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.

Insidious Effects of Training Methods and Combat Effectiveness Pt 1

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Training Methods and Combat Effecitveness Pt 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Training Methods & Combat Effectiveness Pt 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'A bit sure of yourself'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'The All Or Nothing Law Of Strangulation'

Currently the subject of chapter 12 of my book is strangulation techniques or shime waza. My research has uncovered some fascinating information, particularly from the world of forensic pathology. This blog will share one of the research papers in particular with you along with references to others.

Law enforcement include neck holds or neck restraints (they couldn't very well call them strangulation techniques) within their use of force options. The Canadian Police Research Centre conducted a review of the neck restraint literature. Their report includes the following quote concerning the use of neck restraints by law enforcement:

'once applied, it [the neck restraint] provides more protection to the officer than any other known method of control, and it concludes physical resistance without injury to the subject faster than any other restraint means known.'

'I saw a film of a 125-pound female police officer restrain, takedown,and cuff a 210-pound construction worker using the Lateral Vascular Neck Restraint [(LVNR)].'

'Regardless of any size or strength, the officer can employ LVNR against any subject because its use is target-specific during application.'

Despite their efficacy, some jurisdictions have dropped neck restraints from their use of force options because they have been 'linked' to suspect fatalities. We teach these techniques within the martial arts so I thought it behoves us to know their risks. Risks to our students in training, risks to competitors in combat sports using these techniques, risks for our students using these techniques in security work or in self defence. I've studied many texts and research articles and I thought I'd share an interesting one with readers of my blog entitled, 'Forensic assessment of survived strangulation' published in Forensic Science International (153: 2005)

The research was conducted at the Institute for Forensic Medicine at the University of Berne, Switzerland, by T Plattner, S Bolliger, and U Zollinger. They studied 134 survived strangulation cases between 1987 and 2002 to see if findings and symptoms of survivors could be related to the fierceness of the assault and mode of strangulation. Included in their paper is the following interesting statement:

The exact pathophysiological pathway, which ultimately causes death in strangulation, is not completely known as yet. There is no doubt among forensic pathologists, that obstruction of the blood vessels must be the main factor, while narrowing of the airways most probably plays a minor role. On the other hand, obstruction of cerebral bloodflow cannot be regarded as the sole responsible pathophysiological process. In that case, various degrees of hypoxic cerebral damage depending on the duration of hypoxia would occur. Cases of sustaining neurological impairment or delayed death after strangulation are however rarely reported. A fact that has been called 'the all or nothing law of strangulation' by Jacob. The role of the cardiac reflex by pressure on never structures in the neck (vagal nerve and glomus caroticum) in strangulation is a recurrent subject of controversial discussions among experts.

I have read somewhere else that strangulation is overwhelmingly an attack by men on women. This study confirms that, with the following age and sex distributions: 4 (3%) of the survivors were children and the remainder 130 (97%) were adults; 20 (15%) were male and 114 (85%) were female. In 112 cases (83%) the victim was female and the suspect was male. All male victims were assaulted by males and in two cases both the victim and suspect were female. In 47 (35%) cases the strangulation was inflicted during a rape or rape attempt.

When considering the legal implications of an attempted strangulation, given the legal nature of forensic pathology, they explain:

No one can deny that strangulation is a dangerous form of assault. It would however be wrong to consider any grasp on the neck as life threatening. The threat to the victims life is greater with increasing intensity and duration of the assault. But when exactly does pressure on the neck become a danger to the life of the victim?

This raises an interesting and important legal, moral, and ethical issue. In 'Death from law enforcement neck holds' (The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 1982: 2:2), Donald T Reay and John W Eisele conclude:

Because of the structures involved, neck holds must be considered potentially lethal under any circumstance and used only when there is no other alternative. Use of neck holds must be viewed in the same way as firearms; the potential for a fatal outcome is present each time a neck hold is applied and each time a firearm is drawn from its holster. The neck hold differs in that its fatal consequence can be totally unpredictable. ... No officer should be lulled into the false confidence that squeezing an arm about the neck is a safe and innocuous technique of subduing a suspect. It must be viewed as a potentially fatal tactic and reserved to situations which merit its risk.

If, as Reay and Eisele suggest, there is a risk of a fatal outcome present each time a neck hold is applied and the fatal consequences can be totally unpredictable, what does this say about our duty of care in teaching and using these techniques? There is a flipside to this argument as well. If a neck hold is considered lethal force, then if a neck hold is applied or attempted to be applied to oneself, this could be considered a threat to ones life which entitles lethal force to be used in self defence. With this sort of argument, how could the authorities sanction the use of these techniques in combat sports? It raises, as I said, interesting legal, ethical, and moral issues.

The subject of strangulation techniques/shime-waza/neck holds is far from clear. This blog is just a small fraction of the work I've undertaken in studying this subject and which will make up my chapter 12.

Let me know any thoughts and if you find this work interesting.

John Coles