Jujutsu, Aikijujutsu, Aikido

[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.

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!