Continuous Improvement in Self defence

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


There are many aspects to self defence that I teach my students, but I wanted to look at one particular aspect for when the situation has escalated and fighting is necessary. The one aspect I stress with all my students is the strategy of continuous improvement. Given that the situations that could require self defence are too numerable to count, and that there is no ultimate technique or ultimate style to rely on, the one "perfect" strategy is that of continuous improvement. While the approaches to this strategy will vary as much as the situations themselves, the over-arching strategy of continuous improvement is the only way to ensure success in any self defence situation.

Continuous improvement simply means that from one moment to the next in any self defence situation, you are looking to upgrade your position relative to your opponent(s). If each movement you do succeeds in improving your position relative to your opponents, you are increasing the chance of your ultimate goal succeeding – that of survival.

A simple example is probably the best way to illustrate this strategy at work:

A situation escalates and I find myself in a straight line with two opponents - one directly in front of me and one directly behind me. They are currently out of range but close enough that if I engage one, the other will be upon me almost immediately. This is obviously a bad position for me to be in as I am unable to monitor ahead of me and behind me, meaning I could be blindsided with a king hit to the back of the head by the opponent I can't monitor. Rather than going for a one hit knockout and therefore only having to fight the one remaining, I choose the safer option of moving sideways, turning the straight line into a triangle. From this position I have line of sight to both of my opponents, and unless a third opponent jumps in, I can no longer be blindsided. 

The example above depicts something fairly simplistic and a simple movement has shifted me to a less vulnerable position. Assume I did something else, say going for that one hit knockout. As I throw my chi-focused, super-awesome, one hit knockout punch, my opponent does something unfathomable - he blocks it, and grabs me! I respond immediately and throw a second strike that catches him, but as I go to move something collides with the back of my skull and the world goes blurry, then dark. 

In the second example my strategy did nothing to improve my position - as I advanced forward to strike the opponent in front of me, opponent 2 closed distance. Even if my initial strike had been successful, chances are that opponent 2 would still be on top of me and I would have been struck. This wasn't a strategy of continuous improvement as I hadn't changed my position - I was still between two opponents facing one, with my back to the other.

Now if in the first situation there had been a door in that direction, and I had exited and ran, I have achieved everything a successful self defence strategy should. I had started in a bad situation. From one moment to the next I had upgraded my relative position, by getting out from between my opponents. Then by continuing out through the door (assuming they didn't chase me), I had achieved my ultimate goal - that of survival.

Regardless of the style of martial art you learn, continuous improvement should be the cornerstone of your strategy. Whether on the ground in BJJ or wrestling, in the ring in muay thai or boxing, knife fighting in eskrima, or a combination of the above in jujitsu, continuous improvement must be the strategy that formulates what you do next. While it seems a basic concept, a poor decision resulting in a downgrade in your relative position will usually be the reason that you lose. In competition, a loss is just a loss, and may provide motivation to train harder. In self defence however, a 'loss' can have far reaching consequences. 

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.

The Decision Making Loop and Response Training

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 the decision making process, commonly known as the OODA loop. In any given situation our brain goes through a number of steps in order to formulate our response to that situation. This decision process is an ongoing loop as each new piece of information requires us to go through the decision cycle again. Understanding how the brain processes information is a key point in self defence. If you understand the decision making process you can use it against your attacker, as at any moment in a self defence situation your attacker is going through the same decision process.

The Decision Cycle is known as “Boyd's Cycle” or the OODA loop. Colonel John Boyd, a US Air Force pilot and military strategist identified that combat is essentially a time based problem, and that those who could complete the cycle fastest in the constantly changing circumstances of a battle would usually gain a tactical advantage. There are four steps in the OODA loop – observation, orientation, decision, and action. These steps aren't a new concept and have been known by various things when discussed by various people, but OODA is the generally accepted standard.

Observation – this phase is where the brain gathers information. It sees your opponent, you in relation to your opponent, and the surrounding environment.

Orientation – because the brain can only process so much information at one time, it can't make a decision based on constant stimulation and must choose a moment in time on which to make a decision. Orientation is that moment in time, and represents the interpretation of the data gathered during the observation phase.

Decision – Exactly as it sounds, this point is where the brain chooses a response to the stimulation received.

Action – the final part of the OODA loop, action represents the brain giving the body a command, and the body acting on that command.

Not all stimulation is seen

While OODA is the generally accepted standard, when talking self defence I prefer to change the first two phases to Stimulation and Interpretation, as I believe these terms better explain the decision cycle in a self defence situation. I prefer stimulation because not everything in self defence relies on you being able to see and observe in order to gather information. An attack from behind may be preceded by footsteps that we hear (auditory stimulation) or failing that, our first indication of an assault may be the feeling of someone's arm around our neck (tactile stimulation). So rather than our input merely being observation, it may be any one of our senses, or any combination of our senses that provides the initial sensation that stimulates our nervous system and provides the necessary input against which we must make a decision. As a result, I refer to the decision making process as SIDA, not OODA.

While on the subject of stimulation I want to add one other sensory perception into our stimulation bunch and that is of our sixth sense. The sixth sense; often called ESP or Extra Sensory Perception; is a cue that isn't received through the five known senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, or touch. ESP is known by many names – gut instinct, gut feel, women's intuition, psychic perception, and much has been written and researched over whether or not it actually exists. Reading over numerous accounts of violent crime you will see one common theme – the victim sensed or felt that something wasn't right before it happened but chose to ignore this feeling, telling themselves that they were just being paranoid.

I'm not going to debate whether ESP exists or not but I will say this – if you feel that something is wrong, then something is probably wrong; do not wait for that feeling to be proven right. Treat any feeling as if it were fact and act upon it immediately. I can not emphasise enough that self defence is about making the cautionary assumption, and this includes assuming that all gut feelings are correct.

Interpretation is fairly self explanatory as it more closely describes what the brain is doing with the sensory information received in the first step. Interpretation is where experience becomes paramount. The brain takes all of the sensory input and searches through everything it has seen and done in order to tell us exactly what is happening. If your brain has no experience against which it can provide reference, it can't provide any context. While it is different to the adrenaline fuelled fright response, people can experience a number of types of freezing associated with the decision cycle due to lack of experience or, as I like to refer to them, "WTF was that?" moments. In order for us to go through the decision cycle as fast as possible we need context. Context enables our brain to interpret the sensory information and provide us with detail with which we can make a decision. Without context our understanding of the situation is limited and our decision and subsequent action may be inadequate.

Experience provides your brain with reference points with which it can determine exactly what is happening. The more reference points you have the faster your brain can provide an interpretation from which you can make a decision. Without these experiential frames of reference, your brain cannot resolve the stimulation received and has no way of providing an interpretation from which to make a decision, and freezes until more stimulation is received. In a self defence situation, that additional stimulation is usually in the form of pain.

While most inexperienced people get stuck at the interpretation stage, most people with moderate amounts of experience get stuck at the decision phase. They understand what is happening, they're just not quite sure what they should do, or even worse, they know three things they could do and can't decide which one is right. This is another freezing point in the decision cycle.

The decision phase actually involves two stages: solution analysis and solution selection.

Solution analysis – in this step the brain takes all the parameters provided by the stimulation stage, the interpretation of what that means from the interpretation stage, and devises a number of solutions that could potentially solve the problem. This is also where experience can assist the decision making process because if we have experienced this situation before (and particularly if we have solved this situation before) we will have a much smaller number of potential solutions to choose from.

Solution selection – this is the actual decision, where the possible solutions that could solve the problem are assessed and one course of action is chosen.

Action is the final stage of the decision cycle. It is the execution of the technique chosen during the decision phase and is the step in the decision cycle that most martial arts and martial artists focus on. We train our punches so they are fast and powerful, our kicks so they are balanced and strong, and our blocks to be solid and always ready to protect us. We hone our techniques so they are fast and effective. Training action is useless if you never get to it. If you freeze at any of the three preceding phases of the decision cycle you will never get a chance to execute your perfected technique, or any technique for that matter. Because of this, it is in your best interest to ensure that response training is part of your training regime.

Repeating and refining technique is an important aspect of training to make it second nature, but it is only one part of the speed equation to make actions faster, response training is the other. Response training is how you train the complete decision making process. Rather than trying to execute a specific technique in a given position (from a predefined attack), response training requires the attack to be random and the response to be unscripted. For example, rather than having an attacker throw a cross punch and having the defender execute a defined response (a specific block, lock, throw etc, which is what we do in technique training), response training requires that the attack be random and the response from the defender be spontaneous. This trains your brain for random stimulation, interpretation, solution analysis, solution selection and decision action – in other words, the full SIDA process.

In early stages of response training the attack may be limited but still random (for example, hand techniques only) and the response can be limited as well (any throw). As your experience increases, the randomness of the attacks should be increased too, until ultimately, there are no limits on what the attack could be or how it can be initiated.

Now in response training it doesn't matter that you can't remember the name of the technique immediately or even if you remember it at all! The attacker and defender aren't characters in a video game who must call out the name of the technique as they execute it! What matters is that you can execute a successful technique when you need it. Be aware in any of your training what it is you are training. Perfect technique with poor response will render the technique ineffective as will poor technique with a lightning fast response. Ensure that you train technique as well as response – both are necessary in a self defence situation.

If we look at an example we can demonstrate the full SIDA loop in relation to self defence in action.

1. While walking down the street late one night I see a man 10 metres ahead reach into his jacket. As he pulls out an object I see it reflect some light from the street light (stimulation)
2. My brain thinks, “that is a weapon” (interpretation)
3. My brain says I can stand and fight or I can run, and decides running back the way I came is the best solution (decision)
4. I run as fast as I can (action)

If you look at the example of the SIDA loop, it clearly indicates a situation where a decision was made on incomplete information. In that situation I saw the flash of light off an object. What that object was was unknown, so the decision I made could have been completely unjustified, or it may well have saved my life. All I saw in that example was a light flashing off of something and I erred on the side of caution and interpreted that to mean it was a weapon. It could very well have been a mobile phone or a cigarette case, which made my subsequent action over the top. However, if that reflection had been off of a gun or a knife then that action was the best thing I could have done. Self defence is about making the cautionary assumption – it is always better to assume hostile intent and be prepared for it than it is to assume passive intent and have to react when hostile intent becomes apparent.

Lastly, on the subject of action and reaction there is a saying that states that 'action is always faster than reaction'. The reason for this is simple, one person's action provides the stimulation for a second person to start the decision cycle, so a person who initiates an attack is on step four of the decision cycle (initiating their action) which triggers the second person to start step one (stimulation input). While the whole decision cycle may only take a fraction of a second, in a combat situation a fraction of a second can make all the difference. It is sometimes why a pre-emptive strike may very well be the best defensive action to initiate. As Colonel John Boyd identified, combat is a time based problem where a tactical advantage is available for the person who can complete their decision cycle fastest. A pre-emptive strike puts your opponent into a defensive state and means their brain has to react to your action, rather than the other way round, giving you the time advantage in this particular combat situation.

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.