Kodokan Judo Belts and Snooker Balls

I was updating my book tentatively titled, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques, and was looking into what a black belt originally meant when introduced by Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo.

Kano introduced the black belt to distinguish between seasoned practitioners and others. Kawaishi introduced coloured belts for kyu grade because he was teaching in France and considered that Westerners needed some form or recognition for advancement.

So where did the colours come from for the kyu grades.

The International Judo Federation website refers to one theory that they were based on the colour of ... snooker balls. :) I just love this. Different colours with different values.

I've read a description for Kyokushin karate which refers to the colours of their kyu belts reflecting those of our 'aura.' The invisible energy fields that surrounds all living things apparently, although not so invisible if they formed the basis for a coloured belt grading system.

The martial arts (as opposed to the martial way) was developed by practical people for practical reasons. I just hate how it has be subverted and devalued by those who use it take people on a supposed 'magical mystery tour.'

If you want the whole analogy thing, which is the most important ball on the snooker table :) ... the white ball pots the coloured balls to win the game, including the black.

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.

In response to a comment on post questioning when teaching martial arts became not enough

My previous post was regarding the focus, marketing driven, on fitness when teaching martial arts: 'When did teaching martial arts become not enough?' That focus is exemplified for me with the rebranding of my old school by its new principals from Jan de Jong Self Defence School to Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness.

I am pleased to say that my post attracted a comment from a knowledgeable and thoughtful student of the martial arts. They referred to Kano's Kodokan Judo, a text that needs to be studied rather than just read. Kano was a man and martial artists far ahead of his times, as I demonstrate in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques.


The second chapter of Kodokan Judo is titled: 'Principles and Aims of Kodokan Judo.' The first section is titled: 'Judo as Physical Education.'

What has to be understood is that Kano was on a rescue mission when he developed Kodokan Judo. He studied traditional forms of jujutsu and despaired at the decreasing number of students studying jujutsu. Jujutsu was a Japanese cultural institution that was in danger of being lost to the Japanese people so Kano developed Kodokan Judo to appeal to the Japanese people in order to be a vehicle for them to then become interested in studying the traditional jujutsu.

One of the main marketing strategies that Kano adopted was to turn the traditional fighting art of jujutsu into a sport, and, a form of physical education. These were marketing strategies to generate interest by the current generation of Japanese so that they would then go on to study traditional jujutsu, the traditional cultural icon of the Japanese.

Those martial arts schools today who rebadge, rebrand, or focus on physical education, physical fitness, do not have such noble motives. It is purely a cynical marketing exercise to attract new students who are not necessarily interested in studying martial arts per se.

I will leave you with a comment that I received from a grand child of de Jong regarding this matter: 'I recall someone speaking of a conversation they had with my grand father who had come from another martial arts school and asked “why don’t you condition your fighters” and his response was something to the effect of “why would I condition my students when the intention is for the fight to go for the shortest time possible.”' De Jong to a T.

When did teaching martial arts become not enough?

When did teaching/learning martial arts become not enough? Is teaching/learning martial arts relevant anymore?

I am continually seeing fitness appended to martial arts when advertising or promoting one's teachings. My old school, or at least the school that emerged from my old school, rebranded itself from Jan de Jong Self Defence School to Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness. The WA Institute of Martial Arts advertises 'Martial Arts Fitness is here.' I just saw another advert/promotion directly coupling martial arts with fitness.

Is a dojo now also a gym? What is the focus of the teaching, martial arts or fitness? Do you ever see cricket, football, basketball etc directly coupled with fitness? 'Football fitness is here.' 'Netball fitness is here.' You don't see other physically activities desperately trying to establish relevance by appending their activity to fitness.

If the focus is on fitness, what impact does that have on martial arts teaching?

Efficiency is a feature of Jigoro Kano's teachings. Efficiency means less effort. The more efficient your tactics and techniques the less effort required to execute them. Does that mean that teachings which teach efficient tactics and techniques are less because they don't focus on fitness which requires more effort?

I understand the marketing impulse to try and extend the brand from martial arts to the fitness industry given the interest in martial arts appears to be waning. But does extending the brand mean that the brand loses meaning? Or that the product is over extended? Is aikido a means to get fit rather than to learn aikido?

When I teach, I am only interested in fitness insofar as it contributes to martial arts effectiveness. I am not interested in teaching fitness for the sake of fitness. If you are unfit and effective, it's all good to me. If you want to get fit, for whatever reason, join a gym. Go for a run. Stop driving your car and walk to work or school.

The two best instructors in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School were Shihan Jan de Jong and Sensei Greg Palmer. Nobody would ever accuse them of being fit, however, they were extremely effective as practitioners and most definitely as teachers. When I wanted to learn martial arts, I'd go to them before any of the other 'fit' instructors.

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.

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.

Difference Between Throws and Takedowns Part 2

I started to share my journey in developing a definitive distinction between throws and takedowns in the martial arts in my last post.

Does judo teach throwing techniques and takedown techniques?

You'd think judo does teach throwing techniques and takedown techniques given Geoff Thompson's The Throws & Takedowns of Judo. Why then does Thompson not provide an explanation of the difference between the two types of techniques and refers to all the techniques in his book as throws? Are any of the techniques included in Thompson's book on throws and takedowns, takedowns but mistakenly referred to as throws?

Jigoro Kano's classification of judo techniques includes a class for nage waza (throwing techniques) but none for taoshi waza (takedown techniques). Does this mean judo does not teach takedown techniques? Or does it mean that judo does teach takedown techniques but doesn't consider their differences to be so telling as to warrant a separate class of their own? Or, as is more likely, does it mean that they don't understand the differences between throwing techniques and takedown techniques.

Eddie Ferrie, in Ju-Jitsu: Classical and Modern, has an interesting take on this issue. He refers to judo's Gokyo no Kata which includes 40 nage waza and suggests that 'there are many more throws commonly practiced and witnessed in competitions that are not included in go-kyo, many are classified as "takedowns" and do not have a proper name.'

Are those 'throws' not included in go-kyo throws or takedowns? These 'throws' are supposedly classified as takedowns, however, the judo classification does not include a class for takedowns. Why are these techniques not included in go-kyo and not have a proper name? Are takedowns the red-headed stepchild of judo; unacknowledged, unnamed, and not considered alongside the other, legitimate techniques of judo?

It would appear that some in the martial arts have adopted a new term - 'throws and takedowns' - to refer to all techniques designed to cause a person to fall to the ground. The reference to both terms suggests there are two different types of techniques, however, by lumping them all together, it suggests that the similarities are understood but the differences are not.

The journey continues with part 3.

What's The Difference Between Throws and Takedowns? Part 1

What is the difference between a throw and a takedown in the martial arts? This is the question that was asked on the Martial Arts Planet internet forum in 2007. The following is a summary of the responses received:

• There is no official distinction.
• A hard and fast definition is difficult because there is so much overlap between the two.
• A throw ends a fight and a takedown takes the fight to the ground.
• Both of the opponent's feet have to leave the ground with a throw and not a takedown.
• A throw gets one or both feet off the ground and a takedown gets one or no feet off the ground.
• It is martial art dependent. The same technique may be a throw in one martial art and a takedown in another.
• In addition to throws and takedowns, there are slams, sweeps, reaps, and trips.
• You go with the opponent to the ground with a takedown and not with a throw.
• A distinction between the two techniques cannot be based solely on mechanics.

Despite the quality of the source of the information, the responses are a pretty good depiction of the different conceptions that are held within the martial arts community of the distinction between throws and takedowns. They also reflect the confusion that surrounds the issue.

'There is no offical distinction'
The book I initially proposed to write was a how-to book on the jujutsu taught by Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan. It was intended to contain difference chapters for each class of technique taught by Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu/Jan de Jong jujutsu (and most other jujutsu systems) which included separate chapters for throws and takedowns. I wanted an authoritative definition(s) that distinguished between throwing techniques and takedown techniques for those chapters so I undertook a comprehensive review of the English-language martial arts and related fields literature. The results of that review was that, as respondent #1 above suggested, there is no official distinction between these two types of techniques within the martial arts literature.

Authoritative Distinction
The how-to book was shelved in favour of a book on the science behind martial arts/fighting techniques and the teaching thereof and a chapter was devoted to my failed search for an authoritative distinction between these two types of techniques. Within that chapter I also present, for the first time in the English-language martail arts and related literature, an authoritative distinction between these two types of techniques. This distinction then forms the basis for classifying all techniques that are designed to cause a person to fall to the ground.

I'm drafting an article about this issue for the Blitz martial arts magazine. Due to the limitations on the size of magazine articles, which I frequently exceed, I cannot detail this most interesting of journey's within the martial arts literature to find an authoritative distinction between these two types of techniques, so I thought I might share some of the journey with the readers of this blog.

Classification
The authoritative distinction between these two types of techniques I developed formed the basis of classifying all techniques that cause an opponent to the ground. When I discussed this classification with some senior martial artists I was generally met with bemusement. 'Why classify these or any other techniques?', they would ask. Rather than just assume I'm rightand my work is of importance, I went in search of an explanation of why classification is important. In researching this answer I came across 'the core of all learning.'

The Core of All Learning
The core of all learning is said to be the identification of similarities and differences. There seems to be consent as to the similarities between throws and takedowns - they are both types of techniques that cause a person to fall to the ground - but there is no consensus as to what separates them apart ... not until now.

Research has identified four forms of identifying similarities and differences that are highly effective: comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. Each of those forms of identifying similarities and differences are seen by cognitive theorists as being more than simply linguistic or literary devices, rather, they are seen as being fundamental ways of thinking.

Rather than asking 'Why classify?', we should instead be asking why we don't classify. In the case of throws and takedowns it is probably because while the similarities between these two types of technique are understood, the differences are not.

Previewing

We will see that classification can be used, as it is intended to be used, to preview the technique to be taught or learnt. For instance, what do you know if you were told you were going to be taught a throw? You'd know that you are about to be taught a technique were forces are applied to an opponent to cause them to fall to the ground. What would you know if you were told you were about to be
taught a te waza (hand technique) as per Jigoro Kano's classification of judo techniques? You'd know that you are about to learn a technique that is:

1. a nage waza where forces are applied to an opponent to cause them to fall to the ground;
2. a tachi waza where the thrower will be standing during and at the completion of the execution of the technique;
3. a te waza where the thrower’s hand is the main body part that plays a central role in the execution of the technique; and
4. similar to other te waza and different from all non-te waza techniques.

You'd know all this before you even knew the name of the technique let alone before you'd seen it demonstrated, just because the technique was classified as a te waza. This classification is already suggesting to you what the key elements in the technique are, the important elements to look for. You can call upon your background knowledge of similar techniques to understand and learn the new technique.

Judo and Takedowns

What would you know if you were told you were about to learn a takedown (taoshi waza) with reference to Kano's classification of judo techniques? You'd know you were not learning judo.

The judo classification does not include a class that refers to takedowns (taoshi waza). That means that either judo does not teach takedown techniques or that judo does teach takedown techniques but they are included in another class of technique. The latter explanation means that the similarities between takedown techniques and the other techniques in the class, e.g. nage waza, have been identified but either the differences are considered not material enough to warrant their own class or, as is the case, they are not understood.

Does judo teach takedown techniques? Geoff Thompson's The Throws and Take-Downs of Judo would suggest they do - but then why does Thompson not provide definitions that distinguish between these two similar types of techniques and refers to all the techniques in his book as throws?

 The journey continues in part 2.

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.

 

Sensei

This is a mediation on instructing and teaching. It was brought about when considering the objective of my book: to teach both teachers and students.

What does Sensei mean? Apparently it is translated as 'one who is born before.' This may be used in a literal or metaphorical sense. The person standing in front of the class was 'born' in that martial art before the students in front of them.

Sensei is also used to refer to a teacher and to show respect to someone who has achieved a certain level of mastery in an art form or some other skill. Teaching and mastery are very different qualities. A distinction that is lost on so many, including many sensei.

Those who know, do. Those that understand, teach.

Who do you want to be taught by? Those who can do or those who understand? The two are not necessarily related.

Morehei Ueshiba, founder of Aikido, was a brilliant practitioner. Reading some of the interviews or biographies of instructors that came after him commonly refers to confusion surrounding his teaching. On the other hand Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo, is often considered a mediocre practitioner but without exception a great teacher.

Jan de Jong knew, and he did. He understood, and he taught. But was he a good teacher? A professional teacher who was also a senior instructor of De Jong's would explain to me that, technically, De Jong was not a good teacher.

'The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.'

Using the above criteria, it cannot be questioned that De Jong was a great teacher. He inspired, not like modern coaches with pep talks and rousing speeches, nor 'tough love,' but through his sheer enthusiasm, interest and joy of what he taught and wanted to share with others.

Technically, I am a better teacher than De Jong. Inspiration wise, I'll never come close.

I know some experienced and knowledgeable martial artists and they worship practical ability while dismissing theory. There is a reason why many elite athletes do not go on to become coaches. They can do but they don't understand. Would you seek out Roger Federer to coach you in tennis or the coaches that produced Roger Federer?

'The best teachers are those who show you where to look, but don't tell you what to see.'

I may not be the inspirational teacher that De Jong was, but my work (including my book) most definitely is targeted at showing the teacher and student where to look. Most instructors only know how to do a particular move, they don't know the 'why' and therefore, if the student cannot replicate the instructor's actions the instructor is lost.

'Before I started (college), that's the advice my dad gave me. He said to pick classes based on the teacher whenever you can, not the subject...his point was that good teachers are priceless.'

Choose your instructor wisely. Be discerning. The teacher's ability is separate from their practical ability.

A practitioner has a 'use-by date,' a teacher with understanding does not.

What connects the 2012 AFL grand final to Kodokan Judo to Kojutsukan?

How is the 2012 AFL grand final related to Jigoro Kano's Kodokan judo and Kojutsukan?

For the international readers of this blog, 'AFL' refers to the Australian Football League. Australian football is the most exciting football code in the world :).

Hawthorn (Hawks) and Sydney (Swans) battled out the 2012 AFL grand final on Saturday. The Hawks were favourites with a couple of out-and-out stars playing for them. The Swans were the underdogs with no stars of the same calibre as the Hawks. The Swans playing list was generally acknowledged as being inferior to the Hawks.

The Hawks won virtually every statistical category, and lost. The Swans lost virtually every statistical category, and won. This result can be explained as the triumph of systems thinking over analytical thinking.

Analysis is about breaking things down to understand them. Systems thinking is about synthesis, putting them back together, and understanding their interconnections. Analysis is about seeing the trees. Systems thinking is about seeing the trees and the forest.

Systems thinking is about understanding that everything is connected. The connections are what is important.

One of the fathers of systems thinking, Gregory Bateson, implored us to look for the 'patterns that connect.' Genius has been described as being able to see the patterns that connect things.

Jigoro Kano was frustrated that his jujutsu instructors simply taught a collection of techniques with no understanding of their relationship with one another. He sought the 'essence' of all jujutsu techniques. While he did not find the essence of jujutsu techniques that connected them together, he developed an essence which he applied to select jujutsu techniques to be included in his Kodokan judo. By default and design, Kano's essence is what connects all judo techniques.

Kojutsukan philosophy is all about understanding the patterns that connect. Not only the techniques taught by Kojutsukan, but techniques taught by all activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and those used in violence generally.

Look for the patterns that connect.

Shoulder Locks Master Class

The core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. One of the four methods of identifying similarities and differences that has proven to be highly effective is classification. I have developed a classification of shoulder locking techniques.

A joint is where two bones meet. The glenohumeral (GH) joint, or shoulder joint, is where the head of the humerus of the upper arm meets the glenoid fossa of the scapula. The bony arrangement of the shoulder joint consists of a shallow socket (glenoid fossa) to which is joined the one-half-spherical head of the humerus. It has been likened to a golf ball (head of the humerus) on a golf-tee (glenoid fossa). Less than half of the humerus is in the socket at any one time, and the bony arrangement is therefore weak.

A mobility-stability continuum has been proposed for joints. The stability refers to the amount of force required to dislocate the joint. The shoulder is the most mobile joint in the body and is therefore the least stable joint in the body.

What do hammer lock, figure four lock, reverse figure four lock, key lock, reverse key lock, kimura, ude garami, gyaku ude garami, ude garami henka waza, stappado and 'Palistinian hanging' have in common? They are all techniques that are designed to move a subject's shoulder joint towards or beyond the limits of its range of motion. What are the differences between these techniques? This is where classification comes in.

The classification of shoulder locking techniques is based on the intended movement of the humerus. The initial principle of division is rotation or extension. Rotation refers to the turning of a bone around its own long axis. Extension refers to moving the arm straight back behind the body. The rotation locks can be subdivided into internal and external rotation. Internal rotation refers to rotary movement towards the midline of the body. External rotation refers to rotary movement away from the midline of the body. The internal rotation locks can be further subdivided into adducted and abducted arm positions. Adduct refers to movement towards the midline of the body. Abduct refers to movement away from the midline of the body.

Where do we start? We start with the Apley scratch test. The Apley scratch test is a test that is used to measure shoulder flexibility. The subject reaches behind their back from the top and bottom and tries to get the fingers of both hands to meet behind their back.

The lower hand in the Apley scratch test is used to test the internal rotation of the humerus in the shoulder joint. This position describes a basic shoulder lock that is often referred to as a hammer lock. It is also the classic police 'come along' technique. With this shoulder lock, the person’s hand is forced up between their shoulder blades.

Jan de Jong was not a fan of the abovementioned shoulder lock because of the flexibility of some people. Some people can reach up behind their back and touch their hair line without experiencing pain. In addition, the method of holding a person in this technique is relatively insecure.

De Jong taught what he called ude garami henka waza (variant arm entanglement). In this lock, uke's (person who the technique is done on) hand is placed in the crook of tori's (person doing the technique) elbow, and tori's hand is placed in the crook of uke's elbow. Tori then moves uke's hand away from uke's back while keeping uke's elbow stationary. This movement internally hyper-rotates uke's humerus in their shoulder joint.

As it turns out, De Jong's ude garami henka waza is relatively unique within the martial arts world. The more common technique is a variation of this technique taught by Jan de Jong but which was little understood in his school.

The variation is similar to ude garami henka waza because it goes by the same name and has similar hand positioning. It is different in that tori's hand is placed on uke's shoulder and uke's upper arm is lifted away from uke's back. This movement hyper-extends uke's shoulder rather than hyper-rotates it.

In both variations of ude garami henka waza, the forces applied encourage uke to move in a particular way. Rotate back towards tori in the original version and to bend over in the variation. In both cases, additional forces are applied to resist this tendency and maximally stress uke's shoulder joint.

Hyper-extending a subject's arm is a common method of torture. It was known as strappado during the medieval Inquisition and has mysteriously been called 'Palistian hanging' even though torture monitors say it is used neither by Israel nor the Palestinian Authority. The same techniques are seen in some jujutsu systems where the opponent is lying on the ground as both arms are hyper-extended above their shoulders.

The top hand in the Apley scratch test resembles what De Jong taught, and many others, as ude garami (arm entanglement). The arm is abducted, the elbow is flexed 90 degrees, and the hand is superior (above) the elbow. It's in a position that resembles waving 'hi' or signalling to stop. With this technique, uke's hand is rotated to the rear while the elbow is held stationary resulting in an external rotation of the humerus in the shoulder joint.

This ude garami is referred to by the same name in judo, and is also referred to as key lock and figure four lock. Reverse key lock, reverse figure four lock, kimura, and gyaku ude garami (reverse arm entanglement) are similar to ude garami in that tori's hand position is similar, uke's arm is abducted and their elbow is flexed at 90 degrees. They are different in that uke's hand is inferior to their elbow and movement when applying the lock results in an internal rotation of their humerus in the shoulder joint.

The abovementioned gyaku ude garami is similar to De Jong's ude garami henka waza in that both techniques result in internal rotation of the humerus in the shoulder joint. They are different in that in the former uke's arm is abducted while in the latter their arm is adducted.

When teaching these techniques in my 'shoulder lock master class', I have found it useful to use a maglite torch to simulate the humerus. The bulb represents the head of the humerus and cupping the bulb represents the shoulder joint. I then move the torch in the direction of the internal or external rotation, or extension, to illustrate the intention of the technique to the students. I have found this visualisation assists the students in applying the forces correctly when they execute the technique.

Four further things to note. Firstly, judo competition rules forbid any kansetsu waza (joint-locking technique) that targets any joint other than the elbow joint. They consider these techniques too dangerous for competition. They specifically allow ude garami and suggest it targets the elbow joint. Given the same arm configuration and force application is used by clinicians of various disciplines to test shoulder flexibility, it would appear the technique is designed to target the shoulder joint and not the elbow joint.

Secondly, there have been some, relatively few, who have attempted to anatomically describe certain locks. They incorrectly refer to hyper-flexion as being a mechanism of dislocation of the shoulder and/or elbow.

Thirdly, the classification is an ideal. When the techniques are applied, they may include both extension and rotation.

Lastly, other injuries other than shoulder dislocation have been reported. The kimura is named after a famous judoka who beat one of the founders of Gracie jiu-jitsu using this technique (gyaku ude garami). It is said that he broke Gracie's radius and ulna, and dislocated his elbow using this technique. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira's humerus was reported to have been fractured by Frank Mir in a UFC match when the latter applied a kimura to the former. A person trained in Jan de Jong jujutsu engaged in security work applied the variation of the ude garami henka waza which resulted in a fractured humerus in the subject.

The last point is intended to head off criticism of the above classification and description based on reported injuries other than shoulder dislocations. Unfortunately, accurate and detailed reporting of injuries while executing these techniques has not been forthcoming to date. Given the shoulder flexibility tests, it is safe to assume the shoulder joint is the target of these techniques. It is open to correction, based on future studies, if other injuries are more likely when executing these techniques.

Happo no Kuzushi and Kuzushi

Happo no Kuzushi is commonly translated as being the eight directions of off-balance. It is often seen as being the pinnacle of kuzushi theory.

The US Marines Close Combat manual, along with many others in the martial arts and other activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter, refer to the happo no kuzushi concept. People; happo no kuzushi is simply a device to indicate direction when explaining kuzushi techniques. It is a compass. A watch is a little more precise than the happo no kuzushi compass. And a watch is just as insightful into kuzushi as is happo no kuzushi.

Kuzushi is commonly referred to as unbalancing or off-balancing. It is not. Even though The Overlook Martial Arts Dictionary (Farkas and Corcoran) refer to the happo no kuzushi concept in their definition of kuzushi, they quite rightly translate kuzushi as 'breaking' or 'upsetting.' It is not the 'destruction' of balance as the term is so often translated.

What is balance? McLester and St Pierre (Applied Biomechanics: Concepts and Connections 2008) explain that balance implies coordination and control, and that balance is a neuromuscular reference whereas stability is a mechanical term. The reference to 'mechanical term' is a reference to a number of physical variables that can be varied to increase or decrease the degree of stability and mobility. Knudson (Fundamentals of Biomechanics 2007) explains that balance is the control of stability and the ability to move. The ability to move is the definition of mobility, so balance is the control of stability and mobility. Carr (Sport Mechanics for Coaches 2004) explains stability in terms of how much resistance a person 'puts up' against having their balance disturbed. The resistance is against destabilising forces.

Technically, unbalance refers to losing control of stability which means falling to the ground. Kuzushi is not designed to cause an opponent to fall to the ground. Nage waza (throwing techniques) and taoshi waza (takedown techniques) are designed to cause a person to fall to the ground, but kuzushi is not. Kuzushi is a facilitator. It faciliates the execution of techniques, including nage waza and taoshi waza. It facilitates the execution of techniques by destabilising the opponent, not by unbalancing them. Kuzushi applies forces to cause the opponent's centre of gravity to move outside of their base of support, but not irretrievably so. This is a subtle but important difference between kuzushi and unbalancing.

Jan de Jong and his instructors would often, as many others do, describe the 'direction of unbalance' as being the direction described by the right angle of the centre of an imaginary line drawn between the heels of both feet. This is simply the direction where the least amount of force has to be applied in order to move a person's centre of gravity outside of their base of support. A person's centre of gravity may be moved outside of their base of support in any direction. It simply means that more force has to be applied in that direction if not applied in the direction of least resistance.

Then there is the three dimensional element that the 'dynamic sphere' theory of aikido attempts to overlay on the happo no kuzushi theory. Not only are the forces applied in a linear direction, they are also applied in a three dimensional direction.

If the martial arts and all activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter are to advance their theoretical understanding of their methods, they have to move on from the naive and simplistic happo no kuzushi concept. The mechanical concepts of stability and forces provide that advancement.

Producing Better Teachers and Students

I received a couple of comments with regards to my Best of Kojutsukan Posts. They requested that I link the posts referred to in that post to the actual posts. As you can see from my linking of the Best of Kojutsukan Posts, I have learned the technique to do so, and the previous post has been likewise updated.

Number three in the top ten was: What Does a Black Belt Mean? This suggests to me that there is a lot of interest in understanding what a black belt is suppose to signify. I came across the following again while editing my articles to be submitted for publication:

In virtually all martial arts, black belt denotes the highest level of achievement. ... By the time the student attains a black belt his [or her] knowledge and skill are of the highest class. In addition, his [or her] depth of knowledge makes him [or her] a fully qualified teacher. Rather than merely knowing how to perform the moves, the black belt is expected to know why a given move works. That is, he [or she] understands the biomechanical principles that underlie the move. ... The deeper knowledge makes him [or her] a far better than someone who merely recounts a series of moves. Moreover, such knowledge allows him to invent new moves and combinations and so develop a more personalised [martial art].

(Gracie and Gracie, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique, 2001: 17)

The Gracies' principle is sound, however the practice falls far short. If the black belt does understand the why of techniques, the biomechanical principles that underlie techniques, they did not obtain their knowledge from current biomechanical or martial arts texts.

Jigoro Kano, the founder of Kodokan Judo, when explaining his motivation for developing judo lamented that the many eminent jujutsu masters he studied under did not know the underlying principles of there methods and that they just taught a collection of techniques. I'd suggest not a lot has changed from then to today. This is evident when I am greeted with the bemused question, 'why bother,' when discussing the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. The difference goes to the very essence of these techniques, which I'd suggest is not understood by the question raisers.

The Gracies principle that a black belt denotes a qualified teacher, and that the teacher should know the why-to in addition to the how-to is the mission that is crystallising for me and my kojutsukan.

I am writing four (at the moment) articles that I intend to submit for publication in the Journal of Asian Martial Arts (JAMA). JAMA is a semi-academic journal, and my work is designed to be at that level. The purpose of an MBA, as it was explained to us in our first lecture, is to bridge research and practice. To advance practice by applying research and theory. This is my goal. To have theory inform practice so practice is better. As McGinnis writes in Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise, 'the best outcome of studying and using biomechanics will be improved performances by your athletes or the accelerated learning of new skills by your students' (2005: 1).

Carr, in Sport Mechanics for Coaches (2004), suggests that coaches are reluctant to study sports mechanics because it means tackling dry, boring texts loaded with formulas, calculations, and scientific terminology. Further, he suggests that these texts have failed to explain the relationship of good technique to the principles of mechanics in a manner that is meaningful to coaches and sports enthusiasts. All too true and more so when it comes to the martial arts. In fact, in certain instances, those who have attempted to explain the science behind striking and kicking techniques (the article I'm currently working on) have either confused the issue or misdirected the reader.

I am not interested in the science for the sake of the science. I am not interested in using science to support a particular way of doing things. I am not interested in using science to try and differentiate my teachings from others, such as some do in order to sell books in an over saturated market. As a teacher and student of the martial arts, I am only interested in the science in so far at it facilitates the understanding and study of martial arts techniques or those used in violence generally in a practical way.

I have just had one of my articles reviewed by the head of a sports biomechanics faculty at a prestigious university, who will remain nameless for the moment. He commended me on using biomechanics to inform practice for the general public, and more importantly that I had got the science right. Given I am a self taught biomechanist, that was a huge relief.

The four articles cover the science behind stances, movement (footwork), throwing, takedown, striking, kicking, breakfalling, and unbalancing techniques. They also cover the most fundamental principle that applies to all techniques, forces, and this facilitates the understanding and study of joint techniques. Referring to biomechanical principles is looking at the very essence of the techniques; what actually makes them work. As Carr explains, 'all the fundamental actions an athlete makes in technique are founded on mechanical principles. In other words, technique is based on mechanical laws' (155). All the techniques taught in the martial arts or used in violence generally are based on biomechanical laws. Understanding these laws, or principles, allows the teacher and student to focus on what is important from the get go.

The articles provide a few simple biomechancial concepts that can be used to focus on what actually makes the techniques work. They also provide a method of analysing techniques that can facilitate their analysis to improve performance and to teach the techniques. I always say, first teach the student how to learn, then teach them the subject matter. Teaching a student how to learn accelerates their learning, a goal that McGinnis identified when explaining the benefits of studying biomechanics.

These four articles are now forming the basis for a book on the science behind the tactics and techniques of the martial arts or those used in violence generally. What would be added is the information I have gathered on strangulation techniques, our evolved survival mechanism (Beyond Fight-or-Flight), and pain. What is missing is the physiology explaining joint techniques, but that is difficult to obtain authoritative information given that more than 85% of all injuries to the upper arm are as a result of falls on outstretched hands where forces are applied very differently to the forces applied when executing a joint technique.