Interpreting your interpretation

Some thoughts and considerations in part sparked by recent discussions of an oft debated source in the history or European Martial arts, and no I am not going to talk about who it is, though you might guess.

 

How do we interpret the effectiveness of our interpretation?

First or all we are all interpreting a system, whether the system is living or dead, we are interpreting through our own mentally, physicality and a host of other factors. When we have a teacher, they can guide us and perhaps lets us know when we are heading in an inappropriate direction, though of course when we have a teacher we are interpreting, we are interpreting their interpretation. This rabbit hole is another post if I have not done wone already.

So, let us consider some things we need to reflect on to interpret our Interpretation.

 

What are the sources for?

Fighting? What is that? There are obviously different goals for martial arts, and we need to be clear what those are. We need to know what those goals are, what the source we are looking at is intended for and what we are looking for in that source.

What we are looking for colours what we see, and we will interpret what we are looking at through he lens of what we are looking for.

Now while we can say fighting, as if it were one encompassing thing. However, a system is a summation of the things the person who created thought was important to function and succeed in combat, fighting, the goal they intended it for. So really a system is a preservation of those things, it is not about success in fighting, for us.  

 

What is this source aimed at?

So, we need to consider what the source we are looking at is aimed at. What problems is it claiming to solve, explicitly or implicitly. We also need to consider time and context, place etc. they will all effect the system that creates it. Are we matching the source to our approach?

 

What does the source say?

Obviously, we need to understand what the source is saying. What are the key concepts and Principles of the system? If the system says we should only do X when Y happens, then we need to recognise that and only do X when happens otherwise we are contradicting the system.

We also need to remember that a source will sell itself and the person who created it. A source will say it is the best for solving a problem that of course may or may not be true. Unfortunately, many systems do not address this with examples of being of them being used, or when they do, they are often self-referential. So, it hard to be sure how effective it was. Just because the source survived, does not of itself mean it was s effective. Regardless, a system is only as effective as the people saying they use it.

Is the Source Unique or does it claim that it is?

Many systems claim themselves to be part of a wider school or lineage, others makes claims of being different to all the rest, others make claims of being "New".

Now the veracity of those clams is less important than they are actually made. If the source is saying it doing something different, I need to make my interpretation with that in mind, especially when they are expressing ideas that are an outlier to the others of the time and in wider context.

 

Are we doing what the source says or are we “fighting”? 

Neither is wrong as such, unless we are claiming  we are doing the system when we are not

If the system says we should fight this way, then if we are doing that system, we should fight that way.

If I am ignoring the approach of the system, I might be highly successful as a fighter, but I am not doing the system, my success as a fighter says nothing about the effective of the system or my interpretation of it unless I can show to be doing what I say I am doing.

 

Do we know that the source was actually conveying an effective approach to the problem?

Too often it is treated as self-evident that because a source is from a period where people used the sword for example to fight for their lives that it means any system that survives from that time is inherently effective. 

However we do not know that. 

Especially if the source claims itself to be different and outlier, new or unique. Even with more popular and widespread a system may be, just means it was good at surviving in the market and sustaining itself. In the modern world we cannot judge the effectiveness or validity of a system based upon how popular it is, number of students, number of schools or how present in the wider consciousness of the society it is.

 

When we do what we say we are doing, is that congruent with what we say it is?

My interpretation of the concepts and Principles of the system may be a good interpretation. However, is my physical application of those things in line with what I say they are or should be.

 

Just because I say I am doing something does not mean I am actually doing it?

Just because I or others claim I am doing the system, am I really. I have seen skilful fighters, who claim they were doing system X, they stood in a stance of system X they had their fight, which was utilising g system Y and then when they had won, were standing in a stance of system X. Look at how effective system X is!! Most vocally the supporters of system X.

 

Just because we say the same thing does not mean we are doing the same things?

Lots of systems say similar things or the same things. Yet there can be a huge variation in how those things are executed in practice. Two systems talk about economy of motion, one does something in one move, the other in three. Wing Chun, and the various spellings etc, talk about similar concepts, use artefacts like Chi Sau to train them they produce a huge variety of results,

 

How do we test our interpretations effectiveness?

Success in free play, competitions? Maybe? But are those things a valid analogue of the intended goal of the original system? A practitioner of that system may be applying as correctly as possible the Principles of the system. However, they may fail in the modern analogues available. This may be because the analogue is not an effective representation, the fighter themselves is not skilled or experienced enough to makes what they know succeed in the analogue, or the system itself is flawed.

 

Conclusion

We have to constantly ask questions of what we are doing what we think we are doing, what and how we look at things. We also need to vigorously assess how we think about and verify what we are doing. This becomes more important when we make claims about what we are doing being based upon a source.

Failure, expertise and time

"The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build" the expert mind, either in the realm of chess or in another discipline, Ross states. 

In the process, "motivation appears to be a more important factor than
innate ability.... The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates" that professionals with outstanding skills, in short, "are made, not born."

Research indicates that the key "is not experience per se but 'effortful study,'" according to Ross. Such study involves learning and practice that entail "continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence." 
In other words, Lewinski explains, as you gain in ability, "the bar is constantly moved higher so that your skill level must keep stretching and improving to reach it."

The brief goes to say later:
"Instead of departmental policies and priorities that encourage mediocrity, we need a training philosophy that encourages, nurtures and guides the development of expertise. It's what the community expects and deserves."

If you have the burning drive of a 5%er, determined to maximize your Skills regardless of obstacles, understand that "in the early stages, effortful study is very difficult," Lewinski says. 

"Pushing your limits inevitably involves a lot of failure. When you fail, you need to back off a bit, learn to correct your weaknesses, and build your way back up."

"To get really, really good takes time. Be patient with yourself, because you need that time for your training and experience to evolve into mastery."

Rory Miller on the benefit of weapons training to improving both armed and unarmed.

The second is by Rory Miller, author of Meditations on Violence and Facing Violence, both highly recommended.

Edge of the Blade

Rory Miller

Saturday, September 03, 2011

On one level, there are few things as obsolete as medieval sidearms. Whether kobudo or iai or fencing, sword attacks, much less sword fights have become pretty damn rare. Which might make it seem a pretty silly thing to study? Combined with my general attitude about dueling training being applied to self-defense, you might expect an automatic rejection.

Can't do it. There are some things you can learn from the edge of the blade that get sloppy and take too long any other way. Also, especially in Western weapons, there are centuries of people working out very carefully efficient ways to kill and not be killed.

Maija (and Jake and Mac) got me thinking about this. What follows is a mix-- big things and little things. Don't waste time looking for a theme. And a caveat: I've trained and played with swords and other weapons extensively. I've even slaughtered livestock with swords... but I've never been in a sword fight. Take everything that follows with the appropriate amount of salt.

Margin of error:

Dealing with a sword, there really isn't a margin of error. Unarmed you can afford to make far more mistakes, give yourself more time. You take a glancing blow to the head or someone tags your upper arm with a fist and it's not a big deal. Bladed weapons force you to think in a more demanding way.

Weapons teach distancing faster and better than unarmed:

You need to be able, at a glance to tell from build, grip, foot position and weapon if the threat can reach you. Exactly how his range changes with shifts of footing, grip or center of gravity. You can predict the 'tells' you need to watch for when and if the threat decides to develop range. It's a critical skill with weapons and the cool thing is that it translates. After getting ranging with weapons down, unarmed range assessment is even easier.

You learn not to waste time or motion:

Related to 'no margin of error.' A sword fight is won or lost in fractions of seconds and fractions of inches. If the person is going to miss you by the tiniest of margins, you don't waste effort or time in motion. You never parry even an inch more than you absolutely have to. Unarmed fighting allows for a lot more slop.

It requires (and thus develops) commitment:

There's no way you can hit someone without being close enough to be hit back. Or maybe hit first. But we've all been hit enough to know it really isn't a big deal. With a blade? Any decisive action means you are close enough to be killed or maimed. Every time you engage you are betting your life on your skill, your speed and your ability to read what is truly happening.

Strategy:

This is specialized, maybe, but by truly limiting the weapon, strategy comes to the fore. Unarmed we can get by forever on tricks. Given just hand strikes, foot strikes, take-downs, locks, gouges, strangles, head-butts and slamming I can keep shifting between the options and force you to play catch-up, or find the one that you haven't experienced before. Limit it to just one class of tool (hand strikes in boxing, for instance) and it forces the skill to go up another level. t changes from tricks to tactics and then, maybe even strategy. Dealing with just a point (foil or epee) and limiting offense and defense to the same tool in the same hand pushed a deeper understanding of all the elements of strategy: timing and distancing and psychology and...

All of these things, and there are more, inform and improve your unarmed skill. They change the way you see and think.

The original can be found on his blog at the following link;
Rory Millers Blog.

Two interesting pieces from modern Instructors

Two pieces by highly respected modern instructors, Marc MacYoung and Rory Miller. They deal with both weapons and historical combat and their applicability to modern and unarmed arts. Actually as Marc's is quite long I will post it on its own and I'll post Rory's seperately.

First up Marc MacYoungs  post.
Jonathan

Self-Defense: Deadman's 10, Hollywood BS, Fence and Not Getting Killed

by Marc MacYoung on Tuesday, July 26, 2011 at 9:47pm

I hate moral dilemmas.

On one hand the guy had just kicked me in the balls, and I really wanted to gouge out his eye and skull fuck him to death.

On the other hand, the radio I was carrying was my own personal handheld and had cost me a lot of money. Throwing it down so I could use both hands to create a occipital vagina would break it. Being in my heart of hearts a cheap Scottish bastard, I handed the radio to someone I vaguely knew, who was standing there.

During the momentary delay -- and due to the fact that I had called in the situation before I stepped in -- instead of going to town on the dude, I saw Harvey rear up behind the guy. I say rear up because not only was Harvey seven feet tall, he was a weight lifter. The dude was big in all kinds of ways.

He also was a member of our 'Goon Squad.'

Harvey reached down, encircled the guy's neck with his arm and lifted him off his feet. The guy's little legs were kicking and flailing.  In the spirit of teamwork and communication, he told me, "I got him, Animal."

It was about that time that "Fat Jimmy," another Goon, arrived. Jimmy grabbed the guy's legs and pulled saying, "I got him." There ensued a tug of war between the two Goons, each claiming they 'had him.' (It was kind of cute, the way his eyes were bugging out, and he was gurgling.) I, in the meantime, was calmly telling my co-workers to put him down because "he's mine." This resulted in Harvey playing tug of war with one arm and holding me back with the other.  With me, at 5 foot, 8, was probably a funny scene, but I had homicide on my mind and was otherwise occupied.

Around that time, a supervisor arrived and said it was time to turn the nice gentleman over to law enforcement for assaulting me. I wasn't going to get to play show and tell with his vital organs, no matter how much I wanted to. I gathered up my radio, and we all went to security headquarters where I made a statement, and the nice man got a free ride in the sheriff's car. As I was standing there watching him be driven away, I remembered something.

I walked up to the security boss and said, "I just realized something."

"What?"

"I got kicked in the balls."

"I was wondering when you'd remember that."

"I'm going to go off somewhere and cry now."

"You're on a break. Take as long as you want."

"Thanks."

Basically, I was so amped up on adrenaline and rage that it took me about 15  to 20 minutes to remember that I'd taken one to the 'nads. When I did remember, it didn't suck, it chewed. It wasn't that there wasn't pain, it was that I was able to defer payment until the situation was resolved.

Once resolved, I still had to pay the piper. But it didn't matter to the karate guy who'd kicked me in the nuts.It mattered a lot to me.

To this day, I clearly remember seeing King Karate's expression as he realized his front snap kick to my family jewels was not having the expected result, and there was nothing between him and me but air. Air that I was going to come through after my radio was secured.

How many times had his instructor told him and had he told himself that a kick to the groin would work to stop an opponent?  And there I was, more concerned about saving my radio after he'd nailed me a good one. Then I was going to very calmly rip his lungs out for drilling me in the nuts.

Although there's debate over who said it first, there's an sage and humorous quip, "It ain't that people are ignorant. It's just they know so much that isn't so."

This is especially true in:

A) this day and age of media, marketing and Internet

and

B) when it comes to violence.

Hollywood, the martial arts, sporting events and Internet warriors on forums, who have done a great disservice when it comes to getting accurate information regarding violence out to those who need it.

By making such sturm und drang about 'real' fighting and ultimate, killer commando, combative systems, they've eclipsed the actual problems and provided tons of 'isn't so' ideas about  personal safety and what it takes to handle violence.

The absolutely worst one is that the best defense is a good offense -- especially at close quarters.

I was told that there is an Old West gunfighter term called "the Deadman's 10."  Whether or not it is an actual historical term means absolutely squat. What is important is the concept. A concept that you're not going to hear too often in your uber-aggressive combative system or deadly martial arts training. Yet, it becomes critical the closer you are.

Basically Deadman's 10 is after you've fatally shot someone it's the 10 seconds that person has has to return the favor and kill you, too. This before the damage you caused overwhelms him. Truth is, even with wounds deemed 'immediately fatal,' this so-called 10 can last between 10 and 120 seconds. Marshall and Sanow in their book, "Handgun Stopping Power," read reports of it lasting up to 90 seconds.

But I know of other situations where the aggressor kept on going longer. (I recently heard an interesting number that the fatality rate of single gunshot wounds treated in the first two hours is roughly 4 percent. That is someone who is shot, might break away and head to the hospital. Or they could finish the job of killing you before they go to the hospital.)

I tell you this because, no matter how much you think you 'know better,' Hollywood has messed you up for understanding what you have to do to stay safe in close range. Worse, it's also screwed up what your teacher thinks he knows about the subject. As in, he can't teach you what he doesn't know or understand himself. Even if an instructor would admit to not knowing something, he can't tell you what he doesn't know he doesn't know. (Called Unk Unks, for unknown, unknowns: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/UNKUNKS.html )

Here are some ways where you might have gained various misconceptions. If you've ever seen a movie where someone is shot, and they are blown backward, that's BS. It defies Newton's Third Law of 'for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.' In other words, if there was enough force to blow the shootee backwards, it would also blow the shooter backwards.

If you've ever seen a movie where a thrown knife stops someone in their tracks before they shoot, that's also BS.

Equally unrealistic is an enraged and attacking person collapsing immediately upon being shot with a pistol. While a rifle bullet has the force to potentially create a shock wave to cause a 'brown out' or temporary black out of the nervous system's (reticular activating system) handguns seldom do. (Unless there has been specific targeting to destroy structure, but that is a structural 'collapse' rather than 'shock.')

People, when they are shot, don't get blown back. If anything, they collapse because the power is temporarily shut off. When it comes back, if the damage isn't too great, they start moving again. (Think of what happens when you shoot a deer during hunting season. It often staggers and gets up to run)

So why am I focusing on shooting? Well, to give you a basic idea about an important issue that has been lost from most systems selling themselves as combatives and self-defense. An issue that, unless you address it yourself, if you ever find yourself in a dangerous situation, you'll be another corpse next to the guy you killed in 'self-defense.' Namely yours.

Basically with a rifle, you are relying on distance (range), time and damage to protect you. THAT is your defense. If you shoot someone out at a distance, the space between you and the damage are HOPEFULLY great enough that he will not be able to rally an effective counter attack during the Deadman's 10 (time). At this range, there is very little you can actively do defensively. (Sure, you can shoot from cover, or you can keep moving to make a harder target, but that really is pretty minimal stuff.) Your defense is nothing but air and hoping the damage you did to him is enough that he can't effectively shoot you, too. This is the ONLY situation where being entirely offensive serves as your defense.

Up close, the Deadman's 10 is an enormous issue, even with guns. With less effective methodologies (like punching and kicking) it's even more critical -- especially when it comes to you unarmed against an armed attacker. You have to actively take steps to take away your attacker's ability to inflict damage on you before, during and AFTER you've delivered force into him

This flies in the face of all kinds of training. Training that presupposes that if you lay into your opponent with your killer kung fu, deadly combatives, ultimate mixed martial art system, the guy is just going to fall down and curl up.

And I'm talking about all kinds of variations of flawed training.

Back when we had to do kata hopping from one foot to the other because the earth's crust was still cooling, the myth was the 'one punch kill.' You didn't have to worry about defense because after you drilled the guy with your ultimate punch, he was going to be lying unconscious and broken on the floor.

Now, the new, 'better educated,' smarter-than-that superstuds know that's wrong and doesn't work. Nope, they're so much smarter than the old guys because now they know they have to keep a continuous barrage of lethal punches to make it work.

Except for one thing, barrages work until the other side returns the favor. When that happens, it becomes a matter of trading punishment until one or the other falls down. A barrage works on the same principle of zero defense and relying on your offense to keep you safe.

After attending what was then Denver's premier martial arts 'challenge,' I quipped that apparently the 'winning' strategy was to stand there and let your opponent muay Thai kick you in the leg until he suffered a heart attack and fell over. This is, in essence, what these new, scientific and ultimate fighting systems are promoting as their 'better answer.'

Beat the shit out of him until he collapses; this before you collapse because he's beating the shit out of you.

In the safety of the ring and dojo, this theory sort of holds up. It does so because, as much as you may think you're being all powerful with these blows, sports-allowed moves  seldom cause injury. In fact, the parts that could cause injury have been intentionally edited out. This allows you to hit with full force and not break your opponent.

Reread that last sentence, it's important.

Yeah, yeah, I get all kinds of "well, in the art I study..."   Let's take Krav Maga as an example. In the late '80s, I had a chance to play hands-on with an ex-Israeli commando. Putting it mildly, the guy made me squeak. He twisted and torqued me in ways that, had he finished the move, I would have shattered. It really was combat application stuff. It reflected key elements that I'd seen in WW II, Vietnam Era and other systems that had been used to fold, spindle and mutilate human beings. Namely that I couldn't effectively counterattack while he was doing bad things to me.

Now before anybody's dick swells so big they feel you can cut them off at the knees and call them a tripod, let me tell you something else.

When I walk into the Krav/Crossfit schools, what I am seeing taught as Krav Maga doesn't look ANYTHING like what made me squeak. What I am seeing is sports-based mixed martial arts with a cool sounding name. Not something that could cause damage like what that guy was doing way back when. And especially not something that is going to save you from the Deadman's 10.

In short, either I am a total retard, who doesn't know jack about shit, OR someone sold you mixed martial arts combined with physical fitness AS a deadly esoteric combat system.

One that, if someone is seriously coming in to kill you, might just allow him success -- even if you DO manage to hit him hard.*

I'll close this section and segue into the next by paraphrasing George Silver, a late 16th and early 17th century swordsman. Basically it's: "These newfangled schools of sword pay no attention to defense and, therefore, they die like flies. Then they point to these deaths as proof of how dangerous their art is." (I highly recommend reading his "Paradoxes of Defence" [published 1599] and "Brief Instructions Upon My..." [published 1898, actual writing date unknown] to see how much of the same behavior is still going on regarding flawed instruction being sold as 'ultimate.')

It's important to note the British spelling of 'defence.' That's because the root of the word fencing is derived from it. The "Art of Fence" is the art of both offence and defence -- at the same time. I call a single action or multiple concurrent actions that both deliver force into your opponent (attacks) and protect you by disrupting his ability to attack 'fence.'

If you look back in the old 'manuals' about sword and other types of fighting, you'll notice something interesting. Although often drawn from the 'wrong' position (ma-ai for you purists) about two-thirds to three-fourths of the actual attacks are NOT with the sword. Ankle locks, leg traps/pushes, disrupting his structure, punches, elbow strikes, head butts, twisting your opponent's limbs and body ... they are ALL there. More than that, they are all happening at the exact same time. In fact, the sword is only killing the guy while all the other actions are destroying his ability to counter attack during the Deadman's 10.

Wow, what a concept. Bind the guy up in such a way that he can't stick his blade into you after you've stuck your blade into him. Who'd have thought that a bunch of medieval knuckledraggers could have figured this out on their own? I mean without the guiding light of scientific process, elite military origins or ancient oriental wisdom?

I make this snarky comment because -- while those are marketed as 'the superior sources' when it comes to 'ultimate' fighting systems -- they usually lack this fundamental element that a bunch of dirty, smelly westerners not only knew and used, but were writing about and illustrating 600 years ago.*

Fence becomes a REALLY important idea up close. Because there are very few things you can do that will work 'immediately' like you see in the movies. As such, you have to be doing something about staying safe during the Deadman's 10. And that is assuming you've actually done something effective enough to qualify. Otherwise, you're just in a trading-blows-fest, hoping the guy will squeal 'uncle' before you do.

Wanna guess how well that works when the other dude has a knife in his hand? Or when there are five of them?

There are several ways to create fence and going into the details of those ways are beyond the scope of this article. But I can give you a standard. Every MOVE, not every technique, but every move within a technique should meet three criteria:

1) It secures your perimeter.

This means it protects you, keeps him from delivering force into you and allows you to control what happens in your space. In short, if the purpose of a block is 'don't get hit' and you're getting hit,  you need to fix something in what you're doing. (I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's not getting off line from the attack.)

2) It disrupts your opponents ability to attack you (e.g., you move to a different place; you move him; you disrupt his structure, balance, orientation, body mechanics; you get out of the way of his charge; etc).

Four things about this. First, there are thousands of ways to do this. The biggest and best is getting off line (again, whether you move yourself or you move him doesn't matter). Second, this makes it so he has to do something else before he can attack you again. Like get his balance back. Third, the more things you pile on to him all at once, the harder it will be for him to figure out how to fix the problem (get his legs back under him and attack again). Fourth, don't limit yourself to just thinking about inflicting pain. Simply dodging, grabbing his limb and jerking him off balance IS AN OFFENSIVE MOVE! It also protects you. Of course, smacking him on the back of the head as you pull him past you makes it work all that much better. But the pull itself isn't painful.

3) It sets up your next, more powerful move.

By sets up, I mean the move is RIGHT THERE! For example, that dodge-the-attack -pull-the-arm -open-hand-smack - to -the-back-of-his-head move blends nicely into that smack turning into a pushing/pulling movement. A movement that keeps his head and body moving forward and past you. The 'previously' pulling hand lets go of his arm and your same arm rolls up into an elbow to his face. If you've done your range right (and are on outside gate) you shouldn't have to worry about his hands because they are reaching past you. But what if he tries to turn? Well, your body is blocking his arms and keeping him from turning back toward you ...and all of this as the elbow is smashing him.

If he's still standing, don't let go with that hand on the back of his head. Turn it into a grab -- whether hair, shirt or shoulder. Then turn your body and step to drag him over backward ... with a little push from your elbow. An elbow that is also now heading in a different direction. If he isn't down after the elbow, odds are damned good he'll fall down after you step -- especially if you drop down as you step (semi-kneel).

Each step of the way, you are creating fence to keep you safe because he has other problems than attacking you. Problems that are unique and different enough that he just can't soak up the punishment and keep on coming. He can't just charge through to get you because you are dragging him off balance and throwing him around -- AS you impact. Then he has the problem of slamming into the ground.

Take a good hard look at what you are being taught. Is it relying on the awesomeness of your all powerful blows to keep you safe? Are you overly relying on the pain you are inflicting to stop the guy? Or are you going to be like that karate guy looking on in shock when your 'never fail move' suddenly and dramatically fails?

What are you doing to make sure you aren't the second body following the Deadman's 10?

In closing, I'll tell you something to consider. Fence isn't that important in sports fighting. In fact, since nobody is trying to cripple or kill each other, it's pretty much a non-issue. Yeah, it's there in a chicken wire fence sort of way. But a key component of sports fighting is to allow you to get pounded.  The entertainment is "Which person is going to go down?" You're fighting in a way that it could be either.

That's why YOU have to start looking about developing fence yourself -- especially if you're talking about applying your training in live fire situations. In those circumstances, it's the other guy you want going down.  If you're teacher isn't teaching you about fence, but claims that he's teaching you 'self-defense,' that sucker has some explaining to do because sports fighting WILL get you into deep, deep trouble if you try to apply it in a situation where someone is seriously trying to injure you.

M

 * Maybe you do have it in your training, but don't just assume it's there. And sure'n hell don't just say 'we have it' and keep on teaching stuff that will get your students killed because of your comfort zone.

**Speaking as someone who has seen versions of martial arts that haven't been watered down for sports and commercialized, I can tell you that the idea of being both defensive and offensive in the exact same movement WAS once known to these systems.  It's just been lost in most modern interpretations. You're not likely to be taught a version that still has fence in a school or gym located in a strip mall. In fact, the more someone markets something as self-defense ready or combat proven, the more likely it is to lack fence and rely on physical conditioning and raw aggressiveness.

For those of you on Facebook you can find the piece here and also his page.

Marc's Facebook page

and if you want pictures go to it on his website.

No Nonsense Self Defence

The Notion of a “Real Fight” By Matt Galas

Matt makes some similar points to those I have expressed here and comes to similar conclusions. Enjoy

Jonathan

The Notion of a “Real Fight”

By Matt Galas, Copyright 2010

Considering the value placed by many in the HEMA community on the notion of simulating a real fight with sharp weapons, it is a useful exercise to list the differences between sportive bouts of fencing (whether in a training environment or in competition) and an earnest encounter with sharp weapons. The following categories summarize the most obvious differences between the two.

Fair Fight

As a general rule, human beings abhor the idea of a fair fight when fighting for real. Whenever push comes to shove, it is human nature to seek an unfair advantage over the enemy, in terms of greater numbers, surprise, or superior weaponry. Thus, the very premise of a competitive bout (two opponents, squared off, beginning out of distance, armed with identical weapons) is a situation that seldom occurs in reality. Far more likely in a "real fight" is exactly the opposite: Multiple opponents; attacking with the element of surprise; beginning the fight from within striking distance; and attacking when the victim is unarmed, before he can draw his weapon, or with vastly superior weaponry.

To list the key differences:

- Identical Weapons vs. Advantage Through Superior Weaponry

- Equal Numbers vs. Superiority in Numbers

- Both Sides Know Bout Will Begin vs. Surprise Attack

- Bout Begins Out of Distance vs. Attack from Within Striking Range

Artificial Environment

Sparring and tournament bouts typically take place on neutral, pre-selected ground. There is an even surface which is equal for both parties and free from obstructions, obstacles, and barriers to free movement. In contrast, the random nature of real fights mean that this type of neutral playing field is seldom encountered. Far more likely is a restricted area, the presence of obstacles, unsure footing, differences in level (such as steps or sloping terrain), and even interference from bystanders who happen to be present. These factors have a huge impact on the kind of movement that a fighter can practically employ, the most obvious example being the danger this poses for the long, backwards retreat commonly employed by sportive fencers on the defensive.

To list the key differences:

- Pre-Selected Arena vs. Random Environment

- Clear Playing Field vs. Natural Obstacles & Obstructions

- Solid Surface vs. Uncertain Footing

- Flat Surface vs. Uneven / Differences in Level

- Empty Arena vs. Possible Bystanders

Limited Expectation of Harm

A key difference in terms of human psychology (and corresponding physiological effects) is the knowledge that there are limits on the degree of harm that can be expected during a tournament bout. As intense as the fighting may be, the competitors know that there are limits imposed on the degree of harm that is allowed to be inflicted on them. The presence of protective gear; the use of blunt weapons; the imposition of rules limiting the actions of the opponent; and the presence of neutral third parties who will interfere to stop the action in case of injury: All of these factors create a level of confidence and security in the competitor that are completely lacking in a real fight. The end result is that a tournament competitor can rest secure that the chances of serious injury are negligible, whereas a combatant in a real fight knows that serious injury is a probable outcome.

This is probably the most important factor of all, considering the data that has accumulated over the past two decades on the psychological and physiological effects of combat stress. Effects such as reduced motor coordination; exaggerated reaction to stimuli; tunnel vision; and slowed-down (or speeded-up) perception of time are but a few of the effects documented by experts in this growing field of research. The implications for performance of fencing technique should be obvious.

To list the key differences:

- "Friendly" Opponent vs. Enemy Who Intends to Injure

- Small Likelihood of Injury vs. High Likelihood of Injury

- Psycho-Physiological Effects of Combat Stress: Minimal vs. Extreme

- Limits on Targets & Technique vs. No Limits

- Blunt Weapons vs. Sharp Weapons

- Protective Gear vs. Street Clothes

- Action Stops Upon Injury vs. Attack Intensifies Upon Injury

- Referee Will Interfere If Required vs. No One There to Help

- Presence of Rules and Limitations vs. No Rules

Different Consequences

A final factor is the different nature of the consequences faced by a sportive competitor and a combatant engaged in a real fight. In a tournament, the consequences are based on fear of violating the tournament rules, and hence on the chances for winning. Likewise, there is a fear of social repercussions from violating the rules and hurting a fellow competitor. These consequences add up to create a strong incentive to care about the opponent's safety. The consequences in a real fight are entirely different, and naturally lead to very different behaviours. The primary concern is for one's own safety, making concerns about legal liability, revenge, and other factors fade into the background. The end result is that the combatant has little or no concern for his enemy's safety. On the contrary, his intent is typically to do him as much harm as necessary to end the encounter.

To list the different consequences:

- Breach of Rules/Law: Penalty/Disqualification vs. Prosecution/Lawsuit

- Incentive to Breach Rules/Law: Low (Little to Gain) vs. High (Personal Safety At Stake)

- Social Consequences of Injuring Foe: High (bystanders are watching, friendly opponent) vs. Low (Safety At Stake)

- Nature of Social Consequences: Criticism, Ostracism vs. Revenge

Nuances of the Above

Of course, the distinctions above are not purely black and white, but are more a matter of degree. Societal notions of a "fair fight" can and did often influence the behaviour of earnest combatants, whether in a modern street fight or in an historical encounter with sharps. Some "real fights" do indeed take place at a pre-selected place, under more or less equal conditions, as in a modern after-school fight or an 18th century duel. Even when responding to a sudden attack in the street, due regard for social and legal consequences may lurk behind the overwhelming, immediate concern for one's personal safety.

Another difficulty in discussing this question is the matter of consistency. In sportive encounters, the competitors generally know what to expect. In the real world, however, violence comes in many forms. What do we mean by a "real fight"? It may consist of a challenge by a barroom drunk, a pre-arranged fight after school, a sudden assault by a mugger on a side street, a mob attack during a riot, or a friendly sparring match which suddenly turns serious. This variety was equally valid in historical times; the equivalents of the above scenarios can be found in legal documents and chronicles from medieval and renaissance times. Comparing a tournament bout with a "real fight" can have a different flavor if the comparison is made to a judicial duel (which included rules, equal conditions, and equal weapons) as opposed to an attack in the street (which was likely to be an intentional mismatch).

To some extent, the differences between sportive contests and earnest encounters could be placed on a continuum, ranging from casual sparring sessions with a regular training partner; to an intense, hard-fought tournament bout; to an earnest encounter with carefully prescribed limitations, such as an early 20th century duel with sharpened epees; to the extreme violence of an armed assault by a felon with no concern whatsoever but to injure or kill.

These are just a few of the considerations that make the comparison between sportive encounters and a "real fight" at best a tricky proposition, and at worst, a comparison between apples and oranges.

Conclusion

Understanding the differences between a sportive encounter and a "real fight" is important for the HEMA community. A due appreciation for the distinction between the two can inform discussions on issues such as training philosophy, choice of training curriculum, sparring practices, and tournament rule-sets. It can also help to defuse some of the underlying tension that appears in online threads on sparring and tournaments, where the participants often appear to have radically different assumptions on this subject.

Bibliography

For a more thorough discussion of this topic, see the following works:

Sgt. Rory Miller, Meditations on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence (YMAA Publication Center, Boston, 2008)

Christoph Amberger, The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts, pp. 121-27 (Unique Publications, Burbank, 1998)

Unbroken and unchanged

Having followed a few discussions lately on styles that may go back to the "past", mention was made of whether these might have an unbroken lineage of teaching going back to time "X".

This started me thinking. When we talk about unbroken traditions what do we really mean? Even if a tradition or style has survived with an unbroken line of teachers, generation to generation, perhaps what is more important is whether it is unaltered or unchanged.

Looking at any system that has been survived and been passed down over the years, it will have changed even if only superficially as the people, or rather the mindset, context and goals of those that practice the art change. Once something changes beyond a certain point it is arguably no longer what it was and therefore is something new and different having broken away from the original. At this point is the line broken, changed or both?

In Japan the oldest Bujutsu Ryu have survived many generations in unbroken lines going back to the 15th and 16th Centuries. However some have changed a great deal in that time, things have been added and other thing removed. While others have changed very little or what changes have taken place have not altered the Principles of the whole. In the same time other Ryu have died out.

Any system or method, is primarily a way of passing on information to the next generation. They are a way to gain understanding of the Principles of combat that were viewed as important by the founder of that system. Once the balance of the system shifts to different Principles or goals then the system is changed and flow of the original teaching is broken, even if the actual lineage of teacher to teacher continues.

What does all this mean? That one should consider the way that one asses different sources of information.

Looking at Talhoffer for example we see the images unchanged as they were when first drawn, though of course our interpretation of what they mean is what really matters. Of course interpretation is key in learning any skill, that is as true today as in the past. Of course most of the manuals were record of systems meant for those already initiated in methods of that system, or else were advertisement brochures intended to obtain patronage. However the information we see is itself unaltered.

I could also have a teacher who instructs me in Talhoffer methods who come from an unbroken line of teachers going back 500 years, but how much has the teaching changed in that time? The previously made point, that information changes as it is passed on intentionally or not; rather like in a game of Chinese whispers, comes into play. In this hypothetical situation, we can’t say for sure how much of what is being passed on to me by my teacher is true to what Talhoffer taught.

It should not be forgotten that people like the idea of things that go back a long way into the past. It adds weight and credibility. Of course this is a valid point. However there is also a temptation to misuse it. Consider how many Asian martial arts claim or at least imply lineage going back hundreds of years, even when the actual evidence is only traceable back a century or even less. Or that certain techniques or methods can be traced back to some distant time in the past to give them credibility. Someone I knew who was practising a Chinese art that practised high kicks of various types. They told me that while they recognised that doing these high kicks was not a good idea in a modern context, that they were practised in that system because they had been developed hundreds of years ago; to use against mounted opponents! There are many points this raises which lie outside of this current piece, though it serves as an illustration

None of this is intended to be an answer or suggest what is right and wrong, rather to remember to keep an open and honest mind.

Consider that even where the lineage is real, that does not of itself mean that the system has more worth than something "newer".

Jonathan Waller

The Reasons to study Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) in the modern world

I previously looked at the reasons why people studied martial arts in the past. I will now look at the reasons or ways of HEMA in the modern world. (Thanks to Rory Miller for voicing a number of these ideas relating to Martial arts in general, they seemed a good fit with some adaptation to HEMA)

Of course there will be some overlap between the past and the present day, but there are some important and major differences that need to be considered.
Again my aim is not to claim that there is any ONE right way, rather we should consider what we want to get from training in HEMA. We can then determine how we focus our studies; which arts are most likely to give us what we are looking for and equally, which modern approach best facilitates it.
Much of what is written here may equally be applied to someone considering which of the more “conventional” martial arts to study and again I make no claim to be presenting anything new. Rather my goal is to, perhaps bring together different trains of thought and to highlight areas that I have observed in the HEMA community at large and in the EHCG specifically.

Many of the subjects I will be discussing below could be explored in much greater detail and in greater depth. For some of the topics I will do just that in later articles.

As I discussed previously, historically people studied martial arts for different reasons.
In the modern world the study of these historical arts can be broken down in to the following five categories:

1 Self-defence/Professional use of force
2 Tradition/Physical art/Self-discipline
3 Spiritual Growth/Health
4 Sport/Tournaments
5 Entertainment/Education/Demonstration

There are now a huge number of historical martial arts being studied and an even greater number of groups studying one or several of them. Each group will be working from the materials of one or more masters, or one or more versions of the works of those masters or the traditions they spawned or evolved from. Other groups, like the Guild will deal with the under lying common Principles found though out the arts.

As such one should consider the goals stated or otherwise of the group that you train with or are thinking of training with and how that relates to which of the five ways you wish to follow.

The following will go some way to defining these areas of focus.

Self-defence/Professional use of force/”Learning how to fight”
Historically this would have been the reason why most people learnt the skill, though was not always. Self-defence here refers to those skills and techniques that one can use when suddenly and unexpectedly attacked, in daily life. Professional use of force here refers to those skills used by members of the armed forces, police and those involved in personal/professional security.
If your goal is to learn self-defence then there are many better ways of doing so than by studying HEMA. I am not saying that there are not valuable lessons in these works for someone who knows what they are doing, or that the skills of the practitioners of the past were not effective, they clearly were. In some ways that is where the problem lies, what was acceptable in a self-defence situation in the 1400s may not be legally or morally acceptable today. Also most of what constitutes self-defence is to do with situational awareness, and about how to avoid the places, people and situations where you are likely to become a target. In most cases by the time you need to be using the physical techniques which we see and are described in the manuals and which it should be pointed out are similar to many techniques seen in different cultures and in different eras, its already too late. Again all of these skills need to be addressed first and foremost in the modern world.

If your interest is in the professional use of force, then you should be someone currently involved in the legitimate professions for whom these skills are necessary. As such you should already be involved in the study of appropriate skills.

Of course one can want to study and learn in these areas from a tradition/historical perspective, though in this case that is better addressed in the next focus

Before moving on. What we must not forget, is that in the historical context, these skills were very much practised with a deadly intent. We should then approach the recreation and development of these skills with the respect and seriousness of intent that such skills warrant.

Tradition/physical art/self-discipline –
Tradition is, I would argue, where most of us stand. We are interested in history, we are interested in developing a skill that was used in the past and in wanting to find out about our past we strive to understand how our ancestors applied martial skills. Recreating these traditions is a worthy and valuable cause.
The physical art that goes along with this recreation is in itself worthy of learning and developing any skill to a high level is a worthy practice. The self-discipline required can allow us to master ourselves in ways that other pursuits may not. If for no other consideration, Tradition, Physical art and self-discipline are reasons to study and train in HEMA. After all, these are some of the main reasons why people study Asian martial arts

Spirit/health –
The development of the physical and mental discipline required of any martial art, will arguably develop your spiritual growth, and can also arguably make you a better person, though this is not always the case.
Almost all warrior/martial traditions contain aspects that one can label “spiritual”. After all, if such traditions are to function within a larger society, then those that practice them need to know when to kill or harm and when not to. Also, those that make the use of violence part of their lives generally try to come to terms with the act of doing harm or taking the lives of others. They generally also address and attempt to come to terms and accept that serious injury, disability or death are likely results to themselves. At least they should if they want to retain some mental stability. As such, I would argue that this form of “spirituality” is a by-product of the other aspects of the training, rather than a goal in itself.

There are also those who seek to use martial arts to develop both inner peace and harmony that goes beyond the aspects offered by the self-discipline discussed above. This si something that one can see in Japanese martial arts when one looks at Bujutsu and Budo, in Budo the art is used to develop spirtual growth.
As yet this is something that is not really encountered in in those groups studying HEMA, though there are a number of groups, studying arts of dubious genuine historical ancestry that do emphasise spiritual growth as a major goal.

Health is likely to be a greater lifesaver than any other aspect of HEMA. Keeping physically active offers a number of health benefits that I don’t need to go into here. Training in HEMA is just as effective at keeping one physically fit as many other forms of exercise, without going down the path of “Swordfightercise”© etc.

Sport/tournament –
This is a growing aspect of the HEMA community. Some see it as fun addition to their training, some take it more seriously training, preparing, and approaching it as one would for any other sport and seeing in the sporting aspects, a way to popularise HEMA. Yet others try to emphasise rule sets, weapons and protective equipment to come as close as possible to real combat with the skills and weapons that were used. They seek to test their skills in what they see as the closest approximation to real combat that is currently acceptable, because of its un-scripted nature and competitive drive.
None of these approaches are in or of themselves wrong or bad. However it must always be born in mind that sportive and combative are very different one from the other and ability and proficiency in one does not of itself prepare you for the other.

Of course historically tournaments were a major aspect of life for certain parts of the fighting classes, These tournaments in a similar way to their modern counterparts, emphasised protective equipment, safer weapons and rules, all of which moved the action away from real combat to a greater or lesser extent. However there is one major difference between the past and the present. Generally in the historical context, certainly during Middle Ages, such “sporting” events were an adjunct to actual combat. Someone who fought in a tournament could and often did, fight in actual combat, either on the battlefield, in self-defence or duelling in earnest. This balancing of the sportive with the combative, the reality with the game, is something that is, for obvious reasons, missing from the modern practice of HEMA. This should be born in mind when considering and comparing the sporting aspects of HEMA in the past and present.


Entertainment /Education/Demonstration
An understanding of the HEMA can obviously be a great benefit when creating fights for film, theatre and television, whether to make the action more historically accurate or to produce more efficient movements. Understanding how to use entertainment to bridge the gap to education is vital if one wants to attract a wider audience to an understanding of history in general and specifically HEMA.
So a Fight Director, fight performer, Historical interpreter, historical show fighter, can and arguably, should all make use of HEMA. When done well and with proper consideration of the other areas already mentioned above, are all valid aspects of HEMA, which should not be looked down on as inferior or less serious reasons for training.


Conclusion
Everyone interested in studying HEMA should ask themselves questions including;
What aspect/s of the historical martial arts draws their interest?
Which of the modern ways offers the best opportunities to achieve that in the modern world?

One should try to understand what it is they want from their study and training in HEMA.
The different focuses have different goals, and will have different optimal mind and skill sets, and these will be best brought about by different training approaches.

I would maintain that the different ways are not mutually exclusive and that one can address and do well in many or perhaps all of them. However to do so, requires that one properly understands or at least recognises the differences between. One must also not forget that, by spreading ones focus over a wider range of study it is likely that one will not achieve much or gain as great an understanding as if on makes a tighter focus of one area of study.

Aggression, violence, martial arts and what they are for.

This is part of an ongoing series of pieces about what martial arts are about, what they try to be, and how we as people think about and train them. They will look at how we can find ways to make sure that we are honest in our assumptions and expectations so that we maximise what we get from our training and our interest. All these pieces are short and in no way comprehensive, all encompassing studies. Firstly the subjects are too large and varied to be able to cover in a series of large books let alone a blog or website. Secondly I don’t claim to have the knowledge to go in to the depth that parts of the subject deserve. However I put them here to hopefully start people thinking.


Violence and aggression, two of the things that drive and have driven the development or Martial arts in all it various forms in different cultures and throughout history. Violence and aggression are hugely complex areas to try to understand. They come in many different forms and cover a wide range of situations and levels of intensity and threat.
Although they are often linked there are differences between violence and aggression.
Similarly Martial arts come in many different forms and are and have been used for many different reasons.

Any one studying or considering studying a martial art today should understand what it is they want to get from a martial art, and then consider what the various arts offer so that they get out of their training what they need.

What should those of us who are studying historical martial arts do?
Firstly we should consider what the historical martial arts we are studying were designed to do. We should also consider what we personally want from our study of the past, and then consider how we go about achieving it.

We must be careful that we don’t start trying to fit a round peg in to a square hole and start manipulating what we study or how we study it to achieve the wrong goal and we must be honest so that we do not lead ourselves to artificial conclusions.

Let us look at violence briefly. It can be broadly and perhaps crudely divided in to two categories. There is Inter-species violence. This is the basis of the Fight or flight response, a predator threatens you, or you are the predator. Your options are to get away, to kill or be killed. Commonly know as fight or flight. We then have Intra-species violence; this is violence between members of the same species. This is a far less black and white situation, here violence and aggression is used to achieve a goal, to gain something, generally relating to status. Status in the group, maintaining your status against someone whom has challenged you or your perceived self worth or position in your group or society.

Humans like most animals have in built inhibitions that generally prevent Intra-species violence going too far. This does not always work but generally it does. These inhibitions are there because it is counterproductive to kill off members of your own species, and also because uncontrolled violence, while allowing you to kill a rival, can leave you seriously wounded or maimed. This is why in most species the males use ritualised violence to gain or maintain status, and that generally these contests end before either party is badly injured. It is also why most species do not act violently towards the female of the species, or if they do that the violence is controlled.
Humans have this ritual violence. To quote Rory Miller, who uses the term “Monkey Dance”, because of its in built and instinctive nature from our ape ancestors.
The problem with humans is that we have invented numerous implements and tools to give us an edge and which in effect short-circuit our biological inhibitions. After all one good punch is likely to finish a conflict between two humans but is also likely to leave both relatively uninjured, however, put a club, knife, sword into that swinging hand and the out come is likely to be very different.

We have also, on occasion, managed to control the mindset we can apply to violence in certain situations. We can consciously or otherwise turn on the hunter predatory mind set, that allows us to view opponents not as other humans but as prey, and this allows a different set of rules to be applied. Alongside the above two developments, we have also developed systems to allow us to maximise the physical skills and mind set for the kind of violence we are going to undertake, martial arts, for lack of a more encompassing phrase.

I will not go into an in depth discussion of the physiological and psychological, biological and evolutionary drives and processes that have governed and shaped human aggression and violence, but hopefully this gives a broad outline.

Historically people had a different mindset and attitude to violence than we do today, or at lest some of them did. Yet we must also remember that we are not all that different, the majority of the changes are superficial and are to do with whom we were brought up and the norms of the society we were brought up in.
People used violence and the skills of violence for many reasons and many not that different from how violence is used today.

Self defence –
This is dealing with either stupidity or bad luck. It is primarily about recovery, recovery from the surprise of being on the receiving end of a bad situation that you weren’t expecting. Some manuals deal with this, specifically on occasion, more often in a general way.

Duelling –
This is something that was in general, forced upon the individual, by the expectations and standards of the society to which they belonged or on how they perceived themselves to fit in to that society. In effect this is a type of Monkey dance, in that the goal is to maintain or regain status. Generally governed by rules and expectations of behaviour. Many manuals deal with this, and the teaching of the master’s focuses toward people preparing for this.

Sport –
Different to a duel in that the participants have chosen to engage in the activity, there are also rules and officials to control how far things go. Again something that was if not explicitly stated in the works of many masters, the preparation for fighting in Tournaments or at the barriers, was a not uncommon feature of the fighting classes.

Combat –
Here we are referring to battle. Warfare is consciously or subconsciously a ritualised affair. The optimal approach is obedience and teamwork, rather than individual skill. The skills needed, though linked to what is seen in some manuals, are often quite different.

Assault –
This is a predatory mindset; the aggressor in a self-defence situation is likely to approach the situation in this way. In a modern context this is the approach and mindset of Elite Military units, hostage rescue teams and SWAT. Here the goal is to maximise your advantages and minimise theirs. Here there are generally no rules, other than use force to achieve your goal with as little risk or cost to yourself. Perhaps in a historical context we could look at the Vikings, raiding vulnerable targets and using hit and run tactics to gain advantage and achieve the best result for themselves, when they did engage in combat it was generally when they had the best chances of winning.

Fitness –
Keeping fit, training and learning skills your body and in some ways your mind fit and healthy. Many manuals talk the physical benefits of training in the martial skills

Entertainment –
Here the skills are used for the enjoyment and possibly education of others. Show fighters of the past, often berated by “real” fencing masters. Of course a tournmanet could be entertaining, but the goal in the tournament was not the entertainment as such. Of course there as overlaps, but basicallym we are looking at "show" fights

Spiritual growth –
Some people have used and still used martial skills for this. Ultimately this is rather a dead end. Training for an engaging in life and death situations would teach you something about yourself, and one could argue that the “warrior” mind set has a strong spiritual element, for one the acceptance of death and or sever injury. However one perhaps emphasise that this is part of the development, not an end in itself.

These are obviously broad categories. However they do help us to start thinking about the focus of the violence and martial skills of the past. Then we can address where our own field of study, masters work, manual, or tradition of interest lies and then begin to put it in context and think about it appropriately. We of course will find situations where one or more categories apply, or the master of the past was advocating that the skills he taught could be used in a variety of situations.
The important things is that the truth is, that despite what may be thought commonly or suggested on occasion, is that no one martial skill can do everything, each has its on demands, requirements, mindset and skills. Also no training method or framework of interpretation or reconstruction can fully cover all the different demands of the different skills. We need to understand what we want to study and tailor our approach accordingly.


In following pieces I will look at ways we can go about starting to achieve it.

There really are only so many ways to skin a cat!

We have always said that regardless of cultural origin and period that there only so many ways that the human body will work. There are only so many ways to swing a weapon and only so many ways to move. However it is always nice when you see something that confirms it.

I came across the bottom picture while looking through a book on Kendo in The Guild Master, John Wallers library. The book was written in the early 1960’s

There are obviously minor structural differences, the Kendoist on the right is further into his attack, his arms are straighter and his hands are higher. His right foot is higher off the ground, but I would say that this is to do with fighting on sand. Otherwise his position is pretty close, to his German cousin.
Both swordsmen on the left are in almost identical positions. The Kendoka is hitting higher to his opponent’s face, but that in my opinion is because his opponent has his hands higher. The only other difference is his back leg, which is not pushing him so far forward. I interpret this as him withdrawing slightly as he counter strikes his advancing opponent. Otherwise the angling of the upper body, front leg, arms and sword is mirrored.

The picture of the Kendo is from a book written in the early 1960s in Japan. So we have two images roughly 500 years and half a world away, unsurprisingly finding the same solution to a similar tactical situation.