Where tradition meets reality

This post is inspired by a few things.  One is my recent introduction to a qualified instructor in traditional martial arts, Jiu Jitsu, Karate, sword and weapons. Another is my last post about understanding the traditional arts and another is from the comments left on that post.

Sue's comment on getting back to the 'roots' of Karate and Michele's comment on concepts of movement and Brett's on the intent of technique all got my brain working.

Now, all martial arts are based on traditional martial arts, in one way or another. It's your definition of what 'traditional' means that can have such as effect on whether or not you think traditional systems are superior to reality based systems or even mixed martial arts.

My definition of what traditional means is that they are based on true combat. The techniques were forged on the battlefield.  They were tried and true.  If they worked, they were passed on.  If they didn't, well, they weren't.  And you weren't there to do so.

They were also flexible and adaptable.  Although there is usually a syllabus to follow in a traditional martial arts school, the arts themselves were never stagnant.  They changed as the world changed around them.  They were, in essence, reality based systems as well.  

So traditional martial arts are (were?) reality based systems and reality based systems were (are?) based on traditional systems.  Hmmm...

Having these discussions can sometimes turn into a bit of a loop.  And that's good. Style to style, system to system, art to art, there's really not as much of a divide as some might think.

In many ways, we're all studying the same thing.

The human body only moves in certain ways.  There are not real 'new' kicks under the sun, no secret joint is as yet undiscovered that can be exploited.  The body is the body.  It's how you approach combat, self defense and fighting that separates us.

The issues and subsequent debates over one style or system being superior to another come not from the arts themselves, but from the people passing them down and their understanding of the 'roots' or core concepts of the art.  It is also very much in the intent of the student and the teacher.  No one can become proficient and be able to apply their art in a real violent encounter if they haven't prepared themselves mentally for the challenge.  

Rules, while good for competition and safety, can get in the way of being able to protect yourself during a real attack if you've never turned your head to fighting without them.  

You fight as you train.  And much of your training occurs inside yourself, not on the mats.

The title of my blog includes the line:

"The study of Japanese Jiu Jitsu as a reality based martial art"

This means more to me every day.

Thanks for reading.

Traditional Martial Arts

Not long ago, I received some impressive training at a seminar that my Sensei and I attended.  I’ve reflected a lot on what I saw and did that day.  It was like watching my Sensei for the first time, all those years ago.  I was blown away. 

The Sensei putting on the seminar is an expert in several traditional Japanese systems, including weapons.

The observations I made are fodder for many posts.  Below I’ll list some of the main points I took away.  Then, in this and future posts, I’ll delve into them a little deeper.

So, here goes:

1.  Traditional systems are nasty.  Most were designed to  cripple or kill  armed attackers. 

2.  Traditional systems often employ the same movements or concepts to armed and open hand techniques.

3.  Traditional systems tend to have far more committed attack/defense movements than many modern-day, or sport based systems.

I’ve made mention of this before, but traditional systems were bred and tested on the battlefield.  Many times in life or death battles.  Often against armed or armoured opponents.  At its simplest, if it didn’t work, you were dead.  

Techniques that were passed down worked, period.  Battle tested is something far more difficult to accomplish nowadays.

If you’re pursuing a traditional art, it’s important to find someone that understands the original technique fully.  This is key.  We adapt deadly techniques so they’re safe enough to practice, which is absolutely necessary, of course.  Once you’ve learned how to do them (or before), you need to understand what modifications have been made.  You need to know how they’ve been ‘watered down’.

One of the statements that struck a chord with me was when the instructor was talking about how throws aren’t really throws.  

Huh?

It means that the throws we practice in the dojo are done as a method of allowing your partner to exit a technique safely and in one piece.  Most traditional techniques don’t allow the opponent an ‘out’.  This isn’t to suggest someone isn’t going to be accelerated into the ground, but it does mean, at its core, that you have made a choice to allow your training partner to avoid injury.  Done traditionally, there’s no thought to ‘releasing’ your opponent. 

It is this ‘watering down’ effect that can have long term ramifications in the quality and effectiveness of the martial arts.  This is why it’s crucial to find someone that understands the original art.  As techniques get passed down from person to person, the original intent and technique is often lost, leaving only the ‘safer’ version.

This also isn’t to suggest that these safe versions can’t be effective for self-defense.  They can still work.  The concern lies in the scenario when you truly have to fight for your life and you may only get one chance.  Allowing a person to roll out could then be a fatal error.

Traditional systems are also good at identifying tried and true targets on the body.  The areas that are targeted are vulnerable, even in armour.  There’s not many, “this might work” stuff thrown in.  Joints, eyes, groin (in some cases), throat are all targets.  They can’t defend themselves.  And they take very little muscle to injure.

Traditional techniques are by their nature, far more committed.  Not a lot of ‘feeling out’ occurred in feudal times.  Your attacker was committed and so were you.  This is in stark contrast to the MMA sport competition style. 

Many contain deeper stances for power generation at the time of the attack.  I’m back and forth on mobility vs. power generation, but when you look at sword or traditional weapons training, the attacks are fully committed, powerful techniques.

Speaking of weapons, traditional systems often have what I’ll call ‘cross-over’ techniques.  Meaning that most techniques can be performed armed or empty handed.  I’m a big believer in this.  Train a concept or pattern of movement, not separate systems within a system for armed and unarmed work.  There are some exceptions of course.

Any modern day system is built upon a traditional system.  Martial arts need to continue to evolve and adapt to the realities of the environment around us.  We are not in feudal times, so many self defense techniques are, and should, be altered to fit the world around us.  This is a good thing, and essential to responsibly use force and react to some forms of lower level violence. 

When you lose sight or understanding of the original technique, however, you reduce your available options in a real violent encounter.  If in practice, you don’t really understand the underlying, or original technique, and you just sort of go with it with your partner, that’s all you’ll have available when you need to defend yourself.  

Understanding the original, traditional, or core techniques allows you to ramp up your response, if needed.  Understanding the origins can give you an edge in combat.

Train well.

TMA versus MMA and being a good uke

I imagine the debate between what is better, traditional martial arts or mixed martial arts, of for that matter, reality based martial arts.  
Of course, there is no real clear cut answers.  Each have strengths and weaknesses.  I suspect there really isn't as much of a gap between the arts.  The quality of the teacher and the mindset of the student are the most important elements.


To touch on the TMA vs. MMA debate:

One argument in favor of MMA is that there are resisting opponents.  The lack of uncooperative training partners is often this is cited as one of the main failing in some traditional systems.  And I agree, it is...to a point.

The cooperative partner is a problem, yes. Operating under the illusion that your opponent will be compliant is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.  

This is why the effective use of distraction, or softening techniques, and a corresponding understanding of the body's reaction to pain is essential to practice realistically.  If this is not covered then MMA is probably a good idea because at least you've experienced some form of a struggle or a fight (albeit with a low chance of injury, it has rules after all).

In my opinion, if you understand action and reaction, then non 'rules based' traditional systems are superior.   It's just harder to judge the outcome for those who have never used any of the techniques in a real environment or in real confrontations.

Having said that, one of the biggest challenges in TMA is how to train realistically. After all, how can you practice an elbow joint lock and break against a resisting partner?  Overcoming the resistance ends with a broken elbow.

That why learning and practicing to be a good uke is so important.  


The use of a responsible amount of force in the softening techniques will illicit at least a moderate realistic physical response, allowing you and your partner to learn to react appropriately to the application of a technique.  

Mix it up so the uke doesn't know where you'll hit, pinch, kick, or slap next.  This will give a reasonably accurate marker of the natural pain and shock response.

If you don't study how a resisting partner will react to pain, distraction, techniques and follow up, you're really only studying half of what you need to know.

MMA has a lot going for it.  Working with a resistant partners is sometimes overlooked in TMA circles.  MMA is also very demanding and great for fitness, timing and sport fighting.  It's also very entertaining.  Hey, I'm a fan who watches the events.  


For those who don't have access to teachers who understand the body, pain, action and reaction, adrenaline and stress, MMA may be the better choice.  After all, you get a peek at all these areas, all the time.  


The bottom line though, is that MMA is too geared towards the safety of the participants to be deemed a truly effective system for actual street combat.  TMA is superior to MMA for effectively responding to real violence, but only if the teacher and student understand the cause and effect of the techniques being learned.

Traditional Martial Arts (TMA) vs. Mixed Martial Arts (MMA)

I'll have lots more on this topic in the future, but I came across an interesting comment made on another blog by a fella by the name of Ed ( I have no other details)

"We are not talking about "TMAs v. MMAs" here. What we are talking about is separating the "Sports" or "Hobbies" from the path of warriorship. A warrior wears no label. He honestly inventories his surroundings and threats and compares them to the tools he already possesses. If his arsenal contains an effective response, great, he works to perfect the employment of that tool. If it does not, he MUST (because he is a warrior, not a student of a specific style) seek out an answer to the problem. If that search crosses the TMA/MMA border in either direction, so be it."


I could not agree more.  For all the arguing and discussion out there, it really all just boils down to finding what works, for you.


To whoever Ed is, thanks for the insight.

A couple of interesting topics and posts

As the sport of MMA keeps growing, more and more people are training 'UFC' style.  You are now far more likely to face a person on the street who wants to shoot in and take you down for some ground and pound.  This was extremely rare in the past but is becoming much more common.

Mixed martial artists are talented athletes and plenty of them are tough as nails.  Without getting into the debate of mixed martial arts vs. traditional vs. reality based systems, the main limitation of MMA for street fighting is the rules.

MMA athletes train with rules.  You fight as you train.

Knowing this, to prepare myself for the increased likelihood of facing an MMA trained individual in the real world, I have a couple of options.  I could cross train for several years in MMA, learning to fight within a ruleset, or, I can train in all the things that are against the rules.

This is not a discussion on being able to adapt MMA to the street, but it is food for thought on an approach to training that deals with the realities around us.

J.C. has an interesting related post on this topic.  Check it out at Bujutsu: The Path.

On an unrelated topic, my last post discussed some lessons learned or re-affirmed when some new students visited our dojo.  My original post is here.

Sue C over at My Journey to Black Belt left a comment on my blog.  I discovered a post of hers entitled Honouring technique.  It touched on several of the areas I discussed in my last post and some I discussed in an earlier post here.

You can find Sue's post here.  A worthwhile read.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu vs. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

JJJ vs. BJJ

Type in a search on google for Jiu Jitsu and the majority of hits will come back for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Much of this is due to the popularity of the UFC and the Gracie family of Jiu Jitsu. The Gracies were intimately involved in the birth and evolution of mixed martial arts as a mainstream sporting event.

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu burst into the scene in the early nineties. Royce Gracie beat everyone he came up against, forcing martial artists to re-examine their training and the martial arts they studied. This was a good thing. Now ground fighting is at least a component of most martial arts styles.

For some time, BJJ was touted as being the ultimate martial art, essentially unbeatable. We now know that it has its flaws, or perhaps more accurately, its strengths and weaknesses.

In combat, deliberately going to the ground can be extremely dangerous. Without rules, rings, time limits and referees, choosing to fight on the ground is foolhardy.

I have read that 80, 85, 90 or 95% of fights end up on the ground. Those are pretty alarming statistics. You know what they say about stats? There are lies, dirty lies and statistics. You can pretty much find statistics to support any position you take, positive or negative.

Where are these numbers taken from? What is classified as a fight? You need to know this information to make any sort of conclusion.

The majority of these stats are taken from security, law enforcement and the military. After all, what other groups actually record altercations? Knowing this, does a fight going to the ground mean both combatants go to the ground? In policing, when there is a struggle or fight, officers are trained to take the person to the ground in order to control them and handcuff them safely. The officer isn't fighting on the ground, but the bad guy (or girl) ends up there. In this case, would this be one of the stats saying that the fight went to the ground? That could be quite misleading. If you perform a throwing technique, is this now classified as a fight that went to the ground? A wrist throw, a trip, a choke? As with so many things, it's important to source information. If 95% of fights happened on the ground, there wouldn't be the need for other martial arts.

I train not to go to the ground. If I'm taken down, I train to get back up as quickly as possible. If I can't get up quickly, then I fight on the ground. I never choose to fight on the ground but I realize the necessity to learning how to if I find myself there. It is because of this that I believe we all owe a debt to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It has made martial artists more complete.

Many people outside of or new to the martial arts don't realize that there is a far older form of Jiu Jitsu out there, one that stemmed from feudal Japan.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu goes back generations. While BJJ is essentially a new style, JJJ has lived and evolved for hundreds of years.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu is what I consider to be a complete martial art. It has weapons training, long range fighting, close quarter combat and ground fighting. Always has. It focuses on all ranges of combat. It takes longer to learn than some other styles, but in the end, it churns out more complete fighters, comfortable in all ranges.

Now I'm the first to admit that someone who trains exclusively in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would have the edge in ground fighting. After all, it's their speciality. I'll also admit I wouldn't want to trade punches with an experienced boxer. What I do have is options. This is a strength of Japanese Jiu Jitsu. It teaches you to adapt to your opponents.

JJJ continues to evolve. It changes with the times. It's rooted in time tested techniques that kept people alive in the battlefield and when confronted with armed opponents. It's flexible and adapts to changing circumstances and environments.

All martial arts are good. As mentioned in a previous post, the best martial art is the one you like to study. I have the utmost respect for different martial arts and martial artists. I have seen fierce and dangerous warriors in dozens of different styles.

It's important to note that no martial is limited to only one area of study. BJJ players don't only train on the ground. Tae Kwon Do practitioners don't only kick. Judo folks don't just throw etc.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu is sometimes referred to as traditional Jiu Jitsu, stand up Jiu Jitsu, small circle Jiu Jitsu, or just Jiu Jitsu. While JJJ and BJJ share many techniques, there are significant differences between the styles. It is important to know this when considering studying either one.

I study JJJ as a reality based martial art. If reality is what you're training for, make sure the style you take focuses on real combat. If you're training for the ring, you may find yourself in a rough spot if you find yourself on the street.

Ask questions, research and learn. Above all, enjoy your training.

UFC thoughts - Spoiler alert UFC 111

I have many opinions on the UFC and mixed martial arts. I think they are the best and worst thing to happen to the martial arts. Having said that, I am, and have always been, a fan. I have watched since the beginning, when there were no time limits, no weight limits and very few rules to speak of. It's come a long way since the early 90's and is a fantastic sport today. In my mind, it is just that, a sport. This is its strength and its weakness. But it is entertaining...

Like many topics, there will later be a longer discussion on the pros and cons of mixed martial arts. For now, I will discuss two fights I watched from UFC 111. St-Pierre vs. Hardy and Mir vs. Carwin.

I missed the event but managed to see both these fights on the internet.

St-Pierre dominated Hardy. I have to say I was very impressed with how well St-Pierre had prepared and fought. He outclassed Hardy, shutting him down at every turn. I felt bad for Hardy, who just wanted to fight but couldn't mount any offense against St-Pierre. Hardy can take a hit, but that's all he could prove that night. St-Pierre was technically superb the whole fight. The fight was great, but it sure was a snoozer. I appreciate how well it was fought but it was boring to watch.

How about Mir vs. Carwin?

I find Frank Mir fascinating. He came out looking fantastic. He's put on muscle and looked tight. I've always felt there are two Frank Mirs. One is nearly unstoppable, technically sound and a force to be reckoned with. The other is some sort of a punching bag. Sadly, he resembled the latter in UFC 111. It seems to me he was not prepared or didn't take Carwin as seriously as he should have. The road back to Brock must be distracting. Maybe Mir only saw Carwin as a bump on the road, but clearly Carwin was prepared to fight it out. Well done Carwin. Your chance against Brock? I don't know.

My prediction? (and you heard it here first). Roy (big country) Nelson takes Brock down. There's just something about a guy who's not that into the elite athlete aspect of UFC and just wants to fight that's appealing. Time will tell.