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.

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

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

Do Western Martial arts need a Uniform?

There have been suggestions and discussions about a more formalised uniform for Historical European Martial arts training and what that unifrom should be.

A number of groups’ wear clothing more or less closely based upon that worn by fencers. Others wear clothing loosely replicating 14th/15th century clothing and footwear. Others who concentrate on wrestling and grappling wear uniforms based on what surviving traditional systems wear. All suit the needs of the groups that use them or at least they are adequate, otherwise why wear them.

In the Guild we have a uniform of loose black trousers, (I wear heavy-duty martial arts trousers) and a T-shirt of the Chapter colour fitted with the Guild badge. This was a decision based upon the fact it needed to allow movement, be relatively easy to wear, purchase and clean. Also as a group studying more than one period and style the uniform needed to be adaptable. We also suggest that members wear flat soled, un-cushioned shoes with good grips, as these more closely replicate period footwear than modern super sports shoes.


Clothing or uniform needs to be considered in several ways and should address certain points, which I shall address below

How it affects the movements one can carry out. If one works in the clothing of a period, and this includes the appropriate footwear, one understands the how and why of the movements and footwork better, it can also lead provide insight to why certain movements are done in what may seem illogical wearing a different type of clothing

How it affects the technique, this is obviously relates to the above but also specifically certain techniques, in grappling for example, where the clothing is used to secure holds etc. Only by wearing the appropriate clothing will you understand the action, it may also be that you can only properly apply the technique when wearing the right clothing

How practical is it? The clothing should not be another expense that burdens the students unnecessarily. It also needs to be hard wearing enough to put up with the rigours of training with out the need to repair or replace it.

However if we are striving for accuracy or authenticity then there are other things we should insure as well.

One should train in realistic environments, outside, on uneven terrain, or if inside then on surfaces that replicate those of the period understudy. After all the historical techniques were not designed to be used in a modern gym.

The clothes need to reproduce the originals as accurately as possible. If what you are wearing is not fitted or cut like the originals then you aren’t going to get the insight, you are just going to be training in fancy dress. However do you risk slipping in period footwear and injuring yourself or those you train with. Of course if you wear period footwear all the time you will become accustomed to it and should be no less likely to slip than anyone else. However if you only wear the clothes and shoes when training what are you really learning? After all our ancestors wore the clothes all time.

There are the secondary reasons for wearing a uniform. It helps to develop a group identity for the Chapter/organisation. A uniform contributes to develop a more disciplined approach and mind set, in that when you take of your normal clothes and put on your uniform, you are also entering in to a training mind set. It looks better, everyone is uniform and certainly when attending a multi-group event it can help to identify different groups and schools Ultimately these are considerations of less importance than those mentioned above

In conclusion, when possible any scholar should try to work when they can in a good approximation of the clothing and/or armour of the periods they are studying. This should include correct footwear and training while wearing these things outside on appropriate surfaces.
However it is the training that is most important, the clothes, footwear and environment when worn can give insight and understanding to certain things, but they have to be appropriate, otherwise one can end up just training in “funny” clothes.

Jonathan Waller

Ways to train and understanding that they have in built flaws

Continuing my examination of how to approach the study of Historical Martial arts. Once we have made decisions about our reasons for training we should consider the ways to achieve that goal. I am going to look briefly at how we can go about training and developing our skills.

It is not my goal to dismiss any form of training. Rather my aim is to take a look at various approaches to training and understand why thy are flawed.

From the standpoint of the Guild as a whole and from a personal preference I will look at training with the goal of recreating/understanding the combative systems of the past.

While doing this one strives to respect the past, that we should be safe, improve our understanding and continue to enjoy the process.

If we are training combative skills we should remember that the main goal is to neutralise the opponent as efficiently as possible while preserving ourselves. As such we are developing skills that are designed to injure, cripple or kill other people. Unfortunately there is no way to accurately replicate cutting, stabbing or breaking people without actually doing so. Therefore the training will have to be modified in some way if we do not want to keep finding new training partners because we hospitalise them and we don’t ourselves want to spend large amounts of time out of training while we have to recover from injuries.

It should be noted that while martial artists of the past were arguably not so concerned with safety issues, minimising the risk of injury through training was important. No training program for warriors could tolerate a continued high rate of injury from training. An injured warrior that can not train or fight is not fulfilling their role

However any modification to the effectiveness of the technique is training a flaw, in effect training the technique to fail.

This paradox has challenged martial artists in all eras and cultures. The need to address it is the search to find, to quote modern combatives instructor Tony Blauer, "the best fake stuff out there".

Unless we recognise these flaws and understand how to compensate for them, we are training ourselves to fail under pressure when things become real. Even if our goal is research, the modifications and the flaws can lead us to draw false conclusions from what we do. We have to be careful that the flaw does not become the "right" way of doing it, if it does the conclusions and solution it will be more and more false.



The important elements that make a technique effective are,

The Target attacked

The Timing/Speed

The Power

The Distance

Therefore at least one of these core elements will have to be modified or changed for the sake of safety in training.

Training can be divided into the following broad categories;

Solo Drills
Repetitive co-operative drills
Scripted co-operative drills
Competitive drills

Solo drilling
Solo drills are as the name implies those that are carried out with out interacting with a partner. Solo guard drills, progressions, moving or cutting from one position to another, carrying out solo forms or striking against a pel or punch bag, or test cutting all fall under this type of training.

Here there is no partner to be kept safe, so there is no need for modification of the technique and as such allows the actions to be carried out with proper Power, Speed and Intention. Also by removing the opponent, it allows the scholar to focus only on the technique they are carrying out.

Training this way can also allow for live weapons to be used, which would be too dangerous to use when working with a partner

When correctly trained Solo exercises are very good way to pick up the fundamentals of movements of combat. Because you can attack with proper Power Speed and Intention these drills, unlike others, should do not inherently create bad habits, provided the instructor knows what they are teaching.

The flaws come from what is missing, It is hard to learn proper targeting when attacking thin air. Also hitting something feels very different to hitting nothing. While striking a pel, punch bag or test cutting gives an approximation of hitting an opponent, it is not the same as hitting an active body. The dynamics encouraged when hitting a static test cutting target are different than a dynamic and active human opponent, who is trying to hit you at the same time. To quote Bruce Lee "boards don’t hit back"

It is also hard, especially for less experienced students, to understand what the moves would actually be doing in reality, this is especially true if the student is not balancing the solo training with other partner drills.

A well-executed sequence of solo movements will almost never work the same way against a live opponent. Hitting and being hit by someone, even if you interfere with their strike feels completely different, and things that feel completely different lead to freezing.

Cooperative drills

These drills involve 2 or more scholars, training within a predetermined structure of movement, attack or defence etc. The goal is training through the exercise, it is not about winning in any way you can.

I would further divided this type of training in to the following;

Drilling and Sequences/Plays.

Drilling is the repetition of specific techniques or simple attack and defence or flow type drills.

Sequences/Plays are scripted patterns of actions, dealing with specific tactical type situations.

The advantages are that you have an opponent/s so you are dealing with a real moving target and real attacks coming at you. However as you are working with another person there will need to be some modification for the sake of safety and so an in-built flaw is being trained

Other flaws that can develop with a set drill, is that "knowing" the drill can lead to the scholars pre-empting and anticipating the next move and not committing to the action they are doing now. Or the scholar wants to win and so cheats because they "know" what the other person is going to do.

Often techniques start or are carried out at too great a distance to simulate a real sudden assault. This is often the case when dealing with grappling or dagger techniques. This is often done to substitute Distance for Time, by starting further away the defender has more time to make the reaction work. This is often why many of the techniques seen in the manuals don’t work in free-play. Free play is more like duelling, where as what we generally see in the manuals is dealing with a sudden unexpected assault. Different contexts call for different techniques.

Another problem one often sees in cooperative drills is people getting fixated or carried away on all the things that they can do after they intercept the attack. They block the dagger arms, and then get carried away with the locks, disarming and the other cool stuff they can do then. What has been forgotten or ignored is that the attacker allowed the block to work, by modifying one of the core elements, usually Distance and/or Power.

A common flaw that one sees is in Timing, the attacker makes the attack badly to allow the reactor to succeed. The attacker does not properly keep their weapon between them and the target, and thereby makes it easy to pull off the reaction. This not normally done consciously, rather it happens because the goal has become to make the defenders technique "work". It also happens when scholars make the attack against a teacher or more senior scholar. The more junior does not want to make the teacher fail, so they subconsciously make their own attack badly! Worse still is when the teacher subtly encourages this attitude in the scholar. The problem is that this becomes the way the technique should be done, in this case the technique will fail against someone who does not play by these unwritten rules.

Probably the best way to make Cooperative drills safe while minimizing the flaws is to do them with slow speed, not unnaturally slow, but so that the scholars can maintain proper power generation and delivery while maintaining enough control to keep the action safe. The actual speed used can vary and can increase as the skill level of the practitioners’ increases. In this way the same attention to detail can be applied while keeping it safe. However one has to be careful when the scholar starts to cheat and exploits the fact that their training partner is going slowly by speeding up or doing things that would not work against a full speed attack, like deflecting a staff strike with their forearm



Competitive drills

These include sparring and free play. They have a random or free element in that those involved may choose what techniques they use. This can vary from having two or three choices up to a full no hold bared (with certain restrictions) free play assault.

The danger here is that free-play and sparing are dynamic and we know that combat is dynamic and as such, sparring or free play becomes a reality test of what we have learnt. However it MUST be remembered that free play or sparring is nothing like a real fight for your life.

Also free-play is active, dynamic and fun and therefore habits that are developed in free-play will go deeper and last longer than skills from other less engaging forms of training. Also free-play looks more like what most people expect a "real" fight to look like, most of which expectations are based on fantasy and entertainment, not reality and so will reinforce those untruths and misconceptions

To quote Combative Instructor, practitioner and author Rory Miller "Almost twenty-five years ago, I asked my Karate sensei why we practiced kihon (basics) and kata when the techniques we used in sparring looked nothing like kata. He didn't have a good answer, just some vague nonsense about discipline and muscle development. Twenty years ago, after my first ugly brawl in the casino, I remember sucking wind, shaking, and thinking, "Shit, that wasn't anything like sparring.""

Most of us will not get in to "an ugly brawl" and there is even less likelihood of us using the weapons based elements of our training. So for most people Free-play WILL be as real as it gets. Also free-play is fun. However it must not be forgotten that free-play, sparring, or competition is nothing like real combat.

Free play can become a very sophisticated strategic game, which is a flaw in and of itself. For example people do not attack with a knife the way they spar with one. The reality is fast, close, staccato and overwhelming. The sparring is often a chess match of distance timing and rhythm. The skills are not the same and they don’t transfer.

Wear Protection or modify the weapon?

As Targeting, Timing/Speed, Power, Distance are integral to real combat, one or more of these will have to be messed with to make the training safe. To reduce the need to modify the core elements one can wear armour to allow the better use of power and targeting. Another option is to modify the weapon to make it safer, often a combination of both is done.

Wearing protective armour to allow the replication of un-armoured combat allows people to hit each other in a better approximation of "reality". This can be OK when practising specific techniques or situations However in free play the protection that people wear invariably makes them braver than they would be if they were not wearing the armour and then takes the situation further away from reality again.

If the armour is being worn to replicate armoured combat then the weapons and techniques would change to defeat the protection worn. After all armour is worn to protect the wearer, so defeat it would require more aggressive and therefore more dangers techniques to defeat it. Because of this increased danger it will mean modification in targeting, speed, power or distance or the types of technique used.

For example almost all-combative grappling techniques are by their very nature extremely dangerous and therefore can not be done properly in free-play or competition, so they are either banned or have to be modified to make them safer

If the weapon is made safer then it can reduce the need for armour and allow different level of freedom. However one now has the problem that the less threat/danger the weapon poses the braver the scholars become, and can start to do things that they would not if it were real. Also being hit by a "safe" weapon will produce a very difference result than being hit by a real weapon. Again this is less of a problem in set training than it is in free-play. Also modifying the weapons generally stops it from handling like the real thing and this will also change the way the technique works and lead to false assumptions and conclusions.

Conclusion

So what is the answer? What is the right way to train? Well there isn’t one. As said at the beginning there is no way to replicate real violence without injuring and damaging people. However you train it will be fake in some way. One has to recognise what the deliberate flaws are in the training that you are doing. Minimise those flaws as much as possible to make sure that the skills you are developing are not based upon false assumptions or untruths. If you can, counter act the flaw by adding another type of training to your program where that flaw is not present, just remember that the new drill or exercise will also have a flaw in it!


Jonathan Waller

Guild Secretary