While I was in Ottawa, I did a little training with Perry Kelly, a Godan in Can-ryu Jiu-jitsu who has a very diverse training background, and his friend Chris Anderson, also a black belt in Can-ryu as well as a WWII combatives expert. As always, I learned a ton, and am looking forward to bringing what I learned back to my dojo.
One thing that was of particular interest to me from this training experience is the way that old becomes new in the martial arts. Knowledge is cyclical. Things go in and out of vogue over time and what was once old, can be rediscovered and re-popularized, making it "new" again.
Take Brazilian Jiu-jitsu for example. BJJ wasn't new. It's essentially a combination of Judo/Japanese Jiu-jitsu techniques that came to be re-emphasized and re-explored. Much of what you see in the BJJ core curriculum can be found in older Judo and Jiu-jitsu texts. That is not to say that it hasn't evolved since then, but when it was first re-introduced to the world, it seemed completely different from anything else. Even though it was derived from Judo and Japanese Jiu-jitsu, those arts had moved in different directions in more recent decades.
There is much to be learned from historical martial arts texts if you can get your hands on them. Perry and Chris both have extensive libraries with texts dating back to the late 1800s. I was amazed at the information they contained. Some of it seemed silly at first, but make sense when you understand the context under which the concepts were developed. Take the stance that was used by bare-knuckle boxers. It looks goofy under a modern eye, but there is a big difference between bare knuckle boxing and modern boxing. According to Cris and Perry, the back hand was held across the chest to protect against strikes to the heart. With gloves on, this strike is largely irrelevant, but with bare knuckles, a strike to the heart area can cause a palpitation that can heavily impact the recipient's performance.
You'd be surprised what can become relevant again over time. Knowledge that gets lost in the shuffle often gets re-shuffled back into the mix when someone re-discovers it. Some people even establish their entire martial arts reputation just by doing this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Glad you enjoyed what we showed you and Chris, Lori. You are right, many peple discount the "old ways" without knowing what they really are.
Cris Anderson
Great post, Lori. You have provoked a response post, yet again. You are my inspiration, and the wind beneath my wings. Hah!
'Nihil nove sub sole': there is nothing new under the sun. Only the fashion, methodology and combination of techniques change.
I don't know if protecting the heart was the reason why old style boxers kept their hand so low (elbows do the job equally good): I think they just didn't know any better and blocked with their forearms just like karateka still do. The shift to a tight, high guard only occured in boxing after American sailors came into contact (mostly the hard way) with panantukan of Filipino boxing which, considering it comes from knife fighting where leaving one's arms out will likely lead to them being cut up, is much tighter and has the quick, nimble footwork and head movement we see today in modern boxing.
Zara
PS: from what I've seen these 'WW2 combatives' seem to consist almost entirely of JJ techniques, albeit with a lethal twist. Then again that was the goal and intent of koryu JJ all along and it's not very hard to modify one's training to make it lethal but then again you don't want to program yourself to wrench someone's neck or crush their laryx anytime someone attacks you.
I am no expert in the subjects, but the guys I was talking to are. They're basically martial arts historians who have been studying for decades and I would think that they have the books to back their information up.
That being said, I personally don't have the info to back up what they say, and I couldn't really find anything on the Internet. I'll have to ask for more info to back up their argument.
I'm no expert either, but then again who is? From my one year studying history at uni I learned there aren't really cold, hard facts in history, only widely agreed upon versions of facts and opinions. Because something is mentioned in a book doesn't mean it's true per se, you'd need multiple credible sources and even then it's hard to know anything for sure since history is, quite literally, history and thus gone. You can hardly ask those people, can you?
Still it'd be interesting to hear their opinion so I'd appreciate it if you could come up with some extra info. Out of curiosity: are they trained historians or amateurs? I know a few certified historians and they're quite weary about the assertions of what they consider amateurs since usually they don't bother to check their sources (what differentiates academic histeriography and the amateuristic kind is the application of a rigoreous, scientific method) and spending a lot of time on a given subject doesn't make you an expert, not in itself anyway. It's not that I want to cast doubts on your sources (the info about Filipino boxing I heard from Ron Balicki and I didn't check it myself so I'm not exactly an expert myself), these are just some random thoughts and questions concerning the subject.
Zara
Here is Perry's website for your interest: http://www.perrywkelly.com/. I don't know as much about Cris, but Perry does speak very highly of him and many of my associates have trained in his WWII combatives courses and also speak highly of him. I'll see what I can dig up on the topic if anything.
Hi Lori,
I've checked out that website and he does seem like a legitimate martial artist, however it's not quite clear why he should be considered an expert in WW2 combatives. In practical matters knowledge purely based on books isn't enough and if I haven't trained in a system with an expert of that system and was certified by him I wouldn't call myself an expert (or even a practioner) in that system. Then again WW2 combatives (at least from what I've seen) is almost purely or at the very least predominantly JJ so it would make sense a godan should be qualified, it does beg the question what's so special about such courses.
On his website mr. Perry endorses Moni Aizik from 'Commando krav maga': that whole article is basically propaganda since Aizik's claims (he was in the IDF special forces, he fought over a 1000 Syrians at a battle where only he and 4 others survived, he basically co-authored the first krav maga curriculum with Imi Lichtenfeld, he regularly travels to Israel to train anti-terrorism units and special forces, he’s a counter-terrorist expert…) have been discredited many times (they can’t be verified and he changed his story so many times, constantly contradicting himself) and he’s clearly nothing more than a cheap fraud selling his personal version of JJ as a glamorous special-forces derived close combat system. Is he a good or even exceptional martial artist? Yes, surely: he was a judo champion in his youth, he was taught be the renowned Dutchman opa Schutte (my original sensei trained under him too, at least for a while) and he must be a great teacher since a lot of his students are successful professional fighters (Carlos Newton, Joel Gerson, Mark Bocek…) Alas, an ex-special forces soldier/officer (yes, he even claimed to be an officer even though his service records say otherwise: officially he never made it past the rank of sergeant) and teacher he is not. If only he had stuck to being a sports trainer but apparently that wasn’t lucrative enough so he had to lie and embellish his achievements in order to become internationally famous and charge people an arm and a leg: 2000 dollars for a three day seminar whereby anyone (regardless of ability or previous martial arts experience) could become an instructor in his system of ‘commando krav maga’ (he has no ties to any recognized krav maga body and was not taught krav maga except maybe some in his basic training), provided of course they’d sign an agreement they’d come back next year (presumably paying another 2000 bucks) and wouldn’t teach anything but his system. Many of his ex-instructors have spoken out against his foul practices (Stuart Mcgill, a former UK-based CKM instructor has this to say about Aizik: “I was used to Bullshit in the martial arts, but it became increasingly obvious that Moni was a compulsive liar”) and you and I both know it’s impossible to teach an entire style or system in just three days (even very simplified close-combat which is not what he’s teaching: he even included sacrifice throws in his curriculum), especially to complete beginners. If you want to check what I’ve written here just do a search on Aizik, just to make sure I’m not spreading disinformation here check this out: http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/10/Combat-Survival-Inc/TF_ADJ_45208.aspx The ASA is an organization who watches over the truthfulness of claims made in advertising in the UK and they forced Aizik to retract his bogus statements because he couldn’t provide one shred of evidence for them. Says enough, no? ...
I’d be very weary about an author who just accepts what he hears or reads at face value and doesn’t check his sources properly, no matter how impressive his martial arts credentials or professional career. Then again even Black Belt magazine and Human Weapon helped perpetuate these lies (in part to their own interest of course), which says a lot about how low journalism has fallen these days (sensation over facts), especially pertaining to the field of martial arts and self defense which has always had more than its fair share of frauds (Ashida Kim, anyone?). Wherever there’s money to be made imposters will rise up…
Zara
Zara, Perry isn't the WWII combatives expert. It was the other guy who was training with us that day, Cris Anderson.
As for Perry, he is a fantastic martial artist and the information he's given me in terms of useful self-defense has been invaluable. I don't take any historical information at face value unless I can confirm something myself, but that doesn't mean information that is casually gleaned that sounds plausible can't be discussed in a blog. I'm not writing a thesis here. It's a forum for discussion. And it has sparked discussion. You are a case in point.
I do appreciate your comments as always. :)
The modern boxer faces his opponent in a squared off stance, his hips facing his opponent, his high guard aided by having 16 oz boxing gloves between him and his opponent.
The bare knuckle boxing stance was sideays, similar to what we would know consider for karate point point fighting. The right arm covered the chest area, protecting the three major knockout points on the body, the liver, solar plexus and the heart.
Rules of the sport have changed, brought new equipment and stances and methods have changed to adapt to these "advancements". If you have ever seen someone teaching to block a punch to the face using both hands in an upright position, this is an example of someone trying to make a gloved boxing technique work without the gloves.
Ron Balicki's thoughts of how PI boxers influenced worldwide boxing probably falls under folk tales. Why did these Panatukan boxers not take advantage of their superiority and travel the world to fame and fortune? The US Marines were first in the Phillipines during the Spanish-American war, roughly the same time the rules of boxing were changed from bare knuckle to gloved. Which one probably was a bigger influence? The quick head movements we see today? Hmm, Jack Dempsey is usually credited with the bob and weave style, and Cus D'Amato developed the peek a boo boxing style
"PS: from what I've seen these 'WW2 combatives' seem to consist almost entirely of JJ techniques, albeit with a lethal twist. "
This is correct, for the most part. When you can differentiate between the techniques of the major instructors,(Fairbairn, Sykes, O'Neill, Underwood, Perrigard) the evolution of the techniques taught(or eliminated), the rationale of why certain techniques were taught and other weren't, that is were the level of "expertise" comes in.
I am an amateur historian, by your definition not an expert( I have no problem with that)I have however researched the techniques we are discussing here both via the books and by physical research, almost 25 years for the jiu jitsu component and roughly 18 years for the combatives end of things. That may not make me an expert, but it gives a reasonable start.
Cris Anderson
The modern boxer faces his opponent in a squared off stance, his hips facing his opponent, his high guard aided by having 16 oz boxing gloves between him and his opponent.
The bare knuckle boxing stance was sideays, similar to what we would know consider for karate point point fighting. The right arm covered the chest area, protecting the three major knockout points on the body, the liver, solar plexus and the heart.
Rules of the sport have changed, brought new equipment and stances and methods have changed to adapt to these "advancements". If you have ever seen someone teaching to block a punch to the face using both hands in an upright position, this is an example of someone trying to make a gloved boxing technique work without the gloves.
Ron Balicki's thoughts of how PI boxers influenced worldwide boxing probably falls under folk tales. Why did these Panatukan boxers not take advantage of their superiority and travel the world to fame and fortune? The US Marines were first in the Phillipines during the Spanish-American war, roughly the same time the rules of boxing were changed from bare knuckle to gloved. Which one probably was a bigger influence? The quick head movements we see today? Hmm, Jack Dempsey is usually credited with the bob and weave style, and Cus D'Amato developed the peek a boo boxing style
"PS: from what I've seen these 'WW2 combatives' seem to consist almost entirely of JJ techniques, albeit with a lethal twist. "
This is correct, for the most part. When you can differentiate between the techniques of the major instructors,(Fairbairn, Sykes, O'Neill, Underwood, Perrigard) the evolution of the techniques taught(or eliminated), the rationale of why certain techniques were taught and other weren't, that is were the level of "expertise" comes in.
I am an amateur historian, by your definition not an expert( I have no problem with that)I have however researched the techniques we are discussing here both via the books and by physical research, almost 25 years for the jiu jitsu component and roughly 18 years for the combatives end of things. That may not make me an expert, but it gives a reasonable start.
Cris Anderson
The modern boxer faces his opponent in a squared off stance, his hips facing his opponent, his high guard aided by having 16 oz boxing gloves between him and his opponent.
The bare knuckle boxing stance was sideays, similar to what we would know consider for karate point point fighting. The right arm covered the chest area, protecting the three major knockout points on the body, the liver, solar plexus and the heart.
Rules of the sport have changed, brought new equipment and stances and methods have changed to adapt to these "advancements". If you have ever seen someone teaching to block a punch to the face using both hands in an upright position, this is an example of someone trying to make a gloved boxing technique work without the gloves.
Ron Balicki's thoughts of how PI boxers influenced worldwide boxing probably falls under folk tales. Why did these Panatukan boxers not take advantage of their superiority and travel the world to fame and fortune? The US Marines were first in the Phillipines during the Spanish-American war, roughly the same time the rules of boxing were changed from bare knuckle to gloved. Which one probably was a bigger influence? The quick head movements we see today? Hmm, Jack Dempsey is usually credited with the bob and weave style, and Cus D'Amato developed the peek a boo boxing style
"PS: from what I've seen these 'WW2 combatives' seem to consist almost entirely of JJ techniques, albeit with a lethal twist. "
This is correct, for the most part. When you can differentiate between the techniques of the major instructors,(Fairbairn, Sykes, O'Neill, Underwood, Perrigard) the evolution of the techniques taught(or eliminated), the rationale of why certain techniques were taught and other weren't, that is were the level of "expertise" comes in.
I am an amateur historian, by your definition not an expert( I have no problem with that)I have however researched the techniques we are discussing here both via the books and by physical research, almost 25 years for the jiu jitsu component and roughly 18 years for the combatives end of things. That may not make me an expert, but it gives a reasonable start.
Cris Anderson
Thank you Cris for your additional elaboration. I very much appreciate it! :)
No problem, Lori. It is good to question authority, the big question is, when they reply, will you listen?
Cris Anderson
I noticed on your site you mentioned you teach Japanese Jujitsu. I thought Can Ryu was a Canadian style created in the 60s. I'm curious of the Jujitsu lineage back to Japan.
Can-ryu doesn't have a direct link to Japanese Jiu-jitsu, but does draw from many of its elements. Much of the style was drawn from military and police training which in turn has drawn heavily from Japanese Jiu-jitsu historically. But for the layman's sake, it's easier to call it a "Japanese Jiu-jitsu" to distinguish it from Brazilian Jiu-jitsu which is much more widely known these days.
Can-ryu can be traced back to Kawaishi and his jiu jitsu through Henk Jensen, who taught Ronald Forester and Georges Sylvain. Is it koryu? No, but has never claimed such a thing. The Can-ryu concept of blow throw blow can be found on page 12 of Kawaishi's book My Method of Self Defense.
Cris Anderson
I would like to learn more techniques in Martial Arts. Someone told me before that being safe all the time takes a serious training and indeed I had for a year. At least right now I know some techniques but I want to learn more. A friend advised me to try Judo and I think I am going to consider it. I have read about it in the internet and I think I am going to like.
I am into martial arts since I was a kid but I stopped for so long because of work and everything. Now my kids are into it and have been training for years now and they are the one refreshing me of some of the basic in martial arts. It is always nice to go back and learn again.
Post a Comment