a good library for today's martial artist, part 1

To me the term martial artist is a good one. To me it means someone who is trying to become a better human being using the vehicle of combat, combat sports, and physicality. To accomplish this, you need more than knowing how to punch someone, or throw someone, or disarm a weapon wielding assailant. It requires a deep and far ranging study of the human condition, physics, anatomy, political science, history, sociology, exercise physiology, and on and on. There is a lot to it. It requires an in depth focus on research. One method of accomplishing this research is through reading. Besides being informative, it's fun! So, to give some of you out there an idea of books that I think are a good idea to pay attention to, I will start an ongoing series of recommendations.

Now, after saying how you need to know how to do more than punch someone, I will mess you up a little by starting the series with what I believe are some of the most important fighting-centric texts. I know, I know. I just figure I should suck you in with the candy first, and then hit you with a higher level of nutrition. So, here we go.

Groundwork

Mastering Jiu-Jitsu by Renzo Gracie & John Danaher - a really good overview of not just jiu-jitsu, but of the overall fight strategy as well. Some fun history as well.











H2H by Greg Thompson - a very nice technique overview and breakdown (although I hate the first guard pass shown, it should NEVER be done or taught, no matter what). He includes some basic clinch work, as well as some weapon-centric stuff as a bonus.







The Essential Guard by Kid Peligro & Rodrigo Medeiros - almost everything you need to know to get up and running with a decent guard game. Heavy on the basics, and not too much flash.









Mastering the Rubber Guard by Eddie Bravo - outside of his pontificating about his favorite extra-curricular activity, this is a great book. Bravo has a good approach to getting techniques across, and, as far as I can tell, he does not hold back any "secrets" which is admirable.








Clinch

Wrestling for Fighting by Randy Couture - Really the only book that approaches wrestling instruction in the context of total combat. Plus, Couture has actually thought about this, not just relied on his natural ability or experience.









Striking

Championship Fighting by Jack Dempsey - the standard right now on how to hit with power in a realistic manner. The only drawback to this book is it is out of print and hard to find, and incredibly expensive when you do find it. Worth the attempt though.












Muay Thai Unleashed by Erich Krauss - Good stuff, plus it covers some aspects of MT style neck clinching.












and, with some reservations: Championship Streetfighting & The Savage Science of Streetfighting, both by Ned Beaumont. I say reservations because there are some things wrong (like his illustration of jabbing in the first book is an open invitation to getting taken down as well as making it tough to use your rear weapons - conversely, his teaching of the left hook is perfect), and a lot of the good info is taken almost word for word from Dempsey's book. However, these books are much easier to find and much cheaper, so it might be a decent place to start. He also has some fun stories throughout both books as well.

Putting All the Pieces Together

Mixed Martial Arts: The Book of Knowledge by B.J. Penn - Right now, the best book about the total picture of MMA. The only drawback is a complete focus on the sport, to the exclusion of the idea of self-defense or as an "Art". But still a must have, regardless.

These are a pretty good place to start. Next time I will look at some books that are not directly related to the actual technique of fighting, but are still what I consider foundational.

the myth of the leatherneck in the Philipines

In the martial arts, there is SOOOOO much B.S. that goes around that it is sometimes overwhelming. People just throw out utter garbage on a constant basis. Sometimes you can't even argue it because you are just dumbfounded at the utter stupidity of it.

BUT, sometimes you can fight it, often with some simple common sense, or even better, the historical record.

I am really anal when it comes to historical accuracy. You can debate the whys and wherefores in history, but you should not be able to argue whether something happened or didn't happen. So, we can use that to fight some common fallacies in the martial arts.

One of my pet peeves is that the US Marines got their nickname of "leatherneck" from the Philippine Campaign. The B.S. legend goes that the Moro fighters were such bad asses that they would fight their way through a hail of gunfire and manage to get in close where they used their native martial art (Kali/escrima/arnis/whatever you want to call it) to kill marines with knives and swords, often by cutting the necks of the marines. So to combat this, marines wore leather collars around their neck to help survive.

That is a really cool legend. Too bad it has absolutely NO basis in fact. The reason the Marines have the nickname Leatherneck dates back to the early part of the 19th century. The uniform of the Corps had what was called a "stock". Simply, it was a leather collar that was designed to forcibly keep the Marine's head up no matter what, so he always looked smart and squared away on duty. The stock was, understandably, hated and was eventually done away with by the 1860's. And, just so there is no misunderstanding, IT WAS NOT BROUGHT BACK at anytime in the history of the Corps.

So all the proponents of Filipino martial arts, PLEASE stop spouting this line of crap. Your art has enough real and authentic stories that you don't need to make up nonsense that only serves to make you look foolish. It is an undisputed fact that the Moros were bad as*es. They don't need lies to appear so. Be truthful and knowledgeable.

In the above picture of an actual uniform, you can just make out the black leather collar.

Here is the actual official tale of the phrase leatherneck from the Marine Corps itself:

“Leatherneck”
In 1776, the Naval Committee of the Second Continental Congress prescribed new uniform regulations. Marine uniforms were to consist of green coats with buff white facings, buff breeches and black gaiters. Also mandated was a leather stock to be worn by officers and enlisted men alike. This leather collar served to protect the neck against cutlass slashes and to hold the head erect in proper military bearing. Sailors serving aboard ship with Marines came to call them “leathernecks.”

Use of the leather stock was retained until after the Civil War when it was replaced by a strip of black glazed leather attached to the inside front of the dress uniform collar. The last vestiges of the leather stock can be seen in today’s modern dress uniform, which features a stiff cloth tab behind the front of the collar.

The term “leatherneck” transcended the actual use of the leather stock and became a common nickname for United States Marines. Other nicknames include “soldiers of the sea,” “devil dogs,” and the slightly pejorative “gyrene,” (a term which was applied to the British Royal Marines in 1894 and to the U.S. Marines by 1911), and “jarhead.”

And, before you start arguing with me, read the following books that prove beyond all reasonable doubt that what I have just written is correct.

United States Marine Corps by John Selby

US Marine Corps by Charles Cureton

USMC: A Complete History by John Hoffman

as well as this website: http://www.usmcmuseum.org/Museum_LoreCorps.asp

These books include DOCUMENTED fact. If you want to debate me, you had better be prepared to cite facts to back you up. I did.

Martin Luther King Day

Today is a national holiday that celebrates the life and work of a great American. A TRUE American. His famous "I have a dream" speech is one of the most amazing pieces of oratory in history. I am surprised at how many people have never read or heard the entire thing. Here is my favorite part of the speech, but do yourself a favor and go to youtube or google it and actually watch it in it's entirety. If you have any humanity in you, you will be deeply moved.

"Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of
Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

closed fist vs. open fist part deux

I want to revisit this topic for a second. I won't rehash what I wrote about in my earlier post on this topic, but since it is something that continues to be debated, I wanted to throw something else out there that I didn't address before.

One of the concerns the pro-open hand people often cite with striking with a closed fist is the chance of damage to the small bones of the hand. I believe this is a legitimate concern and something that should be taken into account. HOWEVER, the open hand people never seem to follow through on their logic and take it a step further. By this I mean, they never seem to address the fact that while you have a chance of doing damage to knuckles and the other (relatively) weak bones of the hand, I think the chance is even greater of causing great harm to the extremely vulnerable fingers during an open handed strike.

The open hand proponents seem to imply that you have nothing at all to worry about by leaving all those weak digits dangling out there while you ram your palm with full force into the skull of another person. But it has been my experience that not only is it easy and very common to jam or torque fingers past the point of injury, it is extremely debilitating. As I am writing this, I am nursing a jammed thumb that is VERY painful. How did I injure it? During clinch work with an OPEN HAND! Let me tell you, it was not easy to get through the rest of the training session even going fairly light with the pain I was feeling. And I didn't even do it on that hard a surface (it was the floating ribs and waist that rammed my thumb). I am trying to imagine right now what if I had been driving it at full speed at solid bone. I shudder to think about it.

So what is my point? Simply this. Hitting bone with any force and making contact with ANY part of the hand is a crapshoot. You can get injured and possibly your fighting ability severely compromised either hitting with a closed fist or an open palm. This is an important debate and it should be discussed, but only with an even playing field where both sides can present all the pros and cons of their side. Implying that an open palm somehow turns your fist into Superman's is foolish and weakens your overall argument.

no sporting application????

Recently, I have been reading an interesting book called "When all Hell Breaks Loose" by Cody Lundin. In it, he writes about advice on dealing with large scale emergencies, such as natural disasters, terrorist attack, etc..., that would lead to a temporary breakdown of public services. It is a very good read, and it dovetails with his previous survival handbook, 98.6 Degrees - Keeping your Ass Alive (both the books are available on Amazon).

Lundin is a professional survival instructor in Northern Arizona, and is the best kind of teacher. He is very realistic, and does not try to convince you you will become Tarzan - King of the Jungle, but still gets across strategies that most people can implement.

HOWEVER, the book breaks down near the end. There is a chapter on self-defense. Now, to Lundin's credit, he says this is not his area of expertise, so he turns it over to someone who supposedly does know what he is talking about. I say supposedly because the guy is a card carrying idiot. This guy (I will call him Mr. Combatives) is all about easily learned techniques. And his ideas on mindset are fine as well. But then he makes a completely asinine statement. Mr. Combatives says that when you are looking for a martial arts school, you should only go to one that teaches NO SPORTING APPLICATIONS for their uber- deadly techniques. I just have to shake my head. Is this guy living under a rock for the past 15 years? Or is he the martial art equivalent of the Flat Earth Society?

Let's take this and break it down. There are two HUGE problems with his approach of doing techniques that are "too deadly" to practice and only doing them on a target in a set way. If you do not use "sporting" methods (i.e. sparring) to test yourself and the methods:

1) How do you know that the techniques work? Saying that your chin jab will stun your opponent, or that the side kick to his knee will disable him, and actually accomplishing that are two different things. The human body is incredibly resilient and can take enormous damage and yet still function. A few years ago, there was a news story that was widely circulated about a hiker who was trapped in a rock slide in the middle of nowhere. His arm was pinned under a boulder. Knowing he would die if he did not get away, he CUT HIS OWN ARM OFF WITH A POCKET KNIFE! Now, do you honestly think that hitting that guy with a chin jab is really going to do so much damage that you will be able to follow up with any strike you want (or run away at will)? Come on. And the thing is, those stories of human endurance are very common. People can take a lot of punishment and still keep ticking. Basing your entire self-defense ideas on the (non-tested) belief that your base techniques are SOOOO deadly when you don't really know seems awfully stupid to me. So my techniques aren't as deadly as yours? Maybe, but you know what? I know, absolutely, what will happen when my "less deadly" cross lands on someone. You know how I know? Because I do it, all the time, over and over again. I use that puppy on another person, who is resisting me and trying to not let me hit them while at the same time trying their best to hit me back. I know what WILL happen, not what I think will happen, or what I hope happens.

2) How do you know that great technique will land? It is great to say that is is a simple technique, but in the chaos of combat, so much can happen in the blink of an eye. Hitting a BOB training dummy, or a partner who stands there motionless, has NOTHING TO DO with a resisting opponent. Take the standard boxing jab for example. This might very well be the easiest overall technique to land. It uses maximal reach, it is designed for maximal speed, and it allows the jabber to not have to always commit too far. And yet every boxer or MMAer out there spends literally hundreds of hours of their lives to land it. And even then, it is not a sure thing. Why? Because, just a slight movement of the opponent (throwing a hand or hands up in the way, moving their head, using footwork to change distance or angle) done in a millisecond can cause it to fail. So if a professional athlete who spends that much time training such a basic technique can still fail, why will a non-professional who spends 1/100ths of that time training a possibly more difficult technique be able to pull it off at will? It is an utterly ludicrous concept.

To close, I will try to educate those people who think that Mr. Combatives' approach is the right one. His concept of combat training fails the basic tenet of the scientific method. That basic tenet states that the conclusion of the experiment MUST BE REPLICABLE, ON DEMAND. Otherwise, it is useless. Basic MMA sport style sparring and training methods will, again and again, produce nearly similar results in that they (meaning anybody who practices it, professional athlete or not) all will have similar success rates, that can be predicted before hand. Mr. Combatives uber deadly methods will NEVER be able to say the same.

training to failure

It has taken me a good amount of time to really understand blogging. At first, I thought of it as almost like an online diary. Maybe someone else might read it, but more useful as a place to write my own ideas and beliefs. It is that, but as I realize that there are people who do read this and (at times) enjoy it, blogging can also be a great vehicle of education. And it functions best when it is linked up with others. So, in that spirit, I would like to join the wide world of blogging and link to something written by another person, but that I think is very valuable and interesting.

This is an article written by a good guy named Chris Fry and he address some really interesting ideas that confront anyone trying to improve their performance in martial arts/self-defense/combative sport. I only know Chris through online interaction, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if we met in person, I would get along with him really well. Anyway, here is the link

http://www.mdtstraining.com/articles.htm

Go to: Training to Failure, Experiential Learning, and Fighting Mindset and enjoy.

After you read the article, if you like it, check out the rest of them on his site. They are pretty dang good.