Kodokan Judo Belts and Snooker Balls

I was updating my book tentatively titled, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques, and was looking into what a black belt originally meant when introduced by Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo.

Kano introduced the black belt to distinguish between seasoned practitioners and others. Kawaishi introduced coloured belts for kyu grade because he was teaching in France and considered that Westerners needed some form or recognition for advancement.

So where did the colours come from for the kyu grades.

The International Judo Federation website refers to one theory that they were based on the colour of ... snooker balls. :) I just love this. Different colours with different values.

I've read a description for Kyokushin karate which refers to the colours of their kyu belts reflecting those of our 'aura.' The invisible energy fields that surrounds all living things apparently, although not so invisible if they formed the basis for a coloured belt grading system.

The martial arts (as opposed to the martial way) was developed by practical people for practical reasons. I just hate how it has be subverted and devalued by those who use it take people on a supposed 'magical mystery tour.'

If you want the whole analogy thing, which is the most important ball on the snooker table :) ... the white ball pots the coloured balls to win the game, including the black.

Core of All Learning and Martial Arts/Self-Defence Instruction

My last post concerned the PTSD story based on my work for a chapter in my book, Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. That chapter has been put on hold as I returned to the chapter on The Strategic Use of Emotion to Counter Fear in War. The book is a process and product of learning and insight. As I learn more and gain more insights, it impacts on previously written chapters that produced that learning and insights, and thus a re-think and re-write is required.

This post, however, is a return to the core of all learning. The core of all learning is the second chapter in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques because it is such an important concept. This has become so obvious in the past few weeks based on discussions with various martial artists.

In their book on research-based strategies for increasing student achievement, Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) explain that the identification of similarities and differences may be considered the core of all learning. Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock explain that research has identified four highly effective forms of identifying similarities and differences: comparing, classifying, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. 

We use the identification of similarities and differences to make sense of our world every single day. Understanding this concept enables us to use it consciously and deliberately rather than unconsciously and accidentally.

The martial arts is the very definition of the use of the core of all learning. The Karate Kid's 'wax on, wax off' is the very definition of the use of metaphors to teach karate techniques. Housner and Griffey (1994) use this movie as an example of the use of metaphor in motor skill instruction.

'Horse-riding' stance is another use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques. In each case, as is the case with the identification of similarities and differences generally, the known is used to teach/understand the unknown. 

Of course the use of metaphor to teach martial arts techniques has its limitations for a variety of reasons. For instance, wing chun's 'goat gripping' stance does not help me understand this stance given that I have never seen anyone try and grip a goat. Ditto with Mas Oyama's birin, 'tail of dragon' stance. Even after watching Game of Thrones I have no idea what a tail of dragon stance would look like, not initially anyway.

How do you explain aikido? 'It's like jujutsu, but ...' What is pencak silat? 'It's an Indonesian form of karate.' Using the known to understand the unknown by identifying similarities and differences.

One of Jan de Jong's favourite theory questions in his jujutsu shodan grade was, 'What is the difference between o soto gari, o soto otoshi, and o soto guruma?' A more complete and insightful question would have been, what are the similarities and differences between those three techniques. 

The very reason for Minoru Mochizuki's kentai ichi no kata (kata of sword and body) is to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed defences (see here). A sword defence is demonstrated followed with a similar but different (unarmed) defence. A more complete kata would be to focus on the similarities and differences because unarmed techniques can be/are compromised in order to fit with the theme of the kata, that being to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques.

In the current chapter I'm working on, one of the strategic uses of emotion to counter fear in war is the 'inculcation of hope.' Petersen and Liaras (2006), whose paper the chapter is based upon, use fear to understand hope. When those who argue that hope is not an emotion, they base their argument on a comparison between hope and the concept of emotions generally.

I was training some students in certain shime waza (strangulation techniques) from a prescribed attack and one technique did not 'feel' right. These shime waza are the same as those taught in judo so I studied the judo version. What I found was the judo techniques are applied with tori (the applyer) already behind uke (the applyee). The JDJ method was from a high punch where tori started off in front of uke and had to find a way to get behind them in order to apply the technique. This leads to all sorts of questions, however, knowledge and insight was gained through comparing those same techniques used in judo and JDJ's jujutsu.

I was reflecting on JDJ's jujutsu grading system and did so by comparing it to that of his aikido and other aikido, jujutsu, and karate grading systems. Far more insights were gained by doing so then if I'd simply attempted to study that grading system in isolation. In fact, the very concept of 'best practice' is based on comparison.

In another part of my life, I am a financial and corporate governance professional. What is the purpose of financial statements? It's to inform. How does it do so? Through the identification of similarities and differences. FSs are comprised of income, expenses, assets, liabilities, and owner's equity. Those are all classes of financial transactions. To better understand financial performance and financial position, you compare. Compare month to year-to-date, current year to previous year, other companies in the same industry, etc.

While most martial artists are comfortable with this concept, they often baulk at classification. This becomes very evident when I raise the issue that most, if not all, martial arts acknowledge the existence of throwing and takedown techniques but do not know how they are different. The common response is that the difference is academic and/or classification is an administrative exercise and serves no useful purpose (even though the very idea of throwing techniques and takedown techniques is an exercise in classification). Not so.

'Classification is often thought of as an administrative exercise and treated with disdain within the martial arts community. Lakoff (1987) warns against such a dismissive attitude. He suggests that there is nothing more basic to our thought, perception, action, and speech than classification and that without the ability to classify we could not function at all, either in the physical world or in our social and intellectual lives' (extract from my book).

Kano, the founder of Kodokan judo, was an educator (teacher). It is no wonder that he developed a classification system for judo. The idea of classification of techniques is seen in some aikido systems where their founders were also students of Kano.

One example, albeit a good example, of the benefits of classification is its use in 'previewing'. By previewing techniques, whether by classification or comparison, the student already knows what to look for in a defence before they even see it. They can call on their prior knowledge of similar techniques to help in learning the new technique efficiently and effectively.

Learning to think, teach, learn, and explain in terms of similarities and differences improves with practice. You'll notice the improvements in teaching, learning, and correcting/improving performances.

References:

Housner, L.D. and D.C. Griffey. 1994. Wax on, wax off: Pedagogical content knowledge in motor skill instruction. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 65: 63-68.

Marzano, R.J., D. Pickering and J.E. Pollock. 2001. Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.

Petersen, R. and E. Liaras. 2006. Countering fear in war: The strategic use of emotion. Journal of Military Ethics 5(4): 317-333.

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.”

Ken Tai Ichi no Kata and The Core of All Learning

The following is a link to a post on my Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan blog where I use Yoseikan's ken tai ichi no kata to discuss the core of all learning which is the second chapter in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques.

Happoken no Kata

I published a post on my The School of Jan de Jong blog which uses the theory presented in my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques to analyse the Happoken no Kata taught by Jan de Jong jujutsu, Yoseikan Budo, and Yoseikan Aikido.

The post is an example of the use of theory to gain understanding and insights into practice. It is also an example of the necessity to always question your teacher's instruction, but only when you understand the theory and the instruction does not stack up to the theory.

Fear + Anticipation = Anxiety

 

As I said in my previous post, I am working on the draft of the last chapter in my book tentatively titled, Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. The final chapter explores anxiety disorder based on the information presented in the previous chapters and my own personal experience of the disorder.

You may recall that chapter two of my The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques is about the 'core of all learning.' The core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. One of the forms of identifying similarities and differences that research has identified as being highly effective is comparing. Anxiety is often compared with fear when attempting to explain anxiety disorder.

Many explain that anxiety and fear are both emotional responses to a threat but in the case of fear the threat is imminent and in the case of anxiety it is anticipated.


Plutchik developed the psychoevolutionary theory of emotion which is made up of three models. The derivatives model identifies eight primary emotions which when combined form other emotions. Fear is a primary emotion. Fear when combined with anticipation, another primary emotion, results in anxiety. This, TenHouten explains, has the benefit of identifying the 'temporal dimension' to anxiety.

fear + anticipation = anxiety

Fear and anxiety are similar in that they are emotional responses to a threat that involve fear, howeer, that are different in that fear is a primary emotion and anxiety is a tertiary emotion which combines fear and anticipation. A tertiary emotion is seldom felt, thus, another comparison can be made. 'Normal' anxiety is adaptive and seldom felt, whereas 'abnormal' anxiety (anxiety disorder) is maladaptive and regularly felt. There are many implications to this distinction that will not be pursued in this post, however, this distinction needs to be clearly understood if one wants to understand anxiety disorder.



TenHouten talks about fear merging into anxiety when the focus of one's concerns extends into the future. In this case the anticipation element in the anxiety equation increases. Similarly, anxiety merges into fear when the focus of our concerns contracts into the present and the anticipation element in the anxiety equation decreases.

The action tendency of fear is flight. The action tendency of anxiety is avoidance (although some mistakenly associate both flight and avoidance with anxiety). When there is anticipation we can avoid a threat. When the threat is imminent (anticipation = 0) and we can no longer avoid the threat, we are left with flight.

Many mistakenly associate both fight and flight with fear when using the fight-or-flight concept to explain our natural responses to a threat. Walter Cannon, the father of the fight-or-flight concept, associated fear with flight but anger with fight. Fear turns to anger when flight is obstructed and fight is necessary to survive.

When avoidance is obstructed, fear turns to anger and the anxiety equation becomes anger + anticipation = aggression.

As the threat becomes imminent, the anticipation element in the aggression equation reduces until we are left with anger and fight.

When we experience loss, we feel another primary emotion, sadness. With the loss of hope due to our anxiety condition, fear turns to sadness and when combined with anticipation results in pessimism: sadness + anticipation = pessimism.

This all fits in with the regulation of emotion in pursuit of our goals explained by Nesse and Ellsworth. They explain how behaviour involves goal pursuit and our emotions change depending on our progress towards achieving that goal. Fear turns to anger in order to turn flight into fight in order to survive.

Anxiety disorder is not just anxiety. To truly understand anxiety disorder one must understand that it involves a susceptibility for numerous maladaptive, negative emotions and not just anxiety.

This is but a small part of the chapter that explores anxiety disorder.

The Science Behind Kiai

Kiai is a Japanese term that is used to refer to a short yell or shout uttered when performing an attacking move. Why kiai?

The following is a draft of a passage included in the conclusion to my The Science Behind Fighting Techniques which is in the process of being submitted to a publisher. The conclusion calls on others to build on my work in building a body of knowledge about why a technique works in addition to how to perform the technique.

As I was in the process of concluding this book, Australian Ashleigh Barty played Belorussian Aryna Sabalenka in the 2018 Australian Open (tennis). The Belorussian’s powerful hitting and loud ‘grunting’ was cause for numerous articles on the issue to be published, one of which was by Damian Farrow (2018), professor of sports science at Victoria University: ‘All the racquet: What science tells us about the pros and cons of grunting in tennis.’ He reports that a number of studies have shown that ball velocity increases with hits accompanied by grunting. Can the findings in those studies be extended to kiai, a short yell or shout uttered in Japanese martial arts when performing an attacking move? Increased ball velocity means increased force is being applied when hitting the ball accompanied by a grunt. Can those findings be extended to prove that punches accompanied by a kiai apply increased force on impact? If so, how does a grunt/kiai generate more force on impact with a punch? This is an example of the current lack of biomechanical information associated with martial arts methods and how we may need to be inventive in developing that knowledge base in the absence of direct research.

There are those, many, who will have opinions on this martial arts question, however, they are only opinions. Uninformed opinions at that. My book is designed to turn the many uninformed opinions into informed opinions, which in the process will debunk many opinions.

The studies associated with tennis grunting confirm the increased velocity of the tennis ball accompanied by grunting. They do not explain where the additional force that was applied to the tennis ball was generated from.

The answer to the increased force on impact lies within the concept of kinetic energy. KE is the energy of motion which is transferred on impact. KE is calculated as one half of the product of mass and velocity squared. So which one of the variables of KE does grunting/kiai impact on in order to increase the KE of the arm/racket thereby increasing the force on impact?

The tennis studies limited explanation is highly technical/incomprehensible, however, it would appear to point to grunting tightening the body core which increases the mass behind the tennis strike thereby increasing the force on impact resulting in the increased velocity of the tennis ball. In like manner, a kiai when punching might tighten the body core thereby increasing the mass behind a punch and the force on impact. 

This would fit in with other studies on punching techniques in the martial arts that confirm that the difference in the velocities of punches by experienced and inexperienced practitioners is insignificant but the difference in the force applied on impact is significantly different. This difference is down to the experienced practitioners knowing how to contribute more mass behind their punches.

1. The findings in the studies above goes against everything that has been advised in martial arts and biomechanical texts in relation to punching techniques when referring to the biomechanical concept of KE.

2. There is a study published on the effects of kiap, the Korean equivalent of kiai, on gripping strength. A martial arts 'authority' refers to this study to confirm that kiap increases punching force on impact. It does not, as even the authors of the study acknowledge. It simply confirms that kiap increases gripping strength, so kiap away when grabbing someone. The tennis studies have more to suggest that kiai increases the force on impact than does the kiap study.

3. All of the above is an example of the mindset that is required when attempting to use science to explain martial arts practice. A mindset that is sadly lacking in current martial arts literature. That mindset will be the subject of the next post.

Blitz Australasian Martial Arts Magazine - Feature Story

The latest edition of Blitz Australasian Martial Arts Magazine (Vol 31 No 6/Dec '17 - Jan '18) published my 'Why do we punch? How human hands evolved for punching' as their feature story.

We are not afraid

The following image and narrative were posted on Facebook by NewsThump following the attack in London on 22 March 2017:

Don't give them the anger they want. Focus on the amazing job done by the public and emergency services. Don't look at the apparent carnage, look at the people rushing towards the unknown to help others. Make the story about the resilience of London and its citizens. They want your anger, they want your fury - and they want you to focus it on anyone different from you. Don't hand them an easy victory.

I find this fascinating given the work I've done on my second book concerning our natural and learned response to a threat. It integrates the theories of fight-or-flight, stress, emotion, and cognition to explain our evolved survival mechanism and the survival process. It also helps understand our learned responses to a threat as they are all interventions in the survival process.

Given the above narrative shouldn't the image say, 'We are not scared'?

Isn't terrorism associated with terror, an extreme form of fear?

This raises the question, what is the relationship between anger and fear?

Many refer to the fight-or-flight concept to describe our natural responses to a threat. They explain that in response to a perceived threat, fear motivates instinctive flight or fight behaviours that an automatic physiological response prepares the body to enact. That is a limited and flawed understanding of the F-o-F concept, and in fact the F-o-F concept itself is limited and flawed.

The issue I will focus on hear is that the F-o-F concept refers to two emotions not just one. It associates fear with flight and anger with fight. That small but important detail is important because there would be no need to counter/overcome fear if fight was the desired behaviour.

Given the above narrative, how do the terrorists intend to elicit anger rather than fear by killing indiscriminately? And is the reason terrorists want to elicit anger is to motivate the 'enemy' to fight?

Anger has been used since time immemorial to counter/overcome fear in order to fight in war. But so has hate and spite, different forms of anger but with a different focus and different outcomes. A news report today of the exposed civilian Afghan casulties following a NZ SAS raid refers to the troopers being angry at the killing of one of their own. No insurgents were killed, only civilians and in the main women and children. Were they angry, or did they hate the enemy and wanted to inflict pain and suffering to alleviate their suffering? The same may be asked of the Vietnam massacre at My Lai.

It should be noted that anger is nature's go-to response to get things done. For instance, the initial response to a threat is fear and flight, however, if flight is obstructed, nature goes to anger and fight in order to provide the opportunity to flee. Two psychologists associated with US prisons and prison hospital concluded after more than 20 years experience that the greatest cause for violence is shame. The shame is so painful that it elicits anger and its action tendency of fight in order to alleviate that pain. As the director Ang Lee once said, 'Sometimes you have to get angry to get things done.' Nature agrees.

 These are all fascinating issues that I hope to cover in my book. Issues that enable us to better understand our natural and learned responses to a threat.