Natural and Normal

These terms often get used in teaching or learning WMA or martial arts in general.
They are often used in a confusing way, as if they mean the same thing. Though in common usage they do get used interchangeably, there is however an important difference, all be it at times a subtle one.

Much is made of moving naturally and normally, that how one moves should be based upon what you would do naturally or normally. They do sound similar but do they really mean the same thing? Of course we should all be aiming to make certain natural movements and behaviours normal, though this is often hard in a combative environment, which is after all neither natural or normal for most people most of the time.

If one understands the significant differences between Normal and Natural, it can help improve both how ideas and actions are conveyed in training and how the activity is experienced. By addressing each in an appropriate way, we can eventually make what we do both Natural and Normal.

Now I should make clear my definition of the terms. I use Natural to refer to how you and your body have evolved to function and/or how it can be used and operates most efficiently and appropriately. On the physical level, its what we in the Guild define as Body Mechanics.
Normal here refers to individuals habitual behaviour and movement patterns. Those ways that one moves and behaves on a daily basis and of which we generally have little or no awareness or conscious control.

Of course nothing is completely black or white. Not all Natural behaviours are appropriate, and in many cases things we do Normally, we are also doing Naturally, and appropriately.


OK try this. Fold your arms, quite normal and natural? Now fold your arms the other way. Does it Feel strange?! Probably. One might say that it does not feel “Natural” to fold your arms the other way. However in the context of this discussion that’s not true, there is no Natural reason that you can’t fold your arms either way, baring injury. So what you are really experiencing is it doesn’t feel Normal. Why? Because most of us have developed the habit of folding our arms only one way and it has become such a strong habit that to do anything else feels strange. Now does it really matter that you only fold your arms one way and that to do it differently feels strange enough that you'll choose not to do it? Well not really, it does however serve as an illustration of how deep habits can become rooted and how what we do is dictated in large part by habits. Of course not all habits are negative one can have good habits as well as bad. However one has to recognise that they are patterns of behaviour or movement of which we have little or no awareness, that happen automatically and consistently. As such we have also become so accustomed and conditioned to these habits that should we be asked or need to do anything else it does not feel “right”. There is a danger that under pressure we will only do something that feels “right” even if it is not appropriate, we will fall back on to doing what we do normally. Ask yourself do you want to be the Master of your habits or let your habits master you?

In teaching and training problems can arise when someone dismisses, rejects or refuses to do something, using the argument “it doesn’t feel natural”, when what they actually mean is “it feels different to what I normally do”.

Someone new to WMA with no other experience or terms of reference for Body Feel, may initially find it harder to tell the difference between Natural or Appropriate and Normal. Or someone who has trained in particular systems which have different ways of handling body mechanics and the Principles in general, may now have developed Normal movement and behaviour patterns, which will make the new training, Feel very different. Here of course the instructor has a vital role insuring that the scholar feels the difference in definition between the Normal and Natural/Appropriate.

Let me be clear that Feeling or Body Feel is vital to understanding, learning and doing. If you think you have done a movement correctly, make sure that you are Feeling it. If it does not Feel comfortable, then it probably is not right. Think and Feel are another two words that need to be clearly defined and considered in teaching and learning. Thinking is what we imagine something to be. Feeling is the experience of what it is. One could reword “I think therefore I am”, to “I feel, therefore I am”. However, to get back on track for this post, proper Body Feel, interpreting the difference if any, between Normal and Natural, is vital.

By feeling the actions and the movements, you are gaining experience of them and it is only through experience that you can truly gain understanding. Its another problem I encounter when people are learning, they want to understand before they do it or try it, where as real understanding may only be achieved by doing. Another problem can be they have heard an explanation of what they should do and because they Think they have followed those instructions, that they have done it Right, where as when you ask them to actually Feel what they are doing they realise what is different. However that’s another topic and post.

Habits and patterns can be made and they can be changed. Awareness can be improved and developed by using patterns so that habits are appropriate to the situation. Eventually you should be able to operate naturally, normally and perhaps most important, appropriately to the situation you are in.

Jonathan

To armour or not to armour

This is an involved and complicated subject. My primary goal is to briefly look at the use of armour/protection in training historical arts in the modern. However I will first briefly look at the use of armour in the combative environment.

-Armour in real combat – Protection versus Mobility plus other considerations
The decision to wear armour and what forms that armour may take has always been dictated by a number of factors. Of course the armour offers protection against attacks, However this advantage has to be weighed against other considerations. Firstly by wearing protection, ones mobility will be reduced, both in the range of movements possible and the speed at which movement can be carried out. The distribution of the weight of the armour will affect balance. The weight of the armour will increase exertion and its coverage of the body will also have detrimental effects on the bodies’ ability to loose heat contributing to the speed at which one will become fatigued.
Weather and environment factors will increase and exacerbate all the detrimental effects already mentioned.
The cost of armour, either in monetary terms or in the time taken to manufacture it contributes to restrict the use of and types of armour. These factors are linked to considerations of status. Armour re-enforces the distinction between the warrior and the civilian. The quality and craftsmanship of the armour, serves to help separate the high status warrior from the low. Such display of status could lead to individual being singled out in combat by enemies. However if you happened to be on the loosing side in the aftermath of an engagement, the display of your high status may lead you to being taken prisoner for ransom while your lower status followers are shown no mercy.
The likelihood of being hit and what you might actually be hit by and the effectiveness of the armour against those attacks has also to be considered.

Despite the negative aspects when we look through history, armour of one form or another is a reoccurring constant within in the context of combat. Someone wearing armour will be generally far more prepared and willing to aggressively engage the enemy than an unarmoured person will. This effect on the perception of risk can have both positive and negative affects in real combat and in training

-Not getting hit versus reducing the damage taken when you are when you are
A point that needs to be made is that armour is generally worn to protect the areas of the body, which are deemed most vulnerable, or those that will cause the greatest damage if hit. Generally the most vulnerable targets will be given priority when armour is chosen or issued. The Armour worn may redirect the impact or reduce damage taken from a hit, though no armour makes you completely safe. There is the paradox that as one wears more armour the potential for being hit increases as it reduces mobility.

Here I am defining Mobility, as the ability to move as freely as possible with the intention of not getting hit, versus protection, reducing the effects once hit has happened.
The less armour you wear the more of your mobility you maintain, arguably making it harder for you to be hit in the first place. Of course if hit, less armour will mean that you take proportionately more damage.
One has to strike a balance between mobility and protection. While arguably mobility is more important, In certain situations ones ability to move may be restricted by other factors, for example in a tightly packed formation on a battlefield, in which case protection, becomes more desirable.

Finding the right balance may be a personal choice, such as a 15th Century man at arms choosing between and Italian armour for its protection or a Gothic harness with its mobility. Or the decision may be imposed on you by someone else, for example the armour issued to a Roman legionary or modern soldier in Afghanistan.

-Armour in training - Replicating reality or reducing pain/injury
Armour in training follows two basic types. Firstly armour that replicates the armour that will be used in real combat. Secondly is armour that is used solely in training, it is used to reduce pain or injury.

If you are replicating armoured combat, then you should wear facsimile armour of the type worn in the combat you are recreating on a regular basis. While this may not be possible or even necessary all the time appropriate armour should be worn when possible and when training out of the armour, how the armour affects the movements and techniques must not be forgotten. In Japan a number of the oldest Bujutsu Ryu, regularly train their armoured combat techniques out of armour. In Europe it seems we see a similar situation in some of the manuals. The un-armoured half-swording and pollaxe techniques illustrated in Talhoffer for example, show what would generally be considered armoured fighting styles being practised in normal clothes. Fiore’s dagger plays are also illustrated with combatants in civilian clothes, a not uncommon situation when illustrating dagger. However text states that certain techniques would be better done in armour, while others work both in and out of armour.

What must be remembered is that when training for fighting against an armoured opponent the objective is to defeat or neutralise the armour worn. When attacking an armoured opponent one does not primarily attacked the armour. One has to learn to attack targets where there is less or no armour, or by making use of the opponents’ armour to help defeat them. The goal is to utilise and maximise the advantages offered by ones own armour, while reducing the advantages and to use and to do the opposite to your opponent.

Amongst those who favour sparing and freeplay as training methods, in the modern reconstruction of un-armoured historical combat, protective armour of some form is used as matter of course as a way to reduce the inherent risks. However many people who train in a more formal and structured way also use varying amounts of protective gear.

In this context the form protective armour takes and the function it really serves is an important consideration. In much the same way that a soldier needs to balance protection and mobility, a modern practitioner wearing protective gear needs to balance the desire to reduce injury with how that will affect ones mindset as well as the way the movements are carried out. Serious consideration should be made of what constitutes appropriate armour and when or if it should be used at all. It should be remembered that these effects on training would be both positive and negative, conscious and unconscious.

As mentioned above, for real combat the most vulnerable targets generally are armoured first. The same is seen in the protective equipment worn for unarmoured combat training. However this cause the problem, that by doing so, one has transformed unarmoured fighting in to armoured and this risks counter intuitive responses being conditioned in both attack and defence.

-Not getting hit and reducing the damage once you are
The rational of not getting hit at all, as opposed to reducing the damage once you are hit applies equally to training as it does to real combat. Arguably it is more important in training, as how you perform in reality will be dictated by how you have trained.

Two theories come in to play here Operant conditioning and Risk Compensation. By the rules of operant conditioning, learning takes place through positive and negative re-enforcement. In this context positive means that something is added and negative means something is taken away. As a basic illustration, a child learns that fire burns by touching the candle flame, it hurts and is unpleasant and positively re-enforces the parents warning not to stick ones hand in the flame. In terms of operant conditioning the gloves negatively reward me for getting hit by taking away the pain. In the terms of risk compensation the gloves make me feel safer which can encourage me to take greater risks.
The danger of this is that rather than training me to not get hit it is actually encouraging and rewards getting hit.

If not wearing armour one can not afford to be hit and one learns to deal with the opponents attacks by avoiding them through movement and/or by controlling them with your available tools, in this context being your offensive/defensive weapons.

By feeling exposed to the threat posed by your opponent an appreciation of why it is better to not get hit is encouraged stimulates the desire to perfect ways of not getting hit.

We should not forget that even if your armour does take the hit, the armour is not infallible and might fail. Energy can still be transferred through the armour into you, and damaging you anyway. The hit might disrupt or take your balance, which will already be affected by the armour. Or it may damage your armour, further reducing your mobility. All of which allows your opponent to keep attacking and hitting you and this will increase the likelihood of you taking more damage and in the long run, loosing.

-Increased safety increases risk taking
I mentioned above the theory of Risk Compensation. It stems originally from research in to road and traffic safety. Basically the theory states that in general people will take risks based upon their perception of danger or upon their perceived ability to deal with that danger. This has shown that the improvement in anti locking brakes and seat belts as has actually increased the risks that drivers take when driving and not improved road safety. It has also be found that where stretches of road have been made “safer” by improving visibility etc., that it has actually increased dangerous driving.

In a training context there is an important other side to the equation, the more protection my partner wears the less awareness of their danger I have. It can encourage poor control, “if i hit too hard or my targeting is a bit sloppy it doesn’t matter because my partners gloves etc. will take care of it”. Not only are we encouraging poor training for and application of the skill, we are also increasing the likelihood of having an accident.

Research found increasing numbers of cyclists wearing cycle helmets and other protective gear has not improved cyclist safety, partly because the cyclists take more risks because they feel safer but also because car drivers drive more aggressively around cyclists who wear protective gear.

A combative analogy is boxing. Here, hand and wrist injuries occur despite or arguably more often, because of hand and wrist strapping and the design, size and weight of boxing gloves which has lead to an altering of punching technique away from what is practical or effective with an un-gloved hand. This is also a reason why quite often when boxers get in to fights not wearing their gloves, they often do more damage to their hands than those who are less skilled. Bigger and heavier gloves is also the likeliest cause of brain damage in boxers, largely due to the fact that the gloves encourage hitting the head, while their weight and size turns hits into heavy concussive pushes rather than snappy punches.

-Awareness of danger increases safety
Understanding your own vulnerability and that of your opponent and by avoiding protective equipment you increase truer intuitive awareness, this ultimately increases safety in a far more sustainable way. However this requires a different approach to training, different parameters than training with protection does. Having more appreciation for the danger develops more control of your actions, position and distance. Your safety becomes your responsibility, not that of your armour.

-If you are worried about getting hit or have been, look at how you are training rather than adding more protection.
I have seen a tendency that people who fear getting hit or injured or who have been hit or injured in training jump to the decision to start wearing more protective gear. However it should be considered what may be wrong with the actual training methods employed or how and why certain techniques are carried out that could lead to the accident happening.

Misunderstood or poor training methods and/or poorly applied principles generally lie at the heart of almost all accidents. Adding protective gear does not address the core issue behind the accident, all it does is reduce the pain etc. once it has already gone wrong. If anything adding protective equipment, as we have seen with Risk Compensation, will actually increase the chances of accidents happening in the first place

However there may be times when wearing some protection is helpful. A strike delivered to target with force may help both attacker and receiver understand the dynamics of an action better. In such a case protection would be needed.
For example in some of the older Bujutsu use is made of padded protective gear to allow strikes to specific targets in certain kata. Others make use of armour and weapons similar to that used in modern Kendo so they can incorporate aspects of freeplay in their training. It should be noted however that this is by no means a universal practice. Though carried out by some classical Ryu, they are ones that trace their lineage to the peaceful period of the Tokugawa shogunate, many of the oldest Ryu make no use of protective equipment at all but rather rely on the physical aspects of training to minimise risk in training

-Conclusion
Armour and protection are by their nature designed to alter how those engaged in combat can operate. There are pros and cons to it use and combatants throughout the ages have taken these in to consideration.

If one decides to use training methods that require the use of armour and protection then one should take time to consider the implications of its use. The effects of the protection, Operant conditioning and Risk Compensation will have on what and how you train and in the long term how it will affect your ability to actually practice the skills you have been training. It may actually increase risk taking and therefore not improve safety. Protection can be used, but such use should be context specific and appropriate to the situation being trained.

None of this is to say that those organisations that wear protective equipment while training are wrong. Rather it covers some of the reasons why the Guild does not use protective equipment in regular training.

Always remember that the best way to avoid pain and injury is by not getting hit. One should achieve this either through movement, by dealing with the opponent’s attack with your own weapons or through a combination of both.

Jonathan

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, to and from the the Guild!
Here is to a Healthy and Happy 2011

Happy Yule

A very Happy Yule to everyone, Guild members or otherwise.
A little early I know but in case I don't do it tomorrow.
Jonathan

Book Review - Swords and Swordsmen

Swords and Swordsmen
Mike Loades
Pen & Sword Books, 2010
Illustrated, 469 pages.

This book traces the journey of the sword from ancient Egypt to the early 20th century. It is however, as much about the context of the weapons; the societies in which the swords developed and evolved.
It discusses the developing technologies that made changes in swords possible whilst sometimes also investigating the personalities of those who wielded them; whether it was the aristocratic warrior, the sword master or the common soldier.

I have known Mike for 37 years, when as young man he knocked at the door of our stables in Sussex. He asked to see my father and said that he wanted to do what he did. Since then his love of the subject has always been apparent, and I am glad to see that love at last transferred to the page. Mike tells the tale of the sword with his usual passion and enthusiasm.
Whilst he delivers facts, he also expresses his personal theories and insights based upon his own research both practical and academic.

Whether your interest is in history in general or in swords specifically, this book is a highly worthwhile read.

Jonathan

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

Those that can do those that can’t teach

For a long time I, like I believe many people, took this to mean that those that were good at doing something did just that, they got on and did it. Those that could not do it made their way by teaching it. It conveyed a sense that those that were teaching were in some way deficient in skill and/or knowledge.
Now of course there are people who claim to be teachers of various subjects who should not be teachers, who have neither real skill nor real ability to improve others. However there are many good teachers who themselves are not at the top the game in their chosen field.

Over time and the more I have taught and watched others teach and learn and read and researched, my opinion of this of old piece of advice has changed.

The skills of doing and teaching how to do are different things, they require different skill sets. Just because someone is a skilful martial artist for example, doesn’t mean they are going to be good teacher.

The obvious examples of the difference between those that do and teach are world class sportsmen/women and athletes. Their coaches generally are not world class in the activity themselves, though some are, far more often they have been good but not at the top level. However what they do excel at it is getting others to be the best.

The greatest reason for this is that when one reaches near peak performance of a skill, you become increasingly unaware of the precise details of what and how you are achieving it, this has ceased to be a cognitive thing and is happening on a deeper neurological level. The ability to analyse moves and actions and to put that understanding in to words or to help someone else will not be there. In fact that awareness is there while performing a task is there, it is actually likely to inhibit the highest level of performance.

A personal example is doing and teaching shoulder rolls, I have done…. Well so many I can’t think how to count them. I am not aware of all the details of what I do when I roll anymore. Sometimes when I am teaching rolls or for some reason I think about rolling while doing one, it does not work, it hurts a bit. I end up engaging mentally in the process, or re-investment as it is know in sports training, more than I should, the result, it doesn’t work as it should.

How one does something at a high level may be markedly different from the way one does it while learning, so doing as a master does it may not actually be the best way to do it a lower levels of proficiency. It certainly may not be where you need to be on the journey of acquiring skills. It could in fact be counter-productive to properly acquiring the skill. So another part of being a good teacher is seeing where the student is and ensuring that they are doing things appropriate to their level. This is something that the master practitioner may not be able to do.

Also at some point you have to stop teaching, they have to get on with it and gain understanding through their own experience. Really calling someone a Teacher is a misnomer, a better word is Guide. Teaching implies that you are giving them something that they do not already have or that they can’t get without the Teacher. When really you are guiding them to let the kill out, to get them to find it in themselves.
Going back to learning how to roll, once I have shown you what to do, and watched you do some and given advice on those, the next phase lies in you doing it and gaining experience and understanding from that. If it hurt, felt rough and disorganised, then you didn’t do it well. No pain, felt smooth, then you did it well. Of course the value of the guide is that they can see what you did and can observe the things that are off, using their own experience, to help frame your experience. However I can tell you all day long what is wrong or right, but until you can feel the difference and act on it yourself it won’t really mean anything to you.

Often the skill of the teacher is not what they say, but what they don’t say. Someone does not necessarily need to do all the things that were wrong just the one or two key points. The student doesn’t need to know everything that you know they need the one or two things that will help them now. What is important is where they are on their journey now, not where you are on yours.

So if you want to judge a teacher, do not necessarily look at how good they are with the skill, look at how good their students are, and if you really want to judge how good a teacher they are, don’t look at the best students. Look at the average in that group. Its easy to teach people who have lots of ability, but only a good teacher can really raise the levels of everyone. Also don’t judge the teacher on how much they talk, or how much information they can regurgitate, but how simply they pass the appropriate information on to the students.

Perhaps the old saying should be changed to
Those that can, do.
Those that can teach, teach.

Jonathan