martialtalk thread of interest to RMA people

[arnisador]

Originally posted by mpowell
Kinda like guns did to samurai swords...

As a tangent, this is a complicated and fascinating story:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=417

I find the comment about being hit from unexpected angles an important point. Still, "hands up" still seems sensible advice for a lot of people. In part, it raises the level of awareness that a threat is there.

I agree that training to defeat a sword-wielding attacker is a low odds scenario, but also agree with the every six months estimate!

 

[jellyman]

What my hands are doing is contingent upon what his are doing. Anyone who says 'put up your dukes' is looking for permission to hit you, imo. But nobody walks around with their hands up all the time... Frankly I don't pay it too much mind when I'm working.

Sword training is useful for developing certain attributes, which I think Mssrs. Bell and Powell are in violent agreement over. Learning situationally specific stuff is of course antithetical to what we do, but we do learn to generalize from specifics. So being good at dodging a sword without relying on the fact that it's a sword as opposed to a poker or a stick will make you hard to hit with a broken pool cue (say).

 

[NYCRonin]

What we are dealing with are 'lines of force' directed at the defender. The sword/cue/ax or the shuriken/knife/beer mug or the lead stab/jab/poker. There are, of course, specifics to each individual weapon or attack but the motions are similar in many cases.
All should, eventually and to different degrees; be worked but certain ones are much more likely to be encountered. Further, each individual might have certain particulars that may be more important because they may encounter them more. In my job, unarmed, armed (clubbing weapons - sticks, pipes and flexable flails - belts, soap in a sock or stabbing 'shanks' and sharp edged 'bangers'...jail weapons rarely combine both, it is usually geared more for one or the other use) and group assault (w/without weapons) are of MUCH greater concern than firearms. I have fought much, much more frequently at work than the street but I still work against firearms and do defenses from a car or other scenarios.
I have not, though, encountered the bayonetted AK-47, other than some training with with it - and although I can use a spets shovel...I dont carry one in my normal days affairs.
The overall principles outweigh the specifics.

I agree that 'realistic' training may vary but, I think we can all agree that the person who spends more time perfecting the field stripping, firing and other uses of an auto weapon than he does spend in movement, deflection and strikes is hardly training realistically (unless LEO or military, in which case; firearms use should be heavily done).

One of the beautiful principles is the 'overlap' of the principles that can be expressed in training with all the above. They outweigh the specifics by far.

 

[mpowell]

As I noted, we train using swords due to principles of fencing, which are applicable to hand to hand combat in defense against attacks using hands, feet, pool sticks, or whatever...

I have no problem with 'applied' learning...applying knowledge of one thing to another in order for preparation.

My disagreement is focused training in unrealistic things and branding it 'reality' training.

I've conversed with Jay before, so I hope it's not violent agreement, lol.


There is the actual reality, and the perceptual reality. We know what could have, and we have a perception of what might happen. We have to bring those into line as close as we can to streamline the training of someone wanting to learn K-Sys (or any 'reality' based combatives styles, IMHO). If they are trained to react in a way that is dangerous to them, the teacher is screwing them. When one trains a certain way all of the time, there is the trap they will expect an enemy outside of that training to fight using that training. If someone defend against high spinning kicks all day, and uses them, there is a propensity to expect that to work in 'reality'. Hell, it's one of their main 'sparring; weapons. THat is why I tell people to go out in the parking lot between two cars, or go in the bathroom of the school and 'spar'. That's reality.

Objectively, when one measures the nature of the changing scenario, one would, IMHO, realize that a high spinning kick is probably not going to be a method to use in a 'real' fight. I've been hit with a spinning kick IN A GYM, but have never seen one successfully pulled off outside of a gym because the conditions are rarely favorable.

Reality is reality. It's also what is statistically most likely for you to encounter in a street fight. If you truly believe you will be attacked by a katana wiedling fruitcake in NY, then train for it, if that is your reality. Out of 250 million people in the USA, and 1 person being attacked by a katana every six months, stastically there is little chance of it happening. I'm not gonna specifically train for it.

Therefore, in my mind, you either train with said weapon to: a) preserve tradition; b) use the lessons used in applied knowledge toward another pursuit (against a pipe, crowbar, pool stick, etc).

Of course, there are other means to train so...like, using a crowbar, pipe, or whatever. That's the K-Sys way. Let me put out my point of view about this. Your mind is much quicker to associate such weapons with specific trained defensive measures...if you have worked against a pipe, crowbar, knife, whatever, you will be less apt to be in 'shock' when they appear. Nevermind the general movement patterns of employing an attack ( a low stab is the same as a low punch, etc). It's the very APPEARANCE of a weapon that changes everything. That's why one should use some form of live knife pretty quickly in training. Not enough to kill you, but enough to feel it, so the respect is there. Training with dummy knives for long periods does nothing to keep the student honest...they will get sloppy. It's my job not to train 'cool' looking students with dummy knives, but someone who can survive a knife attack with as least damage as possible, no matter how 'sloppy' it looks.

If you must take the lessons of the sword, which generally require different measures than a crowbar (a crowbar will injure or break a bone, not cut your arm in half like a sword), the methods used against a katana, if you really want to apply training, are not as similar as using a real baseball bat. The injury they do to the body is different, as such, the measures you will use to defend are different. The principles are there (angles, deflection, footwork), but the mechanical means combined with the mindset in doing so, are different.

When I want to train methods against a sword, I use a sword for the prupose of training. When I want to teach the methods of defense against a baseball bat, I use a baseball bat. The science of fencing does give certain insight into the sciences of energy management, angles and deflection, footwork, etc., but they must be put into context.

Though there are some ways, it is difficult to train someone to address a club physically the same way you teach them to address a sword. So, you must work with both, and lean in each direction precariously. Lean toward the sword for specific reasons (teaching your methods) but lean toward the weapon (baseball bat) for the physical training (for K-Sys, it's Theory + Movement = Application). While you are giving some methods which are useful, you are not giving ALL of the methods that are useful because you are talking about two different weapons. Similar ancestor, but different weapon.

I'm not gonna say, "you can't train someone to defend against a crowbar using a sword, that's stupid...!" What I will say is if you never bring the crowbar in, it's not complete training. They will never be conditioned to the impact, and methods of using the crobar, and will be slow and sloppy to address the attack of the crowbar, because they have to spend time in the street bleeding to draw coorelations that should have been drawn in training with someone not wanting them dead.

So, you have to train with both...If we look at the FBI Crime Statistics, and the places we live in, we are much more likely to face some things than others. For me, teaching combatives, I am a much more effective teacher if I use a baseball bat or a spray-painted knife (so there is no gleam and you don't see it) than using the Lord of the Rings collector sword (though it does look cool as hell). I do my students an unjustice if I don't train them for the reality of what they will face: mass attacks, shanks, small caliber firearms, sucker punches, etc.

The sword for heritage and basic principles, the crowbar for the physicality and realistic application.

In our System in Russia, there is a saying, "Against a crowbar, there is no 'defense', only levers to use.' You have to apply the principles to the weapon you will face, or you'll be using sword blocks against a crowbar (or vice versa) and take damage you shouldn't be taking. Therefore, you must train with both and learn how to apply principles.

Truly, as well-rounded martial artists and 'warriors' (if I may use that term) we have a duty to learn to utilize all classes of weapons (ancient and modern) and blend them with the art we study. As teachers, we must know the difference between the two and prepare our students accordingly.

It seems we're all in agreement here, I'm just longwinded agreeing!

M

 

[woda]

Mark, let me clear it up a bit for you. In a work environment you don't have really have the same amount of options. Most people will not react violently, but almost all people expect to have a conversation with you in a face-to-face position. Therefore you have to be square to the subject. I have experimented with standing at different angles and sometimes it works, but usually the subject will keep squaring off. Not to be aggressive, but because it's the natural way to have a conversation. This is not to say that every work situation is like this. I'm simply refering to everyday dealings with people at work with a "you-never-know" type of attitide.

As for distance and angles, if your arms are by your sides they will first have to come "up" before being able to do anything. At extremely close distances I would think every inch counts. I do concede the distance is slight, especially to those with a great deal of training.

As well, who says your arms have to be tense merely because you're in a "conversational" stance? They are not. In fact, personally, I find the position relaxing. I never seem to know what to do with my arms when they're just hanging by my sides and so I start to fidget. Plus, how many people really stand there and talk with their arms down by their sides. To me, it actually looks confrontational or militaristic. Different if you're walking. Most people will clasp their hands, cross their arms or stick their hands in their pockets.

Also, you have your liability issues. The first move is going to have to be a hold or throw or lock and strikes would be rare.

I don't mean to argue with you and I'm not saying you're wrong in any way. Merely trying to expand on what I meant.

 

[mpowell]

Good postings, all! I love threads like this.

Talking with your hands is a great way of remaining both offensive and defensive, in a nonthreatening manner, at all times. Many gestures, hand movements, eye movement, etc., can be used to position yourself advantegeously in the conversation should things 'go wrong' while all the time being nonthreatening.

M

 

[Pervaz]

..Does it really matter what weapon the attacker has as long as you get out of the way - otherwise it can become technique based in terms of damm its a crowbar I need to do x,y whereas if its a sword then i need to do a,b,c - remember its the idoit who has the weapon who is the danger not the weapon...

When discussing weather hands should be tense, relaxed - or up or down - remember you have your legs.. why confine yourself to convention - you can always rely on keeping your hands up and tensed for as long as you want (I bet you cant keep the same tension for longer than 70 seconds though !!!)


Pervaz 'Spacecadet'

 

[jellyman]

Objectively, when one measures the nature of the changing scenario, one would, IMHO, realize that a high spinning kick is probably not going to be a method to use in a 'real' fight. I've been hit with a spinning kick IN A GYM, but have never seen one successfully pulled off outside of a gym because the conditions are rarely favorable.

Well, you never know. For example, I once saw a small Korean immigrant blast out a biker's teeth with a jumping spinner. Not saying I advocate using it myself, but I learned the hard way not to assume people won't do stuff because it's no good. A lot of this stuff is cultural, and there's a lot of different cultures around these days.

Case in point - I took karate for years, and we were told that using a round punch is 'inefficient' - straight line is the shortest distance etc. So because it was 'suboptimal' we never worked with it, never had to defend it, etc. Then came the evil day I got pulled into a fight, and the first thing that gets thrown is an overhand right that I only recognized after it had dented my head. According to my karate culture, hooks and overhands aer foolhardy moves, but the other guy didn't know that...

That's why I think principles are key - if you come up against an offense or variation you've never seen before, you should ideally be able to improvise a good response via application of principle.

 

[Jay Bell]

*chuckle* Violent agreement?

The main thing I was trying to convey is simply that if someone deals with a perticular threat in real life, then it is reality. I've been capped off by a crowbar....to *me*, that's reality. To most people, even those I know, it would typically fall into the "rarely to never" bucket.

One of the primary reasons that I always loved muto dori (unarmed vs sword) work was the level of threat. If I swung a baseball bat at a student, the threat would be gauged in a perticular way. A three-foot razor is a different threat. Same length possible, same swing (by someone that's untrained)...but it is not the same weapon.

We used to do a lot of taihenjutsu training with baseball bats....ocassionally when a shinken was pulled, they'd move like they were born doing evasions.

If this is applied to body movement, we get a perticular reaction. If I'm using a hanbo, is the threat as strong as a katana? About the same length, used differently....but watch someone's reaction to being swung at by each one. It's a completely different ballgame.

Now...that said, I will agree with you, Matt about people passing swords of as "reality" training. Though swordwork has it's merit...I'm much more likely to run into someone that's unarmed or swinging three inches of steel as opposed to three feet. Honestly, I think I'd be laughing too hard if a burglar broken into my house with a saya strapped to his side.

 

[Clive]

In my humble opinion, the arms being held up could be used as a guage by the opponent, especially if he knows about fences. If the arms show nothing how can the opponent second guess you?

As for the weapons debate - Never say never. :snipe:

 

[Arthur]

Do the math....{and all the related things that came from that}

If some reason you feel the need to deflect or "block" or whatever, rather then simply moving.... and you want to actually do the math....

Well in the fence position the hands are at least a foot away from your head (the nearest hand). Your lead hand is about a foot and a half away. That means you are a foot and a half closer to your opponent.

Let's say it takes x amount of time for him to start his strike and get it to your head. Assuming your opponent is 3 feet away... it will take about 1/2 x for him to get to your lead hand. So your decision to use that hand to foil his attack must take place at twice the speed it would take to simply move your head. By trying to pick him up early... you have simply made him faster.

Furthermore, by chosing to pick him up early, he still has the ability to change the around direction of his strike somewhat. this makes you more vulnerable to fakes and feints. Considering this, we've entered another decision loop into the reaction which fiurther slows down our response time. So we have now compounded our need to move even faster.

On the other hand... if we want to "block" and we simply do it with our shoulder, it is only six inches or less from our head at all times, its movement will insure the head moves as well, creating a margine of safety, while facilitating the opponents tracking along the same vector. The interception will basically happen at approximately the original intended targets distance, so you have full time of reaction. Net result... the opponent moves furthest, you move the least and have no real decision to make. Working this way you can be 25% as the opponents speed and still make it work.

So... I did the math... it seems I got a different result. Funny thing about math formulas is... you plug in the wrong variables... and you get the wrong answer.

Arthur

 

[jellyman]

Arthur is correct with the 'thin work' rationale.

Boxers do this too.

 

[VegasJody]

Originally posted by woda
As for distance and angles, if your arms are by your sides they will first have to come "up" before being able to do anything.

Anything?

This sounds to me like the talk of someone who has limited his/her options by consideration alone. I'm inclined to think that bringing the hands up to deal with an attack is simply one option. Not nessessarily the best option, but one option. Another option might be to leave hands down for an attack to the goin, hip(s), or knee(s).

One of the aspects of the Systema philosophy that I love is the idea of complete freedom of movement. Maintaining the idea that hands have to come before they can do anything is limiting to say the least.

Hope I'm not coming too far out of left field.

- Jody

 

[TAZ]

It also presupposes that we need our hands to defend/attack...

 

[jellyman]

Hope I'm not coming too far out of left field.

Far from it, just check out the strikes DVD. Chest, shoulders, elbows, hips, knees, feet - it's all good.

 

[Kingston]

lets not forget that moving your hands up is not always a bad thing.....or not always as effective as hands by your sides....

body language is very important....hands at your side is a relaxed possition...if it doesn't feel natural....dont do it, when you talk, your hands are moving all the time... your not going to stand there like a robot. the whole hands at your side is to get you off the rigid stance idea...hands at your side is not a stance...because it is not rigid....moving any part of your body wont change anything. where as the fence stops being the fence if you let your body move naturaly....

Vlad showed us once how you could get your hands closer to the oponent head using the palms facing outwards type of "dont hit me" motion (this is before the physical confrontation). You can get your hands in a much better position to rock the guy....he wont even realize what your trying to do...if you put up the "fence" he knows right away....."those hands want to hit me"

When you do this, the attacker does not consider it being your weapons are closer to him, he just thinks your a *****, and are going to get beat down....meanwhile you are in a good possition to get first strike.

sometimes you mite want offensive body language.....lol but i would say there are better ways to do that then the fence....

 

[TAZ]

IMHO fences are used for three things..1) Painting 2) shifting stolen goods..3) sitting on

Tongue firmly in cheek

Dave

 

[jellyman]

You know, I don't mind the concept of maintaining a comfortable distance, but for me that's more of a foot thing.

I think Kingston is right, and if this guy's referring to systema (he didn't say) he missed the point I think.

By contrast, my instructor will discreetly bring at least one of his hands up if he perceives a low-level threat. (This looks to me like the posture of someone scratching absent-mindedly at his chest.) The difference is clear: the person with his arms hanging by his sides will lose the initiative in most cases. Reaction rarely beats action when facing an incoming strike.

Of course, he may never have seen the footage, but Mikhail is forever shifting and twitching as the attacker approaches, you must try to adjust to your attacker. The difference, I think, is a matter of mindset. Mostly, this person speaks about strikes, and pre-emption, which implies to me that's his basic fight philosophy - hit them first, ask questions later - gunslinger kind of thing. Don't let anyone get close. At least that seems to be it from the article. This implies to me that he is not comfortable with short range fighting, and perhaps does not use all the tools available to him. I think another difference in schools of thought is that in systema we train from contact. We accept the possibiity or even the probability that we will be hit. We train to take blows and work from there. Of course, that's not all we do, but my point is that there seems to be a stronger emphasis on defensive skills in systema. Certainly I can ward off a strike without warning, but again, if someone raises his hands, I've had planty warning.

 

[VegasJody]

Originally posted by jellyman
The difference, I think, is a matter of mindset. Mostly, this person speaks about strikes, and pre-emption, which implies to me that's his basic fight philosophy - hit them first, ask questions later - gunslinger kind of thing.

Agreed.

It is certainly a matter of mindset. I think what you would find is a mindset of fear; this individual is not comfortable confronting an aggressor. As such, the fear pushes him/her to neuturalize the threat first and foremost, regardless of the order of magnatude of the threat.

Approaching self defense issues from a stance of fear is dangerous for all involved. While the fear is understandable, maintaining relaxation both physically and mentally will keep you much safer. Interestingly, this relaxation also allows one to maintain a higher degree of control and, as such, responsiblity over the situation.

Anyway, I could ramble on.

- Jody

 

[arnisador]

I always say that fear is OK, as it's your body's way of saying you're in a dangerous situation--you just need to be in control of it.

Is the RMA philosophy that fear is to be avoided, or just managed?