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.

Done

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

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

The book has 17 chapters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Straight Arm Lock/Arm Bar/Ude Kujiki - Take Two

I originally posted this blog using a particular image of what appeared to be the defender stepping toward the attacker when executing the technique. I used this image as it highlighted a particular issue I wanted to explore, however, it was pointed out to me that the technique in question, while looking similar to the straight arm lock under review, was actually different and is the applied forces are intended to produce a different affect. I take that comment on board and apologise unreservedly for taking licence with that image. This blog recasts the previous with a more appropriate image. For those who have already read this blog (and there have been quite a few of you) the amendments are contained in the end part of this blog. This has also given me the opportunity of including a little more information which I neglected to include in the original of this blog.

I've recently been contacted by a group of fellow martial artists who are interested in the biomechanics of the martial arts. The interaction reminded me of the work I commenced on understanding joint-locking techniques (kansetsu waza).

The photograph to the right is of a straight arm lock, also commonly known as an 'arm bar', and in Japanese as ude kujiki. The photograph is not the greatest, but it was taken at the late Greg Palmer's dojo with two of his former junior students. Greg was a senior instructor of Jan de Jong, was one of my instructors, had a depth of understanding and love of jujutsu possibly second to none at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, and became a friend and training partner of mine. Out of respect and in memory of Sensei Palmer, I'll use this photograph for illustration purposes.

The straight arm lock is a technique taught by many, if not most, martial arts. It is one of the few kansetsu waza which is permitted in judo competition, and is often seen in mixed martial arts competitions. It can be applied using the arm, as in the photograph above, or the hip while lying on your back, as in the photo to the right. It can also be applied with the leg, hip while standing, stomach, hand, forearm, shoulder, neck, head, and with weapons.

Jan de Jong included theory gradings in his dan (black belt) grades. These are oral gradings which examine the candidates knowledge of techniques and tactics, the proficiency being taken as given. If a black belt represents a teaching qualification, as it most definitely does in Jan de Jong jujutsu, the candidate's theoretical knowledge should most definitely be examined.

How do you study for this theory grading? Unfortunately biomechanics in biomechanical or martial arts texts will not be of much help. Vieten (2008) provides an overview of the English-language martial arts literature related to biomechanics. He found the percentage of biomechanics papers among the literature in martial arts is very low compared to some popular sports and suggests ‘the biomechanics of the martial arts is still in its infancy’ (562). Too true. My work is about growing that infant. This blog is about growing that infant, and possibly encouraging others more qualified than myself to take up the challenge.

Welcome to your theory grading, or part thereof. A typical question De Jong would ask, and which Palmer often referred to when explaining the theory examination, was: What are the forces involved in ude gatame ude kujiki (arm set arm breaking; the first techique illustrated above)? This, as it turns out, was a very insightful question. The problem was that De Jong and the candidates only had a layperson's understanding of 'forces'. If they'd have had a mechanical/biomechanical understanding of forces, the answers would have not be so convoluted.

Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996; K&B) explain that 'because forces account for the motion and changes of motion of all things in the environment, including the body and the body segments, it is important for the movement specialist to understand what forces are and how we can picture them as they are applied to or by the body' (80). Firstly, 'a force is something that causes or tends to cause a change in the motion or shape of an object or body' (80). It's not just a change in motion which forces cause; they also cause a change in shape which is referred to as 'deformation' in mechanics. If the deformation of the body's tissues is significant enough, it will lead to injury. Secondly, given the preceding explanation of forces, it is important for martial arts instructors and students to understand what forces are and how they can picture them as they are applied to or by the body. The beauty of it all is that it is so easy - 'easy peesy Japanesey.'

'A force can be thought of as a push or a pull; ... a blow or impact, or gravity' (K&B 1996: 80). Forces have four unique properties: magnitude, direction, point of application, and line of action (K&B 1996). In initially answering our theory question, all we need to do is identify all of the points of application and describe their direction and whether they are a push or a pull. That is it - easy peesy Japanesey. Forces are what makes the technique work. They are the essence of the technique.

See: http://www.kojutsukan.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/using-forces-to-understand-and-explain.html

With the ude gatame ude kujiki, there are three points of application. The right hand is applying a pushing force to the back of uke's (receiver of the technique) flexed hand back towards uke; the left hand is grasping and applying a pulling force on uke's wrist away from uke; and the elbow is applying a downward force to uke's elbow. That is it - easy peesy Japanesey. Next question.

What is the purpose of ude gatame ude kujiki, or any kansetsu waza for that matter? Kansetsu waza is a seperate class of technique. This can be seen in numerous texts and in numerous systems. For instance, the Kodokan Judo classification of techniques initially classifies all their techniques as nage waza (throwing techniques), atemi waza (striking techniques), and katame waza (grappling techniques). Katame waza is subdivided as osae komi waza (immobilisation techniques), shime waza (strangulation or choking techniques), and kansetsu waza (joint locking techniques).

The kata gatame ude kujiki (shoulder set arm breaking) illustrated to the right can be turned into a shoulder throw. In jujutsu, throws often involve initially locking up the joint in order to throw an opponent. They are also used to take an opponent to the ground without causing both the opponent's feet to leave the ground. This is my biomechancially-based definition of a takedown technique. Kansetsu waza are often used as immobilisation techniques, as is often seen in aikido. They are also used as kuzushi* (unbalancing) techniques. They are used as pain compliance techniques, and, which is probably the first explanation that would most likely be given, they are used to disable an opponent by injuring their joint. If I was examining a candidate and they gave me the last answer, I'd immediately ask them how often is the ubiquitous wrist twist used to disable an opponent by injuring their wrist. The humble wrist twist is most often used to take an opponent to the ground (takedown technique not a throwing technique as is so often described in aikido and many jujutsu systems)in order to execute another technique, a 'finishing' technique.

Firstly, it can be seen that kansetsu waza is a class of technique which overlaps with many other classes of techniques. It has multiple personalities. Secondly, so what? So what? The technique may look the same, that is to say it has the same points of application of the forces, but the direction and magnitude of the forces will differ depending on the purpose of the technique.

What is the physiological effect of applying forces to the extended elbow when executing ude kujiki? Here there is no authoritative answer. I was astounded, when researching the science behind joint locking techniques, that I could find no detailed explanation of the effects of kansetsu waza when forces are applied and the joint is moved beyond its range of motion. If any reader knows of such information, and only authoritative information is of interest, I'd appreciate it being forwarded to me and I will duly share it with the world via this blog.

Why not refer to medical or forensic texts? I did. However, between 80% and 90% of all injuries that occur to the upper limb are the result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injuries; see http://http://www.kojutsukan.blogspot.com.au/search/label/FOOSH). Consequently, the medical and forensic literature focuses on these types of injuries. The forces are applied in a different direction when landing on an outstretched hand compared to when forces are applied at right angles to the posterior aspect of the elbow when executing an ude kujiki.

The bones of the elbow joint are the humerus, radius, and ulna. The olecranon of the head of the ulna fits into the olecranon fossa of the humerus which limits the hyperextension of the forearm and provides stability to the joint. Dislocation refers to the complete disruption of of a joint so that the articular surfaces are no longer in contact. Dislocation of the elbow results in, among other things, extreme pain and inability to move the elbow. Elbow dislocations are classified with reference to the position of the ulna relative to the humerus following injury. Dislocation of the elbow can be posterior or anterior:

• posterior – the forearm bones are displaced posterior to the distal part of the humerusand accounts for the majority of all elbow dislocation injuries.
• anterior - the forearm bones are displaced anterior to the distal part of the humerus and are extremely rare. Consequently the data on these types of injury are likewise rare.

In layperson terms, with a FOOSH injury more than 90% of the dislocations of the elbow involve the ulna sliding up the back of the humerus because the forces are being transferred from the hand to the forearm and to the elbow. The forces are applied in a different direction when an ude kujiki technique is executed; they are applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow, which means the injury may be different. After all, Whiting and Zernicke (2008) include in their seven factors which combine to determine the nature of an injury, the tissues injured, and the severity of an injury, 'direction (where is the force directed?)'.

Anterior dislocations are often described as occurring when the elbow is flexed and it receives a blow. The olecranon can lever the humerus and slide in front of it, or, it can be fractured. This is often referred to as a 'fracture-dislocation'.

I apologise for not being able to identify the source of the following quote. It is included in my notes without reference, and I need to go back to my notebooks to identify the reference. However for the purposes of this blog I will proceed without the reference.

Given elbow dislocations are the one joint technique allowable in judo (wrist, shoulder, and knee techniques were forbidden due to the risks of injury associated with the techniques), a sport practiced around the world for a century, and there is no reference I can find in the literature on extreme elbow injuries as in the case of a fracture-dislocation in judo, I might hypothesise that the abovementioned dislocations without fractures are not uncommon when an external force is applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow.

What type of dislocation and injury occurs when executing ude kujiki? Given they are permitted and used in judo and mixed martial arts, you might have thought there would be information published on this issue. You might have thought wrong. If I am mistaken, I'd appreciate reader's directing me to the source that would correct my misunderstanding. This blog is, as stated above, a call to arms to encourage others to study these most basic of questions: What injuries are intended to be inflicted when a joint-locking technique is executed? In the case of ude kujiki, in my mind it is the comparatively rare anterior dislocation with a possible fracture of the olecranon

The technique to the right is described as a 'step in arm lock.' Comment on the technique? This is a question which De Jong would often pose using photographs from books, etc? Firstly, a tactical issue. Stepping toward the opponent while applying this technique exposes the defender to the risks posed by the attacker's free hand. Secondly, stepping forward changes the forces applied by the hand at the wrist. Now it is pushing rather than pulling. This has the effect of 'close packing' the elbow joint increasing rather than decreasing its stability (increasing rather than decreasing its resistance to forces). Thirdly, I would hypothesise that should the combined forces result in a dislocation of the elbow, it would result in a posterior dislocation whereas when forces are applied to stretch the elbow joint and then forces applied to the posterior aspect of the elbow, they might result in an anterior dislocation and/or a disclocation-fracture.

Notes

*Interestingly, Jigoro Kano explains that 'the basis of kuzushi is pushing and pulling' (1986: 42). Kano, the originator of the use of biomechanics to understand and study the tactics and techniques of the martial arts - to a degree and possibly unwittingly.

References

Kano, J. (1986). Kodokan Judo. Tokyo: Kondansha International

Kreighbaum, E. and K.M. Barthels. (1996). Biomechanics: A qualitative approach for studying human movement. 4th edn. Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Vieten, M.M. (2008). Application of biomechanics in martial art training. In Handbook of biomechanics and human movement science, edited by Y. Hong and R. Bartlett. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Whiting, W.C. and R.F. Zernicke. (2008). Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury.2nd edn. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.

You Are Not Defenceless

I'll aim these comments at females, but they are equally applicable to males.

The first thing I would do if conducting a women's self defence course would be to ask the participants, who among them felt they are defenceless. Many may as they have enrolled in a self defence class to gain defensive capabilities. The first thing I would tell the participants is that they are not defenceless. If they were, they would never have been born.

Nature provides humans with a pretty effective defence system. It's pretty effective because we are here. Those that possessed this evolved defence system survived and reproduced passing those traits down to successive generations. Those that did not possess this evolved defence system were defenceless and died, thereby not being afforded the opportunity of passing their defenceless traits down to successive generations.

If you want to see how effective our evolved defensive mechanism is, just read the following newspaper article of a woman's fight for survival. I'll provide certain comments that arise from my work on Beyond Fight or Flight, and it can be seen that the previous blog informs this article.

Perth mother struggled through tears today describing her desperate fight for survival as her estranged husband repeatedly stabbed her and the moment her three-year-old son witnessed the attack.

Lisa Ann Petrelis, 38, is giving evidence at the Supreme Court trial of her husband and father of her two sons, Alexander Nicholas Petrelis, who is fighting an attempted murder charge.

Mr Petrelis, 38, pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm but the prosecution rejected that offer.

Why GBH and not attempted manslaughter? Is there such a thing as attempted manslaughter in WA? I'm always amused at the reduced sentence for attempted homicide. Even though a person had the intention of killing another person, they are rewarded with a lesser sentence because they were incompetent and did not achieve their objective. To my mind, if a person intends to kill another person, and trys to kill that person, it's one and the same if they succeed or fail. You can see the same oddity in many other crimes. Attempted sexual assault - a person gets a lesser sentence because they were rubbish at sexual assault.

Mrs Petrelis said her husband had tapped on her bedroom window at her Karrinyup home at around 11pm on December 5, 2010. She said when she let him in he was talking in a stressed tone, was breathing heavily and told her he had cancer and felt sick.

Mrs Petrelis said her husband eventually asked to be let out and when she walked towards him he suddenly lunged at her, started hitting her and backed her into a corner.

She said she was screaming at him to stop and telling him he would wake their two sons, but it took her a while to realise she was being stabbed as well with her own carving knife that she left on the kitchen sink after making herself a chicken sandwich earlier in the night.

Mrs Petrelis estimated she was hit or stabbed 50 to 60 times during the initial attack.

"I ended up screaming I’m being stabbed, I’m being stabbed ... but being stabbed didn’t hurt, I guess the adrenalin was going through. Somewhere in there I knew I had been stabbed," she told the jury.

Here we see the effects of the evolved physiological response associated with fear - hormones being released which result in increased pain tolerance. This evolved response is designed so that injury does not interfere with our efforts to flee or fight. Serious injuries did not interfere with Mrs Petrelis' fight for survival.

Mrs Petrelis said after slipping on her own blood, she ran to get her mobile phone but her husband chased her into her bedroom where he continued the attack. She said after hitting her in the head while on top of her on the bed, they ended up on the floor where he put her in a headlock and his arm was constricting her windpipe.

As will be seen below, there was considerable amount of blood letting. The evolved physiological response associated with fear is to shunt blood away from the periphery to the muscles that need it to flee. This reported experience has intrigued me to look further into the effects on blood flow when our defensive mechanism has been activated.

"My son (Nicholas) was watching, he turned the light on," she said.

"I couldn’t breathe, I couldn’t scream, I couldn’t do anything. I was about to pass out.

"Nicholas was screaming mummy, mummy, mummy, stop daddy stop. Amongst it all, Alex turned around and told Nicholas go back to your room in the most calmest, monotone voice and then continued to belt me."

Recall the division of aggression into emotional aggression and instrumental aggression. The calm, monotone voice suggests instrumental aggression. This may have legal implications and physiological implications for Mr Petrelis.

This incident reminds me of the advice provided in the women's self defence course developed by Debbie Clarke. The women were advised to instruct their children to not come to mummy's aid if they heard her screaming, but instead to run next door for help. You don't want your defenceless children - and they are defenceless which is the reason they remain with their parents far longer than offspring of any other species - to come running into the middle of a violent situation. Debbie had an ingenious and multi-use method of instilling this behaviour in the children without scaring the bejesus out of them. She advised that fire drills be taught at home (isn't it interesting that we conduct fire drills at work, but not with the ones we are suppose to love) and that the children be taught to get out of the house and go for help. Many children die in household fires attempting to find their parents. A screaming mummy is the same as a fire; don't come to mummy's aid, get out of the house and get help.

Mrs Petrelis said in a desperate final attempt to free herself she put her hand down her husband’s pants and pulled hard on his genitals and bit his finger hard.

An evolved defensive behavioural response. Nature was fighting hard to help Mrs Petrelis survive.

She said after he released her he came at her again and she pulled him over her shoulder as they fell into the bathroom where he hit his head against a wall.

Mrs Petrelis said this was her only chance to escape and she knew her husband wouldn’t hurt her son, so she left him in the house and ran for her life outside screaming out into the street. She said she saw her husband run away in the other direction.

If the husband was engaged in instrumental violence, no emotions would have been activated. No emotions activated, no hormones released which increase pain tolerance. Would the husband have felt the pain associated with the pulling on his genitals and biting of his finger if he was in a rage?

The striking, biting, and genital pulling did not provide Mrs Petrelis with an opportunity to flee, but the husband hitting his head when he fell did. Is this suggestive of an increased focus on takedown techniques being taught as women's self defence techniques?

The jury has been told that Mrs Petrelis was stabbed up to 25 times, including two potentially fatal wounds which punctured a lung and perforated her bowel.

Yesterday at the start of her evidence, Mrs Petrelis told the jury how her five-year marriage had disintegrated to the point where she took out a violence restraining order against her husband in November 2010.

But she said she allowed him to breach the order by making contact with her and visiting the house because she was scared he would become aggressive if she refused.

Mrs Petrelis said her husband had made verbal threats against her in the months before the stabbing attack, including telling her "you better sleep with your eyes open tonight" and "you better not use a pillow because I’ll smother you with it."

Don't judge. Domestic abuse is a complicated issue. Maybe the electronic tagging of VRO recipients being considered (see previous blog) may have given Mrs Petrelis the confidence to refuse the husband's request to visit the house. We have to remember, while we talk about the protection afforded by the law, and enforced by law enforcement, these women more often than not have to deal with these issues alone. The law can apprehend and punish, it struggles with prevention.

Mr Petrelis is arguing he never intended to kill his wife.

His lawyer Tom Percy said his client admitted being responsible for his wife’s life-threatening injuries, but was high on amphetamines at the time.

Mr Percy described his client’s actions as a "savage and frenzied attack" which was "born out of anger, frustration and disappointment".

I won't even go near the diminished capacity defence due to being under the influence of drugs as I'm aware it is a controversial issue. The last statement is interesting in terms of emotive violence vs instrumental violence. Was Mr Petrelis experiencing an emotion (anger) at the time of the attack, or was it emotionless? It may have been 'born' of anger, but was that emotion being experienced during the attack. An emotion fueled act lends itself to manslaughter as the law recognises that our emotions are designed to not be easily overridden by cognition.

Photographs taken inside the Karrinyup home shown to the jury reveal blood splatters on several walls and a big pool of blood on Mrs Petrelis’ bed.

Mrs Petrelis said she was in hospital for nearly two weeks, some of her bruising took close to three months to subside and she wore an arm brace after stab wounds, one of which went straight through her upper arm, severed tendons to three fingers.

You'll notice there is no mention of the word 'victim' to describe Mrs Petrelis. She is no victim; she is a survivor; she is a fighter. Kudos Mrs Petrelis. Kudos Mother Nature.

Do you think Mrs Petrelis' experience acts as a source of support, or even inspiration? We can fight. We can survive. Even against great odds.

Aside from her physical wounds, Mrs Petrelis and her son will need to be aware of the potential for post traumatic stress. Our evolved defensive mechanism kicking in after the danger has pasted. Good luck Mrs Petrelis.

Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques

I've decided to write an article for submission to the semi-academic journal, Journal of Asian Martial Arts (JAMA). This is not your usual martial arts magazine, but a periodical for serious academic articles on various aspects of the martial arts.

The article I'm writing concerns the distinction between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. It's in two parts due to the scope of the material. Part 1 presents 'the problem.' There is no definitive distinction between the two types of techniques. There is a lot of opinion, most often not in the martail arts literature which tends to ignore the issue, but there is NO definitive distinction - until now. Part 2 of my series presents the definitive distinction.

Part 1 also addresses the important issue of why bother classifying:

One response that Q did not receive, and one which I continually received when discussing this issue with senior instructors and students of the Jan de Jong Self Defence School was: 'Who cares?'; 'It doesn’t matter'; 'What’s the point in classifying these or any other techniques?'; 'Students are only interested in how to do the technique, they are not interested in how it's classified'; and my personal favourite: 'It's just intellectual masturbation.' This scepticism is common within the martial arts community, and it is not unreasonable. Before we even attempt to address the issue of the distinction between throwing techniques and takedown techniques, we need to address the issue of the usefulness of classification itself.

I'd like to thank the person who provided the 'intellectual masturbation' quote as it is gold.

I present a case, a strongly supported case, that the question more rightly becomes, why not classify:

'Why classify martial arts techniques?': when this question is raised, it is most often raised with the question raiser being unaware of the centrality of this activity to our intellectual processes. Apart from the issue of intellectual laziness, I would also suggest this question is often raised because the questioner may not be able to see the similarities and differences between the different techniques. Hofstadter believes that 'gist extraction, the ability to see to the core of the matter, is the key to analogy making — indeed, to all intelligence' (1995: 75). 'Gist' refers to the essential part of something. Maybe those who question the value of classification of martial arts techniques cannot see the gist or essence of their techniques.

I review a raft of martial arts to see how, or indeed if, they distinguish between throwing techniques. I can count the number of distinctions I have found in the literature on one hand. All of them flawed.

I review books dedicated to the 'throwing and takedown techniques' of this or that martial art which are 'cashing in' on the popularity of these types of techniques generated by the mixed martial arts competitions - fruitlessly. For instance, Thompson's The Throws & Take-downs of Judo does not contain a distinction between the two types of techniques. In fact, all of the techniques described in the book are referred to as throws. Where are the takedowns of judo which Thompson suggests the book covers? Or, is Thompson and others who refer to 'throwing and takedown techniques' creating a new term to refer to all techniques that cause a person to fall to the ground - 'throwing and takedown techniques'? This new term replaces 'throwing techniques' and 'takedown techniques' which are often used interchangeably anyway. This is not a facetious question/suggestion. But this begs the question, why are there these two terms? They must suggest there are two different types of techniques. If so, what is the difference, or technically, the basis of classification? The characteristic that groups the similar and distinguishes the different between throwing techniques and takedown techniques.

Does judo teach takedown techniques? Kano developed a classification of judo techniques. There is no separate class of takedown techniques. This does not mean judo does not teach takedown techniques, it could mean they just do not distinguish them from other techniques. This then raises the questions, in which class of the classification are takedown techniques included? Why are they not a class of their own? The answer to the latter question could be because they do not understand the characteristics that set them apart from other techniques. They do not understand the essence of this class of technique.

Kirby, in Jujitsu: Basic Techniques of The Gentle Art, is one of the very few to attempt to distinguish between the two types of techniques:

Takedown: A technique, hold, lock, etc., designed to bring the attacker down without throwing him; the lock, hold, etc., is maintained throughout the technique and after the attacker is down.
Throw: A technique or hold designed to unbalance an attacker and physically lift him off the ground until he is down.

However, a review of the techniques included in his book reveals techniques that are referred to as throws that are not designed to physically lift the opponent off the ground.

Kirby is nearly there, but not quite. A takedown is defined by exception. A takedown is designed to cause a person to fall to the ground but is not a throw. A throw is designed 'to unbalance an attacker' - so a takedown is not designed to unbalance an attacker? Can you physically lift an opponent off the ground without unbalancing them? I would suggest that Kirby is referring to kuzushi, unbalancing methods that facilitate not only the execution of throwing techniques, but all techniques. You do not need to use kuzushi to execute a throwing (or takedown) technique, but it helps.

A takedown is defined as being maintained throughout the technique and after the attacker is down. Where does this place ushiro kata otoshi (rear shoulder drop) in which an opponent is pulled/pushed (a distinction for another day) to the ground onto their back by their shoulders from behind? The same technique is seen in aikido where it is sometimes refered to as a variation of irimi nage (entering throw). The technique causes the person to fall to the ground. They are not physically lifted off the ground. The technique is not maintained after the opponent is down.

I'm only singling out Kirby because he one of the very few to at least attempt to provide definitions for the two types of techniques. Most simply avoid the issue and use the terms interchangeably and inconsistently.

The picture at the beginning of this blog is of a book dedicated to the throws and takedowns of sambo, judo, jujitsu and submission grappling. Scott, the author, provides a distinction, commonly espoused, based on function. Throws are designed to end the fight while takedowns are techniques used to take the fight to the ground.

This conceptualisation of the difference between the two types of techniques, a not uncommon one at that, is that throws are an end in themselves whereas takedowns are a means to an end. This is a classification, and it is neither right nor wrong. However as Mills suggested, the merit of a classification is dependent upon the purposes it serves. Does this classification facilitate teaching and learning? Does it help in identifying specific takedown techniques and specific throwing techniques? The answer may be reflected in the fact that all of the chapters and all of the techniques included in Scott’s book dedicated to 'throws and takedowns' refer only to throws. Are any of Scott's throws takedowns? Why refer to takedowns if specific techniques are not identified as takedowns? The use of both terms suggests there is a difference, but what is that difference?

To end this blog, I am in the editing stage of this series of articles to be submitted to JAMA. Secondly, I'd appreciate it if any reader could refer me to any literature that makes a distinction between these two types of techniques.

'A bit sure of yourself'

A comment was posted on my last blog which said that overall it is a good read (thanks) but I'm a bit sure of myself particularly with respect to a comment I made concerning nobody understanding the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. Fair comment. And as I've said before, my work is all the better for the comments I've received, often sceptical, as it pushes me to address these issues. So, thank you anonymous for your comment and the opportunity to address your issues.

The comment regarding the throwing techniques and takedown techniques was intended as an expression of my amazement that I could find no definitive classifications or definitions which facilitated the understanding and study of these techniques. That having been said, I am sure of myself because I put the work into researching, and the time into studying, the subjects I'm covering. As my friends will vouch, I am obsessive in my work, working 12+ hours a day often seven days a week for nearly three years now. My research and analytical abilities have been developed and honed through my professional training and I cannot abide inconsistencies or weak arguments. Particularly in my own arguments, concepts, and theories. I am inextricably drawn to these just as light is to a black hole.

Let me take you on my journey with regards to throwing techniques and takedown techniques. My originally conceived how-to book on the tactics and techniques was going to include chapters on each of the major categories of techniques taught by Jan de Jong jujutsu (aka Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu): breakfalls (ukemi), bodymovements (taisabaki), unbalancing (kuzushi), joint techniques (kansetsu waza), throwing techniques (nage waza), takedown techniques (taoshi waza), percussion techniques (atemi or tsuki waza and keri waza), and strangulation techniques (shime waza). The grading system provided numerous techniques which were specifically identified as being included in these classes - with the exception of takedown techniques.

The original grading system commenced with shinken shobu no kata. This is not a kata as kata is commonly conceived but is a hybrid form of randori (free exercise or sparring) and kata. It consists of set defences from set attacks. The common features of the defences were not studied until the dan grades when they were specifically identified and studied. The tactics and techniques were analysed by dividing them into phases or elements and the similarities and differences in the tactics and techniques were identified. Any good book on sport biomechanics, e.g. Gerry Carr's Sport Mechanics for Coaches, will explain this analytical approach to teaching and improving sport skills. Research has found that the identification of similarities and differences is the core of all learning. So, modern science lends support to the approach adopted in the Jan de Jong jujutsu dan grades.

De Jong was engaged by the Australian Army (SAS) to assist in developing a close combat system in the 1970s. In an interview, De Jong explains that Major Greg Mawkes MBE (retired) came to him and said the fighting methods he was teaching were good but the troopers were having trouble learning them and it was taking too long to learn them. De Jong explained that this is the same with his students. After seeing the 'army way' of teaching, De Jong then decided to bring the dan grade approach to the front of his gradings and explains that his students benefited tremendously after this approach was adopted.

The mon grades, as they are known, were introduced at the front end of the grading system. They are designed to introduce the students to the basic concepts of Jan de Jong jujutsu before they attempt the more difficult shinken shobu no kata kyu grades. Examples of the basic categories of techniques listed above are demonstrated in each grading with the exception of strangulation techniques and takedown techniques. The former due to ethical reasons, but why are takedown techniques not included in the mon grades? There are some takedown techniques specifically identified in the dan grades which are kansetsu waza although this conceptualisation of these techniques does not go beyond this grading. There was a distinction which was offered by some of the instructors as one dan grading requires the candidate to demonstrate, among other things, five unspecified takedown techniques and throwing techniques against five specified hand grabs. However, when this distinction is applied to other techniques which have been classified as throwing techniques or takedown techniques it suggests they have been misclassified or misrepresented as being either a throw or a takedown.

So, not having a definitive understanding of the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques, and consequently not having a definitive guide to choose the techniques to include in my book nor the science to provide behind them, I commenced my journey.

Keith Yates provides a comparison chart in his Warrior Secrets: A Handbook of the Martial Arts in which various 'popular' martial arts are compared based on their technical content. The technical content is initially divided into grappling and striking with throwing techniques and takedown techniques being two separate class of grappling techniques. He compares aikido, boxing, judo, jujutsu, karate, kung fu, taekwondo, and wrestling. Takedown techniques are listed for all but boxing and is the most common class of technique taught by the martial arts according to Yates' chart. Only jujutsu, aikido, and judo are listed as teaching both throwing and takedown techniques. So, I used this as a literary devise to structure my discussion.

I researched texts on judo, aikido, jujutsu, karate, wrestling, and hapkido (derived from jujutsu). I researched texts that are now being published dedicated to throws and takedowns generically or of specific martial arts. The interest in takedown techniques has increased due to the exposure afforded them by their use in Brazilian jiu-jitsu and in the mixed martial arts competitions, so I studied Brazilian jiu-jitsu texts. Based on my professional expereince, I also know that if there is going to be any definitions they will be included in some sort of regulations, so, I studied the rules and regulations of judo, karate, wrestling, and jujutsu competitions.

Surprisingly, a summary of the different conceptions of the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques is captured in the responses to this question on a martial arts forum: www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-67196.html. These responses also capture the confusion which surrounds the subject and the lack of a definitive distinction between the two class of techniques. And when I've written the chapter containing the results of my research, it can be seen that the responses are the different conceptions provided by these martial arts and these 'authoritative' sources.

For the sceptics, if there is no difference or if it's not important, why refer to the two class of techniques anyway?

Kano only included throwing techniques in his classification of judo techniques and the International Judo Federation Referree Rules only refer to throws. The international karate organisations' competition rules only refer to throws and not takedowns. FILA, the international wrestling body responsible for international and Olympic wrestling competition defines a throw but no takedowns. Marc Tedeschi, in his 1,000+ page door stopper Hapkido: Traditions, Philosophy, Technique only includes throwing techniques in the list of techniques taught by hapkido, but then explains when discussing throwing techniques that hapkido teaches all major forms of throwing techniques and takedown techniques but then only illustrates throwing techniques.

One book dedicated to throwing techniques and takedown techniques does include a distinction. It suggests that throwing techniques are designed to end the fight while takedowns are designed to take the fight to the ground. Throws are an end in themselves whereas takedowns are a means to an end. This is a common conception and comes from the emphasis on ground fighting made popular by Brazilian jiu-jitsu and the mixed martial arts competitions. No classification is right or wrong, they are just useful or not, illuminating or confusing as the case may be. The merits of a classification depends on the purposes it serves, and the purpose in this case is the facilitation of the understanding and study of these techniques. There is a large subjective element in this 'ends-based' classification. Is your common garden variety hip throw (o goshi) a throw or a takedown based on this classification? It could be argued that the height of a hip throw is insufficient to injure an opponent and therefore, based on this basis of classification, would be defined as a takedown. Is morote gari (two hand reap) a throw or a takedown? Brazilian jiu-jitsu, wrestling, and the mixed martial arts refer to this technique as a double-leg takedown and use it to take an opponent to the mat in order to commence their ground fighting. It has been argued that lifting a person and slamming them onto their backs on a surface other than the padded and sprung competition rings is designed to end the fight.

One jujutsu book does include a definitive definition which is reflected in the rules of certain international jujutsu organsations competitions. I was surprised to find clear definitions of these types of techniques in these jujutsu competitions. They uniquely award points for takedown techniques and throwing techniques. In fact, many of them have created a new class of technique, a 'half-throw,' to add to takedowns and 'full-throws.' However, when you analyse each technique in the aforementioned book you'll see the classification is not consistently applied, just as it was not in the Jan de Jong jujutsu gradings. Within the jujutsu competition rules, most provide examples of their full-throws and half-throws which raise questions. For instance, o soto gari, major outer reap is not considered a full-throw but a half-throw. However, based on the description of the technique provided by Toshiro Daigo in Kodokan Judo Throwing Techniques, the most authoritative book on these techniques, o soto gari would be classified as a full-throw.

Prior to this full investigation, I'd developed a classification based on biomechanical principles. Despite one of the posts on the abovementioned forum, a definitive, objective classification or distinction based on biomechanics between these techniques is possible. And this biomechanical classification does facilitate the understanding and study of these techniques.

How does a biomechanical classification facilitate the understanding and study of these techniques? Biomechanics is the study of forces and their effects on living systems. How do you teach and learn martial arts techniques? Through the study of forces. Force is simply defined as a push or a pull. When teaching or learning a technique, when correcting a technique, what are you doing? Push here, pull there; apply force in this direction or that direction; blend in with the opponent's force or resist it. Those who scoff at the contribution that science can make to the study of the martial arts do not realise that they are teaching and learning based on the subject of biomechanics. Not to refer to a body of knowledge that specifically studies the technical essence of what we do is, in my mind, sheer bloody-mindedness. Virtually every other physical activity has benefited from biomechanics, it's about time the martial arts did as well.

I am always open to, and encourage, direction to authoritative sources which challenge my knowledge, concepts, and theories. As far as I'm concerned, I do not want to reinvent the wheel. I want to stand on the shoulders of giants so that I can see further. If my work is made redundant because someone else has done it, at least I could then get on with my life instead of sitting here wading through texts and journals in search of scraps of information to develop new ways of looking at the tactics and techniques of the martial arts. So please, put me out of my misery and direct me to authoritative sources on the subjects I am writing about.

By the way, the work on the first book on the throwing techniques and takedown techniques of ALL martial arts is progressing well. I'm hoping to have a first draft finished in 4-6 weeks. Given Ernest Hemmingway once said that 'all first drafts are shit,' I'm not sure how to feel about the possibility of completing my first draft.

Shoot for the moon and if you miss you will still be among the stars.

Shoot for the moon, and if you miss you will still be among the stars - the story of my book(s).

I have succumbed to the obvious. My ambitions were, grand; OK, now accepted as too grand. In order to publish something and in order to contribute to the general body of knowledge ... I must explain ...

The goals I set when I first set out to write a how-to book on the tactics and techniques of the jujutsu taught by Jan de Jong were, (a) to contribute to the general body of knowledge, and (b) to preserve for posterity the works of Jan de Jong.

I know the teachings of De Jong had the potential of contributing to the general body of knowledge given the world wide demand for his teachings. My challenge, as far as I was concerned, was associated with my writing abilities in achieving that goal.

The second goal of my originally conceived how-to book was associated with the fact that, if it isn't written, it didn't happen. Even now, you can see the senior instructors of De Jong, all of whom have formed their own schools, are changing his teachings based on their individual insights. That is neither good nor bad, but my goal was to preserve for posterity De Jong's original teachings. To explicitly acknowledge and recognise De Jong's contribution to the general body of knowledge. Not as a footnote, but as the source of these inspirations which have formed the various jujutsu schools in Perth, Western Australia, which are now in demand nationally and internationally.

I got side tracked. My original idea was to put a little science behind the chapters in my originally conceived how-to book. The 'little science' grew to overshadow the how-to instructions so a new book was born. The new book grew to be something that would pale into insignificance the efforts to the martial artists of old who closeted themselves away in caves to divine original insights. My 'cave' is this dodgy little apartment in Subiaco where I spend my waking and non-waking hours, researching and conceptualising, awake and asleep. Enough IS ENOUGH ... I need to have a life. And I have a truck load of information.

So. Book number 1. The difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. NOBODY, and I mean nobody, to the best of my knowledge, understands the difference between throwing techniques and takedown techniques. Those that profess to do so do not satisfy the imperative - to facilitate the understanding and study of the tactics and techniques of the marital arts. Guaranteed! In the process of providing an objective differentiation between throwing techniques and takedown techniques I discovered a body of knowledge associated with how we, as human beings, learn, understand, and think. This knowledge has to help anyone who is interested in learning and understanding anything, let alone these techniques.

More on the other books to come later. And there are other books!!!!

I shot for the moon, and by God, I hit the stars. The sceptics and critics ... you have not left the ground ... come join me amongst the stars.