Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, Aikido

[wadem]

Greetings,

I was asked to post this for the benefit of others. I will explain what I think the differences are between Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, and Aikido, based upon my own personal experience and opinions. Please take what is written with a grain of salt. I am not trying to create controversy or insult anyone. Please excuse my opinions, and let me state that I am by no means an expert on these subjects, even after almost 18 years of study. For historical facts, I would encourage that people find online resources and books by more qualified people, as I am no historian.

As I undestand things, Japanese Jujutsu was born on the battlefield (like most combative arts). Virtually all of the techniques, hand motions, and footwork are directly from sword and spear. As some of you may be aware, there are many styles of Jujutsu, ranging from hard to soft styles. IMHO, a lot of styles (especially modern ones) are offshoots of others, reflecting the new headmaster's attitude, beliefs, and level of knowledge.

In comparing Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, and Aikido, many classify Jujutsu as hard and brutal, which it can be. It was meant for the battlefield and to disarm and dispatch an enemy, and a lot of the techniques break the opponent. I have been told that there are no safe falls out of true Jujutsu techniques. The old Jujutsu techniques I have seen are beautiful and yet scary. What we see now are safe alternatives for practice. In my view Aikijujutsu is a much more efficient execution of Jujutsu — in other words, a higher level of skill. Techniques utilize much smaller motions and have a more devastating effect if executed correctly and with a relaxed body and mind (sound familiar?). Aikido, in truth, is a modern offshoot of Daitoryu Aikijujutsu. The techniques (numbering about 20 standard formal techniques by my count, not including variations) are taken from I believe the first scroll of Daitoryu techniques. I have heard that there are as many as 2,000 documented techniques in Daitoryu, though there are much better historical sources than me.

It is my belief that Jujutsu is not practiced the way it used to be, and the general level of practitioners is not what it once was. Jujutsu literally means 'soft art' or 'pliant art,' which you wouldn't know by how people practice it. A lot of local muscular power is used, which I personally believe probably was not as prevalent in the olden days. As others have stated before, systems can get "frozen in time" and people focus on preserving the rote techniques (i.e., kata) rather than learning how to make the art their own based on their body type, strengths, and personality. I believe that a really good Jujutsu practitioner's execution of techniques would be soft (i.e., without overt muscular power). Even modern Judo looks nothing like the way Jigoro Kano did it.

Aikijujutsu came from the Aizu clan. These samurai developed techniques that were more efficient than low-grade samurai Jujutsu. True Aikijujutsu is hard to find, IMHO. There are a lot of people claiming to teach Aikijujutsu or 'Aiki Jitsu,' but it is usually a mish mosh of joint locks, Judo throws, chokes, and strikes. As I understand it, traditional Aikijujutsu (i.e., Daitoryu) has three levels:

Jujutsu (the basic locks, strikes, throws,etc.)
Aikijujutsu (much smaller techniques where uke adds to his own demise)
Aiki No Jutsu (the 'invisible' or 'magical' techniques)

Aikijujutsu is incredibly subtle and almost impossible to counter because there is no indication of what is coming. And if someone snaps a technique on you really well, you are too disoriented to fall properly. The practitioner is incredibly relaxed mentally and physically, has a very high level of anatomical understanding, psychology, and perfect body usage and breathing. At higher levels, the intent is to use only as much muscular power as it takes to move your own body. In execution, every technique attacks the opponent. There is no retreating.

Some high-level practitioners can literally off-balance and throw someone by the tip of their finger with no joint lock, pain, or injury (except for maybe the landing). Their sense of where you are and where your center of gravity is can be spooky. Because of this level of sensitivity, an opponent can find themselves stuck to their 'victim' entirely by proper angling and body mechanics. Another unnerving skill is when someone is so good they can actually move slower than their attackers, yet evade or intercept all incoming attacks. I believe there is a huge psychological component here, where one is off-balanced by their own perceptions. Some techniques make people choke themselves out or lock their anatomy by creating balls of tension in their body. From my observations, a lot of techniques appear to be designed to create tension in the attacker's body that can be taken advantage of. If someone attacks hard, they get it back ten fold. Now, if someone knowingly relaxes, the aiki might be hard to pull off, but that ability rests on the individual. The subtle stuff is meant for full blown attacks where there is intent, IMHO. If someone doesn't attack full on, the practitioner can always fall back on harder techniques and strikes. It is my belief that almost no one ever truly reaches a mastery level. I feel that is because people by their very nature get caught up in technique. And there is a severe lack of discipline (myself included) culturally and because of the times we live in. People want to be the teacher or master way too early.

There is a lot of criticism about TMA that practice pre-determined techniques (like the Jujutsu arts), which is not entirely out of line. The criticism certainly is not unfounded as most people really cannot perform the techniques as prescribed. So the instantaneous assumption is, "This stuff doesn't work." A true master, in my view (in any discipline), does not rely on rote technique and could care less what you attack them with. The motions and principles are such a part of their body that they can handle simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. It is a quality of movement developed through technique practice, but it is free flowing and very adaptable. But one does not learn subtle skills such as these by "banging" and competing with their training partners. There has to be some sort of cooperative practice to even get on first base.

When it comes to Aikido, my personal theory is that modern Aikido is not practiced as it was developed. O Sensei was a bad Muh-Fuh in his youth. He could kick ass and he was frighteningly strong in his youth. Practitioners nowadays focus on the 'love your opponent' concept and self-development while sacrificing viable technique. My opinion is that it's popularity worldwide and standardized testing requirements has caused the effectiveness of the student's techniques to suffer. There is a lot of focus on blending with an attacker that usually is accomplished by evading an attack or stepping offline and then trying to re-engage. The motions are also, well, huge compared to Aikijujutsu. And there seems to be a lot of redundant motions in some practice methods (though different federations and schools have their own preferences). Aikido is often referred to as a soft art, but I have yet to meet a practitioner who didn't like to put some mustard on their throws. IMHO, modern Aikido is practiced (by many, but NOT all) more like basic Jujutsu (no offense to anyone who practices it — I did for 3+ years and loved it). I just think a lot has been lost in translation and the art has watered down with its rapid spread. And because there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of real study of the technique mechanics and WHY they work, people have to quit practice as they get older because their bodies break down. At 50, they still try to execute the techniques the same way as when they were 20. Don't misunderstand me, there are some REALLY AWESOME Aikido people out there. I just think they are lost in the huge ocean of practitioners worldwide.

The main difference between these expressions of techniques, in my view, is simply the execution or how it is powered. Any technique can be performed hard or soft, but that is up to the individual practitioner's beliefs about what is real, possible, and/or worthwhile training.

I hope that this was beneficial and not insulting to anyone reading it. I am still learning and have a LONG way to go in my own training before I would consider myself 'good.' My hope is that I will get decent at some of this stuff in the next 20 years.

Most respectfully,

[Scott Sonnon]

Wade,

Thank you for posting this. It's very illuminating. I learned a great deal that I hadn't known despite a ranked background in Aikido and Jujitsu.

[wadem]

Well, don't pat me on the back too much. I have a feeling there are a lot of folks out there that would disagree or take issue with some of what I wrote who are much more qualified to comment than I.

I am no expert, just some schmuck with a few theories. :embarassed:

[Scott Sonnon]

Since you're speaking your truth, there's nothing anyone can say. They can only offer their truth and how it appears to be different.

[KD Jones]

I've had abilities demonstrated directly on me which made me feel as though gravity had started moving around me, and that I'd lost control of my own body (and I was really trying to be aggressive).

The demonstrator was essentially staying in contact, and his ability to sense any move I made at the point of inception, coupled with his seemingly immediate and definitely thoughtless ability to redirect bound me completely.

But, even so, I'd really really like to see the "one finger" unbalancing mentioned here. It's not that I doubt - I just have this protective skeptical streak...

Are there any believable video resources that demonstrate this sort of thing? (I know that a "no" does not prove that the ability does not exist.)

Thank you, and nice article.

[stultzies9]

I have to agree with the idea that the founders and true masters of these arts aren't stuck on rote technique. I remember reading once that one of O-Sensei's students, Mitsuge Saotome, used to find learning from O-Sensei difficult, as he would never perform the same technique the same way twice. And when they asked him why, he told them that it was because the attack and the other factors involved were never the same twice. He would just "go with the flow" and adapt the technique on the fly to make it work.

I haven't seen this in any of the Aikido instructors I've ever gotten to study with, unfortunately. This isn't an indictment of the art. It's just an observation.

[hideouse]

Hello fellows,
I'd like to chime in with a small note: what we call "jujutsu" is the superset of which "aikijujutsu" is a specialized subset. Aikido is a subset of "aikijujutsu", often characterized as Ueshiba-ha Daito Ryu.
The mythology of the origins of Japanese martial arts is ok as far as it goes, but I thnk it's a bit of a distracter and not really any more germaine than the idea of European martial arts relation to European battlefields before the advent of firearms.
Others have pointed out to me that the modern Japanese martial arts owe more to the Pax Tokugawa than the battle of Sekigahara. A fellow named Ellis Amdur has some interesting points to make on this subject illustrated by the contrast of modern Japanese MA versus some of the old school stuff he found when he studied Araki ryu.
Jun Akiyamas aikido_l mailing list and his Aikiweb are fountains of knowledge. Some of the participants are old enough to have met and trained under Crazy Mori himself.
And absolutely true is the observations that really good aikido teachers who are also good at the aiki are rare as hens teeth.

[skiski]

This is a great post Wadem!You know your stuff.
Steve Wisnewski

[wadem]

Even though no one has challenged me as yet, I wish I had posted a more accurate and diplomatic article. Perhaps Caoch Sonnon will let me adjust it before publishing.

I assure you, I do NOT know my stuff. There is more in these types of studies than one can learn in a lifetime. That goes for ALL martial styles — if someone takes the time to seek the information out.

I would like to clarify that I was/am NOT putting any style down, just individual execution. And I was trying to simply point out that for us modern folks, potentially dying on a battlefield tomorrow is unlikely, so the urgency to learn truly effective fighting skills is not as necessary, nor is it culturally acceptable to practice in such ways. For those reasons alone, the "quality" (for lack of a better word) of the practice — NOT the instruction or curriculum — and how individuals choose to frame said practice, determines the efficacy of one's skills. I assure you, there are as many, if not more, bad Aikijujutsu students out there, because the art is so hard to learn. Good instruction is definitely a help, but no one spoon feeds the information. And even if they did, you wouldn't get it without lots of practice.

Referring to the comment made about Saotome sensei having difficulty learning from O Sensei, I hardly think he was alone. O Sensei was very religious and often spoke in spiritual riddles (from what I have read). I witnessed a number of O Sensei's Uchi Deshi at seminars and on video and NONE of them move the same. An explanation for this is the traditional Japanese teaching method of demonstrate the technique and let the students struggle to figure it out. That leaves a LOT of room for interpretation, I would think.

I heard/read somewhere that Sogaku Takeda never taught the same technique twice to any student. So it was like you had to smart enough to steal it. That is the makings of a lot of different results from student to student. But he also taught people based on their body type and size. Techniques have to be done differently, depending on the individual.

So, to all you other Aikido and Jujutsu folks out there, I am not making blanket judgements on everyone, just those I have seen over the years in general. There are plenty of people who are much more talented than I will ever be. I am just following what rings true to my preferred method of learning.

[Coach Wilson]

My quick 2 cents...

Great Article! I spent many years as a private student of a Japanese Jujitsu master and was, according to him his highest ranking student. I have also worked with some of the top Jujitsu (Japanese) instructors in the country and have always had a special place for it. I also spent years in tradional Aikido training. That being said, and I hate to sound like a comercial, I learned SO much more about what I was doing once I started working with Coach Sonnon and RMAX. The concept and the way Coach teaches Hyperfunctioning alone opened up doors in my mind like you would not believe. It is all truly movement...thanks for the article Wade. Smile.

Always,

Joseph

[Coach Tran]

Wade,

Thanks for sharing your insight. I enjoyed it. Keep sharing because I am benefiting.

Yours in CST,

[wadem]

Thank you, Bao. And congrats on attaining Coach status!

Coach Wilson, respect. In reality, I love all things Jujutsu and will gladly empty my cup to learn anything new I can from anyone. All training is beneficial. I just think it is important to know what your goals are and not just show up for class, y'know?

Funny you should mention Hyperfunction. A lot of setups, leads into locks, and throws in a LOT of Jujutsu (and Aiki) techniques utilize Hyperfunction. There was just no name associated with it to my knowledge. When I first saw Hyperfunction, I was psyched because I was familiar with the concept, but just from a different venue.

I always try to see the similarities between what I know and what other people do. I feel it helps me grasp the 'new' material faster. I greatly value seeing or hearing similar concepts from other people's point of view. It makes my own knowledge more rounded.

That being said, there are a LOT of benefits to Intu-Flow™ training that would definitely help with subtle skills. This is because to do subtle techniques, you have to get rid of your excess tension and inefficient movement habits. All the different paths lead to the same view at the top of the mountain. :)

[Scott Sonnon]

Martial artists strive to move like water.

An empty cup is full of air. To empty your cup means to fill with air. People feel that they are losing water, rather than gaining air.

Water is slow. Air is faster. Air is everywhere.

Be air.

[Jamrock]

Very insightful post, I have some experience in Aikido (2-3 years or something around there) and I have found that all of what you stated about Aikido in particular is backed up by my personal experience.

[Bernard]

This is a good thread. I am a 3rd Dan in an urban system of Ju-jitsu. Our systems founder was an icon.

From that perspective, stressing urban, I have to say that this thread is right on point.

The chances circumstances, environmental and otherwise of combat are radically different now then they were when these styles/systems were developed and thru various stages of their development.

At the time my teacher was developing as a martial artist, he was more likely to have to defend himself against a police officer, who held a position of authority over him - both vocationally and racially (the race part does have implications). Or he was equally likely to have to fight in a small elevator or stairwell in a tenement building as someone would be trying to "mug" him. I don't think people get mugged much anymore?!? Point being his combat terrain and circumstances were much different that those of his primary teacher who was from the pacific islands.

Today my students and myself are more likely to encounter a ground fighter, or MMA practitioner. As we all well know, our surroundings have changed, there are little to no warrior codes/ethics around which combatants do battle, different motivations for would be attackers, and less accountability systems for warriors to adhere to. All of these things affect our fighting realities, and not many people in my experience are energetic enough to study into AND PRACTICE what it takes to remain relevant.

I appreciate those who do all the more in this light.

Like Coach Sonnan, I appreciate your sharing your truth- it is only for others to do the same.

[Scott Sonnon]

Bernard,

Funny you should mention that. In the late 90s, I had the distinguished honor of training personally with the late Prince Boris Golitsin in St. Petersburg, Russia. He pulled me aside and said to me that because I learned so quickly he would share with me a secret trick for escaping from three police officers simultaneously.

I was honored that a Prince would take the time to train me personally, but I thought to myself that I would never have to use the trick. (Well, in Memphis, you have to be careful, I mean... Joe Wilson.)

[Bernard]

LOL. Yeah, here in L.A. too! I've been exposed to some different Silat practitioners, some of them still talk about these stances that are for people who fight under houses on stilts and only 4.5 feet of clearence while in the mud.

Nothing wrong with that, I just have more confidence in my Silat friends who can translate the utility of those same stances if one needed them on the corner of 42nd st & 5th Ave in N.Y., or Central ave. and 76th st. in L.A. - there's concrete there....(big smile)

[cammo]

Martial artists strive to move like water.

An empty cup is full of air. To empty your cup means to fill with air. People feel that they are losing water, rather than gaining air.

Water is slow. Air is faster. Air is everywhere.

Be air.


Nice! I have trained in aikido and Brazillian Jiu Jitsu. I find they mostly rely on similar principles of proper hip movement and using the body as one unit to execute a technique rather than just using your arm or leg or whatever. At a fundamental level in terms of actual practice I think they share similar traits. Of course, arts like aikido lack the competition element in favor of focusing on more of a 'spiritual' apprach. I think in the long run you do whichever art fits your personality and they all have there stong and weak points. Take an aikido person down to the ground who has enver trained that and what are they going to do? Of course maybe O'sensei or his top students trained to the level of never being taken to the ground. I once saw a demostration of O'senseis top studend Koichi Tohei grappling with a wrestler in japan. I don't think the guy was Matt Hughes or anything but he wasn't able to take down Tohei ater numerous attmepts. He would just get off the line of attack.

But there all fun. the major thing I like about BJJ over aikido is you can 'test' the technique without your partner freaking out on you. If I resist or don't go with the flow at all in aikido I am either scolded or told to do better ukemi. In BJJ I am being a good partner by offering resistance, atleast when rolling.

[sames]

the major thing I like about BJJ over aikido is you can 'test' the technique without your partner freaking out on you. If I resist or don't go with the flow at all in aikido I am either scolded or told to do better ukemi. In BJJ I am being a good partner by offering resistance, atleast when rolling.

Yes! Go slow. Be cooperative. When your first learning the technique! Once you think you have it you need to turn up the pressure incrementally by adding resistance, motion, speed and stupid angles. Lots of techniques work really well in the lab and would probably work equally well on the street if we could just get our attackers to grab us in X fashion or hold their arm out after striking. heh.

I heard a quote recently about how to know when you've mastered a technique: When you can apply it two three experienced fighters, two drunks and an idiot. Too often experienced fighters know what to expect and react the way they are "supposed to". Drunks have higher pain thresholds and move in unexpected ways. The idiot is a clear slate from which any response could manifest.

[JasonE]

Lots of interesting stuff here! I've had the good fortune to train in judo, Danzan-ryu jujutsu, BJJ, and two forms of aikido. There were TREMENDOUS differences in teaching styles and emphasis, but over time I found that the most fundamental principles were the same.

I agree that truly good aikido practitioners are ultra-rare. The only three aikido people I've met that made me feel they could make it work for real were: Rod Kobayashi (founder of Seidokan Aikido), Bill Sosa (founder of International Aikido Association), and Michael Ellefson, who continues to train and improve. Some others seemed to be moving in the right direction and hopefully will achieve that level too.

I am often surprised by how few modern aikidoka, judoka, and jujutsuka learn proper striking. The old forms of these arts included an enormous amount of striking with the hands and feet. Turn-of-the-century texts like "The Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu" have photos showing atemi practice and pages showing the locations of vital points for striking. Darryl Max Craig's book "Japan's Ultimate Martial Art: Jujutsu Prior to 1882" does a nice job discussing some characteristics of older forms that are rarely seen today.

Some arts, such as that of fighting in traditional samurai armor, are of historical interest but have no practical modern application. As previously pointed out, environment determines need which determines the evolution of one's training. I feel that most "traditional" arts began with a successful individual gaining followers. Sold on his success, following generations simply trained to emulate the skills he preferred as opposed to pursuing their own process of deepening personal mastery.


I heard a quote recently about how to know when you've mastered a technique: When you can apply it two three experienced fighters, two drunks and an idiot. Too often experienced fighters know what to expect and react the way they are "supposed to". Drunks have higher pain thresholds and move in unexpected ways. The idiot is a clear slate from which any response could manifest.

I think this is an excellent standard for practical purposes. On the mat, I worry less about advanced grapplers than I do about beginners. On the street, I worry about everyone, most of all the idiots. ;)

[SAB]

Bernard:
At the time my teacher was developing as a martial artist, he was more likely to have to defend himself against a police officer, who held a position of authority over him - both vocationally and racially (the race part does have implications). Or he was equally likely to have to fight in a small elevator or stairwell in a tenement building as someone would be trying to "mug" him. I don't think people get mugged much anymore?!? Point being his combat terrain and circumstances were much different that those of his primary teacher who was from the pacific islands.

Today my students and myself are more likely to encounter a ground fighter, or MMA practitioner. As we all well know, our surroundings have changed, there are little to no warrior codes/ethics around which combatants do battle, different motivations for would be attackers, and less accountability systems for warriors to adhere to. All of these things affect our fighting realities, and not many people in my experience are energetic enough to study into AND PRACTICE what it takes to remain relevant.

Am I reading that right ?
Do you mean you are likely to encounter a BJJ or MMA guy entering the gym to test his skills or that you are more likely to be attacked by one on the street than a mugger ? :)

[jphaas]

Some arts, such as that of fighting in traditional samurai armor, are of historical interest but have no practical modern application.

Jason,

I would respectfully disagree with you on this statement. Many LEOs and military routinely wear body armor that is heavy and restricting in the same way historical samurai-type armor was. This knowledge of being able to fight and move in armor definitely transfers over into very modern applications.

Just my $0.02. :)

Jon

[Scott Sonnon]

Jon,

Could you please cite the studies contrasting the load bearing mobility of ancient samurai armor and modern US battle rattle; or if not is this just your assessment based upon anecdotal experience actually fighting in both? Or is this just a theory you came up with or have been told by someone?


Jason,

I would respectfully disagree with you on this statement. Many LEOs and military routinely wear body armor that is heavy and restricting in the same way historical samurai-type armor was. This knowledge of being able to fight and move in armor definitely transfers over into very modern applications.

Just my $0.02. :)

Jon

[jphaas]

Jon,

Could you please cite the studies contrasting the load bearing mobility of ancient samurai armor and modern US battle rattle; or if not is this just your assessment based upon anecdotal experience actually fighting in both? Or is this just a theory you came up with or have been told by someone?

Scott,

Nothing so fancy as studies contrasting the load bearing mobility between the 2 types of armor. I do, however, train monthly with friends in the Bujinkan who represent the US Marshals, FBI, SWAT, NYPD, Marines, and Army Special Forces (to name a few). Each of these gentlemen, who do wear modern body armor for a living, have commented on how practical and useful an understanding of how historical samurai fought in armor has been for them to create better, more efficeint movement on a day to day basis in their modern armor. Principles of warefare remain the same despite the changing technology. :)

Jon

[Scott Sonnon]

So, anecdotal references, that's fine. However, second hand anecdotes have been proven unreliable and failible. I've worked with each of the above agencies and others and have heard the opposite anecdotes.

Like all things, armor mobility load bearing is gear-specific. Thinking that training in ancient armor is as useful as modern armor is like saying that racing in a horse carriage prepares you for racing in a high performance stock car. It defies Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands, and logic.

Moreover, there's research out there demonstrating that there is no appreciable difference in unarmed combatives performance in armor versus without. The extensive studies conducted by the US Army Combatives School, spearheaded by SSG. Matt Larsen, several years ago in the creation of the new FM 21-150 US ARMY Combatives Field Manual included evaluation of the utility of gear versus gear-less drills. The studies across several actual combative conflicts of several disparately prepared groups concluded that there was no change in battle performance. It's been a few years since I read the studies, so I'm fuzzy on the details. I'll have to ping Matt.

[wadem]

Thought I would chime in here, even though I do not have hard historical data or resources to direct anyone to. Just my personal observations, research, and experience.

Very interesting addition to the thread about armor. I wore a suit of authentic Samurai armor when I was about 10. The full suit (which Dad still has), must weigh somewhere around 80+ pounds, the helmet itself almost 15 pound. The Samurai who wore the armor could not have been taller than 5' 2", so I would imagine conditioning and endurance were important to not only wear it, but to fight in it under the duress of combat. What's my point, right?

Based on my personal belief that the end goals of Jujutsu and Aikijujutsu were/are to effectively dispatch an enemy with what an old practice partner used to call "supercilious disdain," the wearing of armor would potentially force a warrior to find more efficient ways of moving their body while encumbered and tired. I think that in order to establish whether practicing with armor (modern or otherwise) offers any training benefits, one would have to take into account what the end goals of the practice are. Large and strong people would have an easier time moving with the additional weight. Smaller and weaker people would be forced to find more efficient ways to deal with the load.

I can see the wearing of armor beneficial (from the standpoint of Aiki training) for a few reasons:
It forces one to learn to not expend overt amounts of energy.
It encourages proper alignment of the body to bear the weight in a way that is most efficient. A side benefit of this is potentially saving the joints with better alignment.
Armor of any kind hinders full range of movement. If one can learn to do more with less overt movement, efficiency of technique can be improved. An example of this is modern kneeling practice. You have to execute the same techniques while kneeling or sitting where the benefit and mobility of the legs is non-existent. By imposing limitations, technique becomes more efficient.Just my uneducated 2 cents. Great discussion, though! :)

[Scott Sonnon]

Wade, good thoughts. To my recollection, that's what the study demonstrated: that wearing of armor during combatives preparation made no demonstrable improvement on performance in the battlefield.

An relevant analogy will be useful here regarding the research on flight simulators. Research was done demonstrating that having window shaped screens for the simulators versus non-window shaped "full" screens did not increase pilot performance under stress of battle. The lack of visual landscape was not the issue, but rather than physiological arousal interfering with reaction time, movement time and response time.

As multiple independent studies from different agencies have corroborated, it is the biochemical arousal which primarily determines performance efficacy and efficiency... equipment and even technique are far, far, far ancillary.

And as any currently certified member can attest, this is the basis of RMAX.

[wadem]

Hi Coach! Your information is much more educated than mine, and it definitely has merit. I would like to just reiterate that the venue or training goals may have some bearing on the results. From what I am reading, I am getting the impression that the studies are assuming certain criteria and methods of combat execution.

I may be wrong here, but if one person practices with armor and their goal is to hone minimal motion effectiveness, while another just attempts to perform more "normally" or "naturally" (for lack of a better word) while encumbered, I think the results would be quite different.

However, you are right in that the biochemical arousal definitely has a major effect on performance, and would in effect be an equalizer, regardless of training methods or goals.

Still, I wonder if the armor thing could be utilized in a way that would enhance combat performance, not unlike the way the Clubbell®s enhance overall performance not only through conditioning, but by making the practitioner learn to move "with" or "around" the weight. Just a thought.

In any event, I can tell you that limiting mobility in training has definite merit for enhancing efficiency. Once the limitations are removed, things seem to be much easier. But making that distinction in a vacuum of a practice hall vs. the battlefield is hard to quantify.

[Scott Sonnon]

Well, the research studies did detail groups using a variety of different methodologies from the available preparation time alotment. The conclusion of the studies determined that irrespective of technical content, it was the drill structure, not the delivery system, which gave the combatant the greatest likelihood of success and survival... If the method gave the combatant the ability to close with the enemy even if he was unarmed, then that combatant had a greater chance of success and survival.

Men like Tony Blauer have developed excellent systems using modern armor research as a specific tool for delivering non-injury producing pain so that the combatants can experience the additional friction and fog upon combative biochemistry... but again... it's the biochemistry that's the issue, not ancient armor, and not technique rehearsal.

Dojo bred martial artists love to pontificate what gives the battlefield combatant the ability to be victorious on the battlefield. Some even romanticize combat conducted thousands of years ago as if that fanciful recreation were somehow pernenially transcendent. Most of these recreational enthusiasts have never even faced the biochemical cauldron of stepping across the ring or mat from another trained martial artist in competition. And that's totally fine!! I don't denegrate the cultural tradition whatsoever! For example, I love playing capoeira but I have no illusions that the dance prepares me for the "street."

When individuals start passing off second, third and many many places removed hand knowledge as how one should prepare for the mortal collision of the battlefield without any hard research and with second hand anecdotes and theories, that's we get prickly.

Unless one can provide hard research data proving the battlefield effectiveness of dressing up in ancient garb for modern combative preparation, we would never endorse it. We're talking about people's lives here in actual combat.

Since RMAX is involved in training military and law enforcement agencies, we feel an obligation to not base our training on anecdotes and theories, but on evidence and research.

[wadem]

All points well taken, Coach! And I totally agree with your approach to training and cautiousness about recommending anything without hard data. It would be irresponsible. And you are right in saying that a lot of traditional people have either never had a violent encounter or had to compete with anyone. That side of the 3DPP is an important testing ground for seeing where training is going.

I think that this may be a case where training or attribute specificity training come into play. There are definitely a lot of very close combative situations where true aiki ability would be the most effective and appropriate. Specifically, when one is highly immobilized or even wounded where they cannot move more "normally."

Again, I think that the majority of combative training for military and law enforcement is based on certain assumptions (educated ones based on experience) about how the melee will play out. This is the most efficient and fastest way to get the trainees to a level of competence quickly. But it also assumes that the combatant will have most of their physical faculties. In fact, most systems of combat do. You have to start with best case scenario. But like you have said, the worst you do in the training hall is the best you can expect to do on the street. And that ain't so good from my experience. :eek:

Perhaps something that you and your brilliant (I mean that honestly) Coaching Staff could look into for furthering the FlowFighting™ matrix, is to devise training for worst case scenarios, such as loss of mobility of a limb, visual or auditory impairment, being pinned down or immobilized by others, or being crammed into a tight space. There has to be a way to implement the base training of Intu-Flow™, Shockability, Fisticuffs, etc. into these situations. Perhaps your experimentations could provide some of that sorely needed hard data. ;)

All of the RMAX martial arts related materials are brilliant, but I do not think that they have addressed absolute worse case things like the above, as most of the drills seem to exercise and operate with maximum mobility. I am sure you guys are aware of the benefit of reducing the perceivable size of effective techniques down and can probably do it yourselves, but I think that is where a lot of people fall off the boat and need to be shown examples. Just a thought! :)

[Scott Sonnon]

Wade,

As part of "imperfect training", RMAX has already been training agencies like this for several years. But this type of training is not for public consumption.

[wadem]

Oh, you secretive guy, you! I might have known... :cool:

[Scott Sonnon]

It's not about secrets, but ethics and practicality. Civilians tend to think that training like a specop soldier will make them better at defending themselves against a street assailant or home invasion. But that's not only not the case, it's the opposite.

[wadem]

I absolutely agree. I think it would be irresponsible to put that kind of knowledge into everyone's hands. It has far more potential for being used inappropriately.

What I was referring to as far as worst case scenarios did not entail releasing SpecOp type knowledge. I was thinking more of additional examples of use of the RMAX principles in less than perfect situations. Sort of like how FlowFit II is specifically about ground engagement. Take the baseline self-practice methods (Intu-Flow, BodyFlow, etc.), mix them with the "baseline" FlowFighting methods (SoftWork, HardWork, PAE, etc.), and later introduce uses for the principles learned in more sticky situations. No lethal methods intended, more like releases, escapes, immobilizations, etc.

[Scott Sonnon]

Already there, amigo. Adaptability, Resiliency, Improvisation, Toughness and Athleticism are the main attributes of FlowFighting. You really need to get to the next FlowFighting Camp!

[wadem]

Ah, yes. THAT goes without saying! :D