How Did George Floyd Die and Who is Directly Responsible?

We are very aware of who George Floyd is and the circumstances surrounding his tragic death given the near non-stop media coverage in since the video emerged of the incident.

It is a terrible look with the officer kneeling on Floyd's neck and his passing after eight minutes and x seconds. I hadn't given much thought to the specifics of the incident until a comment on Facebook yesterday which set my mind in curiosity mode.

How did George Floyd die and who is directly responsible?

You will recall that I have researched and written a book tentatively titled, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques. A chapter in that book is dedicated to Shime Waza (strangulation techniques). The police call these techniques neck restraints or neck holds for obvious reasons.

There are two types of these techniques that target the neck. The either target the carotid artery(s) or the front of the neck. Applying pressure to the side of the neck occludes the carotid artery(s) reducing blood supply to the brain resulting in loss of consciousness in 10-12 seconds. Applying pressure to the front of the neck forces the tongue backward blocking the windpipe passage and depriving the body of oxygen.

Floyd remained conscious therefore it is unlikely that the knee of the officer on the neck occluded the carotid artery(s). Floyd continued to speak saying that he could not breathe, therefore, I could not see how the knee was producing pressure on the front of the neck forcing his tongue backward to block the windpipe passage and deprive the body of oxygen. In that case he should not have been able to speak. In any event, when I studied the photograph, and I won't reproduce it because there is no need to share this horrible image of his last moments more than it has been, the officer had his knee on the side of the neck and not the back or front.

I hypothesised that the officers sitting on his back prevented his lungs from expanding thereby rending it impossible for Floyd to breath. The knee on the neck was to prevent Floyd from squirming, which it did thus preventing him from relieving the pressure on his back. I hypothesised that it was the officers on Floyd's back that are directly responsible for Floyd's death and not the officer kneeling on his neck.

Turns out that the independent coroner concurs with my hypothesis. There were two autopsies conducted. The following is extracted from a New York Times article about the subject:

The criminal complaint supporting a murder charge for the officer, which referred to the Hennepin County medical examiner’s preliminary findings, said the autopsy had discounted traumatic asphyxia or strangulation as the cause of Mr. Floyd’s death.

The private autopsy by doctors hired by Mr. Floyd’s family determined that he died not just because of the knee on his neck — held there by the officer, Derek Chauvin — but also because of two other officers who helped pin him down by applying pressure on his back. All three officers were fired last week, as was a fourth officer at the scene.

There is more in the article supporting the second narrative.

The inability to breathe was not complete because apparently we have around 6mins worth of oxygen in our bloodstream without it being replaced.

And then there is EDS, 'excited delirium syndrome.' From my as yet unpublished book,
 
It has been suggested that sudden deaths that have occurred when a neck restraint has been applied by law enforcement officers may be explained through ‘excited delirium syndrome’ (EDS). 

The actual cause of death associated with EDS is not known, however, it is often linked to the level of catecholamines in the body.


DiMaio and DiMaio (2006) suggest that EDS deaths result from a fatal cardiac arrhythmia (irregularity in rhythm) caused by, in addition to the release of catecholamines due to the struggle to restrain the individual experiencing the excited delirium episode, the excited delirium itself triggering a release of catecholamines. DiMaio and DiMaio suggest that the highest levels of catecholamines occur approximately three minutes after cessation of the activity, therefore, EDS fatalities often occur after the struggle has taken place and the subject has been subdued. 

What are the ramifications associated with this narrative. I am no lawyer so this is in no way definitive. The kneeling officer is charged with 2nd degree murder. If he was not directly responsible for the death of Floyd he may be found not guilty. The two officers sitting on his back are charged with being accomplices. If they are directly responsible for Floyd's death they are not accomplices.

The State Attorney laid the charges and he is a politician before being a prosecutor. It would be politically difficult for him to amend the charges particularly that the optics convict the kneeling officer in the public's mind. If these officers are not convicted, riots will most definitely ensue. If they are convicted of these charges, innocent men of THESE charges may be being sent to prison (the emphasis for the benefit of those who will argue send them to prison nonetheless).

One of the outcomes of this situation is relevant for martial arts and combat sports. Police and politicians are responding to calls for change by banning the use of neck holds/restraints by police (even though they were not used in this case). France has come out and banned their use by police after the Black Lives Matter protests. These techniques are described as being dangerous whenever used. In my chapter I refer to a coroner who called for their ban in the 90s and referred to them as a 'lethal weapon' because they are capable of causing death whenever used.

If they are potential lethal weapons and can cause death whenever used, why are they not banned from being taught by martial arts and used in combat sports? In light of this argument/discussion, ANYONE teaching these types of techniques in martial arts or combat sports should morally and ethically, if not legally, consider their continued teaching and use of these techniques. That consideration would include being fully informed about the subject and these techniques. To the best of my knowledge my chapter is the most comprehensive study of the subject.

As luck would have it, as soon as I published this post I read this news article about a subject dying from EDS while being restrained by police officers:

“Mr McGlothen had underlying heart disease and clearly was suffering from excited delirium. The combination of these factors caused his death.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

References

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

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

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

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

What use is pain?

In my originally conceived how-to book on the tactics and techniques of Jan de Jong jujutsu (aka Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu jujutsu) I intended to include a 'little science' to support said instruction. When writing about joint-locking techniques (kansetsu waza)I wanted a paragraph or two explaining why pain is experienced as the joint is moved towards, but not necessarily beyond, the range of movement of the joint. The research into pain to provide this paragraph or two resulted into a separate chapter in and of itself. This chapter is now intended to be included in my books tentatively entitled and dedicated to 'Injury Science' and 'Beyond Fight-or-Flight' and is (today) receiving a fleeting mention in 'Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques of ALL Martial Arts' - book #1.

The research into pain turned out to be fascinating, revealing a hitherto unknown treasure trove of information. Apparently we've learnt more about pain in the past 10 years than we have in the past 1,000. Information which broadens and deepens our understanding of pain and can be applied to similar effect within the disciplines studying the tactics and techniques associated with interpersonal violence.

'What use is pain?' is the title of an article presented in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2005) by T.P. Nash, Department of Pain Medicine, Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK. 'Ask any medical student, trainee anaesthetist, or patient 'what use is pain?' an they will tell you it is protective, or it is a warning.' Nash can add martial artist and particularly martial arts/self defence/close combat instructors to his list of people who provide this answer to this question.

He starts out by referring to the International Association for the Study of Pain (www.iasp-pain.org) and explains that 'in no way [do they] suggest that pain has a use or is protective.' Myth number one exalted on high already challenged within the first paragraph of Nash's article.

Nash explains that Galen (2nd century AD) was the first to suggest that pain had a use: '"The third aim of nature in the distribution of nerves is the perception of that which can cause harm" (De Usus Partium).' He also refers to Sydenham in the 17th century who reckoned that pain caused reflex movement for retraction and flight. He also refers to Leriche in 1939 who considered pain to be no use at all. He quotes Leriche as saying:

'Defence reaction?' Fortunate warming? But as a matter of fact, the majority of diseases, even the most serious, attack without warning. When pain develops ... It is too late. ... The pain has only made more distressing and more sad a situation already lost.'

To cut a long story short (something my blogs appear to be incapable of doing) Nash concludes:

If pain had any important use, then surely we should experience it with every injury. But pain is not always felt immediately after injury. Beecher found 65% of severely wounded soldiers and 20% of civilians undergoing major surgery had little or no pain for hours or days after the injury. Indeed, 37% of injured patients attending an emergency clinic felt no pain for many minutes or even hours after the injury. Clearly, it is not a reliable informant. ... Pain is not even an essential part of the withdrawal reflex, which happens even before pain is felt [(Hervey, GR. The functions of pain. In Holden AV, Winlow W, eds. The Neurobiology of Pain. 1984).

Beechers article is fascinating and will be referred to within my book(s) and maybe the subject of another blog. Nash goes on to say:

Pain normally produces strong aversive responses. However, dogs can be trained to seek painful electric shocks that normally produce strong aversive behaviour, when they receive a reward of food after each shock. It is clear that pain is involved in learning and memory, normally producing aversion but if the reward is good enough, it may lead to the animal seeking the pain source to obtain the reward.

This is the argument that Greg Downey was making in reference to the animals/competitors of the Ultimate Fighting Championship tournaments in his 'Producing Pain: Techniques and Technologies in No-Holds-Barred Fighting' (Social Studies of Science 37/2 April 2007) which was discussed in a previous blog of mine.

If our evidence that pain has a use, and is protective and a warning, is based on knowledge about congenital or hereditary insensitivity to pain, then we must accept that the evidence does not support this view, or is severely flawed.

If our view of the use of pain is severely flawed, what does this say about the tactics and techniques which are developed within the marital arts and other close combat disciplines based on our 'understanding' of the use of pain in the human species?

We use 'pain compliance' techniques. Pain is used as a form of mental unbalancing (which I'm currently writing about and which inspired my looking at this issue). Paraphrasing Col. Rex Applegate in Kill Or Get Killed, pain is to be avoided in the attacker and inflicted upon the opponent. Law enforcement officers are taught to use, among other things, pain to subdue violent offenders. The same law enforcement officers are held accountable for their actions for excessive force when these supposed pain techniques failed to subdue the violent offenders. These strategies, tactics, and techniques (and their representation in courts of law) are all based on 'conventional wisdom' - which we can now significantly improve upon.

SueC writes a blog (kickasssuec.blogspot.com) entitled 'My Journey to Black Belt' and follows my blog, as I do her's. She recently wrote a blog on training methods and their focus on combat effectiveness with reference to her own experience. Without confirmation todate, I'm prepared to accept responsibility for inspiring her thoughts on this subject and subsequent blog based on my series of blogs on the same subject :). Having (somewhat egotistically) said that, Sue refers to the reluctance of women to participate in martial arts or self defence training because of a fear of being hurt, which includes a fear of pain. Do you know one of the methods that is being used to increase pain tolerance? An understanding of the pain process.

David S. Butler and G. Lorimer Moseley in Explain Pain suggest

there are many myths, misunderstandings and unnecessary fears about pain. Most people, including many health professionals, do not have a modern understanding of pain. This is disappointing because we know that understanding pain helps you to deal with it effectively. Here are two important things we know about explaining pain: the physiology of pain can be easily understood by men and women in the street, and undertanding pain physiology changes the way people think about pain, reduces the threat vale and improves their management of it.

I'll be writing more about this issue in later blogs, and obviously in my books, but for now I'll leave you with this tidbit: pain is not felt, pain is experienced. This understanding opens the door to a vast array of possibilities and implications for the marital arts and any disciplines associated with interpersonal violence.

Until next time.

Insidious Effects of Training Methods and Combat Effectiveness Pt 3

This is the last blog in my series dealing with training methods and combat effectiveness.

The blogs associated with the 'insidious effects' of training methods has tended to focus on sparring as a method of preparing a person for combat. This focus should not be taken to suggest I favour kata over sparring as a superior method of preparing a person for combat. Not at all. The reason for this particular focus, and the resultant apparent unbalanced view, is that the potential weaknesses of kata and the strengths of sparring are well known and well documented. What would appear to be relatively less well known and definitely not well reported are the potential weaknesses of sparring.

Peter Falk submitted a comment to my last blog which articulately represented the strengths of sparring as a training method for preparing a person for combat. Peter is a thoughtful and intelligent martial artist from Sweden and I do not disagree with anything he had to say in this regard. The reason for my musings in these blogs was to explore the potential weaknesses of this training method which are often overlooked, if appreciated at all.

Protective Equipment

Recall in the last blog the prohibition on groin attacks in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) competitions and how some critics suggested it diminished the 'realism' of the fights. The tournament organisers then lifted the ban, to which the competitors responded by wearing groin guards. This resulted, as Greg Downey explained, in the tactic of attacking the groin not being decisive. Why would you attempt to kick someone in the groin if you knew they were wearing a groin guard? You wouldn't. Not only would it be ineffective but you could also injure your foot in the process. So, the tactics are modified by natural selection to not include groin attacks, meaning the competitors don't train to use groin attacks nor do they train to defend against them. Tactics to use groin attacks or defend against them are also not developed. After all, why learn to defend against attacks which are not going to be used.

Some authors have looked to the methods used to train swordsmen of ancient Japan when considering methods used to prepare a person for combat. Obviously sparring with a live blade has certain inherent risks and limitations. Donn Draeger, in Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts, explains that 'kenjutsu [(sword art)] may, and frequently does, require practice with a naked blade, though usually in training a hardwood weapon of dangerous capabilities is used in its place. Thus the nature of the weapon means that training methods must be confined to kata.' Draeger is quite disparaging of the weapon used in place of the naked blade or hardwood weapon of dangerous capabilities: 'Kendo has built-in safeguards such as the "weapon," which is a flexible bamboo object called a shinai.' Because of the protective equipment adopted in this form of sparring training, as well as the limitation placed on the target areas, Draeger suggests it resulted in 'combat nonsensicals, which have all but flushed the fighting value down the drain.'

Hunter B. Armstrong, in 'The koryu bujutsu experience' in Diane Skoss' Koryu Bujutsu: Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan, had this to say on the subject:

In weapons/fighting systems designed for mortal combat … the inherent dangers in training with lethal weapons aimed at potentially fatal targets precludes the use of a free-sparring type action. In some cases this danger has been avoided through the development of protective armour. However, training armour itself is a limiting factor and imposes changes upon the patterns of movements (angles and targeting), and more importantly, the psychological components of combat – the feeling of safety while training cannot prepare the individual for the psychological stress from the danger/threat inherent in mortal combat. Preparation to withstand such stress can only be readily approached in training through the use of actual weapons (or potentially dangerous simulated or rebated weapons), utilising prearranged patterns of movement in which the potential for danger arises from any errors made in timing or movement.

Again I reiterate, this and the previous blogs are only exploring the potential weaknesses of sparring as a training method. The potential weaknesses which are often overlooked, if they are understood at all. It is not my intention within these blogs to advocate one training method over another.

Armstrong makes one statement which echoes my 'insidious effects' warning: 'training armour itself is a limiting factor and imposes changes in patterns of movements.' Protective equipment and prohibition on target areas are limiting factors and impose changes in the tactics and techniques of martial arts utilising this training method.

This is not an issue relegated to historical interest only. The use of protective equipment is increasingly being used to train in as 'realistic' a manner as possible due to technological advances in body armour. The question is, 'is this training armour imposing changes on the tactics and techniques being developed and trained?'

Developing Tactics and Techniques

Say you're using sparring as a training method as you consider it more realistically approximates the real combat experience. You're sparring against an opponent with the aim of defeating them. You develop new tactics and techniques in order to defeat the opponent. In turn, your opponent develops new tactics and techniques in order to defeat you. You both develop tactics and techniques to counter the tactics and techniques developed and employed by each other. Who are the tactics and techniques that are being developed and trained aimed at defeating? Someone who uses those same tactics and techniques. Someone who is trained in your fighting methods. Tactics and techniques are used by judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners to spar and defeat judo and Brazilian jiu-jitsu practitioners respectively. Karateka and taekwondo practitioners train and develop tactics and techniques to defeat their fellow practitioners when sparring is used as a training method.

Techniques that are effective against a particular attack are disregarded because they become relatively ineffective in sparring as counters have been developed for them. After all, why learn and train techniques which are not effective when training for combat?

Resisting Opponent in Sparring

I've often heard the phrase 'resisting opponent' or variations on this theme when the benefits of sparring as a training method for preparing a person for combat are espoused. If the opponent is resisting, they are not attacking. So, you are training to fight an opponent who resists your tactics and techniques and not an opponent who is attacking you. Surely the way you don't lose when encountering a resisting opponent is not to attack!

The idea of a resistance to frustrate the attempts of an opponent in sparring is a common feature, and criticism, of sparring and competition. A criticism of modern judo competitors is their initial stances which are not aimed at positioning them for a throw but rather to resist the efforts of an opponent in throwing them. The same issue is seen in the UFC where Downey explains that the rules were changed to work against the tactic of resisting an opponent to go the distance of the round.

Using Your Training Partner's Tactics and Techniques Against Them

In the Jan de Jong jujutsu (aka Tsutsumi Hozan ryu jujutsu)grading system, there are three sparring gradings in the dan grades. Shodan (1st dan) involves unarmed against a knife and unarmed against a stick, and the positions are reversed. Nidan (2nd dan) involves knife vs knife, and sandan (3rd dan) is knife vs stick with the positions being reversed. I learnt to 'play the game' by nidan. I knew everything my opponents knew. I knew their tactics and techniques. So, I used this knowledge; I used my opponent's tactics and techniques against them. I also 'cheated' in training in that I didn't reveal this strategy which I intended to employ in the grading in training. A strategy based on using the tactics and techniques they'd learnt and which they teach against them.

There were half a dozen of us grading the nidan grading. All were obviously the same grade but most had been training for a longer period of time than I had. At the end of the grading De Jong confided in me that I'd done the best out of all the candidates participating in the grading. I was very good at sparring against a knife wielding opponent ... who was trained in a particular way with which I was intimately familiar with. I 'played the game' better than they did. I didn't know what to take away from this grading or the compliment afforded me by De Jong.

Conclusion

While the strenghts of sparring are often focused on, we should be just as aware of the limitations of sparring as a training method for preparing a person for combat. The limitations should be understood and considered or the insidious effects may materialise. There have been different ways of addressing these limitations. Kano included the techniques too dangerous for his randori in his kata. Gracie and Gracie (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) recommend their students 'adapt' if these techniques are used against them in combat. It would appear they have adopted the approach that the tactics and techniques which are used in their sparring gives their students the best chance of success in combat and accept the risks imposed by not using nor training against prohibited techniques. These are two different approaches and I offer no comment as to the effectiveness of either, however, I do have an issue with tactics and techniques being developed without consideration as to the potential risks associated with their use in combat. One such technique(s) is any strangulation technique applied to an opponent from the front when the opponent's arms are not restricted in some manner, as discussed in part 1 of these blogs associated with the insidious effects of training methods.

Insidious Effect of Training Methods and Combat Effectiveness Pt 2

Greg Downey is a lecturer in Anthropology at Macquarie University and is the author of an amazing article on the Ultimate Fighting Championships (UFC) entitled 'Producing Pain: Techniques and Technologies in No-Holds-Barred Fighting.' Unfortunately this article is hidden away in an academic journal (Social Studies of Science 37/2 April 2007 201-226) and would not normally be read by those involved in the martial arts/combatives.

I originally found this article when researching the subject of pain. In the previously conceived book on the science behind the tactics and techniques of the martial arts, I wanted to include a couple of paragraphs in the chapter on joint-locking techniques (kansetsu waza) to explain why pain is experienced when a joint is moved towards, but not necessarily beyond, the limits of its range of movement. A couple of paragraphs became an entire chapter as the research revealed an amazing body of knowledge which has been developed in the past 10 years or so. This information will be included in one of the books planned to be written following the tentatively titled Throwing Techniques and Takedown Techniques of ALL Martial Arts which I am currently working on. The Producing Pain article includes a large section on pain and pain tolerance as it relates to UFC competitors and which is a perfect example of the theory and concepts of pain as applied to martial arts which I intend to write about.

Another major part of the article is the description of how the violence is shaped in the UFC. How the tactics and techniques are shaped by the rules of the tournaments. The UFC was never 'no-holds-barred' and the rules shaped the tactics and techniques of the competitors, just as they do in sparring or randori and competition where there are also rules.

Downey explains that

prohibitions on eye-gouging, 'fish-hooking', and biting made grappling at short range a safer strategic choice than it might have been in a completely unregulated melee. The smooth surface and padded mats meant that falling to the ground was not inherently dangerous; some critics pointed out that in uncontrolled conditions, the ground might have broken glass or gravel, or simply be so hard that dropping to it could injure a person. Knowing confidently that a second assailant would never join the fight also made lying down less risky. (2007: 206)

Some critics considered the first UFC fights 'unrealistic' because of the prohibition on groin strikes and suggested this prohibition tipped the scales away from strikers in favour of grapplers. The event organisers lifted the prohibition but the competitors simply took to wearing metal groin guards as worn by Thai kick-boxers which meant the rule was not decisive. One competitor adopted the tactic of repeatedly striking the opponent's groin guard in an attempt to move it to one side. The event organisers decided it wasn't good viewing watching someone repeatedly attack an opponent's groin so they reinstituted the prohibition on groin strikes.

In the early UFC tournaments, 'passive, conservative fighting styles often prevailed over thrilling, aggressive ones' (2007: 209).

The UFC instituted fixed time limits in 1995 to prevent fights from lasting longer than expected (especially after the Severn-Gracie match ran over its broadcast time, and SEG was forced to give refunds to all pay-per-view customers). One danger of time limits, however, was that matches might go the distance without a clear winner. ... Judges had to decide inconclusive fights within the new time limits, sparking controversy when fans disagreed. Judges decisions tended to favour contestants who 'acted aggressive', as their instructions explicitly specify, in part to enforce the fighting strategies favoured by audiences. Those fighters who spent more time on top pummeling a downed adversary, even if they achieved no obvious advantage, often won decisions because striking looked more impressive than working for a sudden, fight-ending submission hold. Time limits forced fighters to chase victory with more active tactics and to impress judges with their 'aggressiveness', as defined by the audience, shifting the dynamics of the interaction. (2007: 210-211)

Organisers deliberately used the rules to produce a type of violence which was attractive to the audience. The wearing of gis (martial arts uniform) were prohibited to make grappling a less attractive strategy. It's more difficult to grasp 'sweat-slickered bare skin' which made it easier to wiggle free when grappling. Fighters also used to use their own gis to gain an advantage when grappling.

By outlawing gis, UFC management intentionally deprived grapplers of a significant tactical resources to increase the relative effectiveness of striking skills. Forcing competitors to fight nearly naked then, ... was a conscious structuring of encounters to skew the fights' dynamics for audience consumption. (2007: 211)

Downey explains that the prohibition on gis and the introduction of rounds led one of the founders, Rorian Gracie, to sell his share in the partnership that was the owner of the UFC as the changes mitigated against his families patient grappling strategies.

Rules were changed so the referee could separate fighters and 'stand them up' for 'inactivity'. This meant that

instead of playing to win, a held fighter might instead struggle simply to last until the end of a round with its mandatory break of any holds. Rounds and 'standups' broke effective grappling holds - inactivity was actually evidence of their efficacy - and forced fighters who wanted to grapple to rush repeatedly from outside an adversary's range to close contact, which makes them most vulnerable to being struck. (2007: 211)

Originally competitors fought with bare hands, however, light gloves came to be widely used and eventually required in the UFC.

Although grappling gloves are lighter and smaller than normal boxing gloves, so that they do not add weight or increase the striking surface of the fist, they do allow tight wrapping, which can brace the wrists and diminishes the chance of a broken metacarpal or other bone in the hand by effectively fusing bones together for mutual support. Not surprisingly, Clyde Gentry (2001: 155) reports that the percentage of fights that ended in knockouts increased when gloves were mandated. Gloves, introduced to appease critics, actually made punching more effective - pleasing many spectators - and probably more dangerous to the participants' heads (although not to their hands). Gloves did not just make punching more effective; they changed the way the body could be employed so that fighters could freely punch. (2007: 215)

Downey explains that 'the tailoring of fighting styles to UFC rules extends to strategies for doing particular types of damage to an adversary' (2007: 216). Fighters target their competitors brow where the bone is close to the skin in order to open up a cut which can end the fight by ringside doctors.

Downey's article contains more examples of how the UFC rules and technology (fighting ring (Octogon), gloves, clothing, etc) shaped the fighting style of what is now known as mixed martial arts. It is a very good example of how sparring and competition can shape the tactics and techniques of a fighting style. Tactics and technique which may not be appropriate if the fighting style is intended to be used in 'real' combat where rules do not apply. Many people talk up the benefits of sparring and competition as a training method, however, they tend to ignore, or are ignorant of, the limitations of these training methods and the possible effects they may have on the combat effectiveness of their fighting style.