Discussion On My Dojo List

[Dale Seago]

Yesterday an instructor who's on my dojo list posted links to an article by a Canadian (Victoria, B.C.) police sergeant named Darren Laur, and to some video clips on his site.

The article: http://www.realfighting.com/0702/laurart.html

The clips: http://www.personalprotectionsystems.ca/multimedia.htm

Both are well worth your while to check out.

Anyhow, I was moved to comment on the article from the perspective of Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu training, and I thought I'd share that here as well in case anyone might find it interesting to ponder and discuss further:

Darren Laur is a great guy, and I like him a lot. One weekend when I was up in Canada doing a seminar for Robert Pfuetzenreuter’s dojo in Victoria, B.C., Robert brought Darren in Saturday evening to present a session on pre-attack indicators (and an understanding of them as legal justification for use of preemptive force). Lots of video clips to illustrate his points, really superb class.

This article is excellent, but I do have a nit to pick with one little bit:

For any skill taught, there must always be a plan "B" abort strategy conditioned as well. We must not be teaching multiple defenses (responses) to a specific type of attack (stimulus). The reason for this, HICKS LAW!

Hicks Law basically states the following: the average reaction time given one stimulus one response is about ½ second. If we now teach a student a second technique (response) to the same attack (stimulus) we WILL increase a person's reaction time by 58%. On the street we want to DECREASE reaction time, not increase it. If we teach multiple defenses to one specific attack, the brain will take time deciding which option to use. This increased reaction time could mean the difference between life and death.

If this were so, then sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not be possible. Certainly, the spontaneous flow in this little video clip (http://www.bujinkansf.org/seago.mpg) would not be possible.

Combatives instructor Hock Hochheim addresses this issue pretty ably in this article: http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm. He goes into much more specific detail, but this gets his point across pretty well:

It was about 25 years ago when I attended a police defensive tactics course and was rather insulted by the attitude of the instructor. We were treated like Neanderthals. He declared, ‘Hick’s Law says that it takes your mind too long to choose between two tactics. Worse with three! Therefore, I will show you one response.’

. . .Later that evening while coaching my son’s little league baseball team, I saw this very instructor coaching his team on another ball field. He was teaching ten year-olds to multi-task and make split-second decisions as his infielders, working double plays with runners on base. It was clear the coach expected more from these kids than he did from we adult cops that morning. Hick’s Law was not to be found on that kid's diamond.

Darren also, along with most if not all “modern combatives” instructors, believes:

Training for combat must be gross motor based, why? Because we know that during combat, SSR will negatively effect fine/complex motor skill performance no matter how well trained an individual.

On the surface, this would *seem* to imply that much of what we train to do, and what Hatsumi sensei does (and no, I’m not saying they are the same!), would never work in actual combat; yet I don’t really have a problem with his statement.

There are two parts to it. Let’s take this first: “Training for combat must be gross motor based. . .” Well, guess what? Ours IS gross motor based. At the most fundamental level, we use the whole body as a unit – most importantly the legs, but the abdominal and back muscles as well. Large-muscle groups. So we’re in good shape as far as that part goes.

Now, the second part: “. . .during combat, SSR will negatively effect fine/complex motor skill performance no matter how well trained an individual.“

I can accept that; Survival Stress Reaction *will* do that. Personally, I feel that what Darren describes as stimulus/response training is really asking for problems and is likely to *create* SSR. And unfortunately, many people hold the mistaken belief that that is how we train – even many of those who are training! Here's his description:

Person throws a right hooking punch which is seen and detected by the visual system

Visual system downloads this stimulus to the thalamus that sorts it and send it to the visual cortex of the brain

Visual cortex using the OODA loop, observes the stimulus, organizes it (right hooking punch), makes a decision as to how to deal with stimulus and then downloads the response to the amygdala

Amygdala then creates emotion and action through the body and the punch is blocked.

Umm. . .Nope. Sorry. Not even. And if you’re training that way, I feel you’re seriously missing the boat. That’s how you end up being one of those officers in Darren’s study who didn’t realize he was being attacked with a knife. Oh, certainly, we deal with waza and kata and specific responses to specific attacks, and it’s both appropriate and necessary to do this to teach your body effective ways of moving. But on the most fundamental level you shouldn’t be responding to a punch, kick, grab, stab, etc. – you should be perceiving and responding to the changing shape of the space between yourself and the other person and getting off the line(s) of force his movement represents, without contesting. It should be exactly the same, and feel exactly the same, whether that movement vector is connected with an intentional attack or not.

If you’re walking along the sidewalk and see a piece of construction scaffolding break loose and begin to fall, you don’t contest the right of way with it – you get out of the way. If you’re crossing the street and a car comes around the corner and doesn’t stop because the driver doesn’t see you, you don’t contest the space with the vehicle: You get out of the way, and NOT by moving along the same line of force (if you do move along it, the car will just hit you a little later). If a passerby on the sidewalk suddenly stumbles and lurches toward you, you get off that line of movement. This last one could have been an intentional surprise attack. . .but you don’t know that, and your response is the same either way. You get bumped, slammed, or struck from behind: You move with that pressure and let yourself drift offline. That one might also be an attack, or it might not; it might be a person, or it might be an inanimate object – no difference either way. Once you’re off that line and moving in “safe-shaped space”, you can see and feel what else you should be doing. None of these are things which should be causing any particular emotional stress while they are occurring. Same with an attack. You’re only going to get “emotional” if you’re allowing yourself to be engaged and trapped by a “connection” with the person or his weapon rather than dealing with vectors of force and the shape of the space.

Anyone have any thoughts about this?

-- Dale

 

[Floating Egg]

Please excuse my ignorance, as I was under the impression that Survival Stress Reaction could be controled. Unless I misread something, Darren Laur's perspective seems to be that it can't (parasympathetic nervous system).

I seem to recall a chapter in Destructive Emotions by Daniel Goleman which concerned itself with a European turned Buddhist that was being studied with an EEG. It was found that he was able to significantly lower his startle reflex despite a variety of attempts to disrupt his concentration. For a historical perspective, I also remember reading an article about Buddhists remaining calm while engaging in certain concentration heavy tasks despite the presence of live gun fire.

These points are hardly worth mentioning in the context of the scientific research by Siddle and Breedlove, but I'm just a little bit skeptical, especially when there may be other avenues worth exploring.

 

[Dale Seago]

Please excuse my ignorance, as I was under the impression that Survival Stress Reaction could be controled. Unless I misread something, Darren Laur's perspective seems to be that it can't (parasympathetic nervous system).

That does seem to be his perspective. What I'm getting at is that, through proper training, it can in most situations be avoided or "preempted" through training in the correct way. If you've already "got it", it's very likely too late to control it.

I think you and I are essentially "on the same page" here.

 

[Floating Egg]

I suppose the next question would relate to the effectiveness of the Dojo atmosphere for combating the potential effects of SSR. Having sparred in a full contact atmosphere with previous Martial Arts, I still find myself succeptable to SSR in a non-training environment.

This is one of my pet peeves regarding the relatively recent wave of specific "combat systems" which primarily seem to prepare students for mixed martial art competitions. The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Is it the philosophy behind Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu that makes preparation more effective than other "styles" or is it a randomly generated element supported by an instructor that has specific skills outside of his martial background? For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

 

[Dale Seago]

I suppose the next question would relate to the effectiveness of the Dojo atmosphere for combating the potential effects of SSR. Having sparred in a full contact atmosphere with previous Martial Arts, I still find myself succeptable to SSR in a non-training environment.

This is one of my pet peeves regarding the relatively recent wave of specific "combat systems" which primarily seem to prepare students for mixed martial art competitions. The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Is it the philosophy behind Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu that makes preparation more effective than other "styles" or is it a randomly generated element supported by an instructor that has specific skills outside of his martial background? For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

That raises a number of interesting points.

Before I got into "The Booj" a bit over 20 years ago, I spent about 15 years in a variety of martial arts where competition or "sparring" was the norm. At the point where I began Bujinkan training, I knew I could fight well if I had to, knew I could handle getting hit or kicked pretty hard and work on through it, etc. . . .But I also felt no confidence about my ability to control a potentially or actually violent encounter, or to physically respond without massive "overkill". I think that sort of uncertainty, this sense of having to make difficult choices in a short time about what to do, can contribute to SSR.

With the typical MA training approach, you may have a sort of certainty about your general level of ability/skill, but still feel that each encounter is still highly uncertain in outcome -- thus raising the anxiety threshold.

With BBT, everything seems to be constantly uncertain, nothing is "fixed". I still have no clue what I'd do in any given encounter -- but I've gotten used to that feeling from training, where I don't know what I'm doing most of the time anway! -- so I don't worry about it. I can feel confident that I'll do something and not freeze up, and that it has a strong likelihood of being effective.

In that sense, yes, I feel the philosophy behind BBT training is probably highly significant -- provided we're talking about the same thing. :wink1: What do you mean by it yourself?

The danger, I think, is the belief that mixed martial art competitions somehow effectively mimick a self-protection situation outside of the ring or octagon.

Perhaps; I'll at least agree with you that they're not the same. About all they have in common is that both involve the need to effectively respond to physical aggression.

For example, my Sensei is ex-special forces, which seems to indicate a particular perspective that may be aplified or complemented by his training in the Bujinkan.

Certainly one's life experiences will to some extent shape the way one teaches (as well as the way one learns); but so will one's culture and one's social circumstances. Someone with your instructor's experiences (or mine, which are comparable in some ways) might be one of the best people around for communicating "the feeling" and ability necessary to effectively deal with real life-protection situations, yet not have especially "stellar" movement. Someone else might be really superb at helping you refine the most subtle nuances to enable you to generate the maximum possible results with absolutely minimal force, yet not be able to fight his way out of a paper bag. (Still others might be able to do either, but be hopelessly inept at communicating such things to others as a teacher!) Practitioners in some countries might, on a mass/statistical basis, approach the art from the standpoint of needing it for survival due to threats of invasion, ongoing terrorism, civil war, etc; while those in some other country may approach their training more as recreation or playing "tactical games".

 

[Floating Egg]

I guess one of the things that concerns me about the Martial Art world in general is the distinction between fighting and self-protection. It seems to me that any Martial Art has the potential to be effective for self-protection, but all too often I find the line blurring between self-protection and fighting (not combat). I don't feel that it should be this way as I see them as two entirely different approaches to training.

This certainty that you refer to regarding general level of ability is of great concern to me because I often wonder if this is an instance where there is some fuzziness. Perhaps with typical MA training today, the confidence that you're referring to is more closely related to fighting than self-protection.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you refer to the uncertainty of BBT. This, I don't think, is exclusive to the environment we train in, but I do feel that it is distinct somehow when approaching what we do from a philosophical standpoint.


It's almost as if uncertainty is a philosophy in and of itself, and that it should somehow be embraced, not only in the physical, but in day to day struggles as well. When one realizes this, as you seem to have done, this leaves the practitioner with very few choices. The road that most rational people choose to take is one of perseverance. To me this is different at its core than anything else out there, which is why I suppose I felt at home the first time I walked into my Sensei's dojo.


While I think our perspective is complementary in this regard, there is a difference. As your profile states, you are at Nosebleed Level. I am very much a beginner, so while I think I grasp the esoteric elements of the Bujinkan on at least some level, I do not share your confidence that I won't freeze up. There just isn't enough of a foundation yet for me to know myself well enough. For example, upon entering the Bujinkan I discovered, rather alarmingly, that all of my previous skills within the Martial Art world seemed suddenly lacking. This was one of those eye opening events that changed how I viewed the world and my place in it.


Regarding your last paragraph, I think I've come to see my training as a path to making me a better person. I don't think this is too lofty a goal as there have already been radical changes in the way I approach things. One of my insecurities floats around the idea that this may not meld with the other world views present in the Bujinkan. It should, I suppose, but when one's focus is colored by a life’s experiences (like yours and my Sensei's), I often wonder if something is lost in the translation depending on the outlook of the student.


While I think that teaching is a very honorable profession, I also recognize that it is dangerous in some ways, especially when dealing with widely different perspectives among students. Despite all attempts by a teacher to communicate effectively, the student will take that information and remake it in some manner. I’m not sure if this distressing for a teacher or if it’s just accepted as part of the process. I’m not referring to anything too dramatic, but when you have a teacher that has dedicated himself to something such as the military or a profession which presents any number of dangers there is a dynamic there that is very difficult to grasp for someone that has not followed the same path.


I think I ramble, but I’ve learned something from this discussion already. Thank you!

 

[LARS]

Dale:


First off, good to interact with you again !!!!!, a student of mine was surfing and found this thread

You stated:

“If this were so, then sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not be possible. Certainly, the spontaneous flow in this little video clip (http://www.bujinkansf.org/seago.mpg) would not be possible.”


The difference here is the triggering of the amygdala through the fear response. I would argue that playing sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not trigger the amygdala in the same way as a street confrontation where the risk of serious injury or even death are a true reality. It is because of this scientific fact, that the brain can and will function in a “high road” fashion thus allowing cognitive flow if the amygdala is not triggered. The video link you provided demonstrates this perfectly (closed environment)


You stated:

“Combatives instructor Hock Hochheim addresses this issue pretty ably in this article: http://www.hockscqc.com/articles/hickslaw.htm. He goes into much more specific detail, but this gets his point across pretty well:”


Again, if Hock was correct, then how do you explain the following:


FROM MY UPDATED ARTICLE ON THE ANATOMY OF FEAR

http://www.personalprotectionsystem...w It Relates To Survival Skills Training2.doc


Knowing that the brain has a dual pathway to deal with what I like to call progressive and spontaneous fear stimuli, Dr. LeDoux has stated, “there are problems associated with the double wiring between the higher cortex and the amygdala. Unfortunately the neural connections from the cortex down to the amygdala are less well developed than are connections from the amygdala back up to the cortex. Thus, the amygdala exerts a greater influence on the cortex than vice versa. Once an emotion has been turned on, it is difficult to exert conscious control over it at will.” What this means to me is that in an unexpected spontaneous attack, if you are training motor skills that are not congruent with what the amygdala will cause the body to do, more specifically the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation” no matter how well trained the response, it will be overridden. But many in the combatives field believe that we can make a trained response the dominant response through repetition and training using stimulus/response training methods. In a “high road” scenario this will work given SSR issues and Hick’s law, but in a “low road” scenario, the answer will only be “yes” as long as the motor skill taught is congruent with the automatic protective reflex the amygdala will cause the body to take.

To demonstrate the importance of this “congruency” issue, an empirical study that examined 98 shooting scenarios that were either spontaneous or non-spontaneous in nature, firearms instructor, Westmorland (1989), compared two shooting styles/systems (Weaver and Isosceles) to see which one was more suitable during times of what Westmorland called “Combat Stress.” In this study, Westmorland utilized dynamic scenarios based training with dye marking rounds. It should be noted that the majority of the officers involved in this study were “Weaver” practitioners. The results of the study:

Spontaneous under 10 feet: 39 total scenarios

96.7 % Isosceles (29 events)

3.3% Weaver (1 event)

62.1% one-handed stance (18 events)

23.1% failed to respond (9 events)

Spontaneous over 10 feet: 27 total scenarios

92.6% Isosceles (25 events)

7.4% Weaver (2 events)

14.8% One-handed stance (4 events)

Non-spontaneous under 10 feet: 27 total scenarios

74.1% Isosceles (20 events)

25.9% Weaver (7 events)
Non-spontaneous over 10 feet: 5 total scenarios:

60.0% Isosceles (3 events)

40.0 Weaver (2 events)

Westmoreland study results:

56.1% two-handed Isosceles stance (55 events)

12.2% one-handed stance (12 events)

22.5% two-handed Weaver Stance (22 events)

9.2% officer failed to respond


Westmoreland’s study created quite the debate in the Weaver vs. Isosceles shooting camps, and stood alone until 1997 when a respected firearms instructor by the name of Bill Burroughs (former assistant Director of the Sigarms Training Academy) conducted a similar study. In Burroughs study, he asked two very important questions:

· “What does the average trained officer resort to when faced with a simulated and spontaneous life threatening assault” and;

· “How does this response compare to the officer’s previously trained shooting stance.”

Burroughs empirical research study involved 157 officers:

· 47% were Weaver trained shooters
· 17% were Isosceles trained shooters
· 32% stated that they used a “natural” stance

In Burroughs study, all 157 officers were placed into 188 life threatening dynamic training scenarios, which utilized Simunition technology. When Burroughs reviewed the findings of his research, he found what once officers were placed into a dynamic/spontaneous-shooting situation, the above noted percentages changed dramatically:

· 59% of the 157 officers adopted an Isosceles stance
· 19% of the 157 officers adopted a Weaver stance
· 7% of the 157 officers adopted a “natural” stance
· The rest did not respond at all.

Another very interesting observation that Burroughs made during his research was that those officers who adopted a Weaver stance had the “opportunity” to “pre-select” their stance before the scenario became critical.

The above two studies (Westmoreland and Burroughs) were further tested by Steve Barron and Clyde Beasly of Hocking College in Ohio. Both of these instructors are firearms managers for the regional police academy. Hocking College was teaching “Weaver” shooting techniques to recruits, but when these same recruits were moved from static range training to dynamic force on force simulation training using Simunition cartridges, they noted consistently that the taught Weaver stance was not being used. Instead, they observed that these same recruits would adopt a two handed Isosceles shooting platform.

Many of the experts in the field of Sport Psychology and Motor Performance do not find the above noted research all that surprising. In fact, Robert Weinberg (PhD), a well known and highly respected sports psychologist, stated (after reviewing Westmoreland’s study), “One principal which seems appropriate is that individuals usually return to their preferred or instinctual mode of behavior especially under stress. When put into a
stressful situation, it is instinctual to face your opposition (Isosceles) rather than turn to the side (Weaver).”

The purpose of the above noted studies is not to get into the debate between Weaver and Isosceles shooters, but rather to demonstrate the fact that if a trained response is not “congruent” with what neuroscientists have called the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation”, it will be over ridden.


I respect Hock and his training background, but if his thought process was correct, then why didn’t the WEAVER shooters adopt a WEAVER stance as trained ????? Answer, they were not congruent with somatic reflex Potentiation caused by the triggering of the amygdala.


Hick’s Law, for those of us who teach and really understand Combatives, is specific to the issue of amygdala triggering during SSR !!!!!!!


When Hock stated:

“. . .Later that evening while coaching my son’s little league baseball team, I saw this very instructor coaching his team on another ball field. He was teaching ten year-olds to multi-task and make split-second decisions as his infielders, working double plays with runners on base. It was clear the coach expected more from these kids than he did from we adult cops that morning. Hick’s Law was not to be found on that kid's diamond.”

IMO this has nothing to do with how and why I teach Hick’s Law. This is totally out of combatives context. I would agree with Hock’s statement due to the fact that the ten year olds were not in SSR due to a clear and present threat to life, but rather in a “high road” event where “cognitive” multi-tasking are very possible !!!!!!


You stated:

“I can accept that; Survival Stress Reaction *will* do that. Personally, I feel that what Darren describes as stimulus/response training is really asking for problems and is likely to *create* SSR.”


I must disagree with you on this point. This is one reason why in firearms training when you have a stoppage (stimulus) we teach one response to fix the problem (Tap, rack, ready). If this does not fix the problem, then officers are immediately taught to abort to a plan “b” strategy (rip, work, tap, rack, ready). The reason why this works so well is because when multi-responses are taught to fix a specific problem (as was done in the past) officers were dying due to the fact that high road brain functions that would allow an officer to cognitively multi task to pick one of several fixes to a problem were over ridden. (again this is why Hick’s Law is so important in the context specific to the issue of amygdala triggering during SSR !!!!!!!)



Can SSR be minimized… YES…. especially through realistic training

Can “cognitive” multi tasking take place……YES….. in a progressive “high road” event ……in a spontaneous “low Road” event…….NO……this is even more true if the trained response is not congruent with the amygdalae’s reflexive response. The science to date is very clear on this point !!!!!!




Darren
www.personalprotectionsystems.ca

 

[Mountain Kusa]

That raises a number of interesting points.


With BBT, everything seems to be constantly uncertain, nothing is "fixed". I still have no clue what I'd do in any given encounter -- but I've gotten used to that feeling from training, where I don't know what I'm doing most of the time anway! -- so I don't worry about it. I can feel confident that I'll do something and not freeze up, and that it has a strong likelihood of being effective. [end quote=Dale Seago]


Dale, i couldnt agree with you more here. In past years something would happen during the normal course of the day, and I would just be too slow to deal with it. Now my body and mind react in ways I never did before. For instance, of a non-martial thing, One of the girls I work with had set a Perrier glass bottle on top of a little table in our work area and someone else bumped the table and it began to fall. Without thinking about it, I reached around the table using body and mind caught the bottle before it hit the ground. Two customers sitting there were amazed. Their reaction had been to raise their feet so the wouldnt get splashed.

In a martial fashion, in my training now I just move and do what i feel I need to do without labeling the thing that is happening and the outcome is usually a new technique I have never done before, but is based on a principle I have learned.

 

[r erman]

Dale, i couldnt agree with you more here. In past years something would happen during the normal course of the day, and I would just be too slow to deal with it. Now my body and mind react in ways I never did before. For instance, of a non-martial thing, One of the girls I work with had set a Perrier glass bottle on top of a little table in our work area and someone else bumped the table and it began to fall. Without thinking about it, I reached around the table using body and mind caught the bottle before it hit the ground. Two customers sitting there were amazed. Their reaction had been to raise their feet so the wouldnt get splashed.

This demonstrates what Darren said here:

Can “cognitive” multi tasking take place……YES….. in a progressive “high road” event ……in a spontaneous “low Road” event…….NO……this is even more true if the trained response is not congruent with the amygdalae’s reflexive response. The science to date is very clear on this point !!!!!!

The examples that many of us could give of 'muscle memory'--a bad misnomer as it is really conditioned response--normally involve controlled situations, or non-combative situations. Are these a testament to what martial arts can do for you in everyday life? Absolutely! However, these conditioned responses can be short-circuited with what Darren calls SSR.

I don't think there is any disagreement that the effects of an adrenaline dump, or SSR, or the chemical cocktail can be minimized. But those effects will be there.

The relaxation in what I would term high-level MAs, like taijutsu and aiki based jujutsu, can go a long way in helping to minimize confrontational stress, but I've seen in others--and myself--the look and the body language that occurs when people encounter what Tony Blauer terms a bio-mechanic void. We have a tendency to go primal when we start to lose control and things go south...

Anyway, good discussion. For the most part, I think much of what Darren and Dale are saying only varies by degree.

 

[Floating Egg]

One of the things that confuses me about these theories related to SSR is that they don't seem to be falsifiable. That doesn't sound very scientific to me. While I don't have the answers that I need there have been some studies indicating that it's possible to strengthen the neurological circuits around the amygdala, perhaps creating a buffer against fear.

 

[Dale Seago]

For the most part, I think much of what Darren and Dale are saying only varies by degree.

I think so too, and I'll have more to say on this later, particularly regarding the action of the amygdala and on mitigation of SSR's effects if you do find yourself going into it, as well as some comments on shooting. Right now I have to take off for New Year's Day dojo cleanup followed by a run over to Sacramento, from which I won't return until tomorrow night; I should be able to revisit this on Monday.

Darren, it's great to "see" you here, and I want to thank you for contributing to the discussion and helping me to better understand what you're getting at! I don't think we have fundamental disagreements here.

 

[Tgace]

IMHO I believe a lot of this issue depends on the range and expectedness of the attack. If its close and/or unexpected you are going to get the "brain cramps" much worse than if the range is further and/or you expect it.

I like to compare it to NFDD (flash bangs). When Im throwing one I know whats coming and can "eat the bang" by entering right behind it and its effects on me are slight. If somebody were to toss one into my livingroom right now while Im not expecting it, it will have full effect on me regardless of how much experience Ive had with them.

 

[LARS]

Bingo !!!!!!!!!!!

Darren

 

[Tgace]

Ive also posted in other threads here of my experience with simunition training. I switched from weaver to mod. Isoceles real quick. All my training with weaver vanished pretty quick when I was getting "shot at" And that wasnt even the "real thing".

 

[Don Roley]

Hello Darren,
Welcome to martialtalk.com and the Traditional Ninjutsu folder. As you can see, we are not just a bunch of guys interested in doing things for tradition's sake.

Knowing that the brain has a dual pathway to deal with what I like to call progressive and spontaneous fear stimuli, Dr. LeDoux has stated, “there are problems associated with the double wiring between the higher cortex and the amygdala. Unfortunately the neural connections from the cortex down to the amygdala are less well developed than are connections from the amygdala back up to the cortex. Thus, the amygdala exerts a greater influence on the cortex than vice versa. Once an emotion has been turned on, it is difficult to exert conscious control over it at will.” What this means to me is that in an unexpected spontaneous attack, if you are training motor skills that are not congruent with what the amygdala will cause the body to do, more specifically the “Somatic Reflex Potentiation” no matter how well trained the response, it will be overridden.

If I understand the above, and the rest of your post, the key to proper use of multiple techniques is the training of the amygdala through some sort of stress/ scenario training. Tradditional methods used techniques like this during training and there have been times in class here in Japan where I thought, no make that I knew I was going to die or at least go to the hospital if I failed to perform the technique correctly. Stephen Hayes has copied the training methods of Peyton Quinn and his armored assailent training.

Is it not that a lot of techniques are not the issue, but rather the methods used to train in them that may be at the heart of the problem?

 

[Tgace]

In my experience, Hicks Law is like the martial arts equivalent of Occams Razor: "Responses to (X) attack should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

I cant count how many seminars Ive been to that have been of the "1001 responses to the right hook" variety. Keep your tool box full of well maintained and well used tools, not fancy gadgets. Id prefer to have a few tools in it that have multiple uses so I dont have to "buy" another one....What Ive always liked about the fillipino stuff is the response to the angle of attack vs. response to specific technique approach. Compact and flexible.

 

[Don Roley]

Keep your tool box full of well maintained and well used tools, not fancy gadgets. Id prefer to have a few tools in it that have multiple uses so I dont have to "buy" another one.

I personally have a bit of reservation with the "one- size- fits- all" type of technique. The people that market such tricks all do not impress me.

On the other hand, I have to agree with your comments about the 1001 nifty tricks. What the hell happens when you need #1002?

I seem to think the happy middle ground is to keep your concepts and strategies to the bare minimum. I may be sounding weird (blame the ninhonshu- I have been imbibing heavily tonight :drink2tha ) but I think that the minimum strategies you employ towards a violent situation helps you deal with it better than minimum technique.

What the heck am I talking about? Well..... I guess that my problem is with people that deal with training situations in one way (i.e. sparring) and say that in a real situation they would do something else.

Oh yeah.... they don't protect certain areas in UFC matches but they will certainly do so if they really get into a fight. :uhyeah: (Can you tell what I was watching on Japanese TV New Year's Eve?) And sure... if they face a knife they will change the way they deal with the situation. Riiiiiiiiiiight. Lets hope they even know the other guy has a knife. I have faced that type of situation and can say that even drunken, homeless morons can do a half decent job of hiding a knife from view.

In the Bujinkan I train in we train to always try to avoid a blow rather than stand and take it. Of course, if you know that the other guy has no weapon (like it is forbidden in an "unlimited fighting" :lol: sports event) then it is less efficient than many strategies you could use. In many unarmed sports events Bujinkan members do not do as well as those that train for that particular set of circumstances. But we do not have one set of skills for one type of event and another set for yet another. What works fairly well against one will work against another. We just can't specialize like the guys that do sports.

So keep your strategies to a minimum and expect to fight as you train. I guess that is what I am trying to say. I hope people can understand me and when I sober up I will not look back on this and think, "what the hell was I thinnking?" :soapbox:

Where the hell are my dried frog pills?

 

[Dale Seago]

The difference here is the triggering of the amygdala through the fear response. I would argue that playing sports like soccer, hockey, boxing, or judo would not trigger the amygdala in the same way as a street confrontation where the risk of serious injury or even death are a true reality.

Excellent point, Darren. I'd submit that the amygdala still may come into play here, though perhaps not in quite the same way.

It is because of this scientific fact, that the brain can and will function in a “high road” fashion thus allowing cognitive flow if the amygdala is not triggered. The video link you provided demonstrates this perfectly (closed environment)

With the video link, once engaged it was almost all non-cognitive "feeling": I wasn't consciously aware of just what either of us was doing most of the time. A Bujinkan student who trains with me reported something very similar in an actual attack situation from a few months ago in Wales -- though the assailant was a huge dog, not a human:

That being said, you just reminded me of the
one "bad thing" that happened while I was travelling.

No... It wasn't a fight, or a confrontation with someone.... It was a
dog attack. But, I think it may just jibe with your commentary here.

Ian's dog, Ghost (who is a huge monster of a 1/2 akita, 1/2 alsatian),
was making like he was going to ralph all over the place one morning.
Being the sensible Yank that I am, I let him out so he wouldn't do it
all over the floor. Okay.... Fine. Ghost does his thing, and ambles
around the yard a bit before sitting smack in the middle of the yard.

I, again being sensible, try to get him to come in. (Ian's yard is
bounded by a hedge with a gap leading into the next yard that Ghost
could jump over into, so he usually had him on a runline while in the
back yard.) So, Ghost -- who had just been sick, and a one-person
critter to boot -- has a go.

The whole event was surreal. Somehow, I stayed calm, and just kept
moving. Somewhere in the back of my brain I *knew* that if I stopped
moving, or let him get a firm grip on the arm, the arm was toast. In
retrospect: When I moved, it was in such a way as to a) keep the arm
he was going for ahead of him, and b) make it difficult for him to get
around my torso to actually get the firm hold. Striking the animal
didn't even occur to me. Perhaps, because I knew on some level that
that would only make it worse. I'm not entirely sure on that one, though.

How does this go with your commentary? Well, the point here is that I
didn't actually engage the dog. I engaged the space he wanted, saving
my arm from becoming so much tinder. Very strange, the whole thing.
And, it's only now - some 6 or 7 months later - that the mental video
shows me more precisely what I did.

What's interesting to me is that absolutely *none* of this was
conscious on my part. I just moved, and kept moving until it was all
over. The whole event was surreal to me. And, it still amazes me how
calm I stayed during it.

I have some articles on the action of the amygdala linked, along with another short video clip you might get a chuckle out of, in this thread.

An aside on the shooting studies you mentioned:

Last year I went through my employer's "Advanced Protection Firearms" course, immediately following 12 rather grueling 12-to-14-hour days in our Executive/Dignitary Protection training course. The shooting course began with a graded, timed course of fire used for US State Department protective agents as a baseline; anyone who didn't pass it the first time through was dismissed from the course, and everything through the next two days built from there. The instructors did not emphasize any particular platform (e.g. Weaver/Isosceles) for shooting, leaving that to the individual students. I did notice, though, that even though most of my shooting over the years had been at least nominally "Weaveresque", in the high-pressure scenarios we found ourselves in I naturally adopted isosceles once we'd moved on (fairly early) from single-target engagements to multiple-target engagements (which also included "shoot/no-shoot" target recognition, foot movement in a protective formation, cover and evacuation of the principal by the appropriate team members while the "correct" team member engages the threat, etc. -- all done with everyone wearing loaded firearms on a "hot" range).

On the other hand, these were not self-defense scenarios, but "other-protective". Seeking cover or trying to present a lower-profile target were not options, as the agent him- or herself IS the cover in a AOP (Attack On Principal) situation until the threat is neutralized or the team has evacuated the protectee.

Still, I think that in a self-defense situation today using a firearm, I'd now probably find myself going the isosceles route. Not only is it better if you're wearing ballistic armor, but "the feeling" is also congruent with the way Hatsumi sensei has been training us over the last couple of years: The emphasis has been more on moving into the opponent's attack, very much in a "counterambush" fashion.

(Oh, and while I'm thinking about firearms:

. . .in firearms training when you have a stoppage (stimulus) we teach one response to fix the problem (Tap, rack, ready). If this does not fix the problem, then officers are immediately taught to abort to a plan “b” strategy (rip, work, tap, rack, ready).

Our "plan b" is "drop (mag), rack, rack, load (mag), tap, rack, ready" for the possibility of a double-feed. Works amazingly well and surprisingly quickly; and as the chief instructor commented, "You have the rest of your life to do it." :wink2: )

In your article, you did state:

As I said earlier, SSR is an autonomic response, which happens without conscious thought. Having said this, Siddle in his research has found that a person can manage SSR to attain that peak 115-145 bpm range. . .

And I'll confess I didn't pay adequate attention to it.

Tgace commented,

IMHO I believe a lot of this issue depends on the range and expectedness of the attack. If its close and/or unexpected you are going to get the "brain cramps" much worse than if the range is further and/or you expect it.

I like to compare it to NFDD (flash bangs). When Im throwing one I know whats coming and can "eat the bang" by entering right behind it and its effects on me are slight. If somebody were to toss one into my livingroom right now while Im not expecting it, it will have full effect on me regardless of how much experience Ive had with them.

And that's pretty much how I see it as well. For example, I've noticed with people trained in boxing that when they can get any inkling that a blow is coming they can absorb it, "slip" it, or otherwise minimize its effects; but if they don't see or feel it coming and it's a total surprise, the effect on them is pretty much the same as on an untrained person.

If I understand the above, and the rest of your post, the key to proper use of multiple techniques is the training of the amygdala through some sort of stress/ scenario training. Tradditional methods used techniques like this during training and there have been times in class here in Japan where I thought, no make that I knew I was going to die or at least go to the hospital if I failed to perform the technique correctly. . .

Is it not that a lot of techniques are not the issue, but rather the methods used to train in them that may be at the heart of the problem?

I agree with Don's view here, and I've been in such situations as well. His last sentence above goes to what you said about methods having to be congruent with the Somatic Reflex Potentiation, and I think we're all in agreement here as far as a "surprise/SSR" situation is concerned. As Don indicated, the fundamental approach in our training really is to do just one thing: Get off the vector of force directed against us. (Or, as we'd say in the context of a AOP/ambush situation in EP work, "Get off the X!" -- that is, out of the "kill zone" of the ambush.) And it's equally valid whether what you continue with from there is to engage and neutralize the threat, or simply escape.

 

[Tgace]

Looks like theres more agreement than disagreement here. At its root, isnt this Hicks Law discussion about paring down technique to the fewest and most effective options? Sounds reasonable to me. The failure drill comparison is interesting. Regardless of the one you like, if you train one response to it, its going to be the one you use. If you taught 3 different ways to clear a Type II stoppage you are just muddying the waters IMHO.

Reminds me of the saying that goes (loosely) that the "expert is one who can execute the basics more quickly and effectively than his opponent".

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Could be an entire different thread on this (so I apologize for the drift), but it seems to me that training for conceptual variations would necessitate different techniques. And it could get cumbersome exploring the examples. Assume a right upper extremity attack. You could respond with evasion alone to any of the cardinal directions, demonstrating a minimum of 8 maneuvers (not including complementary hand maneuvers, such as parrying, jamming or entangling).

You could respond by addressing the attacking limb: If you meet it contralaterally (your right to his right), that response could go to the inside line or outside line (medial or lateral to his attacking limb, relative to the front centerline of his body). There's 2 more. Also, different effects if you go to the distal forearm versus the proximal arm. To what do you blend from each of these options? Couple more techniques as expressions of conceptual applications right there.

You could use the ipsilateral side (your left addressing his right), inside or outside line. There's 2 more.

Now address height (responding under or over the plane of attack). 2 more. And all we have so far is a single right handed "generic" assault. What about Contra-lateral & High, vs. Ipsilateral & Low, and the variations presented in that theme? A couple more.

Now reply by attacking his base (legs) either as he advances, or after he has settled, or as he settles. Depending on the type of leg attack / low-line kick you choose (ignoring entanglements for the moment, just to keep it simple), with which leg you wish to deliver it, and at which point in time strategically during his assault you wish to deliver it...there's over a dozen more. And we are still only on the right nebulous upper extremity assault (punch, push, reach, weapons presentation, etc.).

Another question: Do you respond differently if the blow is hooking vs. straight? Low vs. high in relation to your own body position pre-attack? What about in relation to your attackers body/posture? Do you have weapons available? Where on your person? What are the reaches and depth penetration capacities of your own weapons? These factors will surely influence your decisions...ideally (granted time).

There are concepts and principles that inform a "veritable plethora" of techniques (read: "mechanical, manual applications of concepts")...do we focus on the concepts, and allow for the creative unconscious to make up the application under fire, or endeavor to train technical applications for response from muscle memory?

There has to be a middle ground that makes sense; something between the 1001 answers, and the 1-2 answers. The master swordsman can not train for all possibilities, because they are not all known. Nevertheless, he must certainly train. Single strokes as simple variations on a compass will hardly suffice.

Looking forward to the informed replies of such distinguished gentlemen (read: "Guys that are out there doing it"),

Dave