Going down the rabbit hole

When you start looking for evidence, when no one is asking for any, you will be surprised at what you find. Your view of the world, and your ego will be lying in pieces on the ground by the end of it. I'm not talking about confirmation bias research where you ignore all evidence, which runs contrary to your opinion. The evidence of the effectiveness of karate is that it is terrible, but most martial arts are terrible. The evidence which suggests that it is effective is that it survived being passed down in Okinawa. If it's use got you killed then you're not around to pass on your crappy tradition. It's positively selected as opposed to negatively selected. It's survivor bias in a good way. The fact is that adrenal decay, lack of stress inoculation, and lack of experience in violent situations counts for more than your training. Training is the compromise between lack of preparation and being a violent jerk. Rory Miller says it's luck and instinct, which gets you through most violent encounters, until you've hit about 20 force encounters and then it's luck, instinct and training. We've all heard of the people who survive violence by doing X, Y and Z, but we don't hear about those who did X, Y, and Z who died screaming for someone to save them. Unfortunately, there is this thing called reality and it doesn't cooperate the way we wished it would. We as people tend to attribute our successes to skill, and our failures to bad luck. Hardly ever do we attribute success to luck, and failure to lack of skill, even though this is more likely.

I remember reading an article about UFC training, where the trainer was explaining that fighters could achieve the same results by training much less than what they currently were doing. The training had nothing to do with power, speed or skill. It might have even been slightly detrimental. It had to do with mental toughness, and anxiety management. Do you want to go into a fight confident that you did everything you possibly could to prepare, or do you want to go into a fight just as prepared, but with a mental nagging doubt? When you're only fighting pain and fatigue, mental toughness counts for a whole lot.

Here's where this can get you hurt. If you train to fight your anxiety and become less effective than you're not doing yourself any favors. You will be over confident, and less skilled, which is a bad combination.

What does this have to do with research?

It means we need to know the aim of research, and what people are trying to achieve. If you train like a UFC fighter who is trying to manage their anxiety, you might be less effective in a life or death confrontation. You might be over confident, because you did super hard training and die, rather than being under confident, running away and surviving. Research might be comparing very minute battlefield differences, which made a difference tactically, but not much of a difference to the individual. The Thompson-Legerde tests on caliber, which is usually dismissed, was testing the wounding capabilities of different cartridges not how lethal they were. They already knew that a bullet through your head, spine, or heart was lethal. They wanted to know what the differences were when the bullets hit non-essential organs and tissue. Their conclusions were based on certain rounds allowing a person to bleed out faster than others, but this time is counted in minutes not seconds, because regardless of the round our flesh is elastic and closes the wound and our body starts trying to repair itself and stop the bleeding. A wounded enemy soldier will be taken out of the fight eventually, but this doesn't help those in his immediate vicinity. It only means soldiers who show up minutes later won't have to worry about him. The person who gut shot him is probably just as dead. It doesn't help you individually, but it helps your comrades in arms later on down the line. It has a tactical advantage in war, but has no tactical advantage in self defense where a person needs to be taken out immediately. You don't have the ammunition, time nor backup to lay down suppressive fire while you wait for the wounded to bleed out.

It was also thought that non-jacketed lead projectiles would not function reliably in an auto-loader, which is false, but has nonetheless changed the trajectory of firearms development regardless of this being a more than 100 year old myth. I just fired some non jacketed lead rounds out of one of my rifles just a few months ago, and it worked just fine. They have been relegated to the dust bin of history without even a retest to see if the original reasons and conclusions still hold true.

In the Napoleonic war the British sabre caused horrific wounds, but seldom killed. The French sword killed, but did not produce grizzly wounds. The difference between cut and thrust. A thrust kills, a cut maims. The British sword was feared because of the terrible wounds, which is a huge psychological advantage in war. Great for warfare, but not that great for a duel against a determined foe. The British sword was thought to be more effective. Was it? Maybe for fear factor, but not for killing though fear counts for a whole lot.

In the world of the stock market, research has shown that actively managed portfolios do no better than broad market passively managed portfolios. Throwing a dart at the Wall Street Journal is about as effective as the most advanced stock market analysis, because regardless of method you can't predict the future. Regardless of this there are still many companies that advertise the virtues of their management, and people are happy to hand over their money in fees.

What does this all mean?

It means things are seldom how they appear, and if you want to get to the bottom of things you need to dig deep and prepare for your ego to be destroyed, your anxiety to hit the roof, and for no one to ever listen to you because you're going against what amounts to tradition. They use anecdotal evidence, research out of context and ignore conflicting information, because it makes their tummy feel funny to face reality. If you're tummy feels funny, it means you're learning something great. It doesn't mean it's true, or false it just means you're testing your assumptions.

If you want to succeed, you need to ignore that funny feeling and look at the hard real-world evidence. You need to be okay with the fact that luck might play a bigger factor in success or failure than you are comfortable with and that people might be selling you snake oil, so you can manage your anxiety. You also have to be okay with people vehemently and even violently disagreeing with you, because it calls their fantasy world into question. Even with all of this there is freedom in facing reality. It means you can keep your head down, train, prepare, plan and know that focusing on the aspects of life that you can control directly is the only thing that matters even if you are falling through the rabbit hole.

Grapplers vs. Strikers

There seems to be this long running debate since the UFC became popular about which is better, striking or grappling. It's basically a style war. Like style wars, it's completely idiotic. The style doesn't win the fight, the fighter wins the fight. Despite this it doesn't seem to stop internet warriors from arguing over the primacy of each, so I'll weigh in and give my opinion.

First of all, I don't identify with either. What? You're a karateka, so aren't you a striker? No I'm not a striker, I'm a karateka. If anything I'd call myself a stand-up grappler. Wrestling is deeply rooted in Okinawan culture and it had a profound impact on the development of karate. It doesn't just have striking and grappling. It is striking and grappling combined. Locking, throwing, breaking, hitting, all at the same time.

Striking and grappling are artificial divisions and from a practical self defense standpoint absurd. One shouldn't limit themselves to just one weapon. To quote Miyamoto Musashi "A warrior shouldn't have a favorite weapon." There are times when you need striking, there are times when you need grappling and there are times when you need both.

Grapplers do tend to do better in competition against strikers. There's a very good and simple reason for this. Grapplers can play harder than strikers. This isn't to say that strategies based in striking don't train hard. They train very hard, but in a different way.

A striker for the most part can't go all out during training with a partner. The concussive impact of a good striker can penetrate armor and protective equipment and still cause damage. Just look at the NFL and their problems with concussions. The point of striking is to cause damage and that's exactly what you don't want to do to your training partner. Strikers can only go all out on inanimate objects.

Grapplers don't have this problem. Grapplers can play at full force and intensity. Every training session can be completely dedicated to an all out rolling session and the chances of injury are relatively low. They get more hands on training, because when it comes right down to it grappling is less dangerous. A grappler basically has to ignore the tap to hurt someone. A striker just has to screw up his timing and targeting, which is easy to do with two fast moving independent bodies. This is because grappling, especially the sport kind, is about submission not damage. Their opponents give up, they aren't put down.

This isn't an argument for or against grappling or striking. Like I said, I don't identify with either. I'm a karateka. Each has it's uses and it's place and neither is an answer to all conflict. You might not be able to grapple if you get attacked in a bathroom stall and you probably don't want to shatter your drunk friend's knee so you can take his keys away from him. If you want to be able to perform better in more situations you should train to strike, grapple and do both at the same time.

BAB training

Training with J went well. We took some time working through applying some of the kata movements, and began work on a new section. She's very comfortable with the first repeating set of the kata. A middle block/ punch combination that can be used in a variety of ways. She's become very good at jamming her forearm into my neck if the opening arises and more than once she put me on my butt.

She was less comfortable with the second section we worked on though that should change with just a little bit more practice. She just needs to remember to keep contact, so that you're aware of where your opponent's limbs are without looking. I was able to get her with a variety of circular attacks, but she was still able to perform the main application of the movement.

The funny thing is that she thinks that I've let her get the better of me, but she's been improving so quickly and adapting so readily to the new concepts that I'm scrambling to defend and counter with other sections of the kata, but once she's gotten the hang of those she'll be exceptionally hard to deal with. One of the signs that techniques are working as they should is they feel too easy. When you use structure, you don't feel muscular strain or the resistance that is inherent in other practices, so it sometimes feels as if you're doing nothing.

We finished up the session with five minutes of Rory Miller style one-step sparring. We use a metronome to tick off a steady beat and on each beat we each make one move simultaneously against each other. It helps you work to improve your efficiency since you have little time to adapt and readjust to your opponent making you do many things with a single movement.

Sick and Loathing

I've spent the last three days hacking, coughing, sneezing, sleeping, hacking, coughing, aching and pining.

I don't like being sick. Not only because I feel bad, but I've seemed to have programmed my brain over the last few years to only be happy if I'm doing something. I've had to work myself into a semi state of exhaustion in order to relax and not fidget like a kid about to get his first haircut, and I've been couch locked the last few days looking off into my backyard at the wonderful practice space I've made for myself. It's not fun. The only things that seem happy about the arrangement are the cats, which have claimed me as their personal space heater since the house has started getting cooler. I can't really say cold, since 60 degrees Fahrenheit would be a warm spring day to our neighbors to the north, but when you've been living in the South East for the last eleven years 60 feels like someone stuck you in a freezer.

I guess I do get more time to harass people on the internet.

I've been trying to take the advice of Kris Wilder and Lawrence Kane, I listen to their podcast, but don't know them personally. Basically using the advice to try and recover rather than push yourself, so I've been reading books and watched a few MMA matches. I had to turn it off though, because sometimes I don't have the patience to watch them.

Watching those at the top of the rankings is usually a pleasure. It's not an accident that they're in the top five. They're a technician at work. But those other matches, all the other ones are usually like watching someone do transmission work with a hammer. Just keep hitting away despite the result hoping that it will work.

Don't get me wrong. I have a ton of respect for anyone who steps into a ring like that. It takes a lot of guts to not only risk pain and physical injury, but also face the fear of having your internal fantasy shattered along with it. Kudos.

Hopefully within the next day or two, I'll be able to run around like my normal happy self.

Sport fighting versus Survival fighting: Part 2

After giving it some thought, I decided that this post needed a part two.

Another of the significant differences between sport and survival is the goal. Sport fighting is very much about domination. When you put someone in a choke or a lock you submit them. The ego is very much at play in the sporting arena. It's where people develop their ego. It gives them a sense of worth or meaning. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can grow wild. I think most martial arts boost ego rather than diminish it, but that's another post. This is the point of the sporting arena. It's about having fun of course, but it's also about proving that you're the best.

The goal of survival fighting is to end the conflict without injury, preferably to all parties involved. This does away with any legal entanglements or acts of retribution from those involved. Yes, if you have to injure a criminal you should expect violent retribution from them, their friends or even their family. It's something that is usually glossed over when talking about self defense. The easiest way to accomplish this is by running away. This is the real ego killer. Better to run and kill your ego than stay and kill yourself.

In the ring, fighters are matched by experience and weight. Unfortunately out in the real world your attacker will most likely be bigger, stronger and more comfortable with violence than you are. Just by being big and strong yourself can be a viable means of self defense on its own. A criminal doesn't want to fight, they want something. They're going to pick soft targets. If you were a criminal, would you rather mug the bodybuilder walking into the gym or the shaking elderly woman shuffling her way into the grocery store next door. It's just like in the wild, the old and sick are hunted down by the lions because they're easier prey.

In the last post I wrote a little about the difference in techniques and I'd like to expand on it a bit.

Submission fighting is very big in the sporting arena and it's very effective in this context, but for your average person who does not have a duty to act, like a policeman or security officer, they're pretty worthless. One exception possible being chokes, but only chokes performed from the front. (Because if they're performed from the rear you can just escape instead of choking them, so it's not self defense.)

Let me lay down a scenario. A person attacks you without provocation, so it's legitimate self defense at this point. You get dragged to the ground where you put him in a skillful arm bar. Now what? In legal terms force is only legal if the threat is still present. This does not mean the person is still present, but the threat. The arm bar neutralizes the threat, but now you are kidnapping, which is a felony. You can't break the arm legally speaking because you stopped the threat. To escape you'll have to let go and hope the guy doesn't become a threat again. See the problem. Locks not only immobilize the threat, but yourself as well and escape is the goal.

The fact is that you'll be most likely outmatched in size and strength, taken unawares and will most likely be injured. To survive this you might have to do some really brutal shit. The equivalent of shooting someone with a gun. There's a reason you don't see this in the sporting arena.