Martial Arts and The Cycle of Bullshit - Charlie's Diary PDF

11/29/2017 Martial arts and the cycle of bullshit - Charlie's Diary
Charlie's Diary
Being the blog of Charles Stross, author, and occasional guests ...
[ Home ] [ FAQ ] [ Contact me ] [ Older stuff ]
Back to: Drink Me: The Horror Hotel Story, and Where Ideas Come From | Forward to: DO
BUY MY BOOKS
YOU 'LIKE' THE SUN? The Content Casino vs. the Long Game
US English editions
Martial arts and the cycle of bullshit UK English editions

Deutsche Ausgaben
By Tricia Sullivan
日本語の本
Hello, everyone. Charlie has kindly invited me to post here because I am a
QUICK STUFF
science fiction writer. But for the next four guest posts I'm going to be talking
about fighting, martial arts, the media, and women. I have a lot to say. In this FAQ: Who am I?
first post I'll give you an idea of where I'm coming from when I'm talking FAQ: Moderation Policy
about fighting. FAQ: Why is there no tipjar?
FAQ: Copyright Notice
So you need to know that I started martial arts training when I was thirteen FAQ: Inviting Charles Stross to
because as a young woman I was always being told I was a potential victim; speak
I wanted to move past that. It was kind of ironic how at sixteen, studying FAQ: Fan Fiction
karate in Okinawa, I was singled out for 'special training' by one of the higher Bibliography and online fiction
ranks, who then felt me up liberally and eventually propositioned me in front FAQ: Laundry Files reading order
of his wife. She was translating for him! Talk to me

Non-blog writing (old)
But don't worry--we won't be going there.
SPECIALS
I just want to establish my background. I was kicked out of my first school for
Common Misconceptions About
insubordination because while preparing to test for black belt I refused to Publishing—a series of essays
train with the women and children, but other than that I was well-behaved. I about the industry I work in.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/martial-arts-and-the-cycle-of-.html 1/72
dabbled in various arts off and on throughout my teens and twenties. When I How I Got Here In The End —my
non-writing autobiography, or what I
was 28 I started training with Steve Morris, who is known in Britain for his
did before becoming a full-time
deep knowledge of fighting and its training methods. Steve taught me to hit. writer.
Hard. Eventually we hooked up and we are still together. Through sixteen Unwirer—an experiment in weblog
years as Steve's website administrator, camera guy and partner I have mediated collaborative fiction.
learned a lot about martial arts from a technical, historical, political and Shaping the Future—a talk I gave
personal perspective. on the social implications of Moore's
Law.
Most people think of martial arts and fighting as being more or less Japan: first impressions — or,
synonymous. I see them as a Venn diagram of two sets that overlap by a tiny what I did on my holidays
margin. This is because most martial artists don't fight and their training isn't Inside the MIT Media Lab—what
it’s like to spend a day wandering
directly based on what happens in a fight.
around the Media Lab.
There are reasons for this. The problem of training for a fight is a tricky one. The High Frontier, Redux — space
If an instructor puts students in an actual fight (as opposed to highly colonization: feasible or futile?
controlled drills with restricted moves), they might get seriously hurt. But if “Nothing like this will be built
again”—inside a nuclear reactor
instructors can't create an accurate representation of a fight in the gym,
complex.
trainees will never really be tested. To make up for the lack of fighting,
Old blog—2003-2006 (RIP)
martial arts typically focus on displays of fake combat that illustrate the
combative moves that have been passed down through history. They may MERCHANDISE
have non-contact or light contact fighting, but this only tests your ability to
touch the other person with the techniques you have been taught--not your
ability to hurt them for real much less take a beating yourself.
Most people who study martial arts study a system. Whether the system is
historical (like kung fu and karate) or modern (like Systema and Krav Maga)
the techniques are taught formally, with ranks, with semi-compliant drilling
between members of the same school, and with a heavy dose of hierarchy Internet Puppy T-Shirt
that keeps everybody in their place. With a few exceptions (Gracie Barra jiu-
jitsu is one system that grades predominantly through hard competition) the
idea of all-out fighting is a theoretical one, kept well in the background.
But fighting is chaotic. It's often unpredictable. It doesn't systemize well and
it's difficult to pass on as a body of knowledge. What people don't realize is
that no matter how effective the founder of a discipline may have been in his
(or in the case of Wing Chun, her) day, unless the practices of that system
involve rigorous testing in realistic fighting conditions against non-compliant
opponents from outside your system, you can never really know whether you
This Machine Kills Demons magnet
can make their moves work for you.
It's not a big leap to get from martial arts to religion. To a greater or lesser
degree, you are expected to take what's being taught to you on faith.
There are a lot of problems with this, but perhaps the most offensive to me is
the fact that a person can rise to high rank and great influence without
possessing any fighting ability whatsoever. Thus is born a cycle of bullshit. Original Official Laundry mug
You have someone teaching you (allegedly) to fight, but they have no fighting view more products by Accelerando
experience themselves let alone the know-how to help you. If you go along
with this long enough, you can aspire to turn around and teach others one
day. Ad infinitum; ad nauseum.
I've been a part of that cycle. When you realize what's going on, it's
disheartening. And the more heavily you are invested in the hierarchy, the
ABOUT THIS ENTRY
deeper the disillusionment, and the more difficult to throw away your
This page contains a single entry by
investment. Even if your investment turns out to be shite. For years, even
Tricia Sullivan published on
after I saw karate guys biting the dust against trained grapplers in the UFC September 10, 2014 12:05 PM.
cage, I believed that the great karate masters from my former school's
Drink Me: The Horror Hotel Story,
lineage had some special combative power that was too dangerous for the and Where Ideas Come From was
UFC. I thought that if they weren't fighting in these contests it must be the previous entry in this blog.
because they were too spiritual--not because they'd be shit-scared to try. DO YOU 'LIKE' THE SUN? The
Content Casino vs. the Long Game
This is what happens when you have a powerful imagination. Fundamentally,
is the next entry in this blog.
I'm a nerd. And I swallowed a lot of bullshit because I wanted to be a part of
a warrior culture (groping notwithstanding). I later learned that many people Find recent content on the main
index or look in the archives to find
have made the same mistakes that I did.
all content.
By contrast to me, my partner was an athlete and street fighter from a very
SEARCH THIS BLOG
young age. In his youth Steve was kicked out of Kyokushin Kai for excessive
contact so he moved to Japan, where he trained so hard he earned a third Search
degree black belt from Yamaguchi Gogen within a year. When he got back
PROPAGANDA
from Japan he ran a martial arts club in central London for many years while
researching global fight training methods and their history. Around 1973
Steve started an 'anything goes' fight class where all methods and
techniques were allowable--it was a kind of proto fight club. He told me that
the immediate result was that the white belts started beating up the black
belts and the black belts fled the club in droves.
Steve's not famous, but people in the know are aware of him and what he CATEGORIES
does. Over the years a lot of higher ranks have walked through his door Administrative (5)
looking for guidance, and I personally observed any number of black belts Computers (10)
come undone under even mild pressure. They realized painfully that their Gadget Patrol (6)
system had failed them. Humour (12)
News (6)
Many made an initial effort to change. A few threw away what they'd learned
Politics (13)
and worked very hard to start over with a fight-centred approach. These guys
Publicity stuff (9)
did improve massively, and they developed self-reliance and self-respect--
Publishing (18)
one became a successful professional MMA fighter. Some quit the martial
Travel (7)
arts. Many others--I'd say the majority--soon realized how hard it was going
Writing (32)
to be to deal with the challenges of fight training, and went back to their
systems. They seemed chagrined, embarrassed--but not enough to let go of MONTHLY ARCHIVES
their status in a recognized hierarchy. Some of these guys are quite highly
December 2016 (2)
ranked teachers with respected credentials.
November 2016 (6)
October 2016 (4)
September 2016 (4)
I could never understand this last response. Before I realized I was crap at August 2016 (6)
fighting it was maybe understandable that I placed faith in my karate training. July 2016 (9)
But once you see something, you can't very well un-see it. Unless you are an June 2016 (13)
ostrich. Or you run a dojo. May 2016 (6)

April 2016 (8)
Which brings me at last to the parallels between science fiction and the
March 2016 (7)
martial arts. Over the years I've formed the opinion that both are most
February 2016 (7)
commonly used as means of escape from reality. Nothing wrong with
January 2016 (7)
escapism as a thing--you need to be honest about it, though, and martial arts
Earlier, and other types of archive.
tend to fail big in that department.
Of course, science fiction doesn't only have to be a way out--it can also be a
way in. For me, both martial arts and science fiction are the most rewarding
when they engage with reality in all its depth and complexity.
But what does engaging with reality even mean? That's a question for next
time, when I'll talk about personal combat as we see it depicted in popular
media. Headsup: it's usually absurd.
Posted by Tricia Sullivan at 12:05 on September 10, 2014 | Comments (113)
113 Comments
Princejvstin | September 10, 2014 12:42
1:
"I'll talk about personal combat as we see it depicted in popular media.
Headsup: it's usually absurd."
Now THAT isn't a surprise, but I look forward to what your knowledge
brings to the subject. :)
Neil W | September 10, 2014 13:20
2:
There's a potential series here:
Later I'll talk about journalism/IT support/cooking/business meetings/the
popular media/teaching as we see it depicted in popular media. Headsup:
it's usually absurd.
Martin | September 10, 2014 13:31
3:
As one guy I knew said, "there's not a ninja on the planet that's harder
than a glass ashtray".
An experience from the 1980s was turning up at a crowded pub in the

Grassmarket just behind the Saturday Night crew from Lothian & Borders
Police - all these grizzled-looking six-foot-plus cops piling out of a Ford
Transit and in through the pub doors in front of us. Turned out that a cast-
iron pub stool had been used as a club, on someone whose back was
turned. Instant end of fight.
My takeaway from this was that it was all about situational awareness,
having at least one of the group looking in each direction, and the ability to
talk/walk/sprint my way out of trouble as applicable. Training for unarmed
combat was only going to give me delusions of adequacy...
Now I have children, and they're doing Judo. The physical benefits (in
core stability, balance, movement) and the mental ones (in focus,
concentration, and the ability to take a knock without shutting down) are
great; the local instructors are all GB team; and there's less risk that they'll
confuse the sport with being "a bit handy".
Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 13:42
4:
With you on situational awareness. I think Judo's a great sport, and I
wouldn't be too quick to write off the advantages it could confer if they get
in a one-to-one scrap with someone. At least they are training in full
contact competitions and not the touch-fighting of karate or tae kwon do.
Nile | September 10, 2014 13:44
5:
This has needed saying for a while.
- Nile
3rd Dan, Aikido. And a bit of Karate, at a club in Newcastle, where the
instructor * did* teach us how to fight. The difference between students
who attended those Saturday morning classes, and those who did not,
was quite noticeable.
yohansenbabe | September 10, 2014 13:46
6:
I trained in Hapkido during college and reached the rank of second degree
black belt. My instructor was an professor of Exercise Kenesiology at
Indiana University and had a very eclectic approach. He had studied judo,
jiu jitsu, karate, kung fu, taekwondo, etc. and taught alot of different
techniques from different styles and encouraged students to take the
techniques that work for them and make them their own. In his words
"Hapkido is whatever works for you."
Hapkido is very practical with an emphasis on awareness of your
surroundings, being able to fall to the ground without being injured (this
has saved me on ice on more than one occasion), trying to escape and
run (with no shame in that), all kicks below the waist, and generally dirty
tricks. I think the way it was taught to me gave me a healthy perspective
about fighting and a realization that fighting is the last choice I would want
to make. Real fighting is not a sport. Sports are for fun, so there aren't any
sports that allow gouging eyes, crushing windpipes, breaking
knees/shins/arms etc.
I now realize that I had a unique situation in college with a great group of
people. I've tried some martial arts schools and it just never felt the same
or held my interest. So, now I've gone back to my roots and help coach an
elementary school wrestling team. Three of my four sons enjoy wrestling,
and its fun to participate in the sport. I remain hopeful that I never have to
use my Hapkido training in a fight because I realize I might not survive the
encounter.
Phil Edwards | September 10, 2014 14:03
7:
A friend of mine, who's both fearsomely intellectual & very very fit, got into
Aikido & tried explaining it to me. "So it's about self-defence?" I hazarded.
He replied that, in an Aikido perspective, if the situation had reached the
point where it was meaningful to talk about self-defence, you'd already
failed. Which sounded impressive but made me wonder how much use it
would be in a fight - and how handy an Aikido master would be, or would
need to be.
Then again, when my daughter went to a self-defence class they

impressed on her that rules 1 and 2 are 'don't be in a dangerous situation
in the first place' and 'if you are there, get out' - because self-defence isn't
about doing anything clever or devastating to the attacker, it's about

keeping yourself unharmed.
8:
Thank you for your comment :-) The intention is good behind methods like
Hapkido (also Jeet Kun Do is like this). The problem comes when we talk
about 'what works for you.' As you rightly say, eye gouges and groin kicks
and other dirty tricks cannot be tested in the mix. Nor can full contact
punches, kicks, elbows, etc. be tested unless you fight. I think there's a
little bit of false logic going on when instructors decide that because dirty
tricks can't be tested in the mix, they won't competitively test the other
aspects of fighting. And the other aspects can be tested: in boxing,
wrestling, judo, sambo, Muay Thai, and MMA.
There's a lot to unpack here and I don't want to digress into the possible
differences between fighting and self-defense, but my personal take is
that you are wise to put your kids in wrestling. Again, here's a way of
training and of testing the training through strenuous competition. It's not a
complete picture of the fight, but the part of the picture that they have they
will know from the inside out and not just from hoping it will work.
9:
PS, sorry, my comment was @johansenbabe but coming back to you,
@Phil Edwards, yes, fighting and self defence have overlap but they are
not the same. Fighters want to be there. There are loads of soft skills in
self defence and I'd suggest that the soft skills I've seen taught in SD are
much better than the hard skills on offer.
Nojay | September 10, 2014 14:16
10:
My own martial arts experience was in Practical Pistol, or Combat Pistol in
US terms. It totally ruined me as a possible combatant using a pistol
though since rule 1 of the training was "Never point a pistol at anyone" to
the point of getting dry heaves and shaking if I accidentally "swept"
someone.
Any of the sports martial arts including swordfighting, stickwork etc. as
well as the empty-hand schools are based on the principle of never
hurting anyone to the point of tissue damage. If that happens then
something has gone wrong somewhere in training, equipment or
supervision. Learning to really fight, to permanently damage someone or
kill them is not simple, developing the mindset to be able to do so from a
standing start at zero notice is even harder. Psychopaths have it easier
than most in that case.
furicle | September 10, 2014 14:33
11:
You start by saying fighting and martial arts are only somewhat
overlapped, then complain about it?
Martial arts provide a lot of benefit outside of fighting you never mention.
I'm not going to argue that someone talented at kata or sparring for points
will be good in a bar fight, although I might argue your MMA guy might not
be either...
Any dojo claiming karate is all you need for self defense is baloney, but
that doesn't mean it's not helpful or enriching.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Nojay | September 10, 2014 14:36
12:
@Nojay you said 'the empty-hand schools are based on the principle of
never hurting anyone to the point of tissue damage. If that happens then
something has gone wrong somewhere in training, equipment or
supervision.' Yes, this is the principle they use and with respect to the
empty hand systems, this is where they have it all wrong.
It is perfectly possible to train hard and realistically and then to test your
training in open competition. There are ways of adapting the fight to
training that minimize injury and maximize the simulation of the fight--but
they are ways that are extracted from the fight and easily inserted back
into the fight. The fight itself is generally misunderstood by martial artists
because so few of them have spent significant time in it. The idea that no
one can get hurt is a way of avoiding reality. People get hurt in sport.
Thankfully they are rarely killed, but people get knocked out and injured
because it's a fight. Even in training, the idea that there shouldn't be any
contact or tissue damage seems silly to me. I've been known to bruise
myself pretty bad just by hitting the bag.
With you 100% that psychopaths have an advantage,though :-)
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from furicle | September 10, 2014 14:38
13:
@furicle I'm not complaining about the lack of overlap. My complaint is
that so many martial arts claim they will make you good at fighting, then
don't.
If people want to do their martial arts for other reasons, good for them. No
issue.
Megpie71 | September 10, 2014 14:41
14:
From the way you're describing things it sounds like martial arts is to
fighting as a fire drill is to the experience of an actual fire. Or as someone
once put it - you can do all the emergency drills you like, but you're still
missing one crucial component: the actual emergency. It hasn't rehearsed
with you, so it doesn't know what it's supposed to be doing. Which means
things are going to go wrong, and when they do, you're going to have to
be able to adapt on the fly.
The Bad Things start happening when you run across a group of people
where the leadership aren't aware they have to adapt; it sounds, from the
way you're describing it, as though this may be an ongoing problem in
some of the more formalised disciplines of the martial arts.
cd replied to this comment from Phil Edwards | September 10, 2014 14:47
15:
I went to a presentation a while back by a British classical fencing master
named Guy Windsor (he teaches fencing and Medieval Martial Arts in
Helsinki these days), and he made some very salient points:
Martial arts are precisely that, arts.

Combat sport, like kickboxing or MMA, is still a sport.
Both those
have rules and
train you to freeze when someone shouts "stop" in an
authoritative-enough tone of voice. Real fighting skills may have
guidelines (try not to kill), but you definitely don't want to train
yourself to freeze if the other person shouts "stop".
Your best self-defense equipment is a pair of good running shoes.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Megpie71 | September 10, 2014 14:49
16:
@Megpie71 There is something in this analogy. However, I would say that
the fire drill itself in martial arts is flawed. The fire drill of the training hasn't
been taken from experience of real fires, but from some hand-me-down
account of what fires are like from someone who might have been in one
a hundred years ago. This account-of-the-fire has been passed down from
generation to generation and enshrined as a kind of sacred text. All kinds
of conclusions have been drawn from it, modifications have been made to
practices based on what the No Fire people hope will be true. But there
isn't even any smoke.
Adrian Howard | September 10, 2014 14:51
17:
There are a lot of problems with this, but perhaps the most offensive
to me is the fact that a person can rise to high rank and great
influence without possessing any fighting ability whatsoever
I'm curious why this is a problem? I'm not a martial arts person, apart from
a few years of judo 35 years ago that I've completely forgotten. Back then
it was made very clear to us by the folk who were teaching that this was
more about physical fitness / sport than combat. The folk who were
attending to learn to fight seemed to leave quite rapidly.
I got the same message from a friend of mine who did aikido, karate, and
fencing — about 20 years back now. He loved it, was very good at it, but
he was clear on it being fitness/sport not combat. He was very clear on
the contrast between his army training (hurt/kill people) and his martial
arts stuff (fun).
Are there different cultures of fitness/sport vs combat? Has there been a
shift over the last 20/30 years for it to be seen as more about fighting than
fitness/entertainment?
Curious…
Nojay replied to this comment from Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 14:51
18:
By "tissue damage" I was meaning something like eye trauma or a
reflexed elbow rather than bruises and scrapes, damage that will endure
for a long period or even cause permanent problems (like detached
retinas). Even in an MMA "Unlimited" competition that doesn't happen
often and when it does it usually means something has gone badly wrong.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Nojay | September 10, 2014 14:53
19:
@Nojay My bad! Got you.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Adrian Howard | September 10, 2014 15:01
20:
@Adrian Howard I should be clear that this is a personal prejudice on my
part.
Judo has always been taught as a sport, but really it's not a bad way to
learn certain aspects of fighting.
I really do take issue because in my dojo (Goju-ryu) we were told that high
level mastery implied combative effectiveness. I certainly wanted to feel
that I could look after myself, but the confidence karate gave me was
false. Granted, I was young and impressionable--but then, a lot of people
are when they start training.
We were told, 'A good karateka could take out a boxer' because reasons
and 'A good karateka could beat a judoka' because other reasons.
And..um...no, not really.
And I do still see this going on in places. The situation has improved since
MMA came on the scene. I remember when MMA first came in the karate
guys were in denial for a while. Then they started saying, 'Oh, but what
we do is an ART...' Not so in my day.
Greg. Tingey | September 10, 2014 15:07
21:
"usually absurd"
Yes, well, I know enough ( & that is a very small amount) to know that
representations of sword-fighting as seen on screen (any screen) are utter
crap.
But ...Nojay @ 10....
Sword-fighting usually involves protective gear & blunt implements. Use
the real thing on someone, without protective gear & they are going to go
down.
Even properly using a walking-stick as a foil/sabre is going to give an
aggressive opponent enough pause to allow you to RUN AWAY (As I
have done)....
David L replied to this comment from Martin | September 10, 2014 15:09
22:
As one guy I knew said, "there's not a ninja on the planet that's
harder than a glass ashtray".
Yes. My brother in law is a recently retired policeman. His comment was

the best way to stop someone running away or towards you was a night
stick thrown at their shins. They practiced this.
Bravo Lima Poppa 3 | September 10, 2014 15:11
23:
That was an interesting read.
And I look forward to the follow up.
David L replied to this comment from Princejvstin | September 10, 2014 15:12
24:
"I'll talk about personal combat as we see it depicted in popular media.
Headsup: it's usually absurd."
Now THAT isn't a surprise, but I look forward to what your knowledge
brings to the subject.
Go ask any emergency room or orthopedic personnel what happens to

the bones in a hand when a bare hand strikes most any bone on a head.
Bravo Lima Poppa 3 replied to this comment from Nojay | September 10, 2014 15:16
25:
Agreed.
I like to imagine my opponents when I drill, particularly with cane. The

problem is, that not only do I get strike zones, but unless I'm careful, I also
get an idea of the damage I've just done to a person.
Its hard to reconcile the joy of mastering a challenging skill with

knowledge that if I have to use it I'm going to seriously hurt or kill
someone.
I hope I never have to.
Adrian Howard | September 10, 2014 15:26
26:
"And I do still see this going on in places. The situation has improved
since MMA came on the scene. I remember when MMA first came in
the karate guys were in denial for a while. Then they started saying,
'Oh, but what we do is an ART...' Not so in my day.."
Thanks. Interesting. It kinds of reminds me about some $work stuff I've

been poking at on how communities of practice evolve over the years.
One of the peeps in that field, Etienne Wenger, talks about the "Joint
Enterprise" of communities — their shared goal/domain — and how the
community renegotiates that over time despite sometimes keeping the
same practices and social groups. So what was "sport/fitness" 30/40
years back became "fighting/fitness" and has now moved onto
"art/fitness".
David L | September 10, 2014 15:31
27:
For some reason the original Roller Ball movie comes to mind and should
somehow be a part of this discussion.
yohansenbabe | September 10, 2014 15:35
28:
What I've come to realize since my college experience with Hapkido is
that my instructor's status as a tenured professor allowed him to teach in
a more honest and less ego driven way without the pressure of earning a
living. For example "Q: What is the best defense to someone demanding
you give them your wallet? A: Give them your wallet because there
couldn't possibly be anything more important in your wallet than your life."
It wasn't a system of "my way is the right way or the only way". So this
approach allowed me to absorb some perspective on the purpose of the
training along the way.
Another benefit of my involvement in the martial arts was also learning
about the healing arts. My instructor invited Jiu Jitsu master Sig Kufferath
(87 years old at the time) to teach a one half day self defense and one
half day Japanese massage seminar. It was so interesting that I went on
to get my certification in massage and worked as a massage therapist for
two years while I worked my way through night law school. My massage
training has been one of the most useful skills I have ever learned and I
still use it to help my friends and family members with their injuries, aches,
and pains.
Jay | September 10, 2014 15:49
29:
I was a poor student of Tae Kwon Do, but my instructor was good. On day
1, we covered fighting. Eyes, throat, balls, kneecaps. That was our
fighting instruction. The rest was TKD.
Barry replied to this comment from Martin | September 10, 2014 15:56
30:
"My takeaway from this was that it was all about situational awareness,
having at least one of the group looking in each direction, and the ability to
talk/walk/sprint my way out of trouble as applicable. Training for unarmed
combat was only going to give me delusions of adequacy..."
This is about third-hand, but a friend told me about an article in a martial

arts magazine, written by a guy who had worked for a long time in a large
biker bar.
He said that the normal fight was one guy stepping up behind another and
hitting him one or two dozen times in the head, as fast as possible. No
faceoff, no warning, and the initial assault was intended to both be
devastating, and repeated second by second.
Nojay replied to this comment from Greg. Tingey | September 10, 2014 15:56
31:
I know of people who train with live edged weapons and no protection,
I've seen them demonstrate short-range combat in such a situation. It's
still false fighting as they deliberately pull strokes, don't close to less than
a sword's length, kick crotches and shins, backstab, go for the extended
foot or knee etc. They do it for the sport.
32:
@Jay Wow, surprised anyone came back for Day 2 after all those
eyeballs falling on the mat ;-)
Bob | September 10, 2014 17:07
33:
Just adding to the previous comments.
I've been doing Aikido longer than I really care to remember (35 years, as
well as ten years doing Tang soo do) and the "Aikidoka can beat..." meme
has been around forever. I've never believed it, but then I've never really
been interested in finding out either. It's always been difficult for me to see
how training in a martial art bears any resemblance to fighting. I've always
based my continued training on how it made me feel, not what it would
allow me to do to other people.
PM1956 | September 10, 2014 18:03
34:
Interesting....but isn't that the general path for almost every form of
education? I think of tennis. I can drill for hours with an instructor, but that
is not the same as playing a match. Or philosophy--it is an abstraction
from discussions among people. Some perceptive people will see
patterns, and then abstract from them, draw up a set of "rules", and then
teach. As the patterns and rules get more and more abstract (think
analytic philosophy) they get farther and farther away from real world
situations, and any analytic philosopher would be killed at a poetry slam.
whitroth | September 10, 2014 18:15
35:
Martial arts... The only I've ever done were fighting heavy in the SCA and
fencing. When I took T'ai Chi, decades ago, our 70-or-so year old Chinese
instructor who had trouble with English insisted it was *not* a martial art.
The one I always thought of taking was Aikido.

If I actually wanted a "real" class in fighting, I think, I'd say screw *all* the
"martial arts", and find yourself a DI or other instructor from the Army or
Marines basic training - they're teaching for actual combat. The only belt
they give, other than in the mouth, is survival.
And btw, one of the basic lines in SF is not escapism, but "if this goes
on...."
mark, in a 21st Century* that keeps growing to
resemble a cyberpunk distopia
* This is *not* the Real 21st Century, I want the Real one back, *NOW*,
thankyouveddymuch.
Antonia T Tiger | September 10, 2014 18:19
36:
I've read far more abou8t military history that about martial arts, but there
are similarities. There are the armies which are always ready to fight the
previous war.
There are people such as the possibly mythical Sun-Tzu, who seem to
have abstracted the reality into Principles of War.
And, anniversary coming up, we have military units which seem able to do
the impossible, through sheer aggression, until you expect them to pull off
something like Arnhem, when you realise how much depends on the hard
logic of the craft, and there's a limit to what aggression can do.
In the end, battles are won by making the other side run away. You can,
sometimes, do that by almost pure maneuver. Aggressive action can be a
part of it, an aspect of destroying confidence as much as of killing, as well

as making the most of your confidence.
There are a lot of similarites.
Martin replied to this comment from Antonia T Tiger | September 10, 2014 19:06
37:
Regarding "making the other side run away" - this is a very interesting
article on the subject...
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf
Meanwhile...
Other features that haven't been mentioned are luck, mood, and the
potential impact of "coming second". You have to wonder how often the
"better fighter" didn't live to pass on their understanding, because they
were unlucky or careless - once.
My father was a professional soldier; and did a job that potentially took
him close to bad people, while not wearing uniform. He was good, in fact
one year was the Skill-at-Arms champion for his Corps - but his comment
was that no matter how hard you trained (and he did a mix of armed and
unarmed close combat training), there would always be someone slightly
better. Or heavier/stronger. Or luckier.
I became an infantry reservist. It turned out that I could shoot well, to the
extent that I competed for our unit. But in actually training for fights, a lot
of my effort went into practising my concealment, map reading, and radio
skills; because "Hello M13B, this is G20A, Fire Mission..." artillery-fu
trumps gun-fu, every time.
I then started competing in target rifle (a totally different, and utterly non-
martial form of shooting as practised at the Olympics) and discovered that
once you've got the techniques well-learned and trained, and you've
ironed out the physical and equipment issues, the difference between a
good and a not so good performance in competition or under stress is
largely between your ears.
That whole performance psychology thing continues to fascinate me; I've

met some excellent sports psychologists (and some useless ones who
were trying to flog their books). It strikes me that a lot of the techniques
touted as "mystical" are grounded in a good basic approximation of how
the brain works - this even extended to wearing an EEG while trying to
enter a flow state during training.
Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 19:21
38:
Very interesting perspective. I really like your idea that the "arts" of
various fighting styles do not necessarily overlap with effective winning
of fights. I know nothing about martial arts other than movie depictions
that
are so often stylized they look like ballet. I would guess they are as
incongruous as movie sword fights that for all their sturm und drang
bear little resemblance on how one should use a sword like an Epee.
@Antonia In the end, battles are won by making the other side run away
Not always, sometimes it has been just a slaughter. But yes, making the
other side give up and exit the battle is a common, and desirable,
outcome. As Sun Tzu admonished, making the other give up before a
battle
is the best outcome. This was very much the US intention in Gulf War I
with the very public display of the military build up. A modern version
of animals raising their hackles to make themselves look larger.
Antonia T Tiger replied to this comment from Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 20:49
39:
Historically, a lot of the slaughter comes when the other side does run
away. Whatever the weapon, being a target reduces your ability to kill.
Whether you ambush them, or they're running away, you're not a target.
There are other factors. But, up to Napoleon's time, fleeing armies were
routinely cut to pieces by the cavalry. Infantry who formed square, or a
similar formation, could hold off cavalry. Break formation, try to run away,
and that was it.
Infantry firepower increased, a lot, during the next century. That did
change things. The basic weapons were fixed by 1914, even armoured
vehicles were around. But how they were used changed a lot. British
Artillery Methods today still derive from that experience.
Heteromeles | September 10, 2014 20:51
40:
I'd gently disagree about the best defense being a good pair of running
shoes.
The best defense is your brain and your mouth. Then something else.
I'm not a fighter at all, but I've talked my way out of a number of
confrontations. Moreover, I've watched some game wardens work. Now
the interesting thing here is that game wardens routinely have to deal with
armed people (armed with guns, not fists) who disagree with them and
generally outnumber them. They're also underpaid, understaffed, and
generally very far away from backup. Oddly enough, they're pretty good at
projecting their authority regardless of all these handicaps. To do so, they
almost always use their mouths rather than their weapons, although
they're perfectly willing to cuff someone if there's a weapon or potential
weapon involved. There's not some secret school of game warden fu (so
far as I know, they get standard peace officer training), but what they do
have that's different is a good sense of how not to escalate a potentially
dangerous situation, without caving in or losing control.
Since not all of us can run, and none of us can outrun a bullet, I'd suggest
that we spend more time practicing self-defense with the things we all
have: our brains and our mouths. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of
people who teach this either.
Ivan Bushmarinov | September 10, 2014 21:22
41:
Thank you for a deeply inspiring and informative post. I have never had
any martial arts training, but I can understand the emotions of instructors
who went back to teaching "martial arts" after learning the hard way that
they will never be able to fight "for real".
There is, surprisingly, a good SF book on the topic, written by Sergey

Ladyzhensky and Oleg Gromov. The former is a senior instructor, II dan
Goji-ru black belt, and he has taught karate in Kharkiv during quite
unhappy times. Since karate in USSR was forbidden, it was considered a
magic road to master street fighting skills — and, well, in the 90s both
security people and street-level gangsters took lessons. Soviet way: any
profession requires proper education. One of the book's main plot lines is
about a videotape "teaching you to fight any number of people" which
suddenly, implausibly and randomly works.
It's a real shame that language barriers exist and nobody else
commenting on this blog can read Russian :)
Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 21:53
42:
@heteromeles - I think your game warden/peace officer case is too
specialized for most cases. You want to avoid any fight unless you are
there specifically to break it up, Wyatt Earp style.
My understanding is that most people do not want to shoot and potentially

kill someone, unless directly threatened. So not threatening and turning
away will, in most cases, deny the shooter the incentive to shoot.
Running, if you can, makes you a rapidly harder target to hit. Obviously
this won't work with sociopaths, but fortunately they represent a small
minority.
Interestingly US cops do seem to shoot people without provocation, even

in the back. However, they routinely use the defense that the target was
"coming towards me in a threatening manner", whether true of not, which
minimally plays into the sensibilities of the average jurist as to whether the
response was appropriate or not.
TRX | September 10, 2014 22:27
43:
> They seemed chagrined, embarrassed--but not
> enough to let go of their status in a recognized
> hierarchy.
That's not unusual. I've read half a dozen accounts of Soviet defectors set
up in Britain, Canada, or the USA with a comfortable middle class lifestyle,
who chose to return to the USSR, knowing that prison would be one of the
better possible outcomes.
The usual explanation was that "back home" they had a recognized slot in
a hierarchical society, while in the West they had no "place."
I've seen the same mindset with religion and programming languages...
Heteromeles replied to this comment from Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 22:48
44:
Well, the odd thing about that is that when there's a mixed-department
operation involving game wardens, at least in California, the game
wardens routinely are given the lead by the other cops. Note the phrase:
they don't take the lead, they are given the lead by other cops, sheriffs, or
marshals.
The reason for this is simple: game wardens deal with heavily armed
people all the time. It's part of their job, and the heavily armed people they
routinely deal with are hunters (aka joe public with a deer rifle, which is a
civilian version of a military rifle), poachers, and marijuana growers.
Cops, on the other hand, mostly deal with unarmed people. The
apocryphal story is that most cops never have to fire their weapons in self-
defense or as part of a confrontation. While they're trained, they are less
likely to be comfortable confronting a heavily armed suspect, especially
doing so in a non-violent or at most minimally violent way (I count cuffing
someone until the officer knows where the weapons are and said
weapons are neutralized as minimal violence, especially when the warden
gives the suspect sthe option of being cuffed peacefully and takes a bit of
care to make sure they're sitting somewhat comfortably while he goes
over their guns, knives, bows, and what have you).
So yes, wardens are specialized, but since they're the most outgunned
and outnumbered cops in California, if not in the US, it's worth paying
attention to how they keep themselves from getting killed in the line of
duty. And yes, they do get killed, but very rarely.
TRX | September 11, 2014 01:24
45:
In other states, a police officer may interact with lawfully armed members
of the general public several times per shift without even knowing it.
Jay | September 11, 2014 01:31
46:
Part of the difference is in how you hit. There's a big difference between
aiming at the surface of the target and aiming at a point about six inches
behind the surface. The first hit is a tag; the second could break bones.
Most martial arts use the first type of hit for sparring and save the second
type of hit for lumber. This means that in a real fight the student has to
adjust his art, which is tough to do, especially if nobody told you you'd
need to.
William H. Stoddard | September 11, 2014 02:13
47:
I'm going to suggest that the same thing is true of statistical methodology
and quantitative reasoning. They were originally worked out to solve
actual problems about actual measurements of the physical world—things
like deriving the likeliest true orbit of a newly discovered asteroid from a
handful of observations and predicting where it might be observed next,

which is where we got least squares analysis. Now it's largely used by
social scientists who accept pathetically low standards of validity (one
chance in twenty of being due to random fluctuations? really?) and whose
work is scarcely ever subjected to replication; that is, it's an elaborate
ritual. And it isn't as if most of this work is going to be tested in the
observatory or the factory; most of it is used to provide rationalizations for
currently trendy political and economic policies that are ultimately imposed
by law whether they work or not.
Heteromeles replied to this comment from William H. Stoddard | September 11, 2014 05:09
48:
Sorry to be rude, but since the situation for ecology is the same as for
sociology, I'll point out that the funding rate for proposals is somewhere
below 5%, so you've got less than a 1 in 20 chance of getting a study
even funded.
It's fun listening to people on NIH funding whine about how they can't get
enough funding to replicate a study enough times to think it works. In a lot
of scientific fields (e.g., those that deal with the 99.99999% of life that isn't
human), it's unlikely to get any study funded at all, and it's definitely
unlikely to get a replicate study funded.
So it's only a ritual science to those who think in the Cadillac terms of the
biomedical world or the data rich abstractions of physics. That's not to say
that lack of replication isn't a huge problem, but it is to say that you
shouldn't blame the practitioners for doing research in a wider political
world that doesn't want their results. So, if you're an American taxpayer or
politician, blame yourself for this one.
This, incidentally, is also why drug development costs somewhere north of

US $1 billion. That's the cost of proper replication, and a large majority of
that billion is researcher salaries.
Nile replied to this comment from Bob | September 11, 2014 05:54
49:
"the "Aikidoka can beat..." meme has been around forever"
Quite. I think that there are two points here: technical ability and mental
ability.
As you progress, it stops becoming about 'technique' - you're not a

competition judo champion, closed-down, immovable, and waiting for the
opening for your signature technique - you just *do*, it's just defend, or
deflect, or immobilise, or throw, and it's only afterward that you can say
which of the exercises you've practiced and internalised contributed to
what you did.
But there's one set of techniques that you are very good at indeed, and
rarely think about or even realise that you know: breakfalls.
We forget that. We forget that throws we've taken for granted as an easy
exercise since halfway through our kyu grades will cause permanent
injury to the untrained, even on a tatami mat. People don't get up from the
real sweep-them-up-and-see-daylight-under-their-feet ikkyo, because that
forward breakfall takes practice, and landing on your ribcage knocks the
wind out of you; or breaks your ribs; and landing badly on your arm breaks
your collarbone; and landing on your face can kill you. Some Judo
students can do it; some ju-jitsu schools teach it; and all of them - and us -
know that the real world is made of concrete, and the very best breakfall
that you ever made will only mitigate the injuries of being thrown into the
gutter.
And all of the exercises ending in a backward breakfall are injurious to the
untrained. They will still go down - the throws work - but very few arts
teach the technique of sliding into the ground, protecting your spine, and
not striking the back of your head; so very few people will get up again if
they are thrown backwards in a fight.
Think of how carefully you practice with beginners, easing them into the
mat and letting them develop their breakfall; think of the slaps and bangs
and crashes of the overenthusiastic intermediates; and the eerie silence
(with occasional thwumps and crashes that halt the entire mat) from the
higher grades, practicing in a graceful blur with daylight and clear air
under them as they're thrown away or thrown down into the
immobilisations.
It's easy to forget that this isn't harmless: not, of course, that an aikidokai
of your experience has forgotten - but we rarely step back and think of
what we're really doing.
The second point is: can you do it? Would you take a fast, committed,
powerful punch in a real-world attack, and *do*?
Would you be aware, and already responding, if a punch or a kick 'came
out of nowhere' ?
If you're in a club that practices randori (multiple attackers, to a count or

free-form) and really puts the students under pressure with it, the answer
is probably 'Yes'; but there are many clubs that don't do that.
And far, far too many students do not make honest, committed attacks
that demand an effective response.
So I wince when I hear that 'the Aikidokai can beat' meme; the well-taught
ones probably can beat most others - but that's true of the better students
in any art. I'm prepared to bet that Steve Morris has met very few
Aikidokai who can fight, or none; one or two Karate Dan grades who are
everything they should be; and one or two Judoka who can; and Tricia
has made it very clear that these are the exception rather than the rule.
And I am struck by the thought that T'ai Chi was once considered to be a
devastatingly effective martial art, and was taught to the Emperor's
personal guard. Schools and federations and dojos drift, over time, and
become sports, or fitness classes, or moving meditation; and even Aikido
is taught as the development of mind and body coordination first, and self-
defense second.
El replied to this comment from Nile | September 11, 2014 08:58
50:
I studied taiji for health benefits for quite a while, the term for practise is, in
fact, play.
Perhaps it was just the school and teacher I was with, but it was taught as
a health/exercise/moving meditation/relaxation thing and it was great. I
went with a bad back thanks to some work I was doing that required bad
posture and this gave me something that required and enforced good
posture. It also got me away from a pressure cooker work environment for
a couple of hours to let go and relax.
There were other teachers within the family - taiji teachers are traditionally
adopted into families - who focused on more martial things. You could
move on to sparring (which started lightweight and fun and could elevate
to be pretty nasty). I can't attest to the value of the more fight-biased end
of the art, I never saw it used in a real fight. I did attend the classes where
they talked about how the graceful forms that everyone thinks of when
they think of taiji, and that I'd learnt, had been adapted from the fighting
applications and practised low-speed, low-impact contact of them in their
fighting form too. That was my choice, I didn't want to learn how to fight
with them, I did want to learn their origin and use because it helps
understand the art. But the combat forms are actually in there and not a
long step away if you've got the temperament and desire to learn them. I
was 30-something at this point, and one of the younger people in the main
taiji class. I taught and assisted teaching taiji for a number of years too -
although those that stuck it through were about even, classes started
about 2/3 women.
I haven't been to a wide range of other martial arts classes but I suspect
there's a concentration of younger men. They largely have a desire to
fight - they might want the discipline, but they want "my X will let me beat
your Y" as short hand for "I'm harder than you." Their teacher may or may
not know they're talking rubbish when they say "Oh yes, of course it will"
but somewhere, someone is faced with the prospect of a nice paying
student walking off or feeding them that line followed up by "But only when
you reach the level to understand the inner secrets," rubbing their hands
as they think of the years of income they've just guaranteed.
I'm not saying that's in any way right - it's BS of the highest order - but I
guess it's understandable.
I think the difference with science fiction is that science fiction largely
doesn't ask us to buy into the world view as a truth. (L. Ron Hubbard and
his estate and church might disagree but that's a special case.) I
thoroughly enjoy Charlie's Laundry books. I don't believe in Bob and the
Laundry as real people and organisations. I a sprinkle of Urban Fantasy in
my reading but I don't actually think there are vampires and werewolves
out there. In some ways, much like taiji as meditation, it's nice to mentally
step into a space where I'm away from the stresses of work, paying the
bills and the like.
Do some people bring it back with them? Probably. Definitely, actually. I'm
sure we've all met them. But I think that says more about them than the
author.
paws4thot replied to this comment from Antonia T Tiger | September 11, 2014 10:47
51:
I've seen it argued that the real problem with Arnhem was that the Tank
Corps' rate of advance was rather slower than the generals planned for.
This was at least partly due to the lack of width on the single road they
could advance down.
52:
The last cavalry charge I can think of was in Poland, in 1939, and cut to
pieces by Pz 1 and 2, plus armoured cars.
As to "forming square agaisnt cavalry", isn't that what army formation drill
is still about some 75 years after the last charge, and heading for 150
since the last successful charge against regular infantry?
leashless | September 11, 2014 11:19
53:
I started training at seven. Karate in a church in the Scottish borders. I'd
seen enough violence by that time in my life to realize that this was not a
game, and that actually killing people by putting your hands on them was
a necessary life skill for at least some of the people in the world. I trained
pretty regularly for the next 15 years, and less regularly after that,
eventually falling into the nasty end of Chinese internal martial arts, where
they teach you things like how to punch somebody *in the liver*.
What I noticed was this: the calm knowledge that I could take anybody I
met hand-to-hand other than a few old soldiers and the occasional high-
dan karate instructor, even though I was a short fat man, completely
repositioned me socially. When I got ill and lost most of my physical
capability for a year or so (hello, middle age) left me nearly mute.
Training to kill people is very different from training to fight, or martial arts.
When the mental model of what you are trying to achieve is "score the
point" it's one activity. When it's "knock the guy out" it's another. When it's
"drop him and move to the next" it's a third. Even BJJ with it's "no holds
barred" reputation actually blocks most of the simple and effective ground
moves like breaking people's fingers.
A few years ago I did some very slow, light contact sparring with an MMA
instructor a foot taller, 10 years younger, and muscular enough to have
bench pressed me without breaking sweat. He couldn't close without
exposing his eyes, neck or groin to direct attack - no tools for defending
those targets because MMA contests do not permit them to be attacked.
His entire world came apart when he realized that in a real confrontation
somebody vastly his physical inferior but with much nastier training was a
very credible threat.
The psychological price I pay for martial arts training layered on top of
pretty severe PTSD was going through life feeling like a weapon.
Somebody would barge into me on the street and I'd raise a hand to ward
them off, but a fraction of a second behind it was the thought of lethal
attack. In the 1990s in Edinburgh I was accosted on the street: very nearly
kicked a woman trying to stab me with a hypodermic syringe in the throat

rather than running away, and the two seconds in which I paused to
square off could easily have gotten me killed, albeit slowly. Fortunately
she didn't close, and I realized what I was doing and ran away. But that's
a situation where it was very, very clear that combat training completely
impeded my common sense.
Eventually I took 10 years off. Stopped training, put on a ton of weight, did
some ageing. Eventually the reflexes-and-PTSD package loosened, and I
started to appreciate the movements for their own sake rather than as a
constant rehearsal to kill. Post traumatic stress disorder is a terrible thing,
and my early desire to train had largely been driven by it: the reflexes
encoded the trauma, the mindset in the movements. I trained with the
expectation that I was going to have to kill multiple opponents bigger than
me hand to hand, and 30 years after the last time I was subjected to that
kind of violence, it was simply no longer a realistic threat model.
Eventually it faded without the constant practice reinforcing the PTSD
world model. Deeper stuff started to heal.
The most dangerous man I ever met was an American veteran who was
in his late fifties or early sixties. His parents had died when he was 13 and
he'd hit the road, wound up in Vietnam (or Korea?). He rode freight trains,
and had impeccable manners. Eyelets pulled out of his boots which
apparently soldiers of that era did because they could reflect the light. His
entire presence radiated that he was a human being with no inhibition
against killing. Nobody would mess with him, the violent, alcoholic
criminals of groups like FTRA ("freight train riders of america") regarded
him as utterly untouchable because all he wanted to do was be left alone
and live in peace, and if you forced him to, he'd kill you. Without it being
any kind of a thing.
But he was a machine. Unsmiling, slightly robotic, friendless. A lot of what

makes us human, or at least appear human to other people, is our
unwillingness or inability to kill. With that disinhibited, by training, or by
trauma, or more usually by some combination of the two ("combat
hardened troops") you definitely wind up slightly or significantly less than
human.
I need to start to train again for my health, but I don't want to sharpen and
harden my damage into a spear to rip through somebody else's internal
organs any more. I'm growing up: only 35 years since I first set foot in a
dojo.
M Harold Page | September 11, 2014 11:19
54:
> But fighting is chaotic. It's often unpredictable.
German Longsword seems evolved to deal with this -- it's all about getting
the feel for putting your sword wherever it should go at that moment.
Cut too short? Fine, stab him. On target? Great. Bind on his sword in case
he has another strike left in him. Too close? Snake around his blade and
slash him, or close and grapple if you think you can. Fighting six people?
Fine, run away then pick them off.
Antonia T Tiger replied to this comment from paws4thot | September 11, 2014 11:29
55:
It may well be that the last Cavalry Charge has not happened yet, and it
won't need some collapse of civilisation, but I think the info in this article
has a dash of romanticism running through it. I suspect the reality
reported was more often mounted infantry.
With walking-robot supply transport, how long before robot cavalry, and
what will happen to the poor sods who have to follow orders and charge?
No, a cavalry charge might become something very different….
Martin replied to this comment from paws4thot | September 11, 2014 12:25
56:
"Polish Cavalry charging tanks" is German propaganda, I'm afraid. Didn't
happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#Cavalry_charges_and_propaganda
However - if you do a search on "Charge of the Savoia Cavalleria at
Isbuscenskij" you'll find a 1942 example where an Italian Cavalry
Regiment charged a Siberian Infantry Regiment, and won.
As for "formation drill" being about cavalry, again no. Think of it as being
the kata for western warfare...
In the days where a muzzle-loader took well over fifteen seconds to
reload, had an effective range measured in tens of yards rather than
hundreds, and had a accuracy measured in feet not inches, the only way
to employ them effectively was en masse - in groups of a hundred or
more.
The simplest way to engage a target was to point a hundred muskets in
the same direction, and fire volleys under control; firing by ranks means
that only half your troops are reloading at any time. The techniques of
getting a hundred soldiers to move as a group from point A to point B, in
good order, and then point in the correct direction, were a natural
succession from "doing the same thing, but with pikes".
This is why the term "well drilled troops" is so significant in the 18th and
19th century - if your troops are better at foot drill than their troops, you
can move your rifle companies into position more quickly, and direct their
fire more accurately.
The Napoleonic Wars saw the introduction of rifles, and Rifle Regiments
(see Mark Urban's excellent book on the subject); the US Civil War saw
some of the last use of massed foot drill on the battlefield - because over
the next couple of decades, the repeating rifle and then the machine gun
were introduced.
As an aside, the "Highland Charge" was simple - stay at the edge of
effective musket range, persuade the enemy to fire a volley at you
(possibly by firing your own volley and then dropping your muskets), and
then try to sprint from the limit of musket range, to the enemy, faster than
they can reload. In the days of plug bayonets (rather than socket
bayonets) this worked; against "well-drilled troops" it failed.
57:
It's really interesting reading everybody's comments. Thanks so much for
all of the fascinating responses!
About eye gouges and groin kicks and other dirty moves. I think people
get the wrong idea about how it works. This is not about techniques, legal
or otherwise. It's about the mindset you need in order to survive in a fight.
And it's true that fighting in MMA can't guarantee street survival, but it
offers you far more opportunities to get that survival mindset than learning
techniques or drilling them outside fight context does.
I used to be on a women's self-defense demonstration team. We did lots
of groin kicks and eye gouges for pretend. When I remember it I break out
in hives. Saying, 'I could poke you in the eye' or 'I could kick you in the
groin,' sounds great in theory. But unlike in martial arts demonstrations the
opponent isn't going to come at you in a predictable way and he isn't
going to just stand there while you do the move. Not to mention that it
takes quite a lot of aggression to kick somebody in the groin or claw at
their eyes. This destructive aggression for many of us isn't easy to come
by.
And what if the eye gouge fails? What if you kick him in the groin and he
smiles and keeps coming (some guys do--I've seen it). Now what?
It's true that there are MMA fighters who train purely for sport and who are
probably nonviolent outside. But it's also true that a lot of the people
attracted to the sport are attracted to it because they love the violence. I
personally know a number of doormen and street fighters who train and
fight MMA also. I wouldn't recommend trying to poke one of them in the
eye, personally :-)
Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 12:32
58:
"...but perhaps the most offensive to me is the fact that a person can rise
to high rank and great influence without possessing any fighting ability
whatsoever. "
There are very few people who are both great fighters and great teachers.
And the qualities you need in a General are not the same as you need in
a regular soldier, although there is obviously overlap.
I have practised Shorinji Kempo for some 35 years. It was originally a
religious organization that taught a martial art in order to attract young
people to the philosophy. Latterly, to my disgust, it has largely dropped it's
religious origins and there is almost nothing taught of those in the West.
It was never about fighting per se, and indeed hard contact free fighting
was severely discouraged after a number of deaths. However, you will find
some kenshi who are rubbish fighters and some who are excellent. The
latter includes one well known very senior teacher who has allegedly had
over 200 street fights in his life.
Additionally, throughout most of its existence in Japan, it is/was very

different to the kind of martial arts you see in the West. Instead of thinking
"sport" or "unarmed combat" or "street fighting", think of a cross between
a paramilitary organization and Freemasonry with a big dose of political
influence thrown in for good measure. How many martial arts orgs in the
West have the podium packed with politicians and billionaires at their big
get-togethers?
Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 12:35
59:
As for real fights, my first instinct would be to go for a weapon. Anything -
stick, bottle, chair, rock. Real fights are not about fairness but life or death.
Always try to bring a gun to the knife fight, or a baseball bat to the fist
fight. A big stick is worth several dan grades.
60:
Guys, some clips just for your amusement :-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xw5wjwVkFc
which of course calls to mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
Sorry. Couldn't help myself.
61:
Unfortunately the real problem with MMA is strategic rather than tactical.
In a one-on-one fight for status ("duelling") going to the ground is plausibly

safe. But nobody in their right mind should be in a fight like that using
MMA: anything past adolescent boys slapping each other carries too
much of a risk of permanent physical injury. Duelling is stupid: throw rocks
at it.
That leaves actual fights, where if you go to the ground you can't escape
because you can't run, and you're a sitting duck for your opponent's mate
kicking the hell out of you while you are grappling. It's even worse if
weapons are involved.
Almost no fight can be guaranteed to stay one-on-one.
62:
OH, and re https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19rcj1qm8GE
Most approaches to knife fighting assume people are using power moves
designed to drive a tanto through armour: Japanese samurai stuff. This is
much like how Akido makes a ton more sense if you visualize your
opponent's wrist holding a sword. Its origins are in battlefield last line of
defence stuff for disarmed samurai in armour, which is why
kicking/punching is irrelevant - the armour gets in the way too much.
Control the sword arm and attack the joints and/or throw: it's a rational art
for that scenario, and training quality is usually exceptionally high. Good
stuff.
Knife disarm etc. against people who *aren't* stabbing hard enough to
punch through armour is vastly harder; the blade is a paintbrush that
paints with your blood. Just slight contact can poke an artery. They don't
commit force to the blade because they don't have to: typical tactics are to
protect the blade hand with the off-hand to guard against disarms, and to
keep the blade moving.
Knives are very, very bad things and extraordinary fear of them in hand-
to-hand is appropriate.
Dave_the_Proc | September 11, 2014 13:06
63:
I always got the impression (having been fortunate enough to have
personally avoided real fights almost entirely) that winning a real fight was
a lot more to do with attitude and experience rather than technique and
training (in whatever discipline/art). I once knew a guy who would (and
had) hospitalised people in fights; he had no martial arts or combat
training, but had hair trigger unpredicatability and violence lurking just
under the surface (particularly when drunk), and a willingness to seriously
injure his opponent in any fight. I remember him finishing one story with:
"... and then I broke his leg with a metal drain pipe, just to make sure he
didn't get up ..."
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from Dave_the_Proc | September 11, 2014 13:14
64:
Whoever starts a fight usually has a massive advantage for one or several
reasons - surprise, weapons, friends, insensitivity to pain through drink or
drugs, lack of inhibition, plus they get to pick their target and the time and
place of their attack.
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from Tricia Sullivan | September 11, 2014 13:15
65:
Watch it and cringe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd7M4H0b62k
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from leashless | September 11, 2014 13:24
66:
@leashless The problem I have with your logic is that it assumes you
have a choice about going to the ground in a fight. I might not want to be
there but it's not always a choice. So if I'm there, it's a good idea to have
some experience dealing with it and getting back up.
The whole point of MMA training is that you may be a standup specialist
against a grappling specialist, and then you train to avoid going to the
ground against world-class grapplers, not some random guy in a dark
alley.
Again: MMA not a perfect solution, but better than the alternatives imho.
67:
Dave, "real fights" covers everything from teenagers brawling in the park
through professional criminals raiding each-other's houses up to Cold War
special forces meeting in the tunnels under Berlin where gunfire will draw
too much attention. What makes a fight "real" is that, to the combatants
involved, it's at the edge of their training frame / operational envelope.
Nutters with a talent for violence do very, very well to a point. But (for
example) bouncers and police deal with them on a fairly regular basis
without terribly high injury rates. A lot of that is context: they work in
groups, the de-escalate, they take a lot of precautions against getting
sucker punched or ambushed and so on.
One-to-one duelling between people who are drunk is where most "hard
cases" learn their chops, and it's not a good training ground against
organized and semi-skilled opponents.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 13:28
68:
@DickBruere LOL you read my mind. I almost posted that, but I was
restraining myself.
I think this clip illustrates a serious point: when you don't have contact
training in your practice you can become pretty deluded. If you have a
compliant training partner, anything can work.
Dave_the_Proc replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 13:29
69:
This particular guy seldom started fights, but if he wasn't on the floor with
the first hit, whoever did start it was in some serious trouble (and he
seemed to have a massive pain tolerance). Looking back, once he had a
few drinks in him, he was disturbingly reminiscent of "Begbie" in
Trainspotting (as portrayed in the movie), absent some of more extreme
sociopathy.
70:
Tricia - yes, I absolutely agree. The same logic applies to knife defence: if
you're unfortunate enough to be attacked with a knife, there's a good
chance you didn't have options.
You need ground game (I did a reasonable amount of judo) but the MMA
mindset is all-too-often that going to the ground maximizes the
advantages of your training. That might be true, but it also maximizes your
liability in any self defence scenarios.
71:
I'd agree about your cite's romanticism (interesting and well argued
anyway though), and that several of those actions seem more likely to
have involved "mounted infantry" (I'm defining cavalry as "soldiers
equipped and trained to fight from horseback", and explicitly excluding
units like "armoured cavalry" of Vietnam vintage).
Even if I take the cite at face value, I think some of my other points, like
about "forming square" and about cavalry being outclassed by armour still
stand.
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from leashless | September 11, 2014 13:42
72:
I have always assumed lack of ground techniques in SK reflects its gang
fight origins.
paws4thot replied to this comment from Tricia Sullivan | September 11, 2014 13:45
73:
Supporting anecdotals - I've heard it from several sources that shock to
the groin takes between 5 and 20s to register in the brain, so it's quite
possible that the assailant will "just keep coming" for long enough.
Dave_the_Proc replied to this comment from leashless | September 11, 2014 13:47
74:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to make out that this guy was some
kind of mythical Terminator-like being, but rather trying to illustrate that a
willingness to do damage to your opponent makes a big difference in the
outcome of fight (a point which I think you've also illustrated in your
posts).
leashless replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 13:51
75:
That makes a ton of sense. Lot of guys, lot of running around, you'd really
rather not be on your back.
I find watching these guys absolutely fascinating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G8AnBNBs1Y Quite a few shaolin
vs. [actual serious fight athletes] and the simplicity of their techniques and
economy of motion always blow me away. Really beautiful stuff.
Martin | September 11, 2014 13:58
76:
Sorry, I feel this is a far more appropriate link, given the discussion so
far... You'll have to watch the whole minute, mind you :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mVRfLgzYdQ
...windmilling, keys...
leashless replied to this comment from Dave_the_Proc | September 11, 2014 13:58
77:
Yes, absolutely. I think a lot of why police etc. have such low injury rates
for dealing with guys like your friend is that they unbalance the odds early,
and provide a ton of de-escalation options.
Nobody wants to get Begbie'd and the people who deal with 'em on a
regular basis seem to rely on groups and tactics and descalation more
than head-on conflict. I suspect that's because fighting with them is
sodding dangerous even for people with some training.
Antonia T Tiger replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 14:43
78:
This is one of the guiding principles in the stories I write.
There is a Charlie-character who once hit his opponent with a railway
signal post (and incidentally messed with a lot of commuters).
OK, so that might be considered an example of relativity. It might have
been the train that was moving at speed.
79:
You've seen the basic syllabus exercises taught in Aikido: and yes, they
consist of a straightforward stab, a slash around your guard, and a
downard stabbing attack into the neck.
That's the syllabus for grading examinations; the students who have
passed those gradings practice a much larger repertoire of tanteido, on
weapons courses and in closed lessons for higher grades.
Some of the practice I've seen - off at the corner of the mat where
students a grade or two up from my level of are working with the tanto -
would answer your points quite well.
horza | September 11, 2014 15:11
80:
Tricia
Thanks for contributing this, and I look forward to your dissection of

martial arts in popular media. There are too few genuine practitioners
contributing to that media.
However I have to say I'm disturbed by the tenor of the article. This reads
too much like all the other articles I've read by iconoclastic martial artists
who defame and generalise other styles, and claim to know the One True
Secret, based on a return to "realistic" training.
I understand you are establishing your credentials for the subsequent
article, and I can agree that there are many students and instructors who
are fooling themselves about the practicality of what they learn, who
perpetuate the bullshit that is the base understanding in the general
population and in the media.
Yet the generalisation that traditional fighting styles are merely
constructing degree-academies, with founders and grandmasters who are
"afraid" to confront reality, is in itself a bullshit claim. There are a few

about, but they are easy enough to spot once you have a bit of
experience.
It is right and proper that the study of martial arts should be a practical
study. A trained fighter should be able to defeat an untrained one, or he is
not studying a martial art. However as a practitioner gains skill and
experience, as they go beyond the level of being able to defeat 90 or 99%
of those they might encounter in a confrontation, he or she has to confront
a central dilemma: what are they training *for*?
In the West we live in historically peaceful era. In Japan, exceptionally so.

The chances of unsought for physical confrontation is very low. For a
trained fighter, psychologically prepared and situationally aware, it
approaches nil. Outside of policemen and bouncers, training beyond a
basic level loses purpose.
After all, the most effective close-in martial art in the world is a half-brick
delivered to the back of the skull. Why train unarmed? Indeed, if you keep
training, real encounters become farcical, where your main problem is not
survival but ensuring you do not do permanent damage to your erstwhile
opponent. The moral imperative shifts from survival to something quite
different.
After that point you no longer have viable, realistic opponents to prepare
for. The only opponent you are fighting is yourself.
The traditional Japanese styles come from a heritage of dealing with this
problem. The sword schools of the civil war era were encouraged, after
the triumph and pacification of the Tokugawas, to look inward. Without
war, what is the purpose of training? The unarmed schools adopted this
philosophy, this Way, as they were imported, adopted or developed.
The Japanese answer, simply put, is to develop oneself within as well as

without. To become a better human being. "To unite mind, body and
spirit". The journey becomes internalised. The grades and certificates
become symbolic.
You will not find "masters" participating in MMA, but it does not lessen
them. They may well be ineffective without training specifically for that
regime. But MMA does not serve any purpose for them. It misses the
point as badly as any no-contact tournament fighter who thinks he's ready
for the street.
As a fellow writer and martial artist I hope you can also address the other
kind of bullshit that I struggle with, quite apart from misrepresentation of
the practical realities. Indeed focusing on the "practical" only makes it
worse.
If a writer includes a martial artist in a story, it becomes a case of
Chekhov's Gun, a reader expectation that what is known must be used. In
reality martial artists are peaceable, philosophic types; in a story they
must commit violence, because that is what is culturally expected.
Studying violence in order to avoid it remains a taboo, confounding
expectation at too basic a level.
Richard Gadsden | September 11, 2014 15:14
81:
There are two ways that infantry can stop a cavalry charge:
1. Fire enough rounds to kill enough horses to stop them. This was
achieved occasionally by artillery firing grapeshot at close range. That
requires remarkable courage and training on the part of the artillerymen
(which is why it failed at Balaclava; the Light Brigade took the guns there,
even if they didn't keep them). It became routine, though, with the arrival
of the repeating rifle around 1900. Arm a few hundred infantrymen with
Lee-Enfields and they can break any cavalry charge.
2. Hold a solid formation that the horses won't ride into/through. You need
to be enough ranks deep (probably about 8) and having some sort of
longarm (pike, sarissa, bayoneted musket) makes it easier. Cavalry can
try the caracole (ride up, shoot, ride away) to break up the ranks and then
charge for the gaps - the longarms make it much easier to cover for an
occasional gap in the ranks. This is what drill was for; so the scared
soldiers stuck to their drill instead of panicking. If you stand your ground to
a cavalry charge, then the horse will refuse to ride through a solid mass of
people.
If you want to see cavalry charges, try going to a large protest in a
western country. Mounted police have conducted cavalry charges to break
protests many times in the last few years. Tends to break the protesters'
will without inflicting very many casualties: far less violent than rubber
bullets or tear gas.
If the protesters can hold steady ranks shoulder-to-shoulder, then the

horses won't ride through. Generally, the police can find ways to force a
gap and then charge into the gap, which will scatter the protestors.
Jay replied to this comment from Dirk Bruere | September 11, 2014 15:15
82:
One of the best overall rules for fighting is to try not to let the other guy set
the terms. If you're attacked, your goal is to break contact. If you're doing
the attacking (and you probably shouldn't be), then you can bring
weapons and friends to the fight, which makes things ever so much
easier.
leashless replied to this comment from horza | September 11, 2014 15:28
83:
I rather like Shintaido's approach to the question of "what are martial arts
for now?"
http://www.shintaido.co.uk/
Very, very strong technical skill base (some innovative, some inherited
from Karate) and a mandate much wider than fighting - dance,
performance, meditation, almost a yoga all seem to have roles. It's a deep
thing.
I only got to train with their people on one workshop and it was most
illuminating; Karate with the affordances of Akido would not be an unfair
summary. Lovely stuff.
Antonia T Tiger replied to this comment from Antonia T Tiger | September 11, 2014 15:49
84:
A quote from one of the stories…
Whether the bad guys are Bunraku puppeteers with a sideline in mayhem,
or real ninja, they run into some up-to-date military technology.
Charlie knew the sound, and felt no sympathy for his late opponents. He
wondered, for a moment,if they were even, properly, ninja. A well-trained
Lewis gunner, firing short bursts, backed up by men with rifles. It was a bit
different from his experience—there was a lot more cover in the shell-
churned wastes of No-Man's-Land—but he knew what he would do. And if
he were out there, under that fire, he would be praying for thinner buttons.
Whether we're talking martial arts of cavalry charges, reality had a bad
habit of being different.
85:
"This destructive aggression for many of
us isn't easy to come by."
Anyone who remembers the first time they were instructed to strike
another human being - a real attack, accurate, committed, nothing 'pulled'
or hesitant about it, striking like your hand will cut through them - knows
that this is *difficult* to do.
I find that encouraging and reassuring: humans are not innately violent.
It's difficult to teach, but it's essential: no one learns real defence against
pretend attacks.
If you can get footage of Ye Olde English Football Hooligans 'fighting' on
the terraces, you'll see half of them (at most) punching with their
shoulders and their bodyweight, committed to the strike; and most of the
rest dabbing at like it's all terribly unhygienic and they'd really rather not.
86:
OMG you guys, too many comments to address!
@horza
I am not sure what I’ve said that suggests I know the One True Way. Quite
the opposite. I have said that fighting is a chaotic, messy, business. You’re
right that it’s become fashionable for people to attack the traditional
martial arts, and the alternatives offered by way of RBSD are sometimes
worse than the thing they are attacking. But one can train in boxing, judo,
wrestling, BJJ, catch-wrestling, sambo, Muay Thai and MMA and get a
good grounding and experience of competitive fighting—it’s not
everything, it’s not the battlefield, it’s not weapons, but within its own
boundaries each of these fighting methods are testable by the individual.
This is the direction I always point my friends in when they ask. It’s what I
would do if I could start again as a young person. These methods are
about the fighter him or herself, not the teacher or the system or living up
to a standard that is essentially imaginary because you don’t fight.
"If a writer includes a martial artist in a story, it becomes a case of

Chekhov's Gun, a reader expectation that what is known must be used. In
reality martial artists are peaceable, philosophic types; in a story they
must commit violence, because that is what is culturally expected.
Studying violence in order to avoid it remains a taboo, confounding
expectation at too basic a level."
If you’re a writer, what’s stopping you from doing this? Having a trope like
this is something to overturn, and seems like a good starting point.
For me personally as a Westerner, when I’ve been exposed to the

Japanese and Okinawan systems that lean on this ‘study violence to be
nonviolent’ idea, I have been disappointed. I had no idea what violence
was through studying traditional MA. I was already nonviolent. I needed to
learn to be violent! When I get really good and violent—like your
Tokugawa postwar swordsmen—then maybe I will take up something
peaceful to calm me down. So far I remain insufficiently dangerous to
need to do that. For now as a woman in a misogynistic world I am more
than happy to focus on unleashing the beast. And I say that with good
humour, but I am serious.
And before I offend the traditional martial artists too much, let me say
again: I have no problem with people who want to practice the art for the
sake of doing the art. If there is some spiritual or personal benefit to be
gained for people, great.
Personally, I have a deep allergy to hierarchies, and the Japanese

systems are steeped in hierarchy. There is a strong political undertone in
many of these organizations, and someone has referred upthread to the
paramilitaristic associations of some of the martial arts—often right-wing.
Some are attracted to this. With me it’s the opposite. That’s personal, and
it’s influenced in part by the abuses of power that I’ve experienced and
that I’ve witnessed (a high-ranking ‘spiritual’ PhD karate historian here in
Britain was recently jailed for child sexual abuse of a student. It happens
too often; the hierarchy isn’t precisely to blame, but it’s a structure that
does facilitate the abuse of power).
This is a big subject but here’s a link to read that alludes to some of the
political stuff. I’m not an authority on it.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article30028.html
But politics has no bearing on this:

"It is right and proper that the study of martial arts should be a practical
study. A trained fighter should be able to defeat an untrained one, or he is
not studying a martial art. However as a practitioner gains skill and
experience, as they go beyond the level of being able to defeat 90 or 99%
of those they might encounter in a confrontation, he or she has to confront
a central dilemma: what are they training *for*?"
When you say that the practitioner can defeat 90% of the people he
encounters, I have to wonder how you know that. In what fights has this
training been tested? Because it’s not easy to be able to defeat 90% of
the people one encounters unless the people one encounters are all
pretty weak.
Speaking personally, after I got picked up and thrown across the room by
a Very Large Gentleman in a class when I was 28, and after I tried to
punch the bag and could not even make it move more than a couple of
inches because makiwara training had inhibited the penetration of my
shots, I had to throw all of the stylized Okinawan stuff (which I LOVED at
the time) out the window and painfully start over. And I do mean painfully.
I only knew how to move in a highly stylized way, and it was a big
disadvantage. But six months later I knocked a high-ranked internationally
competitive karate fighter on his ass. We were both surprised. In a
Japanese dojo I’d never have dared do that. I would have had to defer to
his superior rank to make him look good.
Once let out of the box, I would never go back. YMMV, of course
Nicola Griffith | September 11, 2014 17:34
87:
I liked this post a lot! Thank you. (I studied martial arts then studied and
taught women's self-defence for years.) I was nodding all the way
through.
But what really caught my eye was: You have someone teaching you
(allegedly) to fight, but they have no fighting experience themselves let
alone the know-how to help you. If you go along with this long enough,
you can aspire to turn around and teach others one day. Ad infinitum; ad
nauseum. Substitute write for fight and you've got a goodly percentage of
Creative Writing MFAs. Obviously not a perfect correlation but close, in so
many ways...
Tim Freeman replied to this comment from leashless | September 11, 2014 19:25
88:
@leashless: Was the PTSD something that came before the martial arts
training, or was it caused by the martial arts training?
Bob replied to this comment from Nile | September 11, 2014 19:41
89:
Excellent points all. I suspect that you are right in saying that all martial
arts evolve in their emphasis. Learning an art as it was created; learning
the "true" art if you will is extremely difficult. I certainly haven't gotten
there. However, as you said there are some extremely talented individuals
that do. There are one or two shihan that I have seen in my career that I
honestly believe could handle themselves in almost any situation that
didn't involve firearms. But as you say, they are few and far between.
horza | September 11, 2014 20:09
90:
"When you say that the practitioner can defeat 90% of the people he
encounters, I have to wonder how you know that. In what fights has this
training been tested? Because it’s not easy to be able to defeat 90% of
the people one encounters unless the people one encounters are all
pretty weak."
I was meaning real encounters - the ones you might not be able to avoid
on the street. 90% of these would be drunk, stupid, aggressive males,
rather than the genuinely dangerous, sober martial artist you meet in a
dojo. Drunks have very poor balance, and a little knowledge in sweeps
and throws goes a long way here.
Whatever your "Way", this is the progress in realistic fighting you make, is
it not? The ability to defeat an increasingly wide range of opponents in an
unavoidable street encounter, outside the dojo.
I was making a purely philosophical point about what training means when
you live in a peaceful society and you have reached a level where
advancing your study of the art will not advance your physical safety in
any significant sense. And I firmly believe martial arts must have a
philosophical point to it - else age and decrepitude will make mock of us.
I understand your main point is that MMA has brought a much greater
sense of reality to the tournament focused styles of the 80s-90s (and that
there's a way to go). I heartily agree - watching the Gracies dominate
those early Octagon fights was an eye-opener. It caused me to add Judo
to my repertoire, and my original club (Edinburgh University) now has a
syllabus that includes JuJitsu and an emphasis on self-defence and
bunkai. "Illegal" techniques are being recovered from the kata in a strange
form of archaelogical research.
But MMA isn't realistic either. In MMA you can't stab a rigid finger into an
eye. You can't crush a windpipe, or strike the carotid with a knuckle. Can't
kick out a knee or use teeth to rip and tear flesh in the groundwork.
You can't even strike a training partner down for turning their back on you,
as was allowed in those old Japanese sword schools.
All training is a compromise between reality and safety. Historically those
dangerous techniques were encoded in the kata, but the understanding
got eroded, the emphasis switched to the flashy popularity of the
tournament fighting.
I was fortunate in my training, starting out in a club run by bouncers, who
practiced what they preached and gave me a solid basis on my own
journey to a harder punch. It sounds like you had a rougher road. In a

sense I hope that you were particularly unfortunate, as I hate to think that
it is really that bad out there.
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from Tricia Sullivan | September 11, 2014 20:09
91:
Sasakawa. When I was lined up with the hundreds/thousands opf others
in our uniforms at the Budokan in 1985 he was one of the dignitaries on
the podium. As each one was introduced the kenshi saluted them (gassho
rae - we don't bow). Then along came Sasakawa and I wondered at the
time why so many Japanese kenshi refused to do so. I found out later.
Anyway, he was a big patron of the martial arts. Beyond that, he and
many of the big names in Japanese martial arts were either associated
with, or members of, the Black Dragon society. Here is our founder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doshin_So
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from horza | September 11, 2014 20:16
92:
"Whatever your "Way", this is the progress in realistic fighting you make,
is it not? The ability to defeat an increasingly wide range of opponents in
an unavoidable street encounter, outside the dojo."
Yes, but not necessarily in the way you mean it. In the wider context of
some Japanese arts that "opponent" and the "street encounter" is not
about thrashing some drunk but is far more socially-politically oriented.
Read up on the "street fights" that were a hallmark of the use of MA
schools to break strikes or clash with the Communists in the 50s/60s.
What I really despise about Western MA is their limited context and petty
vision that goes no further than being a sport on one hand or a "I'm gonna
kick yo ass" streetfighting wannabe.
davidbreslin101 | September 11, 2014 20:23
93:
I can think of two martial arts systems geared to real fighting, and they're
both practical police/military styles rather than venerable traditions. Krav
Maga training as practiced by the Israeli military requires serious
protective gear as punches and kicks are not pulled. The Taiwanese
police have their own form of Kung Fu,which judging from some videos of
training is forceful, stunningly fast (as in blink-and-you've-missed -the-
whole-thing) and not at all elegant.
whitroth | September 11, 2014 20:51
94:
Someone mentioned knives.
*sigh*
Many years ago, back in the eighties, a friend was into martial arts. I was
visiting one weekend, and found a book he had on knife fighting. The two
authors had *real* credentials: one in the military, both in reform school
(as they used to call it), and one in jail.
At the end of the book, one gave an example of a *real* knife fight he'd
been in in a bar, I think. Guy1 pulls knife on him. He pulls knife, and
moves it. Guy1 keeps eye on author's knife. With his other hand, author
reaches behind him, grabs a chair, and hits guy1 over the head with the
chair. End of knife fight.
mark "funny, they don't say a word when I

go through security with my solid
wood walking stick"
Heteromeles | September 11, 2014 21:03
95:
By the way, am I the only person here who regularly reads Kung Fu Tea?
It's a fascinating blog by an sociologist who studies martial arts culture
and practices wing chun. If you want to see a more objective take on
martial arts culture, from mythologizing weapons and origins stories to
how schools have historically worked, it's quite worth it.
Case in point: one of the classic discussions (going on above) is about

how school X would deal with attack Y. To cite an example from Kung Fu
tea, most of a century ago, kung fu masters were teaching their students
their Art, which was primarily unarmed. In one case, one school got into a
dispute with another group. Did they attack them as they were trained to
do? Nope? They attacked on horseback and with arson, neither of which
were taught at that school
We do a lot of mythologizing about what people used to do and are
supposed to do in martial arts. Kung Fu tea suggests that, based on the
evidence, martial arts schools haven't changed all that much in a century
or so. Once you take away training for actual warfare (which, even in
China, ended around 1900 in many martial arts schools, and even before
that focused on marksmanship as much as hand-to-hand combat), the
point of a martial arts school is to build a community of students that
provides a living to the master and his disciples, more than it is about
teaching people to hurt others or even defend themselves. Guns have
been around for quite awhile, even (and especially) in China and Japan,
and the martial artists know about it. That hasn't stopped anyone from
teaching martial arts, and I doubt it ever will. The key point, though, and it
is important, is that fighting and violence really aren't what most martial
arts schools are about. Sure it's a cycle of BS if your only focus is
violence, but it's a system that seems to work pretty well.
SFreader replied to this comment from Heteromeles | September 11, 2014 21:24
96:
For business applications, 19 out of 20 in a marketing research study (a
type of applied social science) is 'good enough' because of the nature of
the decision to be made: how much sugar should be added to bread to
make it palatable to at least 20% of the kids under 12 likely to be served
cereal for breakfast? By how much do we need to fluff up corn flakes so
that one ounce fills a typical breakfast bowl? Pretty low risk, and whose
results are unlikely to screw up some bigger decision down the road like
understanding the Theory of Everything.
What's worrisome is that so many NIH studies, including clinical trials, did
not analyze results by basic demos such as age and gender regardless of
sample size. A real head-scratcher ... in a field where the difference of a
few base pairs can indicate severity of something like Huntington and
census data consistently showing differences in life expectancy, that a
whole chromosome can be completely ignored.
leashless replied to this comment from Tim Freeman | September 11, 2014 21:31
97:
@Tim, I acquired PTSD from having two mentally ill parents and some
environmental factors. As a result when I came to martial practice I came
to it as a killer (I'm probably a sociopath - I've avoided diagnosis.)
I got therapy early and a lot of it, then did an awful lot of meditation under
an Indian school with close ties to the gurkhas. That seems to have
beaten out most of the dents, and the outright predatory stuff doesn't
seem to be part of my nature. At least as far as I can tell. I put my lack of
empathy to good use, doing worst case scenario disaster planning / state
failure / other stuff as a theoretician working for government and
academia (see also: hexayurt project.)
It's not an easy profile to manage. Age has helped. A bit.
leashless replied to this comment from leashless | September 11, 2014 21:37
98:
Oh, I should say that I did have some problems with state dependent
memory: physical skills that I learned when I was still in bad shape tended
to lock in that mindset, so certain areas of my PTSD management were
slowed down by the martial arts training: hypervigilance, exaggerated
startle reflex etc. make a ton of sense in a martial arts context, so some of
the reflexive, instinctive levels of the PTSD didn't settle much until I had
stopped practice for quite a few years.
So, yes, in some areas it slowed my recovery: recreation of the mental

state I'd learned the skills in when I practised them kept some of those
states of being alive long after they should have faded. But eventually
they did. Both the mindset and the training went in deep.
TRX replied to this comment from whitroth | September 11, 2014 22:15
99:
> mark "funny, they don't say a word when I
> go through security with my solid wood
> walking stick"
In the USA, that's an "assist device" and protected by Federal law. Not
even the TSA can take it from you.
Same legal category as wheelchairs, crutches, canes, etc.
Why yes, that *is* a security loophole... and there's an entire subculture of
"assist device" users taking maximum advantage of that.
100:
One thing that's worth discussing is how and why people train. Two
extremes:
1) Marines in the US have hand to hand fight training, MCMAP, often

called "Semper Fu.")
2) Iaido (drawning a sword and making a perfect cut in one motion) which
is old Japanese stuff
So the motivations of practitioners are key here: there's very nearly no

overlap between the reasons a person learns MCMAP vs Iaido. Context,
content, as far apart as any two arts I could pick. I'm not going to
characterize the contrast, but across that range of extremes come things
like Karate, with MCMAP type motivations at one end (you're a cop who
wants better brawling skills) and Iaido type motivations at the other (the
*Kata* man, the *Kata*!)
Self defence as a motivation is almost certainly entirely irrational:
defensive driving lessons and smoke detectors and EMT training and so
on almost certainly offer statistically vastly more protection. There are a
handful of professions which involve regular exposure to high risks of
physical violence (police, bouncers etc.) and one can imagine fight
training specific to each niche in additional to general skills training.
But, by god, there is something deep in the reptile brain, in the base of the
spine, which says "I could take him" and it feels good. "I am not helpless. I
am not afraid. I have options."
Martial arts might well be the cheapest and easiest way of creating that
sense of empowerment for people, even if the training has very little
impact on overall statistical mortality.
When I teach fighting (once in a couple of years I'll do a brief seminar for
friends) I focus on four things.
1) understanding which fight you are in: escaping, status fighting, murder.
2) understanding and controlling distance.
3) do not fuck up your hands, and do not be too enthusiastic about

kicking.
4) disengagement from early stage violence (i.e. recognizing a fight is

starting, and identifying exit points like running away as soon as
somebody physically pushes you.)
At the end of that, I guarantee I've added very nearly nothing to a person's
ability to win a fight in ring against a determined opponent. But I have
given them a sense of control, because usually they haven't thought
enough about violence to be able to use their rational intelligence to
strategize about it. Just having a few bits to hang on to really helps people
feel more confident: when trouble starts they have a road map, even if all
it really says is "run away now."
I think there's something deep in our animal soul that, for some of us,
needs this as much as we need mountains and wilderness and sea shore.
101:
Just popping in to say, yikes, Nicola--you are right. It's the same
phenomenon.
Yet actually, as I play with the analogy in my head, I want to say that at
least in the creative writing classes the students are doing actual writing.
So there's that crumb of comfort.
Turducken | September 12, 2014 07:06
102:
Hm. You do say that people can study for whatever reason they want, but
you seem to be implying that *all* martial arts instructors claim their art will
make you a great fighter, can't handle real fights, and are generally
blustering fools. If that's the case, what happensed to those students who
weren't in it to be fighters - do none of them ever become instructors?
None of my teachers have claimed that my art (capoeira) will let you win a
real fight. In fact, they make a point of discussing what happens when an
outright brawl breaks out in the roda, that we are practicing an activity with
rules that are absent in real fights. The biggest claim I've heard is that you
might be better equipped to dodge a blow or fall without hurting yourself.
And capoeira has been used in street fighting - of course, back in that day,
they were also doing it with razor blades.
I know students who came to capoeira looking to learn to fight, yes, but
that mindset was always quickly discouraged.
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from leashless | September 12, 2014 08:21
103:
"Martial arts might well be the cheapest and easiest way of creating that
sense of empowerment for people..."
No. The cheapest and easiest is carrying an effective weapon.
LafinJack | September 12, 2014 09:34
104:
Any thoughts on the (in)famous fight scene from They Live?
Aigarius | September 12, 2014 15:46
105:
Higher levels of Aikido practice feel useful for a real fight IMHO - one
defender is pitted against multiple attackers who are encouraged to attack
with random timing (including multiple at the same time) and full
penetrating attacks (to give the defender enough aggressive force to use
in redirections) to which the defender can react with very serious twists
and throws because he knows that his fighting partners are well versed in
proper falls and rolls. As others have already mentioned, any of these
moves executed at the same speed and intensity against an non-aikido
opponent on a hard surface would be very devastating. We also had
people go to other schools to learn different attack styles, so that we can
defend against a kickboxer, for example. And always disengagement was
emphasized so you can run away from the fight as soon as possible.
Heteromeles replied to this comment from Turducken | September 12, 2014 16:39
106:
Razor blades? How about axes and machetes? It's worth reading Ring of
Liberation if you can get a copy of it. It's a PhD thesis on capoeira that
includes some fairly well-researched history.
I played capoeira (badly) back when I was in college, and I'd say that it's
actually great for fighting in a couple of unobvious ways. One is that
capoeira plays in the space between game and fight. If you've noticed,
most martial arts are about how you'll handle yourself once the fists are
flying at you, capoeira's about reading the signals and (very importantly)
improvising on the spot, all the time. I'm also more fond of the way
capoeira handles ground work than, say, aikido, because you go down,
keep moving, and get right back up again. Don't get me wrong, breakfalls
are important, but in most martial arts, that's the end of the sequence. In
capoeira, you better keep moving if you're on the ground, or you'll look like
an idiot in the roda. There's also something very useful about the trickery
in capoeira--a skilled capoeirista is a tricky rogue, not an honorable,
stand-up warrior, and it's a martial art where embarrassing someone
without hurting them (say by tripping them) is considered better art (and
more fun) than beating them bloody.
Finally, capoeira's got this neat trait that it's a performance art. You've got
something to aspire to be good at even if you don't want to fight. It helps
that it has some of the most powerful kicks on the planet, but when they're
used for spectacular show, who cares about how dangerous they are?
Jogo bonito!
TRX replied to this comment from Turducken | September 12, 2014 21:28
107:
> students who came to capoeira looking to
> learn to fight, yes, but that mindset was
> always quickly discouraged.
I've been having Tae Kwon Leep flashbacks all through this thread...
Antonia T Tiger | September 12, 2014 22:49
108:
I remember some of the early TV myths about martial arts, such as the TV
series Kung Fu, and this very British treatment of that myth.
Nicola Griffith replied to this comment from Tricia Sullivan | September 12, 2014 23:16
109:
Eh, some of them are :) But some, not so much...
Antonia T Tiger replied to this comment from Nicola Griffith | September 13, 2014 07:50
110:
What I recall, and "Creative Writing" wasn't around to screw tuition fees
out of students, is that the only writing taught was how to answer an essay
question in an exam, and that wasn't taught in any detail. It was the only
writing kata of those ancient-time school leavers.
Tricia Sullivan replied to this comment from Nicola Griffith | September 13, 2014 12:54
111:
Sigh. That is depressing.
Mark Dennehy replied to this comment from Nile | September 15, 2014 17:12
112:
> But there's one set of techniques that you are very good at indeed, and
rarely think about or even realise that you know: breakfalls.
Glad someone mentioned it, if only because I managed to have *all* of my

teeth broken (either chipped or cracked) by one badly executed breakfall
(mainly because the person throwing me was a newbie who got distracted
during his first class and he forgot to let go at a crucial point in the throw;
conservation of angular momentum is a right pain in the enamel at times).
I didn't study aikido for very long - four or five years, just long enough to
learn how to hurt myself in new and interesting ways - but I never thought
that what was taught in the dojo would be used in a fight outside the dojo,
and that point got stressed a lot in training by the instructors.
To be honest, it's the breakfalls that I value most from the few years I
spent training (if only because I probably paid the most for them). As our
teacher put it, you're very unlikely to ever use kote-gaeshi outside of a
dojo, but knowing how to breakfall will save you from a broken hip or
worse when you slip on ice on the pavement at age seventy. And he was
right, though I didn't have to wait for age seventy to find out; I managed to
step in shampoo walking out of the shower in the gym after one class and
I can distinctly remember seeing both feet with the far wall under them
and thinking "this is not going to end well" then hearing someone do a
breakfall and realising a few seconds later that it was me and I still had an
intact spine, which I personally enjoy having.
Plus, learning the breakfall for kote-gaeshi is a hell of a confidence

booster - all the other breakfalls look almost normal (how hard is it to
pretend to be a hamster tripping up mid-trot?), but the breakfall for kote-
gaeshi - the proper, full-speed, rotate-around-a-point-three-feet-off-the-
ground, breakfall - that just looks utterly impossible right up to a point
about a tenth of a second after your aikido teacher decides you're not
going to do it yourself and shoves you through it for the first time. That
was nearly twenty years ago for me, and I can still close my eyes and
hear the "oh shiiiii*slap*" noise and see a few of the higher grades
grinning along. The utter bastards.
For me, that was the entire point of studying aikido - I didn't want to learn
to win a street fight because frankly, I never really wanted to get into one
and that's what running away is for. I sure as hell didn't want to get
"combat training", because (a) guns, (b) drones, and (c) ICBMs. Learning
how to punch hard sortof stopped being how you won in combat a while
back. Training for me was about learning to move (something puberty
tends to swipe from most boys for a few years), learning not to hurt myself
if I fell, boosting confidence and having fun. And the gi looked a damn
sight less silly than a leotard, so it beat gymnastics quite easily...
Dirk Bruere replied to this comment from Mark Dennehy | September 20, 2014 14:02
113:
After years of classical MA training you can stand perfectly on one leg
while you put a sock on the other foot.

Martial Arts and The Cycle of Bullshit - Charlie's Diary PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Martial Arts and The Cycle of Bullshit - Charlie's Diary PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

11/29/2017 Martial arts and the cycle of bullshit - Charlie's Diary

Martial arts and the cycle of bullshit UK English editions

of his wife. She was translating for him! Talk to me

ostrich. Or you run a dojo. May 2016 (6)

Posted by Tricia Sullivan at 12:05 on September 10, 2014 | Comments (113)

Princejvstin | September 10, 2014 12:42

Neil W | September 10, 2014 13:20

Martin | September 10, 2014 13:31

An experience from the 1980s was turning up at a crowded pub in the

Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 13:42

Nile | September 10, 2014 13:44

yohansenbabe | September 10, 2014 13:46

Phil Edwards | September 10, 2014 14:03

Then again, when my daughter went to a self-defence class they

about doing anything clever or devastating to the attacker, it's about

Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 14:08

Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 14:11

Nojay | September 10, 2014 14:16

furicle | September 10, 2014 14:33

With you 100% that psychopaths have an advantage,though :-)

Megpie71 | September 10, 2014 14:41

Martial arts are precisely that, arts.

Your best self-defense equipment is a pair of good running shoes.

Adrian Howard | September 10, 2014 14:51

Greg. Tingey | September 10, 2014 15:07

Yes. My brother in law is a recently retired policeman. His comment was

Bravo Lima Poppa 3 | September 10, 2014 15:11

Go ask any emergency room or orthopedic personnel what happens to

I like to imagine my opponents when I drill, particularly with cane. The

get an idea of the damage I've just done to a person.

Its hard to reconcile the joy of mastering a challenging skill with

I hope I never have to.

Adrian Howard | September 10, 2014 15:26

Thanks. Interesting. It kinds of reminds me about some $work stuff I've

David L | September 10, 2014 15:31

yohansenbabe | September 10, 2014 15:35

Jay | September 10, 2014 15:49

This is about third-hand, but a friend told me about an article in a martial

Tricia Sullivan | September 10, 2014 15:58

Bob | September 10, 2014 17:07

PM1956 | September 10, 2014 18:03

whitroth | September 10, 2014 18:15

The one I always thought of taking was Aikido.

Antonia T Tiger | September 10, 2014 18:19

part of it, an aspect of destroying confidence as much as of killing, as well

There are a lot of similarites.

That whole performance psychology thing continues to fascinate me; I've

Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 19:21

Heteromeles | September 10, 2014 20:51

Ivan Bushmarinov | September 10, 2014 21:22

There is, surprisingly, a good SF book on the topic, written by Sergey

Alex Tolley | September 10, 2014 21:53

My understanding is that most people do not want to shoot and potentially

Interestingly US cops do seem to shoot people without provocation, even

TRX | September 10, 2014 22:27

TRX | September 11, 2014 01:24

Jay | September 11, 2014 01:31

William H. Stoddard | September 11, 2014 02:13

handful of observations and predicting where it might be observed next,

This, incidentally, is also why drug development costs somewhere north of

As you progress, it stops becoming about 'technique' - you're not a

If you're in a club that practices randori (multiple attackers, to a count or

El replied to this comment from Nile | September 11, 2014 08:58

Glad someone mentioned it, if only because I managed to have all of my