Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics Training?

Rich Mooney · Post by **Rich Mooney** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:01 pm

Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics Training?

Author Robert Redenbach
Edited by Dr. Graeme Blennerhassett
global@b150.aone.net.au

Copyright Global Security Training P/L 1997 All rights reserved.

Permission is granted for government law enforcement or security agencies to reproduce this document in full. Except where permitted otherwise by law, reproductions must contain this copyright notice plus the full text including appendixes.

1 Background

Martial artists have through various methods engineered a reputation as self-defence or unarmed combat experts. They use this reputation to attract students who seek to gain the ability to defend themselves in violent confrontations. In reality many martial artists are not self-defence or unarmed combat experts and many common martial arts combative methodologies are questionable at best and often very dangerous.

When students seek training from martial artists they are usually what we call consciously incompetent, that is they cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation and they realise this fact. Often after training with martial arts instructors students develop what we call unconscious
incompetence, that is they still cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation, but think that they can.

The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result. A person in Australia by the name of Max trained for several years in a very popular martial art and was awarded a black belt. He was also in the Australian military and had recently completed a one month intensive full-time
unarmed combat course. That course was taught by the instructors who at that time trained the Australian S.A.S. One night Max discovered a person with a knife, vandalising someone else's car. Without his training Max would have avoided the person and remained unharmed. Instead, Max thought "Beauty, this is my chance to lay this guy out and be a hero".

The vandal came at Max with the knife pointing downwards. A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous, because they do not know what they are doing (See quote by Bill Wallace Section 3 (r)) and Max had successfully defended against knife
attacks thousands of times in training. Max found out the hard way how ineffective and misleading his training had been. He is lucky to have lived through the education process.

2. How Martial Artists Have Engineered a Reputation as Self-Defence or Unarmed Combat Experts

(a)Martial artists often appear in television programs and movies. In choreographed fight
scenes, martial arts skills appear to be very effective.

(b)Martial artists perform spectacular attacking and defensive techniques against co-operative opponents.

(c)The culture surrounding martial arts training is engineered to create "guru" status for the instructors. Such cultural aspects include the wearing of special belts and uniforms, requiring students to bow to instructors, having students address instructors using titles such as "Master" and
"Sensei", having the instructors at the front of the dojo (training site) while the lower ranked participants are at the rear, having the instructors perform seemingly incredible feats against co-operative partners, forms of showmanship such as breaking boards and having the instructors pass judgment in the form of passing or failing gradings.

(d) Martial artists seek positions as instructors or engineer other forms of association with law enforcement or military agencies. Alternatively martial artists have their arts methodology adopted as a training standard within such agencies. These marketing strategies help them to sell training and commercial merchandise to the martial artists' primary source of revenue - the general public.

(e)Martial artists engineer status in sporting competitions which students interpret to be relevant to situations outside the sporting and training environments.

(f)Martial artists claim that their methodology has been handed down over many generations or has some other traditional or cultural significance.

(g)Martial artists use business names, advertising or other promotional material that implies expertise.

(h)Martial artists fail to provide specific information or disclaimers that convey that their martial art is designed for sport, fitness, cultural study, entertainment, discipline or whatever, rather than
being suitable preparation for violent encounters outside the training environment.

(i)Martial arts certify the ability of students or cause students to believe that because of training they (the students) are proficient. These endorsements include the awarding of belts, certificates and
the like, passing an examination, or implying proficiency by allowing students to participate in dangerous activities or occupations.

3.The Tactical Inadequacies of Martial Arts Training

(a)Basing the preparation for real life violence on sporting methodology.

It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence. In all sporting events there are rules and fixed boundaries of acceptable conduct.
Combatants usually know they will be fighting only one opponent and there will be no other
obstacles or threats.

In sports such as Judo and kickboxing, combatants know that they will only be fighting one opponent. As a result people training for such events learn to focus their vision only on that opponent. The result is a form of learned habitual tunnel vision. This is completely counter to one's needs in real violence, where one needs enhanced peripheral vision to detect other attackers,
obstacles and escape routes.

Participation in sparring and fighting competitions usually develops timing and reflexes that are detrimental in real violence. As an example, most sparring is either light contact or non-contact. For
maximum effect, strikes should be performed so the weapon (eg. fist or foot) aims to pass through its target. In sparring the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes.
In real violence one performs as one practises.

Even in so called full contact training and competition, one is usually competing against one's friends or people one respects, so opponents rarely give maximum intent to seriously crippling one another.

A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practise similarly, consistently executing attacks and defences from a favoured stance.

This method of preparation is very dangerous for real violence, where conditions such as the angle of attack are not controlled. As an example, consider the situation that would occur if the right-handed boxer above was attacked from his right. Most likely one of the following scenarios would result:
*the boxer would be forced to throw an un-practiced (hence ineffective) right jab or
left cross,
*the boxer would attempt to turn right into his favoured stance, causing a delay in his defensive reaction, or
*being subject to an angle of attack not practised against, the boxer's brain may
momentarily "freeze".
In each scenario the boxer would be at a severe disadvantage, from which he may never recover.

(b)Ignoring the response sequence. There are three steps that must occur when responding to an attack:
*first, the opponent's attack must be sensed (eg. it must be seen, felt, heard, etc.),
*second, the specifics of the attack must be cognitively processed (ie. the attack must be recognised and its parameters determined), and
*third, the defender must respond.

When responding to most attacks the defender is always two steps behind. Anyone who is not a gifted athlete or highly trained professional will not be able to employ a defensive skill quickly enough to counter an opponent's attack once it is underway.

Many self-defence techniques taught by martial artists ignore this fact. A typical martial arts self-defence technique will involve the blocking of an attack followed by the employment of an often spectacular counter-attack. It is assumed that the block will be successful. Blocks usually are
successful in a training environment because i) the defender knows what sort of attack is coming and when it will occur, ii) the attacker is usually co-operative and iii) the attack is rarely performed in a decisive manner.

The same technique applied in real violence usually fails. As an example, knife and club attacks are usually defended successfully in martial arts training sessions, but it has been proven with the use of felt tip markers and soft clubs that even highly trained athletes such as SWAT Team or Special
Forces members can rarely prevent being stabbed, cut or struck by a committed attacker.

(c) The use of highly skilled techniques

When one of the FBI's top unarmed combat instructors was faced with a thief holding a pistol the FBI agent used a very basic clubbing action to strike the hand holding the gun. This exampleshows how a trained professional reverts to simple technique. The reason for this is because simple techniques are the most reliable. Higher skilled
techniques are more difficult to perform and have a smaller margin for error. This is especially important when fear or other factors restrict or inhibit physical and mental performance.

Despite this fact, too many martial arts instructors tend to emphasise higher skilled and more complicated techniques. Possible reasons for this are: i) showmanship, ii) to engineer guru status, iii)to justify further training and grading fees and iv) an arrogant refusal to acknowledge the realities of
fear.

If a top professional uses basic technique in real violent situations, it is extremely dangerous to teach lesser practitioners high skilled techniques.

(d)The emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques

Grappling techniques have become popular because of the success of competitors using grappling techniques in so called "no holds barred" sporting competitions. While grappling techniques are unquestionably useful in one on one competition, and there is considerable merit in the Jui Jitsu
teaching that most real fights end up with combatants on the ground, the use of grappling techniques when one is outnumbered is suicidal.

In training for real violence the possibility of being outnumbered cannot be ignored. This is demonstrated by the fact that of the 267 South African Police officials murdered between January and September 1997, over 30% were outnumbered at a ratio of at least 3:1.

Very simply, when applying a grappling hold, one's body becomes immobile and defenceless. A third person can easily cave in the grappler's head with a pool cue, garbage can lid, a rock, or other weapon.

(e) Failure to develop the attributes necessary to survive a violent confrontation
Even if techniques are performed thousands of times with robot-like confidence and technical accuracy in the training environment, it is not sufficient preparation for dealing with the dynamics of real violence. To employ techniques outside of training requires attributes such as timing, reflexes, co-ordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win.

If training does not go beyond the teaching of technique to have a deliberate goal of improving those attributes and qualities, the training will be more detrimental than productive.

(f)Patterning subconscious minds with incorrect response sequences

In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.

Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers
rarely attack in the same specific manner.

Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. This patterning is very dangerous in real violence.

(g)Irresponsible and misleading allocation of training time

If martial arts training is to be effective training for real violence, the allocation of training time should reflect field needs. Most real violence involves the use of punches, elbows, knees, low kicks
and grappling. Real violence is usually initiated with opponents standing almost chest to chest, or alternatively with an opponent rushing his victim from the front, side or rear.

Real violence very rarely involves combatants standing apart in so called "fighting stances". Spending considerable time defending against elaborate kicks, or against attackers standing apart in "fighting
stances" is irresponsible as it takes time away from relevant training. These practices also give students a dangerously misleading idea of what real violence involves.

Similar irresponsible and dangerous time allocation occurs when practising offensive skills. At a martial arts training session attended by a Director of Global Security Training, a large portion of time was devoted to practicing running jump front kicks against a target nine feet off the ground.
The need to head-kick a nine foot tall attacker is very rare.

(h) Failure to prepare for the detrimental effects of fear. Fear restricts body movement and inhibits mental and physical co-ordination. Even the act of placing a key in a keyhole can be difficult if one is scared. This needs to be considered when selecting techniques that are taught. In addition, students need to be provided with methods of fear control and an honest appreciation of the realities of violence. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in students not being able to perform well in real violence.

(i) Failure to select field-proven techniques

The best reason to select a technique is because it has been proven to be useful in real violence. We strongly believe that very few martial arts techniques, when scrutinised, would be supported by significant field testing.

(j)The practice of instructing when one has little or no practical understanding of the situations students are likely to face.

Too many martial artists have little understanding of their art's field application. While it would be wrong to encourage martial artists to be involved in real fights, one must seriously question the merit of having students prepared for possible life or death situations learning from instructors with no practical understanding of their (the student's) requirements.

(k)Failure to ensure that training is ongoing

Neuromuscular skills such as self-defence ability rapidly diminish without regular practice. This reduction is difficult to quantify, however it could be reasonably argued that self-defence ability
would be significantly reduced after three months of not training and markedly reduced after six months. As such it would be dangerous to imply competency when training is not ongoing. As a result the following are questionable and possibly dangerous practices: i) the awarding of certificates
or belts, or passing examinations, without the requirement of regular, frequent and continuous practice and ii) allowing people to work in occupations exposing them to potential violence without regular, frequent and ongoing training.

(l) Confusing loyalty and friendship with field effectiveness

The nature of martial arts and combative training attracts personalities with a natural respect for characteristics such as honour, valour and loyalty. Instructors who demonstrate such admirable characteristics often attract large followings of faithful disciples and loyal friends. When the field
effectiveness of methods taught by an instructor such as this is questioned, the disciples and loyal friends will readily ignore objectivity, instead responding emotionally and subjectively.

(m) Attempting to achieve "correct" body mechanics by making repeated fine adjustments

If a student properly understands the principles and objectives of a technique, and uses this understanding to guide repeated training, over time he or she will develop good body mechanics. Rather than focus on this understanding and its application, too many instructors attempt to mould
"correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments, as a golf professional would do to correct a golf swing. Examples of such adjustments include telling a student to rotate a wrist more, raise a knee more, and to point toes more.

>From an instructor's perspective this practice helps engineer guru status for him or herself and fosters dependency in students. From a student's perspective this practice is extremely detrimental.

Students' bodies vary. To fully understand how these variations effect the execution of techniques would require the instructor to have: i) a depth of field experience in the use of the techniques in actual violent situations and ii) a depth of knowledge in the science known as Biomechanics. Too
many instructors instead base the principles of correction on advice handed down through a chain of other instructors or martial arts gurus. Ironically, most probably none of these instructors or martial arts gurus would have both field experience and qualifications in Biomechanics either.

The so-called "correct" body mechanics as determined by such instructors would most likely be inferior to the body mechanics that would have developed using the methods described at the opening of this section.

The practice of moulding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments tends to result in a student performing techniques in a robot-like manner. This may be acceptable for a golfer, but such practice tends to reduce the qualities of fluidity, spontaneity and adaptability. The
possession of these qualities is vitally important for one to survive real violence.

Students who have become reliant upon having an instructor providing critique of fine body mechanics will find it difficult to train independently. This may not concern members of the general public who attend training dojos on a regular basis, but is a concern for members of government law
enforcement and security agencies. These members, who need to train regularly to maintain competency in handling real violence, paradoxically often have less exposure to instructors than many members of the general public do.

Sadly, but too frequently, law enforcement or security officers are trained by instructors who focus on moulding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments. The result is officers who i) do not understand the principles and objectives of the techniques they have learnt, ii)
perform in a robot-like manner and lose qualities that would help survive real violence and iii) only train when they are given instruction, which in many cases is only a few times per year (or worse -
only during basic training).

(n)Reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation

The understanding of where the most vulnerable areas of an opponent's body are is very useful. Such an understanding should include the knowledge that:
* areas such as the groin and the solar plexus are excellent targets for strikes,
* knees may be damaged by forceful strikes to their side, and joints such as elbows and fingers may be damaged when bent backwards, and
* certain areas such as the side of the neck, areas of the ribs and the front of the shoulders are extremely painful when pressed upon.

The understanding of vulnerable areas can be taken to the extreme of learning as many so called pressure points as an acupuncturist does. Some martial artists base their fighting methodology on the so called ability to manipulate these points. There are three main concerns with this practice.
* Firstly, in situations of real violence it is extremely unlikely that a technique will be able to be employed with sufficient accuracy to achieve the desired result.
* Secondly, in order to practise such techniques both the attacker and the defender usually train in a profoundly unrealistic robot-like manner.
* Thirdly, such practice tends to encourage a proliferation of very questionable techniques. Examples found on this author's collection of martial arts training videos include an instructor demonstrating a light tap above the temple, with which he was alleged to have been knocked out by
his eight years old son, and another instructor who advises to rub a certain "rub pressure point" on a grasping attacker's wrist.

(o) The learning of multiple responses to a visual or physical cue

There is a valid arguement for the value of learning alternative responses to a given situation in order to increase one's versatility. However, the value of increasing one's versatility must be weighed
against the sometimes dramatic increase in one's reaction time that occurs in real situations of real violence, when an individual has learned more than one response to the visual or physical cue that
presents.

If only one response to a cue is learned and practised effectively it should become a reflex action. If presented with the appropriate cue, the response will occur quickly and automatically, without the
need for conscious mental processing. If more than one response for a cue is learned, and that cue presents itself, a student would have to choose between responses, requiring mental processing rather than a much faster reflex response.

In situations of lesser danger, especially where one has significantly greater ability than one's opponent, this may not be a critical factor. It must be stressed that in situations of real violence fear restricts mental processes, increasing this reaction time further. The more dangerous the
situation the more one needs fast reactions, but ironically more fear is usually involved, and this slowing down of reactions is dangerously heightened.

An extreme example of learning too many responses to a cue is found in one of this author's martial arts training tapes where an instructor in the style developed by Bruce Lee demonstrates an almost unbelievable multitude of variations for responding to a basic right cross punch.

(p) The learning of too many techniques

For similar reasons that instructors tend to emphasise higher skilled techniques, too many instructors tend to teach too many techniques. One requires a certain amount of practise to learn and to retain
each technique. Simply, when a large number of techniques are learned time does not permit competency to be retained. Too many techniques are probably being learned in the following situations:
* more than one response is learned for a given cue,
* one learns a skill, then once that skill is evaluated or graded new skills are learned, and the original skill is neglected,
* one learns different strikes that are essentially used in the same situation (a possible example is an "uppercut" fist strike and an upward elbow strike, which are both used as an upwards blow against similar targets on an opponent at close range),
* one learns many specific responses rather than adaptable techniques that can be used in many situations (for example, learning possibly hundreds of different responses to handle the many different possible grip positions that can occur when grabbed by the arm).

(q)The practice of having students perform large set numbers of technique repetitions

To practise a technique effectively one should focus on that technique's objectives. The practice of instructing a student to perform a large set number of techniques removes this focus and tends to produce very ineffective robot-like training. As an example, consider the situation that would arise if a student was asked to perform a technique one hundred times. Initially the student may focus on the objectives of the technique, but as the series progressed focus would transfer to such things as the count, whether the instructor was watching or even what the student was going to do after training.

(r)The communication of questionable statements

In Australia a person can be held liable for damages caused as a result of another party following his or her advice. The main criteria is whether the person giving the information should realise that the recipient will rely upon it in circumstances in which it is reasonable to do so. Presumably similar law exists in other countries.

The following two quotes are some of many statements deserving of scrutiny that this author has found in his collection of martial arts training videos. They are both made by highly respected and influential martial artists. They are presented without judgement by this author. The reader is encouraged to draw his or her own conclusions regarding their merit and the consequences of people following the advice.

"The flow of energy is what makes it so easy to handle four or five [attackers] at one time. It gets to be very exciting" Aikido Master Ken Ota (Video: Mastering Aikido Level 6, Panther Productions)

"If my opponent holds a knife in this position [blade pointing downwards] I have my confidence because he's telling me that he doesn't really know how to use a knife.... If he holds it like this (like a sword) he has an understanding of the knife and wants to use it to scare you" (Bill "Superfoot" Wallace., Undefeated world karate champion, Member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame (Video: Bill Wallace Self-Defence System, Panther Productions)

(4) Suggestions for Organisations Using This Brief to Scrutinise Their Own Training

An effective way to use the enclosed brief is to have experienced officers and legal counsel assess the validity and strength of each argument raised. Using those arguments found to be valid and significant, current training should be closely examined.

It should be kept in mind that officers who are injured as a result of violence may also closely examine the training, with the help of lawyers . Any inadequacy found may form a basis for legal liability. Such officers and lawyers will be able to see behind any facades developed by martial arts oriented instructors attempting to protect their interests.

To assist in the process of examination, and provide a legal safeguard, this author and his company are able to provide advice, assistance and audits of training.

(5)The Removal of Tactically Inadequate Martial Arts Methodologies

Unless approached in a systematic and decisive manner the removal of martial arts tactical inadequacies is very difficult because of three main factors.

Firstly, most instructors and external martial arts gurus have used methods previously described to engineer respect and close personal ties within their organisation.

Secondly, most of the tactical inadequacies discussed benefit instructors and martial arts gurus in one or more of the following ways:
* help engineer guru status,
* help foster dependency in students, and
* help justify further fees for instruction, gradings and merchandise (many government
instructors train members of the general public also). Instructors are most unlikely to readily concede these benefits.

Thirdly, many officers have been indoctrinated by martial arts movies, martial arts gurus and sporting practitioners to believe that these methodologies are effective.

Law enforcement and security officers are human, so even in the most professional government law enforcement and security organisations, members are not immune to these factors. As an example, according to an article in The Tactical Edge, the journal of the National Tactical Officers Association, because many officers want to be taught exotic techniques to impress family and friends in non-life threatening situations, tactical teams are taught by a myriad of instructors with absolutely
no understanding of the agent's needs, equipment or mission requirements.

In South Africa, beginning with units such as the Special Task Force, SWAT Teams and Nelson
Mandela's personal protection unit, this author and his company are removing tactically inadequate martial arts training methodology and are replacing it with a highly effective form of training called Kontact. From experience, pockets of resistance to changes are usually encountered, the most common being from complacent bureaucrats who have little understanding of the needs of field officers, instructors trying to protect their interests and senior officers who have been indoctrinated to believe that their guru and their course are "the best".

global @b150.aone.net.au

david · Post by **david** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:03 pm

Rich,

Thanks for the post! Lots to digest there.

david

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 6:08 pm

Ditto what david-sempai and Canna-sensei said!

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:00 pm

I am having problems with the internet today. I keep getting timed out. So I will have to wait to post my reply.

Stay tuned...

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:30 pm

I have some problems with the original post, especially from a practicality standpoint.

The postulate of the three step process of sensing, recognizing and cognatively responding to an attack is, in many cases, a serious fault.

Good MA training (and there is a lot of BAD MA training out there as we all know) should instill a set of subcortical responses to a perceived attack. If you have to think about what's happening, then it's already over and you are hurting.

I also have a problem with his approach to unreal responses. While many teachers do indeed teach inadaquate responses to street situations, the good ones don't. His example of the man in Austrailia vs the knife is a good point - a properly trained MA would have run and called the cops. DUH! He later follows it with a basic hammerfist response to a gunman's weapon. Gee, where have I seen THAT before?

Also, the Bill Wallace quote, I believe, is incomplete. I have heard Bill make a similar statement, but he followed it with, "but there's always somebody out there that will fool you, so be careful!"

His continued comments regarding South African Police are also not specifically germaine to the majority of MA folks out there. In SA, there are groups of people who HUNT cops in large groups, so the statistic may be somewhat skewed.

His comments on over fancy technique and too many techniques are both okay and maybe not okay. Fancy, especially in kicking, will get you hurt or killed. In our dojo, Sensei had a saying - "On the street, you never kick above the waist." But too many techniques? If your opponent can suss what you are able to use, he will do something outside your repotorie and you will again be hurting.

More later.

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bill Glasheen:
I am having problems with the internet today. I keep getting timed out. So I will have to wait to post my reply.

Stay tuned... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LeeDarrow · Post by **LeeDarrow** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 9:34 pm

OOOps! Missed the biggie, buried down around point number 5.

This thing is an AD!

They are offering to provide an "audit" of training for any organization out there and pass judgement on whether it is effective or not! For a fee, of course.

Kind of makes you wonder just who these guys are, doesn't it?

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Adam · Post by **Adam** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 11:13 pm

A few chords were struck for me in this article...
The one I'll comment on is the same one I heard from a visiting instructor.
Prearranged drills (I think he was talking about kanshiwa bunkai at that moment) are good for a beginner, but you need to toss them away after awhile, because you don't know what's going to be coming at you on the street and you want to be able to respond quickly to whatever comes. He talked about changing the bunkai so you didn't prearrange who attacked from which direction with what or in what order, just some guys around you trying to get to you.

Adam
The ever watchful white belt

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:58 am

PART 1 OF 5

Rich

Long time no see! Thanks for posting this.

I think it should be a requirement for teaching certification to have every martial arts instructor read and critique this article. I think many of the statements made in this article should be open-ended commentaries for candidates going for black belt. I’ve been hearing much of what has been written in this article for years, but can never seem to find the source of it all. I see this is copyrighted 1977. This is the earliest I’ve seen a collection of these views in print. Alas…Mr. Redenbach goes through all the trouble of copyright and editing, but doesn’t have a single reference in his article. Thus he could be accused of preaching tradition and folklore just like the others he comes down so hard on. I’m disappointed, but still I think the article is thought provoking and a useful mental exercise.

Now you know me

- never the wallflower. I will provide some commentary. Like some of my peers and senior peers, it isn’t fun around here if you can’t poke at people now and then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result.

The scientist always shudders when people parade anecdotes. It's a lot like the schlock you see on major network news. But I suppose it serves a purpose - as long as people have real data and references to back up the anecdote. Unfortunately this author falls way short on this one considering the amount of effort he put in. I've seen Van do better with an off-the-cuff post. Enough said.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous

Here he makes some good points. When I was at UVa, there was this style taught there (Myo Sim, or something like that) where the people would dance around with knives and do all kinds of silly attacks and defenses. Oye! Some days I wanted to take their knives away and slap them. But even a well known Uechi instructor who was once in the military (who will remained unmentioned) once corrected one of my student's knife technique, and displayed one of the most ridiculous, karate 101 attacks as "the right way to use a knife." So...where do we find the most ignorance on this subject?

Thanks to Raffi and his expert knowledge of Philippine knife fighting, I learned one thing very fast. No matter who you are facing with a knife, you will get cut - period. Thank you, Raffi. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

it has been proven with the use of felt tip markers and soft clubs that even highly trained athletes such as SWAT Team or Special Forces members can rarely prevent being stabbed, cut or struck by a committed attacker.

Precisely my point. So what's the problem? Mostly one of perception.

And I'll take the knife over a gun in close range combat any day. My firearms instructor (and an experienced, expert marksman) agrees with me on that one. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Martial artists often appear in television programs and movies. In choreographed fight scenes, martial arts skills appear to be very effective.

(b)Martial artists perform spectacular attacking and defensive techniques against co-operative opponents.

(c)The culture surrounding martial arts training is engineered to create "guru" status...wearing of special belts and uniforms, requiring students to bow to instructors, having students address instructors using titles such as "Master" and "Sensei", having the instructors at the front of the dojo (training site) while the lower ranked participants are at the rear, having the instructors perform seemingly incredible feats against co-operative partners, forms of showmanship such as breaking boards and having the instructors pass judgment in the form of passing or failing gradings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, what's a guy gotta do to be worshiped these days?

Actually, this sounds a lot like the military, doesn't it? Hmmm... Wonder where that similarity came from? But what does it all mean?

Personally I like being called Grand Poobah.

But seriously, most schools could do with a little housecleaning on the formality front. Some of it is important; rituals keep things serious and in control. Much of it is unnecessary. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Martial artists engineer status in sporting competitions which students interpret to be relevant to situations outside the sporting and training environments.

Sport is sport; self defense is self defense. Some elements are useful in both domains; some are not. A good instructor makes that point clear. Question - what's the alternative, Mr. Redenbach? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Martial artists claim that their methodology has been handed down over many generations or has some other traditional or cultural significance.

Sometimes it has been. So??? As they say, history is written by the victor. Question is, do people ever really understand what is passed down to them? Not often, IMHO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Martial artists fail to provide specific information or disclaimers that convey that their martial art is designed for sport, fitness, cultural study, entertainment, discipline or whatever, rather than being suitable preparation for violent encounters outside the training environment.

Different schools specialize in different things. There should be truth in advertising. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Martial arts certify the ability of students or cause students to believe that because of training they (the students) are proficient. These endorsements include the awarding of belts, certificates and
the like, passing an examination, or implying proficiency by allowing students to participate in dangerous activities or occupations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What's the point here? Good training is good training. Bad training is bad training. Every program should have a goal, test students for the achievement of that goal in a realistic time frame, and accept the fact that an instructor can only do so much. "Graduates" should have realistic expectations. When I got my Ph.D., I did the walk on Mr. Jefferson's Lawn, wore a fancy gown with a pretty beret, and got this neat thing hung around my neck. They even announced me as “Doctor Glasheen” when it was my time to get the thingy put over my head. But it was years later before I truly understood the significance of my education. It was years later before I considered myself a decent scientist. However...I wouldn't have been able to be thrown in the pool - so to write - without having first received the education. We all start somewhere beneath the expert status. Does Mr. Redenbach have a better program? Oh, and by the way, look at the funny abbreviation before the name of his editor (top of article).

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:59 am

PART 2 OF 5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence. In all sporting events there are rules and fixed boundaries of acceptable conduct.

The danger is in the beliefs - not the contests or scenarios. We need the rules and cooperation to perform the scenarios enough times to learn anything. Otherwise it just becomes a Darwinian thing combined with a certain amount of dumb luck. A balanced training program considers sparring or scenario training to be but one cog in the wheel of preparation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

In sports such as Judo and kickboxing, combatants know that they will only be fighting one opponent. As a result people training for such events learn to focus their vision only on that opponent.

Mr. Redenbach has never been to my dojo. We have a training device that I like to call The barroom brawl.

I admonish the participants when they fight fair. The goal is to find the vulnerable and gang up on them. Ever wonder why the Uechi system likes sanchin so much? Try this exercise some time. You will find yourself doing "classical" Uechi ryu stances and movements without even thinking. Imagine that! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

In sparring the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes. In real violence one performs as one practises.

Not in my school. I can't count how many times I have admonished people for full extension strikes in sparring. Good thing I have a strong voice... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Even in so called full contact training and competition, one is usually competing against one's friends or people one respects, so opponents rarely give maximum intent to seriously crippling one another.

At UVa we always considered taking the students out to the local bars for training sessions. You know…rough up those exiting at the end of the night so as to pick up a little pocket change. Good fighting experience and a moneymaker to boot!

But seriously...what's the alternative? We are always limited by a lack of "real" experience, and those who have "been there" would rather have not been. The only problem here is perception of one's experience. This is a problem that has nothing to do with martial arts per se. Ask any experienced military commander or law enforcement instructor. "Green" troops will always be deficient until they earn their red badge of courage (with apologies to Steven Crane). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practise similarly, consistently executing attacks and defences from a favoured stance.

Point well taken. The Uechi ryu hojoundo practice all basic techniques on both sides from both stances. I do the same with new techniques in kata. Can you do a seisan jump on both sides? We practice them all the time. But in my opinion, favoring a side and specializing body parts is NOT such a bad thing. I would love to hear another opinion on that one…

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:00 am

PART 3 OF 5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

A typical martial arts self-defence technique will involve the blocking of an attack followed by the employment of an often spectacular counter-attack.

This is a beginner's understanding of karate. Unfortunately many criticisms of martial arts amount to strawman tactics. The advanced martial artist rarely considers a "block" to be a defensive technique. I would be happy to demonstrate this to the author. My students are grinning as I type...(I think that's the I'm glad I'm not the volunteer grin). Yes, Mr. Malone, Mr. Canna, Dr. King, Mr. Hamada, etc. have created a monster

But any good chess player understands this principle. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>a trained professional reverts to simple technique. The reason for this is because simple techniques are the most reliable. Higher skilled techniques are more difficult to perform and have a smaller margin for error. This is especially important when fear or other factors restrict or inhibit physical and mental performance.

Despite this fact, too many martial arts instructors tend to emphasise higher skilled and more complicated techniques. Possible reasons for this are: i) showmanship, ii) to engineer guru status, iii)to justify further training and grading fees and iv) an arrogant refusal to acknowledge the realities of
fear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There are valid points made here that I want to leave alone.

HOWEVER...

Any good educator understands a simple principle. If you want to teach X amount of knowledge and have the student apply it under stress, teach 10X information. If they are only 10% effective under stress, they are home free. The effect is similar to having driven at 100 MPH for some time, and then slowing down to 40 MPH. Everything now seems so much easier to do. As long as there is a common thread from the simple to the complex, you are actually reinforcing the basic technique by teaching more advanced and complex implementations of them. The point here is to understand that teaching principle, take advantage of that as an instructor, and make sure the student understands what you are doing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

the use of grappling techniques when one is outnumbered is suicidal.

Amen. But there is a time and a place for every technique. Furthermore, sometimes one teaches technique (such as high kicks) not to have the practitioner learn them, but to familiarize the practitioner with them so (s)he understand them and can defend against them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Even if techniques are performed thousands of times with robot-like confidence and technical accuracy in the training environment, it is not sufficient preparation for dealing with the dynamics of real violence. To employ techniques outside of training requires attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win.

Thank you for giving me these statements in quote so I can comment... They really...er...upset me.

You see...training is necessary. But nobody said it was sufficient - period. Does everyone understand, or do I need to type more slowly for some???? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

If training does not go beyond the teaching of technique to have a deliberate goal of improving those attributes and qualities, the training will be more detrimental than productive.

Given what I have just typed above, do you see the fallacy in this common argument? Yet so many people still make it. No matter how good you are with <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win

it is useless without <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power

Sigh... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.

Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers rarely attack in the same specific manner.

Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. This patterning is very dangerous in real violence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is a very important point. Unfortunately it is a bit of a strawman argument, as many teachers of self-defense and combat training are - to some extent - guilty of this. Remember, even the martial artists in B-rate movies preach "Be like the tea in the teacup." The biggest problems here are misunderstanding and lack of time with the student.

The sequences are designed to be tools to internalize principles - not actual responses to attacks. Students need to start somewhere. So you create some kind of choreography and get everyone to do it. If you give tests and require people to learn them, you'll get about half the students doing a certain partner sequence in a fixed way in about...oh...a few months. But this is just the start. Without the threat of a test and public embarrassment, most people would never do the work necessary to get good.

But the job shouldn't stop there. The sequences need to be varied. They should be rearranged. One should try them against all kinds and sizes of opponents. One should try applying a single technique against...oh...maybe half a dozen different attacks applied on both sides by a dozen or so opponents of different sizes and shapes. One should then graduate from the fixed to the semi-spontaneous, where elements of uncertainty are entered. Eventually you want the martial artist to graduate from playing scales to being a jazz musician. It is a long process, and I haven't heard of any shortcuts. True martial arts are a lifetime endeavor. We should always be sharpening the sword.

Note how later on, the author writes <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

There is a valid arguement for the value of learning alternative responses to a given situation in order to increase one's versatility. However, the value of increasing one's versatility must be weighed against the sometimes dramatic increase in one's reaction time that occurs in real situations of real violence, when an individual has learned more than one response to the visual or physical cue that presents.

To some extent here he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. What's it supposed to be here, Mr. Redenbach?

My point is never to fix one response to any one application. The only thing we should be striving to teach people is principles of movement. I believe it was Eisenhower who once said something to the effect that before the battle, plans are paramount, whereas when the battle starts, plans go out the window. We must prepare the student for spontaneous response to an unknown. This is easier said than done, but there is a method to the madness.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:01 am

PART 4 OF 5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If martial arts training is to be effective training for real violence, the allocation of training time should reflect field needs. Most real violence involves the use of punches, elbows, knees, low kicks and grappling. Real violence is usually initiated with opponents standing almost chest to chest, or alternatively with an opponent rushing his victim from the front, side or rear. Spending considerable time defending against elaborate kicks, or against attackers standing apart in "fighting
stances" is irresponsible as it takes time away from relevant training.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is relevant to one is not to another. Martial arts are martial arts. Self-defense is self-defense. Finis origine pendet. We must first decide what our goals are. Some people on this earth are quite happy being involved in an activity that brings them great joy, a way of life, a way to socialize, and a way to understand conflict through history. The fact that self defense is an element of martial arts (as opposed to being the only raison d’être) should not deter the martial artist from practicing their art. In the end, I would wager that those who aren't obsessed with self defense are just as likely to be prepared in the long run as those who think others should walk around all the time with "terrible purpose." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Failure to ensure that training is ongoing

Neuromuscular skills such as self-defence ability rapidly diminish without regular practice. This reduction is difficult to quantify, however it could be reasonably argued that self-defence ability would be significantly reduced after three months of not training and markedly reduced after six months.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is precisely my point. Sometimes you just have to get a life... If you don't enjoy what you are doing, you'll never stay in it long enough to learn and maintain what you need to know.

Still...the point is well taken.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Failure to prepare for the detrimental effects of fear.

I thought his comments were right on concerning this subject. Fear is going to be there in conflict. We need to get over it and learn to deal with it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Confusing loyalty and friendship with field effectiveness

The nature of martial arts and combative training attracts personalities with a natural respect for characteristics such as honour, valour and loyalty. Instructors who demonstrate such admirable characteristics often attract large followings of faithful disciples and loyal friends. When the field
effectiveness of methods taught by an instructor such as this is questioned, the disciples and loyal friends will readily ignore objectivity, instead responding emotionally and subjectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Amen, brother!

I can remember once wanting to post an online link to a sermon by a minister at First Baptist Church of Richmond. The minister started the sermon by stating how we are all like sheep, and then describing how undesirable a quality this was. After an entertaining treatise on the spineless, opinion-less qualities of these creatures, he went on to tell us all how we could be saved…yada, yada. But the description of the activities of humans as sheep (blind followers) struck me as funny and “right on”, given how many people have a need to follow as opposed to think for themselves. I wanted to post…but a wise friend of mine commented that - at the time - I shouldn't. He admonished "the sheep might get upset."

Loyalties and friendships are important to maintain an organization. But we must hold truth above all, and worship nobody. Sometimes that means that - on occasion - we must tolerate being very lonely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

Attempting to achieve "correct" body mechanics by making repeated fine adjustments

Good points here. But once again, this has nothing to do with martial arts per se. Overteaching is overteaching, no matter what the venue. The point is to understand how form and function go hand in hand. On that note, how many out there have bachelors or advanced degrees in areas related to biology, physiology, anatomy, medicine, kinesiology, physical education, etc.? Having a good foundation in the underlying principles is – in my opinion – more important than worrying about the teaching semantics of others. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The understanding of vulnerable areas can be taken to the extreme

Enough said. However...every organization needs an expert. We all need specialists to go to when we have questions. Why not let Evan be Evan? Sometimes you really need that reference book (or an Evan) up on the shelf when you have a question that needs deep, thoughtful consideration on a specialized subject. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

too many instructors tend to teach too many techniques

I think the author - and many instructors - miss an important opportunity here. I teach many, many techniques and many, many variations. But at some point I break all my techniques down to simple elements that come from a fundamental form. By creating this connectivity through an understanding of principles, one can both simplify and expand the possibilities. In the end, the martial artist becomes artist, and creates on the spot. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The communication of questionable statements

In Australia...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe this is a universal phenomenon, Mr. Redenbach, and not isolated to martial arts.

[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited July 12, 2001).]

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:02 am

OUCH !

------------------
Van Canna

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:02 am

PART 5 OF 5

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>An effective way to use the enclosed brief is to have experienced officers and legal counsel assess the validity and strength of each argument raised. Using those arguments found to be valid and significant, current training should be closely examined.

It should be kept in mind that officers who are injured as a result of violence may also closely examine the training, with the help of lawyers . Any inadequacy found may form a basis for legal liability. Such officers and lawyers will be able to see behind any facades developed by martial arts oriented instructors attempting to protect their interests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I see the problem of too many lawyers isn't one isolated to the U.S. Sigh... (with apologies to all my lawyer friends who are never the bad guys...)

There's an important point here, but must we involve the lawyers in such a fashion? I have never seen evidence that litigation is an effective means of quality improvement. The only thing it guarantees is a redistribution of wealth - especially to the lawyers. And it raises the price of doing business.

Frankly I keep wondering all the way through this article if this fellow doesn't have an agenda and/or an inferiority complex. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

To assist in the process of examination, and provide a legal safeguard, this author and his company are able to provide advice, assistance and audits of training.

Ohhh….I get it now.

This article is self serving - period. The sequel is Why you must hire Global Security Training. But hey, they have to make a buck – just like the martial artist. Whoops!!! Sorry for all the dripping sarcasm, but a scientist can smell a piece of marketing from a thousand paces.

But at least he knows one important principle of self defense - possession of a lawyer is 9/10 of the law

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote

The Removal of Tactically Inadequate Martial Arts Methodologies

Once again, my point is made. Remove "martial arts" from the above statement, won't you? Probably not. My only comment to all this is Mr. Redenbach better be careful what he preaches lest he be the victim of his very advice. Would his methods pass the same scrutiny? No matter what your discipline or way of life, the criticism must first start at home.

In the end, I have done this as my own intellectual exercise. I thank Mr. Mooney for providing the forum with this material. I think it would be useful for any martial arts instructor - OR ANY SELF DEFENSE INSTRUCTOR/ORGANIZATION - to do the same on his/her own. The problem isn't martial arts, it is poor information and bad instruction. This is a universal issue.

- Bill
a.k.a. Grand Poobah

david · Post by **david** » Thu Jul 12, 2001 10:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I’m disappointed, but still I think the article is thought provoking and a useful mental exercise.

Now you know me - never the wallflower. I will provide some commentary. Like some of my peers and senior peers, it isn’t fun around here if you can’t poke at people now and then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As Bill stated, the post does provide food for thought. Any critique can be taken or discounted, but only after some consideration of its merits. And, of course, we can count on Bill to do this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Once again, my point is made. Remove "martial arts" from the above statement, won't you? Probably not. My only comment to all this is Mr. Redenbach better be careful what he preaches lest he be the victim of his very advice. Would his methods pass the same scrutiny? No matter what your discipline or way of life, the criticism must first start at home.

In the end, I have done this as my own intellectual exercise. I thank Mr. Mooney for providing the forum with this material. I think it would be useful for any martial arts instructor - OR ANY SELF DEFENSE INSTRUCTOR/ORGANIZATION - to do the same on his/her own. The problem isn't martial arts, it is poor information and bad instruction. This is a universal issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope Mr. Redenbach is willing and does submit to outside "scrutiny" just as we all should be willing to if we are "selling" or teaching a course in "self-defense." To not do so would be to perpetuate the "guru" syndrome that he is criticizing. The willingness to examine, critique and to expose one's practice to outside examination and to evolve as needed is indeed is one of the critical differences between a "good" and "bad" program of instruction.

I think Mr. Redenbach's critique (and, perhaps, self-interest as well) is really directed at the proliferation of "martial artists" who have gone after the dollars associated with training LEO's and/or military units. Many renown "professional" martial artists routinely list in their bio's as having been the trainer of this or that LEO or military unit. Doe this professional background say anything about the effectiveness of what's being taught? How many of those trained were able to use what's taught and can report back on their experiences? I think LEO and military units should and need to engage in periodic assessments of their training regiments.

Bill made the distinction that: "Martial arts are martial arts. Self-defense is self-defense." With LEO and military, they need very much to separate out "martial arts" training from "self-defense" training. While these may have at one point been the same, I don't think so in this particular juncture of time. It is interesting to note William Fairbairn, as head of the Shanghai Military Police, routinely evaluated his training program based on the experiences of his men in the field (and there were ALOT of experiences...

) and adapted accordingly. Fairbairn drew a curriculum -- Defendu -- derived from jujitsu, Chinese styles, western boxing and whatever else to deal with CQC. One thing he probably never had to deal with was a review by "lawyers."

Not so in the modern world of LEO work. Anyway, in modern Western societies, including Australia, there are perhaps (thankfully) less day to day experiences to draw from. I would think it important to draw a review panel that is broader and more diverse to assess any training program designed for folks going into harm's way.

For "martial artists", depending on the level of concern with violence and self-defense, it doesn't hurt to draw on some of the knowledge out there rather than depend solely on "what sensei said."

david

[This message has been edited by david (edited July 12, 2001).]

Dale Knepp · Post by **Dale Knepp** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 7:17 pm

Hi Bill,

If you ever get a body of examiners to agree together on using the article as a requirement for teaching certification, please let me know that would be a great accomplishment in my book. I do agreed with you that it should be read by legitimate martial art instructors and the points it makes taken into consideration before one engages in teaching students. Like you, I feel it regrettable that sources of this study were not cited. Overall, I enjoyed your commentary of this article but some of the things that you mentioned brought to mind some things that I learned from my teacher. Thank you for creating a forum and an atmosphere to prompt me to put down some of my thoughts on these subjects.

Regards,

Dale

I agree with you that entirely too much formality is a waste of valuable training time with a competent instructor.
The article appears to be addressed to military and police agencies so some of the critique really isn’t applicable to martial arts schools for the general public. However, commercial schools should address some of the common practices in advertising to avoid false and misleading claims. I believe that many good instructors often make the mistake of not recognizing that they themselves do some of things mentioned in the article. They should realize the potential harm that they are doing and correct their sell plans accordingly. Business is one thing and true martial arts is another and one should not confused the two and admit that they are doing one and/or the other. Many useful aspects of martial arts training may be toned down for commercial consumption without lessening the art as a whole but instructors should understand the difference.

I think most people today train for only a little while for various reasons and then leave to pursue other interests. The ones that stay tend to do so for social reasons more so than for stated reasons such as “self-defense,” “good exercise,” “my sister beat me up,” “I want to be Japanese,” or whatever. Taika Oyata will remind his students that true martial arts (life protection) isn’t about beating people up but rather how to help people become better persons. However, he also reminds them that real training involves a mental attitude that many of us lack most of the time and only occasionally maintain while practicing. So, I think that it is important for each of us to understand why it is that we train and not what we want to believe about ourselves. If we train because it is an enjoyable and interesting hobby is fine, but if we believe that we are serious martial arts we may be fooling ourselves along with everyone else.

Responding to a real life situation where one is attacked is difficult for almost anyone. Most people’s training doesn’t correct habits that we learned all of our lives and hinder us from making an appropriate response to avoid injury. The knife scenario is a good case in point generally speaking when faced with a knife one should expect to get cut if the wielder should decide to use it. In any case, one should know where a weapon is in order to avoid contact with it, which isn’t always possible. I’m afraid that nothing really compensates for lack of real experience and unless one is naturally gifted with quick response reactions a person might be better off spending more time in awareness training in order to avoid violent confrontations.

Taika Oyata emphasizes that we should always train both sides of the body so that they match each other. Spending more time training the weak side of the body by doing more repetitions than the strong side or by slowing and/or relaxing the strong side in order to give the weak side a chance to catch up. This practice is to insure that the body is trained equally and develop a degree of ambidexterity. However not necessarily in order to apply technique with both sides of the body. Taika also maintains that covering motions should be done in a manner that allows you to avoid contact whether an assailant uses the right or left side without having to change the way you initiate the covering motion. Overall, one should keep the covering motion as simple as possible so that you needn’t learn a variety of counter movements for various situations.

Taika Oyata teaches sometimes to speed up one’s motion. “More quicker, more speed up,” he would say time and time again. Even when following a practice leader even while learning something new, this helps to develop one’s eye to see small movements that normally escape one’s awareness. This fits in with the concept of studying from simple to complex. Nakamura Shigeru’s Guiding Principle #6 states: Move from easy to difficult and from simple to complicated; More time is required to train harder and longer as you progress. Do not hurry or engage in senseless or reckless practice. Develop gradually. Building on a good structural foundation of basic body positions and movements is the only way to truly advance in martial arts training.

Taika Oyata has for some time now emphasizes that one shouldn’t grab one’s opponent as this ties up and stops your hands from being able to continue to move without reinitiating movement. It is much better to trap and redirect the opponent(s)’s arms and legs with continuous motion of one’s hands. This goes together with the concept that one should not keep one’s hand tight in a fist all of the time. This is also applied to all the muscles of the body if one’s muscle are tight or tied up in some fashion they are not available to effect additional needed body covering for self-protection. Along with body shifting from side to side in a zigzag fashion, an opponent doesn’t have a chance to compensate for missing his target the first time and avoid giving him a second chance.

Robot-like responses and movements should not be the goal of the martial artist rather natural body motions utilizing natural body mechanics and dynamics. Developing timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power take much practice to overcome the habits that we have developed in this modern culture of ours. Again, I think that very few people are naturally gifted in this area. Most of our time training seems to be geared towards developing these attributes but by revisiting the basics over and over again in new ways and not in the same way that you learned as a white belt or for any belt that matter.

Taika uses methods of training that challenges the way we think and move our bodies by changing the angles of body position and even reversing the positions of our arms from those that we initially learned to practice kata(s). Sometimes this is done as an experiment and sometimes he has a specific idea in mind but never without a purpose. Whether it is design to learn something new and better or to learn what is not comfortable for our bodies to do and hence should be avoided. Taika also addresses the concept of developing one’s own spirit and without improving one’s capacity to engage in purposeful activity with a degree of confidence and desire, a practitioner isn’t going to make much progress.

Taika teaches his students to develop body knowledge and memory of principles and concepts and not sheer memorization of a battery of techniques. He reminds students that the basic kata(s) that was taught to white belts and gradually developed until one achieves the shodan (beginning step) level is for memorization only but not to be forgotten when one’s starts to train at the yudansha (one who reached the first step) level. So, when one progresses in training experimenting with the way the body moves and reacts to stimulus becomes an important part of one’s training program. If the body understands itself and the opponent then mistakes in covering one’s body from injury lessen. Training isn’t just a mental exercise of learning about new techniques or accumulating another kata to practice nor is it about endless repetition of the basics the way that they were first taught. Rather, it is training the body to recognize and be aware of itself and its inherent weaknesses. Then, training the body to cover those weaknesses and making it difficult for an assailant to cause harm.

Kata study and exercises change and develop to include new elements that weren’t explicitly shown beforehand. Taika has his students visit one area of instruction for awhile then move on to another area only to revisit a previous area months or years later. One gets the impression that you are traveling up a spiral staircase reaching higher levels but never seeing the top of the stairs.

From the earliest days, I remember Taika teaching that if someone isn’t in immediate reach of you they can't harm you with their own body. Something thrown or shot at you requires different strategies to avoid. He would have us practice face to face and only an arm length away from each other. Making technique work at this distance is deemed essential to ensuring a favorable outcome in the real situation. Someone further away should allow you more time to react or avoid contact with another person.

Taika uses natural body mechanics/dynamics that are generally accessible to anyone in fairly good health but not for someone debilitated due to illness or handicapped. No special training to develop muscular strength such as weight training is necessary. Training involves enhancing one’s natural abilities and not developing new learned ones. Hopefully, one improves one’s natural condition and doesn’t lose flexibility and mobility suddenly. Increasing strength isn’t being emphasized rather Taika believes most people already obtain enough physical strength to overcome an assailant if necessary. One needs to train so that one’s natural talents come to the surface when life-threatening situations arise.

[This message has been edited by Dale Knepp (edited July 13, 2001).]