NightOwl

Hey, old post but I just saw it I'm curious if you could give examples of police training (what doesn't work but also what they do teach that does) and how you incorporate your training into that. Most of the hand to hand stories and training I read and hear about comes from military guys. I've heard sentiments such as yours but never really knew the details.

Weapon work is a whole 'nother ball game. If someone has a weapon, trying to attack them unarmed is what you do if you know that they are going to use it and have no other choice (as you mentioned, ' a last resort' . However I don't think that diminishes any from unarmed combat sparring. Weapons are there for a reason- it is a HUGE advantage over being unarmed. That's why if someone pulls a knife, either you find a weapon of your own and/or get out if you can. As you mentioned police training taught you outside of your MA classes, but that is to be expected. Military training =/= civilian training. You shouldn't be focusing on punches and kicks, but guns and simple controls (although the dog pile seems to be the best unarmed strategy against a perp ). In an unarmed combat situation, a well trained and skillful martial artist of roughly equal size probably could take on an off duty cop mono e mono. Heck, the last fight for the troops had a Navy SEAL, and he was demolished without being able to lift a finger. However in a urban combat situation or on the battlefield, your unarmed abilities are greatly neutralized in favor of weapons and tactics. The Navy SEAL might not have the best H2H, but he can survive in the toughest conditions imaginable that would kill most. The oldest Japanese martial art in existence, 'Katori' ryu ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenshin_Sh%C5%8Dden_Katori_Shint%C5%8D-ry%C5%AB ) while it does teach some jujutsu, teaches mostly weapon based techniques. Also at its highest level, buried deep in its curriculum Katori ryu at one time (maybe still to a select few for tradition's sake) taught military field strategy, true 'Ninjutsu' ( stealth and reconnaissance tactics) and other things related directly to war. This system was created shortly after the warring states period of japan, so that makes sense. As time went on, more and more jujutsu and dueling focused swordplay became emphasized in the later martial arts as Japan entered a time of peace and like today (in most of the West at least) you had to worry about tough guys starting a fight, muggings, and self defense as opposed to facing the heat of battle. Jujutsu especially is tailored to unarmed combat or closing the gap to stop someone from using a weapon, and thus while it can be used for restraining someone (an area where I feel small joint manipulation plays an important role) or if you are lucky taking away a weapon, otherwise it isn't for armed fighting. Thus the military doesn't have very good unarmed hand to hand, but it doesn't need to. It needs to spend that time focused elsewhere. Therefore I don't think that different training and needs takes anything away from contact sparring. The field of application is different

So, the idea/definition is going to be dependant on the technology and fighting methods of the day. Today, terrorism is looked as more of a legitimate threat than it was 10 years ago, so it may be taken into account as far as the training goes today. It kind of makes you wonder if Medieval knights considered the training of the day "modern combatives," doesn't it? Good points. Modern is relative to the time period. If you are using swords, then you are going to train that (although if you are taking the sword I'll take a bow thank you very much! ) With current warfare being in an urban setting, I'd imagine tactics will and are changing. However a civilian modern combative program, if we follow this definition, might be less concerned with counter terrorism and more small arms and knife tactics.

I would say that you should add "Classical" to your list. IE from a karate / jujutsu perspective, the Koryu arts of Japan / Okinawa from which the traditional ways that we know of today were spawned. I think that is a great idea- you might not be able to to call a new karate system 'classical' per se, but you could still refer to it as traditional in that it has a particular method of training and philosophy. Unfortunate CMA is already taken (Chinese martial arts )

Leg breaks, arm breaks, chokes, kicks to the leg (including the knee), elbow strikes, punches to the face, and soccer kicks to someone on the ground (in the old PRIDE rules) are all allowed in mma. Strikes to the groin and eye gouges were once allowed as well but I only can think of a couple examples of them being used (and the guy who used it lost). All it takes is a little more pressure to turn an arm bar into an arm break on the street (the most recent UFC fight for the troops if you look it up online had someone get their arm broken). I can choke someone and let go when they tap out, or hold onto it for another 6 seconds and choke them out of consciousness. If you can't land a punch or kick on anyone during sparring, you wouldn't have much of a chance of landing an eye gouge or groin strike on a much harder to hit and low percentage target area. Ring fighting if nothing else teaches you timing- you can easily aim a punch for the throat (although this isn't as deadly as people make it out to be- but you are looking at a TKO if you get it right) instead of the head if you are fighting for your life, but you need to know the timing of a basic strike before trying for something more complicated. I've heard people say that they could take on 'sport' fighter in a real fight because they can use deadly force but...so can the sport fighter! And the sport fighter can show that they can apply strikes, grabs, and attacks when someone doesn't want them to, as well as avoid attacks themselves, no matter what technique the attack may be. Kata in my opinion and experience doesn't prepare you for this. I'm actually going to agree with you on this one. It isn't what I am looking for but kata and be a beautiful art form and form of physical meditation for many.

I would agree that not all fights go to the ground, but a LOT of fights at least involve clinching if you've ever seen a couple of blokes go at it.

That seems a bit high to me. Again, I can't exactly comment on the neighborhood you are in, but American Top Team in Florida, one of the, if the THE best martial art gyms in the world starts from around $125. Team Quest which is also in California starts off a little over $100 I think. Although I never took classes there, I did visit the Kyokushin Honbu in Ikebukuro Tokyo, and classes go there for about 10,500 yen or roughly $105 bucks per month ( http://www.kyokushinkaikan.org/ja/introdouction/index.html ); and when I went to the kodokan Judo honbu dojo, it was only $50 bucks a month (although judo is famous for being inexpensive). Unreal! Could other Californians comment on the prices out there?

I think this ties back with the original purpose of kata. You learned a new kata at a higher rank because that is when you were supposed to learn those new moves (again, going off off old JMAs as a reference). I was under the impression that originally, kata was taught, and then applied, and the number didn't matter; some masters only focused on one kata. Didn't Funakoshi do Tekki for 7 years or so, before he was even taught another kata? The Okinawans seemed to have a unique stance towards kata, only teaching one for long stretches of time( although the also fought bareknuckle at times too, here is a nice article on shotokan and karate: http://www.24fightingchickens.com/2006/01/29/funakoshi-man-vs-myth/ ). However as I touched on, I was using Japanese martial arts as a reference. The Japanese had a very structured way of practicing martial arts ( http://Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mus%C5%8D_Jikiden_Eishin-ry%C5%AB ) with rank and specific kata sets per rank at times. While karate didn't initially follow this route, it adapted the japanese system from kata per rank, to uniforms. This went on in turn to influence the korean martial arts and how they were taught as well. Chinese arts many times follow the japanese system too ('sashes' instead of belts), and thus in the eastern martial arts the original purpose of kata in japan has spread worldwide.

Naturally you'd have to train it using an alive manner for it to be useful. Much like no boxer would simply do shadowboxing, you need to train what you do in a live manner to get good at it. That's why the renewed interest in karate bunkai using Straight Blast Gym training (progressive resistance and aliveness drills) is awesome to me. Iain Abernethy is probably the most well-known example, but there are others. I'm fortunate with my training though. Our organization for Kyokushin allows throws, sweeps, and limited groundfighting so we get to train in them. I'm also fortunate that not only is Sensei Manny of my dojo a sandan in Kyokushin but also a godan in Judo. Because of his judo background he gets to see a lot of things others wouldn't. To me that's why one needs to cross-train if they want to see more in their art. Of course. Won't argue with you on that. I just think that when a man like that gives advice, it's worthwhile to take note. I'm pretty sure Lyoto Machida does his kata as well, but as you said, it's one part of the whole package. A fighter who does only bagwork has just as much of a chance as winning as one who only does kata. It's only one part of the entire deal. The question is if Lyloto Machida (one of my favorite fighters if only because he adapts Shotokan for the mma scene which I think is awesome) DOESN'T practice Kata will that negatively impact his performance and ability? What if he didn't practice bagwork or sparring? The latter two would probably have negative results, but kickboxing, boxing, kyokushin (to a point, I know they practice kata but sparring is extremely important) Judo, BJJ, SAMBO, Sanshou, Shuai Jiao, Bruce Lee and JKD, etc all practice with no to little kata and produce some of the best results (Kano famously taking the focus off kata in his training and then beating the top Tokyo Jujutsu Dojos of the day which had a very heavy kata emphasis around the turn of the century in the late 1880's). There have been plenty of great fighters who came from kata practicing systems. But they got their ability not through the kata, but resistance training and drill work (not a new concept but Straight Blast Gym has done a good job of promoting it). Take out the kata, and you lose a traditional method of practice, but performance has not been shown to suffer both historically and in the modern day from not practicing it. In fact, many times the opposite has been shown to hold true because you have more time spent training the actual techniques of the system. If such training were undertaken in any other sport, people wouldn't even consider it. For instance, let's say you see me on a tennis court slowly moving to the side then squatting low, swinging my arm, and repeating that again in the opposite direction, finishing the 'kata' by swinging my arm over my head. Sometimes I would hold a racket and have someone slowly toss a ball at me and I would lightly tap it with a backhand from the tennis kata. I would practice mostly the kata and some focused swings for the most part, and very rarely I might engage in a light tennis match. Of course if someone trained as this for 5 years and went into an actual tennis match, they would probably loose to someone who just focused on the needed swings and serves by drilling them, then engaging in regular speed and intensity tennis. However because many martial arts come from a tradition and cultures that do not always question such things, I think people are less likely to question them. Anyways that's all I have to say. I don't think we are going to change each other's way of thinking so we are going to have to agree to disagree

With respect, 3.5 years is no time at all, and sort of puts you in my category no.1. The vids you have posted are very nice, but its all about realising potential application through ongoing practice. Not watching what other people have figured out for themselves. Also, you have to understand that kata has purpose beyond just the immediately apparent. For example Naihanchi kata is an introduction inner circular stances, seishan is the progression of inner circular stances as in it adds forward movement plus the on off of dynamic tension, Chinto is the convergence of inner circular stances with the technical opulence of Kushanku (and thus all of the pinan katas). But as I say, you will not appreciate this from a book. I would disagree that 3 and a half years with 2-3 times a week training is not "Never having really trained in any serious Kata based ma before (or at least for long enough)" and thus having little no experience with kata and applications from kata. In fact if you go to a more 'modern' martial arts gym many people there started out in TMAs. However some feel that kata take a lifetime to master which in that case I can hardly claim to be an expert, but neither can anybody. However I can say that I have had years of experience with training both kata and bunkai and I initially had a different opinion of them, although I never was a big kata fan when I could just learn the moves without going through the whole kata to get to them. As for the videos I put them there for the reason that they were NOT always the best, especially when they tried to do grappling and some of the takedowns. The knife one could be very dangerous if tried in real life. Again, if you look at kata historically (books by Diane Skoss are a good start) they aren't all that mysterious at all. They shouldn't be- if you have to take over 10 years to understand a kata then something is quite wrong. I can get a PHD neuroscience in 10 years, and that is a far more complicated field than karate. (can I understand everything about the brain? no- but I can be an expert on the most complicated part nature in less time than it takes to be a 'master' on a short series of physical moves) Blocking, punching, sweeps, these are all things that are simple when drilled and applied. Suddenly in a context of a kata, they are unknowable and unattainable. They only become so when their meaning becomes lost and people have to find a meaning to them, especially in the last 25 years. This is true with most martial arts over time, as when combat becomes less stressed art becomes more important. The Tokugawa era of japan at the height of classical martial arts saw this trend at times with many older samurai VERY critical of dojos that only practiced kata (and many times made up their own for aesthetic purposes). The whole concept of the bushido code and attaching a deep spiritual meaning to martial arts practice came about during peacetime, as the samurai felt their relevance was fading away and needing a deeper justification for their class (this has to do with the rise of mercantilism after the late 17th century and the constrictions of Confucianism on the samurai...a long story). My friend trained with a goju-ryu master in the 70's on mainland japan and I have heard lots of stories about how they trained- kata were there because kata was what you did. Then they drilled, practiced kumite, and otherwise did hard work. With the above video the basic blocks and strikes in the kata became elaborate self defense moves, many of which would not be wise to actually try. However a student learning it wouldn't know that, they would think that they are learning 'karate' and should a situation arise instead of trying a simple knee strike might try to do a wrist grab takedown maneuver that their sensei thought up of over the weekend. Kata are not mysteries wrapped in an enigma unless you make them out to be. If it has a purpose beyond the immediately apparent, then I need a quote from the originator of the system telling me what that is or Occam's razor ("entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem") dictates otherwise.

Depends on how it is practiced. A lot of TKD is geared toward WTF sparring with the sport becoming so popular, but I have a scary korean acquaintance who is a Hapkido master (not TKD, I know) and is a vicious fighter on the streets, once taking out over 4 guys in bar brawl...I'm not saying he is a role model However he not only trains in point sparring, but cross trains with other disciplines like boxing and does heavy contact sparring. He can use the hapkido techniques in real life just fine- but that is because he trains them that way. Likewise any discipline be it TKD, Jujutsu, Kung Fu, etc. usually has techniques that can be used, but it all depends on if you train them in the right way.

Personal image that comes to mind is martial arts training in relation to modern warfare. Much like many old martial arts had weapons training, combative martial arts deal with modern weaponry and tactics with some unarmed H2H as well. That's the image at least

I have 3.5 years and up to a striped blue belt in TKD plus some wing chun (although the kata weren't that important in the Kung fu class) so I've done my fair share of kata training to the point of almost doing entirely poomse and drill based classes. I've also studied martial arts with little to no kata training such as doing mma training over a summer to modern grappling based arts. Each experience has been different and taught me something new about martial arts, however from my experiences as well as research on the topic I have come to form my opinion on kata and, somewhat as an extension, bunkai. Again I have no problem with forms per se , and I actually like to see them in action sometimes to get a feel of a style. However it is my opinion that forms are not for training martial abilities, but rather an old method of preserving a tradition and/or a physical artform in itself. For the former if you know what the techniques are then great- you can drill them. If not and the meaning is vauge you can run into people making up techniques for all sorts of things that the bunkai might or might not mean or are actually part of the system or not. As an example, here is the legendary Gichin Funakoshi doing Tekki Shodan: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YNrslr9LWIw&feature=related Now here are the bunkai for Tekki Shodan: This is a mostly striking based variation: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ojIV0q4X4 This one has a TON of grappling: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=p4uxSFh6Zgw&feature=related This one has a guy pulling what (I assume is suppose to be) an uchi mata out of Tekki Shodan: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=9nvDFpG13Qw&feature=related This is mostly stiking based with multiple attackers: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=V5mnhmlS174 This guy has bunaki from Tekki shodan for defending against a single leg takedown and a knife: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=txP8vWt3xQE To me personally Tekki shodan looks like some basic strikes and footwork set in a form. However that is the problem IMO- if it wasn't passed down then it could mean anything.

Judo tech with gi: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PSMsrFwduAs With various shirts: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qVszaNa5YY8 *edit* Whoops, double posted the same link. It's now fixed

I think this can really depend on the style, and many times on what individual schools are looking for. Personally though I would look for a comprehensive knowledge of the curriculum and the ability to effectively utilize such knowledge in an applied setting.

I think that this is what many like to think of as traditional. However, I think what cross states is actually more accurate: This has been something that has always bothered me, too. I am proud of the Western heritage of fighting and warriorship, and I think it is something that isn't as appreciated as it is from the Eastern viewpoint, even though it is just as valid and established. I'd definitely agree with you guys on the western arts. However it can apply to eastern martial arts as well. Judo is much older than Shotokan karate, yet it is often considered a 'modern' martial art and shotokan 'traditional', which is why I think the TMA label has less to do with tradition and more to do with philosophy. Although to a point, many western arts are not that old but have very long historical roots. Boxing is different from the bare knuckle days of yore, Greco-Roman is actually based off of a french style of wrestling and has nothing to do with Greece or Rome, and freestlye/collegiate wrestling is derived from many other grappling styles and condensed (western grappling used to have subs in the traditional 'catch' wrestling style once popular in the USA, but it has since fallen to freestyle and Collegiate wrestling made for education).

I think this ties back with the original purpose of kata. You learned a new kata at a higher rank because that is when you were supposed to learn those new moves (again, going off off old JMAs as a reference). As for bunkai, if you don't know the purpose of the application anymore definitively, I think bunkai can be tricky ground. I've seen bunkai that make sense, but also some really terrible stuff as well (finding hidden grappling is starting to become a trend with the popularity of BJJ). That is why kata really isn't as good as writing what you want to do down on paper as techniques can be lost and actions exaggerated to the point of losing their original meaning.

Judo is great for using clothes in the literal sense. You don't need a gi- gi's are made thick so that they don't break after continual use, but if you are only throwing someone once a t-shirt works just fine. The big part of using clothing is to put someone slightly off balance for setting up a throw (plus I've heard that gi chokes set in faster with thin clothing like a regular shirt).

It has been said but LEGS LEGS LEGS. Especially if they are significantly taller than you you shouldn't go 'headhunting' (speaking from experience), but go for lower strikes and throws/takedowns. If you can get them on the ground that can really work to your advantage as well if you know what you are doing when it comes to groundfighting.

I've trained at a mma gym that had a police training course and Women's only BJJ, but otherwise I've not trained anywhere with a program like that. What do you usually go over for SD?

I'm a HUGE needlephobe

Spongebob Squarepants

I'm hoping to get some training in on some basic rifle and handgun handling next year. I think that it is something that is good to know.

Forrest Griffin vs. Rashad Evans: Evans by DEC Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira vs. Frank Mir: Nog by SUB Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson: Wandy by KO Dean Lister vs. Yushin Okami: Okami by DEC Brad Blackburn vs. Ryo Chonan: Cho by KO

The first texts and techniques are mostly from the Edo period in Japan (1600's-1860's). As the country was united under the tokugawa shogunate during the time, many samurai found the time to create systems from the techniques they had gathered (as they no longer had a job fighting wars). Most early martial arts schools have a weapons based focus reflecting their wartime influence, but as martial arts became more tailored to non warfare based situations jujutsu (originally referred to 'yawara' or 'soft') began to become emphasized. However most koryu schools are not purely jujutsu based but retain weapon based training. As such I think it could be argued that jujutsu wasn't meant much for the battlefield either and only as a last resort. As for karate, owning swords was banned and it was practiced among the general populace as a folk style of fighting. Thus it utilized what were at the time everyday implements for weapons and focused on striking as opposed to grappling as you wouldn't be fighting armored foes.