Throws and Takedowns

I'm finally finalising my book on the science behind fighting techniques.

One chapter in that book is on throws and takedowns. Despite the common meaning of the terms provided by the Oxford Dictionary, it appears the martial arts has managed to confuse the meaning of the terms as applied to marital arts techniques.

I provide a biomechancially based classification for all techniques that are designed to cause a person to fall to the ground. It's based on the biomechanics of balance and stability. A person is stable if their centre of gravity (CoG) is located over their base of support (BoS) and balanced if they possess control of their CoG with respect to their BoS.

It was interesting reviewing the literature on the throws and takedowns of various martial arts. Books dedicated to throws and takedowns of various martial arts did not distinguish between the two, and in fact often only referred to throws.

Judo, according to Kano's classification of Judo techniques, does not teach takedowns.

A throw is a technique were forces are applied to cause both of the opponent's feet to leave the ground. The biomechancial target of the applied forces is the opponent's BoS.

A takedown is a techniques were forces are applied to cause an opponent's CoG to fall outside of their BoS and a balance recovery is prevented. Takedowns can be subclassified as 'one-legged' or 'two-legged' (for want of a better description) takedowns. The biomechancial target for one-legged takedowns is a person's foot in contact with a support surface. For instance, a foot sweep is a one-legged takedown.

The biomechanical target of a two-legged takedown is an opponent's CoG. Forces are applied to cause an opponent's CoG to fall outside of their BoS and a balance recovery is prevented. A hiki-otoshi (elbow drop) is an example of a two-legged takedown.

Irimi-nage and Mukae-daoshi are good examples of the confusion held within the martial arts over this issue. Irimi-nage is 'entering throw' taught by aikido.





Mukae-daoshi is 'meeting takedown' taught by Yoseikan Budo/Aikido and Jan de Jong.

Using Kano's division of judo techniques (kuzushi, tsukuri, kake), the same kuzushi and tsukuri result in different kake depending on the direction of the applied forces in the kake phase. The same unbalancing and positioning results in a throw or takedown depending on the direction of the applied forces in the execution phase of the technique.

The irimi-nage/entering throw is in fact a takedown while the mukae-daoshi/meeting takdown is in fact a throw. What that also means is that the latter is entirely dependent on the momentum generated during the kuzushi phase of the technique.

It also means that the applied forces for a throw are upward whilst the applied forces for a takedown are downward. A biomechanical understanding of these techniques enables a student to know what to look for in learning and training these techniques as does the instructor. It makes better students of students and better instructors of instructors.

Book #1 Progress

My first book, the book that inspired this block, is nearing completion. It is about the science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

1. I need a 'snappy title' to process ':The science behind the techniques taught by activities associated with preparing a person to survive a violent encounter and the teaching thereof.

2. I need to shorten the explanation after ':'.

3. I need a phrase that includes martial arts, self-defence, combat sports, law enforcement methods, and military close combat. I initially was using 'Survival Activities', however, the primary teachings of those activities is sometimes not survival.

Would appreciate your help on these matters.

I have a professional photographer on board, complete with lights, cameras, consent forms, and copyright issues.

I have two 'models' complete with contrasting gi.

I have a dedicated location.

Within the body of the book, there is only one small part missing. An anatomical description of wrist twists and wrist locks. I have, for the first time in this literature, an anatomical description of all shoulder locks, elbow locks, forearm locks, and side wrist locks.

As I explain in the book, the medical literature is of no assistance as >85% of all injuries to the upper limb occur as a result of a fall on an outstretched hand (FOOSH injuries) and the forces experienced then are very different to those experienced when a joint-lock (kansetsu waza) is applied.

The Australian Institute of Sport has a Combat Centre that focuses on combat sports. I am trying to get in contact with anyone associated with the AIS CC to discuss this matter. If anyone can help, most appreciated.

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.

Latest Contribution to Blitz - What is Jujutsu?

It would appear that I am becoming a regular contributor to Australia's premier martial arts magazine, Blitz.

My latest contribution which is to be published in a two part series starting next month is titled: 'What is Jujutsu?'

What is jujutsu? One of the best places to begin any enquiry into the Japanese martial arts is with the works of Donn F. Draeger. He was one of the first to write in any detail on the Japanese martial arts in the English-language literature, and he provided definitions and descriptions that continue to be widely accepted by Western practitioners. Draeger consistently explained jujutsu in terms of:

·       the generic nature of the term;

·       its history;

·       its technical content; and

·       the application of the philosophical concept of ju. 

Each of these elements are essential to any meaningful understanding of jujutsu.

The editor of Blitz has approached me for more articles. I may have access to a photographer and/or a graphic designer (although other offers would be gratefully accepted) which means I can write and share how-to articles and articles that require graphics in order to fully appreciate the message. For instance, articles that for the first time provide a physiological explanation of joint-locking techniques; articles that for the first time provide a definitive distinction between throwing and takedown techniques; articles that provide how-to instruction that was in demand world-wide from Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan and which I have provided greater insights into through the application of biomechanics.

Please contact me with any of your questions as it may provide the basis for another article to be published by Australia's premier martial arts magazine - Blitz.

Teach the Essence of All Martial Arts Techniques

What is the essence of all martial arts techniques? What makes them work?

Forces account for the changes in motion and shape of all things in the environment, including the body and body segments (collectively body).

Any time a body starts, stops, speeds up slows down or changes direction, a force has been applied. A change in shape refers to deformation. Deformation of body tissues can cause pain and injury. Think about all the techniques taught in any martial art and you will see that they are designed to change the motion of an opponent or deform their tissues to inflict pain or injury.

The beauty of it all is that force is a biomechanical concept that is easy for the layperson to understand and apply.

Without providing the full explanation, the following is how you teach and learn by referring to forces, the essence of all techniques:

1. Identify the points of application of the forces - all contact points between the two bodies.
2. Forces are a push or a pull. Determine if it is a push or a pull at each point of contact.
3. Determine the direction of the force.
4. Determine the relative magnitude of the force.
5. Determine the objective of the combined forces (change the motion or shape (deformation) of the opponent's body).

First teach students about forces, then consistently teach using a force based approach. Students will be taught to, and will, focus on the essence of techniques; what actually makes them work. When they come to correct errors in their performance they will go directly to the essence of the technique.

While the above might appear to have limited potential to improve on teaching striking and kicking techniques, it does not when the third law of motion is also understood. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Action refers to forces. When we hit a body, that body 'hits' us back with a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

When we hit or kick an opponent or some training devise, or block an opponent's attack, we must deal with reaction forces. What is being done in terms of posture and stance to increase our stability and ability to absorb those reaction forces?

Those martial arts that describe their stances in terms of mobility (which means less resistance to forces), what are they doing to increase stability when contact is made and forces are experienced?

Everybody understands what a push or a pull is. If a student is told to push or pull in a certain direction they will do so. If that instruction is not an accurate or complete description of the forces involved in the execution of a technique, do not be surprised if the student experiences difficulty in performing the techniques. A force-based approach 'forces' us to consider each and every point of contact where a force may be applied. All of those forces contribute to, or at times hinder, the execution of a technique. A complete analysis of the forces involved in the  technique avoids these issues and demonstrates a thorough understanding of the technique. And a complete analysis of the forces involved in a technique is so simple.





 

Professional Combat Sports Amendment Act 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Ubiquitous Forces and All Martial Arts Methods - Summary

The past couple of blogs have been associated with the ubiquitous nature of forces within the physical techniques taught within the martial arts and used in violence generally. Admittedly, these blogs have not been as focused as they could be. This is a reflection of the process I go through when writing about a particular subject. It starts out lengthy, often over quoting resources, and is not focused. As I rework the work, and my understanding increases and the application of the theory to understand and study the methods of the martial arts crystallises, the focus sharpens. I've deleted the last two blogs on this subject and now present the following that the majority of the repertoire of techniques taught within the martial arts. The theory is equally applicable to armed and unarmed techniques.

Forces are ubiquitous within the martial arts and physical violence. Forces are involved in every physical method taught within every martial art and used in violence generally. They are the principle driving force behind the development of all the physical methods taught within every martial art.

Forces are the universal theory of martial arts methods that applies at all times in every situation that Jigoro Kano was searching for with respect to jujutsu techniques.

The effects of forces is to cause a change in motion or change in shape (deformation) of something to which forces have been applied. Think about all the physical techniques taught within the martial arts and you'll see forces are involved.

Balance. Applegate suggests that balance is the most basic fundamental principle of all in hand-to-hand combat. He advises that 'physical balance must be retained by the attacker and destroyed in the opponent.'

Carr (Sport Mechanic for Coaches) explains that athletes with great balance are able to neutralise those forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances. In this case the athlete is the combatant and the performance is the execution of effective offensive and defensive techniques. The forces to which Carr refers is any external force: gravity, friction, and forces applied by an opponent. Ways and means have been developed to neutralise those forces that threaten an exponent's balance. Ways and means have been developed within the martial arts to utilise the forces that threaten an opponent's balance so balance is destroyed in the opponent.

Stance. Okazaki and Stricevic (The Textbook of Karate) explain that stances are unique body positions taken to provide stability, balance, or mobility. Knudson (Fundamentals of Biomechanics) defines balance as 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 describes stability as specifically referring to how much resistance a person puts up against having their balance disturbed. The more stable a person, the more resistance that person puts up to having their balance disturbed. Knudson explains that 'highly stable postures allow a person to resist changes in position, while the initiation of movement (mobility) is facilitated by the adoption of a less stable posture.' Highly stable postures provide more resistance to having a person's balance disturbed by external forces. Kreighbaum and Barthels (Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement) explain that 'forces account for the motion and changes of motion of all things in the environment.' Movement is facilitated by adopting a less stable posture which provides less resistance to the forces that cause a change in motion. This latter capacity is sometimes referred to as mobility.

Stability and mobility are inversely related. The more stable a person is, the less mobile they are, and vice versa. The less mobile a person, the less resistance that person puts up to having their balance disturbed by external forces, and vice versa. This inverse relationship can be envisioned as a stability-mobility continuum.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The disruptive forces applied by an opponent refer to both action and reaction forces. Action forces are forces applied directly by an opponent. Reaction forces are those generated when action forces are applied to an opponent when executing a technique on them. For instance, Watkins (An Introduction to Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise) suggests 'the boxer needs to ensure that he has adequate stability so that he can apply a large force without losing his balance as a result of the equal and opposite force exerted on his fist.' Stances are developed to deal with both action and reaction forces applied by an opponent.

Stances are designed to provide more or less resistance to forces depending on the tactical imperative. Many martial arts teach one stance (e.g. standard boxer's stance) that is a compromise between stability and mobility. Nakayama (Dynamic Karate) is unique in teaching different forms of a particular stance during the three stages in the execution of a technique. His stages can be made more generic in referring to contact with the opponent rather than executing a technique. Forces are applied to or by an opponent when contact is made, which requires stability to neutralise their disruptive potential. Before and after contact is made with an opponent, mobility is the imperative to evade an attack by an opponent and/or to move into position to attack the opponent. Of course we should not neglect the strategy of retreating which avoids the ever present risks associated with violence. Retreating emphasises mobility.

(How many types of stances are there? All stances when standing taught within the martial arts can be classified as either one-legged or two-legged stances. The two-legged stances can then be subdivided into parallel or staggered stances. All stances taught within the marital arts fit within this simple classification system, despite the often convoluted explanations associated with stances.)

Friction. Friction is a force that can potentially disrupt balance. The stances of some styles of pencak silat (Indonesian fighting art) emphasise stability during all three stages of contact with an opponent due to the slippery, muddy, low friction terrain. This then influences the 'footwork' or methods of moving, and the tactics and techniques taught by these styles because of the constant emphasis on stability within their stances.

Footwork or Methods of Moving. Walking has been described as a series of falls or series of falls and catches. Walking involves shifting from a stable to an unstable position (fall)when taking a step before shifting back to a stable position (catch) when the swinging foot makes contact with the ground again. The martial arts have developed ways of moving that reduce or eliminate the unstable/falling periods.

There are two basic ways of moving - shuffling or stepping. Carr explains that 'shuffling steps increase stability because they limit time spent on one foot.'

With regards to stepping, karate teaches a method of moving that shifts a person's centre of gravity over a platform foot before lifting their nonweight-bearing foot of the ground. This foot is then drawn close toward the platform foot in a 'C' movement before the centre of gravity and moving leg is 'propelled' forward (Nakayama). In this way the unstable phase of walking is reduced by half as the centre of gravity is located over a base of support until the propulsion forward. Tai chi, because of its very slow movements, teaches ways of moving whereby the centre of gravity is always located over a base of support, completely eliminating the unstable phase where the forces of gravity could disrupt their performance. The abovementioned styles of pencak silat also teach this type of movement due to the low friction provided by the terrain.

Unbalancing. Jujutsu and its derivative martial arts of judo and aikido teach unbalancing methods called kuzushi. Recall from above that Carr included forces applied by an opponent as being a cause of the disruption of a person's balance. In this case, the forces applied to an opponent are designed to disrupt their balance. In fact, Kano describes kuzushi in terms of forces. Adrian and Cooper (Biomechanics of Human Movement), in their chapter dedicated to the biomechanics of combatives, refer to the combinations of forces that Kano referred to as 'force-application patterns'.

Principles of Nonresistance. The principles of ju and ai in jujutsu and judo, and aikido respectively are based on nonresistance to forces being applied or attempted to be applied by an opponent. What is little appreciated is that in order to unbalance and control the opponent using their own force after their force has not been resisted necessitates forces being applied to the opponent.

Throwing Techniques. Adrian and Cooper explain that 'since judo throws are rotational, they rely on the development of torque.' Torque is the turning effect produced by a force. Sacripanti (Advances in Judo Biomechanics Research) provides a classification of judo throwing techniques based on torque. This classification is based on objective biomechanical principles and remedies the deficiencies inherent in the classification provided by Kano and others.

Takedown Techniques. Throwing techniques and takedown techniques are different types of techniques. A fact that is not generally understood even though both terms are used extensively in the martial arts. Both types of techniques cause a person to fall to the ground, but the forces applied to achieve that result are different. I explain the difference between these two types of techniques based on mechanical principles, including forces, in my draft Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques of ALL Martial Arts. I also develop a classification of takedown techniques for the very first time that is based on biomechanical principles, including forces.

Percussion Techniques. In addition to causing changes in motion, forces also cause deformation or changes in shape. Deformation of tissues beyond their limits is the definition of injury. Forces are applied to deform tissues when percussion techniques are executed. If the forces applied exceed the tissues tolerance levels, injury results. However, if the forces applied approach the tolerance levels, pain is often experienced without an injury being inflicted. Either way, percussion techniques involve the application of forces.

Blocking Techniques. Blocking techniques are designed to stop or deflect an opponent's percussion techniques. As stated above, forces cause changes in motion which includes stopping or changing the direction of something, in this case the opponent's attack.

Joint-locking Techniques. Jan de Jong would ask questions like, 'What are the forces involved in a straight arm lock?', in his black belt theory gradings. Unbeknown to De Jong himself, he was applying forces to understand, study, and explain joint-locking techniques. The discussion regarding injury and pain above apply equally to joint-locking techniques, and involves the application of forces. The answer's to De Jong's questions would have been far more succinct, focused, and accurate if the mechancial concept of force was understood and applied.

Strangulation Techniques. Strangles involve the application of a compressive force to the structures of the neck. Shime waza are techniques taught within jujutsu and its derivative arts that are designed to compress the structures of the neck using the exponent's arms or the opponent's clothing. Forces are applied to the opponent's neck by the exponent's arms or opponent's clothing. In the latter case, forces are applied by the exponent to the opponent's clothing which in turn applies forces to the opponent's neck.

Visualisation of Forces - A Necessary Skill. Kreighbaum and Barthels suggest 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 a body.' They suggest the visualisation of forces is a necessary skill for, among others, teaches and coaches. Because forces account for changes in motion and changes in shape (deformation) of all things in the environment (don't forget that injury and pain results from deformation of bodily tissues) an understanding of what forces are and how we can picture then as they are applied to or by a body is a very useful skill for teachers and students of the martial arts. It provides the opportunity of understanding and studying all the techniques based on what actually makes them work. It focuses the explanation and attention to the factors that make them work, and provides the opportunity of clarifying the often convoluted explanations of these techniques.

And the beauty of it all is that the concept of forces is relative uncomplicated and easy to understand. I'll demonstrate this in the next blog.

Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods

In my last blog, I explained how Kano looked for a universal theory of jujutsu techniques that applied at all times in every situation. I also explained that the 'theory' or 'principle' he ultimately came up with was not so much a universal theory or underlying principle of all jujutsu techniques, but came to be the universal theory and underlying principle of the techniques he selected for his judo. The blog then went on to suggest that I'd identified the mechanical concept of force as being the universal theory or underlying principle of all physical techniques in every martial art. I explained that the next few blogs would test the veracity of this very broad claim.

The last blog introduced my veracity argument. A former student, with a great intellectual capacity, was kind enough to provide some feedback. She wrote that she 'was surprised to find how clear and understandable your biomechanical explanation is.' I've chosen not to take umbrage to her 'surprise' at my abilities or application of biomechancial principles to illuminate martial arts methods. She went on to write, 'What isn't clear to me yet, though, is whether your explanation is too broad. But then, I suppose you have an entire book to go over how useful it is as an explanation.'

In response to her last comment; no, I don't have an entire book to go over how useful it is as an explanation. The book I'm currently working on is regarding injury science and the science of pain and how these sciences can, and do, facilitate the understanding and study of the physical techniques taught within the martial arts and used in violence generally. The chapter where the subject of force is introduced is intended to show that while injury is defined by injury science in terms of tissues being exposed to physical energy in excess of their tolerance levels, many others conceive of injury in terms of force being absorbed in excess of tissue tolerance levels. I then go on to reconcile the two mechanical concepts of kinetic energy and force and show how both are involved in the injury process and how both illuminate different aspects of physical techniques taught by the marital arts or used in violence generally.

But force is an important topic. One that facilitates the understanding and study of every physical method taught within the martial arts or used in violence generally. I don't have a book planned to explore this all important subject. It is obviously included to a certain degree in my book, Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques of ALL Martial Arts, but only with respect to a subsection of martial arts methods. It doesn't really have a place in my as yet un-named planned book on 'the stress process', or 'the evolved response to threats, challenges, and harm.' I was attempting to verify the veracity of, what the abovementioned students appreciated, this very broad claim. I was attempting to do so in the abovementioned chapter, but, it didn't really fit in with the subject of the chapter. It wasn't an 'interesting' side note; it distracted the reader from the subject of the chapter. The other morning I awoke with the answer. Put it in an appendix and do justice to the subject. This is what often happens. After working for days on an issue, I awake with the answer.

The abovementioned student kindly referred to the clarity of my argument. I constantly work on that aspect of my writing. After working on the veracity argument, I've discarded the Sun Tzu and Arabian proverb references (at least initially). While poetic, they are unnecessary. So, lets start again. Here is the first small section of my veracity argument in Appendix 1: Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods.

Note: Ubiquitous means 'present, appearing, or found everywhere.' Aka Kano's universal theory that applies at all times in every situation.

Appendix 1
Ubiquitous Forces and Martial Arts Methods

Forces are ubiquitous within the martial arts and physical violence. Forces are involved in every physical method taught within every martial art and used in violence generally. They are the principle driving 'force' behind the development of all the physical methods taught within every martial art. If these statements are true, it stands to reason that an understanding of forces provides an insight into all the physical methods taught within every martial art or used in violence generally. Let’s take a look at the veracity of this very broad claim.

Balance
The father of modern-day combative, Colonel Rex Applegate (1976), suggests there are a number of fundamental principles in hand-to-hand combat and the most basic fundamental of all is that of balance. He suggests that 'physical balance must be retained by the attacker and destroyed in the opponent' (1976, 11) . The internationally-renowned Japanese master of Shotokan karate, Masatoshi Nakayama, states in the very first line in the very first chapter of his now classic text, Dynamic Karate: 'If the body lacks balance and stability, offensive and defensive techniques will be ineffective' (1966, 23). Balance must be retained by the attacker in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques, and balance must be destroyed in the opponent so they cannot execute effective offensive and defensive techniques.

In Sport Mechanics for Coaches, Carr defines balance as, 'the ability of an athlete to control his movements for a particular purpose' (2004, 222). In this case the athlete is the combatant and the particular purpose is the execution of effective offensive and defensive techniques. Carr explains that 'athletes with great balance are able to neutralise those forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances' (2004, 98). What are the forces that would otherwise disrupt their performances? He explains that the enemy the athlete must fight in order maintain their balance is any external force: 'Gravity, friction, air resistance, and forces applied against them by opponents can all destroy their performance' (2004, 98). The enemy the combatant fights in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques is any external force – gravity, friction, and forces applied against them by opponents. Ways and means have been developed to neutralise these forces that threaten to compromise a combatant's ability to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques. Ways and means have been developed to utilise these forces to compromise an opponent's ability to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques.


Reaction Forces
One of the enemies the combatant must fight to maintain their balance in order to execute effective offensive and defensive techniques are the forces applied against them by opponents. These forces include both action and reaction forces. Recall from chapter two that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. When a force is applied to an opponent when executing an offensive or defensive technique, an equal and opposite reaction force from the opponent is experienced. Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996) advise in Biomechanics: A Qualitative Approach for Studying Human Movement that the reaction force on the body must be anticipated when a force is applied to a body. Applying this idea to the martial arts, Watkins suggests in An Introduction to Biomechanics of Sport and Exercise: 'The boxer needs to ensure that he has adequate stability so that he can apply a large force without losing his balance as a result of the equal and opposite force exerted on his fist' (2007, 30). Nakayama provides the same advice with respect to karate techniques: 'All parts of the body must harmonise to provide the stability necessary to sustain the shock of delivering a kick or punch' (1966, 15). Kanazawa (2006), 10th dan founder of Shotokan Karate-do International Federation, follows suit when he explains that stances which are not performed properly leave the body unprepared for the reaction that accompanies an attack. Ways and means have been developed within the martial arts to deal with the reaction forces experienced when executing offensive and defensive techniques.

Notes:
1. I won't include the details of the references in this blog. Please contact me if you'd like the details.

2. Within my work, I incorporate numerous references. I do not have the credentials to make certain claims or to support certain arguments, so, I support these claims and arguments with references to authoritative sources.

3. My work is also aimed, as my MBA was described to me as being aimed, at using theory and research to inform practice. Hence, frequent reference to biomechanical authorities is made. These biomechanists 'flirt' with the martial arts, and there is a lot of flirting going on, its just that the practitioners never get to reap the benefits of this flirtation - until now.

4. Two of my heroes are Kano and Nakayama. In their books they flirt with mechanics to facilitate the understanding and study of certain aspects of their martial art. Kano, the original martial arts biomechanist, uses the concept of forces to explain kuzushi. Nakayama uses force-related concepts of balance and stability to explain stances and footwork, or ways of moving. Jan de Jong also flirted with mechanics when he'd ask 'what are the forces involved in a particular joint-locking technique' in his jujutsu theory gradings. It is these giants upon whose shoulders I'm attempting to stand in order to see further.

5. I received a phone call last night from a former fellow student who is a keen martial arts practitioner and aficionado. While she was very interested in my work and applying science to understand and study the methods of the martial arts, when it came down to the specifics of applying mechanics to understand and study these methods, she was 'unconvinced'. This is a common response I've received to my work. She, and others, suggest that my explanation of certain methods in terms of mechanical forces is 'my opinion' which she and they, amicably, disagreed with. 'My opinion' is based on the irrefutable laws of nature. I don't have an 'opinion' in this regard. The laws of nature are what they are. For instance, the force of gravity and its effects on bodies and objects is not my opinion. I am constantly astounded at the resistance that experienced and knowledgeable martial arts practitioners put up to having their concepts and explanations of techniques clarified (and sometimes corrected) with the use of the concepts of science. Interestingly enough, I also note the same martial arts practitioners often refer to 'science' (often poorly conceived) to explain the 'why' of their 'how-to' instruction in order, presumably, to increase the depth of their how-to instruction. I perversely enjoy these conversations as they direct me to the areas that I should direct my 'controversial' work. The areas that will most challenge the experienced and knowledgeable martial arts practitioners.

6. I watched a program this week on fractal geometry, a subject which I have the minutest of knowledge about. Interestingly, the program was about how fractal geometry was being used to better understand and study a vast array of natural phenomena. They showed how fractal geometry was being used to better understand and study the rhythms of the human heart, and they tellingly suggested, this science provided a 'deeper understanding then ever before.' Not a bad introduction to my books.

7. The next blog concerning my veracity argument will look at how forces are responsible for the stances taught within every martial art. This will be followed by how forces are responsible for the methods of motion that have been developed within the martial arts, unbalancing (kuzushi), the principles of ju and ai, throwing techniques, takedown techniques, joint-locking techniques, percussion techniques, and strangulation techniques (shime waza).

8. You might check out SueC's latest blog (kickasssuec.blogger.com) and her explanation of the use of the term 'art' to describe the martial 'arts'. Very insightful if I do say so myself.

Forces are ubiquitous within the martial arts and violence generally. An understanding of forces provides a deeper understanding of these methods than ever before.

PS: Feedback is gratefully appreciated and invaluable in the writing of my books.