Bridging Science and Practice: How Biomechanics Enhances Martial Arts Understanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Martial Arts Related Research and Education

Attilio Sacripanti (author of Advances in Judo Biomechanics, and Chair of Biomechanics of Sports at the University of Rome Tor Vergata) has asked if I would circulate information about the European Judo Union's (EJU) 2nd Poster Exhibition of Research to be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 21 April 2011. I am more than happy to do so because it is promoting a forum or organisation that is encouraging serious research into subjects directly concerned with the martial arts.

All sessions will consist of presentations of scholarly works related to any aspect of judo. Such areas may include, but are not limited to, topics related to the sport aspect of judo, including exercise physiology, strength and conditioning, sport psychology, injury rehabilitation, rest and recovery, nutrition, and the like. Topics may also include any area of judo history, philosophy, culture, or values as well. The audience will be mixed and include, academics, coaches, officials and the wider judo family. Presenters, please bear this in mind when communicating your research.

More details can be found on the EJU Judo Knowledge website: http://www.judoknowledge.org/

What you will also find on that website are other examples of the martial arts being taken seriously as a subject of academic study. Various universities are offering degree courses in judo. Bath University, UK, offers the EJU foundation course, and Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK, offers Level 4 and 5 Performance Judo Coach Award. Sacripanti has just completed designing and developing the Level 6 Award which 'successful coaches will also achieve the Masters Degree in Biomechanics of Judo.' Envy abounds.

Sacripanti's Masters degree in Biomechanics of Judo covers the following subjects all specially contextualised to judo:

• Advanced Physiology
• Biochemistry
• Cardiology
• Genetics and Doping
• Geriatric
• Neurology
• Neuro-traumatology
• Nutrition
• Orthopedic
• Pedagogy
• Physiatry
• Pneumology

The following is also included in connection with the content of the course:

Biomechanics, Theory and Methodology of Conditioning, effects of Conditioning, Periodisation, Control Test, Technical training, Non linear Training, Didactics for Adults, Judo as self-defense, Didactics for Children, Didactics games, Match Analysis, Grips fight, Strategy and Tactics, Throws Evolution comparative analysis of methods of teaching adults, comparative analysis of methods of teaching children, advanced studies of competition, comparative study of Japanese and Russian styles.

I also refer you to the International Association of Judo Researchers website (http://judoresearch.org/). The International Association of Judo Researchers was founded in Tokyo in 2006 in order to coordinate and foster the development of Judo-related academic research and educational activities.

My very ambitious goal is that my work (books) will be of sufficient quality to at least be referred to within these educational courses, if not studied. They are aimed at being unique contributions to the general body of knowledge supported by academic research, theories, concepts, and literature.

'School judo deaths prompt protest in Japan'

'School judo deaths prompt protest in Japan' - this is the title of a disturbing article that was posted on The Age website on January 3, 2011 (http://www.theage.com.au/world/school-judo-deaths-prompt-protest-in-japan-20110102-19d03.html). The article reports 110 children have been killed in school judo practice since 1983. The article is quite thought provoking, particularly when you do a little research, and even more so when you study injury science.

The article reports that:

The [Japanese] government's bid to make the martial art compulsory in schools has alarmed parents. Research showing that an average of four children die each year during judo lessons in Japan has alarmed some parents as the country prepares to introduce martial arts as a compulsory school sport. Yoshihiro Murakawa, one of those concerned about the government's plan, is convinced his 12-year-old nephew died in a reckless judo practice.

The article refers to a website that is dedicated to this problem (http://judojiko.net/eng/). This website, Japan Judo Accident Victim's Association, reports that:

Over the 27-year period 1983 to 2009, 108 students died as a result of judo accidents in Japanese junior and senior high schools (age range ca 12 to 18years), 60% of them from brain injury. The mean of four deaths per year is significantly higher than in any other school sport. ... Note that these figures do not include deaths from accidents outside school such as in private judo clubs, so the total number of deaths in young people is higher still. There have also been a large number of serious injuries, many of which have resulted in chronic higher brain dysfunction or persistent disturbance of consciousness.

The website also contains an analysis of the 'cause' of the deaths which is quite interesting (http://judojiko.net/eng/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/en_judo_data110110.pdf).

The Age article reports: '"Many factors are involved here," Mr Murakawa said of his nephew Koji's death during judo club training. "First of all, many judo instructors at Japanese schools are too ignorant about what to do when a serious incident occurs," he said.'

Firstly, an understanding of injury based on an injury science perspective will confirm there are many factors involved in an injury. As I am attempting to explain in my obviously tentatively titled book, Injury Science and Pain [something] for the Martial Arts, injury can be analysed according to three factors interacting over three phases. Secondly, Mr Murakawa refers to the ignorance of judo instructors. This is an issue which my work is attempting to rectify.

This article has sparked some spirited discussion on the Internet. Here I refer you to a forum page dedicated to this article on the Aikido Journal website (http://www.aikidojournal.com/blog/2011/01/28/school-judo-deaths-prompt-protest-in-japan-from-theagecomau/). Apart from the uninformed, dismissive posts, Patrick Auge posts the following:

Accidents will happen. However teachers can reduce risks by emphasizing safety and by being there. In my past experience, Japanese judo club coaches were too often absent and senpai did not have enough maturity to control the intensity of training.

The mantra of injury control professions is 'injuries are not accidents'. I have the utmost respect for Auge. However, when you're exposed to the work of the injury field you gain a different perspective of injuries. You most definitely gain an appreciation of what can be done to analyse the potential for injuries, and what can be done to prevent injury and control the severity of an injury should it occur. Injuries ARE NOT accidents. Or at least most of them are not.

Without disclosing the detail of the work I'm spending every day on, I have to agree with Murakawa and Auge regarding the quality of instruction with regards to safety in the martial arts. For instance, within the Jan de Jong Self Defence School, the assistant instructor and instructor gradings, 1st kyu (black and white belt) and 1st dan (black belt), include teaching gradings and the requirement to obtain a first aid certificate. Having said that, I was asked to teach my own branch within two years of training while I was just an orange belt (3rd kyu). Through my obsessive training I was exceptional in my abilities and as it turned out I possessed very good teaching and student relationship abilities. However, I had no teaching experience, I had not assisted any instructor as is the norm for the school, and I had no training in trauma management of any sort. I now see this posting as irresponsible (though we cannot judge with hindsight. Different times.). I had to deal with a student who was going into a epileptic episode, and I just winged it. One student injured her back while being thrown. Are these accidents? Or, as injury science would suggest, are these injury events which could have been anticipated and measures put in place to prevent them or reduce the severity of these injuries?

We don't teach how to hit a ball, catch a ball, throw a ball, roll a ball, or any such innocuous skill in the martial arts. We teach techniques which are designed to potentially injure, non-fatally or fatally, a person. We throw ourselves around in martial arts such as jujutsu and its derivative arts (aikido, judo, and hapkido) using ukemi waza (breakfalling techniques). Many of the deaths on the abovementioned website have followed throwing techniques or breakfalling techniques. Journeyman is currently blogging (http://japanesejiujitsu.blogspot.com/) a series dedicated to ukemi waza. The Japanese judo experience should instill a sense of respect for these techniques.

You have to ask, what do the instructors know about injury, injury prevention, and injury control? What qualifications do they have if an injury occurs. All the other instructors and assistant instructors within the Jan de Jong Self Defence School had completed a first aid course. At least that is something.

We need to ask questions. But we can only ask questions if we understand the subject matter. Most people still refer to 'accidents' when the injury field have taken steps to remove the concept. Accidents imply unforseeability and randomness. Put an inexperienced person in charge of a class as Auge described, how much unforeseeabilty and randomness is there in any resultant injury?

Yasuhiko and Keiko Kobayashi, whose son suffered a brain injury when he was 15, questioned whether the government was fully prepared, saying there hadn't been a thorough investigation into the causes of serious judo incidents. 'With so many children dying, there was no single case taken to a court for a criminal charge,' the father said.

Why hasn't there been litigation. I'm not a fan of litigation, but why hasn't there been litigation in this age of litigation. Might I suggest that the martial arts are by and large not taken seriously. They lack credibility. Why else would you allow people to instruct people in techniques designed to non-fatally or fatally injure a person without demanding some sort of safety study. If we want the martial arts to be a serious subject of study other than on the fringes of society for 'fringe-dwellers', we need to take the martial arts seriously ourselves. What better place to get an understanding of injury than in a discipline dedicated to the study of injury with a view to the prevention and control of injury.

'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.