confirm that the difference in the velocities of punches by experienced and inexperienced practitioners is insignificant but the difference in the force applied on impact is significantly different. This difference is down to the experienced practitioners knowing how to contribute more mass behind their punches.

1. The findings in the studies above goes against everything that has been advised in martial arts and biomechanical texts in relation to punching techniques when referring to the biomechanical concept of KE.

2. There is a study published on the effects of kiap, the Korean equivalent of kiai, on gripping strength. A martial arts 'authority' refers to this study to confirm that kiap increases punching force on impact. It does not, as even the authors of the study acknowledge. It simply confirms that kiap increases gripping strength, so kiap away when grabbing someone. The tennis studies have more to suggest that kiai increases the force on impact than does the kiap study.

3. All of the above is an example of the mindset that is required when attempting to use science to explain martial arts practice. A mindset that is sadly lacking in current martial arts literature. That mindset will be the subject of the next post.

More force needed to stop an attack than to start one

I'm still working on the chapter on blocking techniques in the martial arts in my book on the science behind fighting techniques. It is not as straight forward a subject as one might initially think.

My last post, Magnitude of Force to Change Direction or Stop a Moving Object, appealed to readers for technical information concerning the amount of force required to deflect a moving object (e.g. a punch). That appeal is still current, for the time being.

I'm working on Okazaki and Stricevic's 'Principles of Motion' in The Textbook of Modern Karate, that they say is helpful to understand in order to deal with a punch a kick. The second principle is:

To stop an object's motion requires a force greater than the one that set the object in motion. This has special relevance to blocking techniques when the objective is to arrest [(stop)] an attack.

An exploration of the concept of blocking techniques in the martial arts requires a chapter, so, I will only focus on the above PoM.

Firstly, Okazaki and Stricevic leave out one vital piece of information when explaining their second PoM. Force has magnitude, direction, and point of application. The direction of a force applied by a blocking technique has to be applied in the opposite direction to motion of the object/opponent's attacking body part in order to stop its motion. That is an important but often overlooked detail when many distinguish blocking techniques into two types: hard-soft, arresting-deflection, blocks-deflection, direct-indirect, etc.

Secondly, magnitude. Okazaki and Stricevic suggest more force is required to stop a moving object/opponent's attacking body part, than was needed to start it in motion. I initially thought that this might not be true; that only an equal an amount of force as that needed to initiate motion in an object was required to be applied in order to stop that object. In fact, I thought that if you applied more force to an object in motion than was applied to initiate its motion that it would cause the object to move in the direction of the greater force, e.g. backward. What do you think? Sounds reasonable.

As is so often the case in developing the theory in my book, I didn't rely on my assumptions/opinions and went in search of an authoritative answer to this question. I didn't find one per se, however, I was able to develop one from an equation for how much force is required to start an object in motion.

Force can be calculated by the equation change in momentum divided by time. Momentum is calculated as the product of mass and velocity. Force is measured in Newtons (N). What force is required to get a 10 kg object moving at 12 m/s in 5s?

Momentum at start = 10 x 0 = 0 kg m/s
Momentum at end = 10 x 12 = 120 kg m/s
Change in momentum = 120 - 0 = 120 kg m/s
Force = change in momentum/time = 120/5 = 24 N

How much force is needed to stop the above object in motion nearly instantaneously, say in 1s?

Momentum at start = 10 x 12 = 120 kg m/s
Momentum at end = 10 x 0 = 0 kg m/s
Change in momentum = 0 - 120 = -120 kg m/s
Force = change in momentum/time = -120/1 = -120 N

The time was chosen for an instantaneous stopping action. The negative value reflects force applied in the opposite direction. Five times as much force as initiated the motion of that object/attack is required to to be applied to stop that moving object/attack in that time frame.

This equation is also used to describe Impulse and explain how increasing the time that force is applied decreases the average amount of force required to stop an object. E.g. pulling your hands back as you catch a moving ball.

Now, working on how much force is required to deflect a moving object. Anyone?

Is Ude Garami a Shoulder Lock or an Elbow Lock?

I am currently working on the joint-locking chapter in my book on the science behind fighting techniques. I've come across this rather interesting situation with regards to ude garami (arm entanglement).

The image to the right is the ude garami as taught by the late Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan and his descendants. It is considered by them to be a shoulder lock.

Before we proceed, let's have a precise definition of joint-locks/kansetsu waza. Joint-locks/kansetsu waza are techniques where forces are applied to an opponent's body to move a joint towards or beyond the limits of its range of motion.

Ude garami, as the above parties would suggest, is a joint-lock where forces are applied to move the shoulder joint towards or beyond the limits of its range of motion.

Ude garami is most often shown in judo as being applied when both parties are grappling on the ground (see right). Many (e.g., see Jigoro Kano, Kodokan Judo) explain that ude garami targets the elbow. This is why ude garami is allowed in judo competition because only kansetsu waza that target the elbow joint are permitted in judo.

Does ude garami target the shoulder or elbow joint? Does the 'ground' technique differ in the consequences of the applied forces, i.e., targets the elbow rather than shoulder joint?
What are the anatomical consequences of the applied forces in both of those techniques?

Even though some distinguish between ude garami and gyaku ude garami in judo, more often then not the two techniques are referred to as ude garami. Should they be considered different techniques and not the latter a variation of the former if the anatomical consequences are different in both?

There are many more anomalies once you actually begin to study joint-locking/kansetsu waza techniques. Anomalies that throw up confusion and debate in martial arts circles but cannot be answered due to the lack of information and informed discussion.

Book #1 Progress

My first book, the book that inspired this block, is nearing completion. It is about the science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

1. I need a 'snappy title' to process ':The science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

2. I need to shorten the explanation after ':'.

3. I need a phrase that includes martial arts, self-defence, combat sports, law enforcement methods, and military close combat. I initially was using 'Survival Activities', however, the primary teachings of those activities is sometimes not survival.

Would appreciate your help on these matters.

I have a professional photographer on board, complete with lights, cameras, consent forms, and copyright issues.

I have two 'models' complete with contrasting gi.

I have a dedicated location.

Within the body of the book, there is only one small part missing. An anatomical description of wrist twists and wrist locks. I have, for the first time in this literature, an anatomical description of all shoulder locks, elbow locks, forearm locks, and side wrist locks.

As I explain in the book, the medical literature is of no assistance as >85% of all injuries to the upper limb occur as a result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injuries) and the forces experienced then are very different to those experienced when a joint-lock (kansetsu waza) is applied.

The Australian Institute of Sport has a Combat Centre that focuses on combat sports. I am trying to get in contact with anyone associated with the AIS CC to discuss this matter. If anyone can help, most appreciated.

Suffrajitsu

Interesting article on jujutsu and the suffragettes of yesteryear:

The Suffragettes Who Learned Martial Arts to Fight for Votes

My book on the science behind all fighting techniques and the teaching thereof is about complete. There's only an anatomical explanation of wrist twists and wrist crushes to be obtained.

The photo shoot and illustrations are in the process of being organised.

The above photograph shows a shoulder lock that can be understood and studied by reference to the applied forces and their effect on the humerus. It will also be explained that additional forces need to be applied to keep the officer from bending further forward as the body naturally moves to release the tension in the shoulder joint.

By the way, any reader who has a 'snappy' title suggestion, I'd appreciate it. The above description can follow after the ':', however, need a snappy title apparently. Unfortunately 'Fighting Science' is already taken.

Articles published in Blitz Magazine

Blitz magazine is Australia's premier martial arts magazine.

I have just received a list of my articles that have been published for inclusion on my CV. Decided to do so given that it has transpired that it is not a one-off affair.

The details are:

Use the Force, 27:7, p 72, July 2013.
Fight or Flight: Have We Got It All Wrong?, 27:10, p 72, Oct 2013.
The Evolution of Power, 27:12, p 72, Dec 2013.
Fighting Fear Part 1, 28:1, p 70, Jan 2014.
Fighting Fear Part 2, 28:2 p 68, Feb 2014.
Wax On, Wax Off: How Essential is Blocking in Martial Arts?, 28:5, p72, May 2014.
Combative Breathing: Controlling Breathing to Beat Fear, 28:7, p 78, July 2014.
The Art of Learning, 28:9, p 46, Sept 2014.
Questioning Your Self-Defence?: (The Haddon Matrix), 28:10, p 72, Oct 2014.
What is Jujutsu? Part 1, 29:6, p 76, June 2015.
What is Jujutsu? Part 2, 29:7, p 78, July 2015.

I have been advised that another article will possibly be published in the next edition. That article has to do with Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan and his legacy.

I have been hampered in the articles I can submit due to photographic and illustration constraints, however, those may have been resolved and thus further articles which are more technical in nature will be submitted (and published) along with my first book.

FOOSH Revisited

I started off this blog with an article on FOOSH injuries - Fall On OutStretched Hand injuries.

More than 85% of all injuries t the upper limb are the result of a fall onto an outstretched hand.

Ukemi waza (breakfalling techniques) are techniques designed by jujutsu and its derivative arts of judo and aikido to prevent and control injuries arising from a fall, including FOOSH injuries.

The injury to the right was the result of a fall by Sally Pearson, the Australian champion hurdler, during a race recently.

I've seen a FOOSH injury while assisting Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan when conducting a seminar in Gottenburg, Sweden. A highly graded student put his hand down while going over his partner's hips who was executing a koshi gaeshi (hip turn) technique. The jujutsuka shattered both his radius and ulna requiring plates in both.

Another interesting, for me, issue associated with the prevalence of FOOSH injuries is that the medical literature is virtually useless in terms of understanding the injuries associated with kansetsu waza (joint techniques) as the forces are applied in different directions with FOOSH injuries and kansetsu waza.

However, I have been able to generate an anatomical explanation of many kansetsu waza and the possible injuries that may arise from their application. The ones I am lacking are the techniques applied to the wrist. If anyone can assist in this regard it would be most appreciated. It would also be a genuine and unique contribution to the general body of knowledge.

Update

I'm back.


My computer was 'hijacked' by hijackware and the remedy including industrial strength security prevented me from entering blogger to post posts. All has been remedied and I'm back.


In the mean time, I've had four articles posted in Blitz, Australia's premier martial arts magazine. Two articles are biomechanically based and two are based on fight-or-flight and fear. The latest is a two part article on the ways that have been developed to overcome fear by activities associated with violence. It involves the strategic use of emotion.


I'm working on an article that provides an evolutionary explanation of passive responses to rape. It was always in the back of my mind to write this article but a recent episode of Law & Order: UK prompted me to (a) write the article, and (b) to contact the writer of the episode. It turns out, the writer wrote the episode based on being group raped age 14.


More to come.

Updating Fight-or-Flight - Magazine Article

The July edition of Blitz, Australia's #1 martial arts magazine, published my article on force and how it helps understand all techniques in the martial arts.

The August edition of Blitz will contain an article of mine titled Updating Fight-or-Flight.

Many martial arts, self defence, security, law enforcement and military instructors refer to fight-or-flight. Most have a limited and flawed understanding of the concept. In fact, the fight-or-flight concept itself is limited and flawed. My article remedies those deficiencies.

'Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid' - Zhuge Liang, Chinese military strategist, 181-234.

While many martial arts, etc., will concur with Zhuge, there are some and some warrior traditions that do not. A more complete understanding of the fight-or-flight concept enables us to better understand Zhuge's comment and the teachings of the martial arts and other activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter.

Mastering Force Delivery: Why knowing the science will make you more effective

Blitz, Australia's #1 Martial Arts Magazine has published an article I wrote on the use of the biomechanical concept of force to better understand and study martial arts techniques.

The title of this post appears on the front cover of the July 2013 edition, with 'Use the Force' being the title of the actual article.

The Biomechanics of Biffo

All martial arts techniques can be explained using the description 'push' or 'pull' - or so says West Australian jujutsu instructor John Coles, who had devoted years to writing and researching a book on the biomechanics of martial arts techniques. Coles, a 3rd Dan in Tsutsumi Hozan-ryu jujutsu, 1st Dan in Yoseikan aikido and 3rd Degree in Suci Hati Pencak silat, all under the late, world-renowned sensei Jan de Jong, believes that a better understanding of the scientific basis for combative movements - or rather, their successful application - has long been buried in scientific texts. When revealed, he says, it could change the face of martial arts. He begins here by explaining the fundamentals of force.

Teach the Essence of All Martial Arts Techniques

What is the essence of all martial arts techniques? What makes them work?

Forces account for the changes in motion and shape of all things in the environment, including the body and body segments (collectively body).

Any time a body starts, stops, speeds up slows down or changes direction, a force has been applied. A change in shape refers to deformation. Deformation of body tissues can cause pain and injury. Think about all the techniques taught in any martial art and you will see that they are designed to change the motion of an opponent or deform their tissues to inflict pain or injury.

The beauty of it all is that force is a biomechanical concept that is easy for the layperson to understand and apply.

Without providing the full explanation, the following is how you teach and learn by referring to forces, the essence of all techniques:

1. Identify the points of application of the forces - all contact points between the two bodies.
2. Forces are a push or a pull. Determine if it is a push or a pull at each point of contact.
3. Determine the direction of the force.
4. Determine the relative magnitude of the force.
5. Determine the objective of the combined forces (change the motion or shape (deformation) of the opponent's body).

First teach students about forces, then consistently teach using a force based approach. Students will be taught to, and will, focus on the essence of techniques; what actually makes them work. When they come to correct errors in their performance they will go directly to the essence of the technique.

While the above might appear to have limited potential to improve on teaching striking and kicking techniques, it does not when the third law of motion is also understood. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Action refers to forces. When we hit a body, that body 'hits' us back with a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

When we hit or kick an opponent or some training devise, or block an opponent's attack, we must deal with reaction forces. What is being done in terms of posture and stance to increase our stability and ability to absorb those reaction forces?

Those martial arts that describe their stances in terms of mobility (which means less resistance to forces), what are they doing to increase stability when contact is made and forces are experienced?

Everybody understands what a push or a pull is. If a student is told to push or pull in a certain direction they will do so. If that instruction is not an accurate or complete description of the forces involved in the execution of a technique, do not be surprised if the student experiences difficulty in performing the techniques. A force-based approach 'forces' us to consider each and every point of contact where a force may be applied. All of those forces contribute to, or at times hinder, the execution of a technique. A complete analysis of the forces involved in the  technique avoids these issues and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the technique. And a complete analysis of the forces involved in a technique is so simple.





 

Do We Need Explicit Knowledge of Techniques?

One of the shodan gradings in Jan de Jong's jujutsu grading system is a theory grading. The theory grading is an oral examination of the candidate's technical knowledge. A common question De Jong posed was: 'What are the forces involved in a tai gatame ude kujuki (body set are breaking)?' The candidate was required to answer the question verbally with no physical demonstration.

This is an example of explicit learning or explicit knowledge. The Australian Institute of Sport provide the following explanation of explicit learning which is contrasted with implicit learning:

Explicit learning can be related to traditional coaching approaches where verbal instruction is used to coach a learner about how to perform a skill. This process typically results in the learner being able to verbalise how to perform the skill, although it does not guarantee the learner can physically execute the skill. In contrast, implicit learning methods typically contain no formal instruction about how to perform the skill yet result in a learner being able to perform the skill despite being unable to verbally describe how they do it.

Do we need explicit knowledge of techniques? De Jong obviously thought so given he included an explicit knowledge grading within his shodan grades. The 'traditional' teaching method of Asian martial arts involves implicit learning where techniques are demonstrated and the student attempts to imitate them. Does the student need to be able to verbally describe techniques in addition to being able to perform them? Does the instructor?

De Jong saw his dan grades as producing instructors in addition to practitioners. He expected his instructors to possess an explicit understanding of techniques. Many others in the martial arts do not expect either their students or instructors to possess an explicit understanding of their techniques. One possible explanation for the traditional Asian martial arts teaching model being based on implicit learning may be because the instructors did/do not possess an explicit understanding of the techniques. If you come up under an implicit learning model, where do you gain the explicit knowledge?

Why would an instructor need to have an explicit understanding of techniques if they use implicit learning methods when teaching? One reason is that it provides a through understanding of the mechanics of the technique. It enables the instructor to analyse techniques and provide instruction to correct errors and improve performances. The problem is that an explicit explanation of techniques is hard to come by in the martial arts.

Let's return to De Jong's question; 'what are the forces involved ...?' De Jong intuitively knew that forces are important in understanding how a technique works. Unfortunately, neither he nor the candidates knew much about forces. My work remedies that shortcoming.

Forces are what causes every technique taught by every martial art work. The good thing is that forces is a simple concept for the layperson to understand and apply. First you identify all points of contact between the 'defender' and the 'attacker.' Next you determine if the force applied at each point of contact is a push or a pull. Then you describe the direction and relative magnitude of each of the forces. Finally you determine the intended effect of the applied net forces. This approach provides an explicit understanding of every technique taught by every martial arts.

A very good and rare example of this approach at work is with Jigoro Kano's Kodokan Judo. When you understand the concept of forces and adopt the approach described above, you'll see that Kano consistently describes all his methods in these terms. In this way, Kano focuses on the important elements in the techniques to provide an explicit understanding of judo techniques for the reader.

Fist or Open Hand?

It's 4.30am and I've given up attempts at sleep. Editing my kansetsu waza chapter, I had occasion to reread the article arguing that the human hand evolved for punching in addition to dexterity. This article formed the basis of a post I wrote on one particular aspect of the study.

One of the things studied in that study was the difference between striking with a fist or an open hand.

The force and force impulse of both forward and overhead strikes were not different when the subjects struck with a fist or an open palm.

Although the forcefulness of a strike can be important to the outcome of a fight (e.g. accelerating the body, knocking an opponent off their feet; or accelerating the head, causing unconsciousness or a concussion), local tissue damage, such as bone fracture and contusion, is produced not by force but by stress (force per area)

The striking surface area of a fist is less than one-third the area of the whole hand and ~60% of the area of the palm. This means that if the total force applied in a strike is the same, then the stress in the targeted tissue will be 1.7 to 3.0 times greater in a fist strike than in a palm strike. Thus, although striking with a fist appears not to result in more forceful strikes, fists increase the peak stresses that are imposed on the target and, therefore, the potential for injury.

One thing that is not lacking in the martial arts is opinions. One thing that is lacking is authoritative facts. Studies like this, and hopefully my work, goes towards increasing the martial arts body of knowledge with facts rather than more opinions.

Done

There was a very odd moment last week. I finished the first draft of a chapter in my book and I sat back and thought, 'I'm done.' I've finished the first draft of my book (with the small exception of getting some physiological information on joint techniques that target the wrist). Done. No more finding and developing theory, it's now editing. It was a very odd feeling.

The book had over 170,000 words which equates to over 300 pages. The editing process over the past week has reduced that to just under 100,000 words and 265 pages with no loss of information. I expect that number to reduce even further.

The book has 17 chapters:

Chapter 1 Introduction
Chapter 2 Core of All Learning
Chapter 3 Kaizen: Analyse Tactics and Techniques
Chapter 4 Force
Chapter 5 Balance and Unbalance
Chapter 6 Stances and Motion
Chapter 7 Throwing and Takedown Techniques
Chapter 8 Joint-Locking Techniques
Chapter 9 Injury Science
Chapter 10 Striking and Kicking Techniques
Chapter 11 Blocking Techniques
Chapter 12 Nature's Breakfalling Techniques
Chapter 13 Martial Arts Breakfalling Techniques
Chapter 14 Strangulation Techniques
Chapter 15 Pain
Chapter 16 Survival Process Pt 1
Chapter 17 Survival Process Pt II

I have a friend who is the headmaster at a school helping me edit the book. He has no background nor interest in the subject matter. If he understands what I am writing about and his interest is retained, I must have done a good job. So far that has been achieved and he has informed me that he is excited by the content. That it is like no other book written for the martial arts and other activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter. He is right.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Chinese Proverb

Facilitating the Understanding and Study of Fighting Methods is about teaching the reader how to ‘fish’ so they can feed themselves for a lifetime. It is also about teaching the reader how to teach others to fish so that they can feed themselves for a lifetime.

I'm still working on the title of the book.

Facilitating the Understanding and Study of Fighting Methods is written for both teacher and student alike. It is written to assist teachers in understanding and teaching their methods. It is also written to assist students in understanding and learning the methods taught by their teachers. A fallacious assumption in our education system is that students inherently know how to learn. They may do to varying degrees but not necessarily efficiently or effectively. Greater efficiencies and efficacies are achieved when the student is first taught how to learn. Facilitating the Understanding and Study of Fighting Methods empowers students by enabling them to take responsibility for their own learning experience. It encourages students to become their own teachers or at least to manage their learning experience. In this way, Facilitating the Understanding and Study of Fighting Methods also challenges teachers to be better teachers.

Our Hands Evolved For Punching & Isshinryu Karate Fists

A study was published this week in The Journal of Experimental Biology which argues that human hands evolved for punching and not just dexterity. The complete paper can be read here. The researchers were associated with the University of Utah and a copy of the University's reporting of the paper can be read here.

I'm only going to touch on one small aspect of the paper.

Humans buttress – strengthen and stabilize – fists in two ways that apes cannot: The pads of the four fingertips touch the pads at the top of the palm closest to the fingers. And the thumb wraps in front of the index and middle fingers, and to some extent the ring finger, and those fingers are locked in place by the palm at the base of the thumb.

The second and third experiments found that buttressing provided by the human fist increased the stiffness of the knuckle joint fourfold (or reduced flexing fourfold), and also doubled the ability of the fingers to transmit punching force, mainly due to the force transferred from the fingers to the thumb when the fist is clenched.

The authors of the report are describing the common garden variety fist configuration and the biomechanical benefits of this configuration (see figure at top). However, Isshinryu karate teach to place the thumb not wrapping in front of the fingers but to the side of the fingers (see image right).

Based on the abovementioned study, it could be argued the Isshinryu karate fist configuration is biomechanically less efficient than nature's configuration which most other martial arts have adopted. Is there any explanation why Isshinryu karate may have adopted this unique fist configuration?

A possible explanation lies within an obscure but interesting paper published in American Anthropologist. The researchers investigated the relationship between commonly occurring types of violence and those that are popular in sport. They found that common injuries to the hand in modern society where boxing is popular is to the little finger and ring finger bones in the hand, which is commonly known as a boxer's fracture.

The researchers gained access to the 857 bodies when a cemetery was being excavated in England. The bodies were buried between 1750 and 1850. They found significantly more fractures of the thumb than boxer's fractures. This puzzled them because boxing was popular during that time.

They suggest a possible explanation might be found in the style of fighting employed by boxers during the period when the burials were made. Boxing was bareknuckles and boxers used vertical fists rather than the horizontal fist of the modern day boxer. A boxer's fracture often occurs then the little finger side of the fist impacts rather than the intended pointer finger side of the fist. A similar argument applies the to ancient boxers using vertical fists. If the boxer misses with the intended part of the fist the thumb impacts resulting in an injury.

Isshinryu karate may be sacrificing biomechanical efficiency in order to reduce the risk of injury when using a vertical fist to punch. Now there is support if any Isshinryu karate exponent argues the safety aspect of their unique fist configuration.

Blocking Techniques

What is a blocking technique? The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary defines blocking techniques as 'any technique that hinders, checks, neutralises or nullifies an opponent's attack, using any part of the body'

That definition, it has to be said, is a very broad and vague definition of blocking techniques. It is broad and vague by necessity given certain ambiguity surrounding blocking techniques. An ambiguity that only comes to light when the various conceptualisations of blocking techniques that are espoused by different martial arts are studied.

Moclair, in Jujutsu: A Comprehensive Guide, defines blocking techniques in terms of the use of an arm or arms to stop an attacker from striking a person with a blow from their hands, fists, knees or other parts of their body. Moclair’s definition explicitly, and with clarity, refers to the common and traditional conception of blocking techniques as being techniques that are used to stop an attacker from hitting or kicking a person.

In The Textbook of Modern Karate, Okazaki and Stricevic provide the following definition of blocking techniques: 'A block is a karate technique directed at a certain target – the opponent's hand, foot, leg or arm – for the purpose of arresting or deflecting his attack.' Okazaki and Stricevic’s definition informs us that blocking techniques are directed at the opponent's body part that is attempting to hit or kick the blocker. It also provides a description of how blocking techniques stop the opponent from hitting or kicking the blocker: by arresting or deflecting the attacking body part.

It should be noted that some martial arts or martial artists distinguish between blocking techniques and deflection or parrying. In this case, blocking techniques are isolated to those techniques that arrest an attack to avoid being hit or kicked. Deflection or parrying serve the same purpose but by a different means.

Blocking and Evasion

In Mastering Jiu-Jitsu, Gracie and Danaher distinguish between evasion and blocking to avoid being hit or kicked. Evasion does not involve contact with the opponent's attacking body part. Evasion can be basically subdivided into two types: those that involve moving the feet and those that involve moving just the upper body or head. Japanese martial arts refer to the former as taisabaki (body movement). Boxing teaches both methods with the former referred to as footwork and the latter bobbing and weaving.

If a body movement of any description is used in conjunction with a blocking (or deflection) technique, there are two questions that should always be asked. Firstly, was the body movement not sufficient to qualify as an evasion. Secondly, if the answer to the first question is affirmative, what was the purpose of the blocking technique. After all, the evasion took care of the problem of getting hit or kicked.

Blocking Possibilities

Nakayama, in the karate classic Dynamic Karate, suggests that, while blocking, you must attempt to seize the initiate and turn the opponent's attack to your advantage. He provides six methods that he suggests illustrates the various possibilities in blocking:

1. Block the opponent's arm or leg with sufficient force to discourage further attack. In a sense, this kind of block can be called an attack.

Nakayama does not define block. If we assume it involves a technique that is designed to avoid being hit or kicked, then this type of block serves two purposes. Firstly, to avoid being hit or kicked, and secondly, to apply sufficient force to cause pain and/or injury. If the block is used in conjunction with an evasive movement then it only serves the latter purpose. This is a possible answer to the question posed above.

2. Block the opponent's attack with only enough force to parry or deflect it. This
would be termed a light block in #1.

A deflection or parry changes the direction of the attack. If an evasive movement is used to avoid being hit or kicked there is no need to change the direction of the attack. If the attack is deflected in these circumstances, the question has to be asked and answered, why?

A 'brushing block' refers to a technique where the attack is brushed past the defender with no change in direction of the attack. This implies an evasive movement was used to avoid being hit or kicked. The question has to be asked as to the purpose of the brushing block.

3. Block and attack. Block the opponent's attack and immediately counter-attack. It is also possible to block and counterattack at the same instant.

Nakayama's solitary example of blocking and counterattacking at the same instant is unconvincing. The pencak silat I studied contained wonderful examples of the use of this strategy. However, it also contained wonderful examples of the use of brushing blocks in conjunction with evasive movements. Each brushing block now bears investigation as to purpose.

4. Unbalance the opponent with your block.

Jan de Jong jujutsu makes extensive use of taisabaki to avoid being hit or kicked, as well as to reposition to attack. It also makes use of blocking techniques which is explained by their use to unbalance the opponent.

The unbalancing is physical and 'mental.' The physical unbalancing involves applying forces to cause the opponent's centre of gravity to be located outside of their base of support. The 'mental unbalancing' involves applying forces that do not physically unbalance an opponent but stuns, causes sudden loss of motion, or pain. In this way, they are similar to Nakayama's blocking possibility #1.

5. Block the opponent's attack as it is about to begin. To do this you must anticipate his attack.

6. Block and then retreat to a safe position until a chance to counter presents itself.

Blocking possibility #5 is the very definition of seizing the initiative, whereas blocking possibility #6 is not so much.

Direct and Indirect Blocks

In two books dedicated to the mechanics of martial arts, Starr distinguishes between direct and indirect blocks. Direct blocks are described as being applied directly against the force of the opponent's attack. Starr suggests that this form of blocking often requires the blocker to be physically stronger than the opponent, and the risk of injury to the blocking body part is high if the opponent's attack is very powerful. Indirect blocks are described as being sometimes referred to as deflections. Starr suggests that because indirect blocks do not directly oppose the opponent’s attacking force, they require very little strength to apply and the risk of injury is minimised. Starr is correct, in so far as it goes.

Starr's examples of indirect blocks includes the standard karate, high, middle and low blocks. These blocks do not involve applying force directly against the force of the opponent's attack. They do not involve applying force in the opposite direction to the force of the opponent's attack. You will find that the vast majority of karate's blocking techniques are designed to apply force to the opponent's attacking limb at an angle to the force of the opponent's attack. They apply a force to an attacking body part at an angle which results in a deflection rather than the attack being arrested.

This is a common misconception, that and traditional blocks are designed to oppose force directly, espoused by many who attempt to extol the virtues of their soft blocking methods over hard blocking methods.

Given that deflections generally require less force than techniques designed to arrest an attack, why then do karate practice applying a great deal of force in their blocking methods. The answer's may lay in Nakayama's blocking possibilities #1 and #4.

Absorption Blocks

Gracie and Danaher refer to blocks absorbing the forces of the attacker's attacking body part. This is typical boxing style blocks, and can be seen in shin blocks etc. In this case, the blocking techniques are not so much designed to avoid getting hit or kicked as they are to manage what body parts are hit or kicked.

Karate style blocking techniques do not tend to absorb the force of the attacker's attacking body part as they are designed to apply forces to an opponent's attacking body part.

Forces

Forces cause all bodies and objects to change direction or shape. Forces applied in different ways result in different outcomes. Even when the points of contact between two bodies (defender and attacker) are similar, the direction and magnitude of the force can produce a different outcome. It is important for the martial artists to understand specifically what they are trying to achieve, and why they are trying to achieve that, in order to better understand how the forces are to be applied to achieve that outcome.

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

PS: Dear Reader

Okazaki and Stricevic make the following statement when discussing the forces involved in blocking techniques: 'The amount of force necessary to deflect an object is generally less than the force needed to initiate its motion.'

I am having some difficulty in supporting or correcting that statement in mechanical/physics terms. If any reader has mechanical or physics background and can help out in this regard, I'd be very grateful.

Thank you.