Fight Science takes science to the martial arts and shows us (in very cool CGI) in this episode how some basic self defence techniques can cause serious damage. Well worth watching (Fight Science on National Geographics)

I was watching an episode of Human Weapon the other day. The martial art in focus was Krav Maga. What especially interested me, from a Wing-Chun perspective, was the Krav Maga bursting defence against a downward knife stab. Bill Duff was in awe exclaiming that he has never seen this sort of defence in any martial art before but the defence was right out of Wing Chun!! In Wing Chun it would be Fak-Da with stepping in. The “Krav Maga” bursting defence is good to use when you have several attackers coming at you at once. The danger is that you have to drop the attacker with the strike to the throat otherwise he is going to just keep coming in again. I would combine Fak-Da with Jik-Tek aimed at the knee.

Click here to view the embedded video.

With the emergence of Mixed Martial Arts “cage fighting” in the early 90′s and the subsequent domination of Brazillian Jiu Jitsu in this area we began to hear the claim that “all fights go to ground”. Have you stopped to question this statement? I suspect that if you are reading this article you have.  Many people have, however taken it as fact.

I personally think that the “all fights go to ground” idea is Jiu Jitsu propaganda. No one would disagree that Brazillian Jiu Jitsu changed the MMA game, but their dominance can be attributed to the lack of grappling experience on the part of “kick boxers”. Kick boxers were “fish out of water” when they encountered the grappler. Fights do go to ground and most martial artists have no idea what to do when they do go to ground; but I do not think its a given that they have to go to ground. I heard Frank Shamrock say that the ground game was dead and I assume because kick boxers are now wise to grappler tactics. I would not say that grappling, and specifically ground fighting, is dead in MMA but I do not see it being the dominating force it has been in the last.

The other point to make is is that the MMA “cage fight” is not a realistic “street” situation. The “cage fight” is a one-on-one fight that occurs in a controlled environment. That is not what happens on the street. On the  street you need to contend with a multitude of variables; potentially more than one attacker, hidden weapons, hard or dangerous ground (broken bottles, rocks) and so on. So imagine taking a fight to ground (even one-one-one) and while grappling the attacker pulls a knife and stabs you, or an accomplice whacks you on the head with a crow-bar while you struggle for submission, or you fall onto broken glass. This is one of the reasons you do not see much ground fighting in Kung Fu. As far as self defence in an urban environment is concerned, going to ground dangerous, very dangerous indeed.

So I would not take the fight to the ground unless I had no other choice. I would prefer to prevent the fight from going to ground, and this is not as impossible as others would have you believe. That said, if you are forced to the ground, whether it is one attacker or many, empty-hand or against a knife, you would be better prepared if you have been doing ground fighting. And ground fighting for self defence extends beyond the sorts of ground fighting techniques you need for “cage fighting”. In the street you need to be able to fend of multiple attackers from the ground. You need to be able to defending against knife, gun and stick attacks (and more) from the ground, in addition to the standard submission and escape from submission techniques you would encounter when wrestling on the mat.

Do all fights go to ground? I say no not always. I say do not take the fight to the ground, rather fight standing up. You do need to be able to fight on the ground, but if you want to learn ground fighting for self defence, then look beyond MMA sports.

The question is often asked; what martial art or fighting system is the best for self self defence? The answer is always going to be biased to some degree as we tend to practice systems which we believe in. As someone who has been trained in several martial arts and fighting systems I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not the martial art or fighting system but the extent to which the training is realistic and relevant to what you would encounter today.

Traditional or Non-Traditional Systems

One of the biggest debates has been whether traditional martial arts are relevant today. There are two common complaints against traditional martial arts. The first is that the sorts of scenarios we may face in the street today are not covered in traditional martial arts. The second, and linked to the first, is that traditional martial arts are too rigid and inflexible. Bruce Lee called this the classical mess.

I agree to some extent with both complaints but hasten to add that this does not have to be the case. More often than not it is the teaching and not the system that needs to change. The first complaint, that traditional martial arts do not cover modern day scenarios applies equally to non-traditional mixed martial arts (MMA) systems. In fact I get more annoyed with mixed martial arts claiming to be the next best thing than with traditional martial arts that have failed to deliver. Traditional martial arts might be stuck in defending against out-dated forms of attack or (more often) defending against themselves (against the attacks they would deliver) but mixed-martial arts are often stuck in defending against “cage fighting” attacks. These so-called “no-holds-barred” fights are anything but no-holds-barred.

The second complaint, that traditional martial arts are too rigid and inflexible is the chief complaint Bruce Lee had against traditional systems. His two main points were that the systems themselves were too rigid (stuck in certain patterns and postures) and that the systems squashed the freedom of expression required for “real” fighting. I understand where Bruce Lee was coming from and in many instances his analysis holds true but his complaint cannot be generalised to all traditional martial arts or rather to traditional martial arts teachers. My traditional martial arts experience is limited to Chinese martial arts and not to Japanese martial arts (as I have mentioned before Atemi-Ju-Jitsu is non-traditional). Generally speaking, students in non-traditional systems learn to fight faster than those in traditional systems because the traditional students spends more time learning the proper structure and form required to deliver the technique. Too often I encounter students of non-traditional systems with shocking form (even on boxing terms). But students of traditional systems find the cross-over to self defence scenarios so much easier because they have developed a solid foundation and in the end students of traditional systems often surpass students of non-traditional systems (with the caveat that those students have teachers who do not fall into the traps mentioned above). As soon as martial arts teachers are honest about exploring self defence scenarios they will discover the weak spots in the systems they teach and make the necessary adjustments. I have found that honest exploration leads to a better understanding of each system.

One more thing I might point out… when you look at how Bruce Lee taught his students you would be hard pressed to not think that his approach is traditional (he would make them punch his “straight blast” thousands of times until it was perfect and had became second nature… that is the traditional approach.

War and Peace

Most traditional martial arts were developed “in the field”. They were self defence systems before they became traditional martial arts. There are two things that I believe dilute martial arts, traditional and non-traditional alike, and lead to systems that are far removed from true self defence. The first is sport and the second is peace.

The influence of sport has watered down martial arts and resulted in systems that are ring fenced by rules and regulations. Martial artists involved in combat sports tend to focus on training for competition and adherence to the rules and regulations of these sports. As I mentioned, even these so-called “no-holds-barred” competitions are limited to rules and regulations. Two fighters engage each other within known parameters. In the street you may face multiple attackers, possibly with weapons, in an environment that is less than ideal. In competition the goal is victory. In self defence the goal is survival.

Throughout history, the advent of peace has led to the watering down of martial arts as systems of national or self defence. That is not to say that peace leads to the death of realistic self defence, but typically people in peaceful environments are less interested in realistic martial arts, and those teaching martial arts tend to focus on other elements of martial arts; such as fitness, sport or self development.  South Africa is one of the most dangerous places to live. 50 murders are committed everyday and typically non-violent crimes, such as house breaking, are often accompanied by violent crimes such as murder, rape and torture. An aside, knife crime is on the increase in the UK and I predict an increase in people searching for self defence classes that deal with realistic knife attacks. I wonder how many martial arts teachers are prepared for this. So South Africans look for martial arts and fighting systems that are going to help them defend themselves and their families against violent crime. South Africans do not have the luxury of learning martial arts for self development alone. I feel strongly that any student of mine who walks out the training hall is prepared for the real threat of violence.

Which System is Best for Self Defence?

As I mentioned, any system that focuses on realistic scenarios and is honest about adapting training methods to deal with realistic defences can be good for self defence. That said, some systems are better tuned for self defence than others. For example, Goshin Jujitsu, Atemi-Jujitsu, Filipino Martial Arts and Krav Maga are typically more focused on self defence. Karate and Judo are often more sport oriented. In terms of traditional martial arts I am biased towards Tai-Chi-Chuan and Wing-Chun-Kuen. Both are close combat systems and both enable students to develop responses to different attacks without needing to train  each and every scenario. People are surprised when I mention Tai-Chi-Chuan because the art is most popular for its health benefits, and the martial aspect is not taught much, but like Aikido, good Tai-Chi-Chuan is great for self defence (again with the caveat that you train for realistic scenarios). Mixed martial arts are often hold disparaging views towards traditional martial arts but they in truth are often too focused on the sport than on realistic scenarios.

Finally, even within the many good systems for learning self defence and there are techniques that can be debated. Different teachers have different points-of-view on what is real and what is not, and what works and what does not. Martial arts teachers should seek to avoid confirmation bias, that is, limiting their search for realism to that which fits with their current point-of-view. In the end, the quality of the self defence course depends on the teacher and the extent to which the system is relevant to the sorts of scenarios you might encounter in your everyday life. More often students need to be educated in what to expect, but sometimes martial arts teachers need educating too.

Captain Ben Mängels is the founder (Soke) of the South African Institute of Unarmed Combat. He started his career in 1954 as a young police officer in Durban, South Africa. He soon learned that the rough and tough sailors were a force to be reckoned with, so began his training in Kodokwan Jujitsu. He discovered that what was taught in the dojo was not how things happened in real life. Most techniques were just not effective when dealing with street-wise sailors. This prompted him to analyse and modify techniques to suit the reality of the streets and dockyards of Durban. Keeping It Real has always been Soke Mängels’ central philosophy.

Soon after obtaining his black belt in Kodokwan Jujitsu, he obtained a black belt in Judo, and became a South African middleweight Judo champion. Soke Mängels then progressed to Karate, obtaining a black began Shotokan Karate. Here he was frustrated with Karate’s inability to deal with a grappler or competent Jujitsu or Judo fighter (years later kick-boxers would have the same problem when confronted with Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu).

His solution was to develop his own system, so taking the best from various Martial Arts (Jujitsu, Karate, Judo, wrestling and boxing), he created what he now calls Atemi-Jujitsu. Soke Mängels used to say that his system was best described as “Street” Karate; a fighting system that could be used in real life situations.

Soke Mängels became an officer in the South African Police and Captain in the South African Air Force. He was at times the chief Close Quarters Combat (CQB) instructor to elite special forces units, including the South African Army Commandos, South African Naval Marines, and British Special Air Service (SAS).

In 1981, Captain Mängels established the South African Institute of Unarmed Combat (SAIUC) in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, establishing several schools (dojos) in South Africa. When Captain Mängels emigrated to the US he handed the SAIUC over to Shihan Thaya Moodaley (7th Dan Atemi-Jujitsu) who had been training with him for almost a quarter of a century.

Captain Mängels’ resume is impressive: he was appointed National Director of the International Combat Military Advisors Group (ICMAG) (an international body of ex-specialist servicemen that trains military and police anti-terrorist units), current president of the International Close Combat Instructors Association (ICCIA),  senior advisor to the American Martial Arts Association (AMAA) and representative for South African to the Combat Military Advisors Group. The World British Federation of Martial Arts recently promoted Captain Ben Mangels, to 10th Dan in Jiu-Jitsu. He has also been inducted into the US Martial Arts Hall of Fame.

Captain Mängels teaches that unarmed combat does not make someone unbeatable. He compares it to being thrown overboard, you might not be a strong swimmer capable of swimming to shore, but if you have had some basic swimming training you might be able to hold out until rescued, With some training, your odds of surviving are better than if you had no training at all.

Additional Reading:

• Military Combative Masters of the 20th Century By Tank Todd
• Speciality Training with Ben Mängels

When I asked Shihan Thaya for something to put on the internet he was typically modest in his response “That’s it. Nothing fancy” he replied. Although I was able to get some information I know that there is more to say about Shihan Thaya – he has been a mentor to me many years. He always resisted making a big fuss about the Insitute and his teaching; but I have learnt that the best teachers are not always the best known teachers. Shihan Thaya falls into that category of great masters who kept under the radar prefering to focus on learning and growing and then unselfishly passing on their knowledge to their students.

Shihan Thaya started martial arts with Des Westenberg where he trained in Judo and Atemkai Karate. He then began training with Soke Ben Mängels and trained under Soke Ben for 27 years. When Soke Ben moved to the USA, he handed the Institute over to Shihan Thaya who then took over the SAIUC as Director of Training. Shihan Thaya was awarded his 7th Dan which was approved by World British Federation of Martial Arts (WBFOMA). During this time he was elected on the grading panel of the WBFOMA. Shihan Thaya is the President of the International South African Institute of Unarmed Combat (ISAIUC).

The Marine Corps Martial Arts Program was developed by the US Marine Corps to combine existing and new hand-to-hand and Close Quarters Combat (CQC) techniques with morale and team-building functions and instruction. MCMAP trains Marines in unarmed combat, edged weapons, weapons of opportunity, and rifle and bayonet techniques. MCMAP also stresses the responsible use of force, leadership, and teamwork. MCMAP differs from previous Marine Corp CQC programs as it also includes non-lethal techniques for use in UN peacekeeping operations.

MCMAP comes from an evolution of hand-to-hand combat training dating back to the creation of the Marine Corps. Captain Samuel Nicholas formed two battalions of Continental Marines on 10 November 1775 in Philadelphia as naval infantry. Bayonet and cutlass techniques were the mainstay of Marine CQC arsenal. During World War I these bayonet techniques were supplemented with unarmed combat techniques. Between WWI and WWII, Colonel Anthony J. Biddle began the creation of standardized bayonet and CQC techniques based on boxing, wrestling, and fencing. Around the same time, Captains W. M. Greene and Samuel B. Griffith began including martial arts techniques from Chinese American Marines and brought this knowledge to other Marines throughout the Marine Corps.

In 1956 Gunnery Sergeant Bill Miller developed a new Marine CQC curriculum. The program from various martial arts styles such as Okinawan karate, judo, and jujutsu. This programme evolved into the LINE System in the early 1980s. The LINE System was found to be lacking in non-lethal techniques necessary for use in in UN peacekeeping operations. The result was MCMAP which was implemented in 2000.

Source Wikipedia

There are many, many close quarters combat videos on the Internet and most are not worth watching. The closest I have seen to what I was taught was one documentary on the French Legion. Following that one video, the system that consistently comes closest to what we do is Krav Maga, the Israeli military hand-to-hand combat system.

Krav Maga was developed in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in the 1930s by Imi Lichtenfeld who eventually became the Chief Instructor of Physical Fitness and Krav Maga at the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) School of Combat Fitness (visit Wiki for more on Krav Maga).

It is not hard to imagine why Krav Maga and Atemi-Jujitsu are similar. In his book “The Israeli Connection”, Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi notes that there were strong connections between the Israel Defence Force and South Africa Defence Force and especially when it came to military training. It was the IDF that help create the SADF Reconnaissance Commandos and Soke Ben Mängels was QCB instructor to these same Reconnaissance Commandos (Recce’s).

There are times when the techniques from Krav Maga are almost identical to those I was taught (and times when they are not). I am usually ambivalent about seeing them. I am usually torn between thinking “great stuff” and “how come they’re getting airtime and not us”. But envy is not attractive. And I have learnt that the best teachers are not always the most popular. Soke Ben and Shihan Thaya were never interested in the limelight.

In the next couple over posts I am going to look at some Krav Maga techniques aired on “The Human Weapon” and share my thoughts on each.

I have been accused of being somewhat pedantic and I guess I am, and in that light I want to get things right. For instance, I want to use the most correct Romanisation of kanji characters. When it comes to deciding whether to use Jujitsu or Jujutsu in writing on the topic there is always the toss up between what is correct and what is popular. In this case, as with much in life, what is popular is not what is correct.
So what is Jujitsu or Jujutsu? If you asked most people vaguely familiar with this martial art to translate the works in English, then they would say that it is the gentle art or gentle method. But if you search “jitsu” using www.chinalaguage.com (which provides translations in Japanese also) you would not find any reference to “Art” or “Method”. Jitsu really means truth or light and not method or art. However, if you were to search for the kanji associated with the “gentle art” you would find that the Japanse word jutsu.
The trouble is that the correct pronunciation for “ju’ is joo, while the correct pronunciation of “jutsu” is jitsu. In addition, the correct pronunciation for “jujutsu” is joojitsu. You can then see how it is that the most popluar rendering of the spelling is “jujitsu”.
If that is the case, and since I have already stated that I am rather pendantic about the correct Romanisation of kanji, then you might ask what is the reason for us using term Atemi-Jujitsu and not Atemi-Jujutsu. Well there are two reasons. The first is that it is how the founders of this system spell Atemi-Jujitsu. And the second reason is that since Jujitsu is the most popular spelling it is also the most propular spelling used when people search for information on the art, and I obviously want people to read my blog. It is one small compromise we have made in order to increase readership of my blog.

The roots of Jujutsu can be traced back to the earliest historical records of Japan, the Kojiki (Record of Ancient Matters) and the Nihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan – 8th century). The sumo tradition, thought to have common origins with the ancestor systems of Jujutsu, is said to be validated by these Chronicles. The ancestor systems of Jujutsu can be classified into two broad categories. Those systems developed during the Sengoku Jidai or Warring States period (1467-1568), and those developed during the Edo Jidai or Edo period (1600-1868).

During the Sengoku Jidai, many of the Bujutsu Ryu (Martial Art Schools) developed grappling systems to supplement their weapons systems, and these earlier systems generally included the use of some sort of minor weapon, such as the jutte (truncheon), tanto (knife), and ryofundo kusari (weighted chain). These methods were generally classified as the katchu bujutsu or yoroi kumiuchi (fighting with weapons or grappling while clad in armour).

The Edo Jidai was one of peace. With the establishment of the Tokugawa bakafu, a long period of war was halted, and consequently martial arts became increasingly available to the common people. During this period, many schools were founded that focused on unarmed combat techniques for civilians. These schools were classified as: Suhada bujutsu or fighting while dressed in the normal street clothing of the period, kimono and hakama.

Although these grappling arts are commonly referred to as “Jujutsu”, the art has been known by different names, during different periods, at different ryu (school or tradition): Hakuda, yawarra jitsu, and wa jitsu to name a few. The style of Jujutsu also differed from school to school, some schools focusing on many kanetsu waza (joint-locking techniques), or nage waza (throwing techniques), others focusing on many atemi waza (hitting vital-point techniques). Compared with the martial arts of China, Korea and Okinawa, Japanese Jujutsu systems place more emphasis on nage and kanetsu waza than on atemi waza. But some schools – such the schools of Hakuda, Kempo and Tenjin Shinyo Ryu – also emphasise atemi waza.

The History of Jujutsu in South Africa

Jujutsu was brought to South Africa by a Japanese sailor, Seishi Teppi, who formed the Kodokwan Jujutsu school in 1928. The school became the South African Jujutsu Association, the oldest Japanese martial arts association in South Africa. The school taught Tenshin Shinyo Ryu Jujutsu or “School of the Natural Way”. Tenjin Shinyo Ryu was famous for atemi (hitting vital-points), kanetsu (joint-immobilization), and shime waza (strangulation). The founder of the Ryu was Iso Mataemon who created Tenjin Shinyo Ryu from the Jujutsu of Akiyama Shirobei Yoshitoki (physician) and Yamamoto Tamizaemon (police officer). Iso Mataemon fought many Jujutsu masters and was NEVER defeated. In 1822 – at the Kyoto Temple (the foremost Zen Buddhism Temple in Japan) – Iso Mataemon taught his skills to students for the first time influencing both the development of judo and aikido. When Seishi Teppi returned to Japan in 1948 he handed the kwan (school) to Charles Johnson. And when Soke Ben Mängels began training in Jujutsu, it was Kodokwan Jujutsu that he studied.