Government Regulation in the Martial Arts

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

I wanted to look at a topic that comes up regularly within the martial arts community, that of Government regulation.

Government regulation is a somewhat dirty topic in relation to martial arts – proposals for instructor licensing requirements, member registration, criminal background checks, weapon licensing and registration, and industry accreditation have all largely fallen by the way-side. Efforts to introduce industry standards have been largely met with a great deal of resistance from the martial arts community and filed in the too hard basket by government agencies.

In Western Australia, apart from laws governing combat sports in relation to events there are no specific laws or regulations that apply solely to the martial arts industry. Apart from general safety and health regulations, employee legislation etc; in other words, legislation that applies to all businesses; there are only two pieces of legislation that really affect martial arts schools. The first is the Working With Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act 2004. Basically, this Act provides that anyone working with children must get a Working With Children Permit which is only issued after a background check on the individual in question. As such, it isn't martial arts specific as all individuals that deal with children in certain capacities must have this permit, and not all martial arts schools will require it (not all schools cater to minors).

The major piece of legislation that effects many martial arts schools (but again, not all) is the Weapons Act 1999 and its subsequent amendments. Obviously it doesn't effect all martial arts schools as not all martial arts schools train in the use of weapons. The biggest area that this legislation effects is in its definition of 'prohibited' and 'controlled' weapons. Basically, prohibited weapons are those weapons that are completely illegal such as the balisong (butterfly knife). Controlled weapons are those weapons which require a lawful excuse to own and carry, and include most martial arts weapons such as swords, sai, tonfa etc. Under the Act, owning the weapons for martial arts practice is a lawful excuse, and carrying them to and from the dojo is a legitimate reason to be carrying them. Thankfully, Western Australia; unlike our Eastern States counterparts; hasn't gone stupid and enforced ridiculous licensing requirements on simple martial arts weapons.

Various Martial Arts Weapons

Why do I say that it is ridiculous to have weapon licensing requirements for martial arts practitioners? Simply, it is a hassle that gives the illusion of protecting the public while creating an unnecessary headache for the martial arts community. First, most major martial arts weapons are relatively large and difficult to conceal – it is fairly difficult to walk down a street with a katana, yari (spear), or naginata (a type of staff with a blade affixed to one end) without being seen. Second, the biggest kitchen knife I own is longer than any tanto (martial arts knife) and only just shorter than my wakizashi (a short sword), but they don't contemplate regulating kitchen knives - my brother is a chef and hauls a plethora of various sized razor-sharp knives to and from work every day! Third, baton weapons (eg tonfa or hanbo), chain weapons (eg manriki) or combination baton/chain weapons (eg nunchuka), are essentially just sticks and chain links – items readily available from your local Bunnings. In the hands of an experienced martial artist it won't make any difference whether it is a genuine martial arts training weapon or the first item they get their hands on (an improvised weapon) – anything can be a weapon. I think Western Australia has it right – legislation that walks a good line between community safety without impeding legitimate purpose.

WKA - one of many Karate regulatory bodies

Apart from the above pieces of legislation, the government has generally left the martial arts industry to itself. Many martial arts have their own regulatory bodies, but there is often more than one body for each art. Often, countries may have their own body, which is affiliated with a world body, and multiple versions of these too! Take karate for example – karate has the A.K.F. (the Australian Karate Federation) which is the Australian member of the W.K.F. (the World Karate Federation). Karate also has the I.S.K.A. (International Sport Karate Association), the JKA/WF Australia (Japan Karate Association World Federation Australia), and individual style associations such as A.K.K.A. (the Australian Kyokushin Karate Association). Some of these are art related (the JKA for example) and some are sport related (the AKF for example), and as such some are inter-related – for example the JKA/WF Australia is also affiliated with the AKF and WKF. On the downside, these associations and federations are oft times entirely self serving, and are set up to provide an air of legitimacy. Even worse, sometimes they are simply a cash grab by the people involved – a registration or annual fee is paid simply to use the name.

Individual regulatory bodies have their own rules and requirements for membership which again, isn't standard across the industry. Bodies independent of style have been set up in an attempt to provide an over-arching self-regulatory body to keep government from introducing regulations and to liaise with government on industry issues. Although these bodies sometimes do good work, they also have a tendency to be self-serving. One particular organisation for example publicly states that it supports the move for a Uniform National Prohibited Weapons Legislation, where a martial arts instructor must acquire a 'Prohibited Weapons Permit' (like the one currently in place in Victoria) in order to teach weapons. Why would this particular organisation support this move? In Victoria in order to acquire a permit you have to be an “accredited instructor”, and guess which organisation is one of the only sources able to provide accreditation? This particular body goes further than this – they are actively lobbying government to require all martial arts instructors to be accredited in order to teach.

Personally, I object to any organisation that is trying to implement a “one size fits all” blanket to the martial arts industry. Many other instructors see through the rhetoric and spin provided by these bodies and realise that, at heart, they are nothing more than a power grab. These interest groups have no desire in ensuring that the community is protected from shonky practitioners, they just want to be able to roundly proclaim they are the “peak” body, and require that all instructors have taken their accreditation course(s). They even believe they have a mandate to implement this requirement! Unfortunately, a number of martial arts instructors looking at ways to establish their own legitimacy have become associated with these groups, paying them money to do their accreditation courses. If you are an instructor establishing your own school, don't look to these bodies for accreditation, you don't need it! Most of these associations are the martial arts equivalent of the A.C.L. (the Australian Christian Lobby) – they lobby hard, purport to represent everyone who could potentially fall under their umbrella, and make vocal claims to have the best interests of people at heart. In reality, they are trying to steam roll their own agenda onto everyone despite being a minority voice. Make no mistake – most martial arts instructors and schools in Western Australia are not accredited by, or affiliated with, these organisations and want nothing to do with them.

So given that Western Australia lacks a regulatory system for the martial arts industry and doesn't want one implemented, how do we protect consumers against the people who do one year of martial arts and then open their own school, or worse, read a book or watch a DVD and then open their own school? Truth be told, the greatest way to weed them out is through market forces. People with questionable training backgrounds and teaching ability tend to succumb to their own ignorance. Somewhere along the way their credentials will be questioned, usually by someone who knows better. If that doesn't happen, usually the product they are selling will fail to impress – there is only so long a charlatan can hold an illusion for before it begins to fade. In the short term, these people may be able to impress with understanding of basics, but in the long term their lack of skill and experience will show. Like any good or bad business, word gets around, and people who are offering an inferior product tend to go out of business.

Just one of thousands of Martial Arts courses available on DVD or in book format

If the instructor or business owner is quite the snake oil salesman, they may be able to stay in business, attaining new students as the older ones leave in pursuit of new challenges and better instruction. But does this actually require regulation? Someone who has a years worth of training will generally only have a years worth of material to teach unless they do further training or start to make stuff up (hence my warning in a previous article about offers of attaining a black belt in a year). During that year, the stuff taught may actually be quite sound though will probably be limited in scope and understanding. When a student stops being challenged by the content or starts to feel their instructor has nothing further to teach them, they may naturally move to a new instructor who does. There is no inherent time frame that a student signs up for at the start - “I want to train with you for the next 20 years” is not a phrase I have ever heard from a beginner in any school. Teaching relationships naturally come to a conclusion when the instructor no longer has anything left to teach the student. As an example, in the free style system I trained in, after my 4^th dan, my instructor and I agreed that he had nothing left to teach me. Although the system had dan levels beyond 4^th we both felt that there was little for me to learn in those dan levels beyond what I had already accomplished with setting up my own school, and we parted ways. There was no expectation on my part when I started that I would even reach that far – in fact, I had started that martial art to kill time until I decided what I really wanted to do. The fact that I stayed for over 10 years was because I enjoyed it and felt I was learning new skills through most of that journey.

The other issue with government regulation in relation to the martial arts, is who decides what can be accredited as legitimate and what can't? With traditional martial arts, who determines which ones can and which ones can't be included? Do we include Silat but leave out Taekwondo? Do we include Muay Thai but leave out Sambo? Do we include Goju-Ryu Karate but leave out Shotokan Karate? With modern freestyle schools, how do we determine school by school whether one is legitimate while saying another is not? If all styles and systems can be deemed legitimate, then what is the point of regulation?

If we go beyond styles and look at the credentials of individual instructors, who makes the call of what is deemed valid? Do we require all instructors to be at least 1^st dan? If we did this we run into the issue that I wrote about a couple of weeks ago – belt levels across styles are not comparable. Do we then go by years of training experience and require everyone to have been training for at least 5 years first? Again we run into the issue that time in the martial arts isn't the same as experience – a person could be doing 5, 1 hour long training sessions a week for 5 years or they could have been doing 2, 1 hour long training sessions a week for 10 years. The 5 year example has more hands on training experience than the 10 year example.

If we can't go by style or school, and can't set experience standards, do we look at an individual's technique? Who would judge what is good technique and what is bad technique? Anyone judging would have a natural bias to authorise technique that resembles their own, and label others as illegitimate. In a universe of infinite variation, how do we say one person's method of self defence is right, while another person's is wrong? Watching how other styles do some things I have disagreed with their method but very rarely have I believed they were just completely wrong – less effective yes, but not completely wrong. Why should one person or committee; who have vested interests in the outcome; be able to rule one way or the other? And if it was someone or a group of people with no vested interests (someone who doesn't practice martial arts), they would be in no position to make that call.

In essence, government regulation of the martial arts industry creates more issues than it solves. When it comes to consumer protection, Australia has a robust court system to settle individual grievances. Most grievances will never go that far, with consumers generally doing what they do best – talking about their experience. Word-of-mouth is a powerful tool and many martial arts schools live or die by word-of-mouth recommendations. In marketing, they say that a customer who has a good experience will generally tell 2 people, but a customer who has a bad experience will tell 20 people! This is, and always should be, how the martial arts industry is regulated – by consumers of the service provided.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Martial Arts Myopia

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this topic, I wanted to look at a somewhat common phenomenon in martial arts that I call “martial arts myopia”.

If you've trained for any length of time you will probably be aware of martial arts myopia. Most martial artists experience it in their early years of training before they know all the 'rules' of their style. So what is martial arts myopia? Martial arts myopia is the act of pretending a technique doesn't exist because it isn't taught in; or doesn't fit; your system or style. Usually, it gets justified with an explanation that; even as a lower belt; you know is hogwash and doesn't sit quite right with you.

Now I should differentiate between martial arts myopia and technique specificity. Some techniques are easier to perform when your opponent is in a specific stance or they throw a particular technique and are trained for that specific stance or technique. For example if I am stepping through for a tripping technique on my opponent it is much easier to target the leg that is forward or closest to me than it is to target the rear leg or the one that is furthest away from me. Inevitably you will have a student step into the wrong stance and ask the question, “well what would I do if they did attack me this way”? My standard answer to my students is I'd do a different technique and usually indicate a different throw or take down – one that is relevant to the position my opponent has presented. An unacceptable explanation to a student is “No one would ever attack that way” or numerous variations to that effect, as clearly, your student just did. Martial arts myopia is not the same thing as technique specificity.

Some martial arts have a natural degree of martial arts myopia built into them. For example, grapplers (BJJ, Judo, Greco-Roman) have a tendency to ignore striking, and strikers (Muay Thai, Taekwondo, boxing) have a tendency to ignore grappling. This degree of inbuilt myopia is not an issue when training for competition as it is within the boundaries of the rules – you are not allowed to strike in BJJ, Judo or Greco-Roman Wrestling competition and you are not allowed to take your opponent to the ground for submissions in Muay Thai or Taekwondo. In the case of boxing it goes a step further with only punching techniques being allowed (no kicks, knees or elbows) and only to limited targets (above the waist).

And illegal 'reap' according to the IBJJF

Inbuilt myopia is a big issue however when something seemingly should be allowed as it is within the style, but has been ruled out of use in competition due to its 'dangerous nature'. I discovered this while training BJJ – a rule introduced to BJJ in 2011 means that you can't 'reap' your opponent (crossing the leg across the opponent's body that could potentially torque the knee). It is supposed to be there for competitor safety but all it does is allow opponents to capitalise on the fact you aren't allowed to block their body – in other words, it often means that a competitor who has got themselves into a bad position can't be punished for it. I'm sure there has been a few knee injuries from the position, but any more so than joint injuries elsewhere? Are armbars or kimuras banned for their potential danger? No – because if you took out everything that was potentially dangerous you'd have nothing left. It seems ridiculous that the IBJJF (International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation) would single out this particular position for exclusion, and most BJJ practitioners that I have trained with agree. A poll on BJJ 4 Life's Facebook page echoes this distaste for the rule - at the time of writing 114 people had said reaping should be illegal in competition and 950 had voted that it should be legal.

Inbuilt martial arts myopia does become an issue in those martial arts when it is ignored in relation to self defence. I have heard the arguments on both sides of this debate – a kickboxer told me a grappler would never get close enough to take him to the ground, and a grappler told me he'd have a striker on the ground, unable to strike and submitted in seconds. I said to both of them the same thing - “Yeah because that strategy works so well in MMA competition, no one has ever tried that before.” It is one thing to have confidence in your ability, it is quite another to naively believe something when countless examples exist of that strategy being unlikely to work, especially against someone trained in that discipline. If you've never tested your hypothesis, how can you be so sure?

Another situation that happens quite often with martial arts myopia is the difference between an experienced attacker and an untrained attacker. How often did you, as a beginner, throw a punch or attack with a training knife in a manner that meant you hit your partner, only to be told your attack was 'wrong'? How can an attack; especially one thrown on instinct with no training; be 'wrong'? Isn't that what you're more likely to encounter on the street rather than someone trained to attack 'correctly'? I have been told in the past that the reason for this is because the correct technique is more efficient, therefore if you can counter the more efficient technique you can counter the untrained technique. There is some merit in that view – it is certainly harder to counter a properly thrown right cross than it is to counter a wild swing, but when you bring a blade into the situation its a whole different game. If you ask ten untrained students to try and stab you in the chest, you'll probably get ten different stabbing techniques. They will all have elements in common but they won't be the same, and usually can't be dealt with with one ultimate technique. If you ask ten trained students to do so, you might get three – if they're all your students and have been learning the same thing, all ten may do the exact same thing! The point being, training to deal with inconsistent or 'incorrect' technique should be a part of your training as it will not be the same as dealing with 'correct' technique. When it comes to dealing with an attack, no attack is wrong – pretending it is is a case of trying to fit your world to your training, rather than training for the possibilities of the world.

The major problem of martial arts myopia comes when looking at a self defence based art that then introduce technique limits. I hadn't been doing a particular martial art for very long and was sparring with a red belt, someone who had been doing the martial art for quite a few years. In the middle of the sparring round I executed an axe kick which involves lifting the leg up and snapping the foot down upon the opponent's head/face or collar bone area. I hadn't been taught this kick and it was just instinctual for me to throw it. My opponent had never been on the receiving end of an axe kick before. Despite a number of years of training under his belt this was something new to him and it didn't look like any of the kicks he had experienced in the past. He was completely caught off guard. He managed an instinctive block, but it was ineffective and the only saving factor was that I pulled the kick and didn't follow through. I immediately took advantage of his momentary freeze and stepped in and threw him to the ground. When he got up my opponent said “You can't do that we don't do axe kicks in our style.” To which I asked “Why not?”

An Axe-kick thrown in a K-1 Tournament

“We just don't,” was his reply.

I said, “Well I know how to do them, and I'm going to use them. You can pretend they don't exist but it probably just means you'll keep getting hit by them.”

My response may have been arrogant and even rude (I was young and full of myself), but I had made a pertinent point – why ignore a technique when it is possible that someone may use it against you? Isn't it better to look at everything and therefore develop a greater range of experience? I should point out that I was sparring with a purple belt a short time later and did the same thing – rather than saying I couldn't use the axe kick he encouraged me to do so, saying that “no one else in the dojo kicked like I did so it was good practice for them.” When I told him that the red belt said I wasn't allowed to use them because they don't exist in our style the purple belt echoed my sentiments saying something a long the lines of, “There is no rule that says you can't use techniques from other martial arts and it is in our best interest to experience as wide a range of techniques as possible”.

Quite a number of schools have rules forbidding students from cross-training in other arts. I have never understood these rules and am always dubious about any school/instructor who would impose these limits on a student. Instructors make claims that it pollutes the art etc, but frankly, these are just lame excuses. The only reason that I can see for preventing a student from cross-training is that they might like the other art better and leave, or worse, realise that the art they had been studying was completely bogus. I've seen this happen – I have a couple of students who joined my school while also studying a particular karate style. After a couple of months all of them had given up on the karate style realising that their training in that particular style had been a waste of time (note that this is not a denigration of karate – I have a karate black belt and believe the training was useful).

On the flip side of cross-training, a friend of mine holds a black belt with a Taekwondo style in Perth and was kicked out when he even mentioned the possibility of cross-training in another art! He knew that his current style had limits and wanted experience in elements he felt were missing from his training to date, but he still wanted to continue training in the art that he loved. Even as a black belt who was teaching classes for free his instructor had kicked him out for merely suggesting that cross-training could be useful. Oppositely, when I started studying Shaolin kung fu, another of the students realised that I had training in other martial arts and asked if I had obtained permission from our Sifu. I had told our Sifu on the first day that I joined that I was training elsewhere but I wanted to do some training in Shaolin kung fu and he hadn't cared.

At my school, RKD Martial Arts, I encourage my students to cross-train if they want to, but with one caveat – if they learn a different way to do something that they feel is better than the way I teach it I want them to tell me and show me. I only know what I've been taught, what I've experienced and what I've learned from that experience. I make no claim to know everything. I still cross-train in other martial arts for that very reason – I am always looking for a better way to do things and have no qualms about learning that from one of my students. I personally believe that cross-training is one of the best ways to reduce your own martial arts myopia and to expose you to different techniques and strategies. For example, my ground fighting has changed as a result of training in BJJ – I learned better ways to achieve the same result I had achieved in my taijutsu ground fighting training. As a result of this I have changed the way I teach ground fighting to my students. As my skills in BJJ increase further, I will most likely continue to evolve the way I teach ground fighting.

Apart from style intrinsic myopia, look back at the times you have experienced true martial arts myopia, where you have been told "we don't do that" or "you can't use that technique". Have you since learned a method of dealing with that oversight? Did you have to cross-train or even change martial arts to do it? Does your school allow you to cross-train in other arts, and if not, what reason are they trying to sell you? Finally, have you ever been kicked out of a school because you chose to cross-train in another art?

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Is Claiming to Hold a Black Belt, Essentially Pointless?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our third topic, I wanted to look at why claiming to be a 'black belt' is essentially pointless.

When people first enter a dojo, one of the goals or dreams they have is of one day obtaining and wearing their black belt. The yudansha (those who hold a dan rank) are often looked at by new comers to any art as being experts and a member of the elite – someone to respect and often, be in awe of. A black belt often confers upon its wearer a status that is; more often than not; greater than the reality. Why then, is claiming to hold a 'black belt' ultimately pointless?

First, let us look at what it generally means to hold a black belt in a certain style. Contrary to the misguided belief that a black belt is an expert, under most styles, obtaining a black belt means that you have completed your basic training, that you are competent in the system's basic techniques. It is essentially, the final step before your advanced training begins. Compared to the lay person, is a black belt an expert? Yes, but it is always a matter of relativity. When compared to a lay person, a blue belt is an expert as they know and understand a whole lot more than the average person off the street. Is a black belt an expert when compared to a lay person or a blue belt? Yes.

Looking at it another way, is a black belt in one system comparable to a black belt in another system? In a word, no. Why not? The simple answer is time and experience. Your skill as a martial artist is usually based on two things - the quality of your instructor and your experience. Generally, the better your instructor and the more experience you have, the better you will be as a martial artist. Removing natural ability, quality of instruction and your training experience will be the dominant factors in determining your skill level. So why aren't black belts across systems comparable? Mainly for the two reasons above – not all instructors are equal, and not all experience is equal.

There is often a big misconception within the martial arts that skill translates into teaching ability. In other words, the better you are as a martial artist, the better instructor you'll make. In some systems it is almost expected that once you reach a certain belt (often black belt) that you will be instructing others. The reality is, teaching and training are two very different concepts and someone who may be good at one is not guaranteed to be good at the other. I have at various times in my training had experience with numerous instructors – some were very good martial artists but terrible instructors, and some were average martial artists but excellent instructors. There were various reasons for the former – some just had a high degree of natural ability so they were good at the physical aspects, but lacked understanding or the ability to impart understanding to others. Some just had no idea of the various types of learning methodologies (to be covered in a later blog) and got exasperated when you didn't understand their approach to teaching. There were a number of people who had a good understanding of the martial arts and were very good at imparting that to other people, despite themselves being of only average ability. Of course, unfortunately, there is also the case of average or less than average martial artists also being average (or worse) instructors – I am fortunate to have had very little experience being instructed by this category, as being taught by someone of this ilk for one lesson was enough!

For students of the same style having a different instructor can mean a vast difference in knowledge at a particular level. This is mitigated somewhat in some styles by having grading panels – trying to ensure a minimum standard is obtained before passing from one belt rank to the next. However, standards are subjective and grading panels are not always comprised of the same people. Also, this is usually an assessment of technique, not understanding.

Myself (right) with BJJ world champ Andre Galvao

Recently I had the fortunate experience of doing a two day workshop with Andre Galvao, multiple times BJJ world champ and an all round nice guy. Andre is an example of the perfect instructor – exceptionally gifted at what he does and able to impart that knowledge to others in a multitude of ways. I can't remember exactly how many people were in attendance (definitely more than 50, possibly around 80) on both days, but everyone left that workshop knowing how to do the techniques being taught, why you would use those techniques, and why they work. Despite a large group, he was able to teach the same thing in multiple ways so that everyone was able to understand.

If we were able to remove the variability in instructor ability (both as a martial artist and a teacher), could we then compare black belts across systems? Again, the answer is no. Different systems have different grading requirements - even different schools within the same systems have different grading requirements! As such, a belt rank from one system to the next is never going to be equivalent. A good indication of this is the experience that the student has at that rank, or put another way, the average time it takes to achieve that rank.

Some martial arts schools advertise that you will be black belt in a year – ps, if you see a school that does this, avoid it like the plague! In some styles it may take you an average of three years to get your first dan, some five years, and some around ten years to get a black belt! Does this make them equivalent? No. Does it mean the one that took longer is 'better' than the others? Probably, but not necessarily. What it does mean however, is that the black belts of the style which takes ten years to attain are going to have experienced a great deal more training than those in the style that takes three years to achieve. Given that a martial artist's ability is generally a product of instruction received and experience, it would stand to reason that the longer it takes to get a black belt, the better that black belt would be. Put another way, assuming that both were receiving decent instruction, it would be expected that a martial artist with ten years experience would be better than a martial artist with three, four, or five years of experience (remembering we are talking average times here – some people will experience in five years what others take ten years to experience).

Looking at my own experience within the martial arts is a good illustration of this point. I hold black belts in a number of styles (one 4^th dan, one 2^nd dan, and three 1^st dans) but I don't consider them at all equivalent. It is actually one of the 1^st dans that I value the most of my martial arts achievements. The 1^st dan is in a taijutsu style, and it took me about ten years to achieve it. My 4^th dan is in a freestyle martial art and it took me about the same amount of time to achieve. However, I felt I learned more and experienced more achieving my 1^st dan in the taijutsu style than I did in achieving my 4^th dan in the freestyle. It should be noted however, that unlike most martial arts, in the taijutsu style I did, the basics ended with purple belt, not on attainment of black belt. It stands to reason therefore that achieving a black belt in the taijutsu system is a number of stages into your advanced training, not the beginning of it, as was the case with the freestyle.

The issue of quality of experience became clear to me following a particular incident. When I started training in the freestyle system I was already a red belt in the taijutsu system, and the experience and quality of training I had received meant that my skill level was above many of the people who outranked me. This was made abundantly clear to me when I was a green belt sparring a black belt who was getting angry and frustrated because he couldn't land a strike or kick on me, and his efforts to close distance and grapple were thwarted by my superior movement and counter striking ability. As his anger rose and frustration increased, he tried using more and more power to bully through me but was still unable to land a blow. After I had put him on his butt a few times (he had started trying to crash through my kicks) our Sensei abruptly ended the sparring session then chastised the black belt for his anger and lack of control. The issue was, the black belt knew I had been training martial arts as long as he had but assumed because I didn't yet hold a black belt in any styles that he must be better because he did – he didn't see me as his equivalent and certainly didn't entertain the notion that I could be better than he was. He made the mistake of assuming that his black belt in the freestyle was better than my red belt in taijutsu, despite the fact they took a similar amount of time to achieve. This always reminded me of a quote by Royce Gracie:

“A black belt only covers two inches of your ass – you have to cover the rest.”

So does saying “I'm a black belt” really hold any meaning? Despite how I opened this blog article, and what I've said above, it does. A black belt; regardless of the style in which it is achieved; has internal relevance. First, it holds some meaning within your system – for example, you'd expect that two recently graded black belts, both studying Zen Do Kai but from different schools would know similar things. Second, it holds a great deal of meaning within your school. Regardless of comparisons to other styles or schools, you have achieved a hallmark within your school, amongst your peers. Third, and probably more importantly, it speaks of your character – it has shown a degree of dedication, persistence, and mental strength that the average person does not have. In China, the term kung fu is applied to any individual skill that is the result of a great deal of effort and work, and in light of the achievement of a black belt in (almost) any style, it is highly appropriate when used to describe the martial arts.

I'd like to end this article by sharing a paragraph from an essay I was required to write for black belt in one of my martial arts:

“...I realised that a goal is only a moment in time, a brief and short lived emotion that ultimately fades. It becomes a memory of a time and a place; a marker or sign post on a longer journey. And this is where the martial arts mirrors life; life is a journey marked by events - some good, some bad - but all contribute to the experience that is Life. For when looking at Life what is the goal? Life always ends at some point and all we have is the memories and experiences of the journey, so why focus on the endpoint? The martial arts are no different - it is my realisation within the martial arts that a black belt or 2nd or 3rd Dan is just a marker, a single moment in a larger journey. The important thing to me is that I have enjoyed the journey so far, that I have experienced so much and learnt a great deal about myself in the process.”

Be proud of achieving your black belt, but remember that it only marks a certain moment in your journey, nothing more. And never make the assumption that being a black belt in your school makes you better than anyone in any other school, regardless of their rank!

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Is History and Tradition Important When Choosing a Martial Arts School?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our second topic, I wanted to look at whether or not history is an important factor to be considered when choosing a martial arts school.

History and lineage are often controversial subjects in the martial arts community. People sometimes make claims to have studied under this kung fu or karate Master, or claim historical links to this or that style, but how important is it? There are two main issues here so I will define them as such - history will refer to the style of martial art (what was studied eg. karate, ninjutsu, bjj) and lineage will refer to instructors within the arts (who you studied with). This article will look mainly at the history of a style.

The history of a style is often used to establish its authenticity, that it has some historical basis from which it is derived. Historical ties can sometimes claim to be hundreds of years old with links to some legendary master or event. This historical link is often used to convey credibility. Let's look at the history of a number of “traditional” martial arts styles.

• Judo was developed by Jigoro Kano and has its history in jujitsu. The style was developed under a unifying principle of “seiryoku zenyo” - “maximum efficiency with minimum effort”. It was developed in the late 1800s so is over a century old. 
• Karate was developed by more than one person though it was given its name by Gichin Funakoshi. It has its historical roots in Chinese kung fu combined with native Okinawan boxing (Okinawan te). It was developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s and became known as 'karate' ('empty hand') in the 1920s, so is just under a century old. 
• Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was developed by Helio Gracie in the 1920s from Kodokan Judo. Helio was unable to perform many of Judo's moves, so adapted and developed the BJJ focus on leverage and joint manipulation. 
• Aikido was developed by Morihei Ueshiba derived mostly from jujitsu, sword and spear fighting arts, in which Ueshiba was well versed. The central tenet of Aikido appears to be a commitment to a peaceful resolution of conflict whenever possible. Although developed earlier than this time, the art wasn't given the name Aikido until the 1940s so it is around 70 years old.
• Tae Kwon Do was founded in the 1950s by Choi Hong Hi (by unifying nine schools) under instruction from South Korean President Syngman Rhee to introduce the martial arts to the Korean army. While it is claimed that TKD has its origins in Hwarang-do, the ban on traditional Korean martial arts during the occupation of Korea by Japan (1910-1945) makes tracing this link difficult. It is suggested that many of the kwan (schools) that emerged after the occupation have influences from Japanese or Chinese styles, or were based entirely upon Karate. 
• Jeet Kune Do is a modern martial art founded by Bruce Lee in the 1960s. It has its style roots in Wing Chun, boxing and fencing, but Bruce Lee said “adopt all which is useful”, so it also contains grappling and wrestling techniques.  

Just from this list we can see that many of the styles that are steeped in 'tradition' are less than a century old. There are people still living and teaching who trained directly under the founder of these styles. When it comes to history, 100 years is a drop in the ocean so why do we put so much stock in a style's claims of historical ties? Let's go further back and look at some “older” styles:

• Any style of kung fu (Hung Gar, Wing Chun etc) – nearly all styles of kung fu claim to be rooted in the Shaolin monastery, which when destroyed, scattered kung fu Masters across China. From this one event, came the supposed foundation of many current kung fu styles. 
• Ninjutsu – the art of which Hatsumi Masaaki is the 34th Grand Master apparently has its origins in the 1500s. 
• Jujutsu – various styles which originated with Samurai in various periods. 

These styles have historical ties that are hundreds of years old. The problem with these claims is their verifiability. Many of these historical ties are oral history, which often can't be verified as fact. For instance, if you mention the “Ancient art of Ninjutsu” amongst historians in Japan, you will be laughed at. Does this make the techniques of ninjutsu any less useful? Given that the history of many traditional martial arts is relatively short, what importance should be placed on the historical underpinnings of a school?

While Jeet Kune Do isn't usually referred to as a traditional martial art, I have included it in the above list for a specific reason. Jeet Kune Do marked the first major style in recent history to come from the amalgamation and blending of a number of styles, and its founder, Bruce Lee, sparked the martial arts craze in the West. JKD is essentially the Father of most recent non-traditional martial arts schools, who have followed a similar philosophy of adopting what works. These days, the number of martial arts schools dedicated to a particular style seems to be in decline, with more and more schools opening up that offer a blended (mixed or freestyle) martial art. Given that the history of these styles usually originates with the owner or founder of the school, do people place a value on the traditional styles, or is what is being taught more important than the style being taught?

One of the criticisms of many traditional martial arts schools is the lack of 'aliveness' in their training. 'Aliveness' refers to the realism with which techniques within the martial arts are trained. For example, an opponent standing there allowing you to perform a technique on them lacks aliveness, while a sparring session with an opponent who fights back and resists techniques is closer to real life. The traditional martial arts often contain patterns or kata which are seen as being irrelevant if the techniques within them are never tested. This has resulted in some changes within the traditional martial arts – for example, kyokushin karate was established primarily with a focus on sparring or aliveness missing within other karate styles.

Now a martial art can't always be trained in an alive manner as it is impossible to learn a new technique with an opponent trying to hit you or resist and counter what you are doing. There must be some compliance in training or technique can never be refined before it is truly tested. At some point however, technique needs to tested in an alive manner. How will you know if a technique works for you if you've never had the opportunity to test it against an opponent who resists and fights back?

For potential students, when you are looking at a school, find out if they spar and the parameters of that sparring. Sparring needs to be relatively free for it be considered 'alive' – as soon as too many restrictions are placed on it it becomes fake. Now sparring shouldn't be confused with real life as your training partner isn't trying to hurt you. Obviously, some restrictions must be in place to prevent injury, but the restrictions need to enable as realistic a training environment as possible within the realms of safety. By the same token however, don't expect realism in a class of beginners – they have yet to learn anything to use in a realistic training situation! Some styles claim that they don't spar or train in a realistic manner because their techniques are just 'too deadly' – if you hear that excuse quietly chuckle to yourself then look for a different school!

Sparring and training in some schools use a graduated approach to increase the level of realism as students become better equipped to deal with it. In my school, RKD Martial Arts, for example, when students first start to spar they aren't allowed to kick at or below the knee (to prevent knee injuries) and should a throw or takedown occur it ends at this point. As students progress, the restrictions are removed so that all techniques are allowed and if a sparring round moves to the ground it continues on the ground. Weapons training is treated in much the same way, moving from drills to free weapon sparring as students increase in ability and experience. I find this approach works well for increasing the level of realism in training in line with my student's abilities, while still maintaining a safe training environment.

So given that 'aliveness' or realism is important, what does that mean for history and tradition in the martial arts? Very little - history and tradition in the martial arts are only important if they are important to you. If you have a reason for wanting to study a particular traditional style, or the history of that style interests you then you will find the history and tradition important. If you are getting into the martial arts for the spiritual and character building aspects, then the spiritual underpinnings of the style will be important to you. If however, you are getting into the martial arts to learn self defence, history and tradition mean very little when compared to the 'aliveness' of the training involved. Without a degree of aliveness, there is no 'martial' in the martial arts.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Martial Arts and False Advertising?

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

In this, our first topic, I wanted to look at the claims that martial arts schools often make, and whether some of these can be considered false advertising.

Martial Arts schools tend to fall into 2 broad categories – those that teach self defence and those that train for competition. Some particular styles have a natural emphasis towards one or the other, for example Krav Maga and Jujitsu have a natural focus on self defence, whereas BJJ and Judo tend towards competition. The issue however, is what happens when a school or style that focuses on one advertises that it does the other?

As an example, my school RKD Martial Arts, does some advertising under the term MMA, or Mixed Martial Arts. I use the term on my website to describe what it is we train, as we are a Freestyle system not limited to one style. In the past however, I have had potential members call up saying that they were interested in training MMA. Now MMA these days brings to mind the UFC, and many people who use the term MMA are referring to that cage or ring style of competition. Knowing this, it would be remiss of me to say to these potential clients that my school trains MMA without clarifying this point for them. I could potentially, just get them to come down and check out our school maybe convince them that ultimately what we do is “better”, but that is not what these potential clients were looking for. If I didn't make this clarification, and got these clients to sign up under the belief that they were training in UFC style MMA, is that false advertising?

Lets look at the flipside of this – if I run a school whose martial art is considered a sport, and my focus is on competition, yet I include in my advertising that I teach self defence, is that false advertising?

Competition schools can be further broken down into 2 types – demonstration and one-on-one point scoring. It almost goes without saying that a school that focuses on demonstration style competition is not teaching self defence. A good example of this is the Wikid Weaponz programme run by Jason Lee – Jason is awesome at the tricking and extreme martial arts but he knows it is just for fun and display and not for use in self defence and he tells people as such.

The potential issues usually come about in the second category of competition – the one-on-one point scoring. A lot of martial arts fall into this category – BJJ, Judo, kickboxing, wrestling, western boxing, taekwondo, fencing, and of course MMA. Now while I've never heard of a fencing school claiming they are teaching self defence, a lot of the others do.

Now lets face it – knowing any martial art is going to be an advantage in a fight, and most of these martial arts do teach how to fight, or at least teach some form of fighting skill. So the big question is – is training someone how to fight the same as training someone for self defence? Lets look at it another way - would someone trained in UFC style competition MMA or western boxing know how to deal with a knife or other weapon? Would a practitioner of BJJ or a judoka know how to deal with a multiple attacker situation?

If you're an instructor of one of these styles and you advertise that you teach self defence, do you train with knives and other weapons? Do you look at multiple attacker situations? For the grappling arts such as BJJ, Judo and Greco-Roman wrestling – do you look at striking and kicking? If you are not doing these things but claim that you teach self defence, are you potentially opening yourself up to a lawsuit?

I suppose the point of this article is two-fold. First, as an instructor know what it is that you teach and let that be your focus – don't make claims either in your personal dealings with clients or in your advertising that you are not fulfilling or incapable of fulfilling. At best you may end up with some unhappy clients, at worst you may end up in litigation.

Second, as a potential student, do some research – if you are getting into the martial arts to learn self defence look for a school that teaches actual self defence; if you are getting into the martial arts because you want to enter competitions and win medals etc, ensure that the school you are looking at can fulfil that wish. Basically, you should watch some classes, look at their photos and videos, and understand what it is that that school does. If it doesn't match what you are looking for, find a school that does, there will be one nearby.

Thanks for reading – until next week make sure you subscribe to the blog, and if you have any subjects you would like to see covered, post them in the comments section below.

Martial Arts Perth - Introduction

Sensei Ryan Nicholls here, owner of, and head instructor at RKD Martial Arts, welcome to my Blog, Martial Arts Perth.

Not surprisingly, this Blog is about martial arts in Perth, Western Australia. Perth has a thriving martial arts community. Regardless of your flavour, it is generally taught somewhere within the Perth Metro area. From the Freestyle arts who have no real country of origin, to the Chinese arts such as Wing Chun, Hung Gar and Chow Lee Fut, to the Japanese Arts like Jujitsu, Ninjutsu, Judo, Karate and Aikido, to the Korean stalwart Taekwondo, and other Asian arts such as Muay Thai, Silat and Escrima. Through the European Arts like fencing, savate, boxing, and Greco-Roman wrestling, through to the rest of the world such as Russian Sambo, Krav Maga and Kapap from Israel and from the South Americas, BJJ and Capoeira. They are all taught within our city.

I read a statistic a while ago that said that Perth had the highest number of martial arts schools per capita in Australia – whether it is true or not, there is no denying that as a community, we are spoilt for choice.

I want to look at various things on this Blog, such as looking at individual styles available in Perth, expectations on schools and students, training and technique tips, tips for running a martial arts school, to some of the harder hitting questions within the martial arts community. I will aim to upload a new article every week though spare me the pointy end of the blade if I fail to do so (I do have a life and a dojo to run after all!).

My first article after this intro will be of the hard hitting variety and will not only be a question of integrity, but of legality too, when we look at the topic - “When does a martial arts school's claims constitute false advertising?”

Join us next week to find out – for now, subscribe to this blog and leave ideas for topics you'd like to see covered in the future in the comments section below.

For those of you who are interested, the links below are to my school's website, and a youtube vid created from some classes in action.

www.rkdmartialarts.com.au