Rikki Rockett is the drummer for the hair/glam band Poison. Yup, I like Poison.
In addition to being a drummer, having his own custom drum shop (which puts out some gorgeous drum kits), being a vegan, and an animal rights activist, Rikki is also a black belt in Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu.
I’ve always known he was into BJJ, but this is the first time I’ve been able to see him on the mat. (h/t to BW&BK)
I just finished reading this letter over at Tony Blauer’s website. To be fair, the letter reads like a mix of a testimonial and an ad/promotion for Blauer’s approach. That said, the article still brings up an important point.
The letter recounts Tom Arcuri’s journey in studying and ultimately teaching martial arts. As Mr. Arcuri developed his own style, he recognized why students come to him: not necessarily to learn some style of art, but to learn how to fight or defend themselves. Recognizing a need to satisfy this goal, he set out to meet it. Unfortunately and admittedly he chose the wrong measuring stick for progress: variety. In class situations he could see all sorts of variety and teach it, but once the students got into pressure situations, the variety went out the door. Why?
The answer came to Mr. Arcuri one summer. He came to learn that when one gets into pressure situations, one reverts to gross concepts and skills. Thus variety for the sake of variety goes out the door. Consequently, he changed how he evaluates from “variety” to “results”. I think that’s a good change. Does it necessarily matter how you defend yourself so long as you defend yourself successfully?
Mr. Arcuri writes:
As a group we tend to be control freaks, ego centric, and a bit insecure regarding our skills. This is ironic since we emphasize self-confidence and constant devotion to self-improvement to our students. We spend an inordinate amount of time arguing to be right even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Knowing forty or four hundred techniques gives us control and feeds our egos, but does it enhance our student’s survivability in a “real street fight”? Remember, it’s women and children that are more likely to have to defend themselves in our society.
I touched on this recently. Some arts make a big deal out of how much they have in their curriculum and how much they can teach you. The reality? Not so much. Kuk Sool may tout 3608 techniques, but I’ve long wondered just how they arrive at that total. If you look at what Kuk Sool terms “techniques” (the joint locks, throws, sweeps, etc… Ki Bohn Soo, Sohn Mohk Soo, etc.), then to earn 1st degree black belt you must learn 226 techniques; to earn 2nd degree, 143 techniques (369 total); to earn 3rd degree, 40 techniques (409 total); to earn 4th, 25 techniques (434 total); to earn 5th, 30 techniques (464 total). Now this isn’t to say the official Kuk Sool curriculum doesn’t have other things involved, but the point is that by the time you become a “Master rank” in Kuk Sool, you’ve been taught 464 techniques: only about 13% of the claimed knowledge in the system. Wow. So where are all those other techniques? Super-secret for only the blessed and privileged to know, I guess. Or maybe creative counting; I’ve wondered if by 3608 techniques they mean just the strictly defined techniques or if they also count kicks (front kick, 1; low front kick, 2; middle front kick, 3; high front kick, 4; etc.), punches, and every other little thing, since I know in other arts they will label that sort of stuff “techniques”. But however things are labeled and counted, the point still remains the same: aiming to collect a big number of stuff.
Aside: after a while you’ll find the techniques you’re learning are the same or almost the same. The body only bends so many ways, so if you claim thousands of ways to bend the body, eventually you’re going to repeat yourself in some fashion. Certainly I saw a lot of such repetition in the Kuk Sool curriculum. That’s not all bad because it helps to demonstrate different entries and approaches. But make sure you take those numbers for what they are.
So what’s the point of all of this? IMHO, ego satisfaction. You can strut around qualitatively stating “look at all that I know.” Then it’s easy to get into dick-measuring contests (e.g. Hwa Rang Do, a Kuk Sool contemporary, one-ups with their 4000+ techniques; see my previous article). But will a big ego keep you from getting your ass kicked? Maybe, but I doubt it.
As I’ve often said, what ultimately matters are the personal goals that you have for yourself. If your personal goal is to just acquire a large library of knowledge, then that’s fine. If your personal goal is to inflate your ego, that’s fine too. I know it sounds like I’m down on that, and I personally am because it’s not my goal and I don’t see much true point in that goal. But truly if that’s what you want and you feel it makes your life better, who am I to tell you no? I do hope you have perspective on that goal, but otherwise go for it. Me, my goal these days is combat effectiveness. I’d rather have one technique that I could execute solidly and well and that could truly save my life, than a thousand techniques that I half-assed know and don’t practically do much for me. This is why Filipino martial arts hold so much appeal for me.
As an engineer (with an engineer’s mindset) and given how much Taoism resonates with me, that’s likely why Bruce Lee’s philosophies resonate with me. He speaks of emptying your cup so it can be filled, of keeping what is useful and discarding the rest, of achieving a true simplicity in combat. Note that for these things to happen, first you must acquire. While learning nothing vs. learning something then discarding it, might appear in the end to achieve the same results, they really don’t. Antoine de Saint Exupéry wrote:
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n’y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n’y a plus rien à retrancher.
(It would seem that perfection is attained not when no more can be added, but when no more can be removed.)
To strive for perfection, strive for simplicity. If it is not useful, discard it; but that does imply you must first have acquired it so you could determine if it was useful or not. How to determine if it’s useful? Does it help you satisfy your goals? If your goal is to satisfy your ego, then fine. If your goal is to get satisfying results, well… to me, satisfying results satisfies ego. 🙂
In my Kali class tonight, we spent most of the time working on a technique called “crossada”. Basically “X”… “crossing”. There are many interpretations and approaches to it, and here are some videos that illustrate the concept. Note that what’s in these videos isn’t exactly what we were doing in class, just using the videos to illustrate the basic concept.
The key thing is to note the crossing motions done with the hands and/or weapons.
Note as well the variance of weapons: maybe two sticks, maybe one stick and empty hand, maybe sword and dagger, maybe stick and dagger. Whatever you actually see in their hands, imagine something else or nothing at all. In the end, the motions are basically the same. Consider the motions of the first video using just sticks. Now watch again but mentally put a knife in place of the stick and consider how that changes the impact of the exact same motions.
This is what I am loving about Kali: the simplicity. True simplicity. Your body gets trained to a single set of motions. If your hands are empty, the motions work. If you have a knife in one hand and nothing in the other, the same motions work. If you have one stick in one hand, or one stick in each hand, or a stick in one and knife in the other, the same motions work. You aren’t learning one thing for this weapon, then another thing for this weapon, then this other thing for empty hands, and so on. This allows you to not only get up to speed quickly, but it also gives you a broader spectrum to draw from. When I talked about cross-training, maybe you’d have to learn one thing for empty hands, then learn sword, then learn staff. That’s got the “bricks wide, bricks tall” problem I spoke of. But here with Kali (or Escrima or Arnis), you can just stack your bricks tall and you’ll get width for free (so to speak).
Granted I’m simplifying and I’m still a n00b at Kali. But I can see the simplicity and appreciate it, and it reinforces my decision to make the switch and study Kali. Good, good stuff.
If you’re familiar with Kuk Sool’s Sohn Ppae Ki wrist grab release technique set, what you see in this video may be familiar to you.
Ollie Batts has a 3rd degree black belt in Kuk Sool (WKSA), but left the organization long ago (around 1989). He’s been studying other things, such as Savate, CombatSombo, FMA, JKD, and such. Consequently, what’s nice to see in this video is how Kuk Sool principles and techniques are solid things, yet it takes going beyond the rote curriculum to really go anywhere and do anything. Those unfamiliar with the Sohn Ppae Ki set won’t be able to see what I mean in watching the above video, but those that do know, you’ll see how you really need to move beyond the techniques.
Granted the above is a controlled and limited environment due to the teaching context, so it’s not like it’s free-sparring. But it’s still demonstrating that the basic technique is only a start, not an end. It also demonstrates that, as an art, Kuk Sool — especially the “technique” curriculum — is a solid art. What’s lacking these days is much of how it’s taught.
The big thing in martial arts these days (and many other places, but I’m talking martial arts) is to cross-train. I would say this has become prominent due to the rise of mixed-martial arts (MMA) which is all about cross-training.
The intent it this: you study one art, you may be limited in what you can do, thus you ought to train in another art to ensure you don’t have any weak areas or holes in your game. For instance, these days the classic MMA formula is: muay thai for striking, wrestling for takedowns (or maybe judo), and Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ) for groundwork. The intent is that say, muay thai only covers striking (limited view I know, but go with me) but it’s really good at striking, so if you want to get your striking game you study that. But if that’s all you studied, what would happen if the fight ended up on the ground? Thus, you need to study BJJ to cover that aspect. The end result is you end up being a well-rounded fighter.
Then you get some arts, such as Kuk Sool, that claim to not need cross-training because they are a complete art. Speaking on Kuk Sool, I can say it is fairly complete but does lack in some areas. I know some Kuk Sool folk that have thrown down with BJJ guys and get p0wned; while concepts and principles are there, Kuk Sool’s curriculum just doesn’t emphasize the depth of what BJJ does on the ground. A Kuk Sool person may have enough ground skill to deal with a street fight or self-defense situation, but full-on ground fighting competition? Won’t happen.
But whatever the approach, be it a single art that claims comprehensiveness or you take multiple arts to gain the same broad spectrum of study, the end result and goal is the same of covering all the bases.
While this sounds great, is it always the best and right thing to do? I’d argue it depends upon your training goals.
Let’s say you have a pile of bricks with which to build your house. You can build in one of two directions: you can build up or out. You can stack all your bricks on top of each other. That would be like studying a single-focused art. You would get very good in that one aspect very quickly, but your house isn’t very wide and you would lack in those other areas. You could stack your bricks side by side. That would be like cross-training or studying a broad-focus/comprehensive art. You’d gain a lot of breadth of knowledge, but it’s not going to be very deep. Over time, you end up stacking your bricks in the other direction: if you stacked up, eventually you’ll stack out and build those stacks upwards as well; if you stacked out, you’ll add height to those stacks as time goes on. In the long run, the theory is that you’ll wind up at the same place, with a wide and tall stack of bricks. So the question then becomes: what do you want now? And are you willing to invest the time and effort to get to that same place way down the line? Again, it all depends upon your goals.
Furthermore, what is your learning style like? Do you need focus? Or can you deal with a lot of different concepts and techniques coming at you at once? Do you feel you can practice all of those well-enough, or might you be better just working on a few things at a time? Everyone varies on this. Know yourself and your learning style.
For me, Kuk Sool was a comprehensive approach. I like the art for that reason, because I do see the merits in being well-rounded. However, you have to mind that your training will allow you to build those wide stacks into tall stacks. Often the training at my dojang didn’t go that way: you’d have a 60 minute class with 15 minutes of warm-up, 15 minutes on forms, 15 minutes on breakfalls, then 15 minutes on techniques (or some breakdown like that). Sometimes you might have 45 minutes focused on something. But it would vary, especially depending upon the composition of the class in terms of students and their grade level. I often felt that I didn’t quite get the depth of study that I desired.
I left Kuk Sool and am now studying Kali, Silat, Jun Fan arts, Muay Thai, and western boxing. That still seems like a lot, but in many respects it’s all “stand-up” work. At my current school I could also study BJJ, but I opted against that because I want to focus a bit more on my stand-up. For you see, my cross-training isn’t just in empty-hand arts, but defensive firearms (especially handgunning) is a martial art for me as well. My cross-training blends firearms and empty-hand arts, and for me wanting to focus on my hand work is currently where my goals lie. Eventually I’ll dive into BJJ, but for now digesting the “stand-up” curriculum at my new school is certainly enough. I want to get up to speed with the stand-up stuff quickly. I’d like to build my new stack a little higher before I start building out.
To cross-train or not? That’s a personal matter. Don’t just cross-train because it’s trendy, but choose what approach you take based upon the goals that you have for yourself. Remember that martial arts are a personal journey, so make sure you’re on the journey that you want to take.
Here’s a video of Bruce Chiu discussing the 12 basic strikes of Modern Arnis
Good depth in this video, introducing the basic strikes, variations on the striking methods, footwork, blocking, drills, putting it together.
Caleb recounts how he just went to a concert and had to disarm himself. I’ve run into this same situation.
This is why we cannot be one-trick ponies, relying upon guns alone. To carry other weaponry such as a knife, collapsable baton, pepper spray (women will likely be able to get away with this more than men can) — a layered approach. But of course, even those may not be permissible given the venue. Thus all you are left with are your wits and your hands.
This is why it’s good to know how to use your empty hands.
But this is why it’s even better to know how to use your brain, keep your wits about you, be aware, and follow that first rule of self-defense: ABC — Always Be Cool. That seems to hold even moreso in a context like a concert, where cool is so much what it’s about.
I’ve been studying Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) for about a month now. Between my classes and the reading I’m doing on FMA, I’m noticing some interesting differences between it and my past experiences studying a traditional Korean martial art. This is by no means any sort of a complete analysis, just some initial observations based upon my own experiences.
In Kuk Sool, weapons study was saved for later. In terms of formal curriculum, there’s no real weapon study done until black belt. At the brown-black level there is a defense against knife technique set, but you’re not learning how to use the knife. As well, the WKSA tournaments allow brown belts to perform staff spinning techniques. Nevertheless, any actual “fighting” techniques with weapons is pretty much reserved until black belt level. Why? Reasons can vary, but I recall the reason I was given when I first started my study was that you needed to learn discipline with your hands. That if you’re moving a sword around, you need to learn where to put your hands both the hand holding the sword and the free hand; allows you to wield the sword effectively but also keep your free hand from getting cut off! There’s some sense to that and certainly I know after years of practice my hands have gained some good default positions to keep them in “proper places” when moving. Nevertheless, traditional arts like Kuk Sool have designs to first teach empty hand then weaponry.
On the other hand, Filipino arts teach weapons first and empty hand comes later. The reasoning is that they’re teaching people for combat. While it’s nice to be able to fight with your fists, weapons give you greater advantages. You can hit harder, have more reach, be more effective in combat and increase your chances of success, even if all you’re fighting with is a stick. This lies in stark contrast to Kuk Sool, not just because they have opposite locations for weapons teaching in their curriculum, but also the reasoning for it. Kuk Sool says you need discipline first; FMA says you need to be combat effective. I guess which you deem more valuable depends upon what your goals are. I tend to agree with the FMA approach, but only because my goals these days are to be more combat effective.
Kuk Sool, at least as promoted by the World Kuk Sool Association, is very closed. They don’t want you to cross train. They don’t want to look at new ideas or different approaches to things. It’s their way, period. Kuk Sool is perfect as-is and never needs to change, adapt, or grow. If someone leaves the association, the association tries to prohibit you from any further ties with those that left. It’s very close-minded, very controlling.
FMA seems to be very open and encouraging of cross-training. Reading some history of the “recent” (within the last 100 years) FMA evolution, it seems to have willingly adopted useful techniques from other groups such as aikido, jujutsu, karate, kendo. Various FMA groups will even train with each other. There’s an openness towards finding what works and what can make you a more effective fighter.
The Kuk Sool mindset (apart from the financial drive) seemed to be well… hard to define. Was it about preserving Korean martial heritage? Was it about physical development? Was it about internal development (e.g. “ki/chi”)? Was it about mental development (e.g. discipline, loyalty). Or was it actually about learning how to fight? I don’t think it was much about the latter. It tried to, but there just wasn’t enough being done to make that so.
The FMA mindset seems to speak a lot about actual self-defense. “Haging laging handa” or “always be prepared”. It’s not about paranoia, just being aware and keeping sharp. To be prepared for the unexpected. “Huwag kang magpapauna” or “don’t let the opponent get the jump on you”. “Pagmamasdan mo ang kamay” or “watch the opponent’s hands”. These are actual principles, tactical maxims towards helping you succeed. I saw no such things in Kuk Sool. If anything I saw there it’d be about being loyal, or how to practice hyung. You Won Hwa was perhaps the closest thing I saw towards actual fighting principles.
One strong point of similarity is the body mechanics. But I would say this has less to do with any sort of style vs. style trappings and more just with how the body works. The elbow only bends one way, so an arm bar is an arm bar is an arm bar regardless of what style you learn it in. Vital points at which to target strikes (e.g. eyes, throat, side of jaw, downward clavicle, floating ribs, etc.), all the same.
The nice part here is whatever existing knowledge I have, it all flows and continues to be useful. That is one strength of Kuk Sool is their “soo” emphasis; all the joint locking, throwing, and sweeping techniques. It’s a strong part of what makes up Kuk Sool. I just wish they would do more practical work with it. Nevertheless, the textbook knowledge gained from it is quite good.
Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t to disparage Kuk Sool. It’s just to point out the differences that I’m seeing between my old study and my new study. Certainly I am biased, but only because I have particular goals; Kuk Sool no longer served towards meeting my goals, and FMA appears to be serving those goals quite well. If your goals are different, you may find that FMA isn’t what you want and Kuk Sool is perfect. That’s the thing about martial arts: it’s a personal journey.
Matthew has a good article about blocking. Filled with stick-figure illustration goodness, complete with eyebrows and expressions!
I take small odds with one bit:
It is impossible to know what exactly our opponents are going to do. Furthermore, it is wasted mental energy trying to figure it out. If you are constantly trying to analyze and asses the intentions of your opponent, you give him/her the opportunity to dictate the essence of the fight. You will always be a half step behind. Eventually it will catch up to you and you will get overrun.
Generally speaking I do agree with what he’s saying. If you are nothing but preoccupied with your opponent, you’ll always be behind the curve and always get smacked.
But is it impossible to know what they are going to do? And is it a total waste to try to figure it out? I would disagree with this. Most fighters will have preferences. They will move in particular ways, have particular rhythms, have favorite techniques to do. If you do pay attention, you can start to figure out what they do, what they like to do, perhaps even what they don’t do. So you throw a jab and they always pull their head back. Great. Now you can try following that left jab with a left hook: feint the jab, they pull back, land the hook.
That said, be aware that the same is going to be done to you. A good fighter is going to pay attention to what you do, you need to be aware of what you do and mix it up to keep them guessing. Matthew’s article is very good towards the physical end of blocking and not getting hit, but we cannot ignore the mental aspect of it as well. No, you cannot predict the future, you cannot know out of thin air what your opponent will do, but if you do pay attention to your opponent, you can watch for behavioral patterns and take advantage of them… it’s about as close to predicting the future as you can get.
As I was writing this post over at martialartsplanet.com, I was quoting an interview with the Grandmaster of the art which I used to study, Kuk Sool Won. In that quote SUH In Hyuk said:
When I asked how many techniques he possessed, he said that there are 57 joint lock techniques. At the same time in the neighborhood, there was another “Yawara” master who had learned the traditional Japanese martial arts, who claimed to know more than Grandmaster Choi.
When I was typing up that post, it really struck me how quantity-centered Suh was. He cares how many techniques Choi Yong-Sool (considered the founder of Hapkido) knew, then seems to scoff because if this guy was such a great grandmaster how could he be if this other guy in town knew more? I guess that’s why Suh makes such a big deal out of touting Kuk Sool hosts 3608 techniques. Of course, most of those are super secret techniques that us common folk will never be privvy to, but hey… keep dangling that carrot.
Another art with similar quantity issues is Hwa Rang Do. Hwa Rang Do is an art contemporary with Hapkido and Kuk Sool (much twisted and interweaved history), and there they claim over 4000 techniques! Wow, they must be t3h d3adly! There’s a group that’s at odds with Hwa Rang Do called Society of the Hwarang (more joyful bickering). While working on my MAP posting I revisited the Society page to get a link, but then spent some time on the page to refresh myself of the silliness. On the Society’s page there is an Open Letter that works to refute a lot about Hwa Rang Do. I thought this summed things up nicely.
There is one more serious flaw regarding joint locks in the Hwa Rang Do syllabus. They don’t work against resistance! I am not talking about someone grappling, or taking the fight to the ground. I have an article on this point elsewhere in two pages called Joint Locks and Capturing, so, I am not going into detail here. I can testify, however, that I have repeatedly given my wrist to Hwa Rang Do Black Belts and others as well, and I offered no more resistance than to relax or extend, and they can not execute any variation on the technique. I learned this problem when I began teaching Defensive Tactics at ESI in 1980. We get a very large number of accomplished martial artists, body builders and other individuals who have very strong joints. Some ESI students can bench press 450 or 500 pounds, and they must be convinced that a technique will work on them before they will try it. I actually learned a different concept in the execution of joint locks long before starting ESI from an old Aspen Academy friend and associate, John Clodig, a disciple of Daito Ryu Jujitsu. Clodig taught me the difference between a joint lock executed with a straight line and one executed with a spiral. One must wonder what happen in the transition to Joo Bang Lee via Yong Su Choi. Unfortunately, students of Hwa Rang Do take pride in the number of techniques they remember rather than the ability to apply them in spontaneous settings.
Emphasis added.
The above just echos my past Kuk Sool training. All about memorization; lack of alive and resisting training, little application of the techniques.
Bill “Superfoot” Wallace was a dominant and undefeated tournament fighter, but he didn’t have a gazillion techniques in the ring. Wallace just had a few techniques but knew them very well and knew how to apply them very well. In the end, it isn’t always about what and how much you know, but what you can do with what you know.
Stuff From Hsoi 