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.

Blitz Australasian Martial Arts Magazine - Feature Story

The latest edition of Blitz Australasian Martial Arts Magazine (Vol 31 No 6/Dec '17 - Jan '18) published my 'Why do we punch? How human hands evolved for punching' as their feature story.

Who is the Vector?

The author of a recent article in Blitz suggested that we should question our martial art. What are the right questions to ask?

I've drafted an article that assists in identifying the right questions to ask. Martial arts and self defence are designed to prevent or minimise injury from a violent encounter. Injury science studies injury with a view to preventing or controling injury. A tool that is used to analyse injury and brainstorm preventions that are designed to prevent and control injury is the Haddon Matrix. Rather than go through the matrix, I'll focus on one aspect of it here.

Injury science sees injury resulting from three interrelated factors: host, vector/vehicle, environment. The host is the person injured or at risk of injry, the vector is the animate organism and the vehicle the inanimate object that inflicts the injury, and the environment is the physical and social environment in which the injury event occurs. All three combine to produce an injury and all three provide intervention opportunities to prevent and control injury.

Learning martial arts or self defence is something the host (you) can do to prevent and control injuries resulting from an act of interpersonal violence. But the martial art or self defence you learn are highly dependent on the defintion of the vector.

Taking a quote from the end of Platton: 'I think now, looking back, we did not fight the enemy; we fought ourselves.'

Karate teaches defences against karate attacks. Boxing teaches defences against boxing attacks. Wing chun teaches defences against wing chun attacks. Even the mixed martials, which was originally designed to pit different martial arts against each other, evolved into a martial art of itself which is designed to defend against similiarly trained opponents.

The martial arts are generally designed to fight themselves.

Women's self defence (WSD). Most WSD courses are based on, explicitly or implicitly, a stranger attack, however, statistics show that the overwhelming majority of attacks on women, sexual or otherwise, are perpetrated by someone they know. Surely the strategies, tactics and techniques would differ depending on whether the attacker was a stranger or a familiar.

The author of the abovementioned Blitz article quite rightly suggested this is a major area of concern when developing or evaluation the self defence potentional of a martial art or self defence program.

Karate Kids Get Lesson In Fighting Back

'Karate kids get lesson in fighting back' is an article that published in The Age yesterday. Given my work for my book, I found some of the comments interesting.

Most children are taught the ''stranger danger'' message from a young age, but many parents are viewing martial arts training as a means of reinforcing that message with some physical self-defence skills, as well as for its health and fitness benefits.

My book uniquely contains a chapter on injury science, a relatively new science that studies injuries and the causes of injuries. All of the factors that interact to cause an injury are considered: the host, vector or vehicle, and environment. In this case, the host is the kids, the vector is a potential attacker, and the environment includes social and physical.

Injury events are divided into three time frames over which the factors interact: pre-event, event, and post-event.

Creating a matrix with the factors and phases of an injury event provides nine possible intervention points to prevent and control injuries from violence.

The stranger danger message is an intervention for the host in the pre-event phase. The physical self-defence training is an intervention for the host in the event phase.

Does martial arts training provide self-defence training? That is a contentious question with different opinions.

One of the biggest problems of martials training in terms of preventing and controlling injuries in a violent event is in the definition of the vector, the potential attacker. The definition of the vector is crucial to designing strategies, tactics and techniques to prevent and control injuries in a violent event. Most martial arts focus on the host and not the vector, or, the vector is themselves.

Most martial arts develop defences against their own style of attack. Karate teaches to defend against karate attack; judo against judo attacks; wing chun against wing chun attacks. Mixed martial arts was suppose to solve that problem except, through the principle of counter-response and symmetry, a new martial art evolved and defences were designed against those same type of attacks. How effective is this approach in preparing someone to defend themselves against someone who does not attack in the same fashion as those similarly trained?

This raises the issue of teaching one martial art to different ages and sexes. In another blog, the question of the applicability of male centric karate for females was questioned and explored. What then of adult centric karate for kids? Should there be different tactics and techniques taught if self defence is a supposed benefit of training and the vector is defined as an adult or a child of similar age?

''Part of martial arts is [trying] to avoid a situation by potentially seeing what's going to happen beforehand. It's not always easy, certainly for a young child, but you can at least teach some basic lessons, and that could help them.''
Trying to avoid a situation by seeing what's going to happen beforehand is an intervention in the pre-event phase. Do the martial arts teach skills that allows one to avoid a situation by seeing what's going on beforehand? Do they teach conflict resolution strategies that do not involve violence? I would suggest they do not. The martial arts focuses almost exclusively on the host-event cell in the matrix to prevent and control injuries from a violent event.

I'm not suggestion martial arts training does not assist in preparing a person to defend themselves. I'm suggesting that it may do so indirectly. I think not a lot of thought has gone into the suggestion that martial arts teaches one to defend themself when that is touted as being one of the functions or benefits of martial arts training.

If we truly want to ascribe a self defence function to martial arts training, then we need to review the martial art and its training. The abovementioned matrix, known as the Haddon Matrix, is a wonderful tool to help in reviewing the self defence function of martial art training and to develop enhanced capabilities.

Crazy Accident

It was reported today that a five-year-old boy accidentally shot dead his two-year-old sister. The rifle was given to the boy as a gift. The rifle used in the accident is a Crickett designed for children and sold under the slogan “My First Rifle,” according to the company's website.

The coroner said it is just one of those 'crazy accidents.' An autopsy was set to be conducted on Wednesday, but the coroner said he expected the shooting will be ruled accidental.

One of the chapters in my book is dedicated to injury science. Injury science is a relatively new science that studies injuries. The main focus of injury science is the prevention and control of injuries, however, as the father of injury science explains, it can also be used to study the infliction of injuries. What does injury science have to say about this incident?

INJURIES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS!

The term 'accident' denotes an unforeseen, unexpected event that is the result of chance, fate or destiny. It is also used to describe human error or mistake, which thereby excludes the person from the consequences of injury. 

When arguing for the need to discontinue the use of the word 'accident' when referring to unintentional injuries, Langley refers to a survey of women whose children had been injured. The results showed that many of them had not taken any action to prevent a reoccurrence of the event resulting in injury. The findings suggested that this was not because such events were perceived as being too difficult to control, or action was inappropriate, or that the event was useful education for the child. Rather, many mothers saw the incidents as something which by definition could not be prevented - an accident.

I've written before about the Japan Judo Accident Victim's Association which has been established in response to 108 deaths from training judo in school. An internationally renowned martial arts authority discussing the JJAVA experience commented, 'accidents will happen.' What impetus is there to find a solution to prevent and control fatal and serious injuries among students training judo if they are the result of accidents and accidents will happen? By definition they are unpredictable and unpreventable.

You often see coroner's findings as to the cause of death being accidental, even though there is an entire discipline that studies injuries, fatal and nonfatal, intentional and unintentional, whose mantra is: 'injuries are not accidents.' Findings of accidental absolve all involved of any responsibility. Is nobody responsible for the death of that young girl? Are not the parents for buying a four-year-old at the time of purchase a rifle? Is not Crickett for manufacturing firearms for children? Are not the law makers for allowing children to possess lethal weapons? Apparently none of them are responsible because it was an accident. By definition, nothing can be done to prevent or control injuries from similar events in the future because they are accidents and accidents are unpreventable.

Here is another idea. Direct coroners to study injury science - the science that is dedicated to the study of injuries. The science whose mantra it is - INJURIES ARE NOT ACCIDENTS.

 

'Rapists are to blame for rape.'

'Rapists are to blame for rape' is the title of an article by Kasey Edwards published on a news site today. What I found fascinating about this article is how my work on injury science and the survival process informed this article and provided opportunities for preventing and controlling 'injury' associated with these types of events. A number of chapters in my book are dedicated to these subjects.

William Haddon developed the Haddon Matrix to analyse injury events and to develop interventions to prevent and control injury. Firstly, it has been used to study and develop interventions not only for physical injuries, but also other types of injuries such as those arising from sexual assault, as well as damage generally. Secondly, prevention and control replaces the old paradigm of simply prevention. Under the old prevention paradigm, you were on your own should prevention measures fail.

The Haddon matrix juxtaposes all the factors that contribute to an injury with the time frame over which injury occurs. The factors are: host - person at risk of being injured; vector - person responsible for injury, or vehicle - inanimate object responsible for injury; and environment - cultural and physical. The time frame is pre-, during, and post injury event.

The shame and guilt Edwards refers to the host-post injury cell. She survived her abuse but now suffers post-abuse because of her own judgements about herself. What intervention can be developed to mitigate the suffering post-event/abuse. Knowledge. An understanding of our evolved survival mechanism is one such way. 'Why didn't I fight back,' she asks. She then judges herself for not fighting back.

How corrosive are judgements? Edwards survived. Isn't that something she should be thankful for. Unfortunately, nature provided us with cognition as well as instincts. They are distinct. Edwards writes about intellectual understanding and emotion, and insightful finds they are at odds with one another. Cognition developed after emotion. We use cognition to manage emotion, but, we humans, uniquely, use cognition to inflict pain on suffering on ourselves and others. What put us on top of the food chain also causes us pain and suffering.

Those who refer to mind and body as one are simplistic. Nature provided emotion before it did cognition. Emotion is designed to be used to promote survival when thinking is too slow. It gets a little more complicated as emotion is elicited via appraisal, which is a cognitive process albeit unconscious in the case of emotion.

Why didn't I fight back? My survival process concept goes far beyond the limited fight-or-flight model (and stress). Fight and flight behaviours are severely limited. We have been provided with a vast array of instinctive survival behaviours. Nature does not judge! Nature is only interested in our survival. Nature truly cares about our survival. Fair enough, nature also messed up a bit by providing cognition that then judges nature's handiwork.

Submission is an instinctive survival behaviour. Tonic immobility is an instinctive survival behaviour. TI is an involuntary catatonic-like state that is enacted when fight and flight fail. It resembles a dead animal as the person is unable to move or vocalise. Research suggests that up to 2/3 of sexual assault survivors experience TI during their attacks. Research also suggests that understanding that TI is an instinctive, involuntary survival behaviour lessens the corrosive effects of questioning the lack of action during an assault.

Edwards article is aimed at the pre- and post-event-environment cells. To change society's views on rape in order to reduce its incidence and reduce the psychological effects due to judgements. She is doing this through knowledge.

What this model and this information does is enable one to objectively analyse an injury event and understand all the factors that interact over time to produce an injury of any description. It then provides a means where interventions in multiple areas can prevent or control injuries that can arise from these events.

'I asked him what I could do so that we didn't have to fight'

The linked article was published today in The Age concerning a road rage incident experienced by a lawyer. It is a wonderful example by which the survival process concept I've developed by integrating the theories of fight-or-flight, stress and emotion theory can be used to gain greater insights and understanding.

When physically confronted, the lawyer explains that 'the savage instinct of fight/flight battered against the calmer, resolution-seeking side of my mind.' Lets dissect this statement with reference to the survival process concept.

'Instinct of fight/flight' refers to our evolved survival mechanism. A stimulus is unconsciously appraised. Based on that appraisal, a feeling response is elicited which motivates an impulse to act in a particular way. At the same time, an automatic physiological response is experienced which prepares the body for the behaviour that the feeling response motivates. The behaviour is designed to deal with the stimulus. This is our evolved survival mechanism.

The lawyer, even given their training to be exact with the use of their terminology, incorrectly refers to fight/flight. Many people who refer to the fight-or-flight concept do not understand that Walter Cannon, the developer of this concept, associated fight with anger and flight with fear. So, what was the lawyer's instinctive reaction - anger or fear? The different emotions are elicited based on different appraisals and produce different action tendencies which are supported by different physiological responses designed to prepare the body for different behaviours.

The lawyer was correct in referring to it as an instinct. Emotions were developed in our evolutionary past to deal with survival problems in the environment without the time consuming cognitive process. Is the instinct 'savage'?

We are all still 'cave people in suits.' We have changed our environment, but we have not evolved to adapt to that environment. The aggressor was prepared to physically engage the lawyer because of action tendency elicited by his appraisal of the lawyer beeping his car horn at him which in turn elicited the emotion of anger. Emotions were designed by nature to deal with threats to our well-being. Honking a car horn at someone is not a threat to our well-being, but some of us have not evolved to distinguish between the two.

Why did the lawyer describe this evolved instinct, albeit misdescribed, as 'savage.' He is placing a judgement on his instincts. Technically, savage is defined by violence and aggression. Flight is not violence or aggression. Savage is also defined as being uncivilised. 'Civilised' refers to a judgement about a stage of development that is considered to be more advanced. Now this refers to (a) interventions in the appraisal process in order to elicit certain emotions in response to certain stimuli, and/or (b) the ability to manage emotions once they are elicited.

The latter is what the lawyer was referring to when he wrote about the calmer, resolution-seeking side of his mind. There is a disconnect in humans between the impulse to act and the actual behaviour. This disconnect has been described as providing the opportunity of considered other behaviours other than the feeling-motivated impulse to act. Rather than fleeing or fighting the road rager, the lawyer was provided the opportunity to consider alternative behaviours because of this disconnect.

Some people obviously have a limited disconnection between impulse to act and actual behaviour. It is said that the difference between animals and humans is the disconnect between impulse and behaviour. Animals experience the emotion process in terms of a stimulus-response chain. I suppose technically you could say that those people who react in terms of a stimulus-response chain are closer to animals than humans.

'The only sensible outcome was to talk my way out of this. Be calm, swallow my pride, engage him so as to placate him.' Be calm - all of the components of the survival process are interrelated. A stimulus is appraised as a threat which elicits a feeling of fear which motivates an impulse to flee. At the same time, a physiological response is experienced which increases both heart rate and breathing rate to increase the amount of oxygenated blood that is provided to the muscles that will aid in flight. By intervening in the physiological response by voluntarily controlling his breathing, the lawyer was able to manage his feeling of fear and its associated impulse to act, along with the other physiological reactions and even the appraisal of the stimulus.

'Swallow my pride' - now that is an interesting comment. Pride is an emotion, hence, pride is based on an appraisal and elicits a feeling which motivates an impulse to act which a physiological reaction prepares the body to enact. What does 'swallow your pride' actually mean? I'd suggest it means to deal with the emotion of humiliation which is elicited based on the appraisal of the stimulus. The question then to consider is why are you feeling humiliated?

I recently watch the classic movie with Ben Kingsley playing Gandhi. In that movie, it shows line after line of Gandhi followers moving towards the military armed with large clubs who then clubbed the passive protesters. Did they swallow their pride when they were beaten and dragged away blooded and injured. No. In fact, they were probably proud of their non-violent action. Funnily enough, armed with an understanding of pain (which is another chapter in my book), they probably experienced the 'pain' associated with the beating far differently than you or I would under different circumstances.

Listen to what people say. It often says more about them than it does about what they are talking about. 'Swallow my pride' tells me the lawyer feels bad to a certain degree about not standing up to his aggressor/attacker. There is a judgement associated with his appraisal of the situation. Take an objective view of the experience or change the way you appraise the situation, and their is no more swallowing of pride.

'Engage him so as to placate him' - emotions are evolutionarily designed to be short lived. If you can stall someone from enacting their emotionally motivated action for a short period of time, the intensity of the emotion or the emotion itself would have subsided. This then provides the opportunity for cognition to be engaged. Remember, emotion is evolutionarily designed to override cognition; the latter being a later development in human evolutionary history.

The more we understand of the survival process, the less we will judge ourselves and others, and the more we will be able to manage our emotions in emotionally excitable circumstances.

The Effect of Sexual Assault Statistics

Most women's self defence courses (WSD) begin by informing the participants of the horrendous statistics associated with sexual assault. It could be argued this is problem solving 101: identify the problem and then provide a solution. It could also be argued that this is a marketing or motivational ploy in motivating the participants to enrol and actively learn and participate. But is this approach the best approach?

Jocelyn Hollander from the University of Oregan , based on her experience in teaching about violence against women, explains how she adopted the traditional approach of making a strong case about the pervasive and devastating nature of such violence. However, she found that 90% of her mostly female students felt disempowered by such information. The students felt vulnerable and that violence was inevitable. Emphasising women's victimisation reinforced the cultural fusion of femininity as vulnerability, weakness, and fragility.

Another source of discomfort for Hollander with her original approach was her increasingly firm belief that emphasizing women’s victimisation at the hands of men was, at best, telling only a partial story. According to a literature she had initially overlooked, women's victimisation is pervasive but not inevitable. For example, women successfully resist at least 75% of all attempted sexual assaults; in other words, they escape, they stop the violence, and they protect themselves as much as possible.

Hollander modified her original approach:

Together, these strategies help balance students' feelings of vulnerability and futility when learning about violence and provide a more complex picture of the realities of violence in women's lives. Information on women's resistance to violence included in class readings and lectures helps counter the myth that women can never defend themselves from men's violence and helps expand the students' understandings of resistance to include emotional, psychological, and verbal strategies. ... Information on those changes that have occurred challenges the sense of futility and powerlessness that often produces frozen inaction.

An approach I'm adopting is based on the evolved survival process concept I have developed. I've been thinking how I'd start a seminar or WSD course by asking the participants to raise their hand if they thought they were defenceless against a male attacker. I'd then explain that if they were truly defenceless, there would be no human race.

Nature provided a very sophisticated, comprehensive and effective defence mechanism for human beings. It involves an appraisal process that, if a stimulus is defined as a threat, elicits a feeling response which motivates an instinctive defensive behaviour that an automatic physiological reaction prepares the body to enact. There are numerous behaviours - flight, fight, tonic immobility, faint, help-seeking, submission, etc - that are evolved, instinctive defensive behaviours. These behaviours are supported by a different physiological response that supports the behaviour and promotes the survival of an individual.

The appraisal process is all important. It is made up of three parts: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and reappraisal. Primary appraisal results in a stimulus being appraised as irrelevant, benign-positive or stressful. Stressful appraisals are appraised as being harmful, threatening or challenging, and are subject to a secondary appraisal. Secondary appraisal determines the abilities and resources to deal with the harm, threat or challenge.

Constantly reinforcing a person's vulnerability changes their unconscious appraisal of their resources and abilities to deal with a threat. This shapes the feeling, physiological and behavioural responses to a threat in terms of its nature and intensity. If you don't believe you can defend yourself you won't be able to. You won't be able to take advantage of nature's defence mechanism to promote your own survival because your 'learned' appraisal tells you that you cannot defend yourself.

My approach is based on explaining to participants that nature provided them with a very effective defence mechanism. Society tends to undervalue and undermine this defence mechanism by the constant reporting of successful attacks on women in the news media as well as entertainment (movies, TV, books, etc). If our evolved survival responses are undermined, it reduces the possibility that those behaviours which are evolutionarily designed to promote survival and have done so successfully for thousands of years, will not be enacted when they are needed the most.

My approach goes on to say that the education and training I provide in my women's self protection program is designed to improve on nature. Nature's efforts is already effective, but it's usefulness is under-reported by the sensationalist and fear-provoking (which motivates sales) news media. I deliberately use the term 'protection' instead of 'defence' because my approach is holistic. It is based on injury science theory in which an injury event is divided into three phases: pre-event, event, and post event. It's also based on all the factors involved in an injury event: host (person at risk), vector or vehicle (person or object that can cause injury), and environment (physical and cultural).

Do not discount nor dismiss what nature gave you. Instead, learn more about what nature gave you and build on that.

Killer Commando

There is a fascinating article published on various news websites concerning a former Australian commando's (Paul Cale) developing a leading edge military close combat system based on martial arts. This could be read in conjunction with an interview with the same person in the Australian martial arts magazine, Blitz.

The original story is fascinating to me, not because of its 'warrior' story but because of the sheer nuts and bolts of it all which my work either informs or raises questions.

Cale tells of an incident in Afghanistan that became a hand-to-hand battle in which he strangled a Taliban fighter. Technically, despite the posted comments to the article, at no time does the article say that the strangulation killed the fighter. However, assuming it did, I'd be fascinated to know the details, not out of some morbid curiosity but from a purely technical point of view.

The forensic pathology literature time line proposed for neck holds/strangulation techniques/shime waza is approximately 10 seconds to unconsciousness, 2 minutes and will resuscitate unaided, 2-4 minutes and manual resuscitation will be required, 3-4+ minutes death.

Was the strangulation held on for 3-4 minutes to cause death? That's a long time to hold a technique in the middle of a combat scenario with multiple combatants. Or was the technique held on for long enough (approx. 10 secs) to induce unconsciousness and then released before the enemy was dispatched by another means? That is to say the strangulation facilitated a decisive technique and was not the decisive technique in and of itself.

This then raises the question concerning how this technique is taught to be tactically employed in a close combat system.

If the time line proposed by the forensic pathology discipline is mistaken, given they've no personal experience in using the technique to cause a fatal injury, Cale's experience would be a unique contribution to the body of knowledge.

Cale talks about breaking an enemy fighter's shoulder. Again, I'd love to know how as I've developed a simply anatomical classification that explains the mechanics of how a shoulder is dislocated by any technique that targets the shoulder taught by any martial art, combat sport, or activity associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter. This understanding then, through experience, facilitates the understanding, study, and use of the technique as you know precisely what your application of force(s) is designed to achieve (more than beyond 'break elbow').

Cale talks about the military kit not being suited for being engaged in hand-to-hand combat and that he developed a method which caters for this limitation. It is disturbing when you see any military close combat, law enforcement empty hand control training, and martial arts being used in those two environments, when the techniques taught to be used in an operational environment are trained wearing outfits that are not worn in operational environments (e.g. uniform with no kit or sports attire). I would dearly love to see Cale's modifications to his martial arts methods to cater for the wearing of the cumbersome military kit.

Cale makes the very important point that the combat sport is only used to train a combat ethos. It is a part of his overall training methodology. It is important to understand what the training produces. Combat sports does not teach combat methods. To be sure, there are overlaps, but there is also significant differences, as Cale points out. Many in the martial arts worship 'action,' 'doing things,' and disregard an intellectual study of what they are doing. Because you struggle and train with resistance, sweat, feel pain, get injured, injure and inflict pain, bleed and cause bleeding, does not mean that your training is preparing you for an operational environment. It most definitely trains a mind set, or a warrior ethos as Cale refers to it as, but the tactics and techniques may not 'fit' the operational environment.

Injury science's division of the factors of an injury event - host (person at risk of being injured), vector (person attempting to cause an injury), and the environment - forces you consider all of these factors. The martial arts tends to ignore the latter two factors, which then affects the development of the tactics and techniques of that martial art.

Taking Cale's methodology a step further based on injury science's methodology. You train your close combat methods in your military kit. Should your training partner do likewise? The Taliban fighter is not going to be similarly attired. If you develop tactics and techniques based on an enemy being similarly attired (and similarly trained), they may be flawed. A similar argument is applicable for the environment factor (dojo/training hall vs closed confines of a room in a house in Afghanistan).

The father-of-two said his program also helped returned soldiers suffering with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. "It's very calming and we find a lot of guys are coming to classes just to unwind and release the pressure valve," he said. "I'm broken, injured and a little bit older than most. For me it's all about technique and being calm and centred. Our psychologists are looking into the calming effect and apparently there's been a body of work done on this issue and US veterans."

In the Blitz article, Cale refers to 'stress relief.' Stress is a limited concept. It looks at a survival mechanism that was selected for in nature to promote an individual's survival. Stress only looks at part of that mechanism, and from a biased viewpoint. Even those involved in the stress discipline describe stress and an ambiguous concept.

The survival process model I've developed provides a holistic approach to study the calming effects produced by combat sports training Cale refers to. Stress training, and some PTSD recovery programs, use an academic understanding of stress and stress effects/symptoms to help manage them. The survival process model, due to its comprehensive/holistic nature, improves on the stress approach.

80% of killers known to their victims

I came across a newspaper article titled '80 percent of killers know their victims':

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/80-per-cent-of-killers-known-to-their-victims-20130221-2eudm.html

Injury science is a relatively new science that studies the causes of injury (including fatal injuries). Injury is studied in terms of all the factors that contribute to an injury: the host, agent (vector or vehicle), and environment.

The host is the person at risk of being injured. While not technically correct for the sake of this post, the agent is defined as the vector or vehicle. The vector is the person who is injuring the host and the vehicle is the object that injures the host. The environment consists of the physical as well as the social, etc.

The World Health Organisation presents a relevant explanation of these factors in causing an injury. This is an extract from my book:

The WHO suggest that the epidemiological model can be used to analyse an act of interpersonal violence where a person slaps another person. In this case the host is the person slapped, the agent is the kinetic energy (slap), the vector is the person who does the slapping, and the environment includes the domestic situation and the societal norms or values that make such behaviour acceptable. These factors interact to cause an injury. Using a model of this type can help to identify all the factors involved in an injury from interpersonal violence.

In the martial arts, the host is the martial artist. Who is the vector? This is an important question because the strategies, tactics and techniques developed and taught by the martial art are determined by the definition of the vector.

For the most part, the vector is largely ignored which means by default it becomes someone trained in the same martial art. Judo teaches defences against judo attacks, karate teaches defences against karate attacks, wing chun teaches defences against wing chun attacks. How self defence oriented is this approach?

Sun Tzu in The Art of War suggests that our odds of success in battle decrease as our knowledge of ourself or our enemy decreases. Most martial arts are very knowledgeable about themselves. Who is the enemy? This is an important question because the strategies, tactics and techniques developed, taught and trained reflects the knowledge of the enemy, explicitly or implicitly.

Who is our enemy? According to the above article, the enemy is an acquaintance or domestic (e.g. partner) and the method of violence is 39% knife attacks or 25% beaten. Does your martial art cater for that scenario? Does your self defence course cater for that scenario? Does your 'real fighting' training cater for that scenario?

My point is that if the focus is on self defence, it behoves us to get to know our enemy. To question the underlying assumptions of the activities that purports to teach us self defence.

Professional Combat Sports Amendment Act 2011

The Professional Combat Sports Amendment Bill 2009 was passed by Parliament in October 2011. This new legislation establishes broader regulatory coverage of combat sports in WA and ensures that all combat sports contestants enjoy the same level of health and safety controls that have been enjoyed by professional contestants under the Professional Combat Sports Act 1987.

The new legislation was to come into effect on 1 July 2012 however some delays have been encountered with the finalisation of the regulations and the approval of rules. At this time the current unamended version of the Professional Combat Sports Act 1987 is still in effect with the new legislation coming into force in the coming months.

It should be noted that this new legislation only applies to actual combat sport contests as defined by the legislation. The legislation does not apply to training sessions, in gym sparring, martial arts classes or fitness classes with a combat sport feel.

The Department of Sport and Recreation and the Professional Combat Sports Commission (PCSC) will work with the industry to ensure that all parties are educated, informed and supported through the transitional phase leading up to the roll out of the new legislation.

Should you have any queries regarding the legislation please contact Greg McGuire at the Department of Sport and Recreation on 9492 9746 or via email at combatsport@dsr.wa.gov.au

I have a question for Mr McGuire. Does the Commission actually know what they are doing?

Don't get me wrong. I am no anti government, big brother, conspiracy theory type. I simply object to ignorance and stupidity.

The Commission's 2012 annual report states that 'the structure of the Commission is a vital enabling element of the broader governance system. The structure refers to the size and composition of the Commission, including independence, the presence of commissioners and has regard for the balance of gender, cultural diversity, skills and experience.' Apparently actually knowing anything about the safety of combat sport participants is secondary to the Government mandate for political correctness and equality.

The 2012 annual report lists the Commission representatives. What is the one position that is vacant?: Nominee of the medical of the Australian Medical Association. There is not one member on the Commission that has any detailed knowledge of possible injuries.

The Chair is a lawyer. He specialises in criminal law. The previous Chair was a lawyer who likewise specialised in criminal law. I met him and he is simply an ambitious lawyer using the Commission for ambitious purposes. How is it that lawyers insinuate themselves into the nooks and crannies of everyday life? They are like rats. At the very heart of their profession is disingenousness. They do not argue a position because they believe in it, they argue it for the sake of arguing it.

We then have a representative from the WA Police Force. Why? Surely the legal aspect of governance is covered by the lawyer.

Next we have the Nominee of the Director General of the Department of Sport and Recreation. Fair enough. You have to have a department representative, even if they know nothing about the actual thing that is attempting to be governed.

Next we have industry representatives. Seriously?!? The martial arts and combat sports are bereft of understanding of the 'why' of what they do. They are very good at the how, but the physiological or anatomical effects of their techniques, they haven't a clue. All you have to do is reference the literature associated with these activities to see the desert that is the knowledge associated with these activities. Even scratch the surface of the literature that has attempted to explain the physiological or anatomical effects of these methods and you will see that they are uninformed.

Of the many, many questions the Commission should be considering is the use of neck holds/shime waza. If forensic pathology and law enforcement authorities around the world consider these techniques to be lethal force, how can they be sanctioned in competition. It is illegal to use lethal force in competition. And please reader, do not simply refer to the ignorant public who influence policy. If you read the research and literature on this subject you'll understand their stance is not influenced by public opinion.

Do not get me wrong, I am not arguing for or against the use of these techniques. What I am arguing is that this is an obvious quandary that any proper Commission should be considering, but because of the uninformed nature of this Commission, they don't even recognise it is an issue.

Good luck combat sports, for you are now governed by an uninformed Commission.

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.

School Violence By Firearms

The Sandy Hook tragedy is a tragedy. There is now a debate about a gun control debate. What can be done to prevent and control injuries from school violence by firearms? First, how can we study the problem? Second, how can we brainstorm possible interventions to prevent and control injuries from school violence by firearms?

Injury science (my chapter nine) provides the answers through the use of Haddon's Matrix. This goes far beyond the simplistic single cause, single solutions that are being offered to a simple public. Far, far beyond. It goes beyond mere prevention. It also focuses on what can be done to minimise injury and the impact of injury when prevention measures fail and injury occurs. Not just physical injury, but also psychological injury.

The Haddon Matrix is a three by three, or three by four, matrix. It provides nine or twelve intervention possibilities to prevent and control injury. The National Rifle Association's suggestion to insert armed police officers in every school in American is a simple intervention aimed at only one cell in Haddon's Matrix. Barrack Obama's possible attempts at gun control is a simple intervention aimed at only one cell in Haddon's Matrix. Haddon's Matrix suggests that there is far more that we can do to prevent and control injuries from school violence by firearms.

Has injury science and Haddon's Matrix been turned to school violence by firearms. Yes it has! See here for the application of Haddon's Matrix to the issue of injuries (fatal and non-fatal) arising from school violence by firearms. All those responsible for possible or potential solutions to this problem NEED to approach this problem from an injury science perspective. This perspective exemplified in the Haddon Matrix which goes beyond mere prevention, and looks at ALL the factors that contribute to an injury over the ENTIRE time frame of an injury.

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.

Coping With The Reality Of Violence

I've been struggling with a part of my chapter concerning injury science. I've written about the history, theories and concepts of injury science, and I'm trying to apply the theories and concepts to activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter ('Survival Activities'). It has such potential to shine a very bright light on Survival Activities that I do not want to prejudice its potential by a poor application the first time it is introduced to Survival Activities.

This morning I read: A world of illusion: Coping with the reality of violence. It is an essay concerning violence and what we can do. The author asks, 'What can we do?' He suggests, 'The best we can do is take those measures that are prudent,' and 'The best you can do is take whatever measures are reasonable in your particular environment.' Injury science offers ways and means of operationalising this advice.

It takes a chapter to get to this point, but we'll start at this point in this blog - Haddon's Matrix. William Haddon provided a matrix that is designed to analyse any injury, harm or damage event. It takes all the factors that contribute to injury, harm or damage into account and over the time frame associated with said injury, harm or damage. The factors and phases are cross tabulated to form a nine cell matrix.

The factors are based on epidemiology. They are host (person injured), vector or vehicle (animate or inanimate object inflicting the injury), and environment (physical, social, cultural, etc). The phases are before the interaction of host and vector (before assault), during interaction (assault), and after interaction (after assault).

Injury science is about prevention and control. The control aspect refers to minimising injury and the effects of injury should prevention measures fail. The simple prevention model abandons you if prevention measures fail - as do most Survival Activities teachings.

This matrix is an analytical tool and a strategy brainstorming tool. It aids us in analysing an injury event (act of violence). It aids us in analysing the risk of an injury event. It provides multiple intervention points to prevent or control injury in the case of a violent event. The traditional martial arts model tends to focus on the host-vector cell alone. There are eight more cells where interventions can be introduced to prevent or control injuries arising from a violent event.

The Haddon Matrix forces you to think about all the factors and all the phases in an injury/violent event. It then encourages you to consider interventions at the different stages and with the different factors that contribute to the event. The author of the abovementioned post quite rightly referred to environment. However, it is the interactions between the host (victim or potential victim), vector (aggressor), and the environment that define the injury event. All three and their interaction have to be considered. Typically, this is poorly done in the martial arts and self defence courses.

This topic is far too detailed and large for a blog post. This post is designed to (a) inform the reader there is a tool that assists in developing strategies to counter the effects of violence, (b) introduce the reader to the Haddon Matrix concept, and (c) interest the reader in my work.

Duty of Care

Injury and pain are two phenomena that are at the very heart of all fighting methods. They are a major feature in the definition of offensive and defensive aggression and violence. Explicit explanation of them are also noticeably absent in the literature associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter.

I'm currently writing a chapter on injury referencing the theories and concepts of injury science. Injury science is a relatively new science that studies injury and the causes of injury. It is also a science that has hitherto not been explicitly referred to within the literature associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter.

The following is one section of that chapter which deals with duty of care. Duty of care is a concept that is often referred to by lawyers and non-lawyers alike but which many non-lawyers have never actually studied. Lawyers only know it from a legal standpoint, not from a practical standpoint.

Duty of Care

The modern concept of duty of care was first defined by Lord Atkin in the famous landmark case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. This case was an appeal to the House of Lords England by Mrs Donoghue who became ill after drinking a bottle of ginger beer that was contaminated by a decomposing snail. She subsequently sued Stevenson, the manufacturer. Finding in favour of Mrs Donoghue, Lord Atkin said: 'The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; ... You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.'

How does a person or organisation discharge their duty of care? By taking reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that would likely injure a person to whom a duty of care is owed and which are reasonably foreseeable. The Donoghue v Stevenson case focused on who the 'neighbour' is, who a duty of care is owed to, however, let's get back to core of the problem – injury and the cause of injury.

If you want to avoid injuring a person, surely it behoves you to first understand what causes an injury. Injury science not only provides the means to understand what causes an injury, it provides means and ways of understanding and identifying means and ways of preventing and controlling injury. In this way, the theories and concepts of injury science have a great deal to contribute to the discharging of a duty of care.

The Japan Judo Accident Victims Association (JJAVA) was established in response to 108 student (aged between 12 and 18) fatalities in Japanese junior and senior high schools from 1983 to 2009 as a result of judo accidents. Their mission is to 'support victims and find ways to reduce death and serious injury among students in Japan through introduction of effective safety measures as standard practice in the sport of judo.' The first thing that injury science would offer in support of the JJAVA mission is: injuries are not accidents.

Sommers explains that 'the term "accident" denotes an unforeseen, unexpected event that is the result of chance, fate or destiny. It is also used to describe human error or mistake, which thereby excludes the person from the consequence of injury' (emphasis added. If the above fatalities are the result of an accident, then by definition they are unforeseen and there is no breach of a duty of care. There would be no legal obligation for the instructors or school authorities to take reasonable care to avoid these injuries because they are unforeseen 'accidents.'

When arguing for the need to discontinue the use of the word 'accident' when referring to unintentional injury events, Langley refers to a survey of women whose children had been injured. The results showed that many of them had not taken any action to prevent a reoccurrence of the event resulting in injury. The findings suggested this was not because such events were perceived as being too difficult to control, or action was inappropriate, or that the event was useful education for the child. Rather, many mothers saw the incidents as something which by definition could not be prevented – an 'accident.'

'Accidents will happen' – this was a post on an internet forum by an internationally renowned (but unnamed here) martial arts authority discussing the JJAVA experience. What impetus is there to find ways to reduce death and serious injury among students if the fatalities and serious injuries are the result of accidents, and accidents will happen? By definition they are unpredictable and unpreventable.

Sommers suggests that a better understanding of the nature of injury in the past few years has led to a reconceptualisation of injury as a largely preventable event. The JJAVA mission of preventing future fatalities and serious injuries is supported by the injury science mantra that injuries are not accidents. The JJAVA mission would be further supported by reference to injury science theory. The duty of care espoused by Lord Atkin only refers to preventing injuries. Injury science goes beyond mere prevention. Injury science offers solutions to prevent and control injury should injury occur. Injury science offers solutions that limit the exposure to legal liability associated with a breach of duty of care. Injury science goes beyond the mere legal to our moral and ethical duty to prevent and control injury generally.

******

The above is a first draft. After reading it in this post, I am struck with the emphasis that duty of care is NOT just a legal duty. It is not something that is dealt with by purchasing insurance. It is a moral and ethical duty before it is a legal duty. It is not a risk that is transferred to a third party via insurance; it is a risk you address youself in order to discharge your moral and ethical duty of care. And how can you address your duty of care if you don't know what causes an injury?

Secondly, surely your public liability insurance premiums should be reduced if you can demonstrate your comprehensive efforts at discharging your duty of care. Much the way health insurance premiums should be reduced if you do not smoke. By definition, injury science offers the means and ways to address injury risk issues, which the insurance companies could adopt to reduce premiums for those who utilise these ways and means.

Thirdly, injury science's mantra, injuries are not accidents, makes a mokery of coroner's 'accidental death' rulings. There is no accidental death. One-punch deaths, which have been a subject of previous posts on this blogs, are not accidental deaths. The legal system defined them as so up until, in Western Australia, specific legislation assigned responsibility for one-punch deaths to the aggressor who initiated the process that led to the death. The legal system is slowly catching up with injury science.

Lastly, while locating an image to insert at the top of this post, I noticed that a number of martial arts organisations offer services to the public, particularly the corporate public, that are designed to assist in discharging their duty of care. Even the school I previously taught at offers these services. Given Lord Atkin's explanation of duty of care, surely it compromises the ability to assist in discharging a duty of care if one is unaware of the causes of injury. To put it another way, surely it enhances the ability to assist in discharging a duty of care if one is aware of the causes of injury.

My book will be the first in the literature associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter that will address this issue directly.

Plan a Violence Prevention Program

There is a saying about writing a book: it's like drinking an ocean and pissing a cup. That is so very true in my experience. I have drunk the ocean, and pissed a barrel. I'm now in the process of drinking the barrel in the hope of pissing a cup. This is a rather crude way of saying I'm in the redrafting process.

In Hostility and Aggression, Zillmann defines aggressive behaviour as being 'any and every activity by which a person seeks to inflict bodily damage or physical pain upon a person who is motivated to avoid such infliction.' He distinguishes between offensive and defensive aggression. Offensive aggression is when a person seeks to inflict injury or pain upon a person who is not attempting or has not been attempting to inflict injury or pain upon him or her. Defensive aggression is when a person seeks to inflict injury or pain upon a person who is attempting or has been attempting to inflict injury or pain upon him or her.

Zillmann is describing the very essence of all activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter. Injury and pain are at the very heart of those activities. What are the two subjects that are never explicitly studied in any text associated with these activities? Injury and pain. My current work uniquely studies both injury and pain.

I came across a relatively new science that studies injury when attempting to understand the science behind striking and kicking techniques. The martial arts and biomechanics literature do a very poor job of relating biomechanical principles to technique in any meaningful way. It was when I decided to tackle the problem from the opposite direction and asked, 'What causes an injury?', that I discovered injury science.

No text associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter has referred to injury science to date.

To give you a taste of what is to come, and what is possible, the following link is a good example of what injury science has to offer. It uses injury science theory to develop a violence prevention program for emergency departments.

The Haddon Matrix is a powerful tool to help us consider all factors that contribute to a non-fatal or fatal, unintentional or intentional injury. The above is an example of its use.

Anyone who is teaching self defence (contrasted with martial arts) and are not referring to the Haddon Matrix is doing themselves and their students a disservice. Anyone who is teaching scenario based training or reality based training that is not referring to the Haddon Matrix is doing themselves and their students a disservice. Anyone who is teaching security, prison service, law enforcement or the military and are not referring to the Haddon Matrix are doing themselves and their personnel a disservice. Anyone teaching a women's self defence course that does not refer to the Haddon Matrix are doing themselves and their students a disservice. Anyone developing any course or training for any of those activities that do not refer to the Haddon Matrix are doing themselves and their students a disservice.

This tool not only assists in developing strategies, tactics and techniques, it can also be used to satisfy the 'duty of care' associated with teaching and training those strategies, tactics and techniques.