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.
