Provocation

In combat, the fear of injury or death poses a severe handicap. Fear distracts, destroying concentration, reactions and timing. Technical virtuosity with weapons is useless to a warrior who cannot control fear.

That is a quote from Karl Friday in Legacies of the Sword (1997). Friday is writing about how the spiritual training in the bugei(Japanese military disciplines) originated as a practical military consideration. He is writing about how the bugei developed ways and means to deal with the effects of emotions on combat performance.

As part of my writing about the 'survival process,' I came across the final report by the Victoria Law Reform Commission on the 'Defences to Homicide.' In particular I was interested in the defence of provocation. Provocation is a controversial subject in general let alone in the legal domain. Provocation is better understood when one understands the survival process, and in particular the appraisal process. How we appraise a particular stimulus determines how we respond to it.

My post, Being Called a Cocksucker Isn't Personal, discusses the appraisal process and the appraisal of stimuli. Being called a 'cocksucker' is only a provocation if we appraise it as being such. Until then, it is only a noise; a stimulus we are at liberty to interpret in any way we choose to see fit.

Appraisal is at the very heart of all training designed to better prepare a person to survive a violent encounter. Friday's comments are testament to that fact. If you or your instructors are not focussed on your or your students' appraisal of stimuli that may be appraised as threatening or insulting, then you or your instructors are not preparing you or your students to survive a violent encounter.

'Passion or anger is seen to unseat reason, rather than being in accordance with it. This is why provocation is often referred to as a 'concession to human frailty'.

Human frailty. Do we accept human frailty? Or do we train to go beyond human frailty?

Originally, the required loss of self-control had to be the result of anger. It has now been expanded to include loss of self-control due to fear or panic. The central question is 'whether the killing was done whilst the accused was in an emotional state which the jury are prepared to accept as a loss of self-control'. Historically, it was also necessary for the killing to occur suddenly or immediately after the provocative conduct, in order to show such a loss of self-control. This is no longer the case.

Control of an aroused emotion is the issue here. A stimulus is appraised in a particular manner which elicits a feeling that motivates a behaviour. The lack of control is defended due to 'being human', or human frailty.

Before we get high and mighty, provocation does not only refer to the weak willed who cannot control their emotions. In fact, the defence of provocation arose out of more 'noble' motives.

The development of provocation can be traced back to 16th and 17th century England when drunken brawls and fights arising from 'breaches of honour' were commonplace. The notion of honour was of great importance to society. A major breach of honour occurred, for example, if a man’s wife committed adultery, as this was regarded as 'the highest invasion of property.' But honour could be breached by other means. If insulted or attacked, it was seen as necessary for a man to 'cancel out' the affront by retaliating in some way. An angry response was expected and the failure to produce such a response would be considered cowardly. Anger was considered to be a reasonable and rational response in the circumstances.'

Honour is often an attribute that is 'honoured' in the military, law enforcement, martial arts, and other 'manly' pusuits. Honour is a man made construct. It is often designed to get us to do things that nature does not want us to do. We fight for honour rather than fleeing as our instincts scream at us to do, even though our instincts are born of nature and are only interested in our well-being. We fight for an ideal that nature is far too pragmatic to even consider.

The final element of the test is whether the provocation was such that it was capable of causing an 'ordinary person' to lose self-control and act in a manner that would encompass the accused's actions. There are two aspects to this test: (1) the gravity of the provocation; and (2) whether the provocation was of such gravity that it could cause an ordinary person to lose self-control and act like the accused.

What do we expect of the ordinary person? When discussing the criticisms of provocation, the authors refer to provocation as being seen as offending against one of the fundamental assumptions of the criminal law: 'that individuals ought at all times to control their actions and to conduct themselves in accordance with rational judgment.' Again we return to control. Control of emotions, control of behaviour motivated by emotions.

The report recommends against provocation being used as a defence:

[Provocation] suggests there are circumstances in which we, as a community, do not expect a person to control their impulses to kill or to seriously injure a person. ... In our view, anger and a loss of self-control, regardless of whether such anger may be understandable, is no longer a legitimate excuse for the use of lethal violence. People should be expected to control their behaviour — even when provoked. The historical justification for retaining a separate partial defence on the grounds of compassion — a 'concession to human frailty' — is, we believe, difficult to sustain.

Community standards expect us to control our behaviour. Behaviour is motivated by emotions. There are two options: (1) control our behaviour that is motivated by our emotions, or (2) control our emotions. The bugei were not interested in controlling their behaviour. They were interested in controlling their emotions so they would not have to control their behaviour (and their physiological response to a threat). Intervening in the appraisal process, how we view the world, changes the emotions that are elicited which in turn elicits a physiological and behavioural response. No emotion, no maladaptive behaviour or physiological response to control.

How are you dealing with fear and anger? Are you focusing on tactics and techniques and thereby ignoring the most fundamental element in surviving a violent encounter - emotion? Are you assuming fear and/or anger as being a given and focusing on controlling the aroused emotion and it's behavioural tendencies? Are you focussing on managing the arousal of the emotion? If so, are you focussing on the initial interpretation of the stimulus, or are you focussing on the perception of the resources and abilities that are designed to cope with the appraised threat stimulus?

The final word will be left with the very insightful Eleanor Roosevelt: Nobody can make you feel inferior unless you give them permission.

Nobody can make you feel anything, fear or anger, unless you give them permission.

Fudoshin

Catharina Blomberg is an academic that was (or is) with the University of Uppsala (Northern Sweden). I accompanied Jan de Jong and taught with him in Uppsala. (1) A big hello to the wonderful people I met in Uppsala. (2) I'd appreciate it if anyone can inform me as to Blomberg's current whereabouts.

Blomberg wrote: The Heart of the Warrior: Origins and Religious Background of the Samurai System in Feudal Japan. We need to encourage professional academics like Blomberg, Karl Friday, Cameron Hurst III, and Paul Varley to study and write about warrior traditions, Japanese and other countries/cultures. We have enough poorly (or nil) researched texts dealing with various aspects of the martial arts.

Blomberg describes fudoshin as 'immobility of heart', and explains:

The warrior stood in special need of an unperturbable mind which could remain calm and collected regardless of his surroundings and circumstances or the pressure of events, and fudoshin became a central tenet of swordsmanship.

Referring to the writings of Miyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Tajima no Kami Munenori, both celebrated Japanese swordsmen of the 1600s, Blomberg explains that 'technical skill without the correct mental attitude was a waste of time.' You can hear this sentiment echoed in the commentary of the Australian Open (tennis) being played now. Emotion is the thing that wins and loses matches; emotion is the thing that wins and loses violent encounters. When you become attuned to emotion words, the aforementioned commentary is very often focusing on the emotional state and its effect on performance. Is this suggestive of what to focus on when preparing someone to survive a violent encounter?

Technical skill is about biomechanics. Mental attitude is about emotion. Most people involved in preparing a person to survive a violent encounter know a great deal about technical skill. What do they know about emotion?

Fumon Tanaka, in Samurai Fighting Arts: The Spirit and the Practice, explains that the essence of fudoshin (unmovable heart) is having no fear. That is to say, that no matter the circumstances (stimuli), the appraisal of that stimuli does not elicit the emotion of fear.

Emotion is a process. A stimuli is appraised, and if that stimuli is appraised as being harmful, threatening, or beneficial, it elicits a subjective feeling, physiological reaction, and an impulse to act which may or may not result in a behavioural response which is intended to deal with the initiating stimuli. Fudoshin training is targeting the appraisal process in the emotion process. Modern fudoshin training is termed stress training, stress inoculation training, or stress exposure training.

Gavin De Becker's (author of The Gift of Fear) organisation offers Combat Fear Inoculation training. 'Stress' is such a nebulous concept. It does not explicitly identify the emotion it focuses on, fear, and its close cousin, anxiety. Becker gets to the heart of the matter. He also highlights the fact that the stress discipline and emotion discipline are studying the same survival process, but the stress discipline does so in a limited way. As Lazarus suggests when arguing for the integration of the two disciplines, stress should be considered a subset of emotion.

Lawrence Kane and Loren Christensen are two well known authorities on use of force training, with a particular emphasis on law enforcement in the latter case. In Surviving Armed Assaults: A Martial Artist's to Weapons, Street Violence, and Counterveiling Force, they discuss 'combat mindset necessary to carry you through a battle.' They suggest there is a concept called 'the fearlessness of no fear' which is 'the quintessential martial mindset.' They provide a Japanese tale which they suggest is 'an example of what the Japanese call fudoshin or indominable spirit.' In the same 'breathe', they advise:

When your life is on the line, fight not only for yourself but also about those who care about and depend upon you - your children, your spouse, your family, and your friends.

Firstly, this is not an example of fudoshin. Fudoshin is instrumental violence which is violence involving no emotion. Kane and Christensen's advice concerns turning fear into anger. One emotion into another emotion, but emotion-based violence nonetheless.

In violence and aggression literature, violence and aggression are often categorised into affective or instrumental violence or aggression. Affective violence or aggression involves motivating emotions, hence why it's also called emotional violence or aggression; instrumental (also referred to as predatory) violence or aggression involves no emotion, and the violence or aggression is instrumental in realising a non-violent goal, e.g. economic reward, food.

Secondly, why turn fear into anger, IF, fight is a behaviour associated with fear? Read Siddle. Grossman, and others who refer to the fight-or-flight concept, and academics who refer to evolved mammalian defence strategies, and the fight response is associated with fear. Why change the emotion? The action tendency of fear is flight, but the aforementioned authorities are suggesting fight is also associated with fear. The more serious authorities refer to a sequence where fight is only undertaken when flight is frustrated. So, why not advise to think that you cannot escape and you are going to die? That should, in theory, turn flight into fight without having to generate a new emotion, i.e. turn fear into anger.

Thirdly, note that the abovementioned advice is about providing your own mental stimuli in order to elicit an emotional response, which, if you recall, includes a behavioural tendency. Fudoshin is concerned with the appraisal process within the emotional process, and not with the stimuli that initiates the process. Emotion is about personal meaning; change the meaning, change the emotion, or even the very elicitation of an emotion. The 'dramatic plot' of fear is a 'concrete and sudden danger to our physical well-being' (Lazarus). If you embrace the Zen philosophy that life and death are one and the same, the appraisal of a threat to your well-being is to deny any personal meaning to that stimuli, and therefore, no fear is experienced.

Fourthly, Kane and Christensen's advice echoes the advice I've heard and read relating to women's self defence. Turn fear into anger. Anger's action tendency is fight; and the fight response is supported by a physiological response designed to mobilise our body to fight. However, does not suggesting a person think about the worst thing the attacker can do run the risk of turning fear into terror rather than anger? If you believe that people, males and/or females, will always fight to protect their love ones, you are naive. 'Always' does not exist in the real world when dealing with human behaviour. We need to know more about anger. What is the 'dramatic plot' (Lazarus) of anger? Most involved in activities that prepare a person to survive a violent encounter know something about fear, and focus on fear, but what do they know about anger? Stress training, by whatever description including scenario or reality training, focuses on fear. What do they know about any other emotion, including no emotion? Very little, I'd suggest. They know where they don't want to be, but do they know anything about where they want to be?

Fifthly, what is the cost of fudoshin, or instrumental violence? Everything has a cost. What is the cost of none emotional violence? Fear and anger have a physiological reaction which results in a 'cascade of hormones' that are designed to help us fight or flee when threatened. That includes shunting blood to the muscles associated with the behaviour in order to increase our fight or flight capabilities. It includes adrenalin to help us become stronger and faster. It includes hormones that increase our pain tolerance so we are not distracted if injured when we are fighting or fleeing. Blood is shunted away from the periphery so that limited bleeding is experienced while fighting or fleeing. No emotional experience means all these evolutionarily designed advantages in fighting and fleeing are not received. That is the cost. Nobody mentions that cost - do they understand that there is even a cost to fudoshin/instrumental violence?

Lastly, we have emotionally-motivated violence and fudoshin/instrumental/no emotion violence. It is suggested that fear can produce 'defensive violence' - that proposition is under investigation. Women's Self Defence teaches to turn fear into anger; anger having an action tendency of fight which is supported by a physiological response. We can experience the evolved defence emotion that is designed to help us survive; or we can manipulate our evolved defence emotion turning fear into anger; we can control the intensity of the emotion, and while feeling fearful, our training can use will to fight instead of flee; or we can train to achieve fudoshin. Are there any other options? Yes there is. One which tends to go against all the conceived wisdom. One which has been successfully used by warriors from different cultures for millennia. What is that approach, that tradition?

That is the topic of the next blog.

PS: Rafael Nadal was just asked what he thought about Australia's Bernard Tomic. His very first comment concerned his emotions. He ended the interview with a comment linking emotions with champions.

Do you really want to neglect emotions in your training? You study technical skills, you may even study biomechanics to understand technical skills better; do you study emotion? Stress looks at fear and anxiety, but this is what you don't want; do you know anything about what you do want?

An Evolved Defence Mechanism - Hair

Evolutionary psychiatrist Randolph Nesse explains one of the most basic advances in biology during the past twenty years is the clear recognition that two kinds of explanation are needed for all biological traits: (a) a proximate explanation of how the trait works, and (b) an evolutionary explanation of what the trait is for. He explains that an evolutionary perspective provides a clear focus on the function of a particular trait.

I first came to the idea of adopting an evolutionary perspective when writing the first chapter in my originally conceived how-to book on Jan de Jong Jujutsu. It was titled 'What is Jujutsu?'. Jujutsu is often described in terms of the generic nature of the term, techniques, history, and the application of the philosophical concept of ju. When attempting to compare jujutsu to other martial arts, I started to come to an evolutionary explanation. Why is jujutsu different from karate, kung fu, pencak silat, boxing, etc? It's because of its evolutionary past; the evolutionary forces which shaped these different martial arts. I remember now, I was nudged in this direction by the work of Karl Friday in Legacies of the Sword.

To be sure, all such 'martial arts,' as forms of single combat, share some commonality of function - but then, so do Chinese tai chi chuan and US Air Force fighter tactics. They also, as arts developed in neighboring countries through which individuals - and armies - regularly traveled back and forth, show some degree of cross influence and even some common vocabulary. But the historical circumstances under which these various arts evolved, the purposes they served, and the statuses they assumed in their respective cultures diverged in fundamental ways. (p6)

The first kyu grading in the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system includes an oral explanation of the history of jujutsu. The first dan grading includes a written essay on the history of jujutsu. The history does not necessarily tell why jujutsu is what it is. An evolutionary explanation does. I'll be changing these gradings to an evolutionary explanation rather than a historical explanation, as an evolutionary perspective has a clear focus on function.

I came across this paper this morning: 'What can animal aggression research tell us about human aggression?' by Blanchard and Blanchard in Hormones and Behavior 44 (2003) 171–177. They made the following comment which specifically refers to martial arts training:

Although factors such as weapons and specific training in martial arts undoubtedly alter the response characteristics of aggression in people, there are some hints that human physical attack may be more similar to the aggression of nonhuman animals than might be thought, for example, target sites for attack.

They go to explain that in some mammalian species, structural adaptations have evolved to defend vulnerable targets for attack.

Thus in lions, the only group-living large cats, males (only) have developed a thick mane that covers from the top of the head to the shoulders, potentially affording protection for this site during fights among males within social groups, as well as protection for the group and its young from nomadic males. The late Margaret Manning,a distinguished child psychologist working primarily with young children, suggested that in these children, the head is the primary target for offensive attack (personal communication). In this regard, two seeming anomalies of human physiology are of interest: first, human head hair is unique in growing indefinitely, potentially (and especially if unwashed, as it likely was during most of human prehistory) providing a thick mat offering a great deal of resistance to blows. Second, humans, like lions, have a gender-specific locus for particularly coarse and wiry hair; in humans, the lower face. Moreover, beards appear at precisely the developmental time period when male–male aggression becomes particularly dangerous, due to the enhanced strength that accompanies adolescence and the additional motivation associated with fights over access to females. While beards are often taken to have evolved as signals of sexual maturity, it is not clear why yet another addition to the many behavioral as well as structural signals of maturity in males would be necessary or adaptive. Similarly, if beards have evolved on the basis that they elicit sexual interest in females, one might expect at least some indication of this interest in contemporary women. However, a recent survey of 80 undergraduate women from a number of different cultural backgrounds indicated little (in fact a slight net negative)sexual response to male beards.

Now I'm conflicted over shaving off my beard. Evolution is about increasing the chances of survival and reproduction. It would appear the two evolutionary imperatives are at odds in this case. Increase my chances of surviving an offensive attack by a cospecific, or increase my chances of reproduction with a cospecific. What to do, what to do. ... I'm male, so it's pretty obvious which imperative is going to win out.

Just something of interest concerning our evolved defence mechanism.

Jan de Jong Pt 11 - His Grading System Pt 1

How do you transmit your teachings if you develop a 'school of thought' (see Jan de Jong Pt 1 blog)? A common way within the martial arts is through 'forms' or 'kata'; what Karl Friday refers to as 'pattern practice' in Legacies of the Sword. Jan de Jong's 'school of thought' is transmitted via 'oral tradition' through the teachings of his former instructors, and through his grading system.

De Jong's jujutsu isn't big on kata. Well, not kata as is commonly conceived.

De Jong didn't base his teachings on a theory such as the 'small circle theory'. He didn't base his teachings on a tactical theory such as Brazilian jiu-jitsu which suggests that almost all fights end up on the ground. He didn't espouse a philosophy such as Bruce Lee in what he suggests nobody should refer to as Jeet Kune Do. De Jong's school of thought, and the evolution of his school of thought, can be seen within his grading system.

The De Jong grading system is one of the MOST comprehensive in the world. Following the introduction of the 'mon grades', there are 11 gradings (for an adult) before attempting the 1st kyu grading comprised of seven seperate gradings. Following that is nine separate gradings for shodan, nine separate gradings for nidan, and twelve separate gradings for sandan. All in all there are 49 separate gradings to complete in the technical gradings of De Jong's grading system. Practical, weapons, theory, teaching, history, terminology, first aid, projects - 49!

Only five people have completed the De Jong grading system: Peter Clarke, Robert Hymus, Paul Connelly, Greg Palmer, and myself. I prefer to think of myself as 'slip streaming' behind my instructors.

De Jong understood the extensiveness of his grading system. Towards the end of his life he was talking about including the gradings his instructors/students had to go through for their dan grades on their grading certificates. While I understood his intention, I had to disappoint him in explaining that nobody looks at anyone's certificates within the martial arts. He had to rely on the depth and breadth of knowledge his instructors possessed to express the quality of his grading system.

He was also contemplating having different 'degrees' of shodan in that not all that were at that level were going to become teachers. He was contemplating modifying his grading system to include different 'streams' - teachers and non-teachers. Unfortunately, I again had to disappoint him in explaining that within the martial arts, a black belt is considered a teacher without reference to their actual qualifications. It is unfortunate but it is also true.

A look at De Jong's grading system reveals a great deal about his school of thought, the evolution of that school of thought, and about the quality of his instructors. Consequently, this is part one of looking at his grading system. However, these blogs must be prefaced with the comment that these views may be controversial within the De Jong community.

Jan de Jong Pt 1 - The School of Jan de Jong

I've received numerous requests to write about Jan de Jong to which I am now acquiescing. I will basically serialise the chapter I drafted for my originally conceived book on the tactics and techniques of Jan de Jong jujutsu with certain modifications.

What is the ‘school of Jan de Jong’?

'School,' when used in this sense, refers to a school of thought or a continuing tradition, like the 'school of Rembrandt' for instance. When used in this context, The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines 'school' as, 'a body of scholars, artists, writers, etc. who have been taught by the same master, or who are united by a similarity of method, style [and/or] principle.' Hence, the 'school of Jan de Jong' refers to the school of thought concerning martial arts which can be attributed to Jan de Jong and those who follow his teachings.

With regards to the Japanese martial arts schools, I will defer to the work of Karl Friday. Friday is associate professor of Japanese history at the University of Georgia and he holds the menkyo kaiden license and is a certified shihan in Kashima-Shinryu. His book Legacies of the Sword is one of the most authoritative English-language books on the Japanese martial arts ever written. This book should be required reading for anyone attempting to understand the Japanese martial arts. He has this to say with regards to martial art ryuha (school):

Martial art ryuha ... have historically tended to practice total transmission, in which students certified as having mastered the school's kabala are given 'possession' of it. ... such former students normally left their masters to open their own schools, teaching on their own authority; masters retained no residual control over former students or students of students. Each new graduate was free to modify his master's teachings as he saw fit, adding personal insights and/or techniques and ideas gleaned from other teachers. It was common practice for such graduates to change even the names of their styles, in effect founding new ryuha and independent branches of ryuha in each generation.

Friday presents a case study by analysing the history, philosophy, and pedagogical dynamics of Kashima Shinryu to lay the foundation for a broader understanding of what the classical bugei (martial arts) are, what they were, and what they mean to those who practice them. His explanation of the historical pattern of the development of martial arts schools definitely explains the evolution of the school of Jan de Jong following his death in 2003.

According to De Jong, he started teaching in Perth, Western Australia in 1952, the year he emigrated to Australia from Indonesia. In 1955 he named his school Ju Jutsu Kan which was changed to Jan de Jong's Self Defence School (JDJSDS) in 1973.

The style of jujutsu which De Jong taught is often referred to as Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. However the JDJSDS grading certificates only refer to Tsutsumi Ryu and discussions with previous generations of instructors only refer to Tsutsumi Ryu. It appears to be quite late in the piece that De Jong started to refer to Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu.

The Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system includes technical grades up to and including third dan. Higher grades are honorary and awarded at the discretion of De Jong. There are only five people who have completed all the technical grades under De Jong. Peter Clarke was the first in 1998 and was immediately awarded fourth dan. The grading certificate referred to Jan de Jong Jujutsu for the first time. It would appear that De Jong was acquiescing to the lobby to change the name of the style of jujutsu he taught to reflect his contributions. However, he only did so on certain higher grade certificates.

Clarke was followed by Rob Hymus, Paul Connolly, Greg Palmer, and myself. These four instructors were my instructors and I am the only 'student' who has completed the technical grades under De Jong.

Greg Palmer is pictured above receiving his third dan grading certificate. Just prior to De Jong's death he was awarded fourth dan. He went on to establish his own school which he named Keikai, apparently the Japanese equivalent of his name. He also changed the name of the jujutsu he taught to Keikai jujutsu. Unfortunately Greg passed away in 2008.

Debbie Clarke, wife of Peter, established Southern Cross Bujutsu a few years before De Jong's death. Peter joined his wife after De Jong's death and became the technical director of the school. He refers to his jujutsu as Tsutsumi Jugo Ryu jujutsu. Peter, along with Hymus and Connolly, was awarded sixth dan by De Jong just prior to his death. Peter is a very proficient and thoughtful practitioner and I am led to believe, based on discussions with him, that he has made some significant changes to the jujutsu he is now teaching.

De Jong's school was taken over by his daughter, Maggie de Jong (first dan), following his death. Connolly, her partner, assumed technical control. They changed the name of the school to Jan de Jong Martial Arts Fitness and they advertise they teach Tsustumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. Hymus established Indian Ocean Dojo which he advertises as teaching Tsutusmi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. Hans de Jong, De Jong's son, established Hans de Jong Self Defence School and likewise teaches jujutsu he refers to as Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu. All of these schools are based in Perth, Western Australia.

One of De Jong's students/instructors, Jamie Francis, established South West Self Defence School teaching Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu in the south west of Western Australia. He has built up quite a respectable following with over 80 students. He graded up to second dan with De Jong and half way through third dan with Palmer. I've agreed to continue his journey and teach and grade him the remainder of third dan. When completed, he will be only the sixth person to have completed the Jan de Jong jujutsu grading system.

I have succumed to the requests to teach and am teaching a small number of higher graded students/instructors. Given my obsessive nature, I do not want to commence teaching until my book(s) have been completed. I've also received requests to teach in Europe and the United States. Again, these requests have been put on hold until I complete my book(s). I consistently refer to the jujutsu I learnt and teach as Jan de Jong jujutsu reflecting what I believe to be the school of Jan de Jong.

Insidious Effects of Training Methods and Combat Effectiveness Pt 1

Marc Tedeschi, in his 1,136 door-stopper Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique, raises the issue of the focus on combat effectiveness with respect to chokes/strangulation techniques (shime waza):

It is important to realise that some chokes used in competition (eg judo) were specifically modified for sport use. Rules often limit technique or encourage methods of application that would be inherently risky in self defence. For example, when applying a rear naked choke in judo, your head is often placed to the side of an opponent's head, to secure a stronger hold and restrict head motion. In a real fight, this places your face within striking distance, allowing an opponent to poke your eyes or back punch to the face. This response is not legal in judo competition, hence not a concern. If you originally trained to choke in competition martial arts, you may need to modify certain aspects of your technique (2000: 428)

The logic is impeccable. Tedeschi then provides descriptions and illustrations of 26 chokes from 12 different positions including 'front standing (upright), front standing (bent over), side standing, ... front kneeling, ... front-top mount (supine attacker) ... and front reclining.' One of the chokes from a front standing (upright) position is a 'front double lapel choke' which is seen demonstrated in the youtube clip below.



There is no doubt the technique will render your opponent unconscious, as demonstrated in the video clip. However, while you are using both hands in applying the technique, whether you are standing or on the ground either on top of or under your opponent, what is the opponent doing with their hands? Their hands which are free to do whatever they like to any part of your anatomy for as long as they remain conscious. When applying strangulation techniques from the front of the opponent, standing or on the ground, all the anatomical targets on the front of your head, neck, and body are open to be attacked by your opponent. Both your hands are being employed in the execution of the technique and are therefore unavailable to defend against the opponent's assault against your eyes, face, throat, groin, and body.

Renzo Gracie and Royler Gracie, in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique, refer to this technique as front collar choke. They advise to pull the opponent down to your chest which 'prevents him from defending the choke ... [and] in addition, in a street fight, he prevents his opponent from punching him as the strangle is being applied' (2001: 51). Does pulling the opponent's head to your chest as you're applying the technique prevent them from attacking your eyes or groin with their hands which are free to do whatever they like for as long as it takes for them to be rendered unconscious? No.

This technique is called nami juji jime (normal cross strangle) or gyaku juji jime (reverse cross choke) in judo. It is taught in Brazilian jiu-jitsu and many other jujutsu styles. It is taught in mixed martial arts. It is taught in hapkido and I've seen it taught in various percussion based martial arts. And most concerningly of all, it is seen in military close combat manuals.

The guillotine choke is another choke which is applied from the front of the opponent. It is a very popular technique these days due to its use by Brazilian jiu-jitsu and the mixed martial arts. An illustration of the technique while standing taken from a US military close combat manual is presented below.



Am I alone in seeing the risk posed to the groin particularly, but also possibly to the face and eyes while applying the technique? A risk which continues unabated until the choke renders the opponent unconscious. It is suggested a strangulation technique targeting the carotid artery can render a person unconscious if both carotid arteries on either side of the neck are occluded continuously for 10 seconds. You have to apply sufficient force to both sides of the neck continuously for at least 10 seconds while they are struggling and attacking your groin and/or eyes.

As Tedeschi explained above, tactics and techniques which are risky in real combat or self defence situation may be developed and adopted when techniques are prohibited in training and/or competition. Gracie and Gracie explain that eye gouges and groin attacks are prohibited in the sparring training which dominates Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Eye gouges and groin attacks are prohibited in judo randori and competition, as they are in mixed martial arts competitions. They are not prohibited in real combat nor in a real self defence situation. Any strangulation technique when applied from the front is inherently risky when attacks to the eyes and groin are not prohibited. I find it amazing how many martial arts, and military close combat systems as we've seen, who emphasise their focus on the combat imperative include strangulation techniques from the front, whether standing or on the ground. These techniques are effective in training when attacks to the eyes and groin are prohibited, but this should not be the measure of their combat effectiveness.

Gracie and Gracie, when describing the reduction in combat effectiveness of Jigoro Kano's judo because of the prohibition of techniques in his randori, explain that his student's didn't train the use of these prohibited technique nor to defend against these techniques. Gracie and Gracie include defences against the guillotine choke, but none of these defences involve attacks to the groin or eyes.

All training methods to prepare a person for combat have limitations. It is the nature of the beast. Where problems can occur is when these limitations are not understood and/or appreciated. When the training method becomes the measure of combat effectiveness as is often the case when sparring is employed as the principal training method in preparing a person for combat. Tactics and techniques can be developed which are inherently risky when placed in a 'real-life' situation where there is no prohibition on the tactics and techniques which may be employed by all parties involved in the combat.

This case study is used to illustrate the insidious effect training methods can have on the development and adoption of tactics and techniques to be used in combat. It can be seen to be another example of Karl Friday's 300-year old debate which shows no sign of resolution in the foreseeable future which I referred to in a previous blog on training methods and combat effectiveness. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a kata training proponent when it appears I might be taking aim at sparring/randori. The possible pitfalls of kata training are well known and well publicised. However, the possible pitfalls of sparring/randori (which is widely promoted as being the superior method for preparing a person for combat) are not so well known and not so well publicised. My point is that if the focus shifts from combat effectiveness to effectiveness in training, tactics and techniques may be developed which expose the student to risk if relied upon when defending themselves.

The next couple of blogs will examine other situations where the training methods have influenced the development of tactics and techniques and which do not necessarily reflect the combat imperative.

Training Methods and Combat Effecitveness Pt 2

In the previous Training Methods and Combat Effectiveness Pt 1 blog, I referred to Karl Friday's reference to the '300-year old debate' concerning the best training method of preparing a person for combat.

Firstly a comment on Friday's Legacies of the Sword. I originally picked up a copy in a book store in Rotterdam when travelling with Jan de Jong one year teaching seminars throughout Western Europe. It was mostly text and seemed academic so I wasn't initially interested in purchasing it. De Jong's daughter convinced me to buy it as we hadn't seen it available in Australia, and she was used to her father buying martial arts books when ever possible. It wasn't until many years later I read it, and I was amazed. The theories I'd developed concerning the development of jujutsu - here was a professional academic providing support for my theories. Here was a professional academic who is also versed in the martial arts writing seriously about the martial arts. The analysis of various aspects of Kashima-Shinryu which is used as a case study to understand and study the Japanese martial arts can also be used to study and understand all martial arts. It is truly an amazing book and one which should be part of the foundation of any serious martial artists library.

Friday summarises the arguments associated with both sides of the 300-year old debate:

Proponents of sparring and competitions that developed concomitantly argued that pattern practice [(kata)] alone cannot develop the seriousness of purpose, the courage, decisiveness, aggressiveness, and forbearance vital to true mastery of combat. Such skills, they said, can be fostered only by contesting with an equally serious opponent, not by dancing through kata. Pattern practice, moreover, forces students to pull their blows and slow them down, so they neverdevelop their speed and striking power. Competition, it was argued, is also needed to teach students how to read and respond to an opponent who is actually trying to strike them.

Kata purists, on the other hand, retorted that competitive sparring does not produce the same state of mind as real combat and is not, therefore, any more realistic a method of training than pattern practice. Sparring also inevitably requires rules and modifications of equipment that move trainees even further away from the conditions of duels and/or the battlefield. Moreover, sparring distracts students from the mastery of kata and encourages them to develop their own moves and techniques before they have fully absorbed those of the ryuha [(marital arts discipline or school)].

This is a pretty good summary of the respective arguments and I cannot disagree with either side. One point though, Friday's comment regarding the pulling of blows is equally applicable to competition as the detractors of the non-contact or semi-contact karate and taekwondo competitions often raise.

Hunter B. Armstrong, Director of the International Hoplology Society, argues strongly in favour of kata as the better means of preparing a person for combat in 'The Koryu Bujutsu Experience' in Koryu Bujutsu: Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan (edited by Diane Skoss). He makes a couple of additional points which can be added to Friday's arguments. Firstly, while arguing in favour of kata he also argues against the solo katas of modern budo:

The aim of classical training was and is not simply the learning of movement techniques, but the development of combative behaviours that prepare one for implementing simple-but-learned-movement techniques in the face of the overwhelmingly traumatic stress of combat. No amount of solo training or single movement training will do that.

He also raises the issue of the effect of protective gear in training:

Training armour itself is a limiting factor and imposes changes upon the patterns of movement (angles and targeting), and more importantly, the psychological components of combat - the feeling of safety while training cannot prepare the individual for the psychological stress from the danger/threat inherent in mortal combat.

Again, all valid points . The comment regarding armour is particularly relevant today with improved technology resulting in increased usage of protective armour in training. Many train with full body armour today in order to engage in 'full power' training.

Gracie and Gracie's arguments in favour of sparring discussed in the previous blog is a 21st century extension of the 300-year old argument which Friday suggests has no resolution in sight for the foreseeable future. Gracie and Gracie's arguments concerning the reduction in combat effectiveness of Kano's judo due to the prohibition of 'too many' techniques in his randori is an argument from the kata advocates. My pointing out the Gracie and Gracie's argument concerning the combat effectiveness of Kano's judo is equally applicable to their Brazilian jiu-jitsu as they also prohibit certain 'dangerous' techniques in their randori is using the arguments of the kata side.

Even though it may have appeared I was advocating one method over another in the previous blog, or maybe even in this one, that is not the case. My issue is the explicit understanding and recognition of both the strengths and weaknesses of the training methods adopted. By understanding the issues of both sides of the arguments, the appropriate questions can be asked. There are different answers but the important thing is that the questions are asked. If only the strengths are focused on and the weaknesses ignored, Armstrong's reference to changes upon the patterns of movement, that is upon the tactics and techniques of a martial art, are at high risk of materialising. A couple of common instances of this will be presented in the next blog.

Cheers

Training Methods & Combat Effectiveness Pt 1

Renzo Gracie and Royler Gracie (G&G), in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique, make the following insightful observation:

Kano was not a great innovator in technique; most of what he knew in terms of technique was taken from old jujutsu schools. His great innovation lay in the way he taught and trained his students in those techniques. (8)

Competitive advantage is a phrase used in business to refer to a situation where one business has some advantage over and outperforms its competitors. Different martial arts, different styles of the same martial art, and different schools of the same martial art are often established because their founders believe they have some competitive/combative advantage over their 'competitors.' According to G&G, and rightly so, Kano's competitive/combative advantage was largely attributable to the use of randori (free exercise or sparring) as the preferred training method in preparing a person for combat:

The idea was for the students to train 'live' with each other, each trying as hard as he could to apply technique on the other. By this means students could become familiar with the feeling of applying technique on a live, resisting human being. This, as you can imagine, is far more difficult than applying technique on a cooperating training partner in some choreographed kata. Such live training develops far greater physical and mental agility and speed in the student and prepares them well for the tiring and unpredictable movements of real combat. In order for randori to be possible, Kano saw that the dangerous elements of jujutsu would have to be removed. One cannot engage in daily sparring sessions with full power strikes, hair pulling, and eye gouging! To prevent unacceptable attrition through injury, Kano removed strikes and 'foul' tactics from randori. (8)

G&G refer to the 'paradox of randori' in that a martial art can be made more combat effective by the removal of 'dangerous' techniques. They suggest that

what Kano realised is that the effectiveness of a martial art is not determined solely by its repertoire of techniques, but also by the training method by which it instills those techniques into the students. ... Kano saw that a fighter who constantly trained at full power on a resisting opponent in live combat with 'safe' techniques would be more combat effective than a fighter who always trained with 'deadly' techniques on a cooperating partner with no power. (9)

The Gracie/Brazilian jiu-jitsu's (BJJ) competitive/combative advantage lies in, according to G&G, their extension and modification of the techniques, training methodology, and strategy of Japanese jujutsu and judo. They suggest 'Kano took out too much of the dangerous elements of fighting and grappling training' (11). These dangerous techniques which were prohibited by Kano in randori, they explain, are

very effective combat techniques. By removing them students lose a good deal of combat effectiveness. Also if they encounter someone who does use them, their lack of familiarity with the techniques will make them very vulnerable. By adding these techniques to randori training the Gracies made their art much more combat effective. Live sparring had much more combative feel to it with the removal of these restrictions on technique. (11)

Firstly, the arguments put forward by G&G reflect what Karl Friday (Legacies of the Sword) refers to as the 300 year old debate over the better training method for preparing a person for combat - kata or sparring and competition. A debate which he suggests, despite G&G and likeminded individuals' arguments, has no prospect of resolution in the near future. Secondly, Kano's reasons for restricting dangerous techniques in randori - reducing the risk of unacceptable attrition through injury - is a valid concern. You can't very well train a person for combat if they are injured all the time. G&G suggest the Gracie's added the dangerous techniques back to randori. So how do they manage the risk of unacceptable attrition through injury? When discussing the BJJ training methods, G&G explain that

a very large percentage of training time in Brazilian jiu-jitsu is taken up with live sparring. ... Because the more extreme elements of a real fight (such as biting, eye gouging, hair pulling, and striking) are removed from training, you can partake in such live sparring on a daily basis without fear of constant injury and damage. (20)

So, they also prohibit certain dangerous techniques. They have to. And for the very same reasons Kano had to. Doesn't G&G's argument concerning the reduction of combat effectiveness when dangerous techniques are prohibited hold for their BJJ as well. Yes! It has to! You cannot fault the logic of G&G. If certain techniques are prohibited in training then the student does not get to train to use nor to defend against these techniques. The argument becomes one of degree. BJJ is more combat effective than judo because less techniques are prohibited in randori. However, certain techniques are still prohibited in BJJ which has the potential of having a negative effect on the combat effectiveness of their students.

What did Kano do about training the dangerous but very effective combat techniques? He trained them in kata where there are no restrictions on the types of techniques which can by trained. What does G&G/BJJ do about the training the dangerous but very effective combat techniques? It would appear they do not train them at all and they advise their students to simply 'adapt':

The resulting familiarity with applying your techniques full power against a person doing everything in his power to defeat you is a great advantage in a real fight. Of course you have to adapt to the obvious differences that will emerge in a real fight. The opponent will probably be trying to punch, kick, scratch, gouge, and bite you. However, the familiarity with active resistance will make the transition relatively easy. (26)

It has to be understood that any and all training methods have their limitations. There are always tradeoffs. Where problems emerge in terms of combat effectiveness is when these limitations and tradeoffs are not understood and/or appreciated. When the focus is purely on the strengths of a particular training method with no mind given to its inherent weaknesses. When the combat imperative is not the sole focus. The danger then becomes that tactics and techniques may be developed and shaped to meet other demands which may not be effective or may pose unacceptable risks in real combat.

The next couple of blogs will focus on martial arts training methods. Next weeks will provide some examples of tactics and techniques which have been developed based on training methods which potentially pose unacceptable risks in real combat. Tactics and techniques which are taught by many martial arts who refer to their focus on combat effectiveness as their point of differentiation and the source of their competitive/combative advantage.