Discussion On My Dojo List

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Back on thread...Mr. Seago: Sounds like a blast!

D.

 

[Tgace]

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

Dave

Dont know that I qualify, but I will submit this quote from the book of 5 rings...

The primary thing when you take a sword in your hands is your intention to cut the enemy, whatever the means. Whenever you parry, hit, spring, strike or touch the enemy's cutting sword, you must cut the enemy in the same movement. It is essential to attain this. If you think only of hitting, springing, striking or touching the enemy, you will not be able actually to cut him. More than anything, you must be thinking of carrying your movement through to cutting him. You must thoroughly research this.

If you can make the connection to this topic you can see my viewpoint on the technique/concept thing.

 

[Dale Seago]

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.

Whew. A lot there -- but excellent!

Certainly there are times when we work very specifically and intensively on precise technical aspects of formal-transmission kata and waza. In general, however, the training model in my dojo is one I've picked up from Hatsumi sensei over the years:

. . .In the old arts such as ours, kata are generally performed by two (or more) partners and are quite brief, reflecting the reality of combat encounters. They teach an art's basic concepts: typical attacks and common ways of dealing with them. Kata may also refer to a class or set of waza (techniques), especially groupings which embody a particular principle or group of related principles. Kata are the starting point for learning the arts.

. . .The approach to kata training in taijutsu as taught by Hatsumi sensei is very different and reflects the Protean fluidity and dynamism needed in real, life-protective combat. First, the basic "transmission" form as recorded in the densho scroll is shown, and the student will have some time to simply work on the mechanics of the movements and the aspects of timing, distance and positioning, balance-taking, etc. which the base form presents. From that point, various "problems" will be introduced for exploration. Some examples would be: How might the kata change when a different distance is used? When you can't move to a "required" position within the form because of some obstacle? When the form is done with a particular weapon or weapons instead of unarmed? When you have a weapon and want to use it, but it isn't in your hand? When the opponent has the weapon and you need to keep him from using it, or want to use it against him yourself? When multiple opponents, or multiple opponents armed with a variety of different weapons (all with their own unique characteristics), enter the picture?

Part of the object here is to require the student to take continually more complex sets of relationships into account, while still maintaining the essence and "feeling" of the transmission form. In this way the student grows to truly understand and incorporate the principles of the form and can freely adapt them in actual combat as needed, instead of being hampered by a "fixed" sequence of movements -- or feeling that form is useless, irrelevant, and should be abandoned.

In a sense, one eventually learns to "transcend" forms by incorporating (literally "bringing into the body") their underlying concepts and principles. This is the difference between learning a particular system (which is what most people do) and becoming the art in one's own person.

In other words, the idea is less one of learning the kata (unless of course you want to teach) than it is one of "learning FROM the kata". . .a bit more of a tactical emphasis than a technical emphasis.

Nonetheless any martial art -- whether it's an unarmed one, swordsmanship, or tactical firearms use -- has its fundamental techniques or kihon which form the technical "base" on which everything else is built. The foundation of our training is found in the Sanshin no kata from Gyokko ryu, a series of body-movement training exercises currently taught as a series of body-shifting evasions, each followed by a particular strike; and the kihon happo or "8 fundamentals", also (primarily) from Gyokko ryu. (You can see some video examples on an Australian Bujinkan website. I can't view them on the 'pooter I'm using at the moment so can't vouch for the quality. . .I do see that one of the Kihon Happo is mislabeled as Muso Dori when what's being shown is Musha Dori.) The Sanshin no kata and Kihon Happo can really be seen as comprising an entire martial art in themselves, as even things in various ryuha of the Bujinkan which -- superficially -- don't seem to remotely resemble them can still be shown to relate in some way to aspects of their movement, principles, and concepts.

You commented, "The master swordsman can not train for all possibilities, because they are not all known", and this is certainly true in the sense that it is ineffective and counterproductive to try to learn (and then access in real-time!) a specific response to every possible specific attack. The teaching method Hatsumi uses, however (of which I haven't really even scratched the surface), really seems oriented toward enabling the practitioner to survive situations he has never encountered and to do something appropriate in the midst of "the fog of war" when he can't really tell just what's going on.

That doesn't mean everyone "gets it". And it's certainly not an "overnight" process. I remember being present a few years ago when people were struggling with something Hatsumi sensei was presenting, and he made some comment along the line of, "Some of you may think this is too difficult to learn. But it really doesn't matter if you can't learn it: You'll just die, that's all." :wink2:

 

[DWeidman]

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)


Darren
www.personalprotectionsystems.ca

Would it be fair then to say the reaction and the subsequent SSR condition is directly related to your perception of the aggressors / situation?

-Daniel

 

[Dale Seago]

Would it be fair then to say the reaction and the subsequent SSR condition is directly related to your perception of the aggressors / situation?

I'd definitely like to hear what Darren thinks about this. I also think there are some relevant clues in the three articles on amygdalic function I linked in the Russian Martial Art thread I cited earlier in this discussion:

Beware and Be Aware: Capture of Spatial Attention by Fear Related Stimuli in Neglect

Hijacking of the Amygdala

Emotions change with direction: Fear depends on where you look at it

 

[DWeidman]

I'd definitely like to hear what Darren thinks about this.

I read through the articles. I am going to invite Mike Sneen to join this coversation...

SSR and the negative effects seem to be multiplied by factors that you perceive as difficult - or dangerous. Most of us who train alot don't see a single drunk person fighting us in a "fair" fist fight as much of a problem - it is more like "business as usual". If the situation presenting itself is something we can identify as a pattern that no longer requires the OODA cycle (but is handled at the pattern/strategy level - subconsciously) then the perception is that this is commonplace for us.

When the situation presents itself that requires an OODA solve - the perception of danger is increased - which puts the Amygdala in motion.

I think this is the basic difference to Dale's side of the discussion. The better Buj. dojos teach at a pattern / strategy level. Therefore everything falls into simple categories - and the reactions will be different each time. Because of the nature of patterns / principles / strategies -- there are thousands of variations that aren't "prethought". This allows for instinctive creativity at the time of encounter that doesn't require OODA as the creativity is still within the subconscious operating layer...

Just my thoughts - I hope they make some sense...

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

I was always taught that OODA happens in every encounter of wills. Training and/or familarity only helps shorten the cycle.

 

[DWeidman]

I was always taught that OODA happens in every encounter of wills. Training and/or familarity only helps shorten the cycle.

Do you still think about making a fist with your thumb to the outside before you punch - or is that pattern now part of your subconscious?

More accurately - I no longer have to concentrate on getting my feet and legs to go where they want - nor "think" through finding the correct distance. Those are subconscious - and aren't part of an OODA cycle (instinctual - through training).

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

Do you still think about making a fist with your thumb to the outside before you punch - or is that pattern now part of your subconscious?

More accurately - I no longer have to concentrate on getting my feet and legs to go where they want - nor "think" through finding the correct distance. Those are subconscious - and aren't part of an OODA cycle (instinctual - through training).

-Daniel

OODA comes into effect when in direct competition with an opposing will, not individual physical decisions i.e. making a fist or moving limbs. In any "competition" you Observe the threat/oponent, Orient on the oponent, Decide on an action and Act. If you subscribe to the theory this always happens. Training helps shorten the cycle.

 

[Tgace]

Something I posted on OODA a while ago...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=173831&postcount=5

 

[DWeidman]

OODA comes into effect when in direct competition with an opposing will, not individual physical decisions i.e. making a fist or moving limbs. In any "competition" you Observe the threat/oponent, Orient on the oponent, Decide on an action and Act. If you subscribe to the theory this always happens. Training helps shorten the cycle.

I would counter that training helps you Chunk -- or group -- a series of complex actions together to enable the OODA to occur at a much higher level. Because of the training - the vast majority of things that are thought through when starting are now subconscious -- e.g. body position / shape / terrain.

OODA is the factor if you are evaluating vast amounts of minute detail - instead of identifying the larger patterns that truely matter. OODA puts you behind the 8-ball if you are trying to keep up with the aggressor's every movement.

If I go back to my "making a fist" example - when you first start training - that has to be one of the steps your mind goes through to properly hold your hands. Later - "making a fist" isn't even thought about as it is handled completely subconsciously.

The same should be applicable to the agressors / situation - yes? If not - then why not?

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

I would still say that each step in OODA always occurs. The steps may happen in miliseconds, but according to Boyd always happen. I wouldnt say that self defense techniques are "reflexive". There better be some higher awareness involved or you are going to be in trouble when you kill a drunk who took a poke at you out of "reflex". Better awareness shortens Observation. Experience and training shortens the Orientation and Decision phase. (The Ive been here done that thing vs. Oh crap what the....??? thing.) And training helps you place your body in position for action quicker than the opponent expected/can handle. The "subconcsious" physical activity you describe shortens the Orientation and Action phase.

Like Boyds air combat model, if you can see the oponent first, manuver quicker, make a quicker and better decision and act, you will win. If the decision and action are "subconscious" its still a phase. How else would you describe an encounter? You have to percieve a threat (whats that?), process it somehow (whats going on?), decide what to do consciously or otherwise (what should I do?) and then do something. What else is there?

Correct me if Im wrong, but it appears you believe there is a choice or decision to use OODA or not. The process is a model for ALL "force on force" encounters.

 

[DWeidman]

I would still say that each step in OODA always occurs. The steps may happen in miliseconds, but according to Boyd always happen. I wouldnt say that self defense techniques are "reflexive". There better be some higher awareness involved or you are going to be in trouble when you kill a drunk who took a poke at you out of "reflex". Better awareness shortens Observation. Experience and training shortens the Orientation and Decision phase. (The Ive been here done that thing vs. Oh crap what the....??? thing.) And training helps you place your body in position for action quicker than the opponent expected/can handle. The "subconcsious" physical activity you describe shortens the Orientation and Action phase.

Like Boyds air combat model, if you can see the oponent first, manuver quicker, make a quicker and better decision and act, you will win. If the decision and action are "subconscious" its still a phase. How else would you describe an encounter? You have to percieve a threat (whats that?), process it somehow (whats going on?), decide what to do consciously or otherwise (what should I do?) and then do something. What else is there?

I think we are more in agreement then disagreement. My point of contention is still on the word Decide -- as the word denotes conscious thought. I think it is closer to OOA or OA without the decide / orient.

On another note - I just realized that the scenarios I have been playing in my mind when thinking through your responses are completely defensive in nature. The evasion / off-line aspects to what we do... Moving towards "winning" - I agree completely that it has to be OODA - as you evaluate your perceptions of what is occuring...

Good discussion...

-Daniel

 

[DWeidman]

Correct me if Im wrong, but it appears you believe there is a choice or decision to use OODA or not. The process is a model for ALL "force on force" encounters.

I wouldn't say there is a choice / decision. I would say that the model doesn't fit all scenarios (unless you have a liberal definition of "Decide").

 

[Tgace]

Yes, it has been a good discussion, I always enjoy an honest exchange of ideas.

On the decision thing...conscious or not, the brain has come to some sort of decision to respond/move the body in a particular manner yes?

 

[DWeidman]

Yes, it has been a good discussion, I always enjoy an honest exchange of ideas.

On the decision thing...conscious or not, the brain has come to some sort of decision to respond/move the body in a particular manner yes?

Agreed. The part of the brain used to make that decision, however, may be different, yes?

 

[Tgace]

I wouldn't say there is a choice / decision. I would say that the model doesn't fit all scenarios (unless you have a liberal definition of "Decide").

I think you may have a too narrow view on "decide". Like there is some sort of conscious dialog going on all the time. I dont think that Boyd believed the Decide phase was a "hmm..the guys coming at me with a right hook, should I block, evade, etc." type thing. The brain is constantly making decisions. A baseball players brain is constantly making "decisions" as he catches a ball. Speed up, slow down, left, right. The brain must decide and send commands to the body.

 

[Tgace]

Agreed. The part of the brain used to make that decision, however, may be different, yes?

Absolutely, I would say that there are layers of decisions happening at different levels. The decisions to move the body are coming from a different level than the decision to; shoot-dont shoot, joint lock or eye gouge, evade and run or evade and counter are coming from. The brain is complex.

 

[DWeidman]

I think you may have a too narrow view on "decide". Like there is some sort of conscious dialog going on all the time. I dont think that Boyd believed the Decide phase was a "hmm..the guys coming at me with a right hook, should I block, evade, etc." type thing. The brain is constantly making decisions. A baseball players brain is constantly making "decisions" as he catches a ball. Speed up, slow down, left, right. The brain must decide and send commands to the body.

Ok. We are on the same page then.

This, however, brings up the usefullness of the pattern:

The OODA cycle is nearly debilitating when you can make the "Decide" phase a difficult decision - one that requires complex calculations. This - of course - assumes that the Observe phase is equal (which, in the Buj is not the case with kyojutsu). But that is for another debate...

Using the OODA cycle to your advantage is relatively useless if the cycle is covered in milliseconds - nearly reflexive - correct? The advantage is negated by the laws of physics (ie - you can't punch 12 times in a single second to different targets). As such - the path through your brain is rather crucial to how effective the pattern is (as a study). Agreed?

By the way - as a disclaimer - the vast majority of my views here come from many many beer talks with Mike Sneen and Jeff Perry after classes. I don't want to give the impression that these are completely my ideas - just what I took away from the discussions...

Mike was the catalyst to an epiphany / paradigm shift for me. The discussions we had were the foundation to what I now believe.

I am trying to get Mike to come out here and add his input / vantage.

-Daniel

 

[Tgace]

Again, its not an issue of "decide to use OODA" .Either its a model for conflict or not. I choose to believe its an accurate model. The military and tactical circles believe it too.

I think you may be falling into the error of thought regarding OODA that Ive been seeing. OODA is a process, not a strategy or tactic. Its usefulness is in developing techniques and strategy, not for "Hmmm...I should do x to overcome his OODA process" while in combat. When in combat, the process is running just like all the process in your brain.

OODA as a tool is for the creation of effective tactics. Look at the arena of conflict you expect and using the model decide what techniques you can use to take advantage of the process.