Training and Lethality of Techniques.

[arnisador]

I recently acquired a BJJ book and found their view of the "Genius of (Jigaro) Kano" quite interesting. They stated that by changing the maiming techniques of jujitsu to sport-friendly techniques that did not injure they actually made the art deadlier because one could now practice the techniques full-force against a resisting partner and hence truly improve at them. The idea was that the art may in some sense be weakened but that the training is strengthened and on balance the practitioner benefits, and in fact benefits considerably.

I am reminded of how often Muay Thai practitioners--whose art is a sport--defeat their "my art is too deadly to spar with" peers due to their toughness and ability to deliver and withstand full-power techniques. Similarly for Western boxing (and most likely savate).

But I was also reminded of the Professor's innovation of practicing stick-on-stick rather than stick-on-hand for much the same reasons--one could go full power without the lengthy training delays while broken bones heal. Before reading the BJJ book I hadn't realized how general this principle might be.

Incidentally, the BJJ book was:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1931229082/104-5365916-2686325

 

[Kyle]

I happen to agree I will go so far as to say that any martial-art that does not or cannot practice the techniques full-power and full-speed is a waste of time from an effectiveness standpoint.

- Kyle

 

[GouRonin]

All those babies who don't bang their Kenpo Techniques once in a while will suffer the same fate! Down they go! When they whine and complain why their McDojo art let them down I don't wanna hear that Kenpo doesn't work. You gotta bang to believe!

In boxing there were no belts. One guy had the belt and everyone wanted it. You got into the ring to try and take it. If you won, you waited for the next guy to try and take it. If you lost, then you sucked it up and came back another day. But everyone who got into the ring was respected and no body shot their mouth off to much because eventually they had to face them.

Dave Hebler once told me that for good or bad, that when he was coming up that belts were given as degrees of pain. The idea being that if you coul dhandle in the dojo, then out on the street you'd be ok.

 

[Icepick]

I'll agree, mostly, but modify Kyle's statement to say that any martial artist who does not practice his techniques full speed against full resistance is not developing an effective style of self-defense. I don't believe that the fault lies within the art itself, but in the student/instructor. Obviously, each art has techniques for self-defense and some for attribute training, aesthetics, fun, etc. How much of each depends on the art, but I've never seen a style with NOTHING to add to practical training...

I'm looking forward to banging sticks with Kyle. He asked me a couple of weeks ago and I think I'll find some interesting answers about my personal Modern Arnis. A genuine badazz, with limited stick experience, who likes to go full blast, sounds like a great laboratory to me! Just gotta stay away from the Dumog...

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Icepick
I'll agree, mostly, but modify Kyle's statement to say that any martial artist who does not practice his techniques full speed against full resistance is not developing an effective style of self-defense. I don't believe that the fault lies within the art itself, but in the student/instructor.

On the one hand I agree; on the other hand however I think the Gracies have a point in that one cannot possibly do judo and fail to get this feedback on one's effectiveness, whereas in a number of arts it will depend on the instructor. The structure of judo and judo training is such that one must learn what works and doesn't--like boxing, you will figure it out.

There's another point though: The set of techniques in judo is such that (essentially) all can be practiced correctly, at full speed and power, on a resisting opponent. This includes that opponent's breakfalls. You can't do that with an eye gouge. You might pull up on the arm to help someone break a fall in judo but you don't have to do so. There isn't an analogue with an eye gouge.

So while I agree with you that the student and the instructor have a big impact, I agree with the Gracies that there is a design issue relative to the art and that judo and boxing and Muay Thai and wrestling and savate and apparently BJJ and to some extent Modern Arnis have a design that ennables the full speed, full power practice of the art on a resisting opponent that isn't the same for karate or kung fu; you can't get the same feel with protective equipment on, though it helps. (I am taking the position that boxing and Muay Thai, say, are intended to be done with protective gloves on so practice and reality are in perfect match. They are sports.) You can come close but I don't think it's exactly the same.

As I've said before, I write as someone who finds Okinawan karate very effective and kata an important part of that training. My point is that in judo every technique may be practiced this way, and will be if the instructor is merely adequate at his or her task. This is indeed unlike many other arts.

 

[Icepick]

Arnisador -

I think we're on the same page. Some systems have a much larger base of techniques that can be used "full speed". I think Modern Arnis is almost 50/50. A lot of the stick locks/disarms are ineffective without using significant force against the small bones of the opponents wrist. To do so explosively invites a lot of injuries. I also think that many of the empty hand wrist locks require a strike 1st as a softening technique. I've been on both ends of wristlocks in BJJ, and it's very difficult to do on a resisting opponent.

I LOVE BJJ, because everything I learn is designed to go full speed, and I try to use it sparring at the end of class.

My karate and kungfu experience is extremely limited...Come to think of it, there was very little of the Wing Chun that I learned that you could practice full speed. The instructor was REALLY into neck breaks. I did like his defenses against low kicks though. What kind of karate stuff can't you do full speed?

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Icepick
I'm looking forward to banging sticks with Kyle. He asked me a couple of weeks ago and I think I'll find some interesting answers about my personal Modern Arnis. A genuine badazz, with limited stick experience, who likes to go full blast, sounds like a great laboratory to me! Just gotta stay away from the Dumog... [/B]

Awww yeahhhhh! I'm looking forward to it

- Kyle

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by arnisador

You can't do that with an eye gouge.

Not true. Without equipment, you need to go slower, but you can focus on the eye brow instead of the eye ball.

If you have goggles, such as racquetball or swimming, you can really go for the eye without significant fear of injury. I've done it, this works well. My instructor has done this kind of stuff extensively.

- Kyle

 

[white dragon]

I got a link to this post through the taekwondo forum, and thought I'd add here what I said over there regarding tkd being taught as a sport:

I don't consider TKD to be a sport, despite doing WTF (the Olympic style). As you said it depends on the instructor. In my regualr class we cover competition sparring, sure, but the main part of the lesson is based on techniques that you would use in the street, as it is after all a martial art, not martial sport. I'm so used to using take-downs, sweeps, holds and floor work that I assumed this was standard TKD.

Over the summer I went to train at a different club (as I normaly train at my university club). I found a WTF club thinking it would be similar. The instuctor is a 5th Dan, and there's no doubting he's earned his title at all. However, it became clear to me that none of these students had come close to do anything like a sweep, or kicks to the knees, or below the belt (apart from a front kick to the groin). From this experience I can see how it could be considered a sport, as most of the training we did (apart from 1 and 3 step) was concentrating on the best way to score points in a competition.

I think the attitude towards TKD depends on the instructor. As someone that hasn't been studying it for an amazing length of time, I can't say how much of what I'm being taught is "pure" TKD, but we're taught what we are because it's practicle.

 

[thekuntawman]

somebody said "But I was also reminded of the Professor's innovation of practicing stick-on-stick rather than stick-on-hand for much the same reasons--one could go full power without the lengthy training delays while broken bones heal. Before reading the BJJ book I hadn't realized how general this principle might be. "

i agree with this because many of todays arnisador prefer the drill and stick to stick practice over sparring, and they like counterings over attacks. why because this is more a entertaining form of training, and this is what teachers teach more because it keep the students coming back(this is what another well known philippine martial arts teacher told to me). but the problem is when people come up with reasons why the drill is "so important" how it will make you a better fighter than live technique training they call attributes", but there isnt many people who are willing to show you how effective they are, and the ones who do arent that good.

our philosophy is the best way to get better at a skill is to do that skill, not to find subsitiutes for that skill or each little part, that works in theory only. maybe the best runners lift curls and pump hand weights, but the best runners RUN. all the other stuff might help. but in our case we have arnisador who do all the other stuff, but the never do what is the name of the game, fight, and when they go for testing, they are not even ask to fight then either.

anyway, i agree that you can do some things and enhanced your skill, but they have to be related to your skill and technique. but the type of strike to use in the fight is not the type of strike they used when you perform a stick to stick exercise. they might even swing with mor power, but the kind of strike is different. so how can this really help? the distance is different, the mental is different (which reminds me), the physical need is different.
distnace--do you reach out to meet sticks? a real distance will require one person to reach out, the other person to stop the hit. the hit should hit YOU if you dont meet the stick.
mental--are you nervous? is there a possiblty you will get hit? do you feel pain as a part of the exercise? well then this exercise is not enough like a fight for your mind to get prepared.
physical--a fight is in short quit burst of power and speed. when pain is introduce to the exercise, then your endurance will run out faster. five minutes of quick bursting will put you out of breath. but when some people "simulate" the movement, they have to go 20-30 minutes before they are breathing heavy. also, your shoulder has to give out in ten minutes to prepare for a fight. stick to stick (how most people do it) takes to long to wear out your shoulder.

okay, i am posting to long.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by thekuntawman

. . .
i agree with this because many of today's arnisador prefer the drill and stick to stick practice over sparring, and they like counterings over attacks. why because this is more a entertaining form of training, and this is what teachers teach more because it keep the students coming back(this is what another well known philippine martial arts teacher told to me). but the problem is when people come up with reasons why the drill is "so important" how it will make you a better fighter than live technique training they call attributes", but there isnt many people who are willing to show you how effective they are, and the ones who do arent that good.
. . .

Dear Sir,

A couple of questions on this. How would you
train with empty hands? Does the instructor
not start sparring with control with the less
knowledgeable person. Could not the same be done
with weapons. IF both learn control and know
that if they miss a block they WILL have a stick
in their face about an inch away. Or a stick
on the thigh to let them know that it could have
been their knee?

I mean if the instructor just fought for real
with a new student the student would not learn
and would go away.

I agree that all strikes need to be executed
as if they are for 'real'. Meaning you would
hit the other person if they do not block. Now
this is where control comes in with or without
a weapon. The attacker would then pull / stop
the attack about an inch or two from the defender.
This allows the defender to KNOW for certain that
they would have been hit. And the attacker can
go back over the technique and to try to get the
timing and execution correct. As the student
progresses then the level go ups.

As in the case of when my Instructor steps it
up for me and I find me doing all the back up
moves to makes sure I cover the attack.

Just curious

Rich

 

[dearnis.com]

for the instructor the real challenge is feeding the student with enough realism to force the student to adapt and grow (ie just short of overload) but to the point that the student gives up and quits (in other words the instructor has to be willing to take some shots from a "beginner".... without embarrasment). As the student gets better the instructor continually turns up the heat. The (American) Taekwon do instructor I came up under was very old school in this regard; he once told me that I was doing really well and that when he had to start knocking me out to keep me off him I would be ready for my next rank. I thought he was kidding and took the compliment with a grain of salt...until he dropped me two times in five minutes a year and half later. I no longer train actively in that art, but I try to keep his lessons on how to be a good teacher close at hand whenever I am on the mat.

 

[Tapps]

for the instructor the real challenge is feeding the student with enough realism to force the student to adapt and grow (ie just short of overload)

Interesting. A Kempo friend of mine always told me to spar underbelts as if you were one belt above them. I've found it a good rule of thumb.

 

[dearnis.com]

yes; exactly the same idea.

 

[Cruentus]

I think I am going to jump in here and make the distinction between "fighting", competition, and training.

I see a lot of mistakes, and false confidence that is built up in the martial arts by practitioners who don't fully make the distinction between the above.

Competition: I have met boxers, kickboxers, TKD tournament fighters, and open tournament fighters who think that because they compete in a controlled environment with their style, that they are prepared street fighters. I myself have been a boxer, kickboxer, grappler, and tournament fighter.

The problem is the constraints of a competition changes the methods one must use. If I am in a full contact TKD tournament where I can kick to the body and the head, but I can only punch to the body, my method of fighting will be primarily based on kicking. If I am boxing, It is safe to say that kicks aren't going to help me. If I am grappling no-holds-barred, then I better hone my grappling skills, and watch the way I use my other weapons so I don't get locked up.

You see what I mean. Now what about a fight, or life or death battle? Let's compare it to the type of competition with the least amount of rules: the 'no holds-barred' competition. Let's say you pit someone who knows how to 'no-holds-barred' fight, which is basically grappling with strikes, to a 'dirty fighter'. There is no biting, ear pulling, hair pulling, eye-gouging, or knife stabbing allowed in 'no holds barred' grappling. I think the grappler will find, however, that if these 'dirty' techniques are allowed (AND IF THEIR OPPONENT IS EXECUTING THEM), or even if they are in a different environment other then the padded mat, they WILL have to change there fighting method and adapt it to work in the situation, or they will get beat.

So, the point is, a competitive situation is not the same as a fight, and the "METHOD" or "chain of events" will turn out differently. Also, there are techniques (such as the simple 'eye jab') that are too dangerous for a competition, yet can be drilled. This doesn't mean one should say "My style is to deadly for competition," but it should be noted that although a competition can help your skills, it is NEVER a fight.

Drills and Forms: These are valuable methods of training instincts, and honing techniques, but they are not an 'end all' either. Unless they are trained hard enough, or with the constant mindset that these are techniques/principles that will have to be applied in combat, they can be useless.

The bottom line: Too many have false confidence built up from their training. The only thing that substitutes a 'fight' is a 'fight;' There is no real substitute for reality. Unless your going to enter a patayan ("death match"), or unless your going to war, how can we be confident that we are trained for lethality?

The best way is 1st to be as diverse as possible, while training as hard as possible. 2nd and most important: Realize the differance between training and fighting, direct your training so it applies to combat; that way you can make the adjustment if the time comes that one must fight for real.

That is my bottom line!

PAUL

 

[bscastro]

Just a couple thoughts. I think this is a great thread with many good thoughts!
1. I think martial sports have much to offer the martial artist in the way of developing skills that can be applied to fighting. Of course, the less rules the better, but as Paul said, unless you fight in death matches or are in war, you cannot be totally sure. Even then, can one be totally sure of what will come one's way. One has to be confident in their training to some level, but I think one can be confident that they are increasing their ability to defend themselves or their loved ones.
2. I think all forms of training have some "piece" of the puzzle in training. I think the important aspect is to train as REAL as safety allows. Real meaning an partner who does not do what you want him to do (resistance or "aliveness"). Forms I think can be effective but practicioners should visualize the application of their techniques. Drills can be effective if the "intent" is there (they're not just walking through the motions). Of course, different levels of reality should be practiced depending on the level of the student.
3. Diversity which Paul mentioned is also important I think. I used to not believe in the usefulness of groundfighting when I started martial arts. However, a wrestler friend of mine shot in with a double leg and that started me thinking. After a couple slips on the Buffalo wintry tundra and I started to realize that I may find myself on the ground at some point if I ever needed to defend myself. Same goes for grapplers with stand-up skills.

Just a few of my throughts. Good training to all!

Bryan

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by bscastro

Diversity which Paul mentioned is also important I think. I used to not believe in the usefulness of groundfighting when I started martial arts. However, a wrestler friend of mine shot in with a double leg and that started me thinking. After a couple slips on the Buffalo wintry tundra and I started to realize that I may find myself on the ground at some point if I ever needed to defend myself.

In Buffalo you might check out Renegade in West Seneca for cross-training--his school has Modern Arnis and JKD for starters. The web site was designed by our own Kaith Rustaz, who specializes in martial arts web pages.

 

[bscastro]

In Buffalo you might check out Renegade in West Seneca for cross-training--his school has Modern Arnis
and JKD for starters.

I'm currently training in the JKD program at Renegade's school.

Bryan

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by bscastro



I'm currently training in the JKD program at Renegade's school.

That's right--you were doing hubbud in the changing room Wed. night, right? I left Buffalo on Friday and am back home now.

 

[bscastro]

Originally posted by arnisador



That's right--you were doing hubbud in the changing room Wed. night, right? I left Buffalo on Friday and am back home now.

Yeah! I didn't realize who you were, otherwise I would have introduced myself! I hope you enjoyed your visit.

Bryan