Foreword (Third Edition)

I take great pride in writing this foreword for Jamie Acutt's masterpiece "The Martial Arts Delusion".

Ever since I wrote my own book "On Single Combat" in 1986, it has been my goal to establish "combat logic" or "personal combat as a science" in the universities. That is why I travelled to Hilendarski University in Plovdiv, Bulgaria as early as 1995, where there was even something akin to a professorial chair for the Martial Arts.

One might think that there have meanwhile been more universities concerning themselves with research on human combat, as there are now many publications in our European universities on the subject of the Martial Arts.

However, a closer inspection reveals that most of these are not really what I would consider to be a scientific examination of human combat as a phenomenon; for in the vast majority of cases they are merely dedicated attempts to describe the technical repertoire of a certain style. In some rare cases the authors even explain the purpose of the relevant movements (techniques), so that one can at least consider these to be explanatory descriptions.

But all this has very little to do with what Jamie Acutt and I consider to be "combat science". Because if you do not start from scratch, but instead make a certain style your subject matter and try to describe the form and (in rare cases) the function of certain movements, you are not really researching but instead attempting to underpin a specific doctrine or improve "techniques" whose purpose has not yet been substantiated within the overall, functional context. You only come closer to the requirement for scientific rigour if you do not base the examination on a certain style, but rather on combat itself as a phenomenon and problem.

As a small ray of hope, there are now more and more studies examining the laws of mechanics with reference to combat, which use the human anatomy as a basis for e.g. establishing whether a blow or thrust can be made to produce more force and effect. If these studies based on the human form with its anatomical strengths as the deliverer and recipient of attacks also examine the existing techniques of one or more combat styles, and make suggestions on how the effectiveness of a particular style's techniques might be improved, then in my view this is a step in the right direction in scientific terms. Afterwards it is certainly legitimate to examine how one might e.g. make a certain defensive technique faster, strike more effectively with a certain technique or deliver a higher kick with a certain foot technique.

But can biomechanics, physics or anatomy really decide what kind of movement is appropriate? What is the point of forging a weapon if you are unable to deliver it to the target past the opponent's defence? Or if you do not have enough courage or self-esteem to fight for your life?

As Jamie Acutt postulates and shows in his exemplary book "The Martial Arts Delusion", we must use the scientific method of deductive reasoning to establish which strategies and tactics are most conducive to success in what specific form of combat.

The science of combat is a very complex field. Without reference to any particular style, it is first necessary to establish what types of fight there are, how they come about and what structures are recognisable. From where aggression and violence take their origin. There are nowadays specialised scientific fields for almost anything, but whereas there is e.g. a scientific discipline devoted to sex (sexology), Jamie Acutt is working with a number of like-minded people to create the basis for an –ology concerned with human combat. The fact that we even lack a name for something this elementary and important – an omission which Jamie Acutt seeks to rectify - shows how much we are in terra incognita.

Some 25 years ago, my book "On Single Combat" was a tentative first attempt to discuss the following areas in a single book: history, philosophy, physiology, psychology, military sciences etc. In my Doctor of Science dissertation I turned to further scientific disciplines such as cybernetics, game theory, evolutionary biology, anthropology, psychology (NLP) etc. to approach the phenomenon of human combat from various aspects. My latest book, which elaborates on aspects of my Doctor of Science dissertation, is called "WT – The logic of combat, or how the principles of the internal Chinese Martial Arts necessarily dictate the movements". Fortunately it was already 95% complete before I had the pleasure of reading Jamie Acutt's manuscript, otherwise – stimulated by James' inspiring ideas – I would have added some supplementary material, but that will now have to wait until the second edition.

I wish Jamie Acutt's book the great success it deserves, as it is a groundbreaking piece of work!

Prof. Keith R. Kernspecht, Dr. sc. Dr. h.c.

10th degree Master WingTsun, 6th degree Philippine Escrima, 6th Dan Hapkido,

3rd Dan Karate, 2nd Dan Kempo, 2nd Dan Judo. (www.ewto.com)

12^th March 2011

Preface (third edition)

“All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.”

– Galileo Galilei

Prefaces are rarely read, a point which Anglo (2000, xi) cites in his own, echoing the same sentiments of de la Touche (1670) centuries earlier. Reflecting upon my own reading habits, it is only the works which resonate with me that made me inclined to read any subsequent preface. With this in mind, and with this particular reader in mind, I do feel that a preface is an important space through which I can condense and summarise my theory. It is the risk of any necessarily verbose exposition of a theory that the poignant perspective might get lost behind the minutiae. For this reason, I offer this brief summary of my theory.

The first approach to the theory requires the removal of all preconceptions of what fighting is or martial arts are. We begin from a blank slate and navigate our way merely by a drive to understand. Challenging dogmas, testing accepted views is fundamental. In order to understand anything stemming from fighting, we must understand the initial premise of fighting. Combat must take centre-stage, where we must identify the motivations, the dynamics and interactions at physical, strategical and social levels. Upon this basis, which according to my theory is simply based upon a scale of risk, and a scale of social conformance, derives the kinds of combats which exist.

When we understand the kinds of combats which exist, we can begin to frame the components which require pre-designed responses. According to my typology of combat, Predative combat often begins from a conversation range, and alchohol-induced intermale combats often begin with a machismo pre-fight ritual (the “Monkey-dance” (Miller, 2009), or “Affentanz”, (Kernspecht, 2011, 15); “Match Fight” Thompson, 1998); “Escalado” (MacYoung)), and a duel between rapier wielding gentlemen depends upon a pre-fight guard from a distance. A Combat System devised for high risk combat (where death is the aim, or a highly likely outcome, such as in medieval judicial duels) is different to one designed for low risk combat (such as modern sparring competitions), and this is the basis of my entire theory. These extremes, when placed beside one another make the differences all the more apparent. The precise differences are extremely important, and the theory has been built purely on recognition, appreciation and understanding of their relative risks. One set of combat systems is designed for the most extreme rigours of combat in which one’s very life hangs in the balance, tottering on the precipice between efficiency and inefficiency. Another set of combat systems are for the opposite extreme, for sport or play combats, derived from recreational and playful behaviour.

The behaviours required due to these different fights change the type of system we might devise. Inevitably however, all these combats are based upon the following logical components:

• In presence of obstruction, in presence of force

i.e. the opponent is guarded and attacking, as per the Duelling combat

• In presence of obstruction, in absense of force

i.e. the opponent is guarded, but is not presenting an attack – so we must endevour to attack and also overcome his obstruction.

• In absense of obstruction, in presence of force

i.e. the opponent is open to attack (has no resistance to our attack), but is attacking himself – this was the origin of concepts of “counter-time”, or “time-hitting”.

• In absense of obstruction, in absense of force

i.e. the opponent is open to attack, and he is also not attacking.

The types of obstruction we might encounter are listed in Resultant Properties of Combat Systems, and the levels of resistance we might encounter are described in the Theory section of The Development of Combat Systems. Based upon these circumstances, we derive the kinds of functions and algorithms required. If there is obstruction to attack, we must consider means to overcoming that obstruction. If there is force present, we must consider how to deal with it. A moral bilateral Combat System such as Aikido will act in the presence of force. A Combat System derived from warfare will take a more pro-active approach.

The choices which make up a Combat System due to differing functions create a great and wide variety of Combat Systems. A system might be designed to be used in close proximity to an opponent, and will use wrestling techniques to fulfill the algorithms of combat. It might have attenuations on behaviour, such as armour amongst 15^th century Samurai and Knights and so their system will be principally wrestling based. Another system might be derived from being in conversation range and therefore will require a means to coping with the opponent’s arms at a close proximity. Other Combat Systems, designed for 17^th century duellists might require standing from a distance and teach skills for efficient ways of entering and exiting into range. These proxemical choices also define a Combat System, since they require different sets of behaviour due to their environmental pressures. I have outlined these in my chapter on The Incremental Combat Model (ICM). All the above describes the process of understanding combat and systems which are designed to cope with combat. However, when we approach the martial arts, we can see that these considerations are rarely discussed and rarely taken into consideration. All that I have decribed above is based upon a distinct understanding of the varations of combat, and the multiplicitous elements which comprise those variations. This has built a concentrated stock of information which empowers us to apply it to our understanding of the martial arts.

Yet everything we have discussed here is essentially about a level of information about combat. As modern scholars we have detailed information, a luxury which our ancestors may not have had. Their data source was their own experience of combat; they did not have access to biological surveys of animal behaviour, or sociological and evolutionary theories of the function of fighting. And so we have reason to question them; or at the very least assess our own knowledge in comparison with theirs and ask ourselves: is our knowledge truer, or is their knowledge truer – or indeed, are we talking about the same kind of knowledge? I believe it to be the latter when one understands correctly.

This book is subsequently my means of telling a much more important story. From what I can observe, it seems to be a simple and ubiquitous story. This story is of information, or rather how humans gather information, and how it (albeit both accurate and inaccurate) enters a social realm. By entering this realm it immediately undergoes changes, and we shall see how social influences affect the perception of that information. Although it is ubiquitous, as far as I know it is largely ignored, or perhaps simply unknown. The purpose of this book is to raise awareness of this phenomenon, for the benefit of avoiding or overcoming it in the path of self-development and perfection¹.

The socratic method of argument is based upon the premise that, if the original basis of an opponent’s argument is false, then all that which was deduced from it is also false. The Martial Arts Delusion arguably stems originally from false premises, inconsistant arguments, non-systematic inquiry and subjective induction. When these premises are taken to be facts, then we encounter problems. When this inaccurate, incomplete information which becomes the basis of a shared belief amongst members of a group forms the backdrop for their entire world-view, then such a world-view is difficult to change. The information is internalised, it is accepted and is propagated unquestioningly. Institutions are founded, the group organised and structured, and the resultant edifice is a powerful entity in its own right. The corporation, the organisation, the association, the society forms the pool for this data. Such a pool leads to a variety of linguistical descriptions for the information, iconography and symbology representative of the information and bureacratic hierarchy representative of that knowledge within people. Some groups present the information in particular ways, some place emphasis upon parts of the information at odds with those of other groups; yet the information remains the same. The great variety apparent from observation of the groups is shown to be a delusion, and the information they present is nothing more than those simple elements described in different terms, shown with different visual representation or iconography, performed by those wearing different uniforms; but all based upon the universal logic of the information. All these socially-derived components essentially serve to mask the truth of the information and merely present it under various guises.

As far as combat is concerned, the martial arts are all based upon the simple elements of Combat Logic, and perceived differences are derived from social constructs rather than distinct differences in motivation or information. The partitions of behaviours which they place their basis upon is evidence of their partitioned information of Combat Logic. Combat is a communication of human bodies using force, not words but bodily movement and motion; regardless of language spoken, social conventions about how to drink tea, approach your seniors or act around family etc has any profound effect upon a “force-conversation”. Lifting the arm to defend an attack at the head is a universal response; locking the elbow to break the arm is also universal. Anyone with an elbow is capable of devising the means to breaking an elbow. There is no “Chinese combat”, “Chinese martial art”, “Korean martial art”, “German martial art” only the variety of Combat Logic articulated through the language, culture, world-view, belief systems and physical culture of those nations.

Numerous scholars have attempted various solutions to typify Combat Systems and why they appear with such variety. Some attempts merely categorise the variety, the sociology or the motivations, but they do not identify the elements which combine to generate such variety. My argument is that Combat Systems are based upon very rudimentary elements; the identification of which can lead to quite precise understandings of that variety. The resultant story itself is quite linear, and quite easy to understand. As Galileo pointed out, despite the fact that the story is simple, it is important that it be told. This work is my humble attempt at elaborating the process; I offer it with the wholehearted motive that it might challenge or reveal new perceptions to benefit readers in the way in which it has benefited me.

Table of Contents

ON COMBAT LOGIC (ESKIRMOLOGICS)

THE CREATION OF COMBAT SYSTEMS

Part One: The Logic of Combat Systems

Part Two: The Pre-scientific Combat Systems

Part Three: The Transmission of behaviour sets

THE EFFECT OF SOCIETY ON COMBAT SYSTEMS

THE MARTIAL ARTS REFORMATION

A POINTER OF THE WAY

REFORMATION THROUGH PERSONAL LIBERATION

Introduction

Although there are perhaps millions of practitioners of martial arts around the world, the majority accept “their” martial art for what it is. For that majority, martial arts represent the respect, the strict etiquette and immersion into foreign terminology as well as the oft-cited “proven battlefield techniques which have survived the generations”. Very few recognise the martial arts for what they really are. The modern view is distorted to an extent by sports culture and the effect of consumerism. As more and more people participate in the Martial Arts, so too does the unintentional indoctrination into delusion.

The Martial Arts represent a growing industry. In the US alone, there was a significant increase in practice between 1993 (3.8 million) to 2004 (4.5 million) (Sport Business Research Network, 2008). Moreover, the level of participation in Combat Sports similarly increased by 15% between 2002 and 2003, demonstrating one of the biggest increases across all sports within the same period. Sport England (Participation in Sport in England, 2002) also found that, of those interviewed, 81% had participated in Martial Arts (including Self-defence) tuition – higher than any other. It similarly ranked sixth in a list of sports in which they had participated within the four weeks prior to being interviewed. Vertonghen & Theeboom (2010) confirm that similar numbers are found in France, the Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Australia and Belgium.

The causes for such an increase has been offered by scholars, who have noted the effect of modern media in creating interest in the sport (DeMarco, 2000; Grady, 1998: 88-93; Palmer and Meyers, 1995; Logan, 1996; Smith, 1999: 342-356). Modern films, the penetration of emerging cinemas from Hong Kong and Korea, the rise of the Mixed Martial Arts phenomenon, the perpetual attraction of myth and oriental “mystique”, coupled with increased development of video games based upon the “beat-‘em-up” format tend to add to the spiralling interest amongst the general public surrounding the Martial Arts. Yet the practice of martial sport, a result of wider sociological conditions, simply serves to mask a true biological necessity for the existence of the martial arts.

With such rapid growth comes a resultant effort amongst scholars to appraise the great range of information present in those styles and arts to generate a conclusive picture of the entirety of human inquiry and investigation into combat. Green (2001, xv) begins his Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia with an admission;

As many gallons of ink have been spilled in trying to define “martial arts” as have gallons of blood in the genuine practice of martial activities. In this place I will not spill more ink. On the other hand, I do not contend that the efforts of those who try to develop such definitions waste their time. My only contention is that these definitions are inevitably focused by time, place, philosophy, politics, worldview, popular culture, and other cross-cultural variables. So focused, they are destined to be less than universal. The same is true, however, of any attempt to categorize phenomena that, while universally human, are inevitably tied to worldview, to mindset, and to historical experience.

My intention is, of course, to spill yet more ink (and less blood – more sweat). But I do so with a clear purpose in mind. Previous explanations are unsatisfactory, and no particular theory has been accepted above all others. As Green observes, it is due to the specific nature of previous explanations which repeatedly cause them to fall short of being conclusive.

The development of the martial arts, notwithstanding its profound insights into life itself, demonstrate perhaps mankind’s most historically poignant endeavour. Yet its modern practice is inevitably tied entirely to these particular times, places, philosophies and politics of the society which created it. Societies, philosophies, politics from times and places which, in all intents and purposes, no longer actually exist.

The problem with the aforementioned class of views is that these things have nothing to do with martial art. These things categorise a cultural experience, they represent the cultural follicle from which the martial art has grown. They attempt at defining the class of people who created the Martial Art, the culture or schools of thought which influenced its creation – yet nothing about the actual Martial Art. How does its techniques mechanise the intended objective of a fighter? How do its behaviours reduce the risk involved? Consequently, scholars from these particular fields seem to generate specific theories applied to specific cultures, worldviews, mindsets etc. Some modern scholars, most notably from Poland, have been working upon more modern definitions of the martial arts based upon social and humanist views (Cynarski, Sieber, Obodynski, Ozdzinski and Cieszkowski). Yet even these attempts are prone to inaccuracy by ignoring the elementary biological function which combat plays.

It is my personal view that only by reducing the Martial Arts back to their initial biological impetus may we begin to establish a sound scientific theory. The relevance of such a theory has been a concerted effort amongst scholars, and yet current theories still tend to fall short of a universally applicable perspective. Such a theory is of interest not only to martial artists, but to sociologists, criminologists, biologists, ethologists and even economists. The study of the interaction between competing interests is evidenced in all experiences of one’s life; from the contention felt in social groups, the striving for cultural goals by institutionalized means as well as in physical encounters. In some way, fighting contributes to a definition of what it means to be alive. The development of Combat Systems itself supports the existential need for adaptation, the driving force behind evolution. And if fighting is the extremity of all types of conflict, an understanding of fighting is relevant to anyone who wishes to understand the underlying dynamics of any kind of competitive interaction. It is no wonder therefore that the works of Sun Tzu, Tsunemoto, Miyamoto as well as the principles of Judo, Aikido and Taijiquan often find their application in business treatise (Lager & Kraft, 2000; Thompson, 1994; Yofie & Kwak, 2003).

In agreement with Green, we may consider it a fundamental requirement of any attempt at accounting for the universal nature of the martial arts by beginning at the universal phenomena which inspired its invention. All humans experience the impetus for the development for Combat Systems. Conflict, both physical and psychological is a persistent theme within the annals of the human species. And its persistence will not end until mankind is able to satisfy the functional needs which fighting seems to achieve so well. Unfortunately, as we shall see later, in light of statistics regularly produced by governments, this phenomenon does not show evidence of receding.

The experience of fighting is distasteful. Few experiences in our lives evoke such visceral emotions as physical conflict. No matter how many family members and friends one has - the material possessions, the aspirations and measurements of the self we cling to in order to define ourselves – we all become equal under the pressure of physical conflict. Such an experience strips us of our rationalism, revealing in the moment, instinctively, that naked and vulnerable ape of our ancient ancestors. In this moment, we are humbled by the power of our own instincts; when the intellect must automatically switch off and hand over to the defensive mechanisms which are, and have always been, responsible for our survival. Each of us is inbuilt with these defensive mechanisms known as the instincts, firing into action the adrenal “fight-or-flight” response.

One would think that for such a distasteful experience we would know much about it. And we do – to an extent. Violence, fighting and rituals of combat have been studied quite widely, by psychologists such as Archer (1994; 2002, 2005), Baron (1977), Benson (2001, 2002), Buss (1961; 1966), Bandura (1973; 1983), Wolfgang & Ferracuti (1967), Zillmann (1979) and humanists such as Fromm (1973). It has even been considered by Ethologists and evolutionary biologists, such as Lorenz (1969), Tinbergen (1951; 1963) and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1970; 1989). Furthermore, the problem of self-defence has been encountered even by early modern philosophers as Hobbes and Locke, to modern Barristers and Criminologists (Dinstein, 2001; Bowett, 2009; Gray, 2004;).

Yet this accounts for the academic approach to understanding fighting, but what about its physical solutions, its systems designed to keep one safe when experiencing such an event? These studies are useful, but have hitherto been restricted to a limited subset of people working within isolated academic fields. Their studies have therefore previously had limited, if any, direct application to the development and design of Combat Systems.

But this does not mean that such studies have not been made at all. There have been modern studies which correlate biological, psychological, and sociological contexts to an extent with the field of Martial Arts. Studies made indirectly by Grossman (1995) with his “Killology”, as well as ex-servicemen as Miller (2009), Christensen (2003; 2008) often outline the event, the factors of fighting, as well as supplying a few physical solutions based upon their own training in particular Combat Systems. Civilian combat realists as MacYoung (1996), Kane (2006), Abernethy of Applied Karate and Thompson (1996; 1998) similarly draw support for their physical solutions from the existing body of physical solutions known as the “Martial Arts”. It is these studies which will inevitably inform our universally sound perspective of the Martial Arts. Yet these existing bodies of solutions are often not themselves based upon a scientific method.

As we have already identified, physical solutions to the problems presented in fighting may be found all over the world. Since conflict is a recurring them, so too are the solutions an observable recurrence. As a species, therefore, our knowledge of the subject is sporadic and spread among the many “schools of superstition” surrounding fighting, known to modern society as the “Martial Arts”. Those individuals who are involved in the practice of them, “Martial Artists”, tend to believe that the Martial Arts exhibit and contain all there is to know upon the subject. Many believe that suitable and effective conduct in a fight is encompassed within such a practice.

However, acceptance of these pre-scientific models of Combat knowledge is not without its risks. All human societies have devoted themselves to the investigation and development of Martial Arts, which has in turn resulted in the creation of all the many Martial Arts found around the world. Their investigations were largely made in isolation, and especially in competition with other local groups who created their own sets of combat knowledge. These “institutions” develop, practice and perpetuate their own particular brand of solution. As we shall see later, their investigations however were not systematic, their theoretical basis for encapsulation of particular behaviours was not based upon all the data available, the partial data was not appraised objectively, and their selection of techniques was based upon incidental sociological influences rather than concentrated and objective scientific deduction. Accepting these bodies of knowledge inevitably pertains to accepting the pre-scientific basis for their development, as well as their institutionalised means of perpetuation.

Due to the institution’s requirement to enforce and protect their valuable combat knowledge, a particular world-view surrounding fighting and its existence is promoted. Often this is one which offers a picture which complies with, and entitles the solution. From the perspective of some Martial Arts schools, fighting is impressed to be complex and complicated, and many people are led to the belief that learning to fight is subsequently just as complicated. This belief is in some ways supported by teachers of the Martial Arts who maintain it is so complicated that one would have to learn the entire Martial Art in order to properly understand fighting; recognizably as a means to justifying the importance of their unique set of combat-knowledge.

As a result of their development, these institutions are peculiarly introverted. The members of these institutions have no other choice than to be inclined to only understand it from their particular experience. They often train against others from the school or others from the same Martial Art and are therefore likely to have an isolated set of institutionalised experience of fighting. In the event that a technique does not work against a designated attacker in practice, the attacker’s technique is identified as the fault, not the receptive technique. Of course, the reality is that attackers do not have a uniform manner of attack, they will not all attack in the manner presented within a single institution.

This counts for the minority, but a large majority of the world’s population have never trained in a Martial Art (or to a level of proficiency), and many would not even consider there to be any value in its cultivation. The majority of people will normatively strive to avoid serious fighting at all costs², and consequently develop a deep rooted fear of any physical aggression. It is natural to avoid that which is the cause of fear, but such avoidance further adds to the inability to cope with the event if it transpires. With no accommodation or habituation to the phenomenon and no experience from which to draw, the modern person is effectively cut off from knowing what to do, or having the confidence to do it – and as a result they become like a non-swimmer in the ocean; liable to drown. In the moment of inception, many become so inhibited and stifled with fear that they will be rendered helpless at the moment when fight-or-flight becomes critical³. Because of this, the general public have even less knowledge about fighting, especially those who are cynics about the validity of the Martial Arts.

That being said, fighting is a persistant part of life for all creatures, from the smallest amoebas right up to complex human organisms. The imposing of force upon another is natural, and it seems that it is also somewhat inevitable that fighting will occur at some point in the life of the human being; whether in playful childhood tussling with a sibling (as a means of learning “social boundaries”⁴), or on the threatening backstreets of the urbanised modern world. Physical force is a language difficult to ignore, and when one’s voice is inaudible or ignored, physical action will get one’s point across. So much so, it presents a language of its own and when all civilized methods have been exhausted, the final resort is to physical force. It is inevitable, and (because of its potency) unfortunately, largely unavoidable.

So the importance of a study of Combat Systems designed for Hand-to-Hand Combat is as relevant as it ever has been, yet the devotion to this topic may only be found amongst small subsections of realistic martial artists. Besides the aforementioned realists, the majority view retains a sense of delusion. Their view of fighting, and the role of the martial art is evidenced to be quite incorrect. A brief survey of Martial Arts literature shows that the phenomenon of fighting is often only ever discussed within the context of a particular Combat System. Such a discussion leads readers to believe that fighting is a certain way, or that it demands certain techniques – which incidentally always support the Martial Art being discussed.

In an attempt to break with this course, we shall invert the usual course of discussion by considering fighting in isolation of the martial arts in order to tease out the truth about it, and deduce the kind of skill-sets which a martial art would require in order to cope.

I. First principles: the logic of combat

On Combat Logic

To some, the terms “logic” and “combat” might indeed seem to contradict. Yet all things might be said to comply with reason, and have “logic” as the basis of their manifestations. And combat is no different. Perhaps due to the fact that any personal experience of ‘aggression’ apparently opposes known concepts of ‘intellect’, this point it seems has long been ignored. The famous martial arts historian and hoplologist Donn Draeger once asserted that “No clear cut, satisfactory answer has ever been given as to why men wage combat. Men have been fighting creatures and have engaged in destroying each other ever since they first came into conflict in the prehistoric past.” (1973a, 12) Perhaps given this declaration, it would be reasonable to begin with at least a tentative attempt at an answer.

In order to begin such an attempt, we should consider combat in its most simplistic biological terms. Fighting is the physical manifestation of the conflicting interaction of two or more living creatures. It might be described as an event which is for living creatures what a chemical reaction is for molecules – the action and reaction of resistant bodies seeking [a new, and more favourable] equilibrium⁵. All living creatures seek the power and freedom to exist on their own terms, and combat is a means to aquiring, securing and protecting their long-term peace against the threats or concurrent attempts at the same by other organisms.

The language of force is primeval and existed long before social rules, or even spoken language. To use one’s size, strength, speed or any other advantageous attribute is natural and inevitable in the harsh and unsentimental reality of the world. This phenomenon was outlined most succinctly by Hobbes in his Leviathan (1610), wherein he stated that although some men may be stronger or more intelligent than others in their natural state, none are so strong as to be beyond a fear of violent death. This consequently justifies self-defence as man's highest necessity. Hediger, a behavioral zoologist, demonstrated the immediacy of combat when he stated that

“...hunger and love can take only second place. The satisfaction of hunger and sexual appetite can be postponed; not so escape from a dangerous enemy, and all animals, even the biggest and fiercest, have enemies.”

Such immediacy places combat as a high existential concern for all creatures. In the natural world, an opposing organism represents an obstacle to long-term peace, and the elimination of that obstacle will logically secure such peace. As a result organisms impose their internal will upon another organism by using physical force. The level and intensity of the application of that force will be relative to percieved risks as well as percieved gains. Inevitably, in turn, the organism upon which force is being inflicted will be liable to attempt to mitigate or prohibit said force by means of his own forms of resistance. Should the risk be to his life, then that organism will literally fight for his life.

The biology and psychology of all creatures serves to prove the fact that all organisms are designed for survival, that their bodies can heal themselves when damaged, that they learn and adapt and modify their behaviours to optimise their ability to survive. The most immediate survival behaviour takes two forms; Fight, or Flight. Both Fight and Flight are the equal tactics in the science of survival of violence from another organism. However, each has a potential pay-off and flighting or fleeing is a disadvantage if the motivation for combat is a resource. It means that the resource is seceded to the opposing organism, and in terms of survival, losing the resource may lead to a significant long-term disadvantage. We shall see in a moment how some organisms opt to Fight or Flight.

Regardless of motivations at this point, the physical components of the fight remain the same; there will be two or more bodies, or opponents who will stand at distance from each other until they are within reach to apply force by means of percussion (high-impulse striking or hitting) or non-percussion (low-impulse, grasping joint-locking and wrestling). In the ensuing interaction we know that fighting will be spontaneous, and unrehearsed; manifested by social conflict and driven with psychological aggression.

Each fighter will constantly try to overcome his opponent, one will attack, the other will defend, or they will both attack simultaneously, but all will happen continuously, in a state of flux and interplay. We enter a fight with no knowledge of the techniques the opponent will use against us and therefore we cannot truly anticipate the use of any certain technique. In this way it is volatile, unpredictable, and the actions used in fighting cannot be predetermined because they must be used to act and react according to exponential stimuli.

As such, we shall define a “fight-in-itself” scientifically as a “Volatile Aggressive-Resistant Event” (VARE), or as a “Volatile Event of Transactional Force” (VETF). Using this acronym allows us the ability to recognize the components of fighting. To explain how this is possible, we must recognize that a fight may be summed up by three words: “Risk”, “Time”, “Force”, of which the last two may be defined together as properties of “Motion”, the former the probability of an effect of Motion on a recipient.

By Volatility I imply risk, and a risk which is unknowable due to the probability of actions being successful and unsuccessful. Prior to a fight, we are unable to predict the affector (limb exerting force), the trajectory, nor the “phasic moment” of the action; nor are we able to predict the total cumulative number of blows inflicted by either party in a fight. It is the risk, the volatility, the threat which defines the qualitative nature of a fight - and as we shall mention later, this risk also defines a Combat System.

“Aggressive” implies the threat of Force, but also defines it in terms of “approach” as well as tying the Force with a uniquely biological expression. All fights are defined by aggression, if there is no aggression – no approach to inflict force – there is no fight. However, this definition must also be tied to another property which defines the fight – “resistance”. I have sought to combine the terms by using the hyphen to ensure that these two qualities are necessary to define “fighting”. If we consider an aggressor, such as a mugger or a drunken husband beating his wife, we can see the aggression, but unless there is resistance from the “attacked” from the force of the “attacker” there is no “fight”. If the wife accepts her drunken husband’s blows, there is no fight. If the wife resists his blows, then we may say that they are “fighting”, otherwise it is just a “beating”. So a fight requires both force and transactional relativity to force, albeit acting with or against said force - and the selection of acting with or against is directly proportionate to the volume of force compared to our own capacity to exert force.

It is also an “event” – as such it does not continue forever, it is temporary and often serves a biological function. Its impetus is preceded by certain social and biological cues, or key stimuli, which manifest in aggression and need for resistance. Fighting is not always happening. It is not a constant, but an event which happens, then ceases to happen, but does not happen continuously. If it did happen continuously, then our entire lives would be one single fight⁶. The Strategy of Flighting implies the escape from the event, so that there is no risk to the organism, but no gain either. In pursuing the Strategy of Fighting on the other hand, the organism enters into an event which implies a definite risk of injury⁷, yet also a higher probability of gain.

With this definition of “VARE”, we are able to consider the logic of fighting (Eskirmologic)⁸.

All parts of the natural world around us conform to certain rules. The rules of swimming, for example, state that you must be in water, you cannot be swimming if you are not in water. So the logic of swimming depends upon certain imperatives, without which we cannot define it as “swimming”. Fighting contains a certain amount of logic, which means that combat can be defined by these imperatives. Using a “blank slate” (the classical tabula-rasa, or rather a loca-rasa “blank place”) concept, we must populate our domain with conditions, and those by which we may define that space as one of “fighting” and not of anything else. This population of imperatives by the inquirer is like programming a computer with specifications of what a space is, how it is structured and therefore how any behaviours within that space must comply with. We seek to build the Combat environment, and in doing so assess whether Combat Systems comply with that environment.

Constants

Attributes: Defined by physical attributes, somatotype, the Range of Motion (ROM), structure of standing (i.e. the size of the Base of Support (BOS) relative to the height of the Centre of Gravity (COG)), the extent of affect (i.e. reach, the length of the arm and shoulders, extended by the inclination or reclination of the upper body) et al, the relativity of one physiology against a competing physiology (particularly reaction and processing times, behaviour selection processing and physical stamina and endurance).

Proximity: Defined by Physiology, specifically the reach of one’s limbs in attack and defence.

Temporality: The time it takes for an action to be made, the time for defence, and the total sum of all those actions from inception to termination of the fight.

Proportional Force: Force delivered by one constituent and the relative behaviour deployed conditionally to that force (either with or against).

Contextual

Motivation: Acquiring resource, long-term or short-term safety. Motivation defines the combat, involving either attempts to acquire anti-social sexual gratification (rape), material commodities such as money or technology (mugging), defend one’s pride or honour (duelling), increase sense of masculinity and group-status (brawling), playing with siblings (play fighting), sanctioned combats with financial inducements (prizefighting, or modern combat sports), recreational, instructional or sportive combat (sparring). Each motivation creates differing dynamics in the event.

Interaction: Exchanges or interaction by means of transactions of force.

Environmental: The specific place and the resultant conditions placed upon the fighters because of that place.

Volatility: It is an event in which the actual interactions are unplanned, spontaneous and unrehearsed.

Despite all these elements being present to compose combat, it inevitably has a very biological reason for existence quite apart from that of its technical existence.

Biological impetus

Fighting serves a simple and irreducible biological function. In terms of existence, fighting is a phenomenon which concerns living creatures, and therefore the motivations for it are purely biological. If our concern is regarding human combat, then it is a phenomenon which concerns the particular pressures and dynamics found amongst mammals and their social groups, or more precisely, the hominid family of mammals.

Fighting is a manifestation of direct and indirect competition between organisms and the pressures placed upon them in a bid to survive. Organisms are animate material bodies “hardware” which are wired with supporting psychological and instinctive “software” to primarily seek, as is defined by their very existence, to secure their life (i.e. continued existence) by means of acquiring required resources (albeit territory, mates, food sources et al). All organisms, on their own terms, seek these things – and are therefore defined as “life-forms”.

The presence of organisms in the outside world generates another sub-set of behaviour in the organism. A number of organisms sharing the same environment are a cause for competition for resources and therefore the resultant interaction is what we term “conflict”. This term is used to describe the interaction of organisms due to direct competition, via opposing (or rather correlated) interests. This conflict exists largely in a social dimension, but can escalate to a physical dimension. Whether verbal, body-language, proxemical or force based, this conflict consists of both organisms contending against each other based upon the following imperatives:

1. The need to protect their interests

2. The need to expand their interests where possible (to exploit opportunities presented) to improve security (and later comfort) of life.

3. The resultant need to impose upon other organisms where their presence imposes upon a. and/or b.

Organisms have generated two operational strategies designed to cope with conflict known as Fight, or Flight. The former is the escalation of the conflict whereby the organisms exert physical force in order to win the resource; the latter is based upon posturing, but with the bid to intimidate or exit the conflict and secede the resource to the opposing organism. This choice as to which strategy to use is based upon a pay-off decision (known as the Simple Assessor Model) whereby the risks of such a conflict are weighed up against the potential “pay-off” (positive outcome).

This means that there are two opposing aspects to all fights whereby an organism might be attempting (in compliance with our assessment and corroboration made a moment ago):

1. Imposition – Expanding their interests by instigating Conflict

2. Protection – Defending oneself or one’s assets from the interests of other [competitive or predative] organisms.

The evolution of mammals has been based upon the driving forces of interspecies competition and intraspecies predation. Both are the principal catalysts for preservation of individuals and the familial groups with whom they cohabitate their living-space.

Notable examples of academic work in this field has already justified the evolutionary function of such behaviours (Armstrong; Lorenz; Eibl-Eiblsfeldt et al) which does not require too much re-iteration here. Maynard Smith (1982) outlines a sufficient case for us to trace the development of Combat Systems. By utilising Game Theory, Maynard Smith builds a schema by which we may recognise the long-term and short-term benefit of certain behaviours. Consider the following hypothetical example to support the basis of those behaviours, and the requirement for a Combat System;

Group A (consisting of N individuals) lives near a territorial resource R (a lake for example), and therefore R is considered the “territory” of A.

Group B (consisting of N individuals) lives near the territorial resource R (designated the “territory of A”), but due to the presence of A, R is not considered to be the “territory” of B.

R gives A greater probability of survival, offering a source of sustenance, and to an extent, shelter and protection. B do not have this privilege, and because of pressures upon them caused by lack of this convenience, their probability of communal survival is comparartively lower. A natural inclination in Group B will form wherein they will feel “entitled” to R and will attempt a bid at competing with A for R. Perhaps they “try their luck” for a period, attempting to use the resource in the presence of A, but a head-to-head confrontation is inevitable. If they do attempt to take the resource, then their basis for action is outside of socially sanctioned means. There are no laws, and no sanctioned or recognised social basis upon which B may stake its claim on R, other than the most natural basis there is; to take it by force. As we have already suggested, amid the clamours of verbally “staking one’s claim” on an asset, there is a single form of communication which speaks louder than all others – that of Physical Force.

A suitable method of acquiring the resource on behalf of Group B will be to plan an action in order to acquire R, but because A has natural protection and greater access to resources, they are in a much stronger position than B. In order to ensure the minimum loses possible, B must have a plan which limits the possibility of damage to its own constituents, and also maximising the chance of success. This decision is based upon a simple formula, which Maynard Smith (ibid, 11-13) outlined as,

V/C

V refers to the Value of R, and C refers to the potential cost of its acquisition (i.e. injury, maiming, or death). If the resource is not worth the potential costs (the risk), then we could say that the challenge is “not worth it”. If the value of the resource is worth the risk, then we proceed to challenge.

Identifying the components of the risk is an important aspect of the challenge, and one which allows us to pre-design solutions to mitigate those circumstances. If the numbers (N) of Group A are greater than those of Group B, then B are also at a clear disadvantage. The fact that Group A holds the territory is part of its advantage, and one which Group B will have to overcome in order to be successful in their routing. In order to minimize future retribution, the killing of all members of group A offers the most long-term benefit to group B.

A similar ssessment is made in one-on-one combats amongst solitary and/or territorial animals. Archer (1994, p2-18) demonstrates that there is a correlation between Resource Holding Power (RHP) and Resource Value. As a fight begins, both constituents take on an “assessment role” (Parker & Rubenstein, 1981) wherein each assesses their RHP in comparison with their opponent, and the potential gain divided by the cost of such a gain. Where one constituent’s RHP is high, then the potential cost of fighting an opposing constituent will also be high, and therefore inclination to fight will be low. Where one constituent’s RHP is low, then the potential cost of contending against him may be worth the risk. We often see this decision process amongst lower males contending against an alpha-male amongst mammals. This “assessor role”, using the Simple Assessor Model⁹, has been observed amongst newts, hummingbirds and spiders (Archer, 1994 11) observing that constituents escalated the combats when the resource value was high. Observations of animal behaviour has shown that when competing for territory, a weaker constituent uniformly withdrew when posed with a larger opponent, but escalated when the opponent was equal in size.

This assessment of the risks measured against the potential positive outcome is a simple but eternal logic. Essentially, what the observations made by Ethologists demonstrate is that in combat, animal behaviour complies with the logic outlined in human works on combat strategy which state;

• If the opponent is significantly advantaged (in strength, arms, size, RHP etc), then avoid him

• If the opponent is advantaged, do not oppose him

• If the opponent is an equal, challenge him

• If the opponent is weaker, impose against him.¹⁰

Obviously the animals in our example are not consciously aware of their selection of behaviour, but simply assess the risks involved and change their behaviour in accordance with these risks. Such a change in behaviour is observable and uniform, and to an extent, predictable.

Due to the fact that initial assessment of the opponent is not possible (and decisions to escalate must often be based upon inaccurate information) more recent theories have taken into account a Sequential Assessment Model¹¹. As exchanges of force take place, each constituent is able to build a more accurate picture of the opponent’s strengths, weaknesses, strategies and RHP. This allows the constituents to escalate or withdraw based upon the ensuing interactions. This leads us to believe that there is an initial policy for behaviour in combat amongst animals, but this policy must contain contingencies based upon feedback.

If one of the constituents escalates, but the other seeks withdrawl then it stands to reason that the fight will not reach the same level of intensity than that between two constituents who both escalate. This means we must consider a variable strategy, “if we meet an opponent who escalates, then we should...”, “if we meet an opponent who withdraws, we should…”

As we can see, it is due to risks and potentially overwhelming odds that will logically lead to the pre-planning and design of behaviours and actions for securing safety in imposing, and protection from being imposed upon. Archer and Benson further mention how the Assessor Role is fulfilled in many different contexts, amongst animals of many different species, and use the moments prior to a fight to assess the strength of an opponent, the presence and size of weapons to correlate with the opponent’s possible previous experiences and successes in fighting. The number of allies (i.e. the potential of being “outnumbered”) as well as other conceived advantages (surprise, weapons, environment, size etc) may also contribute to the decision to Escalate or Withdraw.

Armed with this ethological view of combat, the assessments and dynamics of the interactions made by animals, we may begin to build a picture of the kinds of combats which exist, as well as the unique characteristics which define them.

A typology of combat

As I have already suggested, in order to inquire about Combat Systems, we must first investigate the phenomenon from which it finds its impetus. Under the heading of “motivations”, I have already outlined some of the combats which result. It is now required that we define the means by which we may categorise these combats.

Imposing is most often the tool of those who have little and seek to acquire it from another, in which case, it is recognizable as a means to improving one’s resources. As we shall see later, these resources are not always tangible, but sometimes are metaphysical components valued by a member of society (such as “respect” or “reputation”, or even “control”). Protecting on the other hand is often based upon having RHP, and the attempt to maintain that “ownership” predicates the need to protect it – hence the saying, “the more one has, the more fear one has of losing it”. Therefore we may become witnesses to a continual struggle between those who have and those who have not. As the means to attack (such as weapons, devised deception methods) become more sophisticated, so too must the means to protect. So the motivations of the constituents, the assessment and the gain contribute to define the kind of combat (Wallhausen, 2009, 72). Working out the varieties of interactions, we can witness the underlying logic at work.

Before we can approach the problem of Martial Arts as Systems of knowledge, we must first consider the kinds of fights which exist, since it is from them that all Combat Systems will find their root. It is because of them (as naturally occurring phenomena) that Systems were created by man.

Serious & Play: the “Intensity Scale” of Combat

The problems derived from attempting to categorise combat have long been considered by experts of fighting, so much so, that such experts have been attempting categorisation for centuries. Perhaps the first master in history to develop a philosophy of Combat Logic was the 14^th Century German Fightmaster Johannes Liechtenauer. According to commentators of his theories¹², Liechtenauer considered two forms of fighting; those of serious fighting, or earnest combat (ernstfechtens), and those of play fighting, or practice combat (schulefechtens). Based upon the loose descriptions in surviving records, we might argue that Ernstfechtens was considered to be a quick yet lethal fight, often decided within the time of a single attack; an attack which ended in death for the receiver of the blow. It was certainly a categorization of the kind of serious combats of the age; in chivalric duelling and on the battlefield. In comparison, Schulefechtens may have been perceived to have consisted of sparring and prolonged practice as well as abstraction of various elements of fighting in order to be focused upon as drills. Given his context, we can consider this term to account for the practice of fighting and sparring in contemporary institutions. However, this term may not account for the kinds of melee, tilting (jousting) and combat-at-barriers which were recreational means of training for ernstfechtens, as well as the opportunity to prove chivalric qualities.

Ponderous questions arise from further consideration of Liechtenauer’s simple categories. We might suppose that whilst Liechtenauer would have been forced to teach his system of fighting, he did not teach “school fighting”, but rather solutions to the problem of Ernstfechtens¹³. So perhaps his categorization is of the kind of Combat Systems existing at that time. This hypothesis is given some support when we consider his opinion of other schools. Being a realist, Liechtenauer was very much against what was known as Leichtmeistern (lit: “simple” or “easy-masters”, or false-teachers); in other words delusional and overly subjective methods of fighting. It may also be suggested that his concept of “simple masters” is akin to the consideration that they use a vulgar and non-scientific approach rather than one based upon sound science (Wallhausen, 2010).

Whilst Liechtenauer’s opinion is useful, perhaps it is too defined, and because of the scant evidence available, any hypothesis based upon his naming conventions may only ever be conjectural. Schulefechtens may refer to the practice of fighting, but does it also denote a competition of fighting? We may assume that Ernstfechtens implies some kind of heightened risk of death or serious injury. But how do we possibly reconcile the differences between fighting seen on a battlefield and on the streets with these categorisations? How can we, as modern people, use Liechtenauer’s categorizations to apply to combat exhibited in our own period? Liechtenauer’s categorizations are useful, but it is clear that we will need to investigate further.

It is this latter point which has been progressed in more recent times. Armstrong (Hoplos, 1993) defines two categorisations of fighting, a consideration which, whilst not being conclusive, does integrate well with my own theory. Armstrong suggests that there are two kinds of fighting; Mortal and Non-mortal – then ventures to offer denominating factors involved in each¹⁴. Evidently, this is to account for the existence of battlefield and single-combat phenomena, but where should we consider fights in which the risk of death is involved, but does not happen? For example, if we were mugged by a knife-wielding aggressor, there is the risk of being stabbed, but there is also a probability that we may not be. In effect, the mugging was “in theory” a Mortal fight, but did not end my mortality and therefore in reality we cannot view it as a Mortal fight. Using Armstrong’s definition, any fight which does not result in death is a Non-mortal fight.

Another scholar, Thompson, who worked as a nightclub bouncer, offers a similar attempt at defining types of fighting when he outlined them in terms of timing, and number of Agents involved (1998, p11). Thompson’s suggestions (Three-Second fighting, Match fighting, Ambush Fighting) are based upon observations of fighting. Of course, Thompson is not aiming to invent a conclusive or universal categorisation since he is discussing the kinds of fighting involving two, or more Agents in civil assaults. Unlike Armstrong who accounted for Military formations and the battlefield tactics of the ancient Greek Phalanx, we do not find any such use of the categorisations in Thompson’s theory – but why should we? Thompson’s intention is to describe the kind of fights which he has witnessed or experienced and categorise them accordingly. Thompson describes the kind of combats found in urban circumstances. In which case, we might expect that Thompson’s theory might apply flesh to the bare-bones of Armstrong’s theory, and it does to an extent. Whilst his experiences (and witnessing) of these kinds of fight add to his definition, they are in fact Singular statements. From these we may construct a universal theory - but by only using isolated singular observances; they cannot predict all kinds of particular events. But there are definite glimpses of their suitable application for our purposes.

Three-Second Fighting alludes to the kind of Earnest combats which were suggested by Liechtenauer, which itself is similar to that outlined by Armstrong in his consideration of Mortal Fighting. Moreover, we may draw similarities between Liechtenauer’s Schulefechtens and Thompson’s Match Fighting with Armstong’s Non-Mortal individual combat. So we have already been offered some important steps towards a Universal theory, and no doubt any prospective theory will inevitably draw aspects from these former definitions.

Perhaps another supplementary typology of combat comes in the form of Amberger’s Antagonistic and Agonistic Combats (1996, 121-127). Amberger’s postulations are dependant upon considering the intent or motivation, as well as the perceived risk the opponent poses, much in a similar vein as my own suggestion (Wallhausen, 2009, 73-74). The effect of those conditions is also of concern to him outlining the level of stress involved as well as potential wider social implications. Amberger’s categories are:

Antagonistic combat

1. Absolute domination/survival

2. Comment (from the French comment “by the rules”)

Agonistic combat

1. Competitive combat

2. Theatrical (collaborative) combat

With these suggestions, we can see the kind of combats used on the battlefield in “Type A Antagonistic Combat”, and we can consider “Type B Antagonistic Combat” to be the kind of fights we see in historical institution of “duelling”. However, where can we suitably place the kind of competitive but serious combats amongst males in the street? How do we account for the biologically-driven combats, and also how do we account for the kinds of predative combats requiring a “self-defence” response? A gratuitous attack on a woman might be termed “absolute domination/survival”, yet Amberger’s definition does not fully comply with the description of these combats offered by other scholars. Moreover, a duel in the 16^th century was both “comment” and “absolute domination/survival”, so which does it categorise as? Amberger’s definitions are, by his own introduction, designed to describe the kind of combats using edged-weapons (ibid, 121). As such, we would therefore expect his definitions to omit these other kinds of fights we have suggested.

As we should expect, as a Hoplologist, Armstrong’s considerations go much further than Liechtenauer’s, Amberger’s and Thompson’s definitions. However, we have already seen that similarities may be traced between all four and therefore although their descriptions are different (in terms of taxonomy), they all retain a similar aim and intention. In effect, perhaps it is only semantical definition which divides their categorisations? We may use Armstrong’s categorizations to lay the foundation, and use both Amberger and Thompson’s categorizations to add weight to specific postulations. Therefore my own theory seeks to unify the underlying themes, to take a step further from the incidental linguistic descriptions and to therefore reveal the truths beneath all of them.

Before I do this however, I would like to turn my attention to animal combat, as I believe that to define Combat in the widest possible sense, a categorization should apply to both animal and human combats. In which case, when assessing the kind of combats amongst animals, we can witness the same types; fighting for survival and fighting in play.

The purpose of animal “play fighting” amongst juveniles is to prepare them for real fighting. It has been proven that both humans and animals take part in this kind of attenuated fighting (de Waal & Aureli, 2000). Many species of animals demonstrate acts of fighting when young in order to learn about the world around them, and the acceptable use of their bodies in fighting and interaction with other animals. Not only when young, but also when they are matured, animals exhibit attenuated fighting, and this is observable most often in acts of fighting amongst members of the same species.

Adult male wolves might contest against one another to assert status, but not with any intention to kill. Although their combats look aggressive, their bites could easily result in death if they intended them to. Aldis (1975) demonstrated that many of these fights ended with ritualised submission, and can depend upon the use of certain techniques directed towards particular body targets. These fights are therefore not Lethal fights but attenuated fights in which their full-force is withheld. This means that forms of attenuation by means of regulation and rule-sets is not a purely human phenomenon. Pellis & Pellis (1998a) demonstrated that many animals can have a subset of rules attached to play-fighting. Behaviour in play-fighting depended upon a general 50:50 rule of attacking techniques to defensive techniques (Aldis 1975; Altmann, 1962), whereas the use of purely attacking techniques increased in a serious encounter (Pellis & Pellis, 1998a).

The dynamic of serious combat requires acting with Due Diligence meaning that an animal will attack with a simultaneous method of restricting retaliation from the opponent. This means that almost all attacks made in an Unrestricted fight were carried out with a simultaneous defence (Pellis, 1997). This also facilitates the attacker’s ability to make further attacks in relative safety. With restricted fighting, the actions of attack and defence are separate procedures, whereby the defences of one might permit the successful attack of the other. Since there is much less risk involved, the animals quite often leave certain parts of their body open. This kind of non-chalance in play-fighting underlines the tone of the Restricted fight amongst animals and is used as a social means to communicate trust. This is very much in contrast to Unrestricted fights whereby an attacker will make no restriction in his action, delivering a lethal attack should the opponent leave a target exposed (Blanchard, Blanchard, Takashi & Kelly, 1977; Geist, 1971; Pellis & Pellis, 1992).

These definitions aid in our consideration of fighting, whereby we may combine their themes to generate a biological model. Combats which involve two imposers we may call “Competitive”, and Combats which involve an imposer and a protecter, we might term “Predative”. Both these combats exhibit high risk, and in their most natural form might be termed Unrestricted. They involve wilful attempts to cause injury, and might also be termed “high intensity”. Further down the scale of intensity we find low intensity combats, like those of sibling tussles, and play competitive combats between juvenile males. These kinds of combats are largely used as a training ground for the behaviours which might be applied in Serious and High intensity combats. Using the descriptions offered by ethologists, we may consider the two forms of combat exhibited amongst animals to be:

1. The Serious Predative Model – One fights with the intention to harm, the other defends himself and does not have the intention to instigate a combat.

2. The Serious Competitive Model – Both fight in earnest, often inter-male.

   1. Biologically-driven is called Brawling, or Scrapping

3. The Play Competitive Model - Both have intention to fight, but in Play

   1. Biologically-driven is called Tussling

It is on this sound basis that we may begin to piece together the kinds of combats found amongst humans.

The dual scale of Human Combat

Human civilisation admits the same types of Combats, yet with the added consideration of the impact of social conventions and orthodoxy. This added consideration actually creates an addition to our model, and a scale which effectively bisects the scale of intensity. On one side are civilised combats, sanctioned by society with a mind to controlling the combats between individuals. On the other side is the biologically driven combats found amongst animals, and often the “last resort” in to which civilised combats often degenerate. This kind of combat can still be traced within human civilisation despite legislative and moral attempts to eradicate it.

Figure 1 – The two-dimensions of Scale and Sanction.

Needless to say, human combat is much more complex than combat types amongst animals. We might consider the above named types of combat as correlative to the concepts of Interspecific (i.e. the Competitive Models, amongst animals of the same species, often of the same group) and Intraspecific (i.e. Predative Model, amongst animals of different species) combats. Since humans are much more complex animals, capable of complex social units as well as divisions based upon fundamental concepts, we can consider that human combats are typified by those of animals plus additional types unique to the human species.

Fighting to survive, in terms of what we call “self-defence” always involves at least one instigator of the fight, an aggressor who causes an emotional-physical reaction from an opposing being, provoking them into physical conflict. Armstrong (2007) suggests two biological forms of fighting based upon the kind of motivations involved. Placing his thesis firmly upon the kinds of animal combats which are observable, Armstrong suggests there are two kinds of fighting based upon the kind of aggressive motivations involved; Affective (Reactive) Aggression and Predatory (Proactive) Aggression. Of course, these correlate well with our proposal of these aggressive types manifested in Competition

Figure 2 – A demonstration of the two forms of fighting based upon “state of nature” fighting which are biologically driven, and those which are sanctioned or institutionalised forms of those naturally occurring models of fighting. I have then sought to demonstrate that natural fighting and socially sanctioned fighting also comes in the two forms which I have discussed previously; Serious Fighting and Play fighting. Both Biologically driven types of fight may be found in nature and demonstrated amongst animals. The socially sanctioned models are due to being conditioned for fighting.

and Predation combats. Glasl (1997) also presented the kinds of escalations which increment from low-level aggression to high-aggression, by extension, from “play fight” to “serious fight”; or from low-intensity (low-risk) to high-intensity (high-risk) physical conflict.

Antagonistic:

1. The Serious Predative Model – often Male–female combats, characterised by gratuitous instigator and victim, characterized as a “High-gain, low-risk”

2. The Serious Competitive Model – Inter-male combats

   1. Biologically-driven is called Brawling, or Scrapping

   2. Socially-sanctioned is called Duelling

Agonistic:

1. The Play Competitive Model

   1. Biologically-driven is called Tussling

   2. Socially-sanctioned is called Sparring

2. The Abstracted Models – Any of the above, but in an Abstract format.

   1. For the purpose of demonstration it is called Performing Art, whether in the format of Dance, or pre-arranged combat. The ancient Greek Pyrriche, Moorish, Dirk, and even ballet dance had an origin in combat narrative. Sometimes solitary.

   2. Collaborative, choreographed for entertainment.

   3. For the purpose of pedagogy it is called Instructive, designed for the purpose of instilling a certain eskirmological principle into an individual or individuals.

An imposer versus an imposer makes a combat of attrition, whereas a protecter versus an imposer equals a combat of defence (or “self-defence”). The designation of these kinds of combats may be understood in terms of the natural advantages of combat (size, strength, territory etc) as well as the predisposition of males to be the most common constituents of VARE.

Predative Combat – a serious combat

As we have mentioned earlier, the presence of those who have RHP will predicate the need to protect the resource. Predative combats are defined by the attempt for a low RHP constituent to attempt to acquire a resource by means of victim-selection, and the use of surprise as a primary device. In our age of consumerism, this resource might perhaps be money, or technology and it is the means by which the attacker, the “deviant”, might acquire the resource by going outside of institutionalized means (i.e. by means of theft).

For this reason, this type of combat may be recognised by premeditative behaviours on behalf of the attacker, selection of a weaker opponent all in a bid to stack the advantage largely in his own favour. The motive behind the predator’s selection of his prey is based upon the concept “highest gain-lowest risk”. This “high-gain – low-cost” rule underlines the dynamics of the predative model. For this reason, they present the easiest prey for the predator. Hence we can observe the roles of:

• Instigator: the predator who selects his “victim” or “prey” in accordance with the “high-gain, low-cost” rule.

• Mitigator: the prey who has been selected due to being a perceived as the “least threat”.

The core advantageous devices exploited by the predator are:

• Use of surprise (exploiting the negative effect of SSR¹⁵),

• Use of weapons,

• Use of numbers (outnumber the prey using allies),

• Deception.

This use of surprise, ambush and victim selection have been observed in predators of the animal kingdom. As a result the Mitigator role will be significantly disadvantaged, and will possibly be selected specifically for those perceived disadvantages,

• weaker,

• smaller,

• unaware,

• alone (or lesser numbers) and

• unarmed (or not so well armed).

In the urban context, we can see that the mugger¹⁶ selects a victim who is rich, perceiveably weaker, alone or unaware in an isolated area (such as a back alley). Because of this natural dominance of the instigator, and the selection of a weaker “prey”, we can consider this combat the type of interactive fights between men and women¹⁷. Due to the overwhelming obstructions and disadvantages mounted against the defender, he or she has greater work to do in redressing the disadvantage. All self-defence situations may therefore be defined as being a high proportion of combats between a stronger, gratuitous aggressor, and a victim who is weaker and taken by surprise.

Since surprise is a major source of the instigator’s advantage in Predative combats, it is important that we address the Survival Stress Reaction (SSR). The serious effect of SSR is important to the study of realistic combat applicable to biologically-driven and socially-sanctioned models of serious combat. Laur (2002) suggests that this response is designed to impress upon the organism the need to act quickly in order to stay alive in dangerous situations. Manifesting as a “flinch response”, or a “threat reflex”, this autonomic reaction is a result of neural processes which facilitate response, known as the Somatic Reflex Potentiation (SRP). Laur listed various instinctive protective behaviour-mechanisms designed to prohibit and reduce the effect of damaging exponential stimuli;

1) push away,

2) push away with a back/turn away,

3) pull away,

4) pull away with a back/turn away,

5) crouch with hands coming up to protect the head,

6) crouch with hands up to protect head with back/turn away.

Although these reflex actions manifest the need to protect oneself, there is also an underlying biochemical effect which changes the “chemical cocktail” (Kernspecht, 2011) of the body. The effect of such threat stimuli was studied at length by Artwohl as well as other scholars such as Soloman and Horn (1986), Hoenig and Roland (1998), Klinger (1998) and Grossman (1995). This effect can be witnessed in other serious combats which also have a “fight-or-flight” adrenaline response. These effects are due to an increase in stress hormones designed to facilitate fight-or-flight, yet can have a debilitating effect if allowed to increase beyond normative levels (Wallhausen, 2010, 119). The heart is perhaps the most commonly observable trace of this effect, as has been noted by Grossman and Thompson.

Between 60 – 80 beats per minute is regarded as a normal, or healthy resting heart rate. When a pressurised situation occurs, the body enters into a survival process, raising the blood-pressure to facilitate the release of essential hormones to aid in improved abilities to escape. At 115 bpm, the body’s ability to carry out fine motor skills deteriorates. Between 115 – 145 bpm is the optimum rate at which visual, cognitive and motor reactions are at their peak. This is the period of “eustress” in which combative skills may best be applied, yet the increase in heart rate may often continue beyond this point, quickly leading to the so-called “adrenaline dump” (Kernspecht, 1985). Between 115 – 175 is a period which facilitates “flight” in which gross motor skills (i.e. running) are most favoured. However, it is in this period which we also find voiding of bowls and bladder, freezing (or lack of psycho-physical ability), as well as a deterioration in cognitive processing. In which case, 115 – above is a period which is detrimental (“distress”) to any combat-logical skill-set.

So much so, this detrimental effect was outlined by Grossman after interviewing military men who had experienced a situation of “kill-or-be-killed” wherein they were therefore required to kill. The results of his study reveal the physical effects of these autonomic processes when they have reached their peak;

• 84% experienced diminished sound (auditory exclusion)

• 79% experienced tunnel vision (peripheral narrowing)

• 74% experienced “automatic pilot” with little or no conscious thought

• 71% experienced visual clarity

• 62% experienced slow motion time [tachypsychia]

• 52% experienced memory loss for part of the event

• 46% experienced memory loss for some of their own behavior (critical stress amnesia)

• 39% experienced dissociation; sense of detachment or unreality

• 26% experienced intrusive distracting thoughts

• 21% experienced saw, heard, or experienced memory distortion

• 17% experienced fast motion time

• 7% experienced temporary paralysis

All high-intensity combats share this SSR factor to an extent, with Brawling being the closest event possible example to the predative model. Let us now proceed to discuss this type of combat.

Brawling – an anti-social serious combat

Earlier we described the RHP of organisms and how this factor affected the decision to escalate or to abandon conflict. The kind of combats between animals of a similar RHP may be witnessed in the kind of combats I term “Brawling”.

All animals, including humans, are prone to biologically-driven fighting. This kind of fighting is the baseline upon which combats often recede to an extent. When social dictates are abandoned, biologically derived behaviours manifest. When Thompson (1998) refers to the “rituals of aggression” and the “pre-fight rituals” he generally refers to the kind of posturing commonly exhibited in biologically-driven inter-male competitive combat. These behaviours, linked closely with distinct masculine non-verbal communication of aggression, are observable and appear predictably prior to the instigation of biologically-driven combat.

Brawling sometimes manifests from malfunctioned interpretations of social impetus, which takes place when (at least) one human being (aggressor) approaches another and incites an emotional-physical reaction from another human being (Benson and Archer, 2002)¹⁸. As the Boxer Jack Dempsey observed, brawling is primal, and an unrelenting natural event which he describes based upon first-hand experience;

“When a fist-fight is started, however, it is informally slated to a "finish." There is no let-up, no rest, until one scrapper is knocked out or beaten so badly he quits. You don't win a fist-fight on points. Sometimes friends or the police halt a street scrap, but such interference cannot be counted upon. When a fellow squares off for a fist-fight, he should be geared to finish it…

Since a fist-fight has no supervision, it can develop into a roughhouse affair in which anything goes. There's no one to prevent low blows, butting, kicking, eye-gouging, biting and strangling. When angry fighters fall into a clinch, there's no one to separate them. Wrestling often ensues. A fellow may be thrown to earth, floor, or pavement. He can be hammered when down, or even be "given the boots"- kicked in the face unless some humane bystander interferes. And you can't count on bystanders.” (Chtr 5)

The fight continues until a decisive blow is issued, or until one is neutralized – as Dempsey recalled, it is slated to a finish. Subsequently, when a fight begins, it is a continual progression towards an end – in fact with every action; both fighters are manoeuvring to end the fight in their own favour. It can be considered therefore that it is literally the struggle between constituents towards a selfish resolution¹⁹, and one which favours one’s own interests.

Throughout the most extreme of struggles, the individual’s “Will to Survive” (to preserve the self) will mean that all actions will be made at the direct expense of the other person, and therefore aggression will be directed specifically to the opposing constituent. Selfishly, an action which disables the opponent, causing long-term (paralysis, perhaps even death) or short-term (pain inducing) effects may sometimes be used “in-the-moment” with relative indifference - without thought as to the person upon whom it is inflicted. It is described by those who have closely experienced it as a phenomenon requiring one to “kill or be killed”²⁰. Yet in accordance with moral law, the extent of long-term and short-term damage should generally be proportionate to the level of perceived threat²¹.

Brawling, as we might expect, often involves competitive males. Combat has an arguable evolutionary function, we must consider it in the context which Walklate (1995, p.160) proposed when he suggested a consideration of purely male aggression must;

…call into question men, their relationship with, and experience of, their violence.

This “gender oriented” study of violence, and the interaction of aggressive organisms in the event we refer to as “fighting” is essential in order to frame our picture of fighting. According to our imperatives for the biological existence of fighting amongst organisms, (to protect their interests, to expand their interests where possible (to exploit opportunities presented), and to impose upon other organisms where their presence imposes upon a. and b) and in lieu of the kinds of strategies elaborated by Ethologists, we can deduce a certain number of interactions, allowing us to identify the kinds of fights which might exist.

It is perhaps for this reason that Criminologists consider Control to be one of the main social functions of deviant violent behaviour. Brookman (2000) offers a useful definition of the function of male aggression from the perspective of Criminology.

• Controlling the behaviour of others

  • To eliminate threats of violence

  • To establish 'justice'

  • To achieve compliance

• Controlling masculine status

  • Protecting Masculine Status

  • Asserting Masculine Status

• Control: Power and Pleasure

Hudson (1997, 451) supports this view by suggesting that “social control is an important concept within sociology, arguably one of the most important”. In the entire history of inter-male combats (the kind which may be found in the Greek epics of Homer, the Norse sagas, the Chivalric works of De Troyes, Malory or Spencer) we may recognise the recurrent themes of using Aggression and force as a facilitator of masculine Control.

The function of aggression is personal survival, and in the interests of survival, to control and affect others to comply with those interests. Frustration, one of the causes of violent acts, is defined as being caused by the contrariety of extraneous circumstances to the aggressor’s internal “ideal”. Perpetual or continuous departure of circumstances from this ideal increases the levels of aggression within the Subject, as Glasl (1997) refers to as “hardening”. Inevitably, this generates increased probability of a physical encounter.

Male violence figures in its highest levels against other males, and then secondary in domestic violence toward women. Recent statistics regarding homicide in the United States show that acts of violence by males is most commonly towards an intimate partner in the home, or outside the home, towards other males. Daly & Wilson (1988) made substantial investigations by listing thirty-five studies of same-sex homicide. These studies were based upon North American, Icelandic, German, Danish, Indian, Brazilian, Zairian, Botswanan and Kenyan studies in which the sample size varied between 10 and over 3,000. In all the studies, same-sex homicide accounted for over 91 percent of the homicides. These studies are also supported by examining the examples from FBI crime statistics and Police records. Harries (1974) demonstrated that in 1971 according to FBI crime statistics, over 90 percent of offences involved males. Similarly, Dobash and Dobash (1977-78) showed in an analysis of more than 3,000 violent offences in Glasgow and Edinburgh, that 51.8 percent of cases involved inter-male violence, and another 39.5 percent involved male violence towards women. Startlingly, the figures in Canada, the UK, Chicago and Detroit (between 1965 and 1986) demonstrate high levels of violence amongst males aged between 24 and 27 years of age (Daly and Wilson 1990: 92-3). Dyck (1980) agrees that it is observably exchanges between males of 18 to 25 years.

Amongst young males, what often begins as a verbal exchange between non-associated individuals often turns into more of an offence to self-esteem and reputation (Archer 1994, p. 121). Dyck (1980) also considered that the impetus for a fight was often due to a perceived insult to a man’s dignity or ‘barroom identity’, which could involve apparently trivial matters, such as ‘hard looks’ exchanged between men or the accidental spilling of a beer. There have been many hypotheses for this phenomenon, many of which are applicable not as separate reasons, but rather in varying concentrations.

Wolfgang (1958) attempted to investigate the motives behind murder, and based his study upon an analysis of the Philedelphia Police Department records on murder cases. Wolfgang summarised the events (as is recorded by Daly and Wilson 1988) as being based upon “…an altercation of relatively trivial origin; insult, curse, jostling, etc.” However, as Archer (1994) notes - similar studies have been made which support the trivial impetus of homicide, yet this conclusion tells us more about the misunderstanding of the investigator than the subjective opinion of the constituents in the fight. This having been said, Latane and Richardson (1992) support the view that aggression stems from exponential impetus, i.e. the words, deeds, presence or even appearance of other persons. Baron and Richardson (2004, p. 3) confirm that aggressive behaviour (amongst humans at least) occurs within the context of social interaction.

This social interaction finds its manifestation in physical assault. Benson and Archer (2002) studied the kind of dynamics involved in this kind of fight first-hand in an important observational study of brawling in the North of England. Their study demonstrated the high frequency of brawls with an aspect of “masculinity” as an impetus. Their research suggests that “masculinity” is indeed a valued resource, akin to the kind of “social-credit” suggested by some scholars in the context of duelling. Raising one’s status and perceived level of “manhood” was important amongst the groups studied, wherein successfully insulting another male’s masculinity from another group effectively raised the perception of the insulter amongst his own group. Monosyllabic diatribe and insults were common such as “fucking poof”, “fucking girl”, “bloody queer” actively attempted to detract from orthodox perspectives of masculinity, and also isolate the victim as a legitimate target (some of those studied remarked; “He was asking for it”). As alcohol consumption increased, inhibitions towards provoking conflict often receded, and impulse to insult others correlatively increased. As Benson and Archer noted “The louder, the busier, the more brightly lit the place, and the younger the clientele, the more sizing up that went on, and the more likely it was to escalate into fights.”

Common characteristics of brawling were outlined by Dyck (1980) who studied masculinity and violence in a Canadian logging town. He suggested that, for those he had observed, fighting or ‘scrapping’ was a form of recreation, complying with the opinions of other scholars who have carried out similar studies (Benson & Archer, 2002). A common phrase used by constituents was “we were having a laugh”, “it was a bit of a laugh”.

Dyck (1980), Tomsen (1997) and Archer & Benson (2002) also sought to observe fighting first-hand. From their observations, fighting most often occurred in “natural environments”, or what Tomsen referred to as “highly violent venues” which consisted of pubs, clubs and other social venues; often where alcohol was consumed. Volavka (1999, 308) explains the correlation between alcohol and violence, explaining that

“Substance use disorders (alcohol and drugs) play a major role in violent and suicidal behavior. In the United States, 34% of the risk of violence self-reported by community residents is attributable to substance abuse. Urine tests were positive for illicit drugs in 37% to 59% of males arrested for violent crimes in U.S.cities. Among Finnish males, 40% of the risk for homicide is attributable to alcoholism.”

The impact of alcohol on contributing to fighting and violence is significant, as Bushman & Cooper explain (1990):

“MacDonald…reviewed 10 studies and found that the proportion of murderers who had been drinking before their crimes ranged from. 19 to .83, with a median of .54. More recent studies have reported similar findings among both adult…and juvenile…assailants. In addition, alcohol intoxication has been linked to other types of aggression, such as assault….wife abuse…and rape.”

Archer & Benson (2002) found that alcohol became an excacerbating factor, and increased the probability of conflict which caused “Situations [to] become simplified” and in turn made “impulsive behaviour more likely”, so much so that one’s “judgement is impaired”. These factors, coupled with “an exaggerated sense of self-importance and abilities, and reduced sensitivity to pain” mean that alcohol serves as a catalyst to making fighting and combat far more risky and volatile. These kinds of “alcohol-induced” combats are a serious concern to public-order authorities such as the Police. This concern has lead to investigations by Christensen (2010) who has focused upon the kind of techniques which could be of practical use against someone resilient to pain, when pain cannot be used to coerce or deter.

Given our considerations here, we may summarise the specific contextual environment of brawling by the following points:

• Fight begins from biologically-driven machismo pre-fight rituals, and therefore there is little inclination to instigate a pre-fight “guard” or “obstruction”.

• Begins within distance and requires methods of standing and stability to remain within range.

• Heavy use of pre-fight chest-pushing, leading often to an initial swing punch. High awareness of range.

• Due to lack of “en-guard”, behaviour in combat is direct to exposed part of the body.

• Little or no pressure to conform to rule-set, but high pressure to adhere to preceptions of masculinity (for “honour”, to “save face”)

Duelling – a civilised serious combat

If brawling is inter-male combat which is triggered by accidental or exacerbating factors, and the subsequent acting on such stimuli in the moment, then where can we account for the kinds of sanctioned single combats which we recall from history? We have touched briefly upon a kind of “social capital” as if such a status role amongst a group is its own resource. So much so, in historical accounts we may read of brawling taking on an institutionalised format.

Amberger (1996, 58-65) recalls that according to Ambrose Bierce’s The Dictionary of the Devil, the duel was a “…formal ceremony preliminary to the reconciliation of two enemies. Great skill is necessary to its satisfactory observance; if awkwardly performed the most unexpected and deplorable consequences sometimes ensue. A long time ago, a man lost his life in a duel.” This was indeed the case of dueling made amongst men for three-hundred years, as a sanctioned means by which the “ritualised armed encounter” was used to “settle matters of honor” (Amberger, 1996, 58). Hobbes supports the view as we suggested earlier that “masculinity” was a matter of RHP, and as such “honour” is an aspect or a component of that “masculinity”. He describes,

“…To value a man at a high rate, is to honour him; at a low rate, is to dishonour him. But high, and low, in this case, is to be understood by comparison to the rate that each man setteth on himself….” (Hobbes, 1651, Ch.10, 17.)

In which case, it is relative to the esteem he places upon himself, being

“…whatsoever possession, action or quality is an argument and sign of power…Nor does it alters the case of honour whether an action, so it be great and difficult and consequently a sign of much power, be just or unjust, for honour consists only in the opinion of power” (Hobbes, 1651, Ch.10, 37; Amberger, 1996, 58).

As Rawls (1993, 3) once stated that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”, we can observe an intrinsic link between Institutions and Justice. As Kingston and Wright (2009, 7) suggest, duels were “…not barroom brawls or spontaneous…fights but rather carefully planned events”. By extension, we may recognise the influence of institutions and the concept of justice by attempting to “civilise” biologically-driven brawling. Brawling, as we have seen, was prone to be underlined by “uncivilized” and “animalistic” pre-fight rituals, a spontaneous onset which increased the effect of SSR as well as the messy flurries of uncoordinated, aggressively charged actions. Such aspects were of course unbecoming to the bourgoise gentlemen to whom such scuffles represented, as Amberger describes, “the inner value of a man…” and the “acknowledgement and noticeable respect of this value through others”. As such, it is therefore clear that such conduct was required to settle matters, but its manifestation required “civilizing”.

For this reason, Duelling was often non-spontaneous, meaning that there is little influence from the debilitating effects of shock. Sanctions, whilst they might be considered to be restrictions, should not be placed within the same group. Sanctions are the result of institutional codification of natural biologically-driven fighting. This distinction between Brawling and Duelling may also have a social impetus, wherein upper-class fraternities attempt to codify fighting and raise it to a level suitable for a “refined” and cultured bourgeois class. This occurrence can also be considered the case in the difference between tussling and recreational competing below.

Duelling is a human construct, essentially a civilised, though ultimately false, contrivance. Its integrity depends, rather loosely, on the acceptance of a regulated rule-set. Social conventions, closely associated with concepts of masculinity, honour etc inform conduct and behaviour in the combat. At the moment a single element of those socially imposed conditions are abandoned, it is generally accepted as permission to equally abandon them by other constituents, so that escalation occurs and the fight reaches a quality akin to “Brawling”.

The social conventions which underpin duelling and its link to anthropic concepts of “justice” have been noted by various scholars. Galas (2010a), evidently drawing from his source in Miller (2008), and agreeing with MacYoung (1989; 1996), uses the term “Fair Fight” when considering the context of the duel. He notes that;

“Whenever push comes to shove, it is human nature to seek an unfair advantage over the enemy, in terms of greater numbers, surprise, or superior weaponry. Thus, the very premise of a competitive bout (two opponents, squared off, beginning out of distance, armed with identical weapons) is a situation that seldom occurs in reality. Far more likely in a "real fight" is exactly the opposite: Multiple opponents; attacking with the element of surprise; beginning the fight from within striking distance; and attacking when the victim is unarmed, before he can draw his weapon, or with vastly superior weaponry.”

It is perhaps true that social conventions attempt to limit the level of aggression and highly “unfair” behaviours. The rule-set is accepted with an advantage in mind; “if I agree not to do these things to you, you will not do them to me” (Hey, 1784, 10). In which case, such a concession can minimise potential risk in case the event takes a turn towards my disadvantage. Such conventions “don’t hit a man if he’s down”, “don’t hit a man whilst his back is turned”, etc are all based upon the concept of ensuring equality of circumstance. They are devised so that the combat is decided based upon skill in action and reaction rather than particular outside influences upon the fight (such as slipping, over extension of technique etc). Given this type of suppression of certain behaviours, it is difficult to conceive of an action which might be considered “fair”, since fighting is by its nature defined by relative disadvantage.

Perhaps before we can categorise ‘Duelling’ as a category of combat, we must first consider some specific examples and we are lucky that sanctioned brawling in accordance to social conventions has an ancient history. The Gladiators of the Roman Empire are perhaps the most recognisable example of this kind of duelling. However, the Gladiator evidences a curious concern for us; the use of dueling for other resource values such as fame, money or freedom. Lattuada (2003, 107) observes how the combats between famed gladiators were a “duel between stars, and their way of fighting was, in itself, an exercise in style and taste…”, appealing universally to the spectators of the combat, expressed “not so much in the physical conflict for the defence of one’s honour” but for entertainment. The implementation of sanctions upon the Gladiator were stringent (Kyle 2007, 282) and required the swearing of an oath (sacramentum) that they will be “burned by fire, bound in chains, to be beaten, to die by the sword” as slaves. Such an oath allowed the Roman state to deny liability for the slaves’ well-being. The offer to the slave was simple; “duel for our entertainment, duel well for your freedom”. Success in Gladiatorial bouts not only allowed slaves to be granted a pardon, but forced them to become professional in fighting. This kind of dueling for reasons other than honour remained an undercurrent for the later phenomenon of Prizefighting²².

Although honour was a major contributor to the inclination to fight, it also served as a means for settling legal disputes. Various reasons for these social sanctions may be derived from cultural influences, via philosophical and theological reasoning (i.e. the beginnings of the judicial duel in 501AD by Gundebald, King of the Burgundians as a “judgement of God” from the Gundebati law-codes, (or Trial by Ordeal; Baldick 12, Morris, Baist 1890, 436-39 et al), or as the result of shifts amongst integrating cultural groups (Holzhauer 1986, 277). Others (such as Kiernan, 1989, 33) consider that earlier Judicial Duels are perpetuated and revised by later generations in order to interpret and accept the place of fighting within society. To an extent, we might be able to agree with the latter consideration, wherein we can see that even in our modern age that fighting has not been abandoned, but merely contrived into different competitive (and attenuated) forms.

The question of the role of Judicial duelling in the context of understanding fighting is an interesting one, if not at its height a complex one. Studies of the kind of combats found in High Middle German works has been carried out by Bode (1909), yet as Kellet (2008, 11) points out, the majority of discussions on the topic describe it strictly in terms of a narrative device (by means of allowing the audience to judge a constituent's virtues, valour and prowess), on one form of combat from a single time-period, or from a particular country. Kellet means the kind of discussions surrounding what Baldick (1970) calls "Judicial Duels" and "Duels of Chivalry" (variously referred to as Duellum, Bataille or Zweikampf in period sources, Kellet, 11) as they occurred in the middle ages, and does not consider the later "Duels of Honour" (Baldick, 1970)

An early form of judicial duel was widely used by early European peoples. One such example was the Scandinavian practice of “holmgang”. A structured consideration of the Holmganga was outlined by Davidson (1962, 206), wherein he specifies the social sanctions:

• The combatants agree to fight before magistrates

• The combatants retire to an island (Old Icelandic, “Holm”) to prevent interference (in accordance with the ancient laws of judicial duelling)

• Cloaks are laid out on the ground to cover a specified area and stretched by hazel-rods driven into the ground.

• The combatants fight on foot

• The combatants fight with swords

• The combatants are allowed a set number of shields each

• The combat continued until one or other of the combatants is wounded

• The combatant whose blood first touches the cloaks is adjudged the loser

Although early combats involved plaintiffs having to fight for their own representation in the Juridicial Duel, it is later recorded that a "champion" might be appointed to represent one's interests in the combat. The German legal source Sachenspiegel and the Deutchenspeigel both record that a "judicial champion" (kempfe) might be appointed, yet then was recognised as little more than a rehtelos (“bastard”, Hils 1985, 329; Schaer 1901, 98-100) until later in the High Middle Ages when he was legally recognised. 

Bongert (1949) summarised the religious sanctions and conventions evident in the combats of France;

• Accused must swear his innocence, and both combatants would swear before God and the Saints that their cause was a just one,

• they would be assigned a date and time for the combat by the magistrate, then both would receive Communion and would sometimes give offerings to the Church, the land was cordoned off in the ancient manner (to prohibit intervention)

• The fight would continue until one combatant declared defeat or could no longer continue. 

Though these were the conventions of courtly combats, there remained a subculture of “commoner” judicial combats, wherein settlements of property disputes, robbery, murder, adultery and treason were all dealt with in the manner of what the Zwickauer Rechtsbuch (1348) referred to as fustis et scutis (with club and shield, what Talhoffer calls the "frankish tradition" (Rector, 2000, plate 104; Faulkner, 1495, 65v) - but later acquired the ‘right’ to fight with swords. 

By the time of the “Duels of Honour” - due to the distinction supplied by the social institution of duelling - it was common for men to “assume honour” on the basis of involvement in duelling, rather than actually having an honourable demeanor. It was often a device by which men could acquire honour. This distasteful occurrence caused Duelling to be viewed without high distinction amongst fighting men. In the Boxiana (1829, 11), although the discussion concerned particularly the practice of duelling using pistols, if the work reflects the boxing fraternity’s opinion of the practice of Duelling, it was certainly not positive. Duelling is referred to as a “genteel system” – an “honourable and proper…mode of settling differences…” considered as such “by the CORINTHIAN PILLARS OF THE STATE” as being a process used “…when the laws are not applied to for redress”. The author mentions that although “…cowardice must be despised…”, he urges “…that no man ought to put up with a gross insult or unprovoked injury pusillanimously. The laws of honour, doubtless, are of so fine and delicate a texture…” that there are “ridiculous appeals…in too many instances, to those sacred laws, forcibly bring to recollection ‘a custom more honoured in the breach than in the observance’”. Evidently, although duelling was considered a sanctioned manner of defending ones’ manhood, it certainly became an institution which sanctioned those of less than honourable character, yet recognised them as such simply because of success in duelling. The author finally remarks of the tragedy of the affairs, that many of them are “so ridiculous in their onsets, yet so remarkably serious in their terminations, as to preclude any further comment.” This having been said, he continues:

“….The fastidious, we have little doubt, will smile at the phrase – REFLECTION; but how much misery and wretchedness might have been spared by that reflection, of the dreadful consequences likely to arise from DUELLING – in making their wives premature and unprovided widows; their children fatherless and distressed; and themselves snatched away in a moment “with all their imperfections on their heads,” and reconciliation put out of the question. If it were possible to take a peep into the penetralia of those persons who go out to decide quarrels after this genteel mode, we rather apprehend, that, in deciding with truth, something like fear might be perceived at the bottom, if all-powerful honour did not prevent its having a resting place”

The examples of combats instigated to defend one’s honour we can find in accordance with Brookman’s earlier suggestion that fighting is based upon masculinity-based impetus. The function of “controlling the behaviour of others”, “Protecting and Asserting Masculine Status and Power” can all be traced in historical examples of Duels of Chivalry. Evidently our historical examples of the masculinity at the heart of Chivalric and Judicial combats are also at the heart of modern combats where we use the terms as “respect” rather than “honour”, “disrespecting” rather than “dishonouring”, yet the principle behind them is the same. They are most often planned events involving the following:

• A specified and agreed time

• A specified and agreed place

• A specified and agreed rule-set (suppression list)

• A specified and agreed form of augmentation (weapons)

• No intervention allowed

Because of these conditions, the format of the fight often has the following qualities:

• Fight begins from the “en-guard” model, and often omits biologically-driven pre-fight rituals.

• Begins out of distance and requires methods of approach.

• Due to “en-guard”, behaviour in combat is “seiged” meaning that entrance to combat is more difficult, so there can be observed a significant increase in the need for deceptive behaviours.

• Because of the attempts by both parties to exert decisive force, the combat usually involves “circling” (due to mutual attempts to enter into the opponent’s “outer angles”)

• Pressure to conform to rule-set (or face being socially ostracised), as well as preceptions of masculinity (for “honour”, to “save face”)

• Inability to use advantageous devices such as pre-emptive surprise or concealed weapons.

Most often, because of these inherent differences observable between Brawling and Duelling, we may also suggest that the Combat System designed to cope with either or both must comply with the specific characteristics and pressures of that event.

Scalability

As part of our recognition of “Upscale” and “Downscale” of combat, we must account for the increased complexity due to the components of combat outlined earlier in this chapter. There is only one type of fight, and that we call ‘Fighting’; but the social and contextual elements define three aspects which we have defined as Competitive, Predative, Recreational.

Increasing the number of opponents increases the risk by a factor proportionate to the number of opponents. Likewise, the inverse relativity between combatants naturally also contributes to the risk, increasing the effect of SSR, and potentially decreasing the ability to respond appropriately.

We must take into account “upscaling” and “downscaling” of combats in order to further consider the complexities of combat when extra factors, and variations of those factors can further add to the problems of combat.

What this typology effectively attempts to achieve is to define the basis upon which Combat Systems have been designed. By understanding those types of combat, we can see directly how solutions to those problems have developed, and in turn attempt to elaborate on the categorizations of Combat Systems as a result.

The Serious Combat Models

The Play Combat Models

The improvement of one’s chances in combat

As modern people continually ignore the biological necessity for life-saving Combat Systems, they also tend to ignore that all Combat Systems exist because of the very need to improve one’s chances of survival by pre-planning and designing systems.

Homicide accounts for around 20,000 deaths every year in the US, with 4.2 violent crimes (assaults, robberies, and rapes) occurring annually for each set of 100 persons older than 12 years. In the UK, the Home Office²⁴ recorded a total of 696,400 recorded incidents of Violence Against the Person, between January to September in 2008. 324,700 of those incidents were recorded as involving injury²⁵. According to the same statistics, in interviews conducted from 2006-2007, amongst 47, 789 interviewees 16% were shown to be significantly worried about the threat of violence. In a similar statistic from 2007-2008, amongst 28,011 interviewees, 14% were shown to be worried about violent crime. Between 2006–2007, there were 3,989 cases of “personal crime”, involving muggings and interpersonal violence.

Despite legislative attempts to control the number of knife-enabled crimes (KEC) in the UK²⁶, there was proven to be a 60% increase in the number of knife crimes between 1999 and 2004. Between April to September 2008, there were 20,160 recorded cases of crimes involving knives. As the Home Office’s web page on knife crime best practice guidelines stated: ‘Knife-enabled crime continues to cause serious harm to victims and creates fear in our communities’.

These modern statistics merely evidence a continuing existence of violence within society, even in the presence of institutions such as the police and government which attempt to limit and control it. Inevitably, such institutions are like water on flames, they may be able to manage its existence on a social level, but they fail to mitigate the causes for its ignition at a psychological level. Historically, societies (particularly feudal Arm-bearing societies) have always had issues with these kinds of crimes, and we can imagine that these levels were equal if not higher than our modern statistics.

Individuals, faced with the risk which is witnessed in society, as well as personal experiences of these risks he may have had has been inspired to invent some kind of system to increase his chances in such an event. The introduction of devised methods of overcoming another organism therefore is logical. To paraphrase MacYoung, weapons were invented to tip the balance of odds in one’s favour, having better weapons than your opponent further adds to your advantage, as well as the System allowing one to do this quickly and more effectively. As such then, technological advantage by means of arms allows us to secure greater safety, decrease the risk involved and facilitate the removal of an opposing organism. To seek advantage, in numbers, in territory and in arms is therefore inevitable, and leads to perhaps an unending escalation, or what biologists have termed the “Evolutionary Arms Race” (Dawkins).

This escalation is a source of perpetual risk, and hence attempts to identify patterns of action, strategies which successfully and efficiently lead to a desirable outcome become packaged into a “Combat System”. Being able to quantify this risk is important to recognising the value of actions. Understanding these values is what allows us to structure our solution to the problems presented by combat.

There are multiple calculations that can be performed to quantify risk.  A simple calculation is;

Risk = pR x C²⁷

I am not concerned with outlining the many variables (i.e. the psychological aspects of judgement, decision making and motor-reaction time; or the effect of SSR, the stimuli resulting from multiple opponents, etc) but rather would like to take forward the consideration of the risk involved in combat and how a Combat System is, by its nature a means of minimizing the risk involved whilst it fulfils its biological functions (i.e. acquisition of resources etc). Probability is worked out by using a simple (yet arbitrary) measure.

The potential costs involved are similarly mapped in order that we can fulfil the requirement for our equation:

1. Permanent incapacitation (“death”)

2. Permanent physiological trauma (“maiming”)²⁸

3. Temporary Incapacitation (“knock-out”)

4. Temporary anatomical trauma (“bruising, sprains” etc)

5. Anatomical trauma (“pain”/“hurt”)

Using this equation we must first identify the entire range of potentials so that we may quantify the probability of its occurrence.

Figure 3 – Risk calculation. As we can see, the greater the cost and the more frequent the exposure to that cost, the higher the risk.

It is perhaps this measure which defines the requirement for the actions seen in recreational, play or agonistic combats and their difference from those required in serious, high-intensity or antagonistic combats. If an opponent attempts to strike our leg with his fist, we might consider this a low asset value with a low exposure factor. However, if the opponent has a sword, and his intention is to penetrate it through the eye-socket, then both the asset value and exposure factor are very high. Moreover, if the opponent is armed, then every action he makes against us in offence has a high cost, much higher in comparison to an unarmed assault. For example, in an armed encounter, the probability of the risk is 1.0, and the cost of the eventuality is very high. This means that the risk is “extremely high”, and additional factors involved in such high risk encounters also have their effect. In play combats, such as tussling with a sibling, we might consider being hurt to be the height of the potential risk of the encounter, wherein whether it is “frequent” or “unlikely”, the overall risk is very low, and the biochemical effect of SSR will also be low. Needless to say, by using the risk calculation, we may consider the actual risk involved in the definition of a fight. If the fight is recreational, then the probability of risk will be low, and the cost of eventuality will be lower than expected in a brawl, or armed duel. Using this model, we may work out that the potential risk is related to our ability to negate that risk, or reduce it by our own devised actions.

The Battlefield Paradigm (which I shall discuss at length later) has the highest level of risk; not only is the probability very high, the cost is very high, both the single and cumulative loss expectancy are also high. In a single combat, that risk is singular, but on the battlefield, surrounded by armed opponents, the exposure factor is multiplied by the number of opponents, and divided by the rate of deprecation of skill due to energy loss. In other words, the risk increases as energy and endurance is reduced. This is perhaps the reason for armour on the battlefield; not (as Castle suggested) because the armour was defence and the weapon was for offence, but rather the risk was higher due to the number of stimuli required to cope with, certainly not because the Combat System was ineffective. In fact, the use of armour may have been used to protect against arrow fire, against gratuitous attacks from the rear etc. variables which simply cannot all be coped with simultaneously. Moreover, risk also increases the longer the battle continues. In which case, your ability to apply the pre-designed skills of the Combat System are relative both to the difference in skill between you and your opponent, but also the level of endurance and the level it is at in the entrance to the combat (i.e. if you have been fighting for an hour, and your opponent has just entered the battlefield, then your risk is higher because you will be more tired and therefore less likely to continue to respond accurately).

Needless to say, the more frequent the attacks made upon us, the higher the risk. For this reason, in an armed assault many Combat Systems maintain a pre-emptive or prohibitive strategy to serious combats. We shall see later when we approach the composition of Combat Systems that this is a common trait amongst those systems developed for serious combats. Most importantly for our discussion, advantage in behaviours is also inevitable, and a System of behaviour which serves to allow an advantage, to protect oneself or impose oneself upon an opponent, which suffices to supply a framework for the behavioural interaction means that the application of those advantages will be much more efficient. This effectively reduces the risk, whilst increasing the ease in which one may dominate those around him to secure his own preservation.

We may recognise then that the master of martial arts, ironically, never actually fights. He is able to stop an attacker with little visible effort because he recognises the cues, spots the weaknesses and understands his own kinesthesia to be capable of stopping his adversary. A Master of Defence (to use the ancient phrase) was a master of survival – specifically surviving the proposed imposition of force – not necessarily a master of fighting. Yet he has mastered the event by knowing how to effectively stop it at its impetus²⁹. Fighting is then revealed to be an event which occurs when there is no advantage on either side – it turns into an event which the Latin term eskirmire represents - “a skirmish” (what Applegate and Dempsey refer to as “rough and tumble fighting”). A fight results, and the success of one of the fighters lies in the incidental (and perhaps even accidental) decisive action. Being received into such a skirmishing event implies risk and injury, the longer the skirmish continues, the greater the incremented risk and number of injuries. Control, Prohibitive Action and Due Diligence are revealed to be the hallmark of effective combat skills. Masters do not rush into combat because they are aware of the risks and of the “fog of war” (von Clausewitz).

Many times in films and in CCTV footage a room of people are shocked when with a single punch a defender floors his aggressor. When a fight occurs, we expect a skirmish with wild and instinctive blows. This aforementioned ability to stop the fight with few movements, and perhaps little visible exertion is the defining aspect of a master of combat. His ability to avoid the scramble of blows, the skirmish of desperate actions as part of the critical response mechanism is what makes him stand out amongst other fighters. This ability, the result of being cognitively aware of the parameters and rules at work in fighting, is the certain advantage devised Combat Systems may grant to any exponent.

A Combat System is therefore designed for the purpose of both imposing and protecting. It is perhaps essential that in order to pursue an attempt at studying this topic, we should first outline exactly what components are present in a fight, no matter where we are or in what time-frame in which we happen to be alive in. The impetus for the creation of the Martial Arts was because of the risks involved in fighting. And nothing more. Yet in our modern age, where Martial Arts are used for health and spiritual benefits - with a focus put firmly upon the concept of “Dō” (“Way”, “Path” or “Course”) - it is sometimes forgotten that Martial Arts originate from the same biological necessity that originated very far back in human evolution, and is still exhibited amongst animals. It is because of fighting that the Martial Arts were created. Needless to say, although the natural world exhibits fighting, no other animal than homo sapiens has Martial Arts. Mankind is able to take something very primal and use experience and knowledge to adapt and learn in order to change the way he copes with a situation. In his history of the Science of Defence, Gordon (1805) explains the logic for the development of Combat Systems:

“SELF-DEFENCE is the first law of Nature implanted in all animals; hence men have been impelled to associate, and to frame laws securing the blessings of society. Although men are admirably supplied with passions to excite them to action, with reason to direct their efforts, and with hands to execute; yet they are not furnished with innate ideas, or science, which points out the best mode of using and applying their strength and their hands to any work. If the arts of writing, painting, and the mechanical arts, require skill and dexterity, which result only from time and instruction, the science of Defence, which consists in a just perception of our powers, and in the proper application of our natural strength against the weakest point of the adversary, cannot be the result of inspiration. Our knowledge of this, or any science, is in proportion to our ideas of the principles”

The Boxiana (1829, 11) a Victorian Boxing periodical records a similar, if not pessimistic, logic for the development of Combat Systems;

“Man, from the imperfections of his nature, is liable to quarrel, and to give or receive insults in his journey through life – how necessary, then, does it appear that he should be able to defend himself”

And finally, the Universal History, from the Earliest Account of Time (1747) states a similar logic in regarding the ancient Kingdom of Arcadia and its Resource Holding Power:

“To all these we may add, that these advantages, which exposed them to frequent invasions from abroad, put them likewise upon the necessity of cultivating the Martial Arts, first in their own defence, and afterwards for interest and gain, whence they became such; brave soldiers, and expert warriors…” (ibid, 204)

Though by recognising the existential pressures placed upon groups of organisms to survive, we shall not agree with the above mentioned implication that “the necessity of cultivating the Martial Arts…” was “…first in their own defence, and afterwards for interest and gain” since survival makes these equal necessities, defence of one’s resources and expansion of interests are two driving forces for the development of Combat Systems, not just Defence (as some modern scholars – Bolleli, 2008; Rosenbaum, 2003 – have speculated). Those who have, seek to defend it; those who have not, seek to acquire it; and their means of acquisition is by means of Force.

Examples of this truism (that Martial Arts are developed to impose and to protect), can be found everywhere in Martial Arts literature. Driscoll (p.26) has in mind “…the old sense that the strongest form of defence is a vigorous attack, carried out mainly and almost entirely with a view to the minimising of the risk…” and as such “acts of self-defence” may not only be described as protection, but also as imposing. The English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), also considered the logic behind this, reasoning that “I should have the right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction”.

And across much martial literature, this joint function of imposing and protecting permeates; Hieronimo de Caranca, Spanish Maestro del Destreza wrote in 1569 that a Combat System “…is a knowledge and a habit that teaches to deliver the wound, and to defend the opponent's”, and likewise, English Master George Hale (1614) defined Combat Systems as “Art Geometrical, wherewith the body is guarded…from the wrong of the Offender, or the greatest disadvantage of his Offence.” To include a third and final example out of the hundreds which may be found, Rothstein (1851) in defining WehrGymnastik (Martial Arts) asserts “the fact that they are ‘the exertion of physical force by means of the human body as well as in defence, or assertion of self-preservation against an imposed exertion of force’”

For this reason, in order for us to understand anything about the martial arts, it is essential to understand the problems with which the Martial Art was designed to apply, to overcome an opponent and minimize the risk in doing so.

The Incremental Combat Model (ICM)

With the benefit of our decriptions of the kinds of fights which exist, we may now begin to model what characterises certain combats, and further consider what solutions each combat demands of a martial art. Combat is defined by Risk; a high risk requires different responses than a low risk. The most logical response to risk is to seek Control. Control is the defining aspect of all behaviour in combat. This point cannot be stressed enough. In a bid to have control (and therefore security and safety) combatants will increment the combat both in intensity and in proximity. As one constituent perceives the risk increasing, so he acts with greater determination to gain control. As the opponent perceives his opponent attempting to gain control, he recognises the increased risk and therefore also determines to gain greater control. Hence we see a reciprocally-induced spiral in which attempts to control increases the risk which correlatively increases the need to gain control – and the intensity increases as a result.

All combats begin from a particular proximity, and in a bid to maintain control, the combat progresses incrementally through one to the next. One renaissance fencer termed these proximities the “instances”. When entering into combat, we are often in range to punch or kick. This is the first instance in which we can bring the combat to a close. However, this is not always possible, and so the combat increments closer to grappling, to tripping, and often to groundfighting. Each of these increments is the side effect of attempts at maintaining control – because of the increasing risk due to the perpetuation of the fight.

We have already seen that different kinds of fights have different contextual constraints. In brawling, combat often begins from within one’s personal space, often at conversation range (Thompson, 1998)³⁰. Duels, on the other hand, are pre-planned and therefore combatants have enough time to assume pre-combative guards (i.e. an “en-guard” or “obstruction” model). Such an occurance has been witnessed by Armstrong, which he names the “Approach-Close-Enter” behaviour-set. Armstrong quite rightly makes note that many Recreational Combat Systems adhere to particular proximities, and may be defined as recreational because of this fact.

Due to the amount of risk involved in fighting, constituents often begin combat by standing out of range, and instinctively use distance as a means of inhibiting an opponent’s approach. It seems that the value of a high impulse action for abrogation is instinctive too, with the majority of combats which begin from conversation range beginning with a swing (Archer & Benson, 2002).

The quickest and easiest way to inhibit a blow is to get inside it, but often swings in combat are frenzied, causing a fast flurry of volatile and unpredictable blows to be launched within a short period of time³¹.

The response of course is to instinctively try to grab or gain control over the opponent’s arms, to inhibit his action and to prohibit his further volatile blows. The logic of this is self-evident; when presented with unpredictability, it is essential that we seek control. This is often recognised in a proximity wherein we get into a range so that our arms may contact our opponent’s. In a competitive combat wherein both combatants fight with a unilateral strategy, solutions for entrance and opportunity are less effective. Whereas with a unilateral entrance, the opponent forms the axis for our approach, and in bilateral, we remain the axis for revolving and deflecting the opponent’s approach; in aggressive combats, the opponents circle one another, causing a kind of motion akin to a central shared axis. This is to prohibit the opponent’s attempt at getting into a position outside our range of defence.

If the opponent’s blows are so volatile that contact does not inhibit them, then we must grab hold of the opponent’s arms for greater control. When grasping someone’s arms we may then strike, yet some Combat Systems make a decision not to strike due to either morality or skillset-suppression. In this condition, attempting to control his arms, we come into direct competition, and unless we act with his motion, or else depreciate his strength with striking, then we are liable to get into a competition of strength. In which case, the stronger will always win.

If we meet resistance, then the most logical progression is to escalate to closer contact, resulting in a “throwing competition”. The ability to unbalance the opponent is then the “aim of the game”. Depending upon the type of combat, the transaction of a downed opponent is different. In a brawling combat, the standing fighter will seek to remain standing and launch debilitating kicks at the temples of the prostrate opponent. In play combats, it is common for both the combatants to end up on the ground. In the latter case, there is a final stage, wherein both combatants interact whilst on the knees or prostrate.

As we can see, the progression is not only natural but also logical. For each phase, we can find Combat Systems which have devised solutions to all or specific elements of the fight. Based upon this model, we will be able to assess the behaviours of a Combat System and to appraise which of these incremental phases such a system has been devised to cope with.

Based upon the Incremental model, we can see that fighters naturally progress through three distances in a logical bid to gain control and minimise risk. This procedure is entirely natural and often happens without conscious thought. Kernspecht (1985, 200-202) outlines five “phases” in which fighting begins with the farthest range (“fighting with the feet”) and moves through inevitably to “groundfighting”. Despite identifying these phases, Kernspecht supplies no logical basis as to why combats generally demonstrate this proxemical increment. Indeed, due to the logic of the process, it may well not require explanation. We have described how being out of range requires a solution to the problem of “actions from distance”, how being within range requires a solution to the problem of “actions at close distance” and how being in gross-bodily contact requires wrestling solutions. Upon this basis, we can see how each proxemic requires its own subset of behaviours.

Such a deduction about the proxemics of combat is supported by various scholars. Reality-Based Self-Defence practitioners tend to believe there to be three proxemics (MacYoung, 1989, 13-17; Sacripanti), and so too do historical experts (Silver, 1598; Swetnam, 1617; Meyer, 1567; Marozzo, 1536; et al). Such a proxemical identification became the basis of many Combat Systems around the world. Regardless of origin, Combat Systems can all be reduced to these simple skillsets extrapolated from the ICM.

Essentially, although Combat Systems might select different variations and combinations of Laterality (i.e. they are independent of strategic behaviours), they can only be one or a combination of the three proxemics. These in turn become the spatial basis for their entire skill-set.

“Hit and Away” Skillset

Some Combat Systems have isolated the preliminary increment of combat and devised its systems upon that basis. Combat Systems which prefer the “Out of Range” environment, the result of the “problem of actions from distance”, use sets of algorithms which may be united under the terms “Hit & Away” or “Ballistic” skill-sets. Bruce Lee considered this the pre-eminent method of fighting, taking his lead from his studies of both Fencing and [Western] Boxing. An article by Tackett outlined that he realised the wisdom of these fighting methods, and adapted his Wing Chun techniques to suit this [ballistic] method of fighting.

As I have mentioned, Ballistic fighting methods find their preferred distance in the Out of Range proxemic. This means that they must necessarily include methods of getting into and out of range. Because of this, Ballistic systems typically specialise in entering and exiting techniques – the science of being out of reach of attack, but entering to create a favourable or eskirmological technique. Because of this, Martial Arts which make use of this strategy often specialise in stepping and for that reason are often characterised by high stances to facilitate mobility. This not only means high-stances but also means that (in terms of biomechanics) the hips are “open” allowing the fighter to wilfully “displace” his equilibrium and facilitate locomotion.

This strategy, by its definition, must always rely upon Percussive action, since Non-percussive action requires being in a closer proxemic. Being an art of “Hit and Away” it is a system devised to allow its users to enter, to hit and exit with a high degree of skill before retaliation. As we shall see later, Combat Systems designed for serious combats often involve a “single iteration” method, whereas systems designed for recreation (such as boxing and fencing) maintain multiple iterations.

The behaviour-traits of Ballistic Combat Systems are most often extended placing the equilibrium outside of the body in convergence – meaning that the body-weight is transferred into the action, and energy is transferred into the opponent. The best example of this kind of prolongation convergence is of course the classic fencing lunge. It is no surprise therefore that Lee, having decided that fighting should be about “Hit and Away” integrated the fencing lunge into his unarmed armoury. However, because movement must be extended to reach the opponent – ideally with only the Affector being in range of the opponent – we can also find significant use of the legs applied in Ballistic fighting; certainly (and logically) more than any other proxemic.

As a result of the freedom supplied by being out of range, these Combat Systems may also be tentatively characterised by Hyper kinesiology, allowing them a large variety in their movement. They have tensing of muscles at one moment, then stretching and lengthening at the next instant. Likewise, we can find compact postures in which the body is tight and small, then large and extended, then tight and small again. This expansion and contraction is common in Ballistic systems. There are many examples of this type of Combat System, most commonly appearing in Chinese Combat Systems. Chinese Ballistic Combat Systems may be identified in Cha Quan (Cha Family Boxing), Fanzi Quan (Acrobat Boxing), Tong Bei quan (Long Arm Boxing), Bei Quan (Northern Boxing), and known collectively as Chang Chuan (Extended or Long Boxing) (Wu Bin, 1992, 38-39; Li & Du, 1998, 16, 26-28, 149-152). In which case, the Chinese term “Chang Chuan” is a local synonym for our own term “Ballistic Combat System (BCS)”.

A summary of characteristics for Ballistic Combat Systems might be:

• Prolixity; Extended movements (commited, outside vector of equilibrium)

• Percussive mode of action (attacks on anatomical targets)

  • Use of both hands and feet

• Emphasis upon mobility and agility

  • including gymnastic skills

• Emphasis on avoidance and non-involvement

  • Attempt to terminate combat in initial entrance;

    • If entrance unsuccessful, exit out of range.

    • If entrance successful, iterate percussion, or immobilise.

• Profile combative posture

  • Present less of a target

  • Maximise torsion by levering rear side of body.

• Unilateral (orbiting)

“Stand and Cope” Skillset

Some Combat Systems decide that, because coming into range is a requirement of Ballistic systems – and this “coming into range” implies risk of being attacked - it would be logically better to devise a set of responses designed to help a fighter remain in distance and cope with potentially volatile Affectors. In which case, “Stand and Cope” systems are different from Ballistic systems in that they do not focus too much upon mobility and agility, but rather stability and remaining firm when exposed to exponential pressures. When standing in such close proximity to an opponent, the potential for being displaced from one’s position is high. Therefore, Tactile systems have devised methods of stability and place emphasis upon;

1. No movements which extend outside of one’s stable equilibrium

2. Kinesiology which reflects structural concerns: Adductive, or inwardly positioned limbs

3. Contact with the opponent’s arms (the mechanics of tactility)

   1. Use of proprioception.

   2. Immobilisations.

Stability can only be maintained when the body is supported by strong legs. In order to ensure that this support is stable, many Combat Systems turn the feet inward, so as to form a triangle between the legs and knees – and also causes the three points of balance (the centre of gravity, and the two feet) to form a triangle as well. In accordance with Confucian concepts of “The Middle Road”, no actions are made in any extreme, meaning that the body is always held high – hence no lunging actions as per Ballistic-based Combat Systems. For this reason, in order to remain in balance, Tactile systems avoid placing their balance in any jeopardy which might result in tripping, falling or losing contact with the Affectors. For this reason, they typically make actions in which the upper body remains above the supporting legs – much in contrast to the Ballistic systems.

As we have mentioned previously, being in range means that Tactile systems typically are designed to manage the Affectors of the opponent – consisting both of parrying and controlling (Wing Chun) or Specific Biomechanical Manipulation (Chin Na). This means there are two forms of Tactile system – those which use Percussive Actions and those which make use of Non-percussive Actions.

Percussive Actions make use also of both hands and feet, but in a way compliant with maintaining equilibrium. This means that there are no extended movements in actions with the hands, as well as no high kicks. Kicking in Tactile systems is usually at shin height, or up to the waist. This means that equilibrium is maintained, whilst striking the opponent effectively. Tactile systems such as Sikaran, Devonshire Outplay (or ‘Purring’/shin-kicking) and Wing Chun’s kicking techniques all make use of these kinds of kicking techniques due to the proxemic in which they specialise.

Summary of characteristics for Tactile systems;

• Propinquity;

  • Often internally rotated position

  • Requirement to maximise muscular tension and

  • Ensure stability.

• Percussive and Non-percussive (SBM) mode of action

  • Emphasis usually on Hands

  • Leg techniques always preserve balance as far as possible (i.e. low kicks)

• Anterior combative posture

  • Ensure both hands may act and react equally.

“Close and Displace” Skillset

The majority of serious combats do not often begin from the “close and displace” proxemic. In fact, they usually increment into this proximity quite naturally. Even so, some combatants skilled in wrestling will be keen to enter in a range which “feels” most comfortable and “natural” to them.

Standing in gross-bodily contact means that we can use the shoulders, hips and thighs as fulcrums upon which to manipulate force. This means that there is emphasis upon throwing and displacing the body-weight of the opponent. The dynamics, it would be fair to say, depend upon displacing equilibrium outside it’s vector of balance. This means that Close-bodily-contact proxemics require a “displacement” set of behaviours. Often the hips, shins, feet and shoulders are used as a fulcrum over which to displace the opponent’s body-weight whilst restricting the lower body’s ability to re-stabilise itself.

Moreover, the kind of displacements seen in this proxemic are based upon full-body fulcrums, including influencing and applying force to the lower limbs in a bid to “throw” or “takedown”. Using the knee, lower leg, hip, thigh, shoulder or waist as a fulcrum uses essentially the same behaviours and machinations of Force.

Summary of characteristics for Gross-Bodily systems

• Corps-a-corps (body-to-body)

• Non-percussive (GBM) mode of action

  • Always use of methods to displace equilibrium

    • Lifting

    • Tripping

• Using parts of own body segments as fulcrum for lever displacement

• Stability and solidity

• Sometimes use of clothing to facilitate holding and gripping

The Incremental Combat Model with its identification of the proxemic based skill-sets, coupled with the Eskirmological Stratification Model (see A typology of Combat Systems later) supplies a powerful basis upon which we may understand all martial arts which exist.

Figure 4 – This venn diagram depicts the type of skillsets required of each proxemic and how they relate to eachother.

The improvement of one's chances in combat

II. The invention of martial arts

THE CREATION OF

COMBAT SYSTEMS

Part One:

The Logic of Combat Systems

Part One: The Logic of Combat Systems

The predisposition to ritualise behaviour

Humans are animals³², that fact is inescapable. We are separated from other animals of the Animal Kingdom by one thing; our intellect, a fact which is the origin of our self-prescribed designation homo sapiens, “the wise man”. Such a difference is something which deludes us into thinking that we are “better” than other animals. Intelligence equals importance in the mind of the human.³³

Having such an advantage means that the human being is often perturbed and affected by his own thoughts. He is so absorbed by his own thoughts that he fails to see the world as it really is. In the greatest tragic paradox, his intellect is the vital catalyst through which he may comprehend the world, yet ironically it is also this which stands in the way of witnessing the world as it really is - by colouring it with his own subjective perspective.

This concept is fundamental to this chapter, since we shall discuss how the human species has developed Martial Arts systems based upon Combat Logic, but in developing them, mankind has become more absorbed in what he “imagines” fighting should be than what it really is. This is the problem of human subjectivity when attempting to understand the existence of fighting. Experience of fighting results in the identification of behaviours which are conducive to success, or facilitate a desired outcome. Retention and repetition of those behaviours become sanctioned “behaviour-sets” and the accumulation of various sets become the raw data for a Combat System. When they are given a theoretical basis for the structure of those behaviours, and rules for their initiation in Combat, we may say that they make up a “Combat System”.

This kind of retention is entirely natural and observable to an extent amongst animals. All living creatures have a predisposition to recognise patterns and the effect of their influence in the world around them. Without this ability to recognise patterns, living creatures would be much less able to adapt to their environment. This is how living creatures survive and what causes life to become much more resilient to external influences and pressures. Animals adapt, not only physically³⁴ but more importantly, psychologically – of which behaviour is an observable manifestation.

Ethologists and psychologists recognise a natural predisposition for this patterned repetition of behaviour, and how it serves an evolutionary function. They refer to this process as “Ritualisation”. Animals ritualise certain behaviour because of the “proven” positive effect it has on their environment. For example, if a squirrel were to notice that the action of pulling a catch on the bird feeder releases seeds, then he will adapt his understanding, retain his proven successful behaviour from this experience and exploit it to his advantage in the future.

A professor named Skinner designed an experiment to prove this predisposition using a number of pigeons (Skinner, 1947). The experiment involved pigeons being placed in boxes, with a morsel of food dropped at random. The birds, with their predisposition to recognise pattern in its actions, sought the action which resulted in the food dropping. Just like the squirrel above, in which case the behaviour definitely resulted in getting the food, the pigeon uses the behaviour but does not realise that he has no influence over the food dropping. Nevertheless, following the dropping of the food, the bird assumes that the movements it made at the time were the direct influence upon the food being dropped. The bird continuously carries out the same ritualised action, thinking that it makes the food drop. It has no idea which of the movements makes the food drop, so it performs the entire routine “just in case”. Skinner tells us;

“One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return… A few accidental connections between a ritual and favourable consequences suffice to set up and maintain the behaviour in spite of many unreinforced instances.”

Each and every time the ritual was carried out and instances in which the food dropped counted as a “reinforcement” to the bird that the ritual worked. If the ritual does not work on some occasions, the bird continuously repeats the ritual until the required end and another “reinforcement” that the ritual worked. However, an issue arises from this phenomenon, and one which animals cannot be aware of. It is only man who is capable of recognising flaws in this ability to adapt. That is, of course, the subjective organism believing erroneously that his actions have an effect on the environment when they do not. The logical application of such an idea was then likened to tribal peoples who believe that they can make it rain by performing a dance. If the rain does not fall, there follows the disclaimed explanation, i.e. the dance must not have been performed correctly, and hence the dance is continued until it does rain. When it finally does, this contributes yet another reinforcement that a certain amount of dancing must be performed before the ritual works. Such a condition is termed by Psychologists to be “Confirmation bias” (Hewstone et al, 1997, 154-155), a subject accepts information which conforms with information already known, but rejects that which does not conform.

Indeed and so we can begin to see how this predisposition fits within the context of the Martial Arts. Originally, a Combat System must have existed as the sum of various sub-sets of rudimentary responses based upon a limited number of personal experiences. Any repetition of behaviours or actions (particularly those having been made in a combat event) may be termed a “ritualisation”.

Replacing the term “Martial Arts”

The common definition of the noun “Martial Arts” stems from the semantical meaning of the two words;

Martial: belonging to war.

Art: skill acquired by experience, study or observation.

“Martial” stems from the Latin term martialis meaning, “of Mars” or “Mars-esque”. Mars was the Roman god of war and represented aggression, war and conflict. He was, like all pagan gods, the personification of an idea – a projection of the human psyche onto his experiencable surroundings. Fighting, or anything associated with fighting, in all it’s multitudinal classifications from en masse in the form of a battle or in single combat, is rightly termed “martial”. However, we know at this early stage of our discussion that the Martial Arts, as a human construct, are distinct from the concept of fighting as a biologically universal phenomenon.

“Art” comes from the Latin word Ars which became “Arts” in Old French, finding its way into English as “Arte”. Art can be defined as “personal interpretation, or beauty”. “Personal interpretation” is a perfect summation of the meaning of “art” which we shall take with us on our journey. However, in Medieval Scholasticism (perhaps the earliest use of the term) “Art” implied any skill based upon a system or database of knowledge (i.e. “experience”). In effect, “Art” was somewhat synonymous with the modern term “system”, yet the former implies much more of the “doing” and “skill in doing” the system by an organism rather than the separate structure of knowledge which a “system” can often imply.

Although we use the term “Martial Arts” as a modern English name for ritualised combative behaviour, it is by no means an ancient name. In fact its modern propagation, general acceptance and widespread use is fairly modern, believed to have stemmed from a 20th century translation of “Bujutsu”, and its application is generally associated with the Martial Arts of the East for that reason³⁵. Much more ancient descriptions of the practice, such as the Latin based Ars Palestrinae (Art of the Palaestra, or “Combat School”), Hoplomachia (Warrior Combatives), Armatura (Armed Combat), Armizare (Armed Combat), Pankration (All Powers), Ars Dimicandi (Art of Combat), Flos Duellatorum (Flower of Battle), Ars Gladiatoria (Gladiatorial Art); Eskirmire (Skirmish), Spanish Verdadera Destreza (True Dexterity); German Kunst der Fechtens (Art of Fighting), Kunstlich Fechtens (Artly Fighting), Ritterlich Kunst (Knightly Art); or English Art of Fence, or Science of Defence, and much more modern (Victorian) terms of Antagonistics, Self-defence and Personal combat et al were all used around Europe to describe ritualised fighting, but rarely the association of the two terms “Martial” and “Art”. Each of those aforementioned were commonly used as adjectives to describe the phenomenon of ritualised fighting rather than a formal noun, as the modern term “Martial Arts” is now recognised.

However, etymology can only take us so far, as we know from before that language is simply a form of communication of an idea, and so it merely represents or describes an idea, but is not the idea itself. In China, Martial Arts are known as Wushu meaning “Stop-Spears Skills”³⁶. It contains a nuance of prohibiting force and aggression, and in other words, they are defined as defensive in nature; a resolution to the problems of physical offence. The term used in Japan as Bujutsu (Finn 1988, 23), and the term used in Korea as Musool (Suh, 1993; Young-Kimm, 1991) all have similar connotations as the Chinese name. It matters not what name we use, or where the name comes from, since defining the term “Martial Arts” here merely tells us the meaning of the English words, or the meaning of any equivalent translations in other languages.

We must subsequently consider a definition of what Martial Arts represent, and what lends us the opinion that they are more important or nobler than fighting, or brawling. We have already seen how there could be many definitions of the Martial Arts, from martial sport to military training. With such a large basis to draw a conclusion from the etymology, we need to define it more precisely.

Using the etymological description of “Martial Art” we may define it as anything related to or involved with war and combat. Using this idea, we may define the modern military gun training or fighter plane training as “Martial Arts”. As we might expect, some Martial Artists would not consider military ballistic training with modern technologies

Figure 5 – Hoplologism. “Martial Art” defined as being a “Combat System” (the specific data relating to combat) as well as “social and institutionally-derived data”, the non-martial features which define the recognizable “product”and identity of a martial art in modern industrialized society.The Sum of both is what I call “Hoplologism”³⁷.

as “Martial Arts”, but only those which involve interpersonal, or hand-to-hand combat skills.

At the other extreme, Martial Arts which are defined variously as “martial sports” or “combat sports” can also fall into our definition of Martial Arts. Fighting, within the context of a rule set is still fighting - if an organised and controlled version. Boxing, Judo, Mixed Martial Arts, or the Pankration of the Ancient Greeks could all be considered as “Martial Arts” or “Combat Sports”.

As human beings, we learn best via experience. It is possible that, from our own experiences (and a great deal of scientific observation and questioning), we will be able to construct a Combat System. We may be able to come to conclusions about fighting from our own discovery. Due to the fact that fighting existed long before you or I existed, we have a wealth of knowledge left by human beings who had already made these discoveries. The accrued knowledge of mankind as a species in regards to fighting exists in the body of data known collectively as the “Martial Arts”. A Martial Art is therefore (from this modern perspective) a vestige, a capsule of knowledge with a built-in system of pedagogy designed to transmit that knowledge to future generations.

However, from the perspective of our ancestors, this data was highly necessary to survival. It was not dependant upon social or cultural data - such as the rituals of the Bushi, who, as a social subgroup part of the country of Japan, were developing themselves as warriors – and studying the science of fighting in order to increase their efficiency at warfare. Their customs, such as the Chadō (Tea ceremony), Seiza (Kneeling), Shikko (Knee Walking), bowing to superiors (shin (深), gyō (行), and sō (草)), the position of lower ranks when addressing higher ranks etc, are all specific to the Bushi’s social environment; yet none of these things made them better warriors. Being “Japanese” was not a prerequisite to being a good warrior, it was simply incidental to them, and they knew of no other manner of behaving. Their society and attitudes to combat and masculinity fostered martial accomplishments. Yet, any Westerner attempting to study Japanese Bujutsu must assume a certain amount of anachronism (and anatopism) as the Bushi’s artform is preserved.

A culturally-specific impression is left upon the individual in which, outside of the most superficial differences such as costume and language, a more social idiosyncrasy is left imprinted. One can learn a new language, change our clothes, but often our cultural, or even ethnic background has a much more profound and deep-rooted effect upon our psychology. Needless to say, these factors have little or no impact upon the actual combative data-set. Being able to Shikko does not predicate or implicate the ability to fight effectively³⁸. Therefore our modern view is distorted by culturally derived data-sets which effectively encapsulate the actual information and behaviours devised for efficient combat.

Armstrong (1988) has already gone some way to defining what a Combat System is, as he terms

“A body of organized, codified, repeatable actions, techniques, behaviours and attitudes, the primary intended function and planful design of which is to be used in, or as a preparation for, combative applications.”

This definition is also widely cited by scholars, particularly Rosenbaum (2004, 16) and Amberger (1996, 69). From this definition there is little to add except perhaps that this definition can be recognized as the “ritualisation of combat behaviours”. Yet where Armstrong states they are for “combative applications”, he does not link them to the kinds of combats with which they would necessarily need to cope.

On the basis of this definition we may identify certain aspects which must be considered (and will do so in succeeding chapters);

• Who has organized, codified and selected the repeatable actions and techniques which comprise the system?

• What was his frame of experience for developing behaviours? Had he experienced all possible combinations and variations of the combats?

• What was his philosophy, world-view and what were his influences?

• What were his personal physical attributes and how did they contrive to influence and engineer his selections.

• Which combats did he have in mind for his Combat System?

• Which combats did he not have in mind?

• Why did he select these particular repeatable actions and not the ones omitted part of his system?

  • What is the strategic basis of his approach?

  • What is the technical basis of his approach?

  • What is the structure applied to that body of actions?

  • What is the actual intended function of those behaviours?

• Did the system undergo a “quality control” process, and if so, how was the system pressure-tested and measured for its effectiveness in the intended combat environment?

  • How has any negative feedback affected the development of the Combat System?

• Does the system apply with other combats which it had not been designed for?

• What is the effect of teaching the system on the design of the system?

In answer to some of those questions, and to re-phrase Armstrong’s definition to an extent, I propose a supporting statement that a Combat System is the,

“sum of all subsets of devised theoretical data, technical behaviours, long-term training [i.e. “preparative modification”] and pedagogic methods based upon an individual’s personal investigation and habitus for the function of generating advantages in hand-to-hand fighting; specifically, to exploit the opponent’s weaknesses, so that we may impose without the possibility of resistance, and our opponent cannot impose without difficulty or resistance, or at least do so with absolute strength”.

Such a definition might initially seem long-winded, yet it effectively combines modern definitions of Hoplologists (“Combat Anthropologists”), with those of our historical experts, the Cybernetic perspective (which we shall discuss in due course), as well as the Biological necessity for the invention of Combat Systems. From both statements we may make the following extrapolations, that a Combat System is;

1. The product of experience and inquiry in to combat (therefore it is necessary to assess the “Frame”, influences and world-view which lead him to create the system in this format).

2. System: Defined techniques and theory, and subsequent repetition and retaining of a set of rituals originating from 1.

3. Behaviour and skill modification (devised combat drills, accommodation exercises)

4. Instructionist method: Pedagogical devices to transmit some of system and training exercises to others.

The next section looks at these elements in some greater depth.

The Creation of a Combat System

The stock of data compiled together by experience and observation of fighting was the impetus for the invention of Combat Systems. We have already outlined a significant proportion of knowledge upon which decisions for creating a Combat System may be made. The range of information supplied in the previous section actually places us in a dominant position in comparison with our ancestors. Relevant information, drawn from fields as wide-ranging as Ethology, Biology, Psychology, Kinesiology & Biomechanics, Killology, Hoplology, Sociology and Anthropology effectively allows us to be far more informed than any generation in the history of mankind. These fields of knowledge combined together offer us a commanding view for understanding fighting as a phenomenon, and consequently allow us the opportunity to develop Combat Systems based entirely upon the data available to us.

Yet this kind of information was not available to our ancestors, and as a result, their Combat Systems are based upon the information which they could gather. For this reason, their data was often based upon their own experience. They were not able to make substantial studies of animal behaviour, investigate the effects of hormones upon the operation of the brain, nor consider fighting easily from outside their own attributes and perspective. This having been said, they did invent systems which were practical, pressure-tested and based upon real-world trial-and-error, which generated systems which benefited, but did not supply a systematic underlying theoretical basis. It is in this section that we shall consider the factors which contribute to the invention of a Combat System, as well as take a look at the kinds of Combat Systems which exist by proposing our own Typology.

We have already seen how the threat of physical conflict presents animals with problems, largely amounting to the total cost of competition, the loss of valuable assets as well as potential for injury. It is therefore a priority amongst human beings to identify particular behaviours which minimise the risk as well as secure an advantage. Understanding fighting, from the factors of Specific Attributes (size, strength, territory), from Incidental Circumstances in a quantitative and qualitative manner allows us to design behaviours which mitigate one’s actual risk.

The Two Methods of Development

There are in fact two processes at work in the creation of Combat Systems. These processes have lead to the Martial Arts which exist today, in general Pre-industrial Societies make use of Functional Selection and Industrial Societies make use of Scientific Inquiry. They are highly interrelated, yet the former is a means by which experiential information is considered in its own terms, but the latter is by means of which an experience may be parsed³⁹ into sets and patterns and the rules at the basis of those experiences may be extrapolated or interpolated to form a Universal Statement. In accordance with Dewey’s Theory of Learning (1938, 69) we can expect those who generate a Combat System to have had an experience in combat, however, that experience is (by the nature of “perception”) subjective, and therefore he requires to cross-reference that experience with those who have had other or similar experiences in combat. This is the beginning of the invention of a Combat System.

The Pre-scientific (or “Functional”) Selection

Pre-scientific Selection is based entirely upon the experience of fighting and the reflection upon that experience. It is the primary process in the evolution of all man’s combat solutions. This process is what we might term “Pre-scientific” and the Combat System derived from that pre-scientific development is highly tailored to the individual who created it.

A “system” is always the solution to a set of problems, and the problems presented to the founder of a system based upon his own experience are always individual to him. If the founder was a short woman, then her system would have to consider that everyone she could possibly ever meet in combat will be statistically both stronger and larger than her. She might also have only had experience of attack from males and therefore has direct experience of predative combats. The selections of behaviours and policies for combat will reflect these circumstances. Likewise, if the founder was a very tall and strong man, who regularly competes against the other males in his immediate environment, then we might expect that the result of his investigation would be a Combat System which favours his particular circumstances. Everyone he will possibly meet in combat will be shorter, and a high probability that they will be weaker; and therefore the sets of selections he makes will favour his attributes.

Using the terminology offered by Kolb’s Experiential Theory of Learning (1984), which is based upon four-part cyclical process, we might propose that the Architect’s constructivist learning process was as follows;

1. Concrete Experience - (CE)

2. Reflective Observation - (RO)

3. Abstract Conceptualization - (AC)

4. Active Experimentation - (AE)

Although Kolb offers us the terminology here, we can see that in functional selection, the “trial-and-error” involved favours a three-part process of CE, RO and AC to ritualize a set of behaviours into a skill set. This “database” is then promoted as proven solutions to the problems of combat. Functional Selection is based upon,

1. the Architects’s CE of one or some of the following kinds of combats and/or its subtypes;

   1. Predative

   2. Competitive

1. RO upon his combat experience and identify useful behaviours, in light of his

   1. personal attributes, personal experiences

   2. philosophical world-view and thought-process

2. AC of both CE and RO to generate the “meaning” of the ritual conceived.

The product of this process is what we might term “Combat System” and each facet of that system is the product of his CE and RO. However, when the Architect teaches the product of his expereience in combat, by means of an instructivist method, he teaches a behaviour-set tailored to his individual specifications. He has made very little consideration of other people and the skills which might be required should he be of any other somatotype than his own. As Lee once suggested “The Truth in Combat is different for each individual” and the pre-scientific systems serve to demonstrate that fact.

But as each individual has a human form, his actions, judgements etc are based upon such a form and therefore there are indeed means of predictability and accountability. We can understand and account for the universal shared attributes of the human form, and their variances by means of the Scientific Method.

Scientific Method

Scientific inquiry represents all of the above, but adds logical deduction and active inquiry to generate solutions. In accordance with the Constructivist theory, he actively searches for CE as a means to acquiring data to inform his database. By means of AE he gains insights into the kinds of behaviours which are practical, but he does something different from the pre-scientific approach; he attempts at understanding the event and creating a Combat System not tied to his own abilities and skills. Not only that, he offers his findings openly and allows it to be critiqued and questioned. He collaborates, reads widely and recognizes those who may aid him in his pursuit of truth. His utmost aim is to understand truth, and nothing more. Driven by truth, he is not lulled into socially-derived conformance, but attempts to align himself with the truth as closely as possible. We might suggest his process was as follows:

1. Antagonistic Type 1 CE

   1. (as the mitigator role)

      1. Larger opponent

      2. Better armed

      3. Greater numbers of opponents

      4. Take by surprise (to excacerbate effect of SSR)

      5. Combination of the above

2. Antagonistic Type 2a CE

   1. Larger opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

   2. Equally sized opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

   3. Smaller opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

3. Antagonistic Type 2b CE

   1. Larger opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

   2. Equally sized opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

   3. Smaller opponent

      1. Better armed

      2. Greater numbers

      3. Combination of the above

These are a range of the possible “match-ups” involved in Antagonistic Combat, but this does not take into account the additional considerations of Strategy (Initial Policy) and their previous experience, applicable skill-set etc. From this we can work out that there are perhaps thousands of possible variations of combat. However, the scientist attempts to gauge the range of data, to interpolate between data sets to reveal missing, but predictable ranges of data, as well as extrapolate to attempt to apply the range of data to other possible data-ranges. This means that a scientific Combat System is one designed to account for a wide range of potential problems using the skills of prediction and ensuring the System is capable to apply to the widest range of possible match-ups.

The failure of a vast majority of Combat Systems to account for the widest ranges of possible occurances and experiences is what makes it “pre-scientific”. This is because the pre-scientific Combat System is based upon personal interpretation. Yet if fighting is based upon scientific laws, then how are we able to have a personal interpretation of it? Surely, an interpretation, based upon what we “interpret” fighting to be will be an insecure method of combat. Everyone can observe an “aspect” from a subjective “perspective”, but science is the attempt to unite all those perspectives to generate the widest, objective and most accurate picture of all data, experiences and occurances possible in fighting. In martial arts schools, one often hears instructions which disclaim the infallible means of its behaviours; “there are always exceptions” – yet the existence of such exceptions demonstrates that the system has not accounted for a range of variables known as “exceptions”. This particular type of system is therefore identifiable as being incomplete.

We must therefore first look at what “truth” is. To the philosophical pessimist and solipsist, no truth can ever be known, because our entire understanding of the world around us is constructed by what our senses tell us (and our senses can often be mistaken)⁴⁰. For example, our perspective of fire tells us that it is hot and causes pain and damage; but if we were to view it from the perspective of granite, fire would not cause any damage at all. Its powers of destruction are purely relative depending upon the subject receiving its effects. Therefore, we can only know anything from a human perspective (Protagoras therefore tells us that “Man is the measure of all things”).

The meaning of truth was summed up perfectly by a Greek philosopher named Parmenides who stated that one should “…view the world with an independent or true view (that is independent of time and position, the accidents and peculiar view-point of the receiver)”. This is a much more palatable explanation than that which the modern Oxford English Dictionary offers; “that which is not False…conforming to reality”. Miyamoto supports the view that only objectivity, not subjectivity may lead to true knowledge:

“… if we look at things objectively, from the viewpoint of laws of the world, we see various doctrines departing from the true Way. Know well this spirit, and with forthrightness as the foundation and the true spirit as the Way. Enact strategy broadly, correctly and openly.”

As we know, each human being is a subjective component in the world in which he exists. We are all unable to view the world other than from our own perspective upon it. We cannot remove ourselves from our own perspective other than using our imagination, but even this is a subjective inquiry based upon how we would imagine an exponential perspective. If this is the case, how can we truly know anything about the world around us? If we can only know the world from what our minds tell us about it, how can we know anything is true?

The Scientific Method is the most important method of inquiry known to man. Prior to the scientific method, the only way we knew about the world was from our own perspective – viewing a phenomenon and forming a conclusion upon it. However, if we have come to the conclusion, being ourselves only able to be subjective, how can we know our conclusion is true? What the Scientific Method does is places the conclusion outside of ourselves, allowing the world to create the conclusion. We do not decide how something is, we allow nature to tell us how it is. Therefore, science is the most verifiable view of objective truth, since the conclusions are made up from experimentation in which we effectively are told by nature what is true, and we merely observe that truth. We run the same repeatable experiments, and deduce the “unseen” intangible laws which produced the results.

Like Galileo when he stood at the top of the Tower of Piza and dropped balls of the same size but of different masses⁴¹ and observed that both fell at the same rate. Human thinking prior to this scientific experiment would have had us believe that the heavier ball would fall faster. However, thanks to this experiment, we now know that they fall at the same rate. This is the difference between martial science and mainstream Martial Arts. Martial Science is unattatched to “this” or “that”. Carl Sagan, a scientist famous for his promotion of the scientific method outlined that:

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Its goal is to find out how the world works, to seek what regularities there may be, to penetrate the connections of things—from subnuclear particles, which may be the constituents of all matter, to living organisms, the human social community, and thence to the cosmos as a whole. Our intuition is by no means an infallible guide. Our perceptions may be distorted by training and prejudice or merely because of the limitations of our sense organs, which, of course, perceive directly but a small fraction of the phenomena of the world. Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage—at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.

But the scientific cast of mind examines the world critically as if many alternative worlds might exist, as if other things might be here which are not. Then we are forced to ask why what we see is present and not something else. Why are the Sun and the Moon and the planets spheres? Why not pyramids, or cubes, or dodecahedra? Why not irregular, jumbly shapes? Why so symmetrical worlds? If you spend any time spinning hypotheses, checking to see whether they make sense, whether they conform to what else we know, thinking of tests you can pose to substantiate or deflate your hypotheses, you will find yourself doing science. And as you come to practice this habit of thought more and more you will get better and better at it. To penetrate into the heart of the thing—even a little thing, a blade of grass, as Walt Whitman said—is to experience a kind of exhilaration that, it may be, only human beings of all the beings on this planet can feel. We are an intelligent species and the use of our intelligence quite properly gives us pleasure.

….It is an astonishing fact there are laws of nature, rules that summarize conveniently—not just qualitatively but quantitatively—how the world works. (1979, 13-18)⁴²

Let me repeat: “Science is based on experiment, on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is. Accordingly, science sometimes requires courage—at the very least the courage to question the conventional wisdom.” These words sum up the importance of the scientific method in the science of combat. The experimentation aspect of Eskirmology serves to prove the truth, and does not seek to “prove” perspectives, but rather to “test” them. This was once the problem with pre-science; the testing was done in order to justify and prove the ideas of the founder, whereas a martial scientist entertains no preconceived ideas; only that there are eskirmological techniques which can be discovered by means of experimenting.

This is the advantage of the Scientific Method, it means not to prove ideas from the human mind, nor concepts, but rather test ideas categorically as a truth which exists outside of the human mind. In this way, the scientific method allows for true testing and experimentation of Combat Logic and is based upon repeatable reality, not made up out of fancy. As Lee once said “The man who is clear and simple does not choose. What is, is.”

This is why there may only be one science. It is a complete contradiction of Science to have “John Smith’s Martial Science”, or “Chan family Martial Science”. Martial Science is Martial Science, there is only objectivity, and there is no subjective slant upon what is true. This is why I have attempted to name the study Eskirmology, and not “so-and-so’s school of martial science” – what is found to be martial science is martial science for all people no matter where they come from or what language they speak.

For now, it is enough for us to recognize a difference between different methods of inquiry and the resultant information produced by such a method. We shall take this understanding with us as we proceed further in our inquiry.

The Cybernetics of Combat Systems

Let us now consider some of the dynamics involved in the creation of Combat Systems. Properly considered, any academic study of the Martial Arts should actually be a study of the cybernetics of Combat Systems.

A science for studying such phenomena exists in the form of Cybernetics⁴³. This term stems from the Greek word Κυβερνήτης (kybernētēs) and means “steersman”, “governor”, “pilot”, or “rudder”. Definitions of Cybernetics are difficult to apply to a combative context, apart from Couffignal’s description of it being "the art of ensuring the efficacy of action"⁴⁴. Action is comprised of technical (the doing), the strategical⁴⁵ (the motivation to doing, achieving an outcome), and the tactical⁴⁶ (how to do the “doing”). In which case, Cybernetics is the study of the relationship between these elements to understand how to improve the efficacy of action.

The development of a Combat System is based upon two stages; the first is the individual and his method of invention. The second is the impact of society upon that system and the codification of it by those who receive the product of the individual’s investigation.

1. The Architect (or “founder”)

• Data Collection (Identification of Problems from CE)

• Parse (cumulate problems to recognise patterns)

• Postulate and Conceptualise

• Actively Experiment to acquire Feedback (Algedonic Loop) and test

• Ecology (consider system in relation to new information gathered from feedback)

2. The Institution

• Codification

• Totemism

• Sanctification

As we have already said, the development of a Combat System begins from previous experience as well as the creative capability of an individual. This experience forms Data, and the capacity for the System to cope with fighting is based upon the data collected by the Architect. By “data” we may not be capable of isolating “specific experiences” but the sum of all data from both direct and indirect (heresay, communal knowledge, folklore, et al) sources. We shall assess the flaws of this method shortly.

The sets of solutions are designed based upon both actual experience and deduction of predictable hypothetical events. The application of the solutions allows the opportunity to gather feedback and to judge whether the solutions effectively apply to the range of circumstances encountered. In order to create a meaningful and lasting system, we must consider the contingencies which allow it to be capable of successfully coping with a wide variety of potentially unpredictable exponential conditions. The efficacy of a system can only be measured by its ability to cope with the problem it was designed to encounter, and therefore by means of a process known as “Feedback” we can experiment with the techniques to assess their uses, and feedback with negative or positive results.

The majority of Combat Systems are defined cybernetically as “Closed-Systems”, which means that, as a body of knowledge, it is not informed by a wide range of environmental conditions which it might be required to cope with. A Martial Art such as Karate is therefore defined in the certain techniques which it uses, and any techniques which it uses should be universal enough to cope with the greatest number of situations. A master who created the System is not capable of knowing all combative situations, but his system should be efficacious enough to withstand any potential pressures. However, as a Closed System it is not likely to adapt to environmental pressures, or negative feedback.

Adaptation permeates all living creatures and is the basis of most modern theories of biology and cybernetics. An Open System is based upon feedback from its application. The use of feedback is known as the Algedonic Loop which states that all systems with a functional purpose (even living organisms) must assess the results of their behaviour as it applies to the outside world⁴⁷. If a technical approach does not suit its environment, or it fails to meet its function, then we re-assess it within the context in which it failed. Most Martial Arts do not require any form of “field feedback” or practical testing⁴⁸.

A Closed Combat System is a body of knowledge that is made of several layers; the physical, the tactical and strategic. Each of these layers is commonly unified by various pedagogical devices in which this vast body of knowledge is offered to students in stages. These stages are devised in order to make the subject matter much easier to digest, and also due to the physical requirement it allows for the body to become accustomed and trained for such practice⁴⁹. The desired state in which one reaches with mastery (one which the student has retained the entire Combat System) is sometimes no different from that of the beginner other than he has been granted the secrets of the more murderous techniques (such as Kyusho-jutsu). We can argue that, when experts taught warriors these techniques for actual warfare, this moral requirement was absent and the techniques were taught in their entirety; from biomechanical technique to eskirmological (dangerous) function. Therefore arts such as Kyusho-jutsu would have been the first techniques to learn along-side the actual physical technique. They would not have been retained for a higher level of “understanding”. This practice seems to me to be common sense; even a modern army would not restrict the learning of immoral techniques if they made the difference between life and death in combat and war.

A typology of Combat Systems

As has been intimated previously, there has been a growing interest in recent years, as well as attempts at creating a Universal Typology of the Martial Arts, attempts - as Bolleli mentioned (2008, 115) – at ordering the apparent chaos which can be seen in any survey of the arts. There is in fact a requirement for a Typology, since any coherent scholarly survey of the Martial Arts cannot be made without a qualitative measure and relationship between Martial Arts as they already exist. Such a categorisation of existing Systems, a “Typology”, is thus a requirement for any sensible academic study of the Martial Arts; to seek “to provide an analytical blueprint for understanding the roots of different Martial Arts.” (ibid, 116) Specifically, it will allow us the capacity to:

• Account for a wider overview of the martial arts

  • Reconcile sectarian or cultural definitions

  • Help explain relationships between them

  • Generate specific questions

  • Group systems by ethnic or cultural influence, as well as by their qualitative (kinematic) similarities

  • Suggest reasons for their appearance.

• Consolidate our understanding of all Combat Systems

• Identify the universal statements

  • Identify specific similarities and differences in theoretical bases

  • Identify specific similarities and differences in technical skills

  • Explain reasons for differences and similarities

  • Map entire range of solutions made by man

• Encapsulate knowledge about Combat Systems

  • What specific problems have been considered?

  • What solutions have been created?

  • Which problems and solutions have not been considered?

• Simplify and categorise sources of information

  • Rationalise data sources

  • Normalise information

  • Filter and Segment appropriate elements

• Integrate definitions and extrapolate data for the creation of modern Combat Systems

• Rationalisation and Normalisation of taxonomy and naming conventions, uniting terminology into a single modern scientific set to aid discussion and progress.

As we agreed with Green earlier, the problem with the many various typologies proposed by various scholars is that they have focussed upon the many appearances which the Martial Arts take based upon personal inclination or focus rather than on what the Martial Art, as a Combat System, was devised to achieve.

In a bid to propose an order, and to potentially reach a consensus, I believe that it is first essential that the line be drawn between the elements which compose a Martial Art. The modern appearance of Combat Systems has affected the perspective of many modern scholars, and due to this, their perspective has affected their hypotheses about Combat Systems.

Many scholars have considered the Martial Arts as complete entities, all its properties being part of a single practice and bulk of knowledge. On the other hand, we need to identify and recognise that all Martial Arts as “products” are Combat Systems at their heart packaged in a set of sociological and cultural ritual from the society which created it. In other words, all modern Martial Arts of Asian origin have an inevitable cultural “trace” of the people who created that system, and such a trace has little real relevance to the system of fighting itself. This separation of social and combat data is essential and in my opinion quite critical to progression in this field.

The term “Combat System” has been widely used amongst Hoplologists (Draeger, Smith, Armstrong), and was proposed by Buckler, Castle, Peters (2009) in their paper Defining the martial arts – A proposed inclusive classification system when they mention that they “would opt for ‘Combat Systems’ as a global definition”, whilst offering no coherent logic for this other than that “This would imply that the style originated from the need for attack and/or defence, and that the term ‘system’ replaces ‘art’ in that there are styles practiced today which do not conform to an ‘artistic’ nature, in terms of being a form of creative expression.” This reasoning offers little to their conclusion of which this statement forms part. In fact, their suggestion that “system” should be used instead of “art” because some Martial Arts “do not conform to an ‘artistic’ nature” takes a superficial account of the term “art”, and adds further ambiguity to their conclusion. The term “system” is a scientific term, which can be readily framed into a definitive meaning, but the term “art” can have many connotations – and not simply the aesthetically-pleasing (as was implied by Buckler, Castle and Peters, 2009).

The various typologies which exist are mainly inherited. Some modern scholars have attempted to dissect the logic for the categorisation of Internal or External, Northern or Southern etc which have been inherited from Chinese scholars. These two examples are orthodox categorisations of Chinese Combat Systems, but certainly do not apply to the sphere of the Western Martial Arts. Therefore any potential typology must embrace all forms of Combat System which exist in the world, not merely East Asian. The majority of Typologies we encounter prefer to make reference to East Asian Combat Systems rendering them too specific to be universal. Other typologies such as by nationality are the most obvious, and widely known, but actually tell us little about the art-forms themselves. To say that an art comes from Japan tells us that they will adhere to the social rituals and motifs inherited from that particular culture, but it actually tells us little about the Combat System, the choices it made in its development, and how it might actually share common traits with those of other cultures due to those choices.

Beginning from Bolleli’s (2008, 115-140) attempt at a typology⁵⁰, we find some answers to our questions, but there are also problems presented. It seems that although chaos has begun to be ordered, there still appears to be chaos within that order – and to an extent caused by that order. Bolleli’s categorisations seem to create pigeon-holes which most Martial Arts practices fit into, in which case, they are identifications of emphasis rather than categorisations of systemic solutions to fighting. Bolleli’s categorisations are as follows:

• Performance Arts

• Internal Arts

• Weapon Arts

• Self-defence Arts

• Combat Sports

  • Striking

  • Grappling

  • Mixed

As a list of the reasons why Martial Artists practice, it appears that the list is useful. We can see that some enjoy the aesthetics of movement, the internalisation and transcendental meaning of movement, the anachronistic and current use of weaponry in fighting, the Pragmatic approach to movement etc. Yet as a prospective Typology, there are still problems.

An investigation into the methodology adopted by Bolleli demonstrates immediately the root of the problems with this typology. He mentions that there were two premises for his deductions;

1. What emphasis an art gives

2. What training methods they favour

Immediately we can see the problems with this method. The “emphasis” in an art is a subjective opinion adopted by a practitioner. An emphasis is a particular focus on a certain aspect over and above other aspects of the System – a subjective preference based upon the subject-matter offered by that System. One Martial Arts teacher might focus upon the Performance benefits of Taijiquan, whereas another teacher might focus upon the self-defence benefits of Taijiquan. The question then arises, in which category does Taijiquan (as a Combat System) appear within? It is within the capacity of that particular art to be used in any of Bolleli’s categories, so in which can it suitably be placed? Evidently, Bolleli’s typology does not account for the arts themselves but rather lists the kinds of practice which might be made of them. In which case, it is subjective in that it considers the arts from particular (and now categorised) perspectives.

Yet Bolleli’s method does offer something important; by identifying the “training methods they favour” it is possible to use “combative forensics” to backward engineer the kind of problems which these “training methods” have been devised to resolve (more on this later).

So a suitable measure of a typology is by its application. For example, imagine for a moment that there are two local Martial Arts instructors who teach Shotokan Karate-Do. One of them teaches it “traditionally” with orthodox stances and weaponry, the other teaches it like a sport and promotes it as an art for competition. Using this example, again where can we place Karate-Do? Bolleli’s second parameter of the kind of training it makes use of is no more useful since the training will inevitably be anything which supports the art’s “emphasis”. A student, new to the Martial Arts, therefore cannot discern which of Bolleli’s typified Karate is being practiced at his local school, as Bolleli refers to the different aspects a student from that school might prefer.

Evidently Bolleli’s typology does not categorise the Combat System as an entity in its own right. As a set of data and codified behaviours for fighting, a Combat System cannot be defined in this manner. Rather, Bolleli’s typology is a “motivation preferential typology” than an Eskirmological typology. What I am interested in is how one set of behaviours from Combat System A are related to those of Combat System B and if a proportion of those behaviours are the same, we may state that they are the same “type”. Bolleli’s categorisation does not do this.

Bolleli’s first categorised definition of Martial Arts as “performance” is limited, as he evidently considers only “artistic use of the body” as “performance”. Perhaps we would have been more inclined to support Klens-Bigman’s (2003) attempt for Martial Arts as performance art, if she did not have the same thing essentially in mind. Performance, as a word inevitably demonstrates its core meaning when broken into parts - “per” “form” therefore any action or movement is essentially a performance since is motion “as per” one’s physical “form”. Therefore all Martial Arts must be performance simply because, unlike the practice of poetry which takes place within the mind of the poet and the effect of his language upon the mind of his reader, the Martial Arts of a practitioner must inevitably be “performed”. This was in fact the origin of “kata” (from the Sanskrit to imply “form”, or “manifestation”⁵¹) and we can see that many original Okinawan masters actually considered any practice of Karate to be “kata” not specifically the solo-routines now associated with the term. Certainly then, Martial Arts are indeed performance, thus rendering the purely aesthetic practice of modern “wushu” or competition kata to be a certain class of performance⁵².

It seems that many typographic theorists have a pre-occupation with this concept of aesthetics in Combat Systems. Bolleli, Klens-Bigman, Baofu (2009) all maintain this concept of Performance art, itself based upon the definition that Performance arts “are those martial styles that focus the majority of their attention on the aesthetic appeal of the art.” In fact, few Eskirmological Combat Systems were devised entirely for aesthetic appeal, aesthetic appeal is the result of practice; or recreation. The latter theorist, Baofu (2009, 5) whilst attempting to generate a substantial new theory (as per the title of the work; A Preface to a New Theory of the Body and Spirit of Warriors) offers no more than a categorisation of commonly held subjective typologies. His summation of those typologies is as follows (Baofu 2009, 5);

• by country (e.g., Chinese kung-fu, Japanese judo, American boxing, etc.)

• by method (e.g., “soft” as in aikido, and “hard” as in tae kwon do)

• by philosophy (e.g., “traditionalists” on “spiritual development” vs. “non-traditionalists” on “combat”)

• by weapon (e.g., swords in fencing, bows and arrows in archery, etc.)

The problems with these categorisations will be discussed in due course, but needless to say Baofu’s reliable source seems to have been Bolleli. The original problems with Bolleli’s typology, inherited by other scholars on the topic, therefore stem from his method of investigation – it does not comply with the concept of “universal” and therefore it cannot be defined as being universal.

Buckler, Castle, Peters (2009) suggest that a universal typology could be based upon;

“semantics (focusing on the meaning of language); another through identifying classifications between the different fighting methods in order to gain an informed overview of how different methods relate.”

The first suggestion is rendered difficult to apply since semantics is a tertiary method of explication in itself. Semantics is a method of discerning meaning, but a meaning based upon subjective perspective. In other words, the meaning of an existing phenomenon to one social group might not be the same to another. “Meaning” is itself the way in which Subjective organisms interpret the world based upon its relevance to them⁵³.

The problem with the many various typologies proposed so far is that they have focussed upon the many appearances which the Martial Arts take based upon personal inclination or focus rather than on what the Martial Art, as a Combat System, was devised for⁵⁴. By making a considered investigation of the kinds of combats which exist, we may extrapolate the kind of Combat Systems which would develop from them. To re-iterate, a system is a devised set of theories and applications designed for a specific circumstance (often one which presents high risk variables). In which case, it is designed to increase one’s chances, and to (as Sun Tzu mentioned) “put oneself beyond the possibility of defeat”. In which case, any theory must rest upon identification of the problems.

In our first section, we identified two kinds of combat, Competitive and Predative, and from them we discovered a scale working in two directions – Serious and Play on the intensity scale, and biologically-driven and socially-sanctioned on the Anthropic scale. This means there were effectively five kinds of fight;

1. Predative combats (serious combats, instigator role: with selection of a “low risk” opponent, mitigator role: to overcome the overwhelming circumstances set upon one due to selection by an instigator as “low risk”)

2. Duelling (socially sanctioned serious combats)

3. Brawling (biologically driven serious combats)

4. Sparring (socially sanctioned play combats)

5. Tussling (biologically driven play combats)

Using simple logic, we may deduce that each of these fights might have lead to the invention of a Combat System devised specifically to cope with the unique problems and circumstances of these particular fights. Since many feudal societies exhibit institutionalized dueling, we can expect Combat Systems devised for Intermale serious consensual combats, and as a result of the necessary training for such events, we might also find these systems being used in recreational events (such as the medieval “melee”, “fighting-at-the-barriers” etc).

Out of the existence of these kinds of fighting, we may find Institutionalisations of both. Many modern attempts have been made at categorizing the Martial Arts into certain typological groups, all of which have ignored the Eskirmological purpose for their existence, and their eskirmology as a measure of their relevance as a Martial Art. This effectively evidences the existence of what I term the “Eskirmological Scale”. This scale consists of Restricted at one extreme and Unrestricted fighting at the other extreme.

Figure 6 – Combat Systems as a direct result of Combat types.

Serious Fighting leads to the creation of Eskirmological Combat Systems designed to cope with the risks and pressures unique to serious fighting. The evolutionary arms race leads to the requirement for augmentation in the form of weapons, as well as training methods for supporting those objectives. As a result there are two kinds of Eskirmological Combat System:

• Armed

• Unarmed

Play Fighting, the attenuation of Serious fighting, has been codified into Recreational Combat Systems. These types are often historically traced back to an Eskirmological original, but have introduced means of attenuating particular actions as a result of needing to train safely.

Figure 7 – Repeating the table we saw earlier, but this time showing the kind of relationship between Eskirmological and Recreational Combat Systems based upon their intended applications in combat.

We may also consider the performance art from these two types which I term the “abstract” sets (Type 2 Agonistic). They do not in themselves represent systems, but because of their emerging prevalence within our modern post-industrial society, I must make a brief outline of them as well. We shall make a pedagogical abstraction (such as “Set-sparring”) the focus of which will be shown in due course.

Many cultures around the world have romanticised combat and war by portraying exploits by means of dance. The Greeks (principally the Spartans and Cretans) practiced a combative dance known as the Pyricche which had explicit relation to war. It was, according to Smith (1848, 278), a subservient exercise to military and gymnastic training for war. It involved a Parma, or Parmula (3-foot diameter shield) which was used for audible percussion during the dance (ibid, 870) as well as wearing full hoplite armour (ibid, 856). Plato described that it was representative of all war dances (leg, vi. 815), and was cited by Homer as part of military training (illiad, xi.49, xii. 77). Smith further mentions that there were many other dances which involved arms and armour, but these were not considered part of military training.

Performing Arts and Martial Arts have, for all intents and purposes, had a linked development. Green (2001, 420; Kassing, 2007, 54) describes how these dances were designed to augment warrior ethos, in accordance with the Greek belief that it was essential for a good warrior to be a good dancer. Such similar abstractions of combat into performing art can be found in Kabuki, who employ a tateshi (fight-coordinator) to specially design its tachimawari (fight-scenes) to represent warrior ethos. The Beijing opera also similarly carefully devise its fight scenes to exhibit a martial spirit (wukung).

Many of the dances still found today, from the dirk dance in Scotland, the Morris Dance in England, Hopak in the Ukraine, Kabuki in Japan, Capoeira in Brazil et al all can be traced to legitimate martial practices and training. For this reason, they must be considered as being part of the study of Combat Systems.

Performance has increased in relevance perhaps due to the phenomenon that some competitors have exploited their superb performance skills in order to compete against others.

Resultant Properties of Combat Systems

It is important that, since we have begun this chapter entitled “A Typology” that we begin with a suitable summary of the categories and classes of Combat Systems which exist. At this stage, I admit that it is only a summary, because we shall devote a chapter to Eskirmological Combat Systems and one on Recreational Combat Systems. It is enough simply to be aware of the two forms at this stage. Let us begin by referring back to my definition;

“sum of all subsets of devised strategies, technical behaviours and long-term training [i.e. “preparative modification”] methods for generating advantages in fighting; to exploit the opponent’s weaknesses, so that we may impose without the possibility of resistance, and our opponent cannot impose with strength”.

If the opponent’s actions imply risk, then it is important that a system devises ways in which we may eliminate the opponent without being attacked ourselves. Moreover, we cannot always devise ways to attack so that he cannot attack us, but we may invent ways to attack which reduce his strength of attack – so that though he may be able to attack, his capacity to attack is reduced such that he cannot present an absolute risk. This effectively reduces the risk to us by using those modes of attack.

Preparation is the key to advantage in fighting, and this point has always gone hand in hand with all Combat Systems. In combination with this preparation, as well as the reduction of risk, Sun Tzu put it most succinctly when he said;

4.1.

Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

4.14.

Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a disposition which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

The modification of skillsets and physical fitness attributes, achieved by the persistant training of the body is one of the major functions of a Combat System. Part of the Combat System consists of the strength, endurance, conditioning and flexibility modification practices which are required to accommodate to fighting. A healthy and fit fighter who is unskilled in Strategy may still hold an advantage against a fighter not healthy and fit nor skilled in Strategy. The 72 training methods of Shaolin are perhaps the most readily considered sets of training methods (Timofeevich, 2004); and the majority of cultures around the world generally seem to place Martial Arts training in a category akin to Gymnastic or Physical Education.

Study of the event of fighting requires identifying, and training;

• The skills needed to impose

• The skills needed to endure

• The solutions to problems of resistance

• The solutions to the need to resist

For these studies, we can postulate required algorithms in the form of technical skills and behaviours for Imposing, Protecting, overcoming resistance and mitigating the effect of attacks on us. These algorithms are based upon the problems which can be identified in fighting and creating solutions in the form of specific behaviours. For example, the problem of a punch may be solved using the following algorithms;

1. Prohibition: Prevent its occurrence (i.e. pre-empt him)

2. Bisection: Displace it’s trajectory (“parry”)

3. Adherence: Make contact with it to dissolve its impact

   1. Adhere to the limb without seizing

   2. Seize the limb and manipulate the joints (i.e. Chin Na)

4. Obstruction: Use our own limbs to absorb the Point of Impact

5. Displacement: lead the opponent’s COG beyond its vector of equilibrium

These sets represent phasic moments to deal with a punch; before, during, and after its motion. The identification of the one or two which decrease the risk most should be used the most. In which case, an Eskirmological Combat System might structure these and give emphasis to those in order in which they limit risk. Other Combat Systems might prioritise by philosophic perspective (such as the Taoist theory of Wuwei). In the case of each of these algorithms, we might make a choice as to which we will depend upon most (for example, Krav Maga might use the first, Karate might concentrate upon the second, Wing Chun might focus upon using the third, Boxing might make use of the fourth and Aikido upon the fifth etc), then how we will technically achieve these solutions. Will we step back to defend? Will we side-step? Will we use only the Upper Limbs? Will we use only the legs? Will we remain in close-proximity? Some of these questions are answered in the specific choice from the logical range of options offered to the Combat System, and its definition as a particular Combat System is discernable by identifying and using a particular combination of them where others have used different combinations. Technical Choices always betray the original problem and identify the specific strategy chosen.

Therefore we may categorise Combat Systems into two classes; those devised for sanctioned rule-sets (i.e. Boxing or Judo), or those for unrestricted, high-intensity combats (i.e. Reality-Based Combat Systems), then into two categories of manifestation; Armed (Augmented) and Unarmed (Non-augmented).

We may have Armed Attentuated Combat Systems, or Unarmed Attenuated Combat Systems. Finally, they may be discerned qualitatively upon the frequency and cumulative number of specific actions in the entire system - this allows us to recognize the modes of action (Percussive or Non-Percussive). Assessing the Specific Actions we can see the kinds of Strategies used, and how these Strategies are manifested in performance.

This base level of deductions for my typology is based wholly on the existential pressures on organisms to survive events of physical imposition. This approach allows the typology to be devised without the possibility of contamination from the social sphere. Yet sociology does impact upon those Combat Systems, and looking back over history we can witness both Eskirmological and Recreational Combat Systems.

Social circumstances mitigate or exacerbate the need for either one or the other. Our current age increases the relevance of Recreational Combat Systems, but decreases the relevance of Eskirmological Combat Systems.

Using our typology, we may then consider sociological timelines of “primitive”, “pre-industrial” and “industrial societies” societies in lieu of what we know about the Typology. Applying the Eskirmological Typology to historical periods, we may begin to recognise distinct pressures in different social contexts leading to similar distinctions in emphasis upon Eskirmological and Recreational Combat Systems. Let me briefly outline them below:

1. Eskirmological (devised for serious combat)

   1. Armed

   2. Unarmed

2. Recreational (a result of training for serious combat, in play combat)

   1. Armed

   2. Unarmed

Industrialised Societies have a different class structure, yet ultimately the same constituents. In a Pre-industrial society, we find a hereditary bourgeoisie, whose role is in control of land, capital and management of the lower classes. Their sole aim and duty is to War. In Industrialised society, there is still a military subculture, but that subculture has expanded to encompass anyone who wishes to join, and admittance is no longer based upon birth-right or hereditary status⁵⁵.

Significant efforts have been made by modern scholars to account for the changes to Asian Martial Arts during its period of change into an industrialised society. Principally, Green & Svinth (2003) have offered a look at the emergent physical culture of China (with the help of Henning, ibid, 13-36) considering the impact and changes involved in moving Pre-industrial Combat Systems into an Industrialising Society. Svinth also considers the introduction of Western Boxing into Imperialist Japan (ibid, 37-46). Orlando (1997) takes a look at the other side of the coin, suggesting the ways in which an already industrialised society, one built upon scientific analysis and development, may encounter Asian Combat Systems based upon Pre-Scientific Functional Selection. The result of some of this “Westernisation”, as Lowry (2002) refers to it, is that some of the elements are dismissed as being archaic or non-scientific. We shall consider all these factors, but it should be suffice to say at this point that the transaction of Eastern systems to the West and Western systems to the East highlights the differences principally between cultures as well as approaches to the problems of fighting. And the utilisation of both can only serve to benefit the modern approach to understanding Combat Logic.

It is only after we have identified this kind of Typology of Combat Systems, and applied it to an historical account of how these kinds of Combat System developed in sociological frames, that we can begin to see Bolleli’s “motivation” typology within the context it deserves. Looking back at Bolleli’s typology we might therefore state that practitioners of Combat Systems within an Industrialised Society practice for the following typological reasons (in compliance with Bolleli’s initial parameters);

• Protection – to learn for the purposes of self-defence.

• Transcendentalism – to learn for the purposes of spiritual and mental biochemical conditioning

• Recreation – to learn for the competitive and leisure experience.

• Anachronism – the experience of out-moded or out-dated practices (in connection to technologies, such as weapons), often linked to,

• Enculturation – the learning of a culture, or perhaps the experience of another culture (i.e. a foreign culture).

Within an industrialised society, we can see that the value of a Combat System no longer is constrained within the original values from which the System is derived. Combat Systems devised for a function are now defined more by their meaning and benefits than the logic for their invention.

My consideration of Combat Systems - itself an entity composed of a set of behaviours for fighting - removes the sociological considerations such as classes and social groups. This social aspect is a field largely explored in Hoplological research. Draeger (cited in Donohue and Taylor, 1994, 22) suggests a typology based upon the social groups using these particular Combat Systems. In effect, it makes no real definition of the typology of the Combat Systems, rather the social adjustments made by the two social groups based upon their particular needs for that System. Although Buckler, Castle, Peters (2009) realise the “neatness” of this typology, they fail to realise that its social relevance does not lend to a Typology of Combat Systems. They report;

“Draeger noted that both systems would coexist in cultures where there is a hereditary warrior class and a disarmed civilian class.”

But we are left with the question; if we define Combat Systems based purely upon a social dictate, what are we left with in societies that a) pre-date any form of social division in this way (historically speaking), or b) those societies which still exhibit no forms of social polarisation of warfare and civil roles (i.e. the tribes of the Amazon, or on the island of Vanuatu)? Subsequently, any universal typology must not be based upon sociological constructs, but rather its eskirmological basis.

That having been said, this social aspect is important to use in framing the Combat System within its developmental context, but it does little to inform us about the qualitative type of the System itself. In fact, this social (as well as the Temporal) aspect is important in recognising the difference between the Hoplologism and the Combat System itself.

Needless to say, since Draeger was the modern progenitor of the Hoplological movement, it was based solely upon an anthropological framework. Subsequently, it bases its view upon an essential cultural and social view, recognising the Combat Systems by means of the cultures which created them. In other words, the investigation is made via anthropological/sociological rather than eskirmological paths⁵⁶.

Eskirmology, on the other hand, establishes a reversed method. It looks at the Combat System based upon Phylogenic and Cybernetic principles, which demonstrates whether it complies with Eskirmological principles. When elements of the system are discovered

Figure 8 – Applying context to the various typologies. We can see that my “eskirmological” typology attempts to define Combat Systems as bodies of information, then Draeger’s “social stratification” typology defines how the kind of approaches to those Combat Systems are made by different social groups. Bolleli’s “motivation” typology defines the kinds of modern manifestations which these Combat Systems take in an Industrialised Society. What is lacking however, is a suitable account of how these Combat Systems have changed over time and due to social circumstances. We shall look at this outstanding categorization later.

to be Non-eskirmological (or not complying to the logic of fighting), we then resort to the social and cultural sources in order to understand why such decisions were made and judge as to whether these decisions were based upon social rather than eskirmological dictates. We can appreciate therefore that, although anthropology is important to understanding the Martial Arts, it is incidental to the Combat System itself and has no impact upon the efficacy of that system as a set of combative behaviours and principles.

Indeed, social differences do have an impact upon the manifestation of the type of Combat System used – a military class, such as the Knight or the Samurai, will have significant access to arms and armour which lower classes might not. In which case, Table 3 does allow for some important differences, but these differences do not define the Combat System, but rather the class which used the Combat System within (the limits of) its own economic scale.

Social position and its limitations or unique benefits are another required consideration of a Combat System. The people who create a Combat System will always generate it based upon;

1. The state of technological progress in combative augmentation at that time

2. Access to those technological resources

It should be no surprise that a bourgoise group should have greater access to the technological achievement in arms and armour, and on the reverse, it should also be little surprise that the proletariat group should also have limited or no access to such technological arms and armour. The result is that the Bourgoise often have arms and armour created for the purpose of war, in the forms of swords, spears and full-plate armour. The proletariat on the other hand also create and practice Combat Systems, but their augmentation takes the form of tools readily available to them – often in the form of common farming tools or household implements (sometimes modified). Most proletariat groups around the world exhibit combats with implements not created for War, but rather for farming. Even common tools such as benches, flutes, fans etc – any implements with the capacity to be used in striking – have been brought to bear in fighting.

That being said, although social position bears relevance to the appearance of the Combat System - it may influence, but does not directly affect, the complex decisions made in the composition of a Combat System. Temporal position, in regards to the state of progression in technology is also a required consideration in the study of Combat Systems. Knowing that, by the end of the thirteenth century, Full-plate armour was increasing in relevance on the European battlefield causing a development in heavier arms - and later that the increased reliance of thrusting actions over cutting actions lead to the development of the Rapier – means we can understand something of the required dynamics of a Combat System due to the form of the weapons used.

Table 3: Draeger’s classification of Combat Systems (Donohue and Taylor, 1994, 22). This is of course a typology based upon Draeger’s expertise in East Asian Combat Systems, in which case it is unintentionally specific. The classification of Civilian arts as being “mainly ‘empty-handed’” evokes the Okinawan legislation imposed by the Satsuma clan to not carry weapons. However, in the West the carrying of weapons was common, in which case Civilian arts in Renaissance England were highly Rapier-centric and certainly not “mainly ‘empty-handed’”. This consideration renders Draeger’s classification as useful, but certainly not universal and no Universal typology may be based solely upon its consideration. Donohue and Taylor (1994) make this consideration in their work also.

Part Two:

The Pre-scientific Combat Systems

Part Two: The Pre-scientific Combat Systems

The Development of Combat Systems

Since Combat Systems are direct solutions to the problems presented by combat, we may be able to recognize them. In our first chapter, we defined combat as a VARE, and so we may now find an application of that definition in assessing Combat Systems. In order to be a sensible response to the VARE, it must therefore directly comply with the VARE. This means that a fight demands of fighters the ability to:

Solutions to the “Volatile” problem:

• Reduce Risk

• Increase cognitive understanding and recognition of mechanisms (increase Predictability)

Solutions to the “Aggressive-Resistant” problem:

As an aggressor:

• Maximise the effect of action

• Minimise opponent’s ability to resist by using

  • Psychological mechanisms

  • Biomechanical mechanisms

As a resistor:

• Maximise protection

• Minimise the effect of Force

  • Cope with overwhelming force

  • Cope with being outnumbered

Solutions to the “Event” problem:

• Recognize its instigation and stop it at its impetus

We saw earlier how each type of combat (i.e. Antagonistic Types 1, 2a, 2b, or Agonistic Types 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d) presents its own specific problems or observable dynamics. We are not interested in direct cross-comparison here, but it is enough for us to realize an interesting breakdown of the functions of the Combat System. Yet this outline is more for convenience since it takes us no further than the definitions offered earlier in the biological necessities for a system to Impose and Protect. This merely shows us the explicit elements of combat from which we require protection, and the means in which we may impose with safety.

In order to understand the actual means in which we may impose and protect, it is inevitable that we will need to assess the actual problems presented by fighting; the reach of our arms, the mechanics of those arms, what they represent in terms of risk and obstruction to our actions, and also what our intended outcomes are and how we intend to reach those outcomes using Strategy and Tactics. Before we can do any of these things, we must first realize that there are many options which we can make, many outcomes to consider and many methods by which we can achieve these aims. Let us first consider those options.

An overview of the possible selection

The development of certain Martial Arts is based upon the particular choices made by an individual in reference to his specific circumstances, his personal attributes (physical and psychological), his philosophy and methodology. As I have stressed, a Combat System is the development of a body of knowledge which has made certain selections where there were numerous potential choices. These choices are based upon various factors, but primarily upon data from experience, and the specific selections effectively define the system. This choice is known in Cybernetics as “bifurcation”. Umplyby, after Prigogine (1980, pp. 105-6) made a useful description of Bifurcation;

To know the state of a system at any time implies knowledge of the [choices] paths taken and not taken.

In other words, to truly know a Combat System’s composition and character is to be aware of the choices it could have made and how the choices it did make affects its character and defines its difference relative to other Combat Systems.

The concept of a System is in a set of elements which combine to create a function and automation, and as such it is an integration of and relation between elements. Cyberneticists recognise that all systems are defined in this way, but they also are composed of Philosophy, Theory, Methodology, Application (according to General Systems Theory).

The Philosophy is most often inspired by the major schools of thought within the society of the Architect. In the East, the major schools of thought were the religious institutions; Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and other folk religions.

The teachings of these institutions affect the selection of the set of Theories of the Combat System, which in turn affects the possible selections of the Methodology, and finally, this often affects the selections of the Application of the System. However, this top-down consideration is restrictive and somewhat inaccurate. Circumstantial factors often predicate the frame into which the System may be able to fit. In which case, perhaps the greatest influence upon the development of a Combat System is the intended context of the System. It is no surprise that the Bushi developed systems of Jujutsu, Yawara, Kumiuchi and Kogusoku, principally due to the specific context of the system’s application. Percussive actions were negated due to the use of armour, and therefore they resolved to attack the joints of the body, and the equilibrium. Likewise, the development of the Wing Chun Baat Cham Dao was due to the requirement for an edged weapon used on the narrow alleyways of Canton. The swords were shortened for ease of use, as well as concealment.

Philosophy

The philosophical basis of an Architect’s approach to fighting predisposes him to make particular choices for his Combat System. The first frame upon which his system is derived is his philosophic and moral world-view. The second is is his belief systems which influence his selections which we shall consider at some depth later.

On the former influence of moral world-view, let us return to the components of risk-cost used earlier in our risk calculation;

Levels of Force

1. Permanent incapacitation (“death”)

2. Permanent physiological trauma (“maiming”)

3. Temporary Incapacitation (“knock-out”)

4. Temporary anatomical trauma (“bruising, sprains” etc)

5. Anatomical trauma (“pain”/“hurt”)

Almost all martial arts schools, masters and institutions have a moral basis for their Combat System. Such a morality is derived from a world-view informed by schools of thought with whom that architect has had contact. One of the considerations we must make is that the concept of meeting force with like force is logical and eternal. Various examples, cited throughout this work, support this view. It will be important later that in Militant Societies the concept of “Kill-or-be-killed” was quite common and morality was considered a luxury since there was often no conscious opportunity to choose. In Intellectualised and Civilised Societies, individuals are able to choose the level of force dependent upon perceived threat and risk. These moral issues, taken up by the legal system dictate the use of force. The result is that modern considerations are dependant upon the concept of “reasonable force” rather than “excessive” and therefore immoral force. This distinction between civilized and natural or militant societies must be recognized at this stage, but we shall describe it in greater depth later in the work.

Theory

The theoretical stock of data is often made up of topics such as “Strategy” and “Tactics”, the kind of data which directs action and supplies the reference by which movement finds its context and purpose. This theoretical stock is the underlying impetus to all action.

In evolution, biologists recognise two kinds behaviours; the homologous (those which achieve a function and share a phylogenic origin) and the analogous (sharing the same function, but having a different phylogenic origin). So we can see that there are two means to achieve the same outcome (Wallhausen, 2009, 22; Grendreau & Archer, 2005, 27). In terms of Systems, we might say that there are those which achieve the same outcome and those which attempt to achieve different outcomes. The former is what we term “Equifinal”, and the latter is what we term “Multifinal”. In order to conceptualise the dynamics of the theoretical basis of Combat Systems, refer to fig. 9 on page 145.

If we view the action plan above, we can view the sum of node decisions (each black dot) as a specific action, which can have either a positive (advantageous for us and disadvantageous for the opponent) or negative (disadvantageous for us but advantageous for the opponent) effect. The set of transactions from the initiation (the upper-most dot) to the culmination can be understood as the number of actions required to resolve a combat. The set of negative interactions (from the upper most point to 1) is wherein we have essentially received a beating, and we have been incapable of resisting successfully. The contrary set of positive interactions (from the uppermost point to 5) represents us giving the opponent “a beating” or at least that our actions mean that the opponent was incapable of resisting us with his own actions. Each positive represents a desired result of interaction, whereas each negative represents an undesirable deviation from a desirable interaction. Therefore a Combat System represents a set of behaviours designed to allow us an entirely desirable and positive interaction, increase the probability of success and decrease the probability of our opponent’s success.

The diagram demonstrates a hypothetical combat consisting of 5 nodes (choices) in which the outcome can either be positive for us, or negative for us (positive for our opponent). Outcome 1 is our most favoured outcome, as it has a series of encounters which consistently favour us. At each encounter (represented by the black dots) our success is represented by the plus sign, or failure of our behaviour is represented by the minus sign. The Strategy identifies our mode of behaviour, our “Initial Policy”, and because our understanding of the fight changes as we encounter outside stimuli, we make use of “tactics” to adjust our behaviour to meet the opposition. Combat Systems which all seek outcome 1 is what we could recognise as “Equifinal”, but if the quality of 1 is different or there is more than one positive outcome, then it is “Multifinal”.

Figure 9 – An Eskirmological Combat System attempts to terminate further risk (and therefore deal with the opponent) in the first node. The greater the number of exposures, the greater the risk due to overwhelming aggregated stimuli. Recreational Combat Systems derive from a perpetuation of combat through many nodes, but with lower risk at each.

Although I have mentioned here the importance of “Strategy” and “Tactic”, there is another important term used amongst martial artists, and one which is not always used correctly. The term “Principles” may be found in almost all martial arts literature, but rarely are they defined in terms of “principle” but usually as a compound of ratios of force combined with concepts of Time and Space. The “Principle” of Judo for example is simply “maximum-efficiency” (Kano, 1986, 16-20). This principle of course makes no reference to the non-percussive nature of Judo, and a Karate punch, in accordance with its Abrogation Strategy might also be based upon a principle of maximum-efficiency (Kane & Wilder, 2005, 69). In fact, we might say that all effective Combat Systems must be lead by Maximum-efficiency by simple imperative⁵⁷.

The principles of fighting should rightly be scientific ones. Martial Arts literature abounds from descriptions about the importance of “principles” yet most often do not venture to describe what they are. Those which do, often offer a confused set of statements, scientific principles and directives. In which case, we must first isolate the term “principle” to mean the “scientific basis for fighting” which would include principles of Motion (Force, Inertia, Momentum, Velocity, Mass etc) and principles of Time. Using these principles, Combat Systems devise “Transactional Policies” (TA). A Combat System’s “Transactional Policy” is its defined means of using scientific “principles” to orient appropriate behaviours.

This policy may account for the way in which proactive, interactive and transactive activities are made, as well as why they are performed in a particular manner. Relating to Force is the first means by which a Combat System copes with the problem of fighting. The selections of “Transactional Policies” are as follows:

1. In absence of Force, Pre-empt

2. In presence of Force:

   1. If opponent much stronger, avoid.

   2. If opponent stronger, do not oppose, comply, displace, redirect.

   3. If opponent equal, test his strength.

   4. If opponent weaker, overwhelm.

   5. If opponent much weaker, dominate. ⁵⁸

They are essentially what Happel (1865) defined as the policies of “Before, With, Against, After”. And this strength interaction amongst fighters is a universal concern, since it is at its heart a simple question of Physics. Omiya (1999) explains how there are three forms of Daitoryu Aikijutsu; Aiki ju jutsu, Aiki no jutsu and Aiki jutsu. Aikijutsu makes use of a displacement beyond equilibrium algorithm, by complying with force and pulling. Aiki jujutsu makes use of percussive strikes to weaken resistance to SBM. It also does not comply with the force, rather it seeks to dominate an affector. Aiki no jutsu offers resistance, but does not comply with the force by displacing it beyond equilibrium. It acts against the opponent’s force using an elimination algorithm by means of Specific Biomechanical Manipulation (SBM). So Aiki Jutsu uses a selection of SBM & GBM solutions and also using either opposing, resisting or complying force.

Many Combat Systems make a decision about how they cope with force, such that they might only Pre-empt, only act in compliance with force or only act against force. Many Martial Arts are based upon the function of exploiting some kind of weakness, albeit anatomical, biomechanical or psychology weaknesses. Entire systems are derived from this basis, and it is basis which has been considered to be the most rational and practical of all the options for achieving our objective. All actions in fighting are for the objective of either exerting force, or prohibiting force exerted upon us.

Due to the tactical decision made above, the path of all consequent decisions is rooted in that initial decision. Each decision thereby takes the artform further and further from the result of an opposite set of decisions. Some Martial Arts systems which are purely reactive such as Aikido decide to focus upon exploiting the biomechanics whilst complying with the opponent’s inertia of a Convergent action in order to manipulate the opponent to prohibit his exertion of force (Ratti & Westbrook, 1970). These kinds of techniques are described as neutralisations, but are not “aggressive” attacks in the way that they directly cause damage to an opponent. It is for this reason that Ueshiba declared his art was a pinnacle of Combat System based upon a moral doctrine of universal love and harmony (Ueshiba, Stevens, 1996; 1999; Thomas, 2007, 23-37). As Thomas (ibid, 23) mentions, Ueshiba conceptualised combat as a balanced system, wherein attack represents imbalance requiring re-alignment.

Yet many ancient Combat Systems were not directed by morality, but rather the function of war. Few warriors who had witnessed the atrocities carried out in war would be likely to create a Combat System directed by morality. If anything, they would have been created based upon an essential frame of survival; and when it comes to survival, we cannot be hampered by such imposed civilised contrivances as “morals”. In this sense, Aikido is vehemently a Combat System of the modern post-militant age. Whilst its techniques can be found within preceding arts such as Aiki Jutsu, the selected technique depend upon a certain reaction of force, and depends upon compliance and adding force to that exerted. Aiki Jutsu on the other hand maintains a great number of Overwhelming and Opposing techniques of Force. It was developed for Intermale Combat, in both competitive and predatory forms. It was a system devised for the battlefield, and must have consisted of behaviours against both stronger and larger, as well as shorter and weaker opponents. It must also have included methods of killing, when the occasion necessitated such action.

The requirement to use certain behaviours based upon the perceived opponent can also be recognised amongst animals. Ethologists have been able to identify the kinds of Strategies which animals use instinctively in fighting by using six mnemonics;

Mouse – highly inhibited to fighting, never escalates, always escapes at the first sign of a fight. Tendancy to freeze if threat is unavoidable.

Dove – inhibited to fighting, will display (i.e. look bigger than he actually is) to intimitdate, but will not escalate and will escape if fight escalates.

Retaliator – will not instigate fighting, but at the first sign of a fight will instantly escalate in order to overwhelm and exploit the advantage.

Bully – Will instigate fighting like a “Hawk”, looking to provoke a fight, and will escalate a fight, but at the first sign of resistance will instantly capitulate.

Prober-retaliator – Mixture of Bully and Retaliator; instead of capitulating at the sign of resistance, the prober-retaliator will seek escalation relative to his resistance.

Hawk – the most extreme, will instigate, escalate and fight ‘till the death.

Each of these instinctive strategies is based upon conditions, which when fulfilled qualify the cue to action. Although these are recalled as quite instinctive amongst animals, the human race has sought to sanctify the logic of these Strategies by idolizing those experts who recognized the importance of them. Sun Tzu for example, based his work The Art of War on these same strategies. Compare the above with the conditional strategies of Sun Tzu;

3.8.

It is the rule in war,

• if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him;

• if five to one, to attack him;

• if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.

3.9.

If equally matched, we can offer battle⁵⁹; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.

3.17.

Thus we may know that there are….essentials for victory…He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight⁶⁰.

Although the “Assessor Role” (assessing the likelihood of success and the potential cost of escalating a fight) is quite logical, the human race has been inclined to deify those who have recognised and codified them. The deification of Sun Tzu has lasted hundreds of years, and his tactics have been used from marketing strategy to actual warfare, yet his Strategies actually betray a much more ancient logic; one which can be traced within evolution of biological organisms.

The literature on the history of conflict, and specifically literature on the pre-designed behaviours for imposing and protecting known as “Martial Arts”, attest to the fact that these strategies have always been known, and the selection of one, or more instead of all others is what defines the particular Combat Systems which exist.

In this vein, let us first take a look at the Operational choices a founder might have. Eskirmologists recognise two core choices at this stage; the Unilateral (aggressive) or Bilateral (defensive) tactics based upon the Eskirmological Principle of Laterality. The founder might decide, because he has been successful in acting defensively in his experiences of combat, he chooses to depend upon being Bilateral, and therefore his system becomes a system of Bilaterality, with all subsequent decisions made upon this foundation. Likewise, we might suggest that other masters have made a choice in favour of the opposite Tactic; to be Unilateral. The choice of either characterises the Combat System, but this choice means that it is not Eskirmological. Deciding either for or against one particular choice means that we prefer one side to be more valuable than the other. This decision in itself is unilateral, whereas an eskirmological system would consider both tactics and apply the one relevant to the specific situation.

Martial Arts such as Taijiquan and Aikido demonstrate a preference towards Bilateral methods, perhaps in a bid to comply with the logic of a principle of Least Effort. Such a principle considers that in any situation where there are conflicting rule-sets (such as preventative action or a bilateral redirection of Force), then the most logical is the one which requires least effort. Yet this logic does not minimise the potential for risk. In fact it increases the risk by requiring an input of Force from an aggressor in order to define our action – possibly a volatile input which it is difficult to predict. Therefore using this principle as a tactical foundation for a Combat System is not eskirmological. This type of approach, which attempts to minimise one’s efforts for the maximum effect is eskirmological only when we have been incapable of first unilaterally ending all potential of risk. Hence an eskirmological strategy is one which minimises the risks and not one which necessarily minimises the effort; rather it optimises the effort required.

This minimising potential for risk is also encountered in Cybernetic theory. The Minimax Principle states that the most rational strategy is one which promises to minimise the potential loses or risk which might occur, yet maximising potential return. In which case, we should act unilaterally and intervene in order to prevent any [risk of] injury upon us. Game Theory tells us that this is the most sensible first tactic involved in fighting. We should not attempt a laissez-faire strategy such as Taijiquan and Aikido as our primary strategy. We should, as most logical and realistic self-defence experts agree, control the opponent by controlling his ability to attack. Therefore we use a technique such as The Fence to keep the opponent out of range for an action, then, at OUR convenience and in our control, we initiate a unilateral action.

Application

The influence over the Application is based upon the Specific Attributes of the Architect. For example, a physically strong Martial Artist might make use of different means of Application than the weaker or shorter man. Amongst Martial Arts groups, little emphasis nor consideration is given to the personal attributes of the Architect.

A strong male, who is most likely to interact in combat with other males (perhaps in warfare), will have a different application in mind to a weaker male who is likely to interact with other males in serious combat. However, as a statistically average height for an English male, my Combat System must anticipate the fact that I am likely to enter combat with either taller or shorter males. I must also anticipate that I may enter combat with stronger males, or with weaker males, which must also be reflected in the contingencies of my System. However, I know that I am average height because I can access the statistic. This was not possible in the past, and therefore I would need to measure my relativistic body type by those in my immediate experience. If I have had experience with lots of taller people, then I would need to create a Combat System based upon a) my previous experience, b) the internalisation of poignant aspects of that experience, and c) anticipation of probable interactions in the future.

As a shorter man, a certain set of behaviours will be to my advantage. I have to get in close, but against a taller man, his limbs will become an inconvenience to him. As a taller man, a certain set of behaviours will be to my advantage. I understand that my short opponent will try to get in close, and my advantage over him is my comparative reach. As a result, my conduct in this fight will be to keep him at a distance, aiming blows to prohibit his entrance.

As a strong man, I know that in a contest of strength I have the advantage. As a result, I will seek to wrestle, or to lock the opponent’s limbs (since all biomechanical manipulations often degrade to strength contests if applied improperly). This means I will attempt to grab hold of him to act against him. As a weak man, I do not wish to enter a strength contest I know I will lose. As a result, I will find ways to a) maximise the effect of the strength I do have by percussive actions to vital points, or b) comply with his strength and find ways to undermine the effect of his strength. There are many Systems which pursue these latter means, and so we can recognise the Architect as a relatively weaker person.

Outlining these combinations of height and strength, as well as the advantages unique to those body types allows us to quantify the kind of combats involved. These somatotypes not only define the kind of proxemics which are best suited to them, but also further define the most suitable skillsets. These somatotypes are relativistic, and therefore we shall not consider the actual morphisms, but rather the comparative attributes.

• Tall = Out of Measure, Distance fighting (most often ectomorphic)

• Short = In Measure (tactile), In-fighting (most often a mesomorph)

• Weak/quick = Out of measure, tactile

• Strong/slow = Gross-bodily contact (endomorph)

These can be combined into the following attribute sets;

1. Taller & Stronger (out of range, gross-bodily contact)

2. Taller & weaker (out of range)

3. Smaller & stronger (Gross bodily range, tactile)

4. Smaller & weaker (out of range, tactile)

By considering the interactions of these 4 types with the other 4 types, we can see the frequency numbers of skillsets which make up a Combat System designed to cope with the widest range of probable fights.

As a tall person, ballistic skillsets appear 5 times, and gross-bodily wrestling appears twice. This means a Combat System designed for a tall person should have a rating of 5:0:2 (Ballistic, Wrestling).

As a small person, ballistic skillsets appear once, tactile skills appear 4 times, wrestling skills sets appear twice. This means a short persons Combat System should have a skillset rating of 1:3:2 (Ballistic, Tactile, Wrestling)

The result is of course, that my Combat System designed for any conceivable event, against either taller, short, weaker or stronger, should ideally have a rating of 6:3:4 (Ballistic, Tactile, Wrestling). This means for every Tactile skill, there should be two Ballistic skills.

Of course, these deductions are largely hypothetical. They do not admit the fact that many Architect’s did not recognise their own advantages, and recognise the advantages of one skillset over another. This means that, as a theory, this rating system is difficult to apply, but valuable for creating our own modern Combat Systems.

Another impact upon the Architect, outside of his own physical attributes, is the impact of the local physical culture upon him (Mauss’ Technique du corps, 1936). Physical Culture should also not be ignored. It is widely and routinely quoted in the histories of Northern Chinese Combat Systems that their origin was from the Shaolin Temple, a Buddhist institution which practiced a physical culture based upon the myth of Bodhidharma; a monk who taught them a “yogic physical culture” to keep them fit and healthy. Such a physical culture can be recognised in Chinese Combat Systems, wherein it should be no surprise that yogic positions, such as the Vira-asana (hero position), or Kalarippayattu postures (Chandran, Nair & Shashidhar, 2004) such as the Mayooravadivu (Peacock posture), Sarpavadivu (Snake posture), Kukadavadivu (Rooster posture) and Varahavadivu (Boar posture) as well as the sequences of these positions (suvadus), can be observed quite widely in oriental Combat Systems. Moreover, the practice of postural transition in yoga might perhaps be the origin for Pre-arranged Movement Patterns.

In Europe, there was a Physical Culture preoccupied with what we might term “naturality”. The Spanish School of Fencing, for example, was renowned for its stringent adherence to the theory of “natural movement”, considering the Frenchman’s lunge to be a grotesque hyperextension, and wholly “unnatural”. They would not have considered rolling or acrobatics to be applicable to combat in the same way as the East Asian man would. This western perspective is still with us today, wherein Westerner’s typically consider the over-acrobatic movements to be a joke. In contrast, the sanctioned expression of the human body in Indonesia (harimau pencak silat) was very acrobatic, allowing for rolling on the ground, fighting from all-fours and remaining in a low body position (Draeger, 1992, 134,136; Shamsuddin 2005). Cultural perspectives regarding the movement of the body vary worldwide, and so the investigation of Combat Systems should always take into account the wider physical culture and accepted use of the body by the culture of its origin.

A third consideration is in the selection of proximity in combat. I have mentioned many times that a fight consists of three main periods; the Onset in which both fighters enter and/or exit Measure, or the Reach of the opponent. The next is when the fighters are within measure, the last is when both fighters are in gross bodily contact. Of course, very few fights begin from a proxemic of Gross Bodily contact, and many fighters naturally pass from one proxemic to the next. When developing a Combat System, this proxemic becomes the preferable environment in which its technical movements are made.

These proxemics suggest a different challenge to the Combat System, and method required of one would be less useful in another. For example, a Combat System developed for the Out of Measure environment would require agility and mobility of its practitioners. A Combat System for the Within Measure proxemic requires stability and firm action. Therefore Martial Arts may be characterised by these requirements, and as a result be identified as certain types of Combat Systems from those of others.

These proxemics are sometimes incidental to the choice of functional manipulation of an opponent. If the Combat System chooses to exploit human weakness by means of joint locking, then the fighter must necessarily be within measure in order to create those actions. Likewise, a wrestling artform would require Gross Bodily contact in order to affect a Cross-buttock throw. So therefore the Mode of Action and Reaction predetermines the kind of Proxemical environment to which the Combat System is adapted. We need to recognise the kind of Modes the Combat System makes use of; if it concentrates on Throwing and tripping, then we have a within measure or gross-bodily contact artform – if we have an art which focuses on entering measure, exerting force such as punching, then exiting Measure again - then we have a Polysynaptic Ballistic Combat System.

This selection out of an initial choice has already helped to define Combat Systems to some extent, yet after we have made a decision regarding which Modes we wish to focus upon, we then have secondary considerations to make. If we are focussing upon Percussive actions then we know that we can make them by means of both the hands and feet. Some artforms, such as Boxing utilise only the hands, and others such as Tae Kyon place more emphasis upon use of the legs. Similarly, the choice of Non-percussive actions means that we can either exploit the opponent’s Biomechanical limitations with Joint-locking, or exploit his equilibrium by means of gross-bodily displacement. Arts such as Jujutsu prefer to focus upon the latter, and its younger brother Judo prefers to focus exclusively upon the latter.

Although we make a distinction between these choices here, this is for the benefit of study, and the great variety of Combat Systems do not always remain distinct within these choices. Some artforms such as Hapkido and Ying Jow Pai use Ballistic proxemics for kicking and striking, but enter into measure to apply joint locking techniques. In this way, these artforms choose both Non-percussive and percussive modes of application.

Each of these different Combat Systems is at its heart developed for the function of fighting and self-defence. Subsequently, the function of the artform is what we might expect to be synonymous with the function of any action in combat; to exert force or to Prohibit force. The majority of Combat Systems are designed to Prohibit force, but their method for achieving this is not always purely defensive. Some Combat Systems make explicit use of exertion of force with the function to simultaneously prohibit force exerted upon them. Therefore by exerting force ourselves, we effectively achieve both functions of action in fighting.

This kind of objective has found its way into many functional Martial Arts forms. Iaido is my commonly used example of the pinnacle of Combat System wherein the movements are economic, functional and preventative. An Iaido (or Iai-jutsu) expert has developed his System to create the mastery of swordsmanship and any fight using swords. In a single timed action, the fighter is capable not only of exerting force, but because it is exerted in Prevention, it effectively prohibits any chance the opponent has of exerting force upon us. This single hit is required to be lethal, and a follow-up movement from the opponent is not desirable. Therefore it stops the fight by stopping the opponent quickly and effectively in one single movement. Other artforms which use this concept is Traditional Karate Do (Kane & Wilder, 2005), or the Southern Chinese artforms from which the Okinawan system has been extracted (Co, 1997; Leong & Wiley, 2000).

The pinnacle of all Combat Systems is mastery of the opponent, which requires mastery over the self as a predisposition for this end. The mastery of many Martial Arts is recognised when an expert is capable of ending a fight quickly and effectively. Karate-Do, as an Okinawan Combat System, is developed based upon a similar concept to Iai-jutsu yet without the use of weapons. Its chief aim is to end a fight, to dominate an opponent (when required) by means of preventative action. It is no surprise in consequence that the Bubishi (McCarthy, 1998; the so-called bible of Karate) makes many discussions of Kyoshu-jutsu methods. It is arguable that the Bubishi may be described quite simply as a collection of Kyoshu-jutsu texts alongside some important historical treatises. The reverence for such a text is based upon the fact that such skills were retained as secrets, and that they also formed the heart of Karate itself.

The development of Combat Systems for the optimisation of action, as a suitable method of self-defence has often been ignored by a modern generation of Combative Sports practitioners. Many combat sport methods make use of actual forms of attenuation in the form of Gloves and pads. These attenuations lead not only to the prolongation of VARE, but also to the invalidity of traditional functional Combat Systems based upon a principle of preventative action. In very few modern contests of combat sport do we see any skill in preventative action; such an action simply becomes the first strike of many, but certainly not the decisive blow which an artform was once capable of delivering. For this reason, modern mixed Martial Arts methods have been forced to combine various Martial Arts together to cope with many periods of combat which traditionally would have been sought to be avoided. Whereas a Karate master might once have trained to deliver a Single finger strike (ippon ken), like the Southern Ngo Ying Kuen master to deliver a single finger to the eyes or nerve-bifurcations, the modern Sports competitor can do no such thing. Eskirmological Combat Systems, designed with an Abrogation strategy in mind, once focussed more upon concentration of force, rather than consistency of force. Consequently, the value of training the single finger, or the iron palm etc are now not as valid as the many complex “submission” techniques required of an attenuated artform. In Cybernetic terms, Modern Mixed Martial Arts are not complete Systems in themselves, but made up of many different parts.

Comparisons with heavily armoured fighters in battle may be made with these levels of attenuation; some say that whether the attenuation is on the Affective knuckles of the Exertor of force, or on the body of whom that force is being exerted is negligible. Yet we must remember that armour has its limitations in protection, whereas an Affector is not limited in its use. On the other hand, in mixed Martial Arts, the Affector is limited and therefore all applications of that Affector will not be as potent as if the hand was free from attenuation.

Hence the resultant Combat System which we witness today are often the result of many factors – factors which might otherwise change the properties of that system. Because there are so many choices involved in the development of a Combat System, there are many variations of Martial Art. Some have parallel decisions, but take tangents in the Physical dimension. Some have completely different decisions right from the first decision.

Based upon simple elements, we can see that Combat Systems are devised based upon Specific Environmental (i.e. sociological) Constraints (i.e. Butterfly Knives Baat cham dao, developed because of the need to defend oneself at close-range (Smith, 1992, 45) in narrow alleyways in Canton; Kumiuchi and Kampfringen due to armorial constraints on Percussive Actions (Draeger, 1973, 107; Wallhausen, 2010); Unarmed Combat Systems in Okinawa due to anti-weapon laws etc) and Specific Choices of technical and strategic manifestation. For this reason, we have recourse to appreciate that, although the elements seem simple, their combination and utilization are based upon application to particular circumstances. Consider the words of Sun Tzu, in Book V, who offers us the logic of such simple elements⁶¹.

5.7.

There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.

5.8.

There are not more than five primary colours (blue, yellow, red, white, and black), yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen.

5.9.

There are not more than five cardinal tastes (sour, acrid, salt, sweet, bitter), yet combinations of them yield more flavours than can ever be tasted.

5.10.

In battle, there are not more than two methods of attack - the direct and the indirect; yet these two in combination give rise to an endless series of manoeuvres.

5.11.

The direct and the indirect lead on to each other in turn. It is like moving in a circle - you never come to an end. Who can exhaust the possibilities of their combination?

This simple fact is what many enlightened individuals have attempted to give to the human race - the ability to perceive these simple elements of reality. Recognition of this fact extends far beyond the realms of the Martial Arts, and we must recognize that all of reality that may be encompassed within our experience is only a combination of simple elements. In terms of Confucian script, we may describe it as “knowing the few, to know the many”, or understanding the origin of the 10,000 things.

From one we can make two, and using the same process we used to make two from one, we can make four from two. Then we may interpolate three between two and four. Using numbers in this way allowed early mathematicians to use simple logical deductions, and others to recognize the application of these numbers to reality itself (such as Pythagoras, famed for his “theorem” and fabled to have composed a similar mathematical formula for life itself). As non-mathematicians, we may witness this same deduction without the need for replacing the concepts with symbols.

Metals and Diamonds are the result of pressures and temperatures on mere minerals; from metals we can make cars, planes, electronic devices, eating implements and weapons. From nothing more than a mineral which has undergone changes due to its environmental conditioning. So too is a human being the product of his specific social and experiential conditioning. His behaviours are an adaptation due to his learning processes. Likewise, the conditional changes and choices to Combat Systems is what makes up the unique properties of what we call “Karate”, “Tae Kwon Do”, “Aikido”, “Judo” etc.

Before we can look further at the Combative result of these decisions, perhaps we should take a step back and assess the process involved in making these decisions.

Pre-Scientific Combat Systems

The development of Combat Systems in the history of the human species is largely based upon Functional Selection rather than Scientific inquiry. Using our scientific perspective, Combat Systems which already exist might readily be viewed as pre-scientific; in that they are ‘packets’ of information which are indeed functional and practical, but the basis for their creation is unknown, their choices are obscure and their reasons for such choices are even more so. Furthermore, their behaviours have never been tested using a stable Method of consistent and measurable feedback. The most orthodox and accepted definition of pre-science is as follows:

A set of beliefs or theories that have not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method but which are otherwise consistent with existing science…

Therefore the entire gamut of Martial Arts represent bodies of knowledge, sometimes very similar and based upon the same basic strategies and using the same algorithms, but are largely un-tested and therefore the level of functionality is obscure and unknown. Because of this, their efficiency cannot be declared with any real certainty, and often their success is dependant more upon specific incidences than may be attributed to the system being used⁶².

Kuhn’s Criticism and the growth of knowledge⁶³ was a study of Science and established some of the key fundamentals of an appropriate Scientific Method. In the essay, Kuhn first used the term Proto-science (or pre-science) to mean this type of body of knowledge. He explains;

In any case, there are many fields — I shall call them proto-sciences — in which practice does generate testable conclusions but which nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the social sciences today. In these fields, too, though they satisfy Sir Karl's [Popper's] demarcation criterion, incessant criticism and continual striving for a fresh start are primary forces, and need to be. No more than in philosophy and the arts, however, do they result in clear-cut progress. I conclude, in short, that the proto-sciences, like the arts and philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of progress.

We cannot, therefore, write off all Pre-Scientific Combat Systems as useless because many logical strategies may also be found. However, as proto-sciences we must retain a healthy level of scepticism towards anything which does not conform to standard Eskirmological principles.

It needs to be mentioned at this point that the importance of science is not that it is “truer” in any sense, but that the results can be verified by anybody and anywhere. They are therefore testable, and open to testing. If a Combat System included a certain number of techniques, with a certain qualitative performance, based upon a stable method, we might go through the same process of logic which lead to the creation of those Combat Systems. Therefore, the products of scientific method (far from being separate from the other products of investigation which came before it) are more reliable than those which we are unsure of the method by which conclusions have been reached.

Subjective Data Collection

In finding the truth, you cannot have some opinion.  The Skill is all divided by opinions that follow and are later found to have no truth.  In those opinions they cannot have knowledge of Arms [Combat Logic].

- Jeronimo De Carranza

Combat Systems are data-sets extrapolated via an individual’s learning process. Integration of new data into an existing database is called “learning”, the existing database is called “knowledge” and the ability of the individual to apply such a database to predict future events, and act appropriately relative to those events is called “wisdom”. A Combat System is therefore a set of data based upon experience of fighting, compiling true data and abandoning false data based upon feedback.

The first step towards the Martial Arts Delusion begins with the Founder’s ability to discern the truth of eskirmologic. Most Martial Arts practitioners take part in a Combat System which they believe represents the truth in fighting, but we must begin by questioning the method with which the Founder created that Combat System. How did he come to the conclusions that define his Combat System? What experiences contributed to his selection of behaviours? Indeed, how infallible was his method - because surely if there were holes in his method of inquiry, then there were holes in the conclusion of his method, and therefore holes in the product of that inquiry - his Combat System?

The ability to build a Combat System is based primarily upon the founder (“The Architect”) and his personal ability to a) discern the important problems presented by fighting, b) identify the range of available choices which might supply a solution to those problems, and finally c) the selection of a number of sets of behaviours which solve the problems identified. Later, once the solutions have been compiled, they may be reduced in number by understanding the similarities – in accordance with Occam’s Razor, that “It would be futile to accomplish with a greater number of things what can he accomplished with fewer⁶⁴”. This process is often apparent amongst Martial Arts which begin with perhaps only a few basic positions⁶⁵. The Architect must create a solution to his observations, and a solution which can apply to the greatest number of predictable circumstances. This is also a process whereby a constant measure of the system is made using “feedback”, wherein a behaviour is changed or augmented based upon quality testing. At each iteration, there must be a process known as “ecology” where we relate the new data to the structure of the existing data.

In understanding a Combat System as a “sum of data sets”, we must first consider the nature by which the founder was able to discern the important problems presented by fighting.

The subjective personality of an Architect

Philosophers and Psychologists offer multifarious theories as to how physical things can affect the human mind, whilst also calling into question what actual experience of the external world can be had via the limited human senses.

It is generally accepted that no human view can be true, since all his understanding of the world is based upon pre-coded information delivered to him in the course of his development. Cultural perspective, institutionalized means of development and achievement, personal relationships and experiences all comprise an internal database of knowledge. It is in using this database that the individual navigates his world, frames his experiences and accounts for his future interactions. His prejudices, values, tastes and habits were all informed partly by his environmental surroundings (socially in his family, friends and wider media; or physically in his relationships to places) as well as his own internal measure of them. Because of these unique sets of data, his experience of an event may be as unique as his fingerprint.

Have you ever been in a situation and acted in a way which you later regretted? Having found offence in a remark you instantly flew off the handle, and then later, looking back at it, perhaps the comment was justified, or even not as offensive as it seemed at the time? Time is the great objectifier. Now put yourself in the perspective of an observer, who, not being part of your discussion sees someone speaking offensively and someone else reacting⁶⁶.

As the observer, there may be an emphatic understanding of the offence caused, but there is little actual involvement in the situation whereby this experience may be judged. This is a very simple example of how subjective our lives are. We live our lives as subjective organisms within an objective environment. This is the proposition used when Descartes made the famous dictum; Cogito ergo sum, meaning “I think, therefore I am”. He means that, I know that I exist because I am here to think it. However, how am I able to know that anyone else exists? I know what it feels like when I have a headache, but how do I know how others feel when they have a headache? Is the pain the same? There is no real way of knowing for sure since I can only experience the world from within my own body, using my own senses and mind.

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates states that “...we are imprisoned in the body, like an oyster in his shell.” We know that our perceptions are often wrong; due to our specific position in time and space our judgements of the world around us can be brought into question⁶⁷. This is often what makes us assume there are differences between parts of reality. Einstein once said that;

“A human being is a part of a whole, called by us “universe”, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

This relative perspective on reality is what makes us assume that there must be something more “absolute” since natural phenomena are not subjective – only our experiences of them are.

The ingeniousness of the Architect in building his Combat System is to understand these perceptions, and to build a map of the potential choices worthy of his selection. The real challenge is in this construction of the map.

In Beast and Man, Midgley (1979, p.14) offers us a constructive and insightful view into the attributes required of the founder of any System. She states that a founder,

“…has to be a man of great general intelligence and wide interests, or he cannot make connections with other fields and is liable to produce a scheme that some other study will shatter. But he needs also, and quite as much, to be more or less soaked in, committed to, involved with, and generally crazy about his subject. A long phase of fairly omnivorous observation, of deep receptiveness and genuine wonder, is needed to appreciate the formal peculiarities of the thing one is dealing with, to see what about it should be laid hold on for description.”

This having been said, there are in-fact two forms of “Architect”. The first and most valuable to eskirmological progress is one who actively researches, experiments and attempts to surpass previous understandings of fighting through continual efforts to “break-the-mould”. He follows closely the description by Midgely. This is the type of founder we may recognise in experts like Thompson, Blauer et al. The Architect must understand the problems of fighting, the risks and the physics of force interaction. Understanding the biological cues and the psychological components of action selection are important to him. Out of a range of many options, he is able to select those which optimally achieve his intended function.

The second type of Architect is one who is also creative, but has gathered his knowledge from the many Combat Systems which already exist, formulating and generating his own Combat System from a hybrid of many other systems. His Combat System is therefore a product of existing data sets, and as such he is identified as the “Codifier” because he reconciles sporadic sets of data. An example of this type of founder is General Choi Hong Hi (founder of Chang-Hun Tae Kwon Do - Tedeschi, 2003, Cho 1997), or In Hyuk Suh who combined the existing folk Combat Systems of Korea to create Kuk Sool Won (Suh, 1993; Young-Kimm, 1991). Of course, we might also consider that these two types of founder might be exhibited in the same individual, such as Bruce Lee who used existing pre-scientific Combat Systems to augment his own eskirmological studies.

We also have to remember that a founder is a major driving force behind the longevity of a system. So much so, he might actively promote his own sanctification. A Founder’s interest is also in the longevity of his system, and consequently must at some point face the fact that his System will definitely outlive him. How can he ensure that his knowledge is preserved five or six generations down the line? He must therefore instil robust understandings in his students as to how the system should be maintained in his absence. Moreover, the founder creates “laws”, invents rituals and propaganda to certainly fortify and encapsulate the system, almost exaggerating it based presumably upon the recognition that over many generations the quality will inevitably begin to deteriorate.

Partitioned Data sets

All Combat Systems are the product of a range of choices. These choices define the system and each individual choice which makes up a system make it individual relative to other systems which might have made very different choices. Because of the many and varied levels of choice which can be made in this process, we can witness a great many systems, yet all are based upon the exact same range of choices.

The choices which can be made are based upon the logic of fighting as a phenomenon. This means eskirmologics is the sum of all the choices which can be in any and all Combat Systems. By identifying these choices, we can trace a picture of the code which contributes to the existence of a martial art.

Consider that the Architect of a Combat System experimented, inquired and theorised about fighting and what works as a solution to the problems imposed by fighting. He theorised that, in order to successfully beat an opponent, he must be able to wait for an opponent so that we may apply less of our own energy to undermine his movement. Perhaps this opinion was informed by the local world-view (such as Wu-wei in China, or Laissez-faire in Europe; more on this later).

Figure 10 – Range of Choices in the composition of a Combat System. A Combat System may be made up of multifarious choices, and those choices define it and make it unique. A Combat System can be described using the symbols offered above, for example; ∑ Boxing = U¹U²(A{A¹}), or ∑ Tae Kyon = U¹U²(A{A²}), or ∑ Aikido = B¹B²(CD{A¹}), or ∑ Judo = B¹B²(D). I have outlined these formulae elsewhere.

Nevertheless, he made a choice about his intended behaviour. Perhaps he was aware of the other decisions which might have been made, but he has identified and chosen one. This choice, isolated from the other choices, defines his Combat System – the more specialised the choices, the more partitioned the data of the Combat System becomes.

The experience of fighting often dictates the kinds of solutions which can be found in a Combat System. Although Eskirmology contains the entirety of all possible experiences, the intelligent subjective being (the human) is only capable of experiencing a small portion of them, and that small portion will:

1. affect the way in which he will approach future encounters

2. influence the kind of solutions he will generate.

This means that his solution, in the form of his Combat System instantly tells us about 1) the kind of experiences the founder of the System has had of fighting, and 2) his opinion about the best solutions to the problems exhibited in those subjective experiences.

Every topic and understanding made by the human is based upon this concept of subjectivism. Understanding the types of subjectivism which exist will help us to understand the reasons behind the formation of Combat Systems. In fact, understanding these types can even explain the reasons behind the development of all human topics; including religion and the sciences.

The kinds of choices made are based upon;

1. Potential range of choices

2. Potential sequence of choices

The actual choice made is based upon the founder’s discernment of fighting, and so he can only make choices relative to his understanding of fighting. He must predict the range of choices which might have to be made in an actual fight-event, and supply his students the rule-set (the Theory) required to navigate those choices. Hence, the Combat System and its techniques are a macrocosmic and long-term representation of any fight-event. It provides a portfolio and rules upon which decisions may be made by an individual, or rather how decisions do not need to be made on behalf of the individual.

Combat Scientists of the past used a method of inquiry similar to the scientific method, apart from the fact that that method was not defined and therefore allowed a certain amount of Subjectivism. Their observation was partial, their enquiry was not systematic, and as a method, it is inevitable that any truth discovered could only be a partial truth (Little, 2001), with the result being that the data comprising the Combat System is a partitioned part from the possible whole. Their enquiry did not reveal the entire map of combat-logic, and they did not have the benefit of having assessed the problem from the perspective of modern science.

For example, say that we were investigating numbers, and we were attempting to identify a range of basic numbers 1 to 10. Assume the basic premise that these numbers are unknown to us and that civilisation, up to this point of our investigation, has no concept of the numbers 1 to 10.

Now work on the premise that we may liken these numbers to the whole of Eskirmologics. By a process of experience, and limited observation, some masters were capable of discerning the odd numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Considering that they had identified all that might be identified, they settled on a selection from this partial range and formed a partial truth. We may consider Aikido as an example of this, whose teachings believe that a Bilateral Strategy is the best to use. Ueshiba has subjectively discovered the bilateral methods, but not the unilateral methods. Eskirmologics makes no discernment of bilateral or unilateral; both exist in Combat Logic and therefore Combat Logic is impartial to both – it is human beings who place importance on either due to individual attributes.

Other arts such as Western Boxing have discovered punching to be most practical; which we could liken to the discovery of 1, 2, 6 & 8 – only even numbers. But it has missed the bilateral methods which Aikido has discovered. From a range of unilateral options, Boxing has been predetermined to make a selection of unilateral solutions, and therefore generate a unilateral Combat System.

So the entire truth of Combat Logic contains all numbers 1 to 10. Furthermore, it is merely incidental that one nation of people should know the numbers as “yap, yee, saam”, or “uno, dos, tres” etc, the numbers are universal, only their linguistic expression is local. In order to discover the entirety of Combat Logic, masters of Combat Logic were forced to become impartial, observant of the root and the branches, accepting of the truth of Combat Logic for what it is and not what they believed it “should be”.

Logical deduction from observable data should also be important, in other words, there should not be any logical jumps, or gaps in progression. So if we start with 1 we may easily find 2, and from 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. If we have observed 1, 5, and 10, then by means of a process of interpolation, we may further deduce the existence of 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Masters who did not have the benefit of this kind of interpolation process were liable only to discover 1, 2, 4, 7, etc, which allows us to recognise their findings as Pre-Scientific.

Using a simple mathematical formula, taking into account the kind of variables involved in fighting due to relative size and relative strength (as per the Simple Assessment Model), we can propose that there are as many as 160 different match-ups possible in VARE. This means that, even before we begin to get into the permutations of particular tactics and specific sequences of tactics being used in each of those prospective fights, plus the many thousands of variations in technique used, there are already a massive range of possible experiences to account for when generating a system. Even with this relatively small number of 160 possible fights, we can suppose that the founder of the system devised it without experience nor prediction of all these 160 fights. He would consequently have created it based upon the limited experience he had accumulated. For example, even a master who had 1,000 duels in his lifetime would commonly have combated against males in a dueling environment; in which case, his 1,000 duels represent only 1/5 of the entire range of combats possible.

Even the perception of specific combative events may be highly subjective. It stands to reason that in any event, there will be many different observers, but there remains only one truth; a truth common to all observers and therefore definable as a Truth. What happened, happened - that is the fact and the truth. But ask any observers & each version will be slightly different. Thus, the very meaning of the truth, suggests that an individual truth (as per Lee’s famous dictum) is impossible – a mere illusion. The truth lies in seeing past the “versions”; the perception, to see the totality; the truth. Each Martial Art is a version of the truth, a perspective. Tae Kwon-Do teaches that kicks are the answer, Judo demonstrates that throwing is the answer; Muay Thai promotes elbows and shins as the answer. Does this mean that the question is different for each answer? Of course not, the answer must fit the question. In the words of Lee on the “Choiceless Observation⁶⁸”:

“The consequence is quite understandable, for a person cannot see a fight “as is” - because he is so often blinded by his chosen segments from the point of view of a kung fu stylist, a boxer, a karate man, a wrestler, a judoka, or anyone who is trained in a particular method, and naturally he will interpret the fight according to the limits of his particular conditioning.” (Little, 2001, 134)

In fact, he interprets it relative to that which he already knows. According to the Schemata Theory of Learning (Hewstone, et al 1997, 112-117), each new data set is compiled into the mind, wherein it is structured, filed and encapsulated into data-sets. The ability to assimilate new data into that Schema is determined by one’s capacity to relate that data to the existing data within the schema. The result is, of course, that in approaching new phenomena the mind must “interpret” (or reference) it based upon an existing database of knowledge. Psychologists note that, in assessing risk, one has a natural process of recalling examples of risk to back up a decision. Such a decision is therefore based upon inconsistent or inaccurate data with which the individual has had contact. “Interpretation” is natural, and we can only ever understand the world around us based upon the database of information in our mind.

In our discussion of Eskirmologics, we identified many different principles which could be traced within fighting. For example, we reasoned that there was a Unilateral principle and a Bilateral principle which were two sides of a Lateral principle. Secondly, in our discussion on the biological necessity for Combat Systems we saw that naturally animals have a Conditional Strategy in which they would use one of the principles, but resort to the other should the situation demand a tactical change. Some Combat Systems have strangely not used a Conditional Strategy, but rather sought to focus upon either one or the other. Combat Systems are therefore based upon incomplete data sets, and form what Bruce Lee refered to as “Partial Truths” – a partiality based upon a pre-scientific method of investigation into Eskirmology.

Needless to say, some deductions have a cultural influence. Asian Combat Systems have a pre-disposition for selecting Bilateral strategies due to influences from the Major Schools of Thought. Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism all have doctrines of passivity, compliance and harmony. Moreover, these doctrines affected the composition of the major works of Combat System literature in the Far East. When two sides exist, it makes sense that the smooth interchange and non-resistance by both sides of the polarity, in a state of equivalence, may be assigned the name Harmony. This principle is of utmost importance to the Martial Arts and exists in most (if not all) Asian styles. Aikido, Taijiquan, Hapkido etc all have an equivalent use of this phenomenon. Yet the compliant element of eskirmologics was not discerned to this extent in Europe, where direct force was the primary range for selection of behaviours.

The range of options available to an Architect in building his system is outlined in the “Systemical Map” diagram, wherein we can see Lee’s analogy of the branches and the roots illustrated fairly aptly. So if we consider these ideas as the roots of the Martial Arts, which admit all possibilities, it accepts that Unilateral or Active strategies and Bilateral, or Reactive strategies are two extremes of the same approach. When a Martial Art makes a choice between one or the other, it becomes Partial and the result is a partisan’s truth. Subsequently, each branch represents a preference based upon the principle of Polarity.

So it seems that the truth in combat cannot be different for each individual, merely the experience of that combat is unique. Lee (Little, 2001, ) in fact mentioned that “the way of combat is not based upon personal choice or fancies. Truth in the way of combat is perceived from moment to moment…” Our truth, as a component of that combat, would be entirely individual; the experience is unique and subjective, yet the components of combat (as two human bodies exerting force upon each other) is entirely universal, and it is for this reason that Lee stated that it is different for each individual.

With the institutionalisation of fighting, a master long ago stated that “in a fight, use your palm against the opponent’s chin”, or “in a fight, use your knee to the opponent’s groin”, which is the inception of ritualisation. With a ritualised condition, the fighter is so pre-occupied in his attempt to apply this teaching that he fails to react to the situation, which we have already defined as spontaneous and unplanned. Moreover, the problem with ritualised fighting is the fact that there is so much of this kind of teaching, which builds, layer upon layer, that a white belt will only have a few techniques to use, and will therefore be most pre-occupied in his attempt to apply the minimal techniques which he has learned.

A Combat System’s behaviours must therefore be capable of being applied to multifarious circumstances within a given range of previously observed data. It must have a set of behaviours, strategies and tactics which are universal. By “universal”, we mean a set of statements which can apply to all potential specific occurrences with which it might be expected to cope. The terms “universal” and “specific” are readily used by Popper (1959, 42-47) in his definition of abstract theories and hypothesis generation, as well as the categorical examples from which those hypotheses have been drawn. “Universal” therefore must mean that it applies to all considerations which might occur, in which case we must consider the examples in our experience, and outside of our own specific experiences as well as hypothetical occurances which we may predict.

Figure 11 – Combat Logic (the range of potential possibilities in fighting) allows many different options and skillsets, yet Combat Systems select parts of those options above others, largely due to the kinds of specific attributes of the founder and his anticipated applications of those skills in VARE.

The Selection of Technical Actions

The study of the founder was based upon organic learning and necessarily was dependant upon enquiry and investigation. This process we might properly call “science”, yet because it did not follow a standardised scientific method, it was Pre-scientific. Having used a pre-scientific method of discovery, the founder settles upon what he considers to be Combat Logic and hence the product of his journey of discovery is encapsulated into his unique Combat System. He then proceeds to teaching the sum of his partial science to others. The entirety of Ritualised Combat Systems is based upon the futile attempt to organically teach fighting to students by means of synthetic learning. All teachings in a Martial Art are based upon a conclusion which the founder made by means of pre-scientific reasoning, but instead of teaching students the tools of science; he teaches them his conclusions, his product.

Ritualisation then may be defined as a set of behaviours which are repeated, usually applied to the same circumstance that supplied the stimulus to their invention, but not always. Problems occur when such patterned behaviour are applied outside of their original context.

Out of all the possible behaviours which a system could comprise, the founder of the Combat System dictates a defined set of behaviours to be repeated by others. A founder of a Combat System is first and foremost a human being, and therefore a subjective entity. When he teaches, he necessarily teaches based upon his experience, his view, his perception, his expression, his habit. How can he teach you based upon anything else? Yet as martial scientists we do not wish to learn his particular expression, his particular experience, his particular habits – we want to learn about fighting. So in accordance to the orthodox methods of teaching, in learning a Combat System, we must accept that we learn a system based upon the Architect’s unique attributes.

A Combat System is a product of an Architect, a human being, who (in his wisdom and subjective experience) constructed a set of behaviours designed “…for generating advantages in fighting; to exploit the opponent’s weaknesses, so that we may impose without the possibility of resistance, and our opponent cannot impose with strength”. The specific selections made by that Architect define the properties of his final product. Combat Systems such as Shotokan Karate exhibit a qualitative kinematic which complies with an Architect who was strong, preferring to begin combat out of range as per a Type 2a and 2b Antagonistic combat, and in Wing Chun, we can see biomechanical motions devised for a physically weaker fighter against a stronger opponent within range, as per a Type 1 Antagonistic combat. Such kinesiology betrays the history of the System, demonstrating a very clear, and forensically-tracable clue to the development of the system – often confirming the “folk-loric” history recalled in many Asian Combat Systems.

Some Eskirmological Combat Systems attempt to minimise the number of technical actions in order to optimise both study time, action-time and cognitive recall. Iaijutsu is a good example of this kind of optimised Combat System based upon reductionist kinematics. A Combat System devised for Sword Duelling would require the following logical action-script (or “action pattern”) to achieve its function;

1. Draw sword from sheath (nuki tsuke)

2. Place into an adequate guard position (kamae)

3. Use the sword with simultaneous attack and defence (kobo-ichi)

4. Strike the mortal blow to end the combat (kiritsuke)

5. Wipe the blood from the sword (chiburi)

6. Return the sword to its sheath (noto)

Iaijutsu (a Japanese Augmented Combat System) identifies the core functional elements for the list of movements and combines them to minimise the number of technical actions. Its function was to kill the opponent with a sword. The expert of Iaijutsu cuts out the needless elements of the procedure in order to optimise the technical function. They erase steps 2 & 3 as, as well as combining steps 1 with 4, 5 with 6 into a single movement. Therefore there are only 2 real steps in Iaijutsu; 1) Draw sword to strike a mortal blow, 2) Return the sword to its sheath whilst wiping the blood from the blade. Using Occam’s Razor, the logic that we should “never do with two what can be achieved with one”, we can see that Iaijutsu has optimised its behaviours.

When you are learning a Martial Art, you are essentially learning a finite number of technical selections from an almost infinite range of options, in order to achieve an eskirmological function. Scientifically speaking, there are five manners in which a percussive action with the upper limbs can be made⁶⁹;

1. With a rotational lever-arm (Type A)

2. With a linear extension (Type B)

3. With a descending extension (Type C)

4. With an ascending lever-arm (Type D)

5. With an abductive flexion-extension (Type E)

There are five because there are only five trajectories in which an action can be made, and due to this, the human form can create these trajectories by using the biomechanical lever-sets of the human body. These actions find their correlates in all Martial Arts, and as such we can use Boxing’s terminology here (in telegraphed order) as they are perhaps most widely understood amongst Western people;

1. Round blow

2. Straight blow

3. Hammer blow (now extinct from Modern Boxing)

4. Uppercut blow

5. Backfist blow (now extinct from Modern Boxing)

These typical motions can be traced in all Combat Systems from around the world, regardless of the terminology used to describe them⁷⁰. When you learn a Kuk Sool Pyong soo (palm strike), or a tanglang quan (praying mantis strike) from Praying mantis kung fu (tanglangquan), a Wing Chun punch (Jik Cheung), or a Boxer’s Jab, you are basically performing three different techniques of the same function (a Type B Percussive Action). The critical difference is the selection of the “Applicator” (the specific part of the body exerting force – in this case, the hand). For example, a boxer would eskirmologically perform a lead jab, whereas a Chuka Shaolin master would punch using the “Phoenix Eye” fist (Fong Yen Kuen) technique. There is no difference in the function of the technique, only in the selection of two different kinds of applicator (one with a greater concentration of force).

In this way, we can see that depending upon the mode used, the quality of the attack remains the same. As an example, we may consider the attacks of Kuk Sool Won’s famous straight palm strike (Jang pyong soo), Boxing’s lead jab and Fu Jow Pai’s tiger claw strike. Each technique uses the same modality of attack; the linear line. Irregardless of the quality of the lower limbs, all these percussive actions are made in a straight line. The Jang pyong soo of Kuk Sool is made in a straight line. The Boxing jab is made with a fist, also in a straight line. The Chang Fu Jow (Tiger Claw) is made with the hand in a “grasping” modality, but nevertheless made in a straight line (rectilinear trajectory).

The same principle works for adductive striking. The difference between the Haito Uchi (Inward Ridgehand strike) of Karate and the Boxer’s hook is also down to modality of the hand and lever-arm position, the actual trajectory of the action is the same.

It is also worth mentioning the influence of the Aspect (the positioning of the body) on the technique. Depending upon the Aspect of the guard position, means the difference between the boxer’s lead jab and the Wing Chun Jik Cheung (Straight fist). The linear trajectory of the attack is the same, but the Aspect of the body is different (in Boxing, it is Lateral, in Wing Chun it is Anterior). In the same way, the kinesiology of the boxer’s hook punch and the Hook Punch of Karate (Kage Zuki) is based upon the Aspect of the body (in Kage Zuki, the Aspect remains in profile to the opponent. In the Boxing Hook, the body dynamically moves towards the opponent, using the torsion of the upper body). In this way, we can see that the techniques are different, but the fundamental principles are universal; the differences are based merely upon variation of the core themes. Of the quality of the technique, we can therefore find 3 elements; the quality of the hand, the modality of the limb and the relation of the limbs to the terminus of the body. The preferential techniques in training, whether the system teaches one or another way of performing a technique, are only modalities of several different possibilities.

Stepping into Specialisation

Eskirmological Combat Systems typically follow a Conditional format, often with a variable rule-set governing the switch in particular tactics. For example, if the opponent stands motionless, the unilateral fighter might use a Provocation algorithm to draw his opponent into action. When the opponent launches a Percussive Action, the fighter instantly switches to a bilateral response akin to an Aikido technique. The format it takes is recognizable as:

If Policy = Unilateral

{Opponent.Policy = Bilateral}

{Provocation (inviting | feinting)}

Else Policy = Bilateral

{Opponent.Static}{Wait for action}

If {Opponent.Percussive.Action}

Then {Non-Percussive.Action (seize | adhere)

If {seize (immobilization | neutralization)}

If {adhere (follow | disengage)}

This is a simple example of the kind of algorithms which might be used by a system to structure the action sequence in a fight. This Variable Behaviour Pattern is observable in many Combat Systems, and is a common trait amongst Eskirmological Hand-to-Hand Combat Systems.

On the other hand, Recreational and Attenuated Combat Systems exhibit a peculiarity amongst the composition of Combat Systems. They often have a Fixed Behaviour Pattern, one which does not change regardless of particular circumstances. In contrast to an Eskirmological System which will change tactics and techniques to suit the Strategy of Survival, Recreational Combat Systems (or those not designed for reality-based situations) often demonstrate only a single set of tactics and techniques. These specifics are performed no matter what the circumstances in the form of a script. The success of a Fixed Action Pattern (FAP) in such circumstances is entirely based upon the probability of the VARE suiting the particular behaviours of the FAP.

Boxing is a perfect example of the kind of specialization involved in Fixed Behaviour Patterns. It is a Combat System which makes use of a Unilateral (Approaching) strategy, a selected specialisation to the detriment of the Bilateral (Responding) strategy. Next is the selection of Technical Behaviours, wherein it must decide between either Non-Percussive or Percussive Modes of Action. Boxing, of course, makes its selection of the Percussive Mode. Then we have the choice between using the Upper Limbs in Percussion, or using the Lower Limbs. Tae Kyon veers off into the preference for the legs direction. Boxing on the other hand decides to specialise in use of the Upper Limbs. Then there are the specific options in the use of the Upper Limbs. Instead of using palm strikes like Kuk Sool, or Tiger strikes like Fu Jow Pai, Boxing uses the form of the clenched hand as it’s Applicator of Force. The rules of Boxing (it’s “regulated attenuations”) dictate a specific manner of using the fists, dictating a rule-set in which certain actions (such as the hammer blow, or the backfist) are excluded. These are therefore further examples of selection.

Likewise, Hapkido selects the use of the legs for use at an Out of Reach proxemic, but also makes a decision to use non-percussive techniques, such as locks and throws at a Within Reach, and in Bodily-Contact proxemics. So we can see that each Combat System is the result of a set of selections, each selection making it unique, but also making it exclude a number of data-sets.

This has lead many practitioners to combine certain art forms. Since Lee stated that there were ranges to the Martial Arts, many have taken the view that a Martial Art should suit each range. The result is that Tae Kwon Do practitioners have studied boxing to improve their hand skills, and jujutsu to gain some non-percussive skill. This creates a form of learning which gives the Martial Artists a confused and hybrid style.

This brings us to the modern practice of Mixed Martial Arts, or rather the concept of appending, but not de-duplicating the data-sets of multiple Combat Systems. With the mixed and hybrid Martial Arts of the modern time, we can see that the concept of Lee’s partial truth has filtered into the mainstream Martial Arts consciousness. However, the problem is that Mixed Martial Arts simply mix partial truths together, and unlike Lee’s logical progression, end up working in the opposite direction. I have already stated that learning Tae Kwon-Do does not mean that you can apply the same principles to create joint locks. In the same way, mixing Aikido’s bilateral redirections with boxing’s percussive strikes means that we will just get a mix of two partial truths, and not the universal truth at the root of both. The study of principles which lead to the generation of all or any attack method in the Martial Arts would have a significant superiority to any method combined from several different partial truths. The success of this approach would always be proportional to the number of Combat Systems which had not been studied. In other words, the more specialised partial truths one knows, the more partial truths would need to be learned to compose the Total truth⁷¹.

Because Combat Systems are not based solely upon science, we can find elements of science within them. For example, a Judo throw begets the scientific principles of non-percussion, leverage, bilaterality and redirection of force. A boxer’s punch begets the truth of scientific principles of percussion, power generation and mobility. The Karate fighter depicts the scientific truth of the use of stability and attacking the scope of defence. In isolation, each has optimised and exploited their understanding of these partial truths, but none have considered the relative position of such partisan training from an objective view.

We can see with use of the Combat Systemics Map that some Martial Arts, such as Boxing are highly specialised fields of fighting, whereas others draw from several different fields⁷². Most of these Martial Arts demonstrate techniques which evidence the study (or at least a simple understanding) of science. However, a true science would give us all that is needed to create techniques such as these. This is achieved by identifying the singular underlying rule from which all techniques find their manifestation. As a result, by using a single principle, we may use any technique, which renders technique superfluous to the use of a single principle to be applied in any and every fight.

Many ritualised schools of fighting have deep scientifically pragmatic tactics which can be found in eskirmology. The difference between the two, which is critical to the definition of ritualised fighting is that the techniques are ritualised to fossilise the tactic. In other words, all the ritualistic pedagogy of the fight-school is based upon the passing on of subtle eskirmological tactics. The kata of Karate-Do is a perfect example of this, whereby the secrets of the kata is the tactical strategies found within them. They are therefore often likened to treasure troves of recorded techniques which disguise the hidden truth. Ritualisation of technique as a way of ritualizing combative tactics is perhaps the most important part of Traditional Martial Arts (“anachronistic Combat Systems”), and an aspect which takes a great deal of “de-coding”.

As a result of this, we may identify several delusions here. If the product of a Combat System is based upon experience, personal attributes, physical culture and philosophy of the founder, then it is almost entirely unique to him. His own habits, his own behaviours, specially designed by him for him. If he is a physically stronger male, who encounters combat with other males, his system will reflect that – it will have a kinesiology based upon Power generation, terminating risk quickly and effectively, as well as be based upon the institutionalized rituals of the specific combat environment.

A woman for example, who is physically weaker than most if not all potential assailants will require a system designed for her attributes, to overcome the overwhelming components of a Predative Combat. In which case, she will use the power derived from mechanical strength rather than muscular strength.

Moreover, as we shall see, the Intermale Combats between Bushi required a system designed for killing as well as a suppression of percussive actions which held little importance nor effect on armoured opponents (Draeger, 1973, 107). A similar Combat System developed in Europe amongst the Upper classes (Wallhausen, 2010), as demonstrated in surviving works in the Italian language (Dei Liberi, 1410; Vadi, 1482; et al) or German language (HS.3227a, 14^th century; Von Danzig, 1452; Ringeck, 1440, Talhoffer 1443, 1459, 1467; et al). We may also trace a recreational correlation with those Eskirmological Combat Systems.

Eskirmological Combat Systems

In the chapter A typology of Combat Systems, we reasoned that as a direct response to the High Intensity scale of combat, man attempts to institutionalise fighting-for-real, or Mortal combat (Armstrong) and so he creates what I call Eskirmological Combat Systems. The driving force behind the invention of these systems is the need to:

• Reduce the difference between desired outcome and obstacles to that outcome

• Reduce the risk to oneself

• Be able to eliminate (“kill”) an opponent if he poses a long-term risk, or if he poses a high-risk (i.e. the opponent seeks to kill us – the “kill or be killed” circumstance)

In which case, they are based upon the existential rather than recreational needs for defence. Specifically I have the Combat Systems of Pre-industrial and Feudal societies in mind. These societies (that required a system which fulfilled the points mentioned above but only had a technology which allowed for Hand-to-Hand Combat) devised some of the most efficient Combat Systems known to man. But their invention was based upon Functional Selection rather than Scientific Inquiry.

The Battlefield Paradigm

Eskirmological Combat Systems are necessarily realistic due to the environment in which they must be used. Out of necessity, these systems often focus upon ending a fight as quickly as possible, considering the phylogenic and behavioural basis of actions and reactions within an aggressive and volatile event. Eskirmological Combat Systems recognise that injury (or even death) is a distinct possibility, and therefore they are devised to terminate, eliminate, or at least minimise this risk.

The more extreme the combat environment, the more essential the efficiency of the Combat System. Combat which is serious, made with high-intensity, involves the potential to be killed, and therefore the system requires the “capacity to kill” to be quick and effective. We may therefore consider Eskirmological Combat Systems as the primary definable category for all Combat Systems.

Due to their intended use and environment, they must be dangerous sets of behaviours. Prior to the use of the term “murder” by judicial systems, killing was the act of using physical force to end another organism’s life – an organism who poses a risk (either physically or socially). Arts commonly considered to be “hidden” or “secret” such as Dian Xue (Dim Mak), and Chin Na/Fei Na are the pinnacle of the eskirmological system.

Core traits of the Eskirmological Combat System are:

• Actions which encompass imposing and protecting simultaneously (see Table 1)

  • Reduction of actions into single-time, meaning actions are devised with the potential to defeat with a single action

• Algorithms for the widest range of predictable stimuli and circumstances (i.e. percussive and non-percussive, any proxemic, any relationship between combatants).

• Absolute “kill-or-be-killed” Force, Concentration of Force, maximum effect.

As such, we can see that, because of the risks involved in serious combat, termination of the opponent must be done quickly, without overdue effort or a number of actions. Repeated exposure to risk increases the cumulative effect of risk, and so the ability to defeat an opponent in a single action is the pinnacle of eskirmological achievement. This Elimination or Domination of an adversary quickly and effectively is in accordance with the logic of Occam’s Razor, in both number of movements and volume of force. Castle (1885) disliked the fact that parries and strikes had previously been attributed as one and the same by his ancestors, yet aggressive actions which simultaneously attack and defend are one of the most important attributes of an eskirmological Combat System. Separation of attack (striking) and defence (parrying) actions not only mean that more actions are required to overcome an opponent, but there are more options involved⁷³.

An effective Combat System is one that can impose with force, and to protect against force, but in a way which reduces risk to oneself and increases one's advantage. Combat Systems are designed for this sole purpose. A single combat could end with the death of the adversary, but on the battlefield, the risk involved in a single combat is multiplied by the number of adversaries required to be overcome. Surrounded by adversaries, the Combat System must devise behaviours to maximise one’s ability to dispose of them quickly and effectively, and retain enough energy for the next set of adversaries. As Dempsey earlier declared about bareknuckle boxing, fights continue until one man is beaten, don't expect intervention, or the bell to sound signalling the end. The combat continues until one is safe, and safety usually means the neutralisation of adversaries.

A single combat and a battlefield combat share the exact same properties apart from the additional factors of:

• Number of attackers, resulting in:

  • Overwhelming stimuli which cannot be coped with simultaneously,

  • longevity of having to combat (potentially) against:

    • multiple iterations of different attackers

    • multiple iterations of the same attacker

    • multiple iterations of groups of attackers

    • multiple iterations of the same group of attackers.

In fact, these circumstances increase the risk involved and only serve to exacerbate the importance of efficiency, and a Combat System devised to cope with disposing of many attackers effectively will find ease in settling a single combat with efficiency. A Combat System might also be amended to allow it to be capable of being applied in sporting or recreational circumstances. This capacity for an eskirmological Combat System to apply to a recreational combat, is what I term “scalability”. This process is unidirectional meaning that the inverse is much more difficult to achieve effectively. A system devised for a rule-set having the traits of multiple iterations of techniques, and separate attack and defence actions (the common traits of combat sports), these aspects effectively increase the probability of being killed on the battlefield. Attempting to kill an opponent on the battlefield in twenty moves is likely to get you killed, and not just by the man infront of you! Moreover, when surrounding by attackers, you will need to dispatch each quickly and efficiently, ideally not allowing the opponent to come back with a second attack. Such an account is oberservable today, just as grappling or groundfighting on the streets is likely to end severely. Any set of behaviours in which you must devote time to increase the risk - i.e. “increased exposure to instances of risk increases the overall risk”. So a system devised for these circumstances is highly efficient due to necessity. Those who had ineffective systems simply didn't live to pass it on - a process we might refer to as “functional selection”. 

Eskirmologics do not place concern for the other organism in importance. Combat Logic is indifferent to life and death; it merely supplies the rules by which survival may take place between living creatures. Human beings however are very moral creatures, who are incapable of killing unless in the most necessary of cases. Therefore, as man moves away from a Militant Society, the greater his inclination to wipe out Eskirmological Combat Systems. Within this group we can find Law Enforcement and Military Combatives as well as Civil (or so-called “urban/street” combatives). The former is of course, the profession level of fighting, by groups of people have a professional interest in eskirmological fighting methods. The latter is the group of self-defence experts, the night-club bouncers and the security guards. Each of these requires a certain level of expertise in the reality of fighting, and cannot afford the luxury of artifice. Professionals, such as military personnel and law enforcement officers are the present day equivalent to Feudal Europe’s knights, or 19^th Century Japan’s Samurai. However, the modern army now omits much of the requirement for spiritual cultivation and inhibition of fighting skills by means of moralistic conditioning.

Any system devised for fighting follows an essential teleological imperative. This imperative was the basis upon which all Martial Arts were invented and designed in pre-industrialised societies. These imperatives are as follows;

1. To secure an infallible defence as far as is possible

2. To inflict harm, damage and even death to others whilst remaining within the restrictions of 1.

Many modern Martial Artists might contend that 2 is an imperative at all, preferring to seek simply a system which complies with the first imperative. This, however, would be an opinion based upon a moralistic perspective influenced by modern society. As Orlando (1997, 40) highlighted “In war, combat techniques are effective only if they can kill, and kill quickly. This is the sole standard by which they are judged”. However, in compliance with our bid at universality, we must consider a teleology which complies with the generation of a Combat System for warfare. This must also be based upon an existential guide, whereby an organism would seek not only to secure its own safety, but also impose its will upon others to expand its own potential benefits. This means that Combat Systems must necessarily depend upon both imperatives. Buckler, Castle, Peters (2009) describe the common problem which occurs from this second imperative by using the example offered by Wildish;

Wildish (2000) disagrees however that the Martial Arts can be translated so simplistically. He suggests that the term ‘Martial Art’ is a poor translation for the Chinese term ‘wushu’ or its Japanese equivalent ‘budo’⁷⁴. ‘Wu’, although often translated as ‘martial’ has a more complex etymological root. If the Chinese character for wu is analysed, it is a combination of two elements, the upper radical standing for ‘halberd’ (a pole with a blade), whereas the bottom radical means ‘stop’. Thus the term wushu is translated as ‘stop the halberd’, which Wildish (2000) also notes may be interpreted as the ‘cessation of arms’, or more generally the prevention of violence and acts of aggression. The word ‘shu’ stands for art, as a body of knowledge; principles and techniques pursued for the perfection of the human spirit. Thus the highest aspiration of the Martial Arts is that they should be the ‘arts of peace’.

It seems it has previously gone unnoticed that Peace is ultimately the purpose of War. War is simply the human social manifestation of the same innate mechanisms within the organisms of the animal kingdom. Let us explore this concept in greater detail.

Fighting amongst individual animals is based upon a) securing long-term/short-term peace from those who attack, and b) those who attack do so in the interests of increasing the long-term benefit of their own peacetime. There is therefore an attrition of interests in which only physical force is capable of restoring status-quo. In which case, just as between animals, the success in such an event is based upon the Survival of the Fittest.

Fighting is always a transient period in which the interests of one organism escalate to inflict force upon another organism who stands in the way of those long-term interests. In effect, it is the direct physical competition of two parties seeking a new equilibrium. War, by continuing the logical inference, is a sequence of battles (fight-events involving large numbers of organisms) that in themselves are always a transient period in which the interests of one group escalate to inflict force upon another group which stands in the way of those long-term interests. Therefore when the Allies defended their lands during the Second World War, it was because the interests of the Nazis impacted upon their own interests. Likewise, the Nazis were attempting to secure a lebensraum for long-term peace for the German-speaking peoples (albeit by means of gross atrocities). This being said, both sides’ motives comply with our reduction of the event. The difference is merely in the scale. The German Reich did not begin war simply because of a love of War - few human beings begin war because of a love of war - but because long-term goals meant the necessity to inflict force of arms in order to achieve a preferred long-term peace. The Reich had to “stir the waters” of Europe in order for the “mud to settle” in the way they wished. Consequently, Wildish’s consideration that the Martial Arts should be defined as “Arts of Peace” assumes that Peace and War are mutually exclusive. In fact, War is in itself a string of events (battles) designed to secure a long-term peace – it is merely the manner (by Force) in which this takes place which renders it unidentifiable as such. Wildish shows an inclination towards considering that the Martial Arts are Arts of Peace, yet perhaps a better consideration would be to define that as “Arts of War in order to secure long-term Peace on one’s own terms”. The two are not mutually exclusive, but rather one exists because of the other and vice-versa. Or perhaps a better description would be “the systemical mechanisms through which man might secure his long-term security and interests.” Using this definition, we can clearly see why Martial Arts should be so important to mankind as, much more than legislation or any other event, man can instantly change or improve his social position or condition by means of physical force. In comparison to any other resource the organism might possess, existentially speaking, the Combat System is perhaps the most valuable.

The majority of Martial Artists declare that an infallible defence is impossible, yet they are not thinking in terms of reality, but rather only in terms of Martial Art (i.e. in terms of two people within range of each-other). Widening our horizons, we realise that defence need not be defined by being within range, since all Bodies in space are limited by their volume, their measure and capacity. The most infallible defence is not being in a fight in the first place, but next to this, the most obvious tactic is not being in reach of your opponent. If he cannot reach you, he cannot harm you. This was the reasoning for the many projectile weapons which existed in history, from the Roman Pilum, the Frankish Angon or the common Javelin, and ultimately modern ballistic weapons. Yet this method of fighting was not reliable for achieving point two of our teleological purpose and so, like Rosenbaum (2004, 95), we can see that weapons became longer (such as Spears and Pikes) to increase the reach whilst minimising the opponent’s own ability to reach us.

Immediately we have met with an addition to man’s natural armoury of his hands and feet. Unlike animals, imbued with natural weaponry in the form of sharp teeth and claws like lions and wolves, mankind has fleshy weapons only useful for battering or gouging with the finger-nails. In which case, man had to create technology to augment his ability to achieve the teleology of Combat Systems.

The list of human technology used for warfare demonstrates perhaps his most ingenious series of inventions ever created. There is something rather tragic in this sentence, that mankind’s pinnacle of technological achievement from the full-plate or “mail” armour of Europe’s Knights, up to jet-fighters, atomic bombs, space travel or the internet – all have their origins in the human drive to cause harm and defend particular groups. Hobbes once stated that man’s life in a state of nature was nasty, brutish and short, yet he has not really moved any further than that state of nature – it has merely developed very sophisticated methods of self-preservation. Entire economies are based upon Military Industrial Complexes whereby a nation itself is essentially a leviathan vying for its own defence and preservation. In effect, entire complex systems currently exist to do exactly the same two eskirmological teleologies, even if it is on a financial level rather than an existential level.

We can realise then that “weapon arts” such as Kendo or Fencing are simply an anachronistic adherence to outdated technologies which serve the teleological functions of the Combat System. The difference between a Japanese Samurai’s use of his Daikatana, or the modern air force pilots use of his Stealth-bomber is down to the fact that their technologies are wide apart. The purpose of both technologies is to achieve the teleological functions of warfare. In which case, the modern plane achieves the function much better than the sword; a weapon which is the equivalent of the horse and cart to the modern racing car. When mankind develops a new way of achieving those two essential eskirmological functions, it rejects that which came before, or retains it for anachronistic novelty (or for other “side-effects” – i.e. transcendentalism, callisthenics etc).

Anachronism appears everywhere in Martial Arts, and the fact that Eastern societies (due to Confucianism) hailed tradition as all important means that it retained many of the fighting habits and behaviours of its ancestors – sometimes long after their actual use in warfare. This is the case which we see in modern Martial Arts whereby practitioners maintain the anachronistic practice of the weapons technology of the Samurai. Needless to say, the Samurai gave way to technological advancement eventually, which is why we can see the modern Japanese military being equal with those of other Industrialised countries. Serious defence is no longer the preserve for a bourgeoisie military class who fought sword-in-hand.

Therefore we can see that Eskirmological Combat Systems are those which achieve the two parameters of Eskirmologics, and thus we find two kinds;

1. Augmented

Those which make use of technological artefacts to achieve the eskirmological imperatives.

2. Non-augmented

Those systems which are devised to optimise the use of strictly the human body for achieving the eskirmological imperatives⁷⁵.

Draeger (1973) was therefore not far off the mark when he stated that practical Martial Arts always involve the use of weaponry. In fact, mankind is particularly weak as a species without some form of technological augmentation. The battering of man’s hands and feet, as Midgeley explained, made murder a “tedious and exhausting business”. Of course, a misplaced strike, even if it is very powerful will have very little effect without it being directed to a highly receptive target. A non-augmented artform must resort to near surgical expertise in force exertion. It is no surprise therefore that the Bubishi - the secret text of Southern China and Okinawa - should place so much emphasis on applying the finger tips to vital points. Thus it is not the force which is applied which is most important, but rather the concentration of that force to the most receptive vital point, albeit the eyes, groin or muscle cavities.

Figure 12 – Escalation of Arms Scale. In a bid to fulfil the imposing forces of combat and survival, the Combat System seeks escalation of arms in a bid to secure the concept of “putting oneself beyond the possibility of defeat”. The result is of course an eternal bid to escalate one’s Arms.

In the study of eskirmological augmentation, we must consider the historical context in which a Combat System was composed and how it made use of the technological progression available at the time. The system of using an ancient Roman Gladius will be different from the use of a Rapier due to the form of the technology. This being said, the form of technology also tells us something of the opinions of the fighters at that time. Tools for fighting are by no means created by mistake. On the contrary, they are carefully designed and highly predetermined by experience in fighting, meaning that a fighter must have considered thrusting more important or functional than cutting in order to invent the tool designed specifically for that function. Rosenbaum declared that a weapon is first invented, then the numerous methods of its use are then calculated and distilled into a System. This is true to an extent since the use of a tool cannot truly be known until you hold it in your hand, but the invention of any tool is based upon aposteriori experience. So the experience on one side in fighting will lead to development in arms, in turn leading to different experience in fighting and hence further development in arms.

The Teleology of Eskirmological Combat Systems

Eskirmological Combat Systems are actually developed based upon three imperatives which are existential rather than relative to combat. In other words, they are absolute imperatives which mankind, as a species seeking survival or exertion of force upon its enemies attempts to achieve. The fulfilment of these imperatives was once achieved by the training of the human body for skilful fighting, but technology progressed substantially to allow these same imperatives to be achieved without lengthy training of the body. In fact meeting these imperatives was the teleological purpose of the existence and creation of all eskirmological systems. The ultimate aim of an eskirmological Combat System is therefore to:

1. Damage Maximisation: To maximise effect of actions via manipulation and exploitations of human weakness, by orienting the opponent in positions whereby his actions and movements are limited.

   1. Eliminate resistance or forms of obstructions, so that we may attack and he cannot.

   2. Identify suitable targets to attack and angles or positions which limit the opponent’s biomechanical strength.

2. Risk Limitation: linked with the above, to minimise risk as far as possible by acting as quickly and effectively as possible.

   1. Economy of Expenditure: in both Time, and Energy; in specific actions as well as across the entire combative interaction.

   2. Economy of Learning: To be achieved through little effort or training.

These postulates comply with the Minimax Principle, such that we maximize the effect of force by minimizing the effort and time placed into achieving our aim. We can also see how our equation (pR x C) can be applied in order to dictate the kinds of techniques to be used – supporting our postulates above.

We may therefore recognise that there are two types of augmented eskirmological Combat Systems: those which require the training of the human body to use the augmentation (weapon), i.e. a sword in “swordsmanship”, and augmented eskirmological systems which do not require the training of the human body (i.e. a jet-fighter, or sniper). Previous categorisations have ignored this fact, believing that a samurai and a jet-fighter pilot are dissimilar fighters. In fact they are examples of the human species attempting to fulfill these eskirmological imperatives.

It is these three factors which determine whether a system of fighting is Eskirmological or not. Many Martial Arts forget this reasoning, and therefore are not eskirmological systems. They are convolutions towards the aim via artifice rather than direct mastery of the function.

On Attack & Defence

Combat Logic extends far beyond human experience – it is also something which pulls all living creatures into its vortex. We have considered some of the points which constitute Fighting as a phenomenon, but now it is time to dissect fighting with a little more detail. Understanding what types of fighting exist is important, but it teaches us nothing of fighting itself. Before we look at the Martial Arts and their solutions, perhaps we should use the benefit of ignorance to create a picture without influence from existing solutions. With the axioms we have covered already, we are able to consider parameters of Combat Logic which we may use for an “eskirmological” system of fighting – and in theory, presumably all Martial Arts have used for their creation.

Action & Reaction is the beginning of combat, and as we have seen above in our postulates, a fight will always contain attack & defence. These are the two (sometimes subliminal) tactics of any and every fight. The defining factor of a fight is the fact that it takes place between two or more people; and the friction, resistance and/or conflict involved. A basic truth of fighting therefore dictates that when you are on the attack, your opponent is forced on the defensive. When he attacks you, you automatically go on the defensive. The intelligent fighter responds with an attack in order to shift the balance of control. Any success in a fight depends upon this balance of control.

The military strategist, Karl Von Clausewitz⁷⁶, once stated that “there is no peace without conflict, and no conflict without peace”, which evidences contrasting yet mutually dependant phenomena, but also demonstrates the close interdependence of Conflict & Peace, or Attack and Defence. In other words, one cannot exist without the other. He continued to discuss this relationship, considering the asymmetry of conflict, whereby its nature describes a state of flux, action and reaction as corresponding states of fighting. He further states that,

“…every advantage gained on the one side would be a corresponding disadvantage on the other, and true polarity would exist. But action in War is divided into two forms, attack and defence, which…are very different and of unequal strength. Polarity therefore lies in that to which both bear a relation, in the decision, but not in the attack or defence itself.”

This asymmetry between attack and defence can be seen in physical practice in all Martial Arts. However, the majority of intelligent Martial Arts use the principle of attack rather than defence. “Attack is the Best form of Defence” is often quoted around the world, from football to full-blown warfare. Whilst it is often quoted and generally accepted, we shall just identify the reasons as to why attack is better than defence.

Before I do so, I must stress a vital difference. Attack and Defence are used in English to imply action and reaction, but not whether an attack implies instigation of gratuitous action on another. In which case, the terms “attack” and “defence” are ambiguous and are only relevant on a social level. For example, should a person instigate a fight with me, and when all my attempts to avoid physical action fail, I must initiate a pre-emptive action in order to avoid potential risk to myself. In which case, who is the attacker? Until now the “aggressor” has not physically struck me, but has made it clear that it is his intention to do so – yet I was the one to physically “attack” first. This is where the difficulties arise in Law regarding self-defence. To Act in defence is different from attacking, and therefore it is very important that we confine ourselves to the terms Action and Reaction when discussing physical movements, but attack and defence when referring to social behaviour.

Action then lends the most advantage, whereby being on the offensive forces the opponent to defend himself. In this way, when an action is made by one fighter, the other must react (this is what I call the Law of Laterality). Therefore, if the opponent is on the defensive, there is less chance of being attacked ourselves. We avoid or at least limit injury in this way. Furthermore, if the action fails for us and is successfully parried, we have only lost a single technique which can easily be repeated.

Corroboration has already been traced from Driscoll earlier when he stated that the “strongest form of defence is a vigorous attack…with a view to the minimising of the risk…”, and as such he is considering what the US Department of Defence calls the Coup de Main, defining it as:

“An offensive operation that capitalizes on surprise and simultaneous execution of supporting operations to achieve success in one swift stroke”

Rex Applegate (1976, 7) further concurs, mentioning rather tongue-in-cheek, that one should “Do unto others as they would do unto you, But do it first.” This concept of Pre-emptive, or Prohibitive action can be found everywhere in Martial Arts literature, from Sun Tzu⁷⁷, Qijiguang, Tsunemoto⁷⁸(1716) and Musashi Miyamoto⁷⁹ in the Far East to Liechtenauer (1389)⁸⁰, Napolean, Von Clausewitz and Applegate in the West. It exploits the opponent’s innate biological reactions by not only forcing him into a stress-reaction, but also into a position which his priority must be his own protection and not attack – and therefore we are protected when he can think of nothing other than his own defence.

And therefore in comparison, reaction (i.e. defence), only has one function; to react against action to mitigate force. The method is therefore limited by the unpredictable movements of another. If the reaction fails, you will be injured. Also, in the time taken to make a reaction, an action could be made, since a reaction should never be made which does not impose force. An attack can create long-term protection by eliminating the continued exposure to attack from the opponent. Hence, a Knock-Out blow (as Kernspecht refers to it, 2011) as a first action protects one from exposure to many blows over the course of a fight. A defence (such as a traditional Karate “block”, actually a “sweep” – barai – or intersection of a trajectory) only protects from a single blow, not from the possibility of subsequent, repeated or future blows. Each iteration of a blow increases his exposure rate, thereby increasing the risk to him. As Lichtenauer stated, “no man can protect himself against risk, if you know this, then his own blows cannot come to much”. Consequently, we can witness the logic of the old proverb, “Attack is its own form of defence”.

But any attack exists for the simple purpose of causing damage. If an attack is made upon us from an opponent, his action is made for this reason – therefore the logic of all actions is based upon a principle of convergence.

The inevitability of Transcendentalism

The categorisation of Internal arts is also a common mis-categorisation. Bolleli, for his part, despite suggesting the categorisation, also offers significant grounds by which we should dismiss it altogether (2008, 121-122). In fact, in agreement with Bolleli, the categorisation is highly religious and often demonstrates little in the way of qualitative analysis of a Combat System other than its philosophical, “religious” or spiritual influences. When we penetrate past the veneer of spirituality - the pre-scientific explanations of psycho-somatic motif that is the concept of “chi” - what we are left with is an Eskirmological Combat System.

Spiritualism is the term assigned to the existential internalisation of the meaning of a wider exponential world around an organism. In essence, it is the synchronisation of a living organism with the wider environment, of which all living bodies find themselves part. This being said, spirituality is not always associated with institutionalised and organised spirituality, common by the term “religion”. Finding spirituality by means of religion is not a requirement of spirituality, it is merely a means by which spirituality may be discovered by means of wider socially-recognised terms. In which case, since fighting is an existential phenomenon affecting the interaction of biological bodies by means of force, so too is Spiritualism an existential phenomenon affecting biological bodies within a wider universe.

Spirituality is not at all peculiar to these religiously inclined Combat Systems. All Martial Arts exhibit levels of transcendentalism which are not always explicit. The extensive practice of any behaviour or activity until it becomes internalised always has a transcendental affect on the subjective individual, irregardless of whether it is assigned the institutional label of “Taoism”, or “Buddhism”. In other words, spiritualism permeates all Combat Systems to some extent due to the existential and pragmatic nature of the practice in-itself, and assigning the particular terminology of a specific institutionalised school of thought makes this no-less transcendental.

Transcendentalism therefore appears in many experts of a subject, eliciting a kind of elitism in those who have dedicated a significant amount of time and effort to a subject. Freemasonry - that most famous of secret societies - is perhaps the most famous non-Combat System to demonstrate higher levels of transcendentalism that are usually only associated with the Martial Arts. To the freemasons, the rock represents the un-fashioned being ready to be perfected through effort. The square, the plumb-line etc all have alternative transcendental meanings. This application of transcendental meaning to otherwise menial inanimate objects is the mark of the expert of his trade. A paint brush to any non-painter is simply a paint-brush, but a paint-brush to an experienced artist is a means through which he bears his soul and commits it to canvas. Likewise, to a Martial Artist, a punch is not a punch, but a means through which he bears his soul and combats his own inner tribulations.

It is easy to understand how transcendentalism and fighting should become so entwined when one considers what they mean to an organism. No existential experience can humble the mind like the trauma of conflict. All animals are hardwired for their own benefit, but some also for social harmony to an extent towards that benefit. In which case, when fighting arises, it has a distasteful effect upon the organism, and none more so than the intelligent human being. Transcendentalism, the assignment of meaning to this existential experience, as well as the internalisation of such a meaning is highly important. Transcendentalism decreases in importance as a phenomenon as the risk involved in such a practice also decreases.

From a Combat Systemic perspective, there are also two central aspects to all combats worth developing through training and conditioning. The first is of course the self. As the “self” including physical and mental preparation becomes fortified and conditioned, so he will find it easier in any exponential situation he may find himself in. When the self has been habituated to the experience of fighting, he may approach any fight with a higher level of confidence. The “self” the sum of all parts which make up “us” is the sole subject of any fight, and it is distinctly because of desired protection for this “self” that Martial Arts exist in the first place. Baofu cites that Internal arts are about “knowing yourself rather than knowing your opponent⁸¹”, yet it is not at all this partisan. It is, according to the Delphic oracle, about “knowing thyself” so as to know all [about the world]; and as a result know all others. Similarly, the Taijiquan Lun asserts “My opponent does not know me, I alone know him” (Davis 2004, 112). After all, as as we saw, Protagoras mentioned “man is the measure of all things”.

The consciousness of animate beings is necessarily outward facing, and so other systems are devised to cope with that outside of the self; other systems focus upon the application of the “self” in physical conflict with another organism. In this case, some systems are devised with the appearance of excluding the training of the “self” with emphasis rather upon the interactional mechanisms of fighting. This, at the heart of it is the fundamental difference between “Internal” and “External” Combat Systems – the former explicitly fortify and condition the later element of fighting, the latter the interactional or “social” aspect of fighting (the application of the “self” to the behaviours of another organism). Hence the use of the terms “internal” and “external”.

The two are, of course, not mutually exclusive, but the logic for training the self first and foremost lies in the concept that, if our foundation “is made of rock” then anything built upon that foundation (such as a interactional combative behaviours) will be of a much higher level. Or in other words, if our roots are stronger then our branches will also be stronger. However, all Martial Art, by virtue of the definition must place emphasis upon the latter aspect.

There is also a wider social importance to the inclusion of transcendentalism to Combat Systems. In fact, Transcendentalism is a foremost requirement to all Eskirmological Combat Systems by simple moral imperative. Any Eskirmological Combat System which teaches the techniques of potential murder must be infused with an equal and opposite emphasis on spiritual and moral cultivation. All animals which are capable of exerting fatal force upon another also have a subset of inhibitions. Moral inhibitions are mankind’s form of protecting others from the force which these (otherwise dangerous) warriors are capable of exerting.

In terms of passing on such knowledge, it would be irresponsible for any master of fighting to pass on secret fighting techniques to potential murderers, and hence the more realistic and dangerous a Combat System in its raw state, the more emphasis is placed upon transcendentalism and morality. The evidence for this fact is exhibited amongst every warrior class in the world, which required a moral insulation to prohibit or restrict them from becoming a danger to other, less expertly militant, members of society.

Amongst modern Martial Arts, transcendentalism has undeniably increased in importance, but this has a social impetus. Mitchell (1984, 6) considers the orthodox opinion that Martial Arts have, since the beginning of the 20^th century undergone an increase in the value of transcendentalism.

Although they no longer have a military role, it was said that their study would develop character, or higher moral standards. As a result of this change they ceased to have any military connotation and became a martial ‘way’ instead.

Both elements; the technical use of augmentation technology as well as the transcendental aspects were equal in the original Hoplologisms. However, as the augmentation artefacts became more and more anachronistic, their relevance decreased. Hence, it is not the increase of Transcendentalism which transforms them into Martial “Ways”, but simply the decrease of the relevance of the eskirmology to the system. The receding of one side creates the illusion that Transcendentalism has increased relevance, when in actuality, it is relative to the decrease in eskirmology and subsequently remains the same as it always has been. This consideration effectively renders Maliszewski’s (1992) tripartite classification as only reconcilable under these terms.

Figure 13 – Increased danger requires increased Transcendentalism - The figure demonstrates that transcendentalism and eskirmology mirror one another in orthodox Combat Systems. With an increased level of danger, the increase in dangerous and lethal behaviours, and so therefore a requirement for increased levels of transcendentalism.

Here the three tiers of Transcendentalism are described as being simple dictates, philosophical ethics and at the very height – spiritualistic religious morality. The most dangerous Combat Systems (often with forms of augmentation) always require a spiritual aspect as exemplified in Chivalry, Bushido, Sesok O-gye etc. Systems which are attenuated, such as Boxing do not require any form of transcendentalism and therefore religious and spiritual matters are often absent. A decrease in dangerous behaviours does not mean there will be an equal decrease in transcendentalism. This theory demonstrates the case with so-called Martial Ways, as discussed by Maliszewski. They are not different artforms from those which were once practice, they are exactly the same. Unlike the increase in Eskirmology which requires parallel increases in Transcendentalism, decreased Eskirmology does not require parallel decrease in Transcendentalism. A Recreational combat system will also show low level transcendentalism, such as Tae Kwon Do; Choi Kwang Do etc which consist of simple tenet systems as well as restricted combative behaviours.

Whilst Bolleli’s categorisations exhibit that Taijiquan can be classified as an Internal art, a self-defence art or a performance art, it is in fact a Combat System which uses a level of religiosity – which in turn defines its particular “flavour”. Whilst other artforms simply teach that there are eight directions in fighting (the compass points, and the oblique compass points), Taijiquan equates them with a Taoist meaning, calling them the Bagua. Other aspects too are assigned spiritual and religious meaning within the context of indigenous religious beliefs. All Martial Arts make use of a conceptual framework in order to construct its view of Fighting in Time and Space. However, there is no greater transcendentalism in the artform than any other, only that this kind of meaning is assigned at an early level of practice. Conversely, in Karate-do this kind of meaning is rarely spoken of until the higher Dan grades of training. We could reason that this is because the Kyusho jutsu (pressure-point techniques) are taught at these levels – at which point the artform gives the student the potential to be dangerous.

Moreover, the inclusion of Qigong training in some “internal” styles is merely an integration of religious practices which are common outside the Combat System as well as within it. In which case, the existence of Qigong in a Combat System has little real impact on the Eskirmology of the system, but rather says more about the spiritual inclinations of its progenitors. Although it might be argued that such training benefits the individuals to be a better fighter in some way, it actually gives him little basis upon which to base his eskirmological behaviour.

We have already demonstrated how Martial Arts had began from a martial teleology, but even from the earliest days of a man’s life, he tussles with his siblings, and even in terms of the animal kingdom (even long before mankind had evolved), have been shown to tussle with siblings (de Waal & Aureli, 2000). There is therefore another form of fighting which exists amongst living creatures – one in which killing, or the absolute, utmost use of Force is not the purpose of the behaviour in interaction.

The imperative of Morality in Transmission

Many people in the Martial Arts recognise, yet do not understand the reason why religion, philosophy and spiritualism have become melded with Combat Systems. The appearance of such deep metaphysical elements within the Martial Arts is inevitable when one considers the personal development involved in the continued practice and training of one’s body, coupled with the emotional and psychological pressures such a feudal profession places on the individual.

On the first matter, the personal development of the body is, according the Nietzsche, the first way in which the environment can impress changes in the internal processes of the body. To create profound change in the mind requires profound change in the body. The 19^th Century German Gymnastics Instructor Jakob Happel explained in his book Freifechtens (“Unarmed Combat”, 1865, 1) that the training of the body in gymnastics is such that it

“…involves the overcoming of the gravity and inertia of one’s own body and then working similarly with equipment and apparatus, so that one must place effort into working against the resistance of that equipment and apparatus in the process of overcoming an inanimate object. It is by means of gymnastics that man may develop himself, if he may be able to overcome the inertia his own body, and its parts, as well as the resistance of equipment and apparatus, he may also further develop and learn to overcome ever greater resistance and obstacles.”

This moral and pedagogical function is common in discussions on martial arts. Even outside the martial arts, the importance of affecting the body as a suitable means to affecting the mind has been widely noted. Rousseau once specified “that if you wish to develop the mind of a pupil, develop the power which that mind has to govern, exercise his body, make him healthy and strong, that you may make him prudent and reasonable.” Such opinions were the basis of the German nationalist Turnvereins movement of the 19^th Century which sought to put Physical Education on the mainstream education agenda. To have governance over that small part of material reality which the universe has placed beneath our direct dominion (our own bodies) is perhaps the most necessary predicate to having dominion over any part of the world around us. How can we govern anything else, if we are unable to govern ourselves? With these pedagogical functions aside, there was of course a much more imposing and much more necessary reason to train the body. Certainly, the warrior’s close proximity to death could do nothing but make the experience of existence all the more immediate.

Today, few of us gladly come into close proximity to death and war. Lorenz (1979) stated that “No sane man would even go rabbit-hunting for pleasure if the necessity of killing his prey with his natural weapons brought home to him the full emotional realisation of what he is actually doing”. In other words, if you had to kill a bunny with your own bare hands, the emotional impact of the act would be more apparent. We can assume therefore that even less people would go to war if the true reality of killing another human being was so immediate. It is true; war is distasteful and has massive psychological consequences. “Civilian-come-Soldiers” draughted into the military were forever changed when they returned home from the “front-line” of the First World War - having witnessed their friends and comrades shot in the head beside them, or crying with pain in No-mans-land, gasping for help, but unable to receive it. Those soldiers, who were regular people draughted from civilian society, not versed in any Warrior philosophy, or any such “Bushido”, were very much changed by those experiences. They, as was reported by friends and family to whom they returned, were never the same again. It is therefore no surprise to us that the old warrior’s proverb Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori (literally: “Sweet and decorous it is to die for one’s country”) was proven to be flawed when submitted to the experience of civilians-come-soldiers who found themselves fighting on the modern world’s unsentimental battlefield⁸².

In regular life, when a family member or friend dies suddenly, the emotional impact is enormous. Many struggle to find the strength to cope. Although life-expectancy was much lower in the past, based upon the correlation we can see with the standards of living, we may assume that (like any conscious animal - think about the reaction some intelligent animals have to death, whales & dolphins, and most notably, elephants) even our ancestors went through a grieving process -  a process which affects one’s psychological balance.

We need to bear this in mind when we consider what the “profession of the warrior” was. It was his role in society to be able to kill in battle, and to do so without becoming an emotional wreck each and every time it occurred. As with any profession - such as the carpenter who becomes proficient at managing his tools, and working the wood, or a barman who becomes a superb socialiser, his life becomes his profession - his profession becomes his life. The Carpenter, besides being a human being is defined by his profession, the fireman by the fact that he fights fires, and the warrior because he deals in the Industry of War. When one considers the slippery precipice upon which the warrior stood (the Samurai in particular) – the role he played to his society, but always aware of this closeness to his own death – it is no wonder that such a cult-like fascination with suicide should arise, being himself sacrificable for his country and the peace of his people. There is no other role one can play in which his existential purpose is so immediate⁸³.

As an industry, War requires one to be highly professional. Unlike other professions, inefficiency results in death, or grievous injury; not unemployment. Since their profession was to deal with the events described above, a highly sophisticated philosophy, or warrior mind-set must have developed quickly and have been required. Without a mental resilience, a substantial psychological deterioration has been proven to take effect after prolonged exposure to warfare (S. Marshall 1946; Ingraham and Manning 1980). Due to these pressures, most warriors (in contrast to the kind of blood-lust heard in the media) operate in a state of shocked dissociation (S. Marshall 1946; Holmes 1985).

Consider the first warriors to ever meet an opposing army in the first full-scale battle; your friends and comrades dying around you, and you - under threat - must either kill or be killed. So you must accept - in the moment - that the most logical reaction to the situation is to kill the warriors of the opposing army. After the battle, covered in the blood of others and surrounded in dead fellow human beings, it is easy to consider that they must have gone straight to someone who could have help with the guilt, trauma and shock. There were no psychologists or Freudian Psycho-analysts to help, no councillors, but there were religious men who often discussed the higher purpose of death. They could answer the questions required to manage the guilt.

How do you enter back into society, hug your children and show affection to your wife knowing that you have hacked the limbs off men who will never return home to their families? How does one cope with the prospect that seeing your comrades families react to the news of their dead son, husband, father etc, knowing that the same could one day happen to the loving wife you hold in your arms?

It must have been somewhat consoling to a warrior at the consideration of an after-life and a more profound meaning to the whole experience. The philosophy of the warrior must have become a psychological support to the warrior. So important was this psychological factor in the profession of the warrior that it became his insulation against the realities of his profession. Chopping limbs from the bodies of enemies is much easier when it has a higher purpose; and the de-humanisation of enemies via the higher efficacy of the self and one's own side in contrast to an opponent. It fortified the spirit of the warrior to effectively “block-out” or de-sensitize oneself to the realities of war. Such a fortification was known to the Vikings in the infamous berserk Strategy (an aggressive overcompensation perhaps so that one may justify behaviour as the result of the aggression and not of the “self” - the classic “Hawk” strategy). In Japan, this warrior fortification became highly sophisticated, informed by the major Schools of Thought (principally Buddhism, Shintoism and Confucianism).

It is beyond the scope of this book to look at the many religio-martial disciplines and their permutations. For such considerations, one may look at the many famous works on philosophy and religion in the Martial Arts. It has been enough to consider why Martial Arts and religion are so closely related, and in some way shed some light on why the Martial Arts have a veil of secrecy surrounding eskirmological fighting. We have been able to realise that such traditions inevitably must remain guarded and released only when the individual is morally, consciously and personally responsible enough to be trusted with them. It was inevitable also that the Martial Arts would be affected by the religions and philosophies of the immediate exponential environment. Hence, Chinese Combat Systems are influenced and characterised by the four Chinese Schools of Thought (Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism and Folk religions), Japanese Combat Systems by the Japanese Schools of Thought; European Combat Systems first by Christianity and pre-Christian religions etc. and later by the Schools of Thought called “Science” and “philosophy”. Yet all are informed by the same major universal human concerns and are influenced by how those religions dealt with those relevant issues.

They coped with the realities of death and killing via spiritual transcendentalism and/or psychological detachment; the cultivation of skills designed to save one’s life; and the sanctification & universal deification of the tools which serve that end (such as the special value of the sword in almost all cultures around the world); the use of skills against the uninformed; the compounding of one’s self-efficacy and one’s role in society at large.

A true master should be a master of himself first and foremost - a journey which often encompasses other fields of knowledge. My readers, I’m sure, would agree that a Martial Artist is a person first and foremost and that person is a product of various different experiences in their life. We categorise people by their professions or inclinations, yet we are products of more than one specific field. A surgeon may be an expert in saving peoples lives, but his profession does not necessarily make him a good person. An apprenticeship as a mechanic does not require that one also become humble and virtuous and requires no such course in Bushido to become a master of the craft. Thus, a Martial Artist should seek various and different fields which have slowly become integrated into a Martial Art system. However, they are of little direct benefit to the Combat System, but rather to the user of that Combat System. This is a critical difference. The value placed in the Martial Arts upon virtue and good character are necessary when one considers that the craft one is learning can have the power to end the lives of those around us. It is therefore of the utmost importance that Martial Artists are proven in character before allowed to experience the physical techniques proven in combat.

Moral Responsibility

Most Combat Systems of the East were created with influence from the Schools of Thought. It is important to recognize that the basis of a Combat System is therefore heavily steeped in the traditions and teachings of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and other local schools. These schools of thought offered the Architect the terminology to articulate the meaning of this experience in Combat Logic. Each Combat System from around the world makes use of local terminology, allowing the Combat System to be explicated in a manner relevant to those within that society.

In the West, Architect’s were similarly influenced by major schools of thought. The knights of Europe were trained in the code of chivalry, itself making use of Christian motif and naming conventions. Likewise, masters of Fence also made use of Aristotelian science (Wallhausen, 2010), as well as arcane and occultist schools of thought (Michael Greer, 2006; Hull, 2007) to describe their understanding of Combat Logic which echoes many of the philosophies and warrior cults of the Samurai. The Samurai had the Bushido, the Hwarangdo had the Sesok O-Gye (Young-Kimm, 1991; Suh, 1993; Kukkiwon, 2000; Tadaeschi, 2003) the Knights had the Code of Chivalry (Wallhausen, 2010; Kennedy, 2005; Keen, 2005). In Chinese culture, such moral training is literally known as Martial Morality, or Virtue (wu de). Inevitably, any warrior class trained in the arts of how to kill, would also be trained in a philosophical code of ethics.

Essentially, learning arts which have the potential to cause harm to others must also be tempered by the ethics needed to control such power - if only to protect these would-be predators from unleashing their force-of-arms upon the general public. Masters who studied the secrets of fighting would have realised the potential to misuse such skills to inflict injury upon others. Therefore it would be negligent for an instructor to teach socially harmful skills without some form of guidance.

The Moral Responsibility Hypothesis, besides proving why ritualised fighting is intended to be non-realistic, also lends a logical proposition for why its delusion has been constructed on purpose by masters of eskirmological Combat Systems. The “Secrets” of Eskirmological Fighting, with the potential to kill and cause irrecoverable damage to an opponent are hidden behind a purposeful veil designed to train the student’s humility and virtue first before being taught deadly skills. The length of time it takes to overcome such ritual and the artifice of combat means that only the truly tempered individual will be given the “secrets” of eskirmological fighting. Martial Arts otherwise are like “an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”

As with any craft, a master who is looking to pass on his skills will not teach anyone and everyone. He needs to know that his craft is being passed on to someone suitable – and even more so with a craft which sole function is the ability to cause pain and death to others. This is his primary moral responsibility. The master therefore had to create some way in which his knowledge could be passed on, to satisfy those willing to learn, but not give them the secrets which could be used to cause real harm to others. Obviously, he teaches a gradual system designed to not only introduce the complex movements gradually, but perhaps also by way of veiling the true techniques – so that the student assumes he is learning how to fight, but he is really being taught a system designed to take him on abstracted pedagogic tangents – to veil the dangerous methods from those who are incapable of being trusted with them.

Nevertheless, the prolonged practice allows the student to reveal his true spirit; those who are only after the secrets will leave early and get bored quickly, effectively sorting the wheat from the chaff and allowing the master to isolate those who are “worthy” of being taught Combat Logical tactics. Hence the restrictions on so-called pressure point techniques and the induction of trusted students into the “inner” or “closed-door” society (BaiMen. Finn, 1988, 42; Reid & Croucher, 1984, 18-19; Rosenbaum, 2002).

Moreover, consider the value of the teacher’s knowledge. Such knowledge is priceless to him since it gives him status within society. This is not as relevant as it once was, since in a feudal society such knowledge makes one extremely valuable and worth rewarding. Entire hierarchical systems were designed to protect his position, featuring himself as the Alpha-male of the military clan. Hence, with all this value to his position, is he likely to offer his knowledge to anyone? Does he want everyone to have his skills? If everyone was as knowledgeable as him, his status, based upon his value within the group, diminishes. When all have his skills, what is left to make him so valuable? His knowledge is his power. In order to protect his Combat Logical knowledge, he creates an abstracted pedagogical system which takes many years to master. When coupled with the consideration of “worthiness” above, we may see that Combat System curriculum create a veil around Combat Logic.

Beginner Martial Artists therefore demonstrate the highest form of delusioned individuals. The student is taught many different rituals of fighting, none of which are realistic (nor intended to be!) in order to make the student learn the “true Martial Art”, or the “true karate-do” or “true gong fu⁸⁴”. Therefore the current Martial Arts world is entirely a world based upon artforms especially handicapped by masters who recognised the power of “the key”. An individual who asked for nothing, was humble to peers, and was virtuous and honourable in demonstration and action (not just word) was the key and was therefore given the “secrets” of the Eskirmological Combat System. The masters did not want their secrets to be practiced by just anyone, and hence reserved their Combat Science and Combat Logic for those who proved to be the Key.

Looking at the world of Martial Arts, we can see that many Martial Arts practitioners think they are learning practical methods of self-defence, but are really taking part in courses designed for the tempering of the personality rather than give the student a system of self-defence. Hence the gap which exists between the teaching methods of Eskirmological Combat Systems and Anachronistic (Traditional) Combat Systems.

In all Martial Arts around the world, we can see that the same universal human concerns are covered in the martial-specific sub-culture. The metaphysical universals such as the morals of using an artform, a close association and philosophical consideration of death; or the Physical universals such as reaching the opponent without being hit, the manipulation of anthropological weakness and the use of conditional strategies are all apparent and inevitable in Martial Arts. Surprisingly, this metaphysical training has given us the recourse to realise why some anachronistic Martial Arts might be unrealistic and ritualised. Convoluted and excessive pedagogic drills leading to efficiency is not a phenomenon which has happened by accident – in fact it has been done on purpose. It is not by accident that “Gong Fu” takes such a long time and much effort to learn – that is the point. The “secrets” of combat are only accessible after one has proven oneself to be responsible enough to know them. Hence an entire generation of Martial Artists are spending their time arguing as to which style is the most effective, when they are designed by the revered masters not to be effective until later in one’s training. Although the student is training hard, the secrets may never be given to him if he does not display the right character traits.

Therefore the only evidence of a Combat System’s efficiency is within the final set of teachings, in which the complete and unrestricted system exists. But where’s the real proof? I suggest we consider the alternative-

Lead by Function: absence of moral imperative

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.

Albert Einstein

We hold a unique position. Looking back over the course of history, we are able to see that we are indeed products of decisions made by those who lived before us. With this in mind, it is worth considering what Martial Arts would be like if they evolved into pure eskirmological systems – in other words, were allowed to evolve with nothing else in mind but efficiency. As I have said previously, we hold a unique position, because we are able to see that modern warfare is a direct result of Eskirmological Combat Systems allowed to evolve based upon a sole premise of efficiency. It is the ultimate evolution of technology for the augmentation of Eskirmological Combat Systems. In which case, the difference between the Jet-fighter pilot and the Samurai is merely the level of technology which that warrior employs for his eskirmological purpose. The former now does not require the training of the human body but only in the use of the technology, yet the latter depended upon the skills and governance of his own body.

It may seem odd to many Martial Artists that rifle shooting and modern technological warfare should be considered as Martial Arts. In fact, they comply with our definition of Martial Arts which we described earlier. In which case, we might ask what it is that divides the use of Ballistic weapons from what we might term “Martial Arts Proper”? It is, besides the technology being used, the proximity in which the Combat is made. “Martial Arts Proper” are therefore the range of hand-to-hand combat methods which preceded the development of eskirmological technologies. They require two human beings in close proximity, using their own bodies principally as the weapons of attack and defence. Due to these particular conditions, the VARE demands certain responses of the attacker or defender which we know is the basis of all Combat Systems.

In our definition of the teleology of Eskirmological Combat Systems, we outlined three directives which an eskirmological system must comply with. And strangely enough, the ultimate solution to VARE - which fits within these three points - is the gun.

Let us consider each of these points in turn and suggest that the reason why “Martial Arts Proper” in Western Europe died out almost completely was because technology was able to supply a more infallible Eskirmological Combat System than the uncertainty and risk associated with Hand-to-Hand Combat. The pinnacle of Hand-to-Hand Combat Systems in Europe was Fencing, wherein experts professed the superiority of the straight-line and pronounced the lunge (“longe”) as the ultimate achievement of fatally penetrating with the tip of a sharp object. The problem was, in order to deliver this wound, one still had to be close enough to lunge effectively, and such a proximity offers the same opportunity to your opponent.

Our first directive of an Eskirmological Combat System was to minimize risk and thus the closer one gets to an opponent, which means we would allow the opponent an equal opportunity to reach us with attacks. Moreover, the closer the proximity, the more concentrated the polysynaptic relay, meaning we have less information about the opponent’s position and less time in which to react to the opponent’s actions. There is also the chance of missing, and the commitment of a lunge means it takes time to redistribute the weight and pull back to a position of safety. Finally, if the point does not penetrate far enough into the opponent, there is a chance that it will merely be a flesh wound which will not reduce the continued risk. In many cases there were problems with the Small-Sword (the descendant of the Rapier) as an infallible method of defence.

The gun was the invention which resolved many of these risky problems. A bullet travelled in a straight-line, much like the Lunge, but did not require close proximity; in fact, one could stand well outside any risk of retaliation and still deliver a fatal penetration. There was also no need for strenuous exertion of the body, nor modification of one’s behaviours to ensure success. In the chronology of firearms, there was initially a long process in which the technology of the gun began as one of long-winded preparation of pouring in gun-powder and inserting ballbearings as bullets. However, once the technology surpassed the function of the sword, the gun was the most logical choice as a Combat System.

Hence the use of modern technology, in which the actual VARE is separated from the individual, meaning that he never actually gets involved within a VARE, minimising (if not even eradicating) the chances of being injured. This was of course the impetus behind the development of pole-arm weapons – to extend the spatial distance between two fighters to minimize the risk involved in fighting. Pointing a gun from a distance means that effectively the fighter is not “in the fight in the first place”. There is no better defence than this, and therefore Hand-to-Hand Combat Systems can barely approach the solution afforded by modern technology.

The second major point for teleology was to place the opponent in positions whereby his actions and movements are limited, so that we may attack and he cannot. In many cases, the use of the gun allows the user to never even enter into the sight of the opponent. Snipers make the most of this concept and take the idea of true fighting to an extreme. There is no other weapon which can achieve this function with any greater efficiency than the gun.

On the third and final point, an Eskirmological Combat System must be a system which achieves results through little effort or training. The pulling of a trigger with the index finger is perhaps the epitome of the easiest Combat System known to man. A fight is ended with the single movement of the finger, a decisive action which cannot be surpassed by any Hand-to-Hand Combat System, nor any other technology which has ever existed for warfare. In terms of Imposing and Protecting the pinnacle of Combat System efficiency may be found in ballistic technologies. With this in mind, we may note that the ultimate perfection of a Hand-to-Hand Combat System is to achieve all the functions of the gun whilst being in reach of the opponent.

Though the gun and modern western military warfare technology exhibit the pinnacle of human eskirmological achievement, it also highlights something of which it is deficient. When Einstein offered his research for “splitting the atom” to the military, he questioned what he had done. The creation of such technology he said, “…has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind”. It is no wonder that he also commented that “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones” with such certitude. It is for this reason which we also come to a similar conclusion as Einstein; that “Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”

As Einstein so clearly stated, “…the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind.” The lack of risk means that combat is entirely separated from the devastation which it creates. Agreeing with Einstein, Lorenz highlighted this fact when he considered that the detached reality of modern warfare had had massive moral repercussions for the modern human. This level of detachment can be seen in the use of remote-control weapons – in his example of dropping bombs from planes:

“The man who presses the releasing button is so completely screened against seeing, hearing or otherwise emotionally realising the consequences of his action, that he can commit it with impunity – even if he is burdened with the power of his imagination. Only thus can it be explained that perfectly good-natured men, who would not even smack a naughty child, proved to be perfectly able to release rockets or lay carpets of incendiary bombs on sleeping cities, thereby committing hundreds and thousands of children to a horrible death in the flames. The fact that it is good, normal men who did this is as eerie as any fiendish atrocity of war!”

In this chilling description, we can see that the progression towards perfect eskirmological fighting has escalated to the point where mankind has lost its moral compass, exacerbated by the removal of the immediacy of the actions and their consequences. The necessity for transcendentalism to continue is because the secrets of eskirmology are so dangerous to be offered to those without the temperance and virtue of many years of training. Modern technology affords little training, but pulling a trigger. “The deep, emotional layers of our personality”, Lorenz laments, “simply do not register the fact that the crooking of the fore-finger to release a shot tears the entrails of another man”. Such utter detachment is, as far as military complexes are concerned, entirely beneficial to military operations. Yet the years of training which went into manufacturing the human body into a weapon of near-equal capacity affected the subject positively. It is impossible to spend so much dedication, discipline and motivation on a topic of this kind, and not be entirely changed by it. The “internal alchemy” involved in such a process not only develops the capacity to kill but also delivers them to a state in which life is most valued.

Perhaps from this extreme we can see why the transcendentalism of the Martial Arts is more valid than ever in the modern world. Whether some Martial Arts are valid or not to a VARE, their validity to the individual, and therefore to the society in which he inhabits is far more important. The cultivation of using the human body as a weapon causes the human being to have to come to terms with the fact that he has the power to kill another, irregardless of the tools he uses. We can see that Eskirmological Combat Systems are nothing but dangerous without the development of the “self”. The “self” should therefore be just as important as the efficiency of the system.

All creatures are locked in the crucible to survive and preserve their lives, of themselves and their families. Due to this existential pressure, mankind was forced to devote time, energy, enquiry and investigation into the means to do this effectively. In their bid to do so, they inadvertantly stumbled upon something much greater than that purpose; the experience of life itself and the refinement of self by means of transcendentalism. The dedication, fortification and internalisation of experiences, sense-stimuli and the overcoming of the body and mind had much more benefit to them than combat. 

Attenuated Combat Systems

Since profound depth has been reached by Sports Psychologists, Philosophers and Sociologists in the task of discussing Combat Sports, I shall offer but a brief discussion here with the intention of comparison.

We outlined in our earliest discussions on Combat typology that recreational combats depended upon less than existential functions. They do not depend upon questions of life and death, but rather success and failure, and therefore the realm of these kinds of Combat Systems is in performance and evidence of skill. A Medieval text on the tournament by Roger Hoveden explained that it was devised as nullo interveniente odio pro solo exercitio, atque ostentatione virium (“military exercises carried out, not in the spirit of hostility, but solely for practice and the display of prowess”). As such, we can see an apt description of the kinds of combats involved in recreation. The knight practiced a great number of recreational type of combats, such as the foot and mounted melee, the combat-at-barriers, the tilt etc, and each of these types were devised as a means of practice and preparation for Unrestricted Combats. Draeger described how this was also apparent in Japan, considering how the dojo was considered to represent the battlefield, and how training is supposed to attempt at transcending life and death itself (“seishi o choetsu” 1973, 41-47). Members of the machismo bourgoisie have historically sought to trial their skill, to test their character and fortify their wills. Indeed, such a submission is entirely human and not restricted to the annals of history. To willfully place oneself in a challenging position in a bid to demonstrate prowess is synchronous with Suits’ modern concept of sport as “…the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles” (Suit, 1978, 41). The demonstration of prowess in sport may well be an attempt to increase one’s social capital (a Resource Holding Power - RHP) compared with peers.

Sport sociologists are often at a loss for a viable definition⁸⁵ of “Sport”, since some consider physical prowess to be sport, but such a definition is restrictive since accordingly golf may not be considered sport (Delaney & Madigan 2009, 12). Others, as reported by Delaney and Madigan, consider it to involve compliant behaviour, yet cheating is common in many sports and therefore non-deviance cannot define sport. As a result, their definition is general, involving sanction, institutionalised means of competing, complex social structures built upon a basis of complex and specialised skills.

Sports involve a certain amount of “competition displacement” - not competition for resources in the same manner as direct physical competition (i.e. brawling). Combat Sports in particular remove much of the existential purpose of fighting; meaning that the competition is one of physical force, but its purpose is to prove masculine dominance, athleticism and/or superior expertise and skills. Coakley (2003) outlines motivational purposes for sport, which complies with our own picture of recreational combat. He considers it to have an “intrinsic” benefit, proving one’s own efficacy and value amongst peers, as well as having a social function of raising status amongst those peers. Yet ultimately, such combat sport is not made for one’s life or for resources required to support one’s life. Rather it is a means of displacement, to compete but not directly. Concepts of sportsmanship are derived from an achievement ethic and a social emphasis upon goal orientation (Cashmore, 2003, 3). Poliakoff (1987, 7) seems to agree, seeing sport as competition, but activities such as jogging as recreation. In his definition of Combat Sport, Poliakoff is keen to assert the difference between Armed Combat of the Roman arena, and sports such as Pankration, Boxing and Wrestling. The former is duelling as spectator sport, and the presence of spectators does not change the purpose of the Duel. The latter have a measure of skill, a rule-set from which can be derived a winner and a loser, which does not depend upon death as an outcome.

Because of the decreased risk in comparison with circumstances akin to the Battlefield Paradigm, the immediacy of terminating risk is much more reduced.

We can sum up the traits of a Recreational Combat System as:

• Reduced immediacy and necessity of action:

  • Reduced risk

    • Reduced effect of SSR, and immediacy of response.

    • Separate actions for attack and defence, devised in light of known restrictions and attenuations.

  • Algorithms for a specific range of stimuli and circumstances (i.e. either percussive or non-percussive, one or two proxemics, or a particular relationship between combatants.)

• Does not use Absolute Force, nor the benefit of Concentration of Force, resulting in:

  • Multiple iterations of attacks until opponent is defeated.

These Martial Arts which do not require any particular use in real fighting, or have a form of sporting aspect to them (such as the Mixed Martial Arts) cannot be defined as Eskirmological Combat Systems, since they often focus upon sporting tactics and point-scoring. Whereas in Eskirmological Combat Systems the aim is to end a fight as quickly as possible, Attenuated Combat Systems often perpetuate the event of fighting so as to generate an entertaining "match". Midgeley tells us that man “…must have found murder a tedious and exhausting business” and indeed this was the case in creating Eskirmological Combat Systems. Ultimately, a functional art depends upon its ability to kill an adversary, yet the “tedious and exhausting business” must have proved rewarding since it is this continuum which combat sports essentially exploit. The gloves and guards serve to allow greater and prolonged VARE by removing the potential to kill, and allowing a Recreational experience of fighting.

The ritualisation of fighting-for-play, or Non-Mortal combat is part of a group which I refer to as Attenuated (or Recreational) Combat Systems, which practice Eskirmological Combat Systems with the absence of the risk of death. Attenuation of force can come in three different, but often combined ways;

• Actual (Physical) attenuation (i.e. gloves, pads etc)

• Behavioural (Regulatory) attenuation (i.e. by a rule-set – “no gouging”, “no low blows”⁸⁶ etc).

These are the factors involved in judging the level of attenuation involved when departing from an Unrestricted combat and into a restricted combat. Physical, or actual attenuation refers to the use of physical padding or physical implements to attenuate the force or the effect of force in fighting. For example, the head guards and body padding used in Tae Kwon Do Matches, or the boxing gloves used in modern Boxing. Even the gloves used in Mixed Martial Arts competition are designed to attenuate the force which (without gloves) would be much more dangerous⁸⁷. Such a consideration has undergone modern investigation into the definitions of Combat Sports and their legal basis (Foley, 2002; Gunn and Ormerod, 1995, Grayson, 2000, Papworth, 1994; 1996).

The purpose of Combat Sport is for informed, formally-conditioned fighters to contend with each other within a “safe” environment under a sense of “fair play”. This “safe” environment is not necessarily the defining aspect of Combat Sport, since historically we are reminded of Pankration of the ancient Greeks⁸⁸, the Gladiatorial bouts of the Romans or the Prize Fighting of Europe’s “Stage-Gladiators”⁸⁹. Combat, or Combat Sports are perhaps not defined as sports because of the lack of risk (some Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) tournaments have a large amount of risk), but rather it is fighting with the absence of intention to kill.

Theoretical, or regulatory attenuation might accompany Physical attenuation, but is traditionally the adoption of a rule-set, or list of prohibitions. For example, the fundamental regulated premise of Cornish Inn-play wrestling is that the practitioners are not to punch, or use hand strikes. Likewise, the practitioners of Tae Kyon are limited to their use of the legs, and a few hand manouvres. Sumo attenuates the fight with its ring as well as its method for judging success. Regulation, besides supplying a prohibition list, also supplies a method by which success may be measured. We can therefore recognise these forms using Sport philosopher Bernard Suits’ (1978) terminology:

1. Prelusory – the sport has an aim expressable outside the conventions of the game.

2. Lusory – the means in which that aim is achieved through a sanctioned and specified rule-set.

3. Constitutive rules – the rule-set.

   1. Its means of initiation

   2. Its measure of success

   3. Its restrictions on behaviour

   4. Its specification of how the game is to be played.

   5. Its means of dealing with deviance

Such components of “game” may be found in “sports” and more conveniently for us, in “combat sports”. We can find each of these components specificially identifiable in all combat sports, from boxing, competitive karate, or modern mixed martial arts tournaments. Once these two forms of pedagogic competitive models of fighting have been studied, we can consider the competitive fights which form part of tournaments. A tournament may be defined as an organised sequence of competitive VARE. In this Model group we might also find the folk competitions of Tae Kyon in parts of South Korea, the Schwingen competitions between farmers in Switzerland, or the folk competitions of traditional Inn-Play wrestling in Cornwall. The Professional competitive models of K-1 and UFC are also comparable in which physical attenuation (gloves and padding) allows for the exertion of unrestricted force. Professional Combat Sports demonstrate a conflict between realism in fighting and what may be considered a form of recreation. To a majority of non-combatant people, Boxing and Mixed Martial Arts pose a moral problem; they are too brutal to be widely accepted as sports, so the sports develop (or sanction) themselves in two ways;

1. To be as realistic as possible, whilst seeking to attain…

2. To be as safe as possible (as a moral constraint)

Of course, the introduction of safety by means of regulation or physical attenuation undermines the realism of the sport. In which case, the two present an incompatible paradox. We can see though that all Combat Systems which begin as Eskirmological contain the potential to be used recreationally so long as attenuation is present. The greater the possibility by ease of killing in a Combat System - the greater the requirement for attenuation of that system to adapt it for use in recreation. Kendo stylists have an increased risk of injury, and therefore the adoption of armour. This is one form of attenuation – the defence of the target - fencing, on the other hand, has attenuated the weapon itself so as to omit the requirement for any form of body protection (besides, of course, a mask).

Limitations of Attenuated Combat Systems

When murdering is no longer the purpose, the pragmatism associated with achieving this aim also becomes superfluous. Artforms originally designed to cope with Unrestricted fighting, such as Karate-Do, once considered a single powerful strike to a vulnerable target as the height of artistic and, more importantly, functional achievement. Now that Karate-Do has become attenuated, the use of gloves prohibit the effect of single-hit strikes. We therefore see the respresentation of single-hit blows in a points system. The same can be said of modern Fencing, whereby a “touch” with the blade warrants a point. In its original intention, this touch would have meant a successful kill. Now, any number of “successful kills” constitutes a match.

With reduced risk also comes reduced diligence. Diligence, which we might conclude gave birth to the single hit, is not currently as important as multiple hits for scoring points. In the attenuated fight, if we lose a point, we have the opportunity to win the next. In reality – in the augmented unrestricted fight – this lack of diligence, or “losing a point”, would have meant losing one’s life. Therefore ancient warriors would have remained diligent and aware of the risk involved. Such is the difference between a Kenjutsu fight with live swords to a modern fencing game. The Kenjutsu masters will move only to strike once – allowing the opponent another move increases the risk of death. However, the modern fencer has no risk and therefore flurries his blows without risking his life. We might propose that the original fights between rapier fighters on the streets of the 17^th century would have been closer to that of Kenjutsu than modern fencing⁹⁰.

Attenuated Combat Systems do not comply with the realistic event of VARE. We can therefore identify two kinds of recreational Martial Arts; those which are used for combat sport, i.e. direct competition in a pseudo-eskirmological environment, and those which are abstract expressions of that combat sport such as Kata competition, which involve indirect forms of competition. Martial Arts which fall into the former category are Boxing and Modern Mixed Martial Art competition (which both use actual and regulated forms of attenuation) as well as traditional systems such as Capoeira, Tae Kyon, Wrestling which use a rule-set (i.e. Tae Kyon will only use certain movements, Wrestler’s will not strike, Capoeiristas will not physically touch).

Earlier I mentioned that the requirement of an Eskirmological Combat System is lack of specialisation and lack of preference. The reality of combat and Combat Logic dictates that one cannot “prefer” any method, but must train realistically and comprehensively to meet any situation which might happen to occur in VARE. We can therefore notice a pattern in ritualised combat; those which are comprehensive are usually most realistic, such as Krav Maga or Ninjutsu on the one side, and those which are specialised and recreational, such as Boxing, or Fencing. It is therefore fundamental to my theory that “The more specialised the art, the less Combat Logic it contains and therefore the less realistic it is in comparison to a wider range behaviour-set”. Specialisation is the defining factor which allows us to categorise Martial Arts into separate groups.

Recreational Combat Systems also evidence the highest levels of specialisation in comparison with Eskirmological Combat Systems. A Martial Arts system which trains one single aspect of Combat Logic in isolation and in preference to others might also be called specialised. Specialised forms could include Western Boxing, or Wrestling, Judo, Shuai Chiao which just contain Percussive methods or just Non-percussive methods. In the process of conditioning in the rituals of fighting, practitioners are exposed to pedagogic forms of fighting which come in two forms; the first is a restricted and ritualised form of combat known as “fixed sparring”, the other is intended to be based upon the information presented by those fixed patterns of behaviour trained in fixed sparring within a “free” or ad hoc application.

Part Three:

The Transmission of behaviour sets

Part Three: The Transmission of behaviour sets

The Transmission and Replication of Behaviours

It is obvious that if I want to increase my chances of survival, I may be able to train my responses to be faster than any potential attacker. There are some things which I cannot change; I cannot modify my form i.e. the height, or the length of my limbs, but I can modify others.  The modifiable components of my body, such as its speed, reaction time, endurance, strength etc demonstrates the fundamental purpose of Combat Systems. We may be able to create drills in order to improve these qualities and increase our natural reactions with augmentative conditioning.

The Combat Systems represent man’s attempt at improving his body to suit fighting. All living creatures are designed to adapt to their environment, and Combat Systems training is therefore designed to force the body to adapt to a combative environment. What factors does the human being need to train in order to go about “improving (modifying) his body to suit fighting”? Firstly, he must overcome certain inhibitions towards fighting. Any teacher will know that some people are not naturally “combative” and have inhibitions not only towards being aggressive but also using their own bodies as a weapon. Some, from fear of pain, injury or just the “unnatural” or “immoral” use of our bodies, have an inhibition towards striking objects. Other elements we need to train are; to harden the body’s resilience to pain, strengthen the muscles and limbs to accept any possibility of damage, as well as improve their coordination, reaction, endurance etc. All these factors are integrated into the structure of a Combat System.

The Pedagogy of Combat Systems

Pedagogy is the name assigned to the study of the skill of teaching⁹¹. It is the study of how to make a subject easier for the novice to internalise, and how the experienced individual may pass on the benefit of his experience to a beginner. This process, known as “Modelling” to Neuro-linguistic Programmers (O’Connor, 2001, 127-129), is based upon the principle that if it is possible for one person to do something efficiently, then it is also possible to model those abilities (from the motivational and mental emotions involved, as well as the specific physical actions) and instil them into someone else. According to O’Connor, Modelling is based upon:

• “Elicitation: outlining the specific patterns of experience

• Coding: Describing those patterns in terms of NLP, and extracting them from the person being modeled.

• Utilisation: experimenting with the applications of the model

• Propagation: generating a teaching scheme for passing that model on to someone else.”

We can see that this process will be at work in Combat Systems, yet it does not involve objective study of someone who is successful. The Architect is generally the one who has been successful and therefore seeks to propagate the benefit of this experience to someone else. He must offer the dimensions of his experience, from the psychological and kinesthesic, to the interaction and transactional, as a package of data which is gradually “fed” into his student. This process is what psychologists refer to as “Cognitive Load”.

In order to understand Cognitive Load, we need to consider the brain to be like a jig-saw puzzle. Information is loaded into it and filed in its relevance place – relative to existing information, building a picture. As information continues to be compiled, it begins to form a structure of information, wherein some parts may have more information than others. Some parts of the puzzle are complete, but others are incomplete. Now if we consider that such a jig-saw puzzle was a panorama of infinite magnitude, not a single image, then we see how flawed data integration can be. The term used to refer to this pyschological construct is Schemata, or Schema.

The living organism’s brain acts a little like this, wherein information is “internalised”. The purpose of this information is to facilitate an organism’s interaction with the environment. Failure to understand a certain element of information means that the Schemata are incomplete, wherein the individual cannot relate the information to any pre-existing logical foundation. In learning it is essential therefore that information be structured and taught in a manner in which the foundation allows for a student to relate more complex information to that already existing within the Schemata.

The natural logic for this is self-evident. Every animal is equipped with an in-built system for learning and adapting. This system is designed so that the organism may use its senses to learn about its environment and adapt its behaviour accordingly. Thus, there are only two natural elements in learning; the environment, and the organism.  The environment does not adapt to suit its organisms, so the organism must adapt to its environment. We shall therefore look at the ways in which organisms learn from their environment.

Human beings use their senses, experience and intelligence to learn from two sources; the environment itself and organisms of the same species who share that environment. Other organisms of the same species are also capable of learning from their environment, and therefore it makes sense to learn from them to be better informed. Naturally, this has lead to increased reliance upon the teachings of others rather than personal experience and relationship to the environment. Much of the entirety of human culture as a species rests upon the acceptance of the teachings of other humans. This acceptance works on the basis of trust and the assumption that the teachings of another human being were accurately based upon the environment. We can pick up again our example of the rain-dance and ritual. Rituals gain importance within society because humans assume that they accurately apply to the environment in which they live. By environment, we of course do not simply refer to a natural environment, the same applies to offices, homes etc. It is the surroundings in close proximity to the organism.

Hence, understanding is a result of;

1. an organism’s contact with information (experience of environment).

2. Its ability to relate that information to his pre-existing database.

Schemata might also be recognised as the “Memory” (although this term is much less precise since the former implies the structure of information, whereas the latter also implies information recall). There are two kinds of memory; the short-term memory (conscious) and the long-term memory (subconscious). Information must be loaded into the short-term memory before it becomes integrated into the long-term memory. As such, the short-term memory is where an organism becomes “aware” of the data, but it has not become integrated into the working long-term memory. The access of this data by means of reminiscence is called Recall.

So in our lives, we are capable of learning in two ways (apart from being influenced by our own innate mechanisms); the first is by first-hand experience (mistake and error leading to self-correction) - the second is second-hand instruction (to be told by a peer or teacher the correct way to do something based upon their experience). The former is what I refer to as “Organic”. This is the mode of learning from experience within one’s environment, in the absence of direction from another human being. Without instruction, we are forced to “teach ourselves” the solution to a problem. This is the way in which the organism learns from his own experience within his environment.

Organic learning (intrinsic data load) comes from direct experience of the world and allows the individual to adapt to his environment. For example, say I were to discover that when I use the front brakes on my bicycle, I go over the handle bars and hurt myself badly. The chances of me making this mistake again are considerably lower – I will have learnt from my mistake, which has a compounding effect upon the chances of a repeat. Having had this experience, I now tell other people not to brake with the front brakes in case the same will happen to them. In this case, all those who I tell will have learnt not to brake with the front brakes, but their lesson is different from mine – it is indirect and synthetic.

This is what I call the second type of learning; the Synthetic (extrinsic data load) type – having not had the direct experience, yet having been taught or told what to do. A mistake or situation which I have experienced may be of use to others, arming them with the benefit of my experience, but the teaching will not mean as much to them as it did to me. Each successive transmission of the data depreciates both its meaning and value. If not linked to the reason why, perhaps within a few generations might lose its relevance until the inevitable organic experience again. I discovered and adapted the hard way, and the solution was a personal revelation, but anyone following the instruction does not learn in this way.

Synthetic instruction surrounds us nowadays in even simple things. Banging ones head on the low ceiling, tripping over the step, or slipping on the mopped floor all have signs designed to inform about the potential risk. The signs such as “Low Ceiling, mind your head”, or “Mind the Step”, or “Wet Floor, cleaning in progress” are all rudimentary forms of Synthetic pedagogy. One person originally experienced that this may happen and hence others’ mistakes may be prevented and avoided. This is useful to us, because we can begin to see the meaning of the pedagogy in the Combat Systems. Once a master of fighting may have an experience, he can then use this experience to teach others, either to avoid mistake or to avoid inefficiency. Either way, the learning of his student’s is Synthetic, whereas the master’s was Organic. In this case, Lee’s consideration of the “second-hand artist” is important to us.

The rituals of Combat Systems pedagogy have become sanctified, as regards any synthetic teaching taught by a revered master. The experience of the master lead to his wisdom, and therefore his wisdom is to be trusted. One such case of sanctification of synthetic teaching may be found in religion, and was used by Dawkins in his God Delusion. Dawkins mentions that the original reason for the Islamic teaching of not eating pork was a logical one; that it was a meat most prone to causing illnesses. Therefore we can see that the instruction has lost something during its process of becoming sanctified – something extremely important to the instruction – it has lost its meaning. The ancient law-makers of Islam would have instructed that “pork is not to be eaten [instruction], because it will lead to disease [reason]”. However, over time, the instruction does not require a reason and should be followed simply because that is the law. As Dawkins said, many modern Muslims may not be aware that “pork is not to be eaten” because it was the cause of disease, but rather accept the instruction prima facia without demanding an explicit reason. It did have a reason, but that reason no longer applies; and this is the same as we see in the Martial Arts.

This conversion of idea to rule to law is a device designed to ensure the preservation and longevity of the idea. People may easily forget the principle of not sleeping with your neighbour’s wife, but when it becomes an absolute law (a Commandment perhaps); it has a distinct gravity, it is explicit and imposes itself within the mind of the individual.

Combat Systems were born from similar issues, from Organic experience being taught to others in a Synthetic way. In many cases, the instruction was continued, but the reason was not. Bruce Lee must have been aware of this fact when he described that “This evening I see something totally new and that newness is experienced by the mind, [in that moment,] but tomorrow that expression becomes mechanical if I try to repeat the sensation, the pleasure of it. The description is never real. What is real is seeing the truth instantaneously, because truth has no tomorrow”.

Due to conformitivism expected in the traditional institutions of Combat, the Combat Systems are at risk of placing greater importance upon Synthetic than Organic learning. Therefore Combat Systems exist with entire synthetic pedagogic systems designed to replicate that organic experience in a controlled setting. Let us explore a few of the examples of Extrinsic data load used in Combat Systems.

Replicating a set of combative rituals in another person

The purpose of pedagogy is to replicate, to “model”, the desired attributes of the Architect in terms of martial skill and philosophical world-view in another human being. We might suppose that, at grandmaster level in accordance to his curriculum, one has reached a level equal to that of the Architect.

The modification (training), or adaptation of the human body to meet the requirements of fighting is the fundamental purpose of the Combat System, yet such modification takes on a much more complex dimension when attempting to replicate it in an untrained person.

The Combat System therefore requires an additional subset of operations through which the requirements of fighting are deconstructed and offered to a student in manageable sections. The necessary partitioning and gradual delivery of the data which comprise the behaviour sets of the Combat System means that it must also develop abstract educational rituals in order to replicate desired attributes in another human being. If a Combat System could be replicated in its entirety, and in an instant, there would be no need for pedagogy, but since learning requires small steps, these robust devices are necessary to transfer knowledge from one generation or persons to another.

Deconstructing the most important requirements of fighting, we can recognise the following which permeate all Combat Systems. They are the ability;

1. To exert optimum force possible

   1. To understand concentrations of force

2. To interact with another human being (by means of timing and force)

   1. To understand opposition and how to overcome it

   2. To mitigate the effects of imposed force

3. To apply the techniques in a live scenario

   1. To act and react according to unpredictable stimuli

4. To retain the set of movements which define the system

   1. From the basic movements, as well as the Strategic syntax which give them context and meaning – i.e. the “application”.

In response to each of these, the Combat System has devised various formulaic methods of not only training these required elements, but also encapsulating them into a system which is progressive and builds each layer of complexity upon the last. Corresponding directly to the requirements listed above, in the form of elements abstracted for learning, the Combat System contains the following devices:

1. The exertion of force upon solid and resistant [inanimate] objects

2. The practice of set-sparring (Worked Examples)

3. The practice of Pre-arranged Movement Patterns (Actions-in-isolation)

4. The practice of free-sparring (Actions-in-relation)

   1. The use of abstract “drills” to develop specific subset skills.

The purpose of knowledge transmission is to ensure that useful knowledge is retained and not lost. It is also based upon the replication of experience in practitioners via Synthetic teaching methods. It is vital therefore that knowledge is transferred in its entirety and without mistakes. The children’s game “Chinese whispers” demonstrates (in a very rudimentary way) the difficulty of transferring information from one person to another. Unlike Chinese whispers, we are unable to ask the Architect what the original intention was, since he may have originated the system hundreds of years ago. Hence, the Combat System requires a robust system for data transmission. We shall consider the devices which the Martial Arts Organism uses to transfer its information later.

From a pedagogical view, there are two kinds of knowledge transmission – that which transfers intention, and that which transfers actual knowledge. The difference is known as Digital and Analogue. The difference between the two may be likened to the carpenter teaching a student. The carpenter teaches the student to hammer the nail until the head it flush with the wood. The student appreciates and understands that the purpose of the teaching is to get the nail into the wood. The analogue transmission would teach the student how many hits with the hammer should be done, and the way to hold the hammer. Of course, the carpenter does not teach how many times to hit the nail, or how to hit it, he simply teaches the student that the nail is to be hit into the wood with the hammer. In other words he teaches the pragmatic principle rather than the actual technique.

This analogy is important to us since we can see that the Combat Systems transmission becomes ritualised when it relies too heavily upon analogue teaching rather than digital. A teaching of combat via the tactical and strategic dimensions will demonstrate to the student the aim of the method, and the actual technique becomes less important, so long as the objective is achieved. It seems therefore that ritualised fighting is based upon the analogue school of teaching whereby the techniques (which can be likened to the hits with the hammer) become more important that the tactical purpose.

There are two core methods of knowledge transfer; Direct & Indirect. Direct transfer involves the presence of a teacher by whom the student is taught. This direct transfer is the best way of transferring knowledge from one person to another. From the perspective of the Martial Arts Organism, direct transfer is the most preferable method, but for the teacher in which teaching a student could take many years of one’s life, it is a significant commitment. In order to propagate the system amongst students without having to be there must have been the impetus for the indirect form of knowledge transfer. The best example of indirect transfer is the creation of a book. In history, many people were illiterate which meant that written information was not the most effective way of transferring knowledge. Many books which contained knowledge about fighting; the bubishi, the muyedobotongji, the Hung Gar Kuen books of Lam Sai-Wing etc had extensive pictures to follow. Anyone who had a small experience from a master of fighting would be able to recognise and interpret the movements from the pictures.

The Martial Arts Organism relies upon these methods of information transfer. Perhaps we should discuss some of the direct methods of transfer first. Although each Martial Art puts different emphasis upon differing elements, the appearance of the elements can always be found. Each have a basis in the pedagogy of the Martial Art, and many of the training methods are designed for the sole purpose of transferring knowledge about fighting.

Solo-training

Individual Percussive techniques

Pre-arranged Movement Patterns

Physical conditioning

Partner-training

Application of techniques

Ritualised Fight Training (Sparring)

Situational Application Training (Self-defence)

In Solo training, the aim is to perfect the techniques in and of themselves. Almost all Combat Systems have some form of basic method of attack and defence. In Judo, for example, it is strictly Non-percussive. In Boxing it is strictly Percussive. Percussive techniques can be trained alone in the form of “shadow boxing”, but Non-percussive techniques are more difficult to practice alone and require a stretch of the imagination. Since fighting is defined by requiring more than one person, all solo-practice is therefore abstract training.

Pre-arranged Movement Pattern Training is what various Combat Systems name Kata, Quan, Poomse/Hyung, Taolu etc. It is a solo-routine of pre-choreographed fighting techniques. Subject development in the form of transcendentalism comes both during and as a result of solo-training. This can sometimes include meditation.

In Partner training, the aim is to apply those methods of percussion and/or non-percussion to apply them to use with another human being. Institutional Fight Training is more commonly known by the name of Sparring (Kumite, Dae Ryun etc). Sparring comes in two forms; either Set (pre-defined), or Free sparring. In pre-defined sparring, there are routines of techniques practiced between two or more people. In Free sparring, the fighting is dependant upon the techniques chosen by each individual, but is still regulated by the sensibilities of the school and of civilised fighting.

The Logic of Direct Transmission

We will confront many of the methods as we proceed through this chapter, but I would like to be explicit on a few of the techniques used by Combat Systems – and these need to be kept in mind by a reader. We must remember that most teachers in the history of the Combat Systems were not trained teachers, they were trained Martial Artists. There was very little training in how to be a teacher, but the best teachers are often experts in the subject taught; Mulholland (2008, 12) reminds us that Sensei means “one who has gone before”.

The teacher therefore had to teach the Martial Art dependant upon the student’s capability to learn and also his already acquired or inherent skills. Therefore the teacher will recognise that, what seems easy to himself appears complex to the student. The teacher will inevitably have to breakdown his skills and experience into manageable pieces. For example, many Combat Systems schools teach how to punch, block and kick in a natural stance; focussing upon perfecting the coordination of the upper limbs first. Next the stances are performed and perfected. Then both skills are combined together. Such a breakdown of skills means that Combat Systems systems are largely composed of teaching techniques in a graduated way – becoming more complex or difficult in performance the further the training progresses.

All Combat Systems must therefore make use of various pedagogical modes of transfer (“communicative”). Not all systems make use of them all, but utilise them to varying degrees, amongst these are;

• Linguistic:

  • Orally, via verbal instruction⁹²

  • Following written instruction

• Kinesic:

  • Example (via being shown how to do it) & Imitation

  • Physical correction

A secondary purpose of ritualisation is its capacity to facilitate the transference of knowledge from one generation to another. As we know, to facilitate this purpose man has developed many different tools and methods to pass knowledge on. The existence of these tools are often taken at face-value, but when we consider the kinds of knowledge which would have been required to be transferred, then we are able to realise the logic behind the various pedagogical solutions in ritualised fighting. Combat Systems (in terms of the orthodox traditions), although they are made up of many facets, mostly encompass the following in their curriculum;

• Combat Experience:

  • Combat interaction (“Free Sparring”)

  • Combat recitation (“Set Sparring”)

• Repetition of sanctioned Combative Behaviours:

  • Repetition of a single action

  • Recitation of a Sequence of Techniques: Kata, Hyung/Poomse, Quan, or as a Pre-arranged Movement Pattern (PMP).

  • Abstract training drills for tactile, mobility or reactionary skills.

• Abstract practice of applying behaviours

  • Breaking

The Logic of Worked Example (“Set-Sparring”)

When Locke described his principle of the Tabula Rasa, he felt obliged to answer predicted criticisms as to how, if not by God, the organism learned anything about the world around him. He summed the principle up in one word, offered in capital letters; “EXPERIENCE”. The importance of experience has been propounded by many other scholars, particularly Aristotle, Plato, Kant. In the East, the importance of experience as a means to learning was of high importance. Buddhism is based upon a foundation of intuitive understanding, based upon experience and emptying the conscious mind. Intuitive understanding may be acquired via experience.

One of our core problems in this regard is how to transfer the benefit of my experience to someone else. An answer is perhaps to offer an example of the experience, so that the student may experience the solution for himself. This is what is known as the “Worked Example”. The Worked Example is the codified and crystallised example of how techniques should be applied in order to achieve the function of particular algorithms. Confucius once offered the perfect logic for the use of Worked Examples when he said, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” Funakoshi (1997, 12) notes the Japanese proverb Fugu kuwanu hito niwa iwaji (“It is impossible to describe the taste of blowfish to one who has never eaten it”). Sophocles similarly mentioned that “One must learn by doing the thing; though you think you know it, you have no certainty until you try”⁹³.

One of my core beliefs is that the internalisation of particular experiences leads to moments of transcendentalism. A number of these moments can lead to enlightenment. My belief was summed up in the phrase, “not to seek the path, but to seek that which the Architect [of a martial art] had sought”. This concept is what Carruthers termed Orthopraxis which “emphasises a set of experiences and techniques, conceived as a ‘way’ to be followed, leading one to relive the Architect’s path to enlightenment” (2004, 32). Many different schools emphasise different experiences, but each with the main aim of seeking an enlightened state, such that “Many paths lead up a mountain, but only one moon can be seen by those who achieve its summit” (McCarthy & McCarthy, 1999, 99).

This necessity to allow the student to experience combat for himself in the mould of his teacher is fundamental to the learning experience. The teacher’s role is to explain his experience, how it feels and why he acts the way he does so that his student will come to understand the experience for himself. To understand by experiencing the teacher’s actions (his habitus) is to be capable of emulation, and eventually those actions which comprise the system will transmute from within the student.

So this is the teacher’s problem. How can he devise a set of experiences which will deliver his student to the qualitative state that he holds within him? Assume the role of an Architect for a moment. You have experienced a combat wherein you overcame an obstacle to your Initial Policy and were successful in the combat. The specific mode of action, your stepping pattern, the way you held your hands, the relative position of the opponent are all pondered and reflected upon. All these segments comprise your repeatable set of behaviour, and this is what we might call your “partial truth” (Little, 2001). In the combat, you orbited to the outside of the opponent’s Range of Motion (ROM), by moving outside his arms on his left hand side. This algorithm as a means to overcoming resistance can be found in various Combat Systems, specifically Karate Do and Chuka Shaolin (Leong & Wiley, 2000). It is what I call the “Outside Angle” algorithm which is common in systems which depend upon Abrogation.

As part of this Abrogative Strategy, the most logical techniques are those which neutralise the opponent in as little movement with as little effort as possible. Hence you will begin to formulate the methods in which a “single hit” fight could exist; hitting the nose, hitting the Solar Plexus or groin. We now wish to teach this to our students, but before we are able to drive straight in with this kind of technical timing and ability, we must begin gradually with our development. The concept of building gradual learning in the Combat Systems is the stepping stone on the path to proficiency.

Few beginners are capable of ending a fight in a single movement, and so we must develop a set of training methods in which a student is capable of defending himself. Experience of timing relative to an attack by blocking is therefore part of our basic Worked Example. Perhaps then, we shall begin with three movements and we shall call this “three-step sparring”. This pedagogic model appears in many Asian Combat Systems, particularly those derived from the Southern Chinese Combat Systems – Karate (Co, 1997; Leong & Wiley, 2000; Van Weenen, 1984;), and those subsequently derived from Karate (such as Tang Soo Do (Kang Uk Lee, 1998) or Tae Kwon Do (Tedeschi, 2003; Lawler, 1998; Cho, 1997; TAGB, 1995, 1997; Kukkiwon, 2000)). The format for these three-step pre-arranged worked examples are often as follows:

Step one: Opponent steps forward to attack, we step back and parry

Step two: Opponent steps forward to attack again, we step back and parry again

Step three: We step forward to attack.

This format effectively emphasises the importance of interaction, and the ability to time parries relative to the opponent’s attack. Yet such a skill is arguably only secondary to the main intended objective of the System which is to terminate the risk. By being capable of doing this however, the student will have the timing and ability to beat a person in a single action. If the student is able to overcome the opponent in only three movements, then two-step sparring will be much simpler, and ultimately so too will one-step sparring. The purpose of the training is to instil within the practitioner what Lee called the “body-feel” for “single-hit” attacks. It is then theoretically possible for this “Worked Example” to give the student the ability to apply this in an unpredictable scenario based upon his experience, and apply the simultaneous intuitive understanding of the underlying intention of the behaviour.

There is a simple flaw in the logic of set-sparring and that is the entire principle of “set-sparring”, the fact that in this format the attacks of the fighters are not random and exist with a certain amount of prediction. Combat Systems attacks can be made anywhere on your body, with any weapon, in any mode. Yet Set-sparring defines the techniques abstracted from a seemingly infinite catalogue. This definition immediately sterilises the aspect of “prediction” in which the timing and target of the attack is known prior to initiating your own defence. You know his attack and your response prior to the actual actions. This kind of interaction is logical in terms of training, as it develops the sense of Time and Space. However, it also serves to increase the student’s sense of ability beyond the case of reality⁹⁴. The rigours of the reality of combat predicate the necessity to react to unknown and unpredictable behaviours.

This controlled format of fighting is therefore designed to help the student understand the application of physical technique in interaction with another person. Once this understanding has been integrated into the student’s skills, he is later expected to demonstrate timing and opportunism of those techniques in semi-free and free-sparring.

The Logic of Pre-arranged Movement Patterns (PMP)

Kata has many times been referred to as being the very soul of Karate (McCarthy, 1987). Kata (PMP) and Kumite (Sparring) go hand-in-hand in schools of Karate Do, wherein interaction with an opponent is based upon bunkai “to find meaning” in the techniques outlined in the PMP to discover the okuden waza (hidden techniques).

The term “pre-arranged movement pattern” is commonly used to refer to the practice of combative routines and was introduced by Armstrong (1988). The logic behind the term stems from an application of the terms “Fixed Action Patterns” by ethologists to refer to phylogenically pre-determined sets of behaviour. So “pre-arranged movement patterns” refer to a set of behaviours which have been consciously pre-designed, yet not necessarily referencing the format in which those movements may be placed. In which case, the term refers to any action which has been conditioned or pre-designed, but is not specific to the practice of Forms.

Figure 14 - The work of General Qijiguang demonstrated some of the earliest examples of military PMP. His work, the Ji Qiao Xinshu (1695) was copied to create the Muye dobo tongji.

In Chinese Combat Systems, the term Quan “Boxing or Fist” is most often applied to empty-handed routines (Bin, 1992; Li & Du, 1998), and Xing “Form” is used to describe an action with a transcendental or abstract mnemonic description. A routine made up of numerous “Forms” is known as a “set”. Likewise, in traditional Karate the term Kata is used to refer to any performance of pre-arranged movements, from a single technique to an extensive sequence of movements. In Kane & Wilder’s work Way of Kata (2005), Abernethy ably defines a Kata as “a way to record and summarise the key combative techniques and principles of a fighting style.” (ibid, xiv). We shall see in a moment how a sequence of actions is as important as an actualized Combat System, and how understanding it can allow a practitioner to reduce the techniques back into its theoretical components of Strategy and Tactic.

Much has already been written on this latter point by Martial Arts practitioners and scholars on the subject of Pre-arranged Movement Pattern. Because the techniques permeate an unseen realm and represent only the tip of the systemic iceberg, scholars have made efforts to demonstrate the transcendental value of the PMP. Rosenbaum (2005) has written extensively upon the role of the Kata as a vehicle for knowledge transmission⁹⁵, describing it in terms of “metaphor” relating them to “symbolism” and an “esoterical” and “poetic” basis. Indeed, such dimensions occur in any attempt to structure information in a manner which attempts to make sense of the millions of potential variables in combat. Reducing the possible techniques down to the most viable ones, parsing those for their biomechanical similarities, reducing those many down to a few representative motions which can still apply to the conceived environment which they will need to apply and subsequently to place those movements into a sequence representative of theoretical wisdom is a scientific affair, but one which also requires a certain amount of artistic inspiration. From a few techniques, we can take a small set of motions representative of Ballistic combat, then select some sets which represent Tactile skills and compound them together to form a single representation of a hypothetical combat. Such a PMP now represents one instance of combat, and another PMP may be used to represent another instance of combat using a completely different set of techniques, in a completely different kind of sequence. This variation, based upon the multitude of possible variables, combative psychological attitudes and potential approaches to combat in its different forms introduces a great wealth of potentiality.

Rosenbaum offers an example, citing Russell’s discussion of Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Rosenbaum, 2004, 148; Russell, 1945, 166) wherein is described the importance of the meaning of “form”;

“…Things increase in actuality by acquiring form; matter without form is only potentiality.”

In order for a Combat System to be defined as anything in particular, it must be defined as something. Strategies and Tactics are intangible entities, they are metaphysical and do not exist except in an actual manifestation. This manifestation comes in the visible form of the “technique”. Though we can see techniques, we cannot understand “strategy” unless there is a sequence of movements which imply nuances about context, and application.

Yet Techniques cannot even exist but in the performance. The tactics do not exist anywhere other than within the mind of the practitioner, the techniques only in his physical action. Hence, a PMP is essentially the physical manifestation or appearance of metaphysical tactics. To consider them in one’s imagination is not Kata, but to perform them is giving them “Kata”. Yet this term should not be synonymous with “sequence of movements” because it seems that masters used this term “kata” to imply any actual practice of the ideas, strategy and tactics of fighting.

In which case, the PMP supplies an important function; it presents a physical and actual projection of the theoretical basis of the System. It is a well-known fact that masters of the past studied and practiced perhaps only one of two PMP, and studied the tactics contained within them very closely (Funakoshi, 22). Routines which incorporated a specific kind of strategy, such as a “Tiger strategy” (grasping and tearing techniques manifesting an aggressive unilateral approach to combat), or a “drunken strategy” (complying with no specific framework of habitus other than ad hoc creativity – an attempt to liberate from any and all habitus) were designed, not so much for the value of the actual techniques, but perhaps more to learn the intuitive “spirit” behind the movements, with the intention that such experience of that “spirit” might in turn find itself within the practitioner himself and find it naturally imposed on, and manifested in, one’s actions in the future without cognitive effort. This kind of experience, as Finn refers to (1988, 200-202), is typical of teaching methods designed to allow for direct experience rather than developing the “third-person critique”⁹⁶ method of learning.

PMP practice has an ancient pedigree. Friday & Seki (1997, 108) mention that according to the records left of particular Ryu-ha, the use of PMP may be found as early as the 15^th and 16^th Centuries. The strength of such a PMP is perhaps that it allows a master to “download” the entire skillset of the Combat System to a student quickly, and effectively; offer him the tools to critique it and extrapolate the theoretical basis by means of repeated practice and personal reflection.

Upon the aspects already covered it is entirely possible to reduce the functions of PMP into three dimensions.

The three dimensions of PMP

The appearance and existence of routines of ritualised movement in Eastern Combat Systems and the reliance upon them (which is peculiar to Eastern arts) is a topic open to much speculation. This having been said, by observing the function of these PMP we may consider the role they play both to the Combat Systems (as a database of combat information) but also to the practitioner and his individual needs.

We can identify that these sequences of behaviours have three dimensional values which are simultaneous within most, if not all, PMP;

1. Database of Techniques

The primary function of a Kata is to facilitate the secure transference of a set of behaviours and knowledge about fighting. These are the obvious factors of knowledge transference, in which tactics are transferred somewhat subliminally via an example set of physical techniques. They are hard-coded sequences designed to open up the student to understand Combat Logic (as we shall see later).

In terms of securing the future transference of the Combat System, the PMP is perhaps the most effective device possible. All Combat Systems comprise a number of individual techniques, yet they cannot all be practiced at the same moment. Neither can they possibly exist without being practiced. So much so, they are like spirits without body and require manifestation. Yet as a set of perhaps hundreds, if not thousands of individual movements, we might be liable to forget some of them. In order to ameliorate this problem, the Combat System must design a rigorous format through which these behaviour sets may be transferred.

The importance of the structural design of PMP demonstrates all that we might expect from a physical education system designed to transfer experience of combat movement. Higbee (2001, 46-74) suggested ten principles of memory, all of which can be found in the function of a PMP;

• Meaningfulness,

• Context,

• Organisation,

• Association,

• Visualisation,

• Attention,

• Repetition,

• Relaxation,

• Interest,

• Feedback

It is a fact that well-structured information is far easier to remember and recall. When information is well-organised, meaningful, is linked with visual and experiential stimuli and has been overlaid repeatedly to become habitus, then recall of that data is much easier.

In accordance with the Schemata Theory we met with earlier, we may understand the construct of “meaningfulness”. This term accentuates the important relationship between the existing database of knowledge (ibid, 46) and the new information. Such a practice also may be traced within the practice of mnemonics, which otherwise apply new knowledge using a pre-structured set of terminology (and visualisation). If we liken the individual techniques to words, and sequences of techniques as sentences, then we may recognize the function of PMP in light of the fact that sentences may be remembered easier than incoherent sets of words (ibid, 47). In which case, the logic of a PMP should be, by this stage, self-evident.

By organising the techniques, prescribing order, to otherwise incoherent and isolated techniques, the Architect of a Combat System may ensure that all those carefully selected techniques are transmitted as part of a single unified premise. These routines are repeated until the fundamental “spirit” of the composition is internalized - as Kanazawa mentioned it should be a manifestation of that which comes “from inside them”. The most important elements of Kata; repetition, visualisation and internalisation via a conceptualised context, the design of a sequence of movements which associate and organise individual actions which allows transcendence by means of attention to one’s skills, control of one’s body and concentration on performance; all correlate perfectly with the principles outlined by Higbee, as well as other scholars of the Art of the Memory (Carruthers, 2000; Carruthers & Ziolkowski, 2004; D’Assigny, 1706). It is no coincidence therefore that such important aspects of Kata practice evidence a format intentionally composed to facilitate the retaining of the structural, physical and theoretical components of Combat Systems.

2. Fitness value

The second role is one we have already mentioned, but it is a factor which we must consider as a value of PMP. The physical training derived from the PMP means that we are able to gain increased cardiovascular capacity as well as callisthenic and muscular development. The constant rise and fall, contraction and retraction, tension and relaxation of movement part of a PMP serves to fortify the physical body for VARE.

Li & Du (1998, 22-23) outline the scientific studies which have been made to identify the health benefits of the practice of Wushu. Citing two medical studies, the authors suggest that the practice of Taolu (specifically Taijiquan in the studies) can have a lasting and significant effect on health, vitality, sleep, stamina and digestion. In a study by Chandran, Nair and Shashidhar (2001), the lung capacity and respiratory functions of Kalaripayattu practitioners was shown to be significantly higher when compared with normal control subjects (ibid, 240). Likewise, Glass, Reeg, Bierma (2002) demonstrated that the calorific cost of activity to Martial Arts novices can have a positive effect upon their long-term health. Moreover, because of significant increases to heart rate, the exercise offers benefit to various parts of the body simultaneously. Such an observation demonstrated the capacity for PMP to not only increase the performance of the internal organs, but also increased flexibility of muscles and joint as well as increased tensile strength of tendons and ligaments (Bridge, 2007; Melhim, 2001). Further significant studies on the beneficial aerobic effect of PMP training have been shown in Karate by Schmidt & Royer (1973), Shaw & Deutsch (1982); Zehr & Sale (1993); in Tae Kwon Do by Pieter, Taaffe & Heijmans (1990), and modern Wushu (specifically Changquan and Daoshu PMP) by Ribeiro et al. (2006).

The majority of traditionally practiced routines involve a certain amount of Overload training in which practitioners stand in much lower and deeper stances than is realistic, place rings on their wrists for added resistance etc⁹⁷. This accommodation process, consisting of Overload training, isometric and isotonic exercise of the muscles, simultaneously with neuromuscular facilitation of combat techniques, whilst also providing the experience required for transcendentalism reveals a three dimensional process at work in perhaps all PMP. The effect is that the student benefits by multiplying the results in three dimensions, whilst dividing the time required for all these aspects similarly by three; in compliance with the Minimax Principle.

3. Transcendental value

The third value of the PMP is a by-product of extended and dedicated practice, which is the spiritual and self development of the fighting arts. The development of all conscious beings is based firstly upon affecting the body, by repetitive experience. It is only through physical repetition that an impression is left within the mind of the practitioner. It is difficult to reach the mind of individuals unless it is by means of affecting his physical body. In which case, Nietzsche suggested that pain is the utmost method of leaving an impression in the mind, since few animals will ignore physical pain. Therefore by causing stress upon the body (perhaps by eliciting pain – such as the training seen in the Shaolin temple or Muay Thai gyms in Thailand) is the most effective way of impressing anything on the mind. In which case, all Combat Systems are essentially transcendental.

Kanazawa explains “that they have to train in their kata many, many times in order to discover meanings. In the end, the kata comes up from inside them. When this happens they will have very good kata.”

The effects upon the morale and character of the practitioner means that he will become not only increasingly self-motivated but also confident and independent. This kind of solitary practice is what leads the mind to contemplate the issues of fighting, and in this way becomes a form of moving contemplation and/or meditation. For this very reason, the routines cannot be underestimated. Yoga, Qi gong and Pilates are forms of physical activity designed, not only to improve the fitness of the individual, but also improve the health of the internal organs. The techniques of Ki training used in Karate are known as Ibuki. This set of techniques was once known as “Kokyu no donto” meaning “to inhale and exhale”. These kinds of breathing exercises are employed in meditation (Mokuso and Meiso) with the ultimate purpose being Tenchijin (union of the heavens, earth and man⁹⁸). This is enacted in the practice of Combat Systems routines which are designed to focus the mind in a kind of transcendental Martial Meditation, or Martial Yoga.

Besides these functions, there may also be a social function to the design of PMP. It is commonly known that Yang Chan Fu (the founder of Yangjai Taijiquan) learned the Chenjia Taijiquan by attempting to observe the practice of the villagers of Chen jia guo (the Chen Family Village). Although he was able to superficially repeat the motions of the PMP, he was unable to understand the purpose of these motions until he was accepted as a student (Docherty, 2000, 34). Moreover, secrecy was common amongst clans, requiring a Kaimen or “closed-door” policy. This might suggest that a PMP may be performed out in the open without anyone recognising the actual intention behind what appears to be a martial dance. Secrecy was all important to the school, and knowledge of Combat Logic was evidently highly guarded (Finn, 1988, 106; Reid & Coucher, 1984). As Co describes the common saying in Ngo Cho Kuen, Ge put twan liok he – “don’t teach the art if there are six ears around” (1997, 73). We have already described this social function earlier in the chapter on the Moral Responsibility Hypothesis.

Yet in the practice of the PMP, we may recognize it serving different functions. Let us take a look at these.

The two types of Pre-arranged Movement Patterns

Having named the functions which support the implementation and existence of PMP in Combat Systems, we will have help to begin a typological study. The appearances of PMP are not always the same due to qualitative differences between them. In which case, although there are three dimensions to all PMP, we can indeed identify PMP which are developed to focus solely upon one or two of those dimensions. A potential Architect might create a PMP in order to specifically focus upon overload training involving a set of very strenuous exercises, or he might create a kata to develop breathing techniques. This is evidently the logic behind the division of Chien and Chuan routines in Southern Chinese Combat Systems (Leong & Wiley, 2000; Co, 1997, 73-75). Chien is for physical fortification by concentrating on Isometric and Isotonic contraction and special breathing techniques, and Chuan are for martial application; concentrating upon fighting techniques.

We can therefore identify 2 types of PMP;

1. Type A: Behaviour sets

   1. Eskirmological

   2. Pedagogical

2. Type B: Neuromuscular Facilitation

The first type is PMP which are designed with a mind to compiling techniques into a sequence, whether as a choreographed VARE format or as a simple living compendium of eskirmological techniques. Toguchi (2001, 47) explains how the function of the kata in Shorei-Kan Karate Do is summed up in Kaisai, which is the practice of ancient secret fighting techniques (okuden waza) (Kane & Wilder, 2005, 15; Abernethy). A kata is made up of various hyomengi (fighting techniques) united into a sequence representative of kobo no jutsu (the essence of combat). The effort to identify a secret technique is referred to as Kaisai, using either deduction (en-eki-ho) or induction (kino-ho), and the resultant identified technique is called Kaisaigi. The sequence catalogues successful techniques with an undercurrent of universal principles. In Japanese Swordsmanship; Technique & Practice, Draeger & Warner describe this kind of Kata as “genuine…sequences that have been extracted from successful battlefield experiences. The careful manner in which techniques were selected and linked together to form a meaning combative sequence was accomplished by men who had considerable experience on the battlefield and elsewhere.” This type of ritualised movement routine is characterised by the infusion of specific sequences of subjectively strategic movements, and do not necessarily follow any specific pattern.

A set of movements might preference the use of the right arm or the right leg, or a certain combination of movements performed in one direction then repeated in another direction. In which case, I have in mind the Shiaohong quan of Henan Shaolin Wushu, the Rohai Hyung of Tang Soo (soo bahk) Do, the Siu Nim Tao of Wing Chun, or the Chenguojia Taijiquan Pao chui.

Eskirmologically speaking, it is easy to realise how this type of sequence would be created, ritualised and perpetuated in institutions. Allow me to create a theoretical picture of how such a routine would develop. If I want to teach my students a series of self defence techniques which they can take away, I can put my techniques into a routine. Say for example that I dictate that a punch to the face and a knee to the groin was the best technique for when one is cornered, and when being grabbed from behind; stamping on the foot and elbowing was the best technique, then I could unite the two into a combination to be practiced alone. So now I have two of the best techniques, I shall teach this short routine to my students: face punch, knee, step, stamp and elbow the rear. I already have the beginning of a kata developing. These are the best techniques, which can be trained without a partner, and whilst training alone, the Neuromuscular facilitation can be increased along side the proper breathing for increased cardiovascular capacity.

The second type of PMP is qualitatively different from those mentioned above, being created for pedagogical purposes to improve the physical practice of the student. They usually feature early in the pedagogical system. We must practice techniques with both sides of the body as well as to all directions around the body. Wing Chun’s Siu Nim Tau form is a good example of this kind of routine. The techniques are practiced on both sides of the body; first to the left, or with the left hand, then to the right. There are only four (or five depending on how you count them) sets of techniques in the form, each one split up by returning to a cocked position by the floating ribs. The form must have therefore been designed to practice the basic techniques on both sides of the body in order to ensure ambidexterity. Another example is the basic Shotokan Karate Kata; Taikyoku shodan Kata. First one begins by defending & attacking to the left, then the attack & defence is made to the right. Next it is done to the back, then the front. This means that the practitioner traces a “+” symbol with the feet (known as the enbusen).

The final kind of PMP is that designed like the example of Sanchin above; for physical and spiritual development. There were traditionally two kinds of Combat Systems routines defined for the Combat Systems in the [Southern] Chinese systems. The first was those created for combative purposes, such as those named as the “Quan”. The other type as identified by Martial Artists was “Chien” or isometric tension forms. In Goju Ryu Karate Do⁹⁹ there are two perfect examples of these martially yogic routines. One is known as Tensho, and the other is Sanchin¹⁰⁰. It is said in Karate Do circles that Tensho is the “Passive” or Internal form, and Sanchin is the more active or External form. Both teach the use of proper meditative thought throughout, alongside proper martial technique. This kind of exercise, applying Combat Systems into body tension and dynamic stretching, means that training is martially oriented. Yoga and Pilates are non-martial oriented meaning that it serves as much use to fighting as knitting would in improving wrist strength. The time spent in the practice would be to the detriment of fight practice. Therefore by orienting physical exercise and meditation into a platform in which Combat Systems techniques were practiced at the same time, the benefits are multiplied. This is a very logical way of training, not relying upon a partner, as well as training techniques and improving our fitness and coordination.

However, the problem arises when these techniques are taken as being Combat Systems without their application. There is also a super objective to this kind of routine training. Training alone increases the discipline of the mind and allows one to increase the Proprioception of the human body. This guides the mind to unite with the body.

Draeger and Warner describe modern recreationally derived PMP as;

“always a farrago in which the individual techniques, having been chosen from various and different sources, bear no interrelationship or, what is worse, is a newly constructed kata designed by persons who have had no hand-to-hand combat experience [with a sword]. The serious technical deficiency in the kata of modern disciplines is further compounded by the fact that kata practice is rarely required of exponents of these disciplines and, if at all, is taught to persons who have no real understanding of any inherent combative values the kata may have. Deprived of combative integrity, the kata of modern disciplines thus stand tangential to the very discipline they are said in theory to support, the disciplines being characterised more by an emphasis on “free” action directed toward sport-context applications that are far removed from the exigencies of combat”.

With Draeger’s words we can see that the PMP of the past was resolutely infused with martial-intent. However, he mentions this in contrast to what he calls “a farrago in….techniques”. He is alluding to the kata which has been created with little martial-intent and has more of a pedagogical purpose than martial.

It is widely accepted amongst Karate historians that Itosu, in attempting to simplify Okinawan Combat Systems into a format suitable for acceptance into mainstream Physical Education curriculum, he created sets of forms extrapolated from an eskirmological original. This original was known as “Chiang Nan” after the originator of the PMP. Yet in applying division to the sequence, he evidently missed much of the combat principles and realistic techniques of the original (Gojushiho, Kusanku, or Chiang Nan, possibly based upon the Architect of Fujian White Crane, Chī Niáng Fāng). Johnson (2000), and reported by Shaw (The Naihanchi Enigma), mentions that it was “...often admitted to not knowing the technical functions of certain movements and hand forms in the Katas and would quite blankly state that Itosu (Shorin-ryu master and creator of the Pinan Kata) had not known the functions either, merely explaining that they were for ‘show’” Concerningly, the products of this division now forms the major PMP set for a number of modern Karate systems; and moreover, those descended from Karate (particularly Korean adaptations as Tae Kwon Do).

We could believe that Choi Hong Hi’s Tul, (or Hyung as they were once known) were devised with martial-intent, but the symbolism of the movements leads us to believe otherwise. The WTF standard Poomse, the Tae Geuk’s and the older Palgwe’s evidence much relationship with Karate’s Taikyoku kata – the basic pedagogical routines based upon a symmetrical floor-plan to enable coordination of movements practiced on both sides of the body and in four directions. The Taikyoku kata were created for this purpose - to allow the student equal practice on both sides of the body and in four directions, before proceeding to kata which had Combat Logical function or “martial-intent”. It seems the Architects of WTF Tae Kwon-do’s Poomse must have also been unaware of this fact, or had little experience in actual combat to transfer any Combat Logical martial-intent in their master-poomse. The higher poomse show equal martial intent to the lower ones – suggesting that they were created based purely upon a superifical ritualistic tradition (or the creator’s belief that any kind of martial routine was of value).

This demonstrates the core difference between PMP devised to retain “combative [Combat Logical] values” for the use in VARE. They were devised based upon real experience and to retain that intrinsic knowledge learnt first-hand, organically in combat. This is the Type A PMP; one designed to pass on pragmatic knowledge.

The more modern Kata, such as those used in WTF Tae Kwon-Do, regardless of expertise in ritualised fighting, hold little “combative value” but were based upon the Taikyoku Kata of Shotokan Karate Do – a set of routines designed to aid in the practice of the routines of “combative value”. In which case, nearly all Tae Kwon Do poomse are Type B PMP.

The practice of this kind of PMP in modern Tae Kwon-Do demonstrates the reason why I was so keen to stress the compounding effect of ritual and superstition of the bird in Skinner’s experiment. It seems that these pedagogical routines, designed to aid the Martial Artist’s Secondary Movement behaviour is the delusion of modern TKD practitioners who consider the routines to retain “combative value”.

By means of structuring actions into patterns, it is entirely possible for such a sequence (in terms of performance and composition) to be a representation of particular intangible strategies and tactics. A sequence of stamping and grasping (such as Shotokan’s Naihanchi, or Hung Gar’s Tiger-Crane) is completely different in both selection of movements and performance to the kind of light routines of Yangjia Taijiquan, or the vigourous and athletic routines of Kali. Such compositions accurately become tangible performances, manifesting intangible principles. McCarthy (1999,109) describes how “Though understanding the magnitude of kata, especially when combined with spiritual doctrines, it becomes perfectly clear how a single paradigm (kata) can represent an entire fighting art”. This is indeed the case, and the defined sequence of ritualized actions defines it, and makes it unique, but also allow even a viewer to see the kind of behavioural and psychological approach to combat.

The Logic of Breaking

Although board breaking teaches nothing about interacting in VARE with an opponent, its validity to training the individual to overcome fighting inhibitions is very important. Many people who do not practice Board breaking still do not believe in any validity of the practice. I think it is worth looking at the value of board breaking here.

Known in Karate as Tamashiwara, or Kyok Pa in the Korean Combat Systems (Han kuk mu sool); breaking is an important part of many oriental Combat Systems. Even Sword arts such as Iaido, and Iaijutsu involve a form of action testing. Of course, the important factor of breaking is not to pointlessly attack inanimate objects. As Bruce Lee’s famous (and often quoted) comment maintains (“Boards don’t hit back!” Little, 1997a, 38), but the logic behind hitting a board is not to prove your expertise in fighting.

Combat Logic requires a logical convergence of Force. Therefore understanding how to transfer force from your body to a target is of fundamental importance. Board breaking represents the most logical method of learning to direct force whilst abolishing any natural inhibitions toward driving one’s extremities into a solid inanimate object. Moreover, when teaching students, it soon becomes obvious what the role of board breaking is to the Martial Artist. Many students have inhibitions about striking, not only because it may cause pain to the part of the body used to strike, but also because, as a product of a society which looks down on violence, striking something seems unnatural. Hence the value of applying the body to hit a target, and to see the results in the breaking of a physical object. When one considers the confidence factor in board breaking (a fact that has not been missed by life-coaches), as well as the understanding of the kind of power required for single-hit fights, board breaking has a significant value. The importance of striking the object is to recognise your own power.

Combat Logically speaking, the technique exists for the function of transferring Force into an object (opponent) at a point of convergence. Therefore, the practice of transferring force is extremely important to the function of the technique.

The Logic of Indirect Transmission

The Indirect teaching of the Martial Arts Organism is based upon books, or other forms of media which do not require the presence of the teacher.

It is an odd concept to Martial Arts propagandists to consider the view that Combat Systems can be learnt from a book. The current Historical fencing movement proves (to an extent) that Combat Logic can indeed by transferred in an indirect way via books. We are not talking, and this is critical to understand, about the transfer of a set of Combat rituals, but rather knowledge about Combat Logic. Many of the books which are studied today by Historical Fencers were written for the exact purpose of transferring knowledge about fighting. Many of the masters even subtitled their works as ways in which a student may learn how to fight without a master. The pedagogics and expressionism found in Eastern Combat Systems propounding that martial arts cannot be learned from books did not even come into the consideration of those masters. There was never an opinion that learning to fight, like any subject, could not be learned from a book.

Transferring rituals of karate, such as the complex stylised expressionist movements of Kata is very difficult to learn from a book, and no karate teacher will prescribe learning them from a book. Combat Logic however, when coupled with resolute pragmatism can aid in the understanding of fighting. Pragmatism, lead by the wise words of a gifted master who understood Combat Logic intrinsically, I would argue, is more valuable to a student than the direct teaching from a mediocre instructor ignorant of the laws of Combat Logic.

A Case Study of Indirect Transmission – Muye Dobo Tongji

We shall take the Muyedobo tongji as a case in point. This is perfect because we may assess it for its value as an indirect source of instruction – it has been used on several occasions to study fighting and re-enact its contents since its publication. Firstly, we must consider its composition from the perspective of its writers. Any instructional book is based upon making the subject easiest to understand for the reader. Furthermore, because it depends upon study without replying to any questions a reader may have, it must be self contained and answer any questions which may arise.

There are two problems in creating an indirect training tool – it must firstly tell someone how to perform motions and actions, then it must also how to apply them to VARE. It is logical therefore that anthropologists have attempted to equate Combat Systems as performance art. However, performance should, in any realistic fighting art be second to function. Performance of the practical function is important, but performance for artistic function is entirely different.

The creation of the Muye dobo tongji was inspired by the lack of Combat Systems which were practical for warfare (we may be permitted to assume that Tae Kyon and Ssireum were folk-arts not suited to the battlefield by that time). After an attempted invasion of Korea by the Japanese was unsuccessful, pressure must have been on the country’s leaders to put greater emphasis upon military training in times of peace (Kim, p.28).  The King JungJo, in his preface to the book, tells us that; “…archery has been the only official Martial Art and other forms of military arts were unheard of”. With this void in the training of the Korean military, there was therefore a conscious effort to become informed in military tactics. At a time when “the hands and the feet and weapons are the essential tools of battle (ibid, 14)”, the learning of Combat Systems was of the utmost importance. A General of the Korean army, Han Kyo was despatched to the neighbouring Ming Dynasty to learn the Chinese arts of war which were successful during the expulsion of the Japanese. Han Kyo subsequently travelled to the Chinese Military camps to learn Combat Systems, and pertained to question them about their techniques and methods. In Han Kyo’s Kiye Jilue (Conversation on the Strategy and Art) he tells us that “I frequently asked the Chinese soldiers about Salsu (Killing Hand). Since their movements were spinning like the wind and progressing and retreating like lightning, it was extremely difficult to identify specific postures and methods. Since the Chinese soldiers mastered various postures, how could I investigate the methods without asking them?”(ibid, 40). For this reason, therefore, as the king reports in his preface, that in the manual “…which is used as a guide to training soldiers in the palace guard, attacking & killing techniques are added”. Later, one general (Lee Duk-moo) and two inspectors of the Royal Library (Park Je-Ga and Pak Dong-soo) were “ordered…” by King Jungjo “…to investigate ancient secret publications…and…to test and revise techniques and methods with Combat Systems experts of the court.” Furthermore, “to prevent any criticism in the future…” they were tasked to bring together evidence “…in over twenty military books from the royal library to quote extensively from the historical facts and publications.”

However, we need to reason that if this is the purpose of the book, to instruct the military the correct ways to fight; why there are combative routines discussed and not principles of the means of striking the anatomy, taking advantage of the biomechanics of the body etc (as can be seen in the Okinawan Bubishi)? Why, in a text designed to instruct warriors for the future protection of Korea, teach them kata? Perhaps one reason could be the inexperience of the authors on the matter in which they were reporting. Their ignorance served, perhaps to record methods which were of little value to actual warfare. The recording of a few routines in armed and unarmed techniques must have sufficed, and satisfied the king’s request. The writers tell us that “We, the authors, are merely ordinary people and not talented enough to master the techniques and tactics of the old masters. Hence, we did our best in publishing this manual to compensate for our ignorance and to prevent potential errors….Although we authors did not fabricate information, we cannot say that we have not omitted important information or have not given adequate emphasis to that which deserves it…we, the authors, are good at our profession but awkward in other areas, we did our best to clarify the matter.” We can take this as evidence of their ignorance, if this is considered within the context that 1) they must have been the best people for the job, since the King commissioned them to compile and master the techniques, and 2) they were instructed by the King explicitly to neither be boastful nor proud of their achievements. Hence, we could speculate that the above was a demonstration to the king of their humility. So perhaps their reasoning was simply based upon the compilation of methods from books which came before. Previous books contained routines, and so too did theirs.

Perhaps a major importance of the kata to the military was its scalability, enabling Combat Systems to be capable of being taught to a number of soldiers at the same time? Allowing a group of soldiers to rehearse a set of techniques would inevitably save time and energy in instruction of those methods. However, this hypothesis is brought into some contention when we consider that some of the routines discussed in the Muye dobo tongji (especially the Kwon Bop section) are designed as two-person routines – in other words, they simulate combat. Perhaps the routine exhibits a group of techniques as well as their counters, and each soldier was expected to learn both sides of the combative conversation? This would certainly be logical, save time as well as teach attacks and responses in a format which was accessible to groups of soldiers. It would also comply with the potential eskirmological translation of the term Kwon Bop as “fist-logic”.

The value of the routines of combat is perhaps that so much subject-matter may be recorded in a “live-action” book. The recording of techniques in a kata is perhaps a book in motion, a catalogue of movements, which record the applications, all the techniques of the school as well as the intended “spirit” of their performance. Given the nature of fighting, comprising physical bodies in motion, in performance of eskirmological action, it seems that a choreographed routine of actions is far more logical than the attempt to record the same amount of techniques in a book.

Another advantage with the choreographed set of behaviours is that an entire range of behaviours, and eskirmological operations comprising the entire system, can be united within a convenient routine. This not only supports effective transmission of those sets of behaviours and protects them all from being lost, but also places them in a format which is certainly much quicker to learn. The master may pass on the “routine”, lasting perhaps a few days or weeks, then the student may continue training without the master’s presence because he has the “eskirmological capsule” of information.

All these demonstrate a similar utility to the book, but have a significant advantage over the book – the actual performance is recorded, as well as it does not require the prerequisite of literacy. The recording of a routine in a book (as we have with the Muye dobo tongji) is a tertiary line of knowledge transference. The knowledge has become entirely convoluted, since the purpose of the kata is the same as the book, but now the book is used to record the kata – effectively becoming a yet further compounded method of transmission.

III. Transmission and institutionalisation

THE EFFECT OF SOCIETY

ON COMBAT SYSTEMS

The Institution and the Combat System

A Combat System is a product of an individual’s constructivist and auto-didactic investigation into Combat Logic. We have seen why a Combat System is invented, and how it is developed. Any attempt to pass on the database of knowledge he has as a product of this investigation must submit to the instructionist teaching methods we have discussed in Section 2, Part 3.

That was indeed the first part of the development process of a Martial Art as we know it (a “hoplologism”). However all the aforementioned elements are only part of the process which outputs a Combat System. The second part is the effect of people other than the Architect in social groups. There are in fact two parts to this consideration; the effect of the institution (or recipient group and the manner of their transmission and codification) as well as the effect of wider society on both the institution and the efficacy of the Combat System.

On Institutionalisation

If ritualisation is the “repetition of a select set of [combative] behaviours”, and these behaviour sets that comprise the Combat System, then institutionalisation may be defined as “the consensus of a group to preserve, maintain and promote those ritualised sets of behaviour.” Institutionalisation of ritualised Combat Systems is one of the first steps toward sanctification of that system, and a major contributor to the Martial Arts Delusion.

The key characteristics of the Institutionalisation of ideas and behaviours are that they must be widely sanctioned within a social group. It must also be widely internalised within the individuals of that social group (Lee & Newby, 1985, 265). This means that a particular social group will support and promote those ideas by enforcing the reward of conformity and punishing non-conformity. This is no more apparent than in Asian cultures which derive methods of social reinforcement due to conservative pressures. In Japan, the common (and persistently cited) saying “deru kui wa utareru” (A protruding nail gets hammered down) demonstrates quite aptly the pressures which that society places upon its people to conform to socially acceptable behaviours. The means in which this sanctioning is enforced is by means of physical constraints (including force), material inducements (i.e. monetary rewards, or penalties) and of course moral approval and disapproval (ibid, 265).

Widely internalised means that each individual regards it as part of their personalities in the way in which it forms a social norm. We might regard internalisation as the first step towards sanctification of ideas due to the fact that, because the rituals are accepted by the individual to be the norm, they cease to be questioned and so become automatic and unreflecting. With many members of the group also having internalized these behaviours and normative opinions, it becomes widely sanctioned, accepted and also supported. This leads to a strong sense of disorientation and outright shock should those rituals be challenged by a member. Often members of that society consistently, and inevitably, conform and rarely challenge the accepted body of orthodoxy. Those who do face the institutional enforcements mentioned previously.

Both of these important aspects of Institutionalisation have evidently exerted their pressures upon the development of Combat Systems. Our interest in sociology and how it relates to Combat Systems allows us to consider the reasons for the ways in which Combat Systems are presented, but more importantly, begin to explain why Combat Systems have become more and more inclined towards Recreationism than Realism. The identification of this as a contributor to the Martial Arts Delusion is what I shall focus upon in the next chapter.

The Law of Institutionalisation

Somewhat similar to the individual’s inclination to ritualise behaviour on a personal level, a group of individuals (by extension) have a natural inclination to institutionalise rituals which have been agreed upon by means of sanction, codification, totemism and internalisation. In which case, the rituals become part of the very fabric of the group itself and therefore define it. The institution is therefore merely a group of individuals with a shared set of institutionalised ideas and concepts about the world around them. Social psychologists have identified this effect as Group Polarisation (Hewstone, et al, 1997, 513). This is when members of a group settle upon a consensus, often based upon a principle of mutual persuasion. This persuasion in turn informs the members of a group to take that information as representative and truthful, even if that information was settled upon in the absence of reliable data.

When luminary individuals such as an Architect create rituals, we see a powerful inclination to deify and enforce reverence for his achievement from those close to him (and who recognise his achievement). Those who receive the database (the Combat System) seek to codify it and install social hierarchy and bureaucracy to categorise and structure the group and the level of internalization of that data within its members (by making that internalization tangible by way of “status” and “rank”). All Combat Systems are subject to these operators, and have often been sanctioned by a small receptive group of individuals (i.e. the group which had direct contact and instruction from that individual).

On the face of it, it seems that orthodoxy and sanctification is a negative occurrence. In fact, it is a contributor to the Martial Arts Delusion, but it does have a logical reason for existing. All human beings are born into the world knowing nothing of what came before them, and knowing only the reality in which they reside. In order to build a picture of the world, they must experiment, research and experience in order to learn about the world around them. Since no human being is immortal, he necessarily must leave his investigation to those who will live on after he has died. Therefore, he cannot become overly sentimental about his ideas and knowledge, but at the same time, he must install in the younger members of his society the vital understandings which he has achieved in his mortal life. The subjects of human understanding, such as languages, sciences, creativity etc generates a massive “database” of understanding – this means that, instead of this investigation beginning again each time with each successive generation, the newer generations can theoretically begin from where the previous generation left-off. From sciences to technology (a product of science) the human race goes through a period of “education” in order to eventually build upon accepted ideas from previous generations to make further discoveries and conclusions about the world around him.

This “database” of information is important because it allows the recipient generation the convenience of not having to research it for themselves, but to build upon what has gone before. The greater the number of generations, theoretically speaking, the greater the amount of data required to assimilate during education. This means that progression is the most recent evolving product of many generations of individual human beings united by the same aims, but divided by temporal relativity.

However, as we have seen in the previous chapters, the development of that data was made in isolated institutions, often by those with limited experience and after limited inquiry. Therefore the common saying still bears out “if you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself”. In other words, the work of another human being might not always be trustworthy, and there are not always sufficient grounds for belief in the knowledge which previous generations have left for us. We must arm ourselves with the qualities of the scientist to appraise the knowledge and to consider its reliability. Yet this approach is not maintained nor promoted in modern martial arts. Many practitioners continue to adhere to the teachings of pre-scientific Combat Systems, taught in a manner which complies with sociological rather than ideological dictates.

This kind of institutionalisation forces us to adhere to the understandings of some people who might not have been correct in their understanding, and perhaps a better way for us to understand is to re-assess what our ancestors believed. This having been said, traditionalism has made this difficult, if not in some cases outright impossible.

Sanctification of beliefs by means of institutionalisation, the sanctioning and requirement of conformance upon individuals by wider society has lead to a problem of compliance and general complacency, which itself has lead to a greater problem of ignorance and delusion. There are two kinds of Institution, one which resides in the Pre-Industrial Societies, and the other of Industrialised Societies. The institution within Pre-industrial Societies is often an hereditary one, and in compliance with Tönnies’ concept of Gemeinschaft (Community), it is often personable, community-centric. The institutions of Industrialised societies comply with Tönnies concept of Gesellschaft (Society/Association) which is impersonal, contractual and commerce-centric.

Institutionalisation as “The Causes of Ignorance”

In his notes and teachings, Bruce Lee implied that an important method of overcoming the “classical mess” (an element of “The Martial Arts Delusion”) is to identify the “causes of ignorance” (Little, 2001, 208). Institutionalisation, due to its inclination to perpetuate conformance and sanctification of knowledge, effectively becomes a barrier to making your own enquiries into Combat Logic.

In the Far East, this process took place within closed social groups, often information was guarded and therefore corroboration, collaboration and consensus on the topic was simply not possible. Lee’s use of the term “The Classical Mess” correlates well with the dual pressures of pre-scientific development of a Combat System, and the subsequent institutionalisation of the product of that investigation. In order to to transcend Combat Systems, we must view the original Combat Logic which lead to its creation, and this can only begin when one identifies the “Causes of Ignorance”.

Lee’s consideration of the “finger pointing away to the moon” is extremely useful in this case. When one focuses upon a single point, we are unable to view the entire picture. Combat Systems are based upon the Architect who discovered Combat Logic by means of organic experience, and by teaching others he creates an institution out of his learning. The Architect expects his students to listen to him, and by his process of enforcing his knowledge into his students, he is actually fortifying the effect of sanctioning ritual. Moreover, the very act of teaching instantly places himself at the centre of focus for the student. The teacher becomes the liaison between the student and Combat Logic, and sometimes he has reason to become the barrier as well (which we shall discuss later). There follows a long line of generations in which the students are taught the Architect’s personal “way” in the form of his Combat System rather than “The Way”. What he teaches becomes a product, a sum, a conclusion, which others follow. Little do they realise, nor can they, that they are focussing on the finger, rather than seeing all the glory of Combat Logic.

When a Combat System is passed on from one generation to the next, this ever expanding ring of generations of students (like those in the trunk of a cut tree, or the expanding ripples on a pond) have all learned synthetically, and this synthetic learning and adherence to the “finger” is what stands in the way of their becoming as ingenious and as revered as the Architect. It was the revelation of Combat Logic which made the Architect recognisable as being a wise and capable fighter. It was the focus upon the Architect’s teaching which fortified his position as the Architect by never allowing his students the ability to experience the revelation of Combat Logic for themselves.

To describe this a little easier I use an analogy I call “The Dragon Dance (wu long) Analogy”. It is based upon the famous words of Jesus when he stated that when the blind leads the blind, what is there to stop them both falling into the pit? The dragon-dance is similar to the Lion-dance, except that the lion dance consists of one person who stands facing the audience through the jaws of the lion’s head, and the other is bent double behind him. The latter is blind to the audience and is masked from the world by following the lead dancer. The Dragon-dance consists of one person who is the “head” of the dragon, and there follows up to six people bent double. We may relate the “head” as the Architect who is able to see Combat Logic and lead the entire generational line of synthetically taught students behind him. The first person sees Combat Logic, but the second dancer sees nothing but the first person, the middle dancer sees nothing but the second person and the last student sees but the man in front of him, aware of the long line that precedes him. Each of these “blind dancers” are like the generations of masters of the many schools of ritual who, by sanctifying the artform and the Architect’s teachings, fail to see Combat Logic and hence be at the “head” of the dance, looking out through the “jaws” of ritual.

Such sanctification leads to submission to doctrine, focussing upon the teachings of another human rather than the experience of the Combat Logic inherent in the environment of all organisms. Bruce Lee made an observation upon the most evident failure of Combat Systems schools for traditional Combat Systems training. He said they spend more time focusing on mechanical repetition (ritual) than developing the key skills of interactionism. Bruce Lee stated that a Combat Systems “style is a classified response to one’s chosen inclination”. In other words, the consitutuent in the fight is unable to react honestly and directly to the stimuli of a combat due to the manner in which the Combat System has classified certain responses into rituals which you now recite. In many Combat Systems there is a difference between the technique and its application. The application requires the technique, but also relies upon Strategic Intention. In mechanical training as part of what Lee identified as the “Classical Mess”, the applications are separate from the core training. All techniques are practiced, Set Sparring and Forms performed, then the applications of all this material is worked out and considered.

As Bruce Lee also commented “…when clans are formed, the people of the clan will hold their kind of martial art as the only truth, and do not dare to reform or improve it.” (Little, 2001) This concept of the Law of Institutionalisation extends to much more than simply Combat Systems. Combat Systems are now like religions, but it is not a justification for the way in which they were taught. This problem extends even to religions themselves which have also fallen pray to this Law. Combat Systems can be likened to religion not least because of the Law of Institutionalisation.

To apply our theory; Religions developed when spiritual people discovered a truth (of “world” or “life logic”) and then taught this truth to others, but instead of studying the world in the manner of a Didactic, the students studied the doctrine. In other words, if the Architect (albeit Muhammad, Jesus, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster et al) studied the world and found things which were true, then they were able to do so because they had viewed the world with a philosophical mind attempting to understand and see the grander picture. The relationship of the world to his life formed his spirituality, which he then taught to others. By teaching others it became Religion – what could be called “institutionalised spirituality”. These students formed rules; created ceremony and costume in order to retain that which the Architect had taught.

Figure 15 – The Alignment with Combat Logic; black circle indicates the Combat Logic itself. Dark grey represents the Architect, and his unique direct understanding of Combat Logic. Light grey represents the Successors, who may only understand Combat Logic based upon the Architect’s teachings. Outside the light grey (the white) there are the Students, who may only understand Combat Logic based upon the teachings of the Teacher. The colour represents the fact that each progression further from Combat Logic is actually “Eskirmocentric”.

It is not always because of the Architect that the System becomes institutionalised. It is an interdependent effect because of having to transmit the behaviours to students. All teachings and pedagogical considerations are created specifically for the student, and therefore it is because of the student that such pedagogy is created. From this pedagogy a Combat System becomes ritualised and crystallised. Let us imagine for a moment that a master comes to the conclusion which we have come to - that it is not kinesiological technique which determines success and neither is it based upon the variables of the fighter. It is based upon universal principles and tactics. Therefore, this master teaches his students the “one [principle] to know the all”¹⁰¹, using this principle, any technique may find its success in a fight. If a student of Combat Systems walked into a Martial Arts school today, we can imagine that such a teacher would be considered a cheat and a fraud. Surely the mysteries of fighting cannot be so simple?

So the master is forced to create some substance upon which to teach the student in order to justify his position as “giver of truth”. Coupled with this is the student’s lack of confidence in such a principle. So the teacher teaches the student that he must strike the weakest with the strongest, and redirect the strongest with the weakest. He would be unable to identify the strongest of his weapons in a VARE and which target they should be applied to. The student would constantly question whether this was the right interpretation of the principle in that moment, and hence the teacher must teach certain specific methods which the student would accept as definite responses and techniques. Techniques must have developed from this very need for definite techniques. Unlike Lee and other eskirmological masters who believed that techniques in fighting should remain undefined (defined only by “the moment-in-itself”), the student requires a certain amount of definition without getting into the specifics of discussing and teaching every single permutation. The student is shown; “the fist hits the target like this” and the student practices this method. This definition is the beginning of ritualisation. From that moment, the art is as it has been taught, in this definite state, to the detriment of any other possibilities. So the system has gone from one hypothetical rule to many thousands of defined techniques.

The institutionalisation of Combat Systems can be further defined as the sanctification of the transmission of sets of combative knowledge from one human being to another. To describe the problem with this I often use a short story which I call the “Sherker Analogy”.

“Mount Buddha had stood for millions of years and had been a source of much reverence. Humans, by their nature considered its existence, but few had ever attempted to reach its summit.

There was once a sherker who made it his life’s aim to conquer Mount Buddha. He had a unique drive and although he couldn’t explain why, he “needed” to reach the summit. After much dedication, he was able to reach just over the half-way mark. When the villagers of the surrounding villages heard of the Sherker’s achievements, they flocked to him to gain instruction along his path to half-way up the mountain. He taught his students his path as he found it, teaching them all up to the standard which he had achieved. All the while he had his eye on the summit, always with this eventual goal in mind. He drew from everywhere in his quest to discover the correct path to the summit – even watching his students and his life became a testament to his quest. All his students passed his course of instruction, and so when Master Sherker died, they kept his spirit alive by teaching Master Sherker’s school of Mountaineering. Over time, Master Sherker’s goal of the summit was forgotten as each generation taught the same teachings, and none ever questioned why they never proceeded further up the mountain for fear of disrespecting the great master’s memory.”

This tale represents the law of institutionalisation - the furtherance of the teacher’s teaching process, but not his learning process. Of course, the former is the product of the latter even though the latter is often ignored. This story clearly demonstrates that all the time that the master was alive, his aim was to reach the summit of the mountain (Mount Buddha = Enlightenment, or the discovery of the totality of eskirmologics), but by teaching what he had achieved rather than passing on his motivation to his students so that they may achieve the summit; his aim was forgotten. Only half the teaching was passed on – that which the master had already achieved, but not the skills the master had in directing his learning to what he sought to achieve. Later, the students disagreed on his paths, and thus many different schools developed from one original truth. Without the master to correct them, the students were left to interpret his teachings and hence another compounded layer of subjectivist opinion develops.

Figure 16 – The Sources of learning, demonstrated for the Architect and the Novice. The Architect excels to secure his position as an “Architect” due to his unique method of learning. He also has a direct understanding of Combat Logic. The Novice on the other hand only learns from experts and perhaps other styles within a “closed-sphere” known as “The Martial Arts”. Thus any opportunity to become as enlightened as the Architect is rendered impossible.

If we consider that any teachings are representations of knowledge, then we are able to understand that they are indeed “fingers pointing away to the moon”. Any words or teachings used are merely chosen as a succinct representation of knowledge. There are indeed numerous ways in which I could write the words contained in this book based upon my knowledge, and therefore it is a mistake to dissect the specific words I have used, and the specific manner of their construction. However, by using them, I have defined my knowledge into a satisfactory representation which those who come after me will focus upon and attempt to reach my knowledge via these simple words. Socrates in his discussion with Phaedrus considers this fact and demonstrates how any teaching is flawed in this way.

“Socrates: I am speaking of an intelligent writing which is graven in the soul of him who has learned…

Phaedrus: You mean the word of knowledge which has a living soul, and of which the written word is properly no more than an image?

Socrates: Yes, of course this is what I mean.”

The master must have used motivations based upon a need to learn and his method was based upon one driven by reasoning and logic, upon a foundation of that which he had been taught himself. When the system becomes ritualised, this auto-didactic methodology is replaced with a second-hand learning system which is based upon pedagogical principles rather than constructivist ones.

As data is transferred from one person to another, and later to more than one person, in theory that dataset now no longer exists in one place, but in many. With this data spread amongst a group of people, it is necessary to represent that data in a representative way, so that it is identifiable to anyone at a glance. This process is known as “totemism”.

Totemism and “Clan Formations”

“Totemism” was a term introduced by Durkheim to refer to the manner in which simple societies create a symbolic motif to manifest the complexities of their social group (Haralambos & Holborn, 2008, 396). Each clan, Durkheim mentioned, selected its own totem (usually an animal or plant) to represent how they saw their group. This motif not only represented their perspective of themselves, but also the complex social organization and made their group a “tangible” and material object. Not only this, it served to enforce the clan’s uniqueness amongst other clans, and the motif became a defining aspect representative of all components of that clan. It also helped individual members to identify and internalize its information and values.

This totemism is important when we consider the effect that the recipient group has upon the future of a Combat System. This recipient group codifies the information of the Combat System as well as generating an “institution” in which that information is represented by (generally but not always);

• Linguistic Identity:

  • A designation, a name

  • A unique set of terminology (its “naming conventions”)

• Visual Identity:

  • A symbol or logo

  • A uniform or manner of dress

• Social:

  • An institutionalised hierarchy

  • Institutional ritual, often based upon wider cultural norms

  • Constitution

• Educational:

  • A curriculum

Some of these aspects are often generated by the Architect himself in his process of creating his product, derived perhaps from the consideration of how to demonstrate its difference amongst the backdrop of other schools. These elements are designed to make the Combat System, the actual substance of that institution, tangible and recognizable¹⁰².

Amongst the institutions of Japan, Ratti & Westbrook (1973, 154-169) identify six types of institution;

1. Original

2. Derivative

3. Hereditary

4. Non-hereditary (ryu-ha)

5. Public

6. Private

According to Ratti & Westbrook’s explanations, we can see that the Original institution is one which is influenced directly by the architect. Derivative is any institution based upon a Combat System as taught by a founder who has had other influences besides the Combat System being taught. Hereditary and Non-hereditary are self-explanatory. Public means it was sanctioned by the local authorities to teach as part of a public service. Private was a school which conducted its teaching within a clan, but was not permitted to extent its teachings to anyone outside its social strata.

Each of these types of ryu maintained its own means of learning and qualification. Ratti & Westbrook (1973, 175-177) describes how there are three types of teacher. The first was a “founder” who discovered a truth about combat. The second was an inheritor and successor. The iemoto system used by inheritors was an hereditary system which was highly stringent and employed in various non-martial approaches to learning, involving strict tradition adherence with little change of the format of techniques. The non-hereditary schools maintained a menkyo (license) system.

The problems with these definitions are obvious. Aikido is the product of Ueshiba, who studied with various masters, but whose Combat System is a reflection of both his own innovations as well as a myriad of influencing Combat Systems. Fumiaki mentions that his Combat System was described as Aikibudo as well as Daito-ryu Aiki bujutsu for a period, and so is Aikido’s organisation definable as an Original, or a Derivative institution? Since his successor was his son, Kisshomaru, then is his school Hereditary? Ratti & Westbrook’s descriptions are of the kind of schools under the Tokugawa, and so we may not expect them to comply with the kind of examples we have around us today.

It has been observed that Combat Systems schools are highly regimented. So much so, they exhibit common traits reminiscent of Asian culture such as Authoritarianism, Anti-intellectualism, particularism, doctrinaire rigidity, narrowness of focus, and excessive competitiveness (Levine, 1991, 213). Of course, these aspects are informed entirely by the three major Schools of Thought.

The teacher (sensei) in Japan became a powerful figure, one who represented, as Ratti & Westbrook (1973, 175) report, the centre of the social microcosm – the ryu – patterned upon the wider social structure of the clan. Such a position was not shared by martial arts teachers in China (Ross, 2004; “martial artists as ‘undesirables’”). Dore (1965, 73) - and also reported by Ratti & Westbrook (1973, 177) - states that a student was a disciple to the teacher, so much so that learning from him implied “Personal discipleship, rather than institutional membership”. Yet this perhaps is a statement which requires re-wording. It did not indeed, mean institutional membership, but such discipleship did require conformance to the rules of the institution, of which the master was the head. As Fujioka Sakutaro described in Okuma’s Fifty Years of New Japan, the relationship between teacher and pupil particularly supported Institutionalisation:

“A pupil was taught to walk ‘seven feet in the rear of his instructor, lest he should tread on the latter’s shadow.’ The teacher showed the way and the pupil had only to follow it. Hence the pupil was not allowed to depart a step from the teacher’s instructions: he was permitted to reproduce but forbidden to improve. It is not surprising, therefore, that the teacher should have become more sparing of his teaching as the pupil advanced, or that he should have tried to sanctify his art by surrounding it with all manner of mythical traditions. If the pupil happened to be of a free and ungovernable turn of mind, and attempted to add his own devices to what was imparted to him, he was certain to provoke his instructor’s wrath, and even became liable to be ‘excommunicated’.”

This quote is extremely useful for us to witness that, not only was the pupil expected to submit to the hereditary knowledge of the Combat System, he was forbidden to question it. Whilst we could view this as a precaution to prevent fallacious artifice from being added to an eskirmological system, we can see that this is extremely restricting for the student. In fact, the sanctification of the Combat System was supported via purposeful propaganda.

Schmidt (1983, 47) describes that “The sensei serves as the model for the trainee to emulate. Long and difficult hours of intense, repetitive training and prescribed movements punctuated at times by physical and verbal abuse by the sensei is the mode of instruction.” Sectarianism and Particularism seems to have been, and still is, wrife amongst institutions because of the strict obedience a student is expected to show to the school, the teachings, the system and particularly to the instructor himself. Some teachers forbid their students from studying from any other teachers or sources, so-much-so that the instructor dictates the entirety of the training and instruction.

Interestingly, Levine (1991, 214) describes how techniques are taught “on the assumption that this kind of training develops the student in accord with certain more general principles, those principles are rarely articulated.” In fact, the purpose of the pedagogy is to intuitively and viscerally experience the principles and not to articulate them intellectually. This supports the paradigm of anti-intellectualism.

The reason for anti-intellectualism is entirely cultural. The Buddhist supports a paradigm of existence entirely different from the scientific method. A Buddhist wishes to understand what it means to be alive, by experiencing “aliveness”, whereas the scientist hopes to understand aliveness by studying its mechanical make-up. Which path one chooses is often cultural, but also a question of one’s own philosophical world-view. However, this question of “theoretical knowledge” is rarely approached in Asian Combat Systems. The Ch’an (Zen) mode of anti-intellectualism demanded experience of combat, whereas scientists demand a reduction of combat into its elements as a means to expounding on what the experience suggests about the event. As Schmidt further notes (1983, 48) the student is “encouraged to ‘think with his body’ not with his mind”. It is generally regarded as improper and disrespectful to question principles or techniques whilst training. Emphasis is placed upon non-verbal and intuitive (“zen-like”, or ishin-denshin (mind-to-mind transmission) modes of learning). Friday, describes how the “…overall process might be likened to teaching a child to ride a bicycle” by means of experience rather than intellectual instruction. He continues:

“Children do not innately know how to balance, pedal, and steer, nor will they be likely to discover how on their own. At the same time, no one can fully explain any of these skills either; one can only demonstrate them and help children practice them until they figure out for themselves which muscles are doing what at which times to make the actions possible.” (Friday, 138)

Finn (1988, 200-202) describes the differences in Eastern and Western teaching styles, such that Western teachers are often indebted to their students and are keen not to push too much, whilst “he answers all questions and avoids repetition to keep interest”. In contrast, he describes that the Eastern teacher expects the student to learn and is not indebted to him. He concludes “In the East the student must take his knowledge from the teacher but in the West the teacher gives his knowledge to the student.” Reid & Croucher (1984, 202) support this view. Using a question from a student, they set about a describing how an oriental teacher “…has the tendency…not to teach you by the spoken word. He will keep striking you in one place where your weakness lies; he will keep striking you so that eventually you learn the painful way, the hard way to correct that weakness.” So much so that the student is taught in the manner in which nature affects the organism, and the student must learn the natural solution out of himself. Reid & Croucher continue:

“There is not much explanation in Japan. I think in the West people teach by means of verbal explanation. In Japan they explain to you by striking, so really you learn by pain…”¹⁰³

They continue to reassure that such striking is done to cause the student to react quickly and naturally; what better incentive can there be? In such a way, you are taught by means of intuition, and by direct experience – by an instructor who truly has your best interests in mind. Such instructionism is designed to impart skill organically and through experience rather than intellectual means, as per the basis of ishin-denshin. Yet this kind of anti-intellectualism does have its flaws, as Clayton (2004, 32) explains. Many masters often confound their theory and historical background behind a tatemae (“official story”) for their own ends, and those who attempt any intellectual breakdown of the teachings are derided as rikutsuppoi “reason freaks”¹⁰⁴.

Ratti & Westbrook, (1973, 177) recall how the relationship between student and teacher was much like father and son, wherein the student was entirely obedient to his teacher, and in turn the teacher was obliged to cater for his student’s entire welfare. As we have seen, such examples of illiberal, sectarian and totalitarian social structures reflect the wider conservativism inherent in the Oriental societies from which they have arisen.

The Martial Arts Organism Paradigm

In the process of passing on this data it is important that we realize the kinds of pressure involved and the “survival” factor necessary to perpetuate a Combat System. Such a process may be likened to the transference of memes within the genetic make-up of living organisms.

Charles Darwin revolutionised the consciousness of biologists when he suggested that nature had a way of selecting the best suited organisms to continue to reproduce. Essentially, all living beings exist in nature and must adapt in order to suit their natural environment. Modern biologists have considered the theory in much more depth and now consider the driving force behind this adaptation to be the memes, manifested in the genes. The function of the gene is in the passing on of genetic information from one generation to another.

Whilst on the face of it this does not seem applicable to the Combat Systems, it is the most suitable analogy to describe the processes behind the survival of any form of information, albeit genetic, or systemic. The survival of the Combat System can be likened to that of the organism. Instead of genetic information, we are passing on eskirmological information. Like the organism which is a “package” of genetic information, so too is a Combat System a “package” of combative information. The data is compiled from various sources and is a product of adaptation to specific circumstances. Its predators are those things which cause that information to depreciate, and the greatest predator is caused by the transfer of that information. The transmission is not via reproduction, but rather teaching by informed people to less (or un-)informed people.

We have used the conceptual term Martial Arts Organism to paradigm the concept of a kind of entity in its own right, but it is not like this at all. The entity is a product of the people involved, but a product which outlives the people involved. In this way, it is like any creation by man. A building is a product of the architect, the builders and labourers involved, but the end product is a separate entity in itself. However, a building when it is finished is complete and requires no maintenance of its actual structure. A building will stand until it is destroyed. A Martial Arts Organism must be continually built in the “self”, and rebuilt in each individual to whom it is taught. Its survival depends upon the accurate reproduction and replication of it in other individuals, modeled in the mould of the Architect.

This means that its survival, like its formulation, also depends upon the people involved. As we have seen, when looking at Combat Systems, we may consider the Combat System as a product, or a brand. It has its defined identity and those things which make it recognisably different from other Combat Systems. However, few people will consider the people (and their very “human” motives) behind the Combat System – those who shaped it and codified it for later generations.

We have already identified that there are two kinds of people behind the system and its transmission; the Architect, and the Teacher. The Architect must have understood combat from a very direct level. He must have understood Combat Logic due to his experiences in it. Each Architect may have believed that his art form had something different to offer from contemporary Combat Systems at the time of its establishment. No Architect or progenitor ever taught a system as his own unless he believed it had something to offer. As we described earlier, “his” school is often based upon a preference, and more-often than not, on his [individually subjective] experiences of what works. We have also already considered that “he” is not omniscient, nor omnipotent, and therefore he cannot possibly have based his preferences upon all possible occurrences or fights.

So in endeavouring to create a new Combat System, he decides that although his training had focused upon both kicking AND punching, his success in a fight on one or several occasions due to his kicking ability makes him believe that the best method to use is kicking – and will go all-out to focus upon this particular aspect of training. In teaching this method to others, he will dictate the use of the legs, and by consequence his school will be a school of kicking specialization; and so all his students will be specialists in kicking. The personal expression of fighting in this way, which of course can be applied to any kind of specialization, means that his preference has decided the difference between his and other art forms. This fact is shown in the development of Tae Kwon-Do from Karate-Do, or Aikido from Aikijutsu, or Modern boxing from Bare-knuckle fighting.

I often somewhat sentimentally refer to this process of Institutionalisation as the taxidermy of ideas¹⁰⁵.  It is the preservation of the logic within the incidental time-period, the culture and nation in which it originated. It becomes a kind of worship of the incidental elements surrounding the discovery of the idea. Lee’s ideas of Jeet Kune Do should not be attached to the 1960’s but as a product of that period, and neither should Ninjutsu’s truth be attached to the seventeenth century. However, the second generation of students are liable to codify the teachings to include elements such as; a certain costume, a certain custom found in the society in which the Architect lived.

Instantly, the Architect’s discovery of Combat Logic has been shot, stuffed and preserved for future generations. This is what forms the product. What was once the “word of knowledge which has a living soul” (as we were told by Socrates) has now become a dead and preserved carcass. When the product moves away, or times change, these elements are adhered to and upheld stringently and dogmatically. Consequential followers inevitably mistake this dogma for the “way” (Combat Logic).

To return to our simile with the institutionalisation of spirituality we may rightly call “Religion”¹⁰⁶. Religion is the institutionalisation of spirituality by means of creating rituals, dogma, costume, hierarchy etc. Like the Combat Systems, followers of religion all over the world mistake the hierarchy, the traditional costume as “the way”. All of which are products of institutionalisation, and the Taxidermy of ideas. This institutionalisation fortifies the teachings into an identifiable brand and “product”, recognised by such anachronisms.

Like any organism, the Martial Arts Organism has predators and prey. Its largest predatory problem - which could potentially lead to its death - comes in the form of The Generational Barrier. This is the problem of how the knowledge will be passed on without losing any vital information. The Architect is therefore posed with the problem of how to transfer this knowledge to secure the future efficacy of the system. He must do it well enough to ensure that the way in which it will be passed on by his students will be the same way he had passed it on to his. Each generation of fighters is separated merely by age, but this is the greatest barrier posing the Martial Arts Organism. The Combat System is not a physical object to be passed on to someone else, but rather a set of behaviours which finds its home in a living store-house.

Upon teaching others his method, the Architect will come across the instantly recognisable “Generational Barrier”. The Architect will then teach his understanding to others – and with this transmission, we instantly come across the problem of Generations. It seems that the Combat System will need a method of knowledge transmission which can be taught from a Architect to those who will become the “First generation” of practitioners.

It is usually this “First generation” who do the most significant amount of codifying the system. Alluding to a Taxidermy of Ideas, Lee explains the inevitability of this process and that “In doing so, the well-meaning, loyal followers have made his [the Architect’s] knowledge not only a holy shrine, but a tomb in which the Architect’s wisdom is buried.” (Little, 2001, 130) Lee’s account of this process highlights the naivety of his “well-meaning” followers who, out of respect for their master promote the art in sanctity so as to secure its future. In other words, they crystallise the teachings in order to fortify the “brand”.

At a later date (perhaps in the lifetime of the 1^st generation of students) when the “product” of the Architect has been felt to have been distorted by other individuals who chose to put their own interpretational slant upon it, derivative styles develop. Derivative styles are therefore based upon the “product” of the parent. In creating a derivative, the student himself becomes an Architect. Perhaps re-aligning the “product” from what it has become (in the Architect’s absence) to what the generational student believes it should be, is not a true founding of a system. Essentially, it is the founding of a school based upon the “product” of an Architect. This is not to say that a derivative is based solely upon the parental Architect’s teachings, nor developed in the absence of the Architect. Lee adds to our logical progression usefully as usual:

“Because of styles people are separated they are not united together because styles became law, but the original founder of the style started out with original hypothesis, but now it has become the gospel truth”.

“Of course, as a natural reaction to the “other truth,” another founder or possibly a dissatisfied disciple would “organise” an oppositional approach-as in the case of soft style versus hard style, the internal school verses the external school, and so forth-and pretty soon, it too would become a large organisation [an institution] with its own set laws and its chosen pattern. So begins the long struggle with each style claiming to posses the “truth” to the exclusion of all others.” (Little, 2001, 131)

So the partial discovery by another individual will lead to a separate institutionalisation of eskirmologics, and, although Combat Logic is universal, both will declare their particular school as the truth at the “exclusion of all others”. Lee seems to agree with this consideration, as he continues; “Styles are merely partialised and organised parts of a unitary whole”. This effect of institutionalisation upon the human understanding of Combat Logic may be seen everywhere in the Martial Arts. Suddenly, Combat Logic becomes fragmented and coloured by human culture, tradition etc, placing “brands” upon certain aspects of Combat Logic (which is of course, the “unitary whole”).

Yin style baguazhang was believed to have been founded by Yin Fu whilst his teacher was still alive. Likewise, Otsuka is well-known to have formulated the Wado-ryu school as a departure from what he felt were partial truths of Shotokan. The development of Wado-ryu by Otsuka offers us support to our theory of partial truth. Any derivative, amalgamation or departure from a Architect’s teachings demonstrates that another person’s opinion of the system shows it to be lacking something. Otsuka developed Wado ryu because he could see Shotokan’s lack of emphasis upon grappling, and based upon his own experience in Judo & jujutsu, demonstrated Shotokan to be a partial truth. Any “product” which focuses on a single aspect of combat is therefore partisan. Derivative styles stem from the student finding his/her own truth from the system the Architect had taught.

There are many examples of this in the history of the Combat Systems. For a single aspect of reality such as Combat Logic to have peculiarly developed into so many “truths” serves to add weight to our consideration of Combat Systems based upon Subjectivism. We may consider some further examples:

Aikido (Original system, founded by Morihei Ueshiba) bred the following derivatives:

Shodokan, or Tomiki-ryu; by Kenji Tomiki

Shin’ei Taido; by Noriaki Inoue

Yoseikan Budo; by Minoru Mochizuki

Yoshinkan Aikido; by Gozo Shioda

Iwama-ryu; by Morihiro Saito

Bagua Zhang (Original system founded by Dong Hai Chuan¹⁰⁷) bred the following derivatives:

Yin Style; by Yin Fu

Cheng Style; by Cheng Tinghua

Liang Style; by Liang Zhenpu

Gao Style; by Gao Yisheng

Shotokan Karate-Do (Original system founded by Gichin Funakoshi) bred the following derivatives:

Wado-ryu, Hironori Otsuka

Kyokushin kaikan, by Masutatsu (“Mas”) Oyama.

Tang Soo Do, by Hwang Kee

Tae Kwon Do, by Choi Hong Hi

Kodokan Judo (Original system founded by Jigoro Kano) bred the following derivatives:

Kosen judo, by the Judo Schools in Kosen

Kawaishi-ryū jujutsu, by Mikonosuke Kawaishi

Judo-Do, by Julius Fleck

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu (BJJ), by Carlos Gracie

The term “Tradition” stems from the Latin word Traditio meaning “To pass on or hand down”. Those which fall into this category are the result of standardising the first & primary form of Combat Systems which in their standardisation become traditionalised. Almost all recipient groups of a Combat System from a founder inevitably spend much time promoting their “legacy”.

The Martial Arts Organism, the “product”, survives via its methods of transference of knowledge, thereby overcoming the “generation barrier”. This transference of knowledge has a limiting effect upon the product. Once the “product” has been directly passed from one individual to another, from teacher to pupil, the teaching inevitably becomes codified and crystallised. This effect always happens with any topic, but most notably in the Combat Systems due to the Martial Arts Organism’s survival. This is therefore a law of transferring knowledge from one human being to another – it becomes a law of institutionalisation.

We have mentioned that Institutionalisation is the development and perpetuation of Combat Systems that are taught as a solution to fighting as a phenomenon. As such, it has developed to the point where its evolution has lead to “dead-ends” and Combat Systems practiced for reasons other than self-defence. Combat Systems curricula represent vehicles through which information about fighting is passed from one generation to another, but this system is not as hardwearing as an individual guided by a master to realise that which is separate from both minds. Teaching from one human being to another also leads to disagreements regarding that teaching¹⁰⁸. In this form they become ritualised, and perhaps we should look a little closer at this constant departure from Institutions to create other institutions.

By defining an Institution by means of Totemism, it instantly fossilises into what it IS and what it is NOT. This fossilisation means that it is easy to depart from such a defined and fortified identification. Human beings naturally find it difficult to be so defined and limited and so departures are inevitable.

The belief stemming from the integrity of the institution is that Combat Systems can only be learned from a Martial Arts teacher. It is fundamental to any competing services, or even organisms that other groups will present a threat to the integrity of the “Martial Arts Organism”. Propaganda is used to fortify and attract students. A major impetus for this within an Industrialised Society is commercialization and the bid to retain students. However, when we phrase “commercialization”, many will assume finance, yet the institution requires a much more important commodity, a much more valued currency; its students. So even if the school is not interested in money, it will be interested in students by its very definition. Attracting students to come to your school and not a competitor’s school instantly leads naturally to the promotion of propaganda, the reinforcement of myth and further sanctification of the ritual.

As I have said, anything which is based upon a concept, albeit Science, Religion, Politics can be interpreted in different ways and by different means. Many Combat Systems masters create their own systems based upon their studies in a few systems, and therefore all they know is that which has been gleamed from those systems. When we have a school established, we realise that it instantly creates a divide between those who are part of the school and those who are not. Those who are part of it deny anyone who is not part of it, and those who are not are forced to create their own group. Hence we have divisions between groups. Each school creates its own identity, with logos, motifs and uniforms so that he may clearly identify himself with that school and differentiate himself from others.

Where there is conflict, where there is often misunderstanding and ignorance, there are inevitably those who agree with one interpretation and those who agree with another. This is often the social milieu in which some people from one art think that their Art is better than any other. This view is beginning to decrease as awareness of the world of Martial Arts grows alongside the increasing influence of Mixed Martial Arts. However, this kind of preference only serves to blind the practitioners to other schools and styles. This preference is a form of ignorance, in Bruce Lee’s opinion, “if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between “for” or “against” is the mind’s worst disease” (Lee, 1975, 8). This means that any student of a Combat Systems system is under a spell that there are many different methods of fighting, when really there are only those based upon our ICM; the rest is socially-drived information.

An essential problem I have with this kind of denomination is the same as that which I have with religion; the fact that is highly incidental and subjective. An external reason out of our control dictates our course and means of progression. To return to my reasoning with religion - it is subjective and based upon choice. For example, consider that you were born in Japan, there is a high probability that Shintoism, Buddhism or Confucianism would be your religious preference. Consider now that you were born in India; there is a high probability that your religious path would be Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. I was born in England, so I had a high probability I would become a Church of England Christian. Yet why should my geographic location dictate what spiritual path I should follow? Say I was born in India; then I would believe that Hinduism (or Buddhism) was the one and true religion. My path to enlightenment would follow that dictated by Hinduism. Does that mean that Hinduism's path is truer than any other? Would this not be itself a form of ignorance? The same can be said of Combat Systems - why should my chosen style dictate my path to martial perfection and understanding?

All Combat Systems contain within them partitioned and segmented elements of Combat Logic, and this fact is further compounded by the lack of scientific investigation. When one school or style represents one aspect and another school represents another, some form of competition between the two is inevitable. This is inevitability within the Law of Institutionalisation. This leads to an entire Propagandist Machine in which students are taught to believe that “our Combat Systems is better than yours”, or “if you practice this style, you can NEVER practice their style”.

Society and Combat Systems

“Culture” is the sum total of all influences upon a social group albeit from religious, spiritual, ethical, ethnic institutions diffused into wider society amongst ethnically related groups, and the subsequent internalisation of all institutional influences upon the individuals¹⁰⁹. Culture is the result of Institutionalisation upon ethnically related social groups. The term “Society” represents that body of people, as was succinctly defined by Wilson (1976, 259) as “a self-defined, autonomous, ongoing, internally structured, coherent system of segmented relationships that embrace more or less totally a large number of people who share at least the broad outlines of a cultural system and who are controlled by an identifiably common normative framework and, more important, a common political system. Society is thus a structured system of considerable scale and complexity.” And indeed such a concept as “Modern Society” is decidedly large and complex, increasingly more prone to embrace all of humanity.

The history of fighting within human society demonstrates a dichotomy between the natural instincts of man, and his moral intelligence. The result is that some cultures view fighting differently to others. Some condone it, some frown upon it, some attempt to eradicate it. Inevitably, this causes them to become products of many institutions which make up the wider ethnic social group.

We can simplify the example by suggesting that, if the first experience of something such as bathing was accepted as pleasurable by one person, and is commonly sanctioned by others in that group as pleasurable, then bathing becomes an accepted norm in society. This does not mean to say that another group and another individual would come to the opposite conclusion, that bathing is uncomfortable and to be avoided. That social group might sanction the opposite norm to the former group. This is how cultural norms are derived, from sanctioned opinions and behaviours. Such is the case with belching in the Far East as being desirable, whereas in the West it is seen to be in the poorest taste. Neither is wrong nor right, but simply a different cultural convention derived from the same existential experience.

A “culture” is therefore the name for a catalogue of widely accepted behaviours and perspectives built up over many generations which become the basis of acceptable social “norms”. These social norms can vary dependant upon the different perspectives of the world which each social group has cultured. Often influences upon a culture can come from other societies which are integrated into the general social perspective – such integration is entirely based upon whether the wider reciprocal social group is receptive to those ideas. If they are open to them, they become integrated – if they are not, then those ideas remain “foreign” and an almost natural reinforcement of indigenous culture begins.

The result is that modern man becomes himself a product of this indigenous culture. Yet this effect is not purely one-sided. According to the Standard Social Science Model (SSSM), each member of a society is a product of the processes within that society, and we might consider this true to an extent. This theory has been disposed of by Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby who proposed their own Integrated Causal Model (ICM – not to be confused with my own ICM introduced in the first section). They argue:

“Advocates of the Standard Social Science Model have believed for nearly a century that they have a solid explanation for how the social world inserts organization into the psychology of the developing individual. They maintain that structure enters from the social (and physical) world by the process of "learning"- individuals "learn" their language, they "learn" their culture, they "learn" to walk, and so on” (1992, 122)

Advocates of the Standard Social Science Model argue that it is a one sided process, of immersion into society and its information. Yet the effect is perhaps more akin to an Integrated Causal Model, one wherein it is composed of the effect of both the psychology of man upon his sociology and the counter effect of that sociology upon his psychology. Needless to say, the point is clear that man is effectively incapable of being truly objective on any matter and often relies upon his cultural conditioning. His beliefs, his world-view and his moral compass are all derived to an extent from the ethnic stock of behaviours and perspectives from which he is now derived. Your current perspective on all manner of topics are not only due to your personal experiences, but are often inspired by the cultural environment in which you have developed. This is what Neuro-linuists term your “frame”. Your opinions on politics, religion, other cultures etc are all often imposed by your cultural background. Tradition is therefore the adherence to the anachronistic opinions, social and cultural norms created by the generations of people who pre-date your emergence in the world. Needless to say, the people of history continue to subversively impose themselves upon our present lives.

Understanding history therefore is of great importance to understand the context in which we find ourselves. To understand what changes have been made is to know why they were made and to ultimately realise why the world of Martial Arts is the way it appears today.

There have been some very interesting and useful historical discussions on the development of Combat Systems. Rosenbaum (2008, Introduction xx) suggests that there are three historical contexts in which the Combat Systems have developed. He suggests there were Ancient, Classical and Modern Combat Systems. His definitions, we are told in the endnotes of the text, are based upon the use of firearms. However, there are problems with this definition, which Rosenbaum is aware of when he tells us as that;

“The definition of pre-modern and modern fighting arts is based upon the use of firearms; however, it is not one that can always be applied to all cultures and societies. It is a case by case study, and in some instances where populations were small and the areas remote, pre-modern methods of fighting were used up until the twentieth century. The native tribes of New Guinea are one such example. The rugged terrain of New Guinea and its reasonably small population, many who live in remote areas, primitive methods of warfare and farming still exist to this very day.”

I am keen to assert that Rosenbaum’s definition is entirely relevant, yet in order to make it viable, we must dispose of the term “Modern”. This concept was envisioned by Sociologists keen to assert the difference between our current society and the societies which pre-date or are not industrialized. Giddens (via Haralambos & Holborn, 2008, 5) suggests there are three kinds of pre-modern societies through which human societies have progressed (Hunting and Gathering, Agrarian, and Non-industrialised), of which he refers to small tribal groups, nomadic groups and Aztec, Maya, Roman, Greek and Chinese civilizations. Given these social types which Western societies have progressed through, the sociologist settles upon a perspective focused upon Industrialisation; the implication being that these societies were necessary to create the Industrialised society. As we can see, Rosenbaum’s consideration of Ancient, Classical and Modern comply to an extent with Gidden’s typology. Gidden’s typology, however, does little to explain the kind of milleu in which Combat Systems were created. His terms are convenient labels for social structure, yet for our uses are merely social. We must link the social change with change in approach to Combat System design. In doing so, we shall see that Rosenbaum’s typology does not comply as accurately as we might like.

In refining it, we may reinstate a different set of terms for essentially the same categorizations but reject the concept of “progression toward the perfect present” as implied by the term “Modern”. The terms I propose are highly Spenserian, and although they are largely rejected by modern Sociologists¹¹⁰, Spenser’s terms allow for instant recognition of what we mean by the kinds of Combat Systems required by that Society, and suggested they should be “Primitive”, “Pre-Industrialised”, and “Industrialised”. These terms not only denote the kind of Combat Systems which might be required of a system, but also reference the wider social environment which created such a Combat System¹¹¹. In each period, we may recognise Pre-Scientific Combat Systems of both the Eskirmological and Recreational types.

As a consequence, our understanding must be based upon the Industrialisation of Warfare, rather than simply on the invention or “use of firearms”. Indeed, Rosenbaum’s use of the chronology of firearms as a measure of progress is a flawed one to an extent. Sources show that gun powder weapons (chong, huo pao) were in use from at least the Thirteenth Century by chong zu (gun soldiers) (Turnbull, 1998, 132). Later, firearms were produced in Korea based upon Chinese models and employed against the Japanese during the attempted invasion by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the Sixteenth Century.

Gun technology remained in a similar state until the (re-) introduction of gunpowder technologies by the Portuguese. The Japanese readily purchased the new technologies from merchants who sold them the Arquebus. The weapon was “the weapon par excellence of the lowly” Ashigaru (light and poor troops) from as early as the Sixteenth century (particularly by Oda Nobunaga – Turnbull, 1998, 136-138; 180-181), yet its use was never fully adopted by the Bushi (Norman, 1905, 11). However, the appearance of the weapon at so early a stage in Japanese history renders Rosenbaum’s definition limited. The change inciting the evolution of Hand-to-Hand Combat Systems to Ballistic Technological Combat Systems was largely social, partly attitudes to combat and dueling, and partly the industrialisation of warfare, with the wide acceptance and implementation of industrial military technologies by society.

The Bushi it seems were less interested in the pure eskirmological function of Combat Systems, but rather heavily influenced by the Buddhist and Shinto inspired transcendentalism which had infused itself with those systems of Physical Education. Perhaps they were also not inclined to adopt a foreign technology for fulfilling their eskirmological needs. That being said, the eskirmological function of the gun and of the sword is the same, the difference is in technological advancement to achieve those eskirmological imperatives. In effect, the sword is the weapon of the Pre-industrialised society, and the gun is the weapon of the industrialized society.

The society in which the Combat System is developed dictates the influences upon the founder and consequently affects the choices he is likely to make due to local Schools of Thought. The Combat System must be relevant and be valued to that particular society, and therefore its practice and development is cultured¹¹².

Sociology and its impact on Combat Systems

Just as certain plants grow in particular soils, so too do Eskirmological Combat Systems flourish in particular social environments. Likewise, over the course of time, as society changes and its values and world-views adjust to a growing abundance of information, so too do Combat Systems change to suit.

The fundamental requirement of the development of a Pre-Scientific Eskirmological Combat System is a society which contains an increased risk of physical conflict. The greater the potential for physical conflict and the greater the risk to oneself - the greater the requirement for a more Eskirmological Combat System to be developed and employed. A society which sanctions combat as a means to settling disputes (such as Judicial Duels of the medieval period) or sanctioning the same pressures on a national or ideological scale (by means of waging war) favour very practical and efficient Combat Systems by necessity. This in itself is the product of a greater sociological milieu, wherein social conditions directly influence the need for Combat Systems. Moreover, exponentially, the greater the antagonism upon a national group from other national groups, the greater the influence of national unity. Pressures naturally create unity upon those who experience the pressure.

In accordance with the opening statement made in this chapter - the lower the potential for physical conflict means there is a lesser risk to oneself, and therefore the lower the requirement for a more Eskirmological Combat System to be developed and employed. Such a social milleu favours Combat Systems devised for recreation, the very remnant of training necessary for real combat. A society which uses legislative measures, principles of liberty and democracy and judicial and punitive systems will have less militancy. Yet a nation as a collective may always find exponential reasons for war, for the same reason as an organism requires the need to impose or protect.

The growth of society, based upon its scope

We already know that attacks on the self require the need for “self-defence”. Therefore all human beings will inevitably culture some kind of system of Combat Systems. We recognise from this the basis of the Combat Systems due to the risk of assault. Sociological history teaches us that the move towards settlement lead to the creation of habitations and civilisation. This, besides implying that the risk of attack could increase also raises the problem that one town will attack another, just as one man will attack another. The ultimate manifestation of this is a nation against a nation – in effect, a war.

With the existence of warfare, the Combat Systems suddenly had an ultimate function – they were raised from the defence of the individual, or perhaps his immediate group to defend the many; to defend the nation/kingdom/tribe which he happened to belong. The functional purpose of these methods of fighting is therefore all important, to the point where training becomes highly institutionalised. Fighting, and training for fighting, becomes part of a military complex in which fighters are no longer protecting themselves, but are protecting their nation, and now find themselves part of an army. Ancient methods of training en masse for this very purpose can be seen in the works of ancient Greek battlefield tacticians, as well as practically minded generals of the East such as Yue Fei, or Qi Jiguang. Training, as a result, is interested in the survival of its army and is based upon specific performance in a fight, and to a greater extent in the army’s ability to survive and conquer. Obviously, a general would not be interested in losing his assets because of lack of training. He did his utmost to ensure the training of such an army began with the Combat Systems skills of the individual warrior. By this stage, fighting becomes an occupation and profession.

The social scope reflects that of the consciousness of the individuals within the group. The course of human history demonstrates an expansion of consciousness in the minds of the individuals who make up a society. A society is a group of individuals who cohabitate, but we state that the most basic kind of consciousness is that of the self. It is also the one upon which all other assessments of the world around us are made.

Most humans consider themselves as part of a unit known as the family, or as some sociologists refer to it, “the nuclear group”. This is the first expansion of consciousness and the feeling of “belonging” or being part of the family unit. Although we recognise ourselves as being part of a nuclear group in this way, we are able to further expand our consciousness to accept that the place where we are born and raised is also where we “belong”. The pride one feels as living in your city is a consequence of your nuclear group and where you happen to be settled. However the basic consciousness assigns a label of “belonging” to the place where someone was raised. There are further expansions of consciousness based upon further geographical boundaries such as States, counties, or provinces, all of which attribute our sense of “self”.

The first context we may be able to recognise is that of the tribal society. The tribal communities of New Guinea as mentioned by Rosenbaum are the perfect example of this kind of context. We may be tempted to name this as an ancient context in relation to Western society, but we must avoid making it an historical description based upon Western development. The tribal communities of the African continent, the South American Sub-continent and Oceanic Continent are all valid social contexts, and simply because Western society has developed differently does not make ours an accurate measure of development elsewhere. Hence, although tribal warfare appears in some areas of the world relatively early in comparison to other areas of the world, does not mean that it is strictly an “ancient” nor “primitive” context (Lee & Newby, 1983, 102-104). In some ways, the tribal peoples may be permitted to recognise our society as primitive based upon our actual social interaction in the west. We may use modern technology, but it does little to improve actual social relationships.

The consideration of the hunter-gatherer context is based upon the development of Combat Systems by a closed social group. This may take the form of a hereditary or non-hereditary human social group. Essentially, it is the small division of groups of people within a country. In this type of human society, strategies of fighting were utilised and developed but were not important enough to allow one to become a professional warrior. It was a time when every man was trained in the use of arms, but most had occupations besides being a warrior. This form of Combat Systems practice was perhaps a result of human beings grouping themselves into small social groups, such as towns or cities. This is the stage in which Combat Systems develop out of necessity to defend the closed social group. To take it back to primitive times, as we described in our first section, it could be likened to one set of humans needing to defend their dwelling from other humans. It therefore had an evolutionary purpose for the defence of the group.

The second is the context in which social changes forced men to become professional warriors via the expansion of their scope of social consciousness. When humans considered themselves part of groups greater than their own small social network, their Combat Systems took on a greater importance as part of a wider context. The social changes include, but are not limited to defining human groups as Kingdoms or Nations. This is the next stage in human grouping, in which the small social groups are united under one national or political group. It became their role in society, in a milieu which promoted the use of arms and the skills of using them. This was a time which may be found in most social histories around the world. The Knight of Europe or the Samurai of Japan are both professional warriors whose skills were born in a society which allowed and permitted training for war. For this reason, we may call it the Feudal period, but for the benefit of our study we shall label it the “Militant Society” (Spencer, via Peel, 1971) since it does not imply an historical period of time but rather a state of human society. It should be pointed out therefore that a Militant Society is not a requirement for Feudal protoscience, but rather a society which values fighting skills, and the development and teaching of such skills. Characteristics of the Militant Society is an underdeveloped judicial system, and the sanctioned reliance upon the use of martial force to resolve social disagreements.

There is also an internal resistance within any society between classes. Although classes are not defined in some parts of the world, living standards represent differences between social groups. The lower classes and upper classes are the most simple sociological divisions of people upon the basis of financial wealth. Where there is any friction between social groups, then there is the opportunity for the development of Combat Systems. We should assume that both the proletariat and bourgeoisie are capable of developing Combat Systems equally, and the development of Karate by the farmers of Okinawa, or Ninjutsu by the lower classes of Japan in contrast to the Bujutsu of the Bourgeoise Samurai classes is evidence of this.

It was of course, the bourgeoisie who considered Combat Systems part of the industry of war. Only the rich upper classes have enough time to devote to warfare and martial training. Feudalism depends upon a stock of lower-class people working to generate a food source for all classes, which meant that they only had time for work, and the bourgeoisie had much more time because they did not need to work. This means that it was often the Bourgeoisie group of a society which shaped the country via military campaigns.

From Militant to Industrialised Society

Industrialisation did more than merely increase the importance of commerce within human society; it forced it to make a complete shift in its values. Prior to Industrialisation, the highest value and achievement was to become a warrior and to be successful in war. Society was, as we have seen, entirely based around the value of war as a means for sustaining society, preserving freedoms and effectively giving a bourgeois aristocracy a purpose for existence (Lee & Newby, 1985, 78).

Feudalism, according to Marx, was based upon control of arable land, and therefore generated a Class system. The Upper classes were freed from the necessity of securing means of subsistence, and so they were free to contest and expand their arable lands (as a form of RHP). Reid & Croucher (1984) note that Combat Systems are often developed by people who are attached to rich patrons or members of the upper classes. If those arbitrary and well-known medieval archetypes are anything to go by, the Pre-industrialised Society was certainly one in which the “Man of War” was of utmost importance. With various revolts across Europe and the depreciation of feudal powers, the feudal system was undermined by the growing intellectualism. With the increase in commerce stemming from developments in technology, in the age of Industrialisation, the “Man of Work” steadily increased in important. Yet there are often issues besides technological change which impact upon this social condition.

Lee & Newby (1985, 29-37; and similarly reported by Haralambos & Holborn, 2008, 6) note that there are four elements which increased the powerful movement towards the Industrial Society, and define it as a consequence;

• Industrialism

• Capitalism

• Urbanism

• Liberal Democracy

We might argue that these four elements are the product of an increasing intellectualism in Europe beginning with the Renaissance, driving the religious Reformation and culminating in the Enlightenment. Such intellectual shifts allowed members of society previously born into serfdom to break free from hereditary imposed constraints. This exciting time also shifted the consciousness of society towards seeing success in business as far more important than success in warfare. Combined with the benefits of the Enlightenment, better technology and increased expectations became the mainstay. No longer was birth-right the dictate of one’s position in society, and indeed life itself.

This increase in intellectualism can be witnessed within the works of historical eskirmologists such as the Spanish masters of Destreza (Caranca (1582), Pacheco de Narvaez (1600) and their successors), Italian masters of the Bolognese schools of Fencing such as Marozzo (1536), Agrippa (1553), Viggiani (1575), Capoferro (1610) and their successors. We can also see hints of Aristotelian reasoning within the works of English masters such as Silver (1598) and Swetnam (1617). This field of eskirmology, the refinement of the sword seen in fencing is a decidedly upperclass pursuit, one for the refined, civilized, urbane and educated gentleman and certainly befitting of a man of “class”.

That having been said, this is also the time when society’s perspective had shifted enough to consider fighting as detrimental to the larger values of civilisation. Combat Systems entered the realms of privatized institutions. As such, the post-Militant Society is one in which fighting skills and the use of weapons is not generally valued. We currently live in this period, which has legislation and law surrounding militancy. Carrying out any form of militancy carries with it legal responsibilities, and in some cases punishment. Fighting, the art of fighting, in contrast to the Militant Society is not valued, and therefore is not promoted nor encouraged amongst civilians. In a Militant Society, Combat Systems are encouraged for the defence of the kingdom or nation, but in a Post-Militant Society, it is not – in fact it is somewhat discouraged.

Instead, the separation is made between “armies” and the general population. In periods of Militancy, the general population were considered members of the Array, called upon when national security was threatened. In a post-Militant or Industrialised Society, the army becomes a non-hereditary volunteer with an open organisation. The art of war becomes integrated into an Industry of War. Apart from at times of absolute requirement (as per conscription during the 20^th Century), the training of the general public for warfare was not promoted to the extent that it was in a Militant Society.

It seems that society still harbours this contradiction. All societies inevitably reach a paradox whereby combat and war is shunned by civilian society - supported by government legislation to punish civil combats. This is by the same government which funds a military designed specifically for the purpose of combat and fighting. It seems militancy is desirable only when it is directed towards foreign soils, and does not disrupt the encapsulated national social order. The professional warrior of the past finds himself lodged between civilian life which seeks to separate itself from war, and the industry of war. Pre-industrial societies accepted that warriors were required in society for its defence, whereas Post-industrial societies wish to separate the institutions of war and civil life.

Post-Industrial Combat Systems demonstrate a (perhaps natural) rise in Civilian Proletariat Recreational Combat Systems, whereas Combat Systems developed in during a Pre-Industrialised period always show a natural gravitas towards Eskirmological Combat Systems¹¹³.

Once society had progressed, and was no longer part of a feudal system, the man of war’s role was redundant. Post-feudal periods see the need for change – either the Combat Systems which served the functional role in war adapt to the new sociological environment, or they become extinct and obsolete. This is where we see the development of self-defence systems, in which civilian defence is the orientation of the artform. In this way, it retains its efficiency. Another route for evolution is to become a martial sport in which rules are introduced. A third evolutionary path is to specialise in transcendentalism. After all these there is a fourth kind of Combat System – the recreationism involved in the redevelopment and practice of extinct Combat Systems from historical sources.

Combat Systems, as true to their name, were created for the Industry of War. It was in war that they were cultured, and because of warfare that they became highly effective. Much effort and time went into such a military complex required to win in battle. Isolated from an Industry of War, Combat Systems evolve, or rather devolve, into recreational Combat Systems.

In order to prove the devolution of Combat Logic in a post-Militant Society, I shall now move on to trace the history of the Combat Systems in the West as an example. We may then use this example to colour our impression of the history of Combat Logic of the East which we find ourselves part of now.

Before we proceed to consider them, perhaps we can arbitrarily summarise the phases from Militant Society to Industrialised Society:

Militant Society:

• Feudalism

• Under-developed legal system

  • Makes use of single combat as a means to settling civil dispute

  • Socially and judiciously sanctioned such a means of settling disputes.

• Battle-oriented machismo bourgouise.

• Under-educated lower class.

And in almost complete contrast:

Industrialised Society:

• Capitalism

• Increasing importance of democratic education

• Developed legal system

  • Uses rhetoric rather than combat logic as a means to settling civil dispute

  • Widely sanctioned and implemented.

• Dissolved battle-oriented machismo bourgouise.

And so the process involves;

Development of Combat Systems for battlefield

1. Need to survive, save one’s life by whatever means possible. Matter of life and death.

2. Single Combat is widely sanctioned as a means of settling civil and military disputes.

3. As a means of practice, a subset of recreational formats exist to aid in military training.

Increase in Intellectualism

4. Departure from hereditary-based social stratification

   1. Peasant revolt, reformation, revolution

5. Democritisation of society

   1. Increase in humanism, utilitarianism, and liberalism

6. Social and Ideological reform of legal and government systems

1. Shift to civil environment (i.e. no large-scale combats)

   1. Duelling (Type 2a Antagonistic)

   2. “Self-defence” (Type 1 Antagonistic)

   3. Agonistic combats

2. Heavy reliance upon agonistic practice leads to:

   1. Greater need for safety;

      1. Introduction of protection

      2. Introduction of “safe” weapons

      3. Introduction of regulated behaviour (i.e. rule-sets)

   2. Increased need to compete

      1. Introduction of tournaments as a means to demonstrate prowess, skill etc.

These four phases can be witnessed all around the world, wherein societies are non-intellectual with combat and fighting as a sanctioned means of settling disputes. Yet such an attempt at defining such a process should be fairly balanced with its share of notices. I dare say these “phases” are in any “chronological order” and neither do they pertain to being isolated. There may be considerable overlap between some of these phases, but the inclusion of them here defines the kinds of wider, and to an extent, necessary components which conspire to take Combat Systems from absolute Eskirmological Combat Systems to absolute Recreational Combat Systems. With an increase in social reform and conscience, these forms are no longer acceptable to a largely educated society. In which case, society finds legislative means of settling disputes and abandons the “natural” manner of resolving disputes. As a result of increased safety, and less personal threat, martial training becomes attenuated and the “civilized” society tends towards creating a “safe” combat sport; a means to continue the masculine practice of combat in a safer environment.

Once a society has widely sanctioned Phase 4, it is impossible to return to testing one’s skills in an “unsafe” environment. In order to avoid the moral dilemma and perceived “brutality” of fighting, Combat Sports must conform by creating rule-sets and attenuation in order to be considered “legal” by an intellectual and educated society keen to depart from the use of Force. Various attempts have been made by various scholars (especially Rosenbaum 2004, 143; Orlando 1997, 9-22) to describe the process in which Combat Systems shift from Eskirmological to Attenuated, yet those attempts demonstrate it as a cyclical process. I would be more inclined to demonstrate the specific process as outlined above, and to show how intellectualism and civil constraints in an Industrialised Society forbid any recension back to an absolute Eskirmological Combat System (i.e. one used day-to-day). Moral duty, even in Police or Military training must always comply with the rules of safety, and therefore the vital ingredient of real risk (the germ of Eskirmological Combat Systems) is forever removed. Only outside an Industrialised Society (should Capitalism ever crumble under some kind of universal human reform) and the return to a Militant Society, would we see these kinds of absolute Eskirmological Combat Systems develop.

Now that we are aware of these four phases, now let us look at the process as it has occurred in the history of the West and the East.

Figure 17 – In a Militant Society, high risk of physical violence (i.e. real risk of serious outcome, as well as high exposure rate) are condusive to create Eskirmological Combat Systems. The System may be downscaled to suit Agonistic Combat, so that it may be used to demonstrate prowess or sportsmanship amongst a Bourgoise class. The effect is that both co-exist.

Figure 18 – In an Industrialised Society, lack of Concrete experience, low probability, low risk and low exposure rate mean that real-world testing of the system is impossible. Concrete experience is rarely gathered and therefore this causes Systems to orient towards greater exposure to sport and recreation.

On the commoditisation¹¹⁴ of eskirmology in Western Society

According to the 15^th century Italian Master of Combat Phillipo Vadi, one should “…find your trust in science, [since] fighting is born from geometry” and therefore science contributes towards understanding how to fight. He continued (originally in Italian verse);

“If someone intends to know with discernment,

if fencing is an Art or a Science,

I shalt inform you of my judgement,

consider well my sentence.

It is truly a Science not an Art,

As I shalt describe with succinct eloquence,

how geometry divides and separates into parts,

Into infinite numbers and measures,

and fills Science her papers,

Such that the sword is a child within her care.”

Vadi continues to argue that to defend one’s life is perhaps the most noble of all pursuits, to guard against the threat of death, there truly cannot be a more valuable subject. For this reason, science and fighting were rarely separated from each other in the history of Europe.

The development of early Combat Systems complies with the Battlefield Paradigm. In accordance with the Western stereotype¹¹⁵, the Combat Systems which developed in the west were logical and pragmatic. Although they utilized their fair share of pre-scientific motifs (such as zoomorphic - animal-inspired - mnemonics), they were not significantly influenced by folk, philosophical and spiritual world-views as the progenitors of Eastern Combat Systems. Despite the fact that widespead acknowledgement of Western Combat Science is not forthcoming in our current age, the study of Combat Logic was once prevalent across Europe.

In the West a series of experts and even organizations had applied scientific study to fighting as early as the Middle Ages. Their study was entirely derived from bourgoise armed combat, such that it later developed into the modern fencing as we know it. For this reason, we may witness that their science became tragically intertwined with swordsmanship to the point where it was not applied to anything other than the foil. It is in this context that the Asian Combat Systems were introduced to the West, wherein the native Western consumers were unaware not only that the masters of combat in the West had once cultured Combat Systems, but that they also applied scientific understanding to the topic¹¹⁶.

The milieu of Combat Systems in Europe was very different to that in Asia. The development of the Combat Systems in Asia was made within closed social-systems (based upon clan, family, school¹¹⁷) whereby they were closely guarded, each clan having its secret teachings. In Europe, it was an acknowledged science, and although there were inevitably proponents of different approaches and opinions, the art of fighting was not a secret held by a certain school, but all martially-informed men. Of course, there were factions who proposed that their approach was the best, but it was not as highly guarded as that seen in places with emphasis upon tradition, such as Japan. The tradition in Europe was that of perpetual scientific inquiry, lead by intellectualism - the aim was not simply to have better techniques than the other local schools, but to teach the latest innovation in both theory and practice¹¹⁸.

In ancient Europe, the ars dimicatoria, or ars palaestrinae associated with Mars¹¹⁹ were cultured by all classes of men who made it their role in society to be warriors. In this context, there were several forms of Combat System which grew up in Europe. One was that which was found in the aristocracy, a system based upon serious combats, both Single Combat (Antagonistic Types 1, 2a), Judicial Combat (Antagonistic Type 2b) as well as Battlefield Combat (Wallhausen, 2010), which were refined and honed in the sport competition known as the “Tourney”. Melee’s (consisting of fighting with blunted weapons - à plaisance; or sharp weapons, “weapons of war” - à oultrance (Keen 2005, 205)) helped improve Combat Systems as well as increase the practical application of such methods.

We can assume, like Finn (1988, 10-11), with powerful certainty that the Combat Systems of the feudal period in Europe were much like those seen in Asian counterparts practiced nearer our own time. The knights of Europe must have practiced with all the necessary “warrior professionalism” as any Samurai. In fact, the noble warrior classes of Japan and Europe had many similarities. Both were upper-class warriors, both made warfare their profession, and both tempered such training with a deep metaphysical philosophy based upon a wider cultural and religio-spiritual basis. The reasons why the Combat Systems in Europe do not survive to our present day was due to two pressures upon them; their lessening importance in an intellectualising

Figure 19 – The expansion of human sociological consciousness: 1) The individual; 2) The family unit; 3) The local unit (i.e. Tribe or Clan); 4) The geographical (National) unit; 5) The cultural unit; 6) The racial unit; 7) The species (Human/Anthropic) unit.

society due to the moral values of the contemporary society on violence and fighting, and also the decreased utility of such a practice to a battlefield becoming increasing more mechanised. It is these pressures that we are concerned with in the earliest days of Eskirmological Combat Systems. Whilst this lead to innovation and invention, it also meant that technical operations of warfare fell into a cyclical rut.  Such was the competing attrition which both offensive and defensive elements of war were trapped in. A development on either side would lead to the necessary invention on the other. This can be seen at its height in the development of full plate armour on one side and heavy weapons on the other. Full plate armour saw a rise in “bludgeon” weaponry (such as pick-axes, war hammers and Zweihanders), not designed to cut like a samurai sword, but to dent and crush armour to break bones and restrict movement. A substantial technological advance was required to overcome the entrenched milieu of medieval warfare, and in a relatively short period of time, this development came in the form of gunpowder. Carman (2004, 131) confirms that the earliest pistols date to 1346, and that German writers note the widespread use of pistols by the Reiters around 1512. However, this does not mean to say that larger Cannon were not prevalent; indeed, propellant weapons of this type were being manufactured from as early as 1326 in Florence (Funcken & Funcken, 1972, 112).

The earliest documented systems, dating perhaps to the feudal period of 1100-1500 are oriented almost entirely for the battlefield and singular intermale combats between the armoured bourgoisie. Using the Battlefield Paradigm, we can predict the components of contemporary Combat Systems based upon the premise of efficiency and risk limitation.

Figure 20 – Talhoffer (1467) reminds us of the purpose of duelling in his portfolio for the application of this Combat System. The noble knights enter the Lists (duelling arena) accompanied by their seconds, and their coffins. This was a fight to the death, as his later plates demonstrate with graphic detail.

With the necessity to have efficient and quick actions to terminate risk, we find a set of Combat Systems which dominate the historical records. The Combat System attributed to Johannes Liechtenauer is perhaps the earliest attempt to make sense of combat, and to apply a set of terminology to navigate the labyrinthine potentialities of Combat. His Combat System was evidently devised for armoured bourgoise intermale Antagonistic Types 1, 2a, 2b and Agonistic Combats. Commentators make note of the highly bourgoise elements which defined his system - an Art of Fighting (Kunst des Fechtens) “on foot, on horseback; unarmoured and in armour” (Wallhausen, 2010, 299).

As Castle (2003, 8) explains, the necessary concepts of “time, distance, proportion” were perhaps the earliest theoretical grounds to be understood by masters. Certainly even at this early stage, Liechtenauer has a firm grasp of these concepts. By dividing his behaviours logically by Time and Motion, the system demonstrates strong evidence of influence from Aristotle’s Dei Physica (ibid, 85-110). In terms of Time he recognized the moment before an action (vor), the moment of the action (indes) and the moment of the spent action (nach). In terms of Motion, he composed his system upon the basis of the mechanics of his primary weapon of choice (the means through which he epitomied his system); the Long Sword. In which case, it could be reduced to simple mechanics; the weak (schwech, or as a Latin translation of the terms by Paulus Hector Mair in the 1550’s referred, infermior) and strong (Stark; Mair’s firmior) based upon the proximal distance of the weapon from the lever of the hand. Also there was the consideration for pressure at blade contact, or engagement (known as binden – binding – or am schwert – on the sword – or triff – meeting, or Mair’s Occursatio). These were known as high resistance (hart, literally “hard”) and low resistance (weiche, literally “soft”). Indeed, his system was based upon three moments of the combat, recognizable by proxemical relationship (as per our ICM). The moment of the entrance to combat was the zufechtens, literally “to-fighting” implying “to enter”, or the “approach”, in which we hold a position capable of controlling the distance between protagonists, a posture Liechtenauer termed “Speaking-window” (sprechfenster; later known as brechfenster). This moment was the period in which one enters into reach, most often with an oberhau (descending cut), or a zornhau (scorn action). This latter technique was designed to be the most powerful action with the human body, to end a combat quickly and effectively, to terminate further risk at the first instance (in the approach). Should this technique fail, one should instantly seek the opponent’s sword in order to adhere and seek control of this weapon. Liechtenauer seems to describe both Unilateral and Bilateral approaches to zufechtens (as Mair describes si in adversarii conspectum prope perveneris, “to enter into the presence of an adversary”). He tells us either to

1. enter from an oblique angle, often outside of his ROM, or

2. wait for the opponent to enter – in which case the opponent offers us the opportunity for us to act whilst he enters.

To follow the first occurance, Liechtenauer suggests that we observe his preliminary position. The opponent might cut us from the upper left or upper right, lower left or lower right, and he might also stab us from these trajectories. In order to attack us with his strength and percussion, he must pull back his weapon; and at this moment we are offered the opportunity to prohibit his action. As the saying goes “as with the extension, so the force”, the concept is to prohibit his extension, a tactic known as the Vorsetzen (“Prohibition”, or “Forestalling”, literally to “fore-set”). Each retracted position, the upper positions to cut and to stab, as well as the lower positions to cut and to stab has its own bisecting cut. Liechtenauer attempts to improve the recognition of these actions by prescribing each a name;

• Upper Cutting Position – Vom tag, “from the day”

• Upper Stabbing Position – Ochs, “ox”, or “bull”¹²⁰

• Lower Cutting Position – Alber, “fool”, or “sherpherd”

• Lower Stabbing Position – Pflug, “Plough”, or “flight”¹²¹

The naming conventions suggest Liechtenauer’s possible background as a farmer, and also evidence his knowledge of farming. At the very least, the mnemonic suggests an attempt to link combat with the identifiable arable terms intuitive to a farmer or landworker. They also have strong implications when viewed using the symbolic conventions of Hermeticism. Sunlight comes “from the day” which enlivens all the land, produces the elemental energy for all living creatures in the Energy Cycle. The “Ox” is the facilitator of the harvest, and is used to pull the “Plough”, the cohort of husbandry. When the “Ox” drives he angles his horns downward, and the “Plough” forces its edge through the earth creating a shallow trench as it moves, which sows the seeds of the “Poplar tree” which grows upward toward the sun. Each of these guards has a recognised double-meaning, such that the high guard “vom tag” has been recorded as “vom dach” meaning “from the roof”. Whether the guard was called “from the roof” or “from the day” is interesting because even if the variation in spelling is due to consonant shifts over time, the meaning is still retained. Likewise, the function of the Alber guard is to move upwards, and the term - according to Meyer (Forgeng, 2006, 53) – comes from the word “Alber” meaning “Fool”, and demonstrates the illogical use of upward actions compared to downward ones. Yet scholars are posed with a different meaning in the works of Mair, which describe it either as a “Poplar Tree” (arbor populea), or how “shepherds stand holding their crook (fustibus) with arms outstretched (cum brachium recta) whilst watching their flock (armenta) in pasture (pastunt)” a different meaning indeed, but one which continues our theme of husbandry; perhaps even citing reference to biblical symbology. The guard “Pflug” is translated as “Plough”, yet a French translation of a work by Pauernfeindt (La Noble Science des joueurs d’espee, 1528) translated the guard as La garde de la volée meaning the “guard of flight”, perhaps because “Flug” means “flight” in German. The final guard “Ochs” was translated into French as “guard of the wings” (la garde des ailes) suggesting a double-meaning for this guard as well. I am inclined to believe that all these terms were selected because of well-known phonetic double-entendres, but this view is controversial amongst scholars specializing in this field.

Each of these guard positions could be forestalled or prohibited using bisecting cuts, which were as follows;

• Bisect Vom Tag – Zwerchhau, “transverse” or “dwarf” cut¹²²

• Bisect Ochs – Schielhau, “squint”, “coy” or “shy” cut¹²³

• Bisect Alber – Scheitelhau, “scalp” or “skull” cut¹²⁴

• Bisect Pflug – Krumphau, “twisted”, or “crooked” cut¹²⁵

Due to the fact that fencers ignorant of Timing in this manner simply cut with vertical or horizontal cuts, great reverence was given to the ingeniousness of bisecting trajectories. Later scribes refered to these techniques, coupled with the zornhau (Mair’s Ictus ira), as the five master cuts (funf meisterhau), but were commonly refered to by early scribes as the secret strikes (verborgen hau). Such devised skills were based upon the concept of the convergence of strikes, and that all blows with the sword must converge into a target. By identifying the path to the target, we may bisect that trajectory and ensure that we forestall his action.

Figure 21 – a fight-book (fechtbuch) known as Gladiatoria evokes the similarity of the ancient Gladiator’s who duelled to the death, with its origins as part of the Munera (funeral). This document (KK5013, 15^th century) also illustrates a duel to the death between knights.

We should always seek to strike the first strike (vor schlag or ersten schlag), but should we fail, then we must act with the opponent’s entrance. We must then attempt to “strike the last blow” (letzt schlag, or nach schlag, using an operation known as “nach reissen” or “pursuing”, literally “after-travelling”, or as Mair puts it ultimum ictum ferire). Should the opponent enter with a decending (oberhau, Mair’s ictus supernus) or retracted descending blow (zornhau, Mair’s ictus ira, literally the “irate blow”) we should ensure we are a) out of range to ensure he misses, so as to perform an oberlaufen (“over-reaching”), or b) exit to the outside angles to ausnehmen (“surrounding”, literally to “take the outside”). Should the opponent prohibit this kind of action by Binding (as per the directive above, should a technique fail), then we reach a state of mutual engagement. In this process, we enter a tactile range (in accordance with the ICM) attempting to sense by means of fuhlen (literally “feeling”) so as to act “in-the-moment” (indes, Mair’s instantia). The most common techniques from the bind were stabbing actions, simply because any attempt to cut with strength required retracting the weapon backwards, and this opened oneself up to abschneiden or “slicing away” (Mair’s incisione)- when the opponent simply follows (nachfolgen) behind your weapon to seek your exposures. If your actions at the sword continually meet resistence, then we abandon sword-based actions entirely, and proceed with wrestling (durchlauffen, or Mair’s Transitio cum lucta) by charging (einlauffen, or Mair’s ingressus).

Because of the prevalence of stabbing actions in the bind, Liechtenauer makes use of inclined angulations (hengen, Mair’s inclinatio) of the weapon to bisect any possible trajectories. This technique of upper and lower angulation was recognized using the term absetzen, to “displace”, “inhibit” or “parry”.

As we can see, Liechtenauer’s understanding of Combat Logic is clear from the composition of his Combat System. Although sources for his Combat System outnumber all other sources of the period, his Combat System ceased to be continued in practice. There is evidence though that his System was maintained by Meyer, as demonstrated in his 1570 work Through Descriptions on the Free, Knightly and Noble Art of Combat with all kinds of Customary Weapons (Gründrliche Beschreibung der freyen Ritterlichen und Adelichen kunst des Fechtens in allerley gebreuchlichen Wehren).

Though his art was defined by these sets of tactical actions, his Combat System was summarized by the Combat Logic of Timing and Motion. Many of the problems presented by Antagonistic Combat were solved by Liechtenauer, and his Art of Combat (Kunst des Fechtens) applied to single and multiple nomination antagonistic combat, and also could be downscaled for use in Agonistic combat at the barriers or in melee. But inevitably his System does show decline, and although his particular taxonomy disappeared, the skillsets remained, and the permeating Combat Logic merely manifested itself in later ages and under the guise of new taxonomies used with more modern weapons.

In the increasingly intellectual age of the Renaissance, we find a great range of authors attempting to secure their legitimacy and expertise by creating written works. The products of their attempts to explain their own personal habitus may be witnessed throughout these works. The zeitgeist at the time might be described as one in which masters attempted to proclaim their system the most scientifically infallible solution to the problems presented by Antagonistic and Agonistic Combats.

Supporting the view that swords were no longer the mainstay of the military, the core apparatus originally employed in warfare now found its necessity dwindling. This lead to changes in the form of the sword, as well as subsequent changes in its use. With the evolution of a thrusting weapon came the evolution of stabbing Combat Systems. Many of the works of the period are concerned with creating good stabbing techniques. It was a scientific predicate that the shortest and quickest path between two points is inevitably the straight line. For this reason, stabbing gained prevalence over the technique of cutting. And Combat Systems based upon that technique similarly gained prevalence quickly.

Norman (1969, 83) reports that the first important battle which was won due to force of firearms was in 1522 at the Battle of Bicocca. Such an important success by firearms had a subsequent effect upon both armour use and production (ibid; Boutell 1996, 156), as well as swordsmanship. Manciolino’s 1531 work the Opera Nova (New Work) signalled a shift in function for Combat Systems. No longer were they devised for the Battlefield Paradigm, but rather for the urbane environment of Civilian assaults. Von Gunterrodt, in his work The True Principles of the Art of Combat (De Veris Principiis Artis Dimicatoriæ) explains the change in perceptions by contemporary society;

The entire School of Defence or Combat (Palasticam siue dimicatoriam arte omnium luctationum) is devised so that the exercise of the body is undertaken, yet despite that most excellent function it is much less frequently undertaken by the people of Germany, where it is nonetheless regarded with contempt. This is certainly not surprising, however, since the majority of the teachers around today are simply ineffective.

A comparison with the works of De Gheyn (1607) and von Wallhausen (1616) which are dedicated to the discussion of warfare demonstrate the differences between civilian and military practices in which neither full plate armour nor rapiers make any appearance. The use of gunpowder on the battlefield meant that plate armour (which had become the most recognisable feature of the knight) became superfluous. By the sixteenth century, it was relegated to become the staple of generals who often chose to wear a cuirass (chest plate) to show status, even though its actual defensive value was minimal. Needless to say, the cultivation of hand-to-hand combat skills also became superfluous in the face of remote weaponry. There was no real advantage in training in the ancient skills of wrestling and swordplay if a simple peasant could wipe you out with the pulling of a trigger from a distance. This was one of the main complaints from nobles at the time. We are told that the upper-class knights viewed guns as the weapon of the vulgar commoner – there was no cultivated skill in its use¹²⁶.

Whilst English authors Smythe and Barwick argued as to the relative merits of Longbow and firearms on the battlefield (Warren Chase 2003, 73), Master of Defence George Silver was making his own rebutal to the Italian Civil Combat Systems imported to England. Silver was a military man, and hence trained in Eskirmological Combat Systems; making use of all and any techniques which met the function of terminating risk. He was a fervent opposer to the shift towards weapons used only for thrusting, an approach which he recognised as being a risky commitment, losing fifty percent of the available combat-logical options. He was a witness to the changes of his time, and his work represents the thoughts and opinions of someone keen to retain Eskirmological Combat Systems, seeming to recognise the shift towards Recreational Combat Systems amongst the newer approaches to combat. Silver’s Combat System, being Eskirmological, inevitably shows traits we have already described in the works of Liechtenauer, albeit a little more refined. In Silver’s work The Paradoxes of Defence (1598) and another smaller explanatory text called Brief Instructions Upon My Paradoxes of Defence (1599), he uses his own conceptual framework to describe the meaning of particular aspects of timing and force interaction. Where Liechtenauer named the retracted positions, Silver merely calls them “the four actions”, dissolving the positions and cuts into the same set of moments of a single action. According to Silver, a single blow is comprised of a moment wherein the arm is “bent” or retracted, and in the moment it is extended its potentiality is “spent”. Once it reaches the utmost of its reach it becomes “lying spent” – requiring muscular effort to retract once again in a chambering process he calls “drawing back”. Silver’s terms not only allow us the ability to understand Liechtenauer’s system with much better clarity, but also to realize the permeating logic of retracting and extending to enact force with our limbs. This is the secret of timing, as Silver tells us, “he who observes them is safe” (Matthey 1898, 5).

Silver also expounded a set of principles by which a Simple Movement may be defined. A technique must have a psychological aspect, based upon perception, decision and prudence. It must overcome Distance to strike the opponent, and by overcoming distance it will take Time. It must also have a target, through which it must insert into an exposure, known as Place. These four aspects, Judgement, Distance, Time, Place were what Silver termed the Four Grounds, or Principles of True Fight (Combat Logic). If these principles describe a Simple Movement, then his four actions describe the phasic moments of that Movement in time and distance.

Yet these principles are based perhaps upon Kinetics; the study of static mechanics of action. We have described actions in terms of what Aristotle saw as specific motions; those of a part of the body but not the whole body. For a body to move from one coordinate in Space to another, it does so by means of what Aristotle called “locomotion”. This locomotion (“kinematic” in modern parlance) is essential to maintain an appropriate “distance”, and so Silver offers a set of directives based upon this concept.

Silver’s paradigm is what he called the Four Governors, which are based entirely upon one’s affective range. One’s reach is called “measure” and the ability to reach the opponent is based upon the proportional measure of his own body. For this reason, understanding one’s reach allows for effective locomotion into range and out of range, which Silver terms “Go forward” and “fly backward” respectively. Because of this definition, we might have reason to believe that Silver’s Combat System may well have been a Ballistic one.

The final aspect of the four principles is the concept which we have yet to mention in connection with Silver; Time. Unlike Liechtenauer (who related his concept of Timing to interaction in an opposing system), Silver ties his concept of timing to the amount of time it takes to make an action, both in locomotion (kinematic) and specific motion (kinetic). His timing proves what Aristotle described, that a specific motion is quicker than a locomotion. In other words, the mass of the arm moves quicker than the entire body to which it is attached. Since the human body is a complex structure, it has complex means of moving which favours its biomechanical form. Silver describes the times as:

• “The time of the hand.

• The time of the hand and body.

• The time of the hand, body, and foot.

• The time of the hand, body, and feet.

The false times are these;

• The time of the foot.

• the time of the foot and body.

• the time of the foot, body, and hand.

• the time of the feet, body, and hand.”

Each of Silver’s True Times demonstrates the incremental increase of a motion due to the number of mechanical processes involved. Several elements are worth describing; that this stratification demonstrates an increase in time, but also demonstrates an inverse increase in Distance covered. As such therefore, we can see that Silver offers us a conceptual framework by which we can further judge the sets of behaviours in Combat Systems.

Because the hand moves faster than the hand, body and feet, Silver advises, like Liechtenauer, to allow the opponent to offer the advantage by his own entrance. As such the True Times, when juxtaposed with the False Times demonstrate a truth; that the opponent’s entrance offers us the advantegous use of the Time of the Hand, and that all False Times refer to locomotion, meaning the opponent enters ballistically. The true times are a hierarchy of action, the lower times have greater reach and force, but are comparatively slower than the upper true times. When juxtaposed with the false times, the True Times prove the dominance of waiting for the opponent to enter into range to hit under our own initiative. If we were considering the time of a collision between billiard balls, we would have much simpler calculations. But the human body is a complex mechanical object, and we may consider the hierarchy of its movement in collision. We may modernize Silver’s timings in the following way:

1. Affector.

2. Affector with Ponderation.

3. Affector with Ponderation and Pace.

4. Affector with Ponderation and Gait.

This is of course contrasted against the false times:

1. Pace.

2. Pace with Ponderation.

3. Pace with Ponderation and Affector.

4. Gait with Ponderation and Affector.

Silver seems to similarly recognize Proxemics, by his observance of the Four Fights, arguably wherein the sword is held out of convergence (above the head) in an “Open Fight” like Liechtenauer’s Vom Tag (synchronous to our Ballistic Proxemic). The bisecting position, with the sword in a sloping angulation in front of the body is called the “Guardant Fight”. The line of convergence being closed, incidentally due to being in close proximity, he logically calls the “Close Fight” taking place in Tactile range (as per ICM). Finally Silver considered the “Variable Fight” taking into account the diverse stabbing retractions used by Italian fencers.

Silver’s Paradoxes are based on the premise that Italian Combat Systems introduced at the time were Combat Illogical and False. His reasoning is elaborated by applying his conceptual framework, just described, to the Italian systems. He offers the evidence of the failures of their system because of:

1. their lack of eskirmological principles, evidenced by:

   1. Use of protection (gauntlets, mail-shirts)

   2. They are nearly always “sore hurt” or injured

   3. Their weapons are of disproportionate lengths

   4. Their hilts do not defend the hands.

2. they are “sore hurt” in combat because they lack:

   1. The four governors¹²⁷

   2. The four actions¹²⁸

   3. The true times¹²⁹

   4. The four fights¹³⁰

   5. The length of their weapons

   6. The weight of their weapons

Silver’s evidence for their lack of eskirmologics in their Combat System is based upon his own theoretical framework. He believed that all techniques and skills of fighting, of cutting and thrusting were essential to good fighting. Indeed, in approach, Silver’s system seems close to Liechtenauer in both concept and design. His theory complies with Aristotelian scholasticism, and certainly has a degree of improvement upon Liechtenauer’s Combat System. Yet the framework of techniques and tactics are not as explicit as in the works describing Liechtenauer’s approach. Such is the case that we are unable to categorise Silver’s Combat System with any real certainty. Discussions of his approach have yet to be discovered anywhere other than in his own work.

Despite Silver’s contentions surrounding the Italian’s Swordplay, their weapon of choice (the slender and tapered Rapier designed principally for stabbing) was very much in vogue. Such a development has greater connotations than the argument of technique, in fact it precludes it. The evolution of the sword from versatility to specialisation demonstrates a parallel to the validity of such a weapon in society. Such a modification would never have taken place with a tool employed in a Militant Society. Specialisations of this kind – the first in the evolution of the sword, or rather devolution of the sword from versatile Combat-Logic tool to specialised socially-sanctioned foil demonstrates aptly the departure from the necessity of preparing for any situation of Combat Logic. Silver and Liechtenauer perhaps would have been in agreement that to reduce one’s behaviours down from the range of possibilities naturally available is also to reduce the propensity to defend any possibility of attack by a factor equivalent to that reduction.

Yet of all the systems invented in Europe, it was perhaps the Spanish Combat System which was most scientific. Silver offers us a little introduction to their method;

“The Spaniard is now thought to be a better man with his rapier than is the Italian, Frenchman, high Almaine or any other country man whatsoever, because they in their rapier-fight stand upon so many intricate tricks that in all the course of a man's life it shall be hard to learn them, and if they miss in doing the least of them in their fight, they are in danger of death.

But the Spaniard in his fight, both safely to defend himself, and to endanger his enemy, has but one lying, and two wards to learn, wherein a man with small practice in a very short time may become perfect.

This is the manner of the Spanish fight: They stand as brave as they can with their bodies straight upright, narrow spaced, with their feet continually moving, as if they were in a dance, holding forth their arms and rapiers very straight against the face or bodies of their enemies, and this is the only lying to accomplish that kind of fight. And this note, that as long as any man shall lie in that manner with his arm, and the point of his rapier straight, it shall be impossible for his adversary to hurt him, because in that straight holding forth of his arm, which way soever a blow shall be made against him, by reason that his rapier hilt lies so far before him, he has but a very little way to move, to make his ward perfect, in this manner. If a blow is made at the right side of the head, a very little moving of the hand with the knuckles upward defends that side of the head or body, and the point being still out straight, greatly endangers the striker. And so likewise, if a blow is made at the left side of the head, a very small turning of the wrist with the knuckles downward, defends that side of the head and body, and the point of rapier much endangers the hand, arm, face or body of the striker. And if any thrust is made, the wards, by reason of the indirections in moving the feet in manner of dancing, as aforesaid, makes a perfect ward, and still withal the point greatly endangers the other. And thus is the Spanish fight perfect: so long as you can keep that order, and soon learned, and therefore to be accounted the best fight with the rapier of all other.”

Whilst it might be criticised as simplistic, Silver offers us a good description of a school founded upon the pre-eminence of the “straight-line”, as well as demonstrating its simplicity in practice. The school was founded by Don Jeronimo de Carranza in his work Of the Philosophy of the arms, of its art and the Christian offense and defense (1582), wherein he outlined the basis for his system founded upon the grounds of mathematics, geometry and science. Carranza was regarded by his student Pacheco de Narvaez to have been El Primer Inventor de La Sciencia de Las Armas ("The First Inventor of the Science of Arms") (Martinez, The Demystification of the Spanish School, Part I). They referred to their art as the Verdadera Destreza (“True Dexterity”).

On first inspection, the system appears complex, yet when delving deeper one realises that the system is supremely simple. The reason for its initial complexity is based upon the means in which its Architect (de Caranza) and subsequent codifiers (Pacheco de Narvaez, Quevada, Rada, Ghisliero, Thibault (1630)) attempted to prove its simplicity. Their proof was by means of geometry and mathematics, designed to appeal to those who already recognised the logic of applied mathematics.

The Spanish school was in alignment with contemporary schools of intellectualism, informed by classical sciences yet attempting to question and build a theoretical framework of Combat Logic. Caranza’s sentiments echo the kind of philosophical approach to the world which affected the early Renaissance. He believed that true “science is in things” and therefore it,

“…is but a reflection of the real thing. Yet possible truth and error are not the object, but on the subject. Truth is the natural property of being connected with understanding, which inevitably refers to the universal, not the particular, and as such resides primarily in God.”

With this kind of language, he evidently derives his knowledge from Aristotle, applying an Aristotelian principle of “understanding the effect by its cause.” Galileo, who himself placed mathematics at the centre of his approach, reasoned that “…mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.” All works on the Spanish approach are concerned with proofs, such that their works were reformist in character – attempting to displace the fencing schools not dictated by scientific knowledge. These schools were referred to in their works as Destreza Comùn (“common” or “vulgar dexterity”). Their art was therefore raised from the vulgar system by their use of mathematics, the language that is written (as Galileo continues),

“…in that great book which ever lies before our eyes — I mean the universe — but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols, in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is impossible to comprehend a single word of it; without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth”

Despite the fact that the system is quite simple to comprehend and to use, the explication surrounding it and the labours in attemping to offer a reader the language and the symbols on behalf of Destreza masters, rendered it a near joke amongst contemporary society. Quevada, author of El Buscon as well as opponent of Narvaez, wrote of his hero Don Pablo coming across a stranger who was drawing strange lines and figures in the dirt, as well as measuring the lines with a compass and creating dance-like motions. When our hero asks what the strange

Figure 22 – A late example of the kind of scientific demonstrations of the dynamic interations in combat made in Destreza. This example comes from Rada, 1705.

fellow is doing, he states that he has invented a new technique and is in the process of “reducing it to mathematical rules” (Anglo, 2000, 72).

The novel leads from this point, fallaciously describing the over-application of science to natural movements. Another famous occasion of mockery towards scientific study of fighting was made by an engraver known as Antonio Franscesco Lucini in 1627. Anglo tells us that they are “inspired by the grotesqueries of Jacques Callot” and we could consider that they would not look out of place in a Victorian “Punch” annual. In one plate, directed toward the mathematical description of fighting, shows the lines and angles of a “cat’s cradle” as well as a deduction of flatulence. This kind of condescension of the subject was, we can assume, to be reactions to the overcomplication of fighting made by these named authors, but does not mean that the content of those books was not valid. Carranza used mathematics in a way that was unfortunately detrimental to the aim of the book. Anglo (2000) remarks that “Carranza assumed that...it was necessary to understand primary causes” which meant that his studies lead him to consider anything and everything for the hidden secrets, which resulted in his book becoming “a vast…and ultimately, rather crazy edifice”. “Vast” though it was, it may perhaps have been an early attempt at Pansophia (Wisdom of Everything) manifested through combat. Evidently Carranza was influenced by hermeticism and alchemical principles.

The basis of their elucidation was the mysterious circle, an enneagream designed to illustrate the possible trajectories and angles of attack and defence. Its size and scope was based entirely upon the proportions of the human body. Their concept was highly mystical, dependant upon the hermetic principle of the macro-microcosm; that the design of the universe from the simple elements to the complex compounds is based upon a logical plan and simple understandable rules, and that all elements of that universe is also based upon the same rules and therefore represent a complete copy of that larger macrocosm. Thibault, citing early scientific authorities as Euclid, Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, Gaius Plinius Secundus, Philo Judaeus and Albrecht Dürer, outlines the logic for the basis for his Combat System. The proportions are reduced to actual measures, allowing for the tracing of an individual’s medio proportional (individual measure). In which case, these measures dictate one’s ability to enter toward the opponent and Thibault defines them at the First Instance (Out of Measure), Second Instance (Within affective Measure; to be within reach at a pace), and the Third Instance (Within arm’s reach - to attack simply by extending the arm), as well as in entering at an angle (either inner or outer) in each Instance.

Despite the method of elucidation, the system remains very simple, and has correlative traits with both Silver and Liechtenauer. Perhaps the most recognisable behaviour of the school is the postura de linea recta (posture of the straightline), in which the sword is held straight out from the shoulder, as well as presenting a profile body posture to the opponent. Such a position not only maximises reach, but minimises risk from the opponent’s attack. Yet such a position is evidence of the lighter weapons designed principally for thrusting in civil assaults, since only a light weapon may be held in this manner for a long period.

Figure 23 – A further example of the kind of scientific elaboration made by Europe’s masters of defence. This illustration shows the depreciation of reach when departing from the perpendicular line of the shoulder. This kind of scientific explanation proved the value of the Postura de linea recta.

The logic of the position is, however, quite superb. To constrain the opponent’s ability to enter is the advantage of the man who controls distance, and this control is done with a veritable and unavoidable threat. Because all actions are dependant upon this kind of convergent action it is also the basis for reasoning that Por la linea del diametro no se puede caminar sin peligro (Along the line of the diameter one can not walk without peril) as was described by de Narvaez.

The solution to this problem was the same as that described previously by Liechtenauer, to ganando los grados al perfil (gain the degrees on the profile), or entering from an oblique angle. Such entrances may be made in the Inside Angles (ángulos internos, to the anterior) or the Outside Angles (ángulos externos, to the posterior).

Once we are within range, we are capable of exerting force, and the Spanish Masters decreed very few simple but universal techniques. In accordance with the Aristotelian subcurrent we have come to expect, these Spanish masters characterised their movements (movimientos) with Aristotle’s terms:

• Violento – an ascending movement

• Natural – a descending movement

• Remisso – a retractive movement, like Liechtenauer’s guards, or

• Mixto – any sequence of the above.

Blows of the sword could be made in accordance with these types of movements, from any of the joints comprising the arm, meaning that a cut could be made,

• from the wrist,

• from the elbow,

• from the shoulders,

and furthermore techniques (tretas) are defined as variants dependant upon the angulation of the arm:

• uñas abajo - fingernails up

• arriba - down

• a dentro - inside

• a fuera - outside

As Silver described, with the point straight out at the opponent, “If a blow is made at the right side of the head, a very little moving of the hand with the knuckles upward defends that side of the head or body, and…likewise, if a blow is made at the left side of the head, a very small turning of the wrist with the knuckles downward, defends that side of the head and body”. With very little action, the diestro was capable of parrying (desvios) with an economy of effort. With such a mechanics of action, the Spanish School evokes a sense that it was similar to Wing Chun in performance, retaining stability and leading with the weapon forward. Moreover, its simplicity and directness exploited the lightness and form of the weapon of the time.

Like Liechtenauer, and in further compliance with our ICM, the

Figure 24 – The precise demonstration of the depreciation of strength away from the shoulder. de Caranza, 1582.

Spanish masters recognized the mechanics of the sword and the change in behaviour required at the tactile proxemic. Spanish Masters described that the sword had a flaqueza (weak) and a fureza (strong) and these may be measured in degrees, of which Narvaez states there are ten, but later authors (such as Thibault) mentioned there were twelve. Both are of course arbitrary measures of strength depreciation along the length of the blade, but it is significant that these Spanish masters attempted to define such a depreciation precisely using measures. In making contact with the opponent’s weapon, the diestro (Destreza practitioner) must account for the graduation or degraduation of the blade in order to place himself at the best mechanical advantage. This engagement is termed Atajo, and refers to the process of Binden described by followers of Liechtenauer. Like Liechtenauer’s concept of Sprechfenster, the Spanish swordsman also attempted to seek contact by means of tentar (seek, or tentacle) simultaneously threatening the opponent’s path of entrance. Whilst in the engagement, the diestro uses his proprioceptive skills known as Tacto (tactility, touch).

With one guard, two parries, and three techniques performed with four steps in two angles, the Spanish system is a supremely simple but effective Combat System, but one which is most efficient when using a rapier.

Although Silver offered us a convenient description of the Spanish School, a “better man with his rapier than is the Italian, Frenchman, high Almaine or any other country man whatsoever”, we might still ponder - what of the other schools?

Three years after the Venetian courtier Girolamo Muzio penned his sanction on Il Duello, fencing master Camillo Agrippa (1553) introduced, amongst other elements, an important “normalised” terminology so essential to scientific progress. His terms such as Prime (First), Secunde (Second), Terz (Third), Quarta (Fourth) were used for centuries after. These positions were so named after the phasic positions most commonly passed through whilst fencing. The suggestion of these terms was an attempt to install uniformity, and to avoid undue mnemonic which had hitherto plagued the works of previous masters. Castle, (2003, 44) tells us that he was free to use scientific method because he was not a teacher, and did not have to conform to institutionalised dogmas. Being an engineer by profession, he was keen to identify the convergent advantage of thrusting over cutting, since although the cut is more natural, the thrust holds the most direct advantage. Narvaez, of the Spanish school, described that de Caranca had been inspired by the scientific endevour of Agrippa in the creation of Destreza.

Another Italian, Capoferro, composed a work named the Gran Simulacro (1610) and outlined a Combat System devised principally for Type A Antagonistic Combats. Unlike the realistic eskirmologists who predated him, Capoferro’s philosophical and moral belief was entirely based upon the principle of defence (as per the concepts associated with civile; or being Civilised), and an attack should be the “last resort to save one’s life” (Anglo, 116):

“The aim of fencing is the defense of self, from whence it derives its name; because “to fence” does not mean other than defending oneself, hence it is that “protection” and “defense” are words of the same meaning; whence one recognizes the value and the excellence of this discipline is such that everyone should give as much carethereunto, as they love their own life, and the security of their native land, being obligated to spend that lovingly and valourously in the service thereof.

Thence it is also seen that defense is the principal action in fencing, and that no one must proceed to offense, if not by way of legitimate defense.” (Swanger & Wilson, 1999)

Evidently, Capoferro is concerned with intermale Antagonistic Type 1 combats, assuming the Mitigator role. This having been said, Capoferro is clear that the form of protection he advocates in a serious (life-threatening) combat is attack, since his real innovation was a technique of attack. Yet Capoferro was able to demonstrate this moralistic convenience (luxury even) because of changing attitudes to violence and killing within his society, as well as developing a purely civilian Combat System. Such a luxury was not available to his progenitors of previous ages - combats (such as the Judicial Duel or the battlefield) which were indeed life-threatening, and would have therefore required predominantly a “kill-or-be-killed” pattern of behaviour.

Despite the seeming distaste by Silver for the Italian’s lack of knowledge of weapons of true length, Capoferro also declares that a weapon (of which the most perfect is the sword) should be not be a “…length exceeding the distance of natural defence and offense…” because these weapons “…are ill suited and abhorrent for use in civic converse, and the excessively short ones are insidious and of danger to life.” For this reason, Capoferro declared that the foundation of the art rested upon knowledge of the proportion of the human body (Capoferro, chp. 18)

His engineering expertise found its outlet in investigating the very biomechanics of movement. His approach was based upon improving the function of stabbing actions, and in doing so he modeled a technique to become the basis for future approaches to combat; the lunge. Capoferro’s botta lunga (full description the l'incredibile accrescimento della botta lunga), or “lunge” was essentially the means of extending one’s base of support (BOS) in order to expand one’s reach. It played upon Silver’s third true time of hand, body and foot which made the Measure of the body much further¹³¹.

Although his innovation was in stabbing, it was certainly not dependant only upon thrusting. Cutting actions featured in his manual quite widely, particularly in his examples of techniques, wherein he ends the example with either a cut or thrust.

Indeed, the same principles of timing (Tempo) are used in Chapter Five of Capoferro’s work, but in this case they find their definition in terms recognizable to a modern fencer. They are also something similar to the description offered by Silver. According to Capoferro, there are four timings involved in combat (Swanger & Wilson, 1999, 34);

• Stesso tempo (single time) – Simultaneous attack and defence.

• Dui tempi (double time) – separate attack and defence.  

• Mezzo tempo (half time) – is the moment of interruption, i.e. in the opportunity offered by the opponent’s own entrance¹³²

• Contra tempo (counter time) – Always using a shorter time against a longer time.¹³³

Thanks to Capoferro, we therefore have terms capable of explaining the kind of techniques we encountered in Table 1. This kind of terminology seems to have been widely used later, particularly by Marcelli (1686). Having explained these in relation to our actions of combat, he further offers four times in which an offensive action may be made. These four times are similar to Silver’s Four Actions, and as Swanger & Wilson note in their translation, the same as another master’s work, dall’Agocchie. Capoferro explains;

“The first is when the enemy is fixed in guard, and he lifts or moves his foot that he has forward, that is one tempo in which to accost him; [Silver’s Time of the Foot]

another is when you have parried a blow, then there is a tempo;

the third, as he moves himself without judgment from one guard in order to go into another, before he has fixed himself in it, it is a tempo to offend him; and moreover it is tempo when he raises his sword, as he raises his hand, that is a tempo to strike him; [Silver’s action of “drawing back”, Liechtnauer’s moment for Vorsetzen]

and the last is that, when a blow will have travelled past your body, that is a tempo to follow it with a response” [Silver’s actions of “spent” and “lying spent”, Liechtenaur’s opportunity for Nachreissen]

We can see that the first time of Capoferro is Silver’s False Times, the second is Liechtenauer’s Absetzen, third is Liechtenauer’s observation of guard transitioning and how to interrupt this moment of safey. The last is recognition of Liechtenauer’s Uberlauffen or Nachreisen. So we can see that the concepts of Timing are inherently the same as those discussed in other parts of European fencing development.

Capoferro’s approach is interesting since it covers some of the aspects used by the Spanish Schools (such as the Straight line being the “most secure guard” (ibid, 32). He adopts the taxonomy of parries proposed by Agrippa, but uses elements from the work of dall’Agocchie also. Yet at the base of his work was the athleticism which was key to the Italian school.

With the rise of intellectualism, particularly the schools of Utilitarianism and Liberalism in the 17^th Century, coupled with the increase in humanistic works, we can see that fighting began to be received negatively by mainstream society (Laski, 2005). Principles of Harm developed later by John Stuart Mill, originating from Hobbes and Locke are based upon a concept of Natural Right, of non-aggression, as well as offence principle. In the foreground of our study, within narrow focus but affected by this wider ideological backdrop, we see an increase in Combat Sport, and a decrease in the use of hand-to-hand combat skills used in earnest. A product of this backdrop was the French school of Fencing (l’escrime).

The French school, as Angelo (1787, 88) later described were “superior talents” relative to the Italian schools, further boasting that “according to the knowledge which I have acquired, I believe them to be the best in the world, both for their graceful attitudes and profoundness of knowledge”. The French school adapted the Italian school, owing much of its substance to that institution. It removed much of what made the Italian sport particularly strenuous and high-intensity whilst retaining a sense of regal athleticism. The use of the small-sword or “court sword” added to the speed and precision of their actions. The lightness and flexibility of the weapon however, further attributed to the continuing departure from eskirmological combat, making it essentially rather useless for “kill-or-be-killed” combat.

The French school was at its fruition by the time of Liancour (1686) whose school flourished during the reign of Le Roi-soleil (Louis XIV, 1638-1715) a great patron of the arts and sciences. Liancour’s system was based upon the use of the small-sword and as such evidenced much of the modifications we might attribute to a “devolution” in swordsmanship. An early progenitor of the School, Sainct Didier recalled that there was once a time when Frenchmen would travel to foreign climbs to learn the Art of Arms, but it is now more common for foreigners to travel to France to learn the French methods. This school was granted letters patent by various royal patrons, most notably Louis XIII who issued grants (Letters of Nobility transmittable through their descendants in 1746) to 6 of the oldest masters after 20 years experience, to assume coats-of-arms and recognised as nobility.

Figure 25 – Danet’s system was significantly different in application from Liechtenauer’s. The Small Sword was the arm of choice, a lighter and decidely less dangerous weapon than the Long Sword.

Due to the various channels of data which funneled into the schools of L’Academie at that time, there were efforts by some masters to normalize the various approaches, to seek a defined and common curriculum. One such master, Guillaume Danet writing in 1776 described how after 25 years as “a regular spectator to the assaults of the strongest fencers, albeit French or indeed Foreigner” he had “…always made observations and reflected upon the possibility, or impossibility of a strike (coup) looking for the safest defence, such as to enforce or to destroy it, in order to state the principles with confidence.” After explaining the importance of Arms (that “If there were no weapons, there would be no valour”) and the grand history of the practice of weapons by the ancients of Rome, and Greece; nations that reduced combat to principles, he drops upon a more critical tone, “But to believe that the same Principles have come down to us, would to be deceived…When you want to pay attention to the differences of methods described by the ancient French Masters, whose principles are practiced today, we can rightly doubt that he has yet published to date a single book on the Art of Arms whose rules deserved to be followed.” Such failure to progress, Danet argued, was due to a lack of scientific criticism. As Danet continues, he explains that criticism is indeed the most important part of the process of learning and building institutions because “A judicious criticism is the torch of the Sciences & Arts: such criticism contributes to their students’ and their own perfection, which ultimately perfects the nation.” Danet demanded reform, but such reform almost never occurred because his empassioned criticisms effectively insulted his peers. They were too proud of the noble French School to be capable of considering reform. If they reformed, they would effectively be admitting that it needed to be reformed i.e. that it was false or incorrect.

This having been said, Danet’s attempt at reform was merely in its terminology; he wished to tidy up the extant logic of the naming conventions, replace the names with more modern versions and to unite similar techniques under similar terms. Yet the French School as it is practiced today encorporates much of what preceded it in terms of parries, timing and position. The French School defined four trajectories; the high-inside (dessus-dedans), high-outside (dessus-dehors), low-inside (dessous-dedans), low-outside (dessous-dehors) – similar to Liechtenauer’s Blossen. Then there are eight lines of action, four in supination and four in pronation. Because of this there are also eight forms of intersection of those lines in the form of parries, using the same set of terminology devised by Agrippa, albeit in French. Capoferro’s primary method of attack, the botta longa is found in the form of la dévelopment.

Perhaps the most sophisticated element of the French School is the categorization of actions into sets. The first set of techniques is known as Simple Attacks (coups simples), then the more complex forms of attack are termed Compound Attacks (coups compose).

An interesting compilation of the best and most logical elements of the preceding fencing Combat Systems was attempted by de Brea (1805) stating the underlying importance of combat logic in his introduction, “the true skill [Verdadera Destreza] is a science that consists of core universal principles, and that has no country, nor is it limited to this or any other country”. This logic was similarly followed later by other scholars who attempted (to an extent) to unite the three schools under modern scientific principles, such as Marchionni (1847), Enrichetti (1871), Radaelli (1876), Parise (1884) and Masiello (1887; 1903).

The kind of fencing which Egerton Castle inherited (of the French School), was very much removed from its earliest military origins. “Under the reign of scientific police…” Castle tells us, “…arms are no longer a necessary part of a gentleman’s dress, the absurd habit of duelling has happily disappeared, whilst at war, unless it be against savages, more reliance is placed upon powder than ‘Cold Steel’”(1885). The progression of fencing alongside sociological pressures meant that it had “reached all but absolute perfection in our days, when the art has become practically useless”. This is indeed an odd comment to make; the paradoxical concept that the art (dependant upon the use of a tool created for fighting) should be perfect, yet completely impractical for use in a fight. It demonstrates, more than anything else, that the art had become more important than the fight it is used for. The optimisation of the art of puncturing with a sword depended upon a lightweight weapon – amusingly, so light in-fact that being hit with it would cause little actual harm.

Such an artform was the practice of the upper-classes, since only the bourgeoisie could afford to carry a sword, or even had time to practice. Castle disparagingly described the eighteenth century practitioners of fencing in the schools of Paris; “The effeminate ‘petit maitre’ left the academy after fencing a few bouts in his high-heeled shoes and cocked hat without having disturbed his wig or his ruffles much more than if he had paced a minuet” (1885, 158). Much of this kind of contemporary pomp has gladly left the modern fencing school, yet it still retains its position (in England at least) as an upper-class pursuit enjoyed in private schools.

The culmination of techniques into modern fencing and the scientific taxonomy used by all schools of fencing to this day suggests that it is the result of many contributors. Developments and improvements to theory and technique were not only accepted by teachers across Europe, but were integrated uniformly into their Combat Systems. Though we might be content to believe that fencing was entirely new, it was and is merely a partititoned data set of the kind of actions and tactics we discussed earlier with Liechtenauer and Silver. Liechtenauer described a set of actions known as Binden (Binding), Stossen (Stabbing), and Absetzen (parrying) by means of Hengen (angulating). These subsets are present in modern fencing beneath a scientific set of terminology¹³⁴.

Perhaps we might suggest that the scientific work surrounding the efficient means of convergent attack by these Renaissance and Enlightenment scholars is simply the movement towards specialisation; a commodity only possible in an environment which allows the luxury of selection of behaviour. The Combat System of Liechtenauer was designed based upon the Battlefield Paradigm; it must be quick and efficient, but also take into account the great range of behaviours possible in Combat. It must, by its intended application, encompass all the potential ranges of behaviour. It has solutions for simultaneous attack and defence, a requirement to cope with both cutting and stabbing actions common in reality from untrained assailants. The kind of shift made toward thrusting-only weapons and Combat Systems meant that cutting was eliminated out of choice, and reinforced due to repeated developments in this particular field of combat.

We can already see that, during the process of specializing in thrusting actions, the Combat Systems of Europe partitioned their approach and selected only those skillsets favoured by a light thrusting weapon. Modern fencing is therefore simply an example of a partitioned set of Liechtenauer’s original behaviours, identified and codified by means of scientific corroboration and social consensus.

Although Boxing was referred to as the “noble science”, there was little scientific investigation into the skillsets, behaviours or indeed the Combat System used. The major developments in the history of boxing were the introduction of regulation and forms of attenuation rather than development of sophisticated techniques. We might note that the skillsets involved in Boxing are simple and refined, yet the taxonomy involved does not pertain to the kind of sophistication witnessed in the schools of fencing. Broughton, affected by the numbers of deaths occurring during prizefighting, invented forms of attenuation to make his pugilism safer. He introduced “mufflers” to account for the “utmost tenderness and regard to the delicacy of the frame” of an upperclass bourgouise gentleman, akin to Castle’s “petit maitre”. Such introductions were in the spirit of an age of liberalism & enlightenment and were designed to “effectually secure them from the inconveniency of black eyes, broken jaws, and broken noses” (Sawyer 1989, 21) These innovations were designed to be “relatively humane” (ibid, 23) in comparison to rigourous and demanding bare-knuckle combats which were commonly “slated to a finish” (Dempsey).

And so it is that according to the ancient Latin proverb, “Opposites placed beside one another make contrast more apparent”¹³⁵ we can see that the original Eskirmological Combat Systems described in this chapter are entirely different from those which we can observe in our own period.

On the commoditisation of eskirmology in Eastern Society

The history of the Eastern sphere of Combat Logic barely needs discussing, since most Martial Artists are well versed in the respective histories of those “Martial Arts” countries. However, we need to establish that there were significant departures made during the twentieth century which demonstrate many occasions the Eastern nations actively sought progression and change based upon the Western model. This means that we do not need to prove that the societies prior to this time were more militant by assessing the entirety of their history up to the twentieth century. All we need to show is evidence of progression and departure during the modernisation of those nations.

A common misunderstanding about Asian Combat Systems is that a process of quality control was at work in their development during the Tokugawa period. Some modern Martial Artists quote that they want to learn “battle-field proven” Combat Systems, yet historical sources disprove the credibility of this assumed fact. Peacetime has a positive effect on society, but a rather negative effect on the development of Combat Systems. Dore (1965, 151) explained that due to the widespread peace experienced during the Tokugawa or Edo period (1600 – 1867) the Combat Systems underwent a process of fermentation, meaning that the Systems became “less and less practical…” making them “…increasingly a matter of formal gymnastics and disciplined choreography – nothing more than a game for children…” with the result that it became “…quite plainly dull and in addition quite meaningless”. Alanson Lombard (1868, 190) offered a damning critique of this state of affairs, judging that the bushi’s “athletic sports and military exercises were all prefaced and concluded by ceremonial conduct, almost ritualistic in character, while his accomplishments often appeared little more than forms which in themselves, apart from the poise and control through them attained, were vain and foolish.”

Fumiaki (2008, 197; as well as Suzuki) explains the justifications for continuing the practice of Combat Systems in an age of peace due to the concept of Katsu-nin-ken or “The life-given sword” (as opposed to satsujin-no-ken “Killing Sword”, Draeger, 1973, 40). Finn also mentions that one of the first schools to make this change was the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, a change incited by the Architect’s encounters with a Buddhist monk (1988, 32). Friday (in Green, 2001, 139) outlines several changes which the martial arts underwent under the Tokugawa:

“First, the era of warring domains came to an end, and Japan settled into a 250-year Pax Tokugawa. Second, the new Tokugawa shogunate placed severe restrictions on the freedom of samurai to travel outside their own domains. Third, the teaching of martial art began to emerge as a profession. And fourth, contests between practitioners from different schools came to be frowned upon by both the government and many of the schools themselves.”

It was for these reasons that ultimately the Tokugawa was a period of transcendentalism, but also one which Ratti & Westbrook (1973, 168) describe as the end of the “qualitative phase” of development. This logic is obvious, and was mentioned by Salam in his Physical Education in India wherein he succinctly describes;

“With the progress of civilization, with the march of refinement, with the pursuit of arts of peace, there would probably be a corresponding abandonment of martial habits and manly exercises, and a consequent deterioration in the physical vigour and vitality of a race” (Salam, 1895, 20)

In comparison with the inquiry and scientific perspective on combat made in the West, in the East it remained in a pre-scientific state. Dore (1965, 173) explained that provincial governors, in response to the perceived devolution in Combat Skills, began to reform the institutions. They recognised that the closed nature of the institutions hampered progress, explicitly stating that the “secretive exclusiveness of the various ryu…” was an obstruction, “an abuse and a hindrance to the development of useful skills.”¹³⁶ In comparing the Western scientific approach with that of the Japanese, Brinkley (Vol.2, 136) once observed:

“When in the West fencing is spoken of, men understand that they are referring to an art the principles of which have been reduced almost to an exact science. It has been proved possible to compile written accounts containing not only an intelligible but also an exhaustive account of all the methods and positions recognised by European masters of the rapier, the attack, the parade, the opposition, the tierce, the prime, the quarte, and so on. But it was never admitted in Japan that the possibilities of katana fencing had been exhausted…”

Brinkley continues to explain that such an observation demonstrates “…how greatly the methods of swordmanship in Japan differed from those in Europe.” Yet we might suggest that it does not demonstrate any difference in method, merely in approach. The Samurai koryu bujutsu was practiced amongst closed sub-cultures. Often one clan maintained its own particular Combat System, designed as “in-house” solutions to the problems of duelling and fighting. Such Combat Systems practiced the same techniques as can be described in Fencing as Prime, Quarte, Tierce et al. Many of the schools might duplicate skills, and because of their closed sub-culture might actually maintain a system fairly similar to other schools, albeit representing it’s techniques with its own naming conventions. Perhaps 80% of the behaviours of school X may well be duplicated or may be objectively recognised as the same as those found in school Y; only the members of X will use his own terminology to describe those movements of school X and vice versa.

Despite attempts at recreating the environment to culture practical Combat Systems, the effort was inevitably unsuccessful. Tokugawa Combat Systems reflected a peaceful society, and as such, the practitioners of Combat Systems during the period were aiming toward a different purpose than those of their feudal ancestors. Kenji Tomiki, Architect of Tomiki Ryu Aikido mentions in On Jujutsu and its Modernization¹³⁷:

“In 1868 Imperial rule was restored (Meiji Restoration) and the decline of the Samurai class started along with a rapid decline in all Combat Systems. Although the government did not officially ban the Combat Systems, people were not encouraged to learn or practice them since the state was considered more important than the individual. Jujitsu literally fell into disuse. What was once the glory of the samurai was now looked down on and many well established jujitsu schools began to disappear.

If the budo concept was to survive the Meiji Restoration, it had to change and become a tool to cultivate an individual and make him a better person for the good of all. As a result budo found a home in physical education and sport.

Sport provided teamwork which was good for all and also developed the individual. It was a complete physical education; not just a game.”

However, even by the mid-twentieth century, the commoditisation of eskirmologics in Human society was well under way. It is fair to say that the feudal Combat Systems of this period were becoming sanitised. These Combat Systems, which were cultured in a Combat Systems sub-culture, retained much of the ancient militaristic and clannish mentality. Ratti & Westbrook observe a general trend in the evolutionary pattern of bujutsu that there were two phases of development. The first was what they described as “positive and real” in accordance with our Battlefield Paradigm, wherein these Eskirmological Combat Systems were “a vital necessity to men who were forced to cope with the dramatic reality of their existence through constant and extensive application of its specializations”. In contrast to this, we can see the kind of devolution seen during the Edo period, a period that was “negative and formalistic” when the necessity receded and caused the systems to become recreational, until they finally became “a romantic tradition, expressed in ritualistic displays.” The Combat Systems of war, cultured through necessity are the true methods of fighting based upon Combat Logic. Their function meant that they had to be inherently practical. However, in times of peace, there forms a kind of reverence of the arts, to the point where this function is distorted. “Ritualistic displays” and “romantic tradition” perfectly describe our view of the Combat Systems as they have come down to us today. Their development in the past few centuries have directly contributed to their ritualisation. The force of the law of institutionalisation, coupled with the propagandist machine of the Martial Arts Organism served to create the ritualised systems of fighting which we have inherited. Knowledge about fighting is, as we began this book, sporadic and spread amongst systems of fighting separated by the clannish sub-culture in which they developed.

With the industrialisation of Japan and China as well as Korea, the countries have been brought forward into the modern age, having gone through technological and social changes which took Europe centuries to reach. Most countries in the Far East are now “modernised”, and Japan, Korea and China are among the top countries in the world and at the forefront of technology and industrialisation. The Combat Systems on the other hand, are still in a state similar to that which existed in those countries of pre-modernisation. This fact has been long recognized by Martial Artists, but many have not considered the connotations of such. To return again to Ratti & Westbrook in Secrets of the Samurai, again [ ] are mine:

“…in Europe, this…declined at the end of the feudal era (sixteenth & seventeenth centuries) with the democratization of war…and later in the proletarian revolutions of the industrial age. In Japan, [and elsewhere in the Eastern sphere] such social upheavals did not take place until the nineteenth century; even then, when certain modifications of social standards were achieved with the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution (1888) and later under the statutes of the constitution adopted after World War II (1946), were actually modifications imposed upon the Japanese people very late in their history…The nation itself had not evolved spontaneously from a feudal society to an industrial society…”

Theirs was an artform, designed to overcome the self, in accordance with the “Life-given sword” concept (Suzuki, Fumiaki, Draeger) promote transcendentalism, and avoid civil unrest. As such, the Combat Systems which have been inherited today are much less “battlefield-proven” as many moderns care to believe, and as such they are (as Ratti & Westbrook confirm, 169; and supported by Friday & Seki, 1997, 117-119) an already heavily diluted martial tradition. Draeger concurs stating that “swordsmanship fell into sharp decline, being looked upon as anachronistic technology.” (1982, 90)

And the effect was also at work in the shifting sociological landscape in China. As Mangan & Fan Hong (2003, 202) mention, although a general reformation of Martial Arts practices did occur, it only happened amongst a fairly marginalised group around the 1920’s. Notable scholars and reformists of this period, influenced by the practices and philosophies of modern sports included Zhang Zijiang (1882-1969), Wang Ziping (1887-1937) and Tang Hao (1897-1959) who placed the foundations to the JingWu Tiyuhui (Chinese Martial Sports Society) in 1910. By 1929 it had 57 branches and 400,000 members, each declaring the highly reformist slogan; “Reform traditional martial arts with modern sciences and use them to build strong bodies for China”. The influence of the slogan was far reaching, prompting “Father of the Republic” Sun Yat-Sen (1866-1925) to comment that he hoped the “spirit of JingWu” would spread across China (Li & Du, 1998, 9). In a foreword to the JingWu Benji, Dr. Sun remarked:

“Since firearms were introduced into China, training in pugilistic skill has gradually ceased to be a pursuit of most of the Chinese people. This has resulted in a progressive physical enfeeblement of our national community in general and individual asthenia in particular. And this stems from their complete ignorance of the fact that even in the present day warfare what is really decisive is none other than last-minute hand-to-hand combat.” (Liu, 1997, 6)

In 1915, the Beijing Sports Society petitioned the Education Ministry to add Combat Systems to every primary and middle school curricula, stating that it should be granted equal status with gymnastics and other sports. Other campaigners declared that Chinese Physical Education was in fact Chinese Martial Arts. Yet by 1932, the only Combat System practiced widely in these schools was Taijichao, a slow-movement gymnastics version of Taijiquan.

Xie Shiyan who had been educated in Japan, and was professor at Beijing Normal University, writing on 17^th August 1939 published an article in Tiyu Zhoubao (Sports Weekly) prompting the importance of reform:

There are no national boundaries in culture, let alone in physical education. If the ideas and practices of physical education are good for people, we should adopt them no matter if they are foreign or native … With regard to martial arts we have to exam them with scientific eyes. They contain feudal elements and should be reformed according to modern physiology, psychology, education and sports scientific methods.

Such an assertion prompted the tradition vs. modernity debate (Tu yang zhi zheng) common amongst physical education experts at the time. As Zhang Zhijiang suggested, the very symbol of traditional Chinese sport was Chinese martial arts (ibid, 204). This meant that a martial arts program for Chinese schools was an essential device to “train both strong bodies and spirit to build our national identity”.

Ma, Mingda (2009, 25) suggests that Zhang’s guoshu system was the most successful. It was fundamentally based upon the precept that “practice and agonistic competitions should exist side by side, and technical knowledge should be acquired at the same time as rational understanding”. Notably, Zhang installed a guoshu examination (guoshu kaoshi) in Nanjing, October 1928, as well as drawing ideas from Western sports.

Sociologists have shown a significant interest in the dynamics of the institution of combat (the actual school - Dojo, Dojang, Kwoon - and the group - Men, Pai, Ryu). Society in the Far East was informed and influenced by the greatest philosophic and logic schools. Confucianism, Daoism and Buddhism influenced all parts of society, and as such Confucianism was austere and strict emphasising the importance of unity of society, so much so that individual interests must always be subordinate to the interests of the group (Baokun, 2009). Daoism, on the other hand (and to an extent Buddhism) supported the importance of the individual and his self-determination. This concept - that the individual exists to realise his own natural capacities - has been argued as the foundation to modern Democracy in China (Pan Hungchao, 2009).

Given the massive impact that Confucianism had on China for the 2,000 years prior to the Revolution, it is no surprise that it permeates Chinese cultural values. Since Chinese values are based upon Confucianism, therefore the Combat Systems have also been affected.

The sanctification of Eskirmological Combat Systems in the Far East – directed towards sanctifying the existing teachings instead of investigation is perhaps due to these Confucian values. For example, in his Analects, Confucius stated that;

“I am a transmitter and not a creator. I believe in and have a passion for the ancients”¹³⁸

In which case, Chinese culture itself represented the vital vehicle through which the Combat Systems became sanctified and fossilised. Vernoff & Seybolt (2007, 27) describe how for thousands of years, the family was the basic family unit in China. Since the government made no provisions for health insurance or pensions, it was left to the family itself to ensure the health and support of its members. For this reason, the family unit was fortified by means of extending the male lines of the family to include all generations and relatives. Entire villages could be composed of related groups, and it was common for these “clans” to mass in populations of triple figures. To conduct oneself without due respect to the ancestors and family was to risk potentially becoming ostracised. This pressure to conform and Conservativism can be traced to the heart of the Asian Institutions of Combat Science.

In comparison with the West, who had gone through a “rebirth” in culture during the Renaissance, the majority of Countries in the East maintained Feudal systems of the sort used in Europe during the Middle-Ages. In effect, when the Samurai classes declined during the late 19^th century, it was because Japan had been confronted by Industrialisation, suggesting in comparison that its society was technologically behind. Because of this, the Japanese very quickly began to modernise, to the detriment of feudalism, represented by the hereditary bourgeoisie Samurai class.

As far as East and West are concerned, we have been forced to consider Combat Systems of the East and West in separate spheres until both converged in the late 19^th century. Western social and political pressures, spurred on by the competitive Imperialism of European nations, forced Europe to expand its “empires” and to begin to look outside their own Realms for riches and fortune. It is due to this that the sphere of western and eastern Combat Systems met for the first time. The first observations by Westerners of Eastern Combat Systems must have been interesting¹³⁹. By this time, as we have seen, Western Combat Systems were very much in a state of decline and their practice had been relegated to sport or scholastic practice due to the introduction of the gun. For the European travelling to Japan or China, it must have been like stepping back in time. The carrying of arms on a gentleman’s person had long died out in the West.

The majority of Eastern nations resorted to some kind of Westernisation, albeit into Capitalism (by those countries who had been occupied by Western countries) or by Communism by means of social revolution. In the East, personal training in Combat Systems was still very much the norm. It is important to view the Combat Systems as they changed in the early 20^th century, since everything that is studied today is the effect of these causal changes. It was these key changes which have created the martial arts and our opinion of them today. By looking at the martial arts and how they changed in the early 20^th century, we can see how they have become products of the period in which they changed and now remain crystallised and ritualised yet again.

At the dawn of the early 20^th century, the East was undergoing massive social and industrial changes. After many years of pressure from western imperialism, the eastern countries were beginning to be heavily affected. The effect of such a colonially-incited upheaval on the countries of the east served to hyperbole the drastic contrast between the two previously isolated spheres. Moreover, so too were the Combat Systems of each sphere magnified in their differences.

To the Eastern nations, emerging forcibly from a Feudal society, warfare in the early 20^th century was no longer the way it had always been. There was no doubt that Combat Systems of using the hands and feet were of no use to the modern warfare which had been introduced to the East in the years preceding the 20^th century. The replacement of firearms to hand-to-hand combat skills exacerbated the political problems already existent within China. Manchurian rule, the launching of war by the Japanese on China in 1894, coupled with increased presence of Western powers served to lay the foundation for a Boxer Rebellion (Finn, 1988, 42-47; Draeger & Smith, 1969, 18-20). The use of field weaponry and guns to a greater extent by the Western colonisers allowed the native warriors to realise the limitations of their training. No longer was a lifetimes’ training in the arts of war of any use to the contemporary generations growing up in an industrializing society. With the traditions of other feudal past-times fading into history, the Combat Systems were set for an inevitable change, or become part of the history books. This was the prospect facing the generation of Martial Artists living in this social milieu.

This change was both spiritual and secular and very much due to Industrialisation. The revered Architects of our Combat Systems were at that time; Morihei Ueshiba (1883-1969), Gichin Funakoshi (1868-1957) and Jiguro Kano (1860-1938) – their teachings and changes to their Combat Systems were merely responses to external social pressures. The result of Funakoshi’s bid to preserve the Combat Systems of Okinawa was to develop them as systems of physical training as well as practical study in self-defence to the schools of Japan. This was the same idea professed earlier by Kano with Jujutsu. The preservation and consequent future of feudal battlefield Combat Systems was secured by changing their focus more upon the spiritual aspects of fighting rather than the fighting itself. Anko Itosu petitioned the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of War in 1908 with his Tode Jukun “Ten precepts of Tode [Karate]”, keen to assert the value of Karate to a society attempting to industrialise and install its modern legislature and education system¹⁴⁰. A similar situation occurred amongst the systems of mainland Japan, wherein they similarly petitioned to be included within the sanctioned education system. Kano and Ueshiba, and later Funakoshi adapted Combat Systems to match industrialised world-views.

The great leap forward, significantly in effect in the East at the time, was cultural – and it is inevitable that this would have repercussions within the field of the Combat Systems. Using the term "Do" as a departure from "Jutsu" seemed to be common at the time for a nation keen to play up its spiritual instead of feudal history in the face of modern industrialisation. It should be borne in mind that Japan at that time was changing drastically (one of the first nations to modernise) and the changes from KenJUTSU to KenDO, AikiJUTSU to AikiDO, Jujutsu to JuDO, and Karate-jutsu to Karate DO demonstrate this perfectly¹⁴¹. This wide use of the suffix –Do is a twentieth century phenomenon arguably attributable to the cultural changes taking place in wider society.

Whilst Combat Systems were being used for sport in the West, in the East, contemporaries Ueshiba, Funakoshi and Kano were all modifying ancient Combat Systems for use in teaching in general education. Ueshiba modified the techniques of various jujutsu schools, most notably the Daito-ryu Aikijutsu school and combined them with the philosophy of the Omoto-kyo sect. Combat Systems such as these are known to the Japanese as Gendai Budo, or Modern Martial ways, and are juxtaposed with the Combat Systems originating from the time of the Samurai (Combat Systems known as the Koryu Bujutsu - Traditional Combat Systems).

Gichin Funakoshi took the Okinawa-te fighting method from the Ryukyu archipelago to mainland Japan. He also modified its methods in order to teach the style to school children and military men in Japan. Funakoshi (considered the father of modern Karate) incorporated both Northern and Southern Chinese teachings in his style “Shotokan” (or Waving Pines House). Funakoshi introduced Karate to Japan under the name of Karate-jutsu (Empty hand skills) which he planned to establish as a training course for the Japanese education system.

Furthermore, Jiguro Kano changed ancient styles of Jujutsu and Kumiuchi in order for them to be more accessible to the mainstream [Westernised] education system. In this vein, he was also the man who introduced the coloured belt system into the martial arts as a means of inspiring young students in their studies. Old ways were abandoned, Combat Systems became either folk games, or part of sport. Others formed part of an intelligent and scientifically verifiable self-defence system.

The Spheres of the East and West are like tectonic plates; the west had shifted 300 years ago into industrialization, and the East has shifted only relatively recently. We are placed now with the Asian Combat Systems in a position similar to that of the early renaissance in Europe. Having the benefit of history, we know that loss of a martial tradition leads to remote weaponry. However, the risk with the Asian Combat Systems is the fact that the tradition is held simply for the fact that it is a tradition, and a risk exists in the reluctance to progress to something which can work universally.

When General Choi Hong-Hi created a Combat Systems system for his Korean 26^th Foot Division, his development of Tae Kwon-Do as an empty-handed art was in stark contrast to the Generals of Korean history who had placed “Kwon Bop” and “Soo bak” secondary to the importance of primary weaponry such as the Jang Gum Sul (Straight Sword skills) and Chong Sul (Spear skills). Of course, as Castle mentioned, it was absurd that swords should be carried by every-day people, and as such the use of tools created for the purpose of killing one-on-one were more or less rendered obsolete by the introduction of gun powder to warfare. What we can see with the emphasis placed upon the empty hand is the ultimate example of sociological causes creating effects on and in the martial arts. Nowadays one would be arrested for carrying weapons on the person. If it is carried, it is much less for fashion, but rather for defence (yet it is indeed an arrestible offence).

It is now for the discerning individual to become involved in the Combat Systems for reasons other than self-defence. With so many values and benefits from the practice of Combat Systems, it is difficult for modern Martial Artists to consider that the original purpose of the Combat Systems was as a solution to fighting. In times past, the practice of Combat Systems was necessary for the preservation of one’s life. We have seen that, as a professional warrior, martial training was required since there was so much at risk in not training in it. In contrast, this is the fundamental difference between modern Martial Artists and Martial Artists who practiced in periods prior to the “modern age of the Martial Arts”.

Anachronism is a phenomenon which no Samurai would ever have taken part in. No such Samurai, or Knight, or even modern commando has ever taken part in Anachronism. It is a strictly modern phenomenon originating foremost in the fact that modern people no longer rely upon such skills. The warriors mentioned did not have time for fanciful and impractical methods of defence, spending years perfecting non-Combat Logical methods. If they had, history would be strewn with evidence of those who had and had died because of it. In fact it is, and the Combat Systems themselves are the result of the creation and preservation of eskirmological Combat Systems. The evolutionary function of realistic Combat Systems is therefore similar to our earlier discussion upon unstable evolutionary strategies. To use the words of Dawkins; if the function of the Combat System “wasn’t positively useful for survival…[functional] selection would have favoured individuals who refrained from it.” In otherwords, Combat Logic would favour those who comply with its logic rather than contend against or ignore it.

Decline in relevance to serious combat

Using the discussion we had made about the western Combat Systems moving out of a feudal period, and moving more towards sport & regulation in their martial practices; we may discuss the reasoning for specialisation in combative arts with much more certainty. Combat Systems which are highly specialised; the arts of percussion, such as Boxing (Western) or Muay Thai (Eastern); of non-percussion such as Wrestling (Western) or Judo (Eastern); of swordfighting such as; Fencing (Western) or Kendo (Eastern); of stickfighting; La Canne, La Grand Baton or Jogo do pau (Western) or Eskrima (Eastern); are in fact all sports, and all modern systems of fighting created in a post-feudal society. The western arts of this kind evolved alongside an industrial society which created legislation to ensure that civilian combats were regulated. By the 18^th century and the introduction of the Broughton’s Regulations, Boxing emerged as a martial sport, with all its dangerous techniques of its feudal past omitted¹⁴². Throwing, gouging, kicking etc, were all seceded in the process of legislative compliance. This fact can be seen in Eastern Combat Systems whereby, as is reported by Ratti & Westbrook when they make note that “Gradually, legislation was enacted in an effort to curb the shedding of blood in contests of fencing skill.” Draeger (1982, 69) agrees, citing the legislation of Edo (1665) which stated that parties found brawling or quarelling will be punishable by death. Legislation was used by society to contain militancy and control fighting amongst civilians – as can be seen in any post-Militant (Industrialised) society¹⁴³.

The linking of these significant facts demonstrates the reason for the West’s martial sports rather than Combat Systems, and the East’s Combat Systems steadily heading towards the same destination. We are now able to apply the Typology of Combat Systems to this context and recognise that the Combat Systems of militant times were Eskirmological Combat Systems (ECS), yet their devolution see them becoming Recreational Combat Systems (RCS). We may also see a correlation between the level of specialisation and devolution from Combat Systems practiced for battlefield necessity. The higher the specialisation of the method, the less eskirmologics are retained in the system. We may see evidence of this fact in modern day military systems which must Combat Logically be versatile and be applicable to any occurance.

The Combat Systems of low specialisation are powerful feudal Martial Arts which retain their traditions based upon their internal power of indoctrination. However, this power is bound to devolve just as the feudal arts of Europe gradually succoumbed to the power of social legislation. To continue their existence, Eastern Combat Systems must be adopted into self-defence systems and thereby abandon their feudal weaponry, or modify this weaponry into a sporting environment in order to adapt to modern society. It took hundreds of years for the feudal arts of Europe to become legitimate sports, after a slow decline which required the gradual and simultaneous incline of a legal system to take the place of the need for violence. This period of transition was slow. In comparison, the Eastern Combat Systems from the feudal period were abruptly confronted by a modern judicial system adopted by the governments of the Far East. This period of transition is the one which we find ourselves part of now.

As we have realised, this transition process is already underway, since Combat Systems such as Kendo, and Judo have already modified their ancient practices from the militant arts of Kenjutsu and Jujutsu. However, because we are living in this period of transition, it is very difficult to see what is right before our eyes. We may predict that the Combat Systems once practiced in Feudal times will continue to decrease in combative relevance and begin to be practiced for novelty rather than necessity. It will be interesting therefore to see in 100 years time, whether Combat Systems such as Ninjutsu have complied with this hypothesis as the “palace of tradition” crumbles without the “pillars of necessity” to support it. Perhaps it may begin to develop in the path of sport, or on the other hand become accepted as an official military method in order to retain its tradition. That being said, it is inevitable that the commoditisation of eskimologics should take place in a modern globalised society. After this period of transition has settled down, we might expect the Combat Systems world to return back to the state which was apparent in the West prior to the introduction of Eastern Feudal Combat Systems.

The practice of Eastern Combat Systems from a feudal period to a modern world, in a society whose social consciousness has expanded beyond old feudal clan societies displays an anachronism, albeit one which is transcient. Modern people, part of a modern homogenous globalised society, choose to divide themselves by the context of old feudal divisions. These divisions are sometimes subversive, yet the undercurrent is not subtle enough to go entirely unnoticed. As Bruce Lee noted; “…we now find rigid forms which creates differences among clans. And the world [of Combat Systems] is shattered as a result.” I have added the [ ] marks to imply more concentration to the quote, but perhaps we should read it without my edit, which opens up Lee’s view that perhaps the modern world has been shattered because of the inherited [and somewhat irrelevant] differences among feudal clans.

Sociology has done much to mask the true view of Combat Systems from the world. Progression in technology, science, exploration all serve to demonstrate the differences in modern man from his ancestors. Yet when one considers the factors of fighting outside the temporal position in which we find ourselves, what we are left with is pure Combat Logic.

Take two human beings, in an open space such as a field, and allow them to fight. The components of that fight will be the same if it was set in 2000 BC or 2000 AD. Now let us add some temporal factors; perhaps the human beings have rapiers, in which case the fight will be based upon the incidence of that particular tool’s function. Perhaps the humans have long swords, then the fight will be based upon the functional application of that tool in the combat. Yet the logical factors of combat still remain the same. In other words, the tools used are transient in their appearance and development, yet the fight, and the logic behind that fight remain the same. This transient element of Combat Logic is what blinds mankind to Combat Logic, but it is only a human phenomenon. A fight between two tigers in 2000 BC or 2000 AD would also be the same, yet tigers have little social, fashionable or cultural attachments with which to disguise the Combat Logic. Combat Logic is timeless and exists outside of time and space. Where-ever and when-ever the fight takes place, it will still be based upon the logic of fighting.

The Combat Systems of the Bushi were not anachronistic in 16^th century Japan. When the countries of the East were pulled into Industrialisation in the late 19^th century, the Combat Systems which had been practiced prior to industrialisation instantly became Anachronistic. The Combat Systems practiced and sanctioned by the Bushi were malleable and changed over time to suit changing circumstances. They incorporated new data, attempted to explore methods of combat, and experience situations to “pressure test” their result. They were applied in duels and battles and feedback continually fed into their continual refinement. The systems were developed for that sole function, but as soon as the function was impotent and the necessity of its practice severed, their progressive development stopped abruptly.

This abrupt stop meant that the progressive development of Eskirmological Combat Systems ended, inquiry into Combat Logic ceased and the practice of those systems stagnated. These Combat Systems were subsequently passed on like heirlooms passed on to later generations, with the result that the select choices which define the Combat System as a product no longer apply. A bourgeois armoured and armed class, who developed the System for the rigours of the battlefield (en masse, largely Inter-male competitive combats, sequential and asymmetric in manifestation) were forced to make particular selections for their Combat System. It must have coped with the need for quick and effective killing, of high volume numbers of assailants, with potential for ambush situations, use of technologies and modified movements to account for armourial restrictions. These considerations all contributed to the product of the Bushi’s Combat System.

Whilst this anachronism is evident from our discussion, I often meet Martial Artists who deny the Delusion of Anachronism. They declare that changing Combat Systems to suit the times is inevitable, and the changing of feudal artforms to suit the modern world is just part of a long process. Without realising it, within the same sphere of delusion, they have flown from one delusion and into another; and this leads us comfortably to our next Delusion; that of the fallacy of “style”.

Deracination, Anatopism & the Fallacy of “Style”

The changes of Asian Martial Arts following their introduction to the West should be recognized as the result of Western attitudes to combat and fighting projected onto Asian cultural artforms. It should come as no surprise that recreational full-contact approaches to competition originated in the West, adjusting Asian Combat Systems to suit the Western predeliction for competition, converting them into practices akin to those of modern Boxing.

The Western mind regards fighting as an event in which contending sides compete for success; and their attitude is therefore functionalist. If a Combat System does not secure success, then what is the point of that Combat System? The Eastern mind, in contrast does not see Combat Systems in this manner. Their attitude is holistic to the well-being of the human organism, and therefore functionalism is not their primary goal. Finn concurs,

“In Japan the author has never heard any exponent say ‘I learn martial arts for self-defence’. This is a Western concept. Imagine, for example, that an artist bought a paintbrush, then sat at his canvas, painting day in and day out, perfecting his artistic skills. One day his sink is blocked and he clears it with the end of the brush. It could be said that he bought the brush to clear his sink. It the same with martial arts: although once in a lifetime such skills may be used for defence, it is not their true purpose.” (1988, 197)

Of course, this comparison with the artists brush is limited, since if it were not for the paint, the brush would not be necessary. The invention of the brush was for the function of painting, just as the invention of martial arts was because of fighting. Yet this is not the intention of Finn’s analogy; it is of course the suggestion that such a refined system should not be debased by use in vulgar and brutish applications.

Sherwood & Jun (2007, 148) propose that “The Eastern mind-set tends to be more intuitive, less rational, and non-scientific in its orientation; it values personal connections.” In contrast, the Western mind-set is the logical opposite of these traits. Descartes believed that the thinking organism is real because of his capacity to think it, and so “…the real is the rational – so that the more rational we become, the more in touch with reality we are.” These cultural attitudes are important because it is from one attitude (that of the East) and its installation and adoption in foreign countries (such as the West) that Combat Systems change dramatically. The Martial Arts are therefore part of a cultural trade, since Asian societies adopt Western ideologies (Plamenatz 1992, 83-84)¹⁴⁴, and export their own subcultures to foreign countries.

Mellor (1991, 73-92) believes that the transplantation of Buddhism from the East to the West is not by means of transference, but translation. This process means that the original message must be “interpreted” by a framework of thought inherent in the recipient culture. He mentions that the process of translating Buddhism in England creates “discourses which are Buddhist but….at the same time…[have] many of the features of Protestant Christian discourse”. Such a process, described by Baumann (in Pohl, 1999, 315), leads to “unavoidable ambiguity…because the receiving culture and the incoming religion…relate back to different worlds of understanding”. Baumann continues using terms such as the “host society”, or the society in which the oriental doctrine is received. Once a doctrine has been “hosted” it undergoes a process of translation, reduction, assimilation, absorption leading to eventual acculturisation. We may witness this process in action in the host societies in which oriental martial arts are assimilated.

This phenomenon is essential to understand. Yet before we can turn to face the exportation of a Combat System into a foreign culture ready for translation, we must first consider that there are changes underway within the native culture from which it is exported. One of the fundamental problems facing any modern study of Combat Systems is their relevance to their country of origin, and how that relevance itself is changing. Cynarski (2005, 2006) and Fumiaki (2008) suggest that there is a form of acculturisation involved in the East, wherein through a process of Perestroika (“mass initiative”, or social and personal revolution), ancient Combat Systems, rituals and practices are reassessed within a new scientific context. The result of Perestroika is that all the aforementioned undergo changes, reflected in the changes which we have already described with the four-part process and may be summarized here as;

• Westernisation / Acculturisation

• Sportification

• Commercialisation

We may also include normalization using sports science to an extent, although this may comfortably be part of all the above. In this way, we can argue that it was a result of the Westernisation of Eastern cultures that Combat Sports began to develop in the format which they are recognizable today. The standardisation of teaching curriculi for modern sports of Kendo, Iaido (Draeger, 1982, 79), Tae Kwon Do (Kukkiwon, 2000; Tadeschi, 2003, 32), Wushu’s taolu (Hai Feng Publishing, 1999), Sanshou / Sanda (Liu, 1997, 7), Muay Thai (in the 1950’s. Delp, 2005, 3; 2004, 14; Harris, in Green, 2001, 351) etc. all supply evidence to suggest such an effect. These Combat Systems were devised by collaborating experts who compiled data from various sources in order to standardise techniques with an aim to regulation for sporting purposes. Such a change was an essential and crucial adaptation to modernisation. The abrupt end to the development of Combat Systems took place when they were arguably at a peak, yet their future now depends upon their slow descent down the hill of social compliance. In order for them to continue to exist, they must adapt to the newly commercialised, “westernised” and industrialised society, and in doing so become more recreational, more safe, and less lethal.

In the modern world, the largest receptive group for those Eastern Combat Systems is now the middle classes of the West; unarmed, unarmoured and keen to use the arts in civil self-defence situations (serious predative combats) in accordance with morality-informed legislation which prohibits the use of excessive force. Such commercially-minded recipients are described by Rosenbaum (2004, xi-xii) who elaborates by way of a short story outlining the kind of commercialisation involved in the Eastern Martial Arts. His tone is intentionally critical as he describes a reckless teen, arrogant and immature, he represents the modern practitioner of martial arts – the kind which scholars note participate in martial arts for egotistical reasons. Tradition and modernity are contrasted in Rosenbaum’s narrative device by placing “…his cell phone...” carefully into his bag “…next to his karate gi”. He learned his karate skills from an “‘online’ internet kobudo class” whilst pondering the question as to whether he “…liked the virtual reality approach better than the black belt video course he had taken last year”. Yet if this wasn’t bad enough, his master “o’sensei” is Rosenbaum’s characture of a recognizably common stereotype. The master had studied American and Okinawan Karate, Ninjutsu, Taijiquan and others, and had founded his own system based upon those elemental systems.

The Far Eastern Martial Arts (FEMA) which have been translated in the West, amended for a Western public are highly commercialized, and quite removed from their original native function. It is these elements of Sportification and Commercialisation which inform the general public’s perspective of the “Martial Arts”.

Commoditisation of Far Eastern Martial Arts

The removal of a Combat System from its native cultural environment into an “era of integration and globalisation” (Sikarski 2005), or “global information village” where the “entire earth…” becomes a “unified space of communication, one which brings together all humanity” (Žižek 2009, 50), means that it must focus upon its unique selling propositions. In which case, the fight for survival of eskirmological data becomes much more challenging and much more commercialised. A Martial Art which had hitherto remained stringent to tradition will find itself taking on roles to suit the new environments in which they have been placed. For example, the removal of traditional Karate from Japan and Okinawa to America increased the likelihood of it being translated into a sport to meet the demands and interests of a Western audience. And inevitably without an audience, the Combat System will not survive. It is therefore,

“…perhaps not hard to account for since the blatant commercialization of these arts by magazines and the movie industry has had the effect of a massive advertising campaign. The resulting popular image of the martial arts, besides being ridiculously inaccurate, tends to appeal to people’s violent and egotistical impulses. The martial arts expert is pictured in the mass media as a sort of superman who breaks bones with the greatest of ease and who is continually confronted with situations in which it is (or so the entertainment industry would have us believe) morally right to do so. The martial artist depicted in films, however, belongs to fantasy rather than reality.” (Min, 1979, 101-102)

It is important to stress this interesting topic of Unique Selling Propositions – itself a commercialised term used by marketers keen to assert the dominance of one product over another by the factors and attributes which makes their particular product “different”. The creation and perpetuation of myth and legend surrounding a style; the romanticism which one is lead to believe in the practice of Ninja arts, or Samurai arts becomes a priceless unique selling proposition to the Combat System. The story of the hwarangdo warriors to support Korean Martial Arts, the stories of Samurai for the Japanese Martial Arts, or even the tales surrounding founders themselves (of Jesus’s divine birth, Buddha’s delivery on the back of a white elephant floating on a cloud, Shaolin’s founding by Bodidharma, Lao Tzu’s birth from his mother’s armpit) were all devised to support the unique selling propositions of a particular product.

The motive for this is not entirely altruistic. These people who follow the founder are boosted in their importance by their very association with the founder. In this there is an advantage of association involved. We can reason, that the greater the importance of the original founder, the greater the importance of the people involved by being associated with him. These secondary and tertiary individuals therefore create hierarchy based upon the motive of securing the importance of themselves, installing institutionalisation of that product¹⁴⁵.

Once a Martial Art is exported from its native lands, the exporters package the art in its native cultural significance. Perhaps this is done subtly or perhaps their students ask what the techniques mean in their culture. We could suggest that the first generation of Eastern masters bringing their artforms to the West might not have consciously enshrouded the art with cultural significance, but that this happened out of coincidence. However, when a person enters foreign lands, he is pre-disposed to compound the internal value of his culture. His feeling towards his native lands inevitably grow as he notices the differences between “his” ways and those of his new home.

As a foreigner in a foreign country, he creates a “Little-Japan”, or “Little-China” in the form of the Dojo, the Kwoon etc. This gymnasium thus becomes a bubble in which those who enter are transported to a foreign land. The motifs, the social values, etiquette, costumes, language are all transported to enforce the Cultural significance of the Combat System. The greater the enforcement of these rituals within the training hall, the greater the contrast with the Western world outside the microcosm; and hence a much more immediate effect upon those Westerner’s participating in the ritual. In its native lands, the dojo retained all social dictums prevalent outside the dojo. In fact, there was little difference in the way Martial Artists acted within the dojo as without.

In some cases, the cultural significance of the Combat System becomes its primary selling tool as a Martial Arts Product. Masses of people all around the world are drawn to certain Combat Systems in direct response to their cultural value. Ninjutsu for instance is one of the Martial Arts which draw many practitioners due to its association with the myths and legends surrounding the Ninja assassin clans.

In this though, there are considerable negatives to the Martial Arts Product. The most prevalent is that of Corruption and Bastardisation of its cultural significance by foreign practitioners who do not understand the cultural nuances of the Product. With this reasoning, we are able to realise why there are so many Martial Arts schools which teach “Shaolin Ninja Martial Arts”, or “Samurai Kung fu” etc. This distasteful mixing of cultural significance is a hallmark of the Anatopism I associate with the problems facing the exported Martial Arts Product.

Cynarski, Sieber & Litiniuk (2005) outline examples of this occurance within modern German Systems in a section of their paper entitled “Eclecticism and borrowings, or a new quality?” They describe a system created by the French Master Roland Maroteaux named takeda-ryū maroto-ha which means “Takeda school, Maroteaux style”. As such he has made his own attempt at teaching a Combat System assigned to the Takeda habitus. Such a naming convention was inspired by Hisashi Nakamura’s takeda-ryū nakamura-ha. Further examples were also offered in the form of German Zen-Do-Karate Tai-Te-Tao, Kondratowicz of Poland’s goshin-ryu jūjutsu based on classical Japanese jūjutsu, and Fleck’s Judo-Do. We may also add to this list Chun Kuk Do by Chuck Norris, the Nindokai of Schönberger, the Yawara-jitsu of Pérez Carrillo, the Gracie or Brazilian Jujutsu or Jones and Norton’s Zen Do Kai. Each of these demonstrates a cross-cultural phenomenon.

These Combat Systems using Oriental naming conventions are designed not only to demonstrate a link to the original data source, but might also be designed in this manner for commercial reasons. The majority of the public’s set of data categorized as “martial arts” is defined by the limited, sporadic, inconsistent and inaccurate information offered by the media. Such a “picture” is populated by various images which the general public accept to be representative of the martial arts. We might define these loosely as:

• All Martial Arts are Asian

• Martial Artists wear oriental karate uniforms

• It is impossible to learn fighting from any source other than a martial arts instructor

• The martial art has been battlefield tested.

• The top level ranks of martial arts are represented by the “black belt”

• The “black belt” is a classically trained warrior in ancient traditions capable of feats of strength, endurance and fighting skill.

• The close association of martial arts with Bruce Lee, or Karate Kid and other identifiable representations from general “pop” culture.

We can see therefore that because the general public see oriental martial arts as being effective simply because they have an oriental name, then the prevalence for Western masters to invent Combat Systems with Asian naming conventions increases. An oriental name implies authenticity, and ensures trust in such a system. It is also common for instructors to adopt “traditional” ranking formats such as the kyu-dan system of Gendai-ryu, or the menkyo or iemoto systems of Koryu. A black belt is prevalent as the standard upon which masters are judged despite the belt having very little real meaning apart from as a representation of the money and time the student has undergone in submitting to the rituals of the institutionalized form of Combat Logic.

Yet with the ever growing popularity of Combat Systems, we also see a growing effect of exploitation. Those who are placed outside the scope of the hierarchy created by authentic institution are thus drawn to the knowledge but do not have access to it. In effect, the greater the cultural “hook”, the greater its gravitas for people to gain importance via association with it. The greater the gravitas and mystical “allure” of Ninjutsu, the greater the aggrandizement available from association with such an allure, the more people will claim to be Ninja and therefore we may recognize that the greater the increase in importance from association with the concept, the greater the inclination to exploit the concept.

In which case, a difference must be made clear: in the Martial Art’s native environment, it is simply a Combat System within a cultural millieu. It is a set of teachings derived from experience of fighting, in the manner we have discussed in our section on Subjectivism. The rituals which it uses are those of the exponential and wider society. It is therefore an Anatopistic phenomenon, this “Martial Arts Product” is the formal term which I use to describe Martial Arts taken from their native environment, and transplant the same wider sociological rituals into its pedagogical framework. It ceases to be a Combat System in its entirety and begins to take on additional cultural baggage which allows it to supplant not only combative skills, but also a cultural experience.

It is not a surprise that the Martial Arts are a quanta of culture rather than pure sets of combative techniques. The modern Western consumer of these Martial Arts Products indulges themselves into the world of an exotic culture. In some ways, the cultural experience is one of the most important reasons for practice. Some practitioners practice for the sole purpose of experiencing the role of a Samurai or a Shinobi¹⁴⁶.

The logic behind this phenomenon is obvious. We may suppose that the first generation of Oriental Martial Arts masters leaving their native lands and arriving on Western soil might have had the opportunity to teach the Combat System on its own, yet as an oriental in foreign lands, the inclination to promote his cultural heritage was inevitable. Therefore along with teaching the Combat System, he also set about teaching the customes and etiquette of his country, as well as dressing his occidental students in oriental costume.

This is where the Martial Arts Delusion is rather tragic. It was because of well-meaning practitioners that the arts of the East have become “Martial Arts Products”, yet it is because of the Westerner’s acceptance and perception of cultural rituals (techniques du corps) and their association with genuine combat knowledge, that they are now deluded from witnessing true Combat Logic – as it was taught in the art forms’ native lands. It was not until the Combat System was transplanted to another culture that it became encapsulated within its own cultural bubble; a self-contained anatopistic microcosm.

We might further be able to recognize our concept of “Martial Arts Consumerism” in Cynarski’s concept of the “Martial Arts Tourist” (Cynarski & Sieber 2007). He describes the experience of cultural exchange as a “cultural dialogue”, suggesting that “The tourist aspect of cultural relations between the West and the Far East has here a new dimension, essential especially for sporting culture”. In the exchanges which took place, Cynarski and Sieber noted that such a cultural experience was “enriching” particularly for a Western culture to experience and be receptive to “their Asian masters-teachers”. And the effect is reciprocated by those masters-teachers who, according to Cynarski are similarly enriched by the experience. Whilst highlighting the evidence that “Martial Arts Tourism” is a modern, commercial and sportive phenomenon, Cynarski draws parallels with earlier practices, such as the concept of Musha-shugyo, or the practice of erranting in Chivalry and amongst the Wuxia. Such a practice was carried out for transcendental purposes, that through trials and challenges one’s spirit would be tested. It was for inner, or introverted metamorphoses, that via such challenges one’s spirit would be tested and improved as a result. The common proverb (cited in Swetnam, 1617) was “gold is put into the fire to be purified”. As such, drawing conclusions that Martial Arts Tourism is synonymous or a modern counterpart to musha-shugyo or erranting is perhaps a little dismissive of the significance of those practices. Indeed, Martial Arts Tourism is for the most part carried out to experience another culture, but not generally for the purpose of “self-perfection”.

The translation of Asian Combat Systems into Western attitudes to combat, sport and exercise, and the effect it has on the Combat Systems themselves may be witnessed by the kinds of approaches which have developed as a direct result. Returning to Bolleli’s Typology, which we reduced to Protection, Transcendentalism, Recreation, Anachronism, Enculturation, we can see that - as a result of receptiveness towards FEMA - we can observe that modern Industrial society has effectively developed its own sects. These sects have developed quite naturally, and as a product of differing interests and approaches to Combat Systems. We have previously intentionally attempted to stress the fact that a Combat System is a set of data outside the “emphasis” on particular skills. The only “emphasis” a Combat System has is identified by the number of particular skills in the entire skillset. The more of those particular skills, the more we might say it “emphasises” it. However, the emphasis which Bolleli has in mind is the kind that practitioners place upon that system. The aims, motivations and approach to practicing that system may be defined by being one or more of the above types. As a result, the sporadic practitioners around the world who practice the martial arts for various reasons may be categorised as being “realists”, “health and fitness practitioners”, “sports athletes”, or “traditionalists”.

“Realists” are often interested in the function of fighting, the attempt to experience combat in its most raw and primal forms, as well as improve tactical skills in response to aggressive stimuli. Blauer’s SPEAR (Spontaneous Protection Enabling Accelerated Response) system is perhaps the most famous of these realistic approaches. Behind the marketing rhetoric (such as “genetically inspired and intuitively engineered”) is a natural and realistic, and indeed eskirmological, Combat System.

Between 1986 and 1987 Blauer developed what he called the “sucker-punch drill”. He explained:

“I wore only a mouth guard for protection, and my training partner wore 16-ounce gloves. I was not allowed to strike; I could only evade and avoid. The drill always started with dialog at close quarters, and I had to maintain that close proximity while trying to verbally defuse it.” (March 2000, Young & Blauer interview Black Belt Magazine)

Such was exactly the kind of conversation-range combat which has been described by Thompson (1998) and observed by Archer and Dyck in our first section. Such a drill gave birth to a Combat System based upon natural flinching and instinctive protection reflexes. As Blauer recalled “The flinch is the foundation and spark of the SPEAR”. In compliance with our concept of the Battlefield Paradigm, and the fact that the number of attackers multiply the threat, Blauer considers the modern equivalent; the ambush. In comparison with sparring in the martial arts, wherein you are taught to move backward in a one-on-one play combat (our Agonistic model), Blauer makes it clear that this kind of response is ineffective because in such a model “You’re actually moving into the trajectory of the attack because the attacker is always a step ahead of you in an ambush-type assault. The real fight is when you’re ambushed, not when you’re the sniper.” This problem, of coping with multiple assailants “is not…”, as Blauer confirms “…addressed by most systems” (April 2000, Black Belt Magazine interview).

As a result, Blauer considers the kinds of responses which the human does by reflex. He defines them as;

1. hesitation or freezing reflex

2. turning the head away and using the arms for control

3. shielding reaction, or using the limbs to protect vitals.

Such an approach utilizes the observational studies made by psychologists and ethologist who we met in the first section of the book, with what Laur called the Somatic Reflex Potentiation (SRP). As a name it is used as a label to identify behaviour, but as the theoretical basis for technique, it becomes a powerful data set which has the potential to make a very real difference between survival and serious injury or death.

A similar approach is made by Thompson, Abernethy and Hoplologists such as Armstrong. Some “realists” blur the line between “traditionalist” and “realist” perspectives, attempting to augment traditional practice and training with the benefit of modern science. In modern Asian martial arts schools in the West, a vast majority are showing signs of removing anachronistic aspects from their Combat Systems. Some karate exponents have attempted to remove the anachronistic and anatopistic elements, omitting the etiquette, the traditional weaponry, and even in some cases, excluded the use of the Japanese language in practice. Such a practice of stripping a Combat System back to the data relating purely to fighting allows it to take a step towards potentially being recognised as an Anthropic Combat System.

However, with the purification of the Combat System by removing all which made it culturally definable as “Karate”, we might be left with a troubling question: How are we now able to define what we practice as “Karate”? Like anachronism, it means something which does not belong; but in this case it refers to geography rather than chronology.

On the development of the “Sports athlete” movement in the West, we may witness the adoption of Asian Combat Systems and the changes to allow them to be practiced in modern sporting environments, and compliant to modern rulesets. Sport Kickboxing developed in North America, and Full-contact competition was also a response of Western society to receiving Eastern Combat Systems. Their question was functionalist: what use is a Combat System if not for combat? And therefore American martial artists attempted to modify oriental Combat Systems for use in the realms of competitive sport. Cave (2001, 8) describes how the original full-contact Karate competitions were developed by Joe Lewis and Mike Anderson in prototype bouts held at Long Beach California in 1970. This ability to test techniques in a competitive and combative environment was pragmatic, and in the application of “traditional” Karate techniques, these early competitors considered those techniques to have been ineffective (ibid, 11). Delp & Albers (2006, 17) also support this view, but suggest that such a change was due to criticism of competitions requiring pulling of punches. The result was that they turned to Boxing conditioning and training.

The sport was codified by the Professional Karate Association (PKA) in 1974. Such a codification created attenuation scales of contact; the semi-, light-, and full-contact approaches, as well as defining the kind of personal protective equipment required (such as head guard, gloves, foot protection, shin guards, mouth guards and groin protector) (ibid, 18). They also installed weight divisions to ensure the relative safety and fairness between competitors.

Despite the introduction of FEMA to the West and their perceived problems in translation, there is a growing “counter-culturalism” in the West known as Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA)¹⁴⁷. Arguably, the perception of cultural anachronisms from the Far East only served to heighten interest in some Westerner’s own “martial heritage” and in Europe’s native Combat Systems. They are up against a public perception which we outlined earlier and so they often feel the need to justify their approach in response to such a perspective.

Unfortunately, those who most often embark on such a topic are unaware of the inevitable changes undergone (and undergoing) in the course of modern adaptations of FEMA. In which case, whilst modern scholars attempt to “re-create” those historical Combat Systems, yet from my observations it seems they are unable to perceive that what they will create will become an art similar to Kendo rather than Kenjutsu. Moreover, they must also contend with a general public who are largely familiar with FEMA but not HEMA. The result is that scholars must prove that such Combat Systems existed, as well as justify how such skills may be learned from a book.

Scholars such as Clements (1997) have been quite vocal in their call for “martial intent” despite the rise of modern “tournaments” which make use of a “safe” environment for learning arts of killing. The contradiction should be clear. Authors also similarly cite the self-defence applications and efficiency of such artforms despite being tied to outdated weapons. The prediction for the future of such a study is that they choose to cater for, and specialize in, Protection (by abandoning the weapons, but retaining the scientific database on fighting), Tradition (by dressing in period costume and maintain a “true” historical character) or Sport (by inventing rule-sets which can allow for structured competition). We can see evidence of some of these approaches developing, and we can predict that they will only become more polarized as the field grows.

Many scholars in the field specialize in a particular area such as Tobler (2001, 2005), Lindholm (2006) and Forgeng (2006) who are expert in the German manuscripts; Charron (2002), Windsor (2004), Porzio (2003), Lovett, Lancaster et al, Price (2003) are expert in the Italian manuscripts; Brown (2006), Wagner (2003), Hand (2005) and Heslop & Bradak (2011) in the English manuscripts. Because they are rarely expert in any of the other methods, they often do not witness the similarities due to Combat Logic, although the theory of a “Pan-European Combat System” has been proposed by some (Helop & Bradak). Criticisers of this theory regularly resort to the “slippery slope” argument, that to consider all European Combat Systems to have been based upon the same logic is to also believe that all human Combat Systems are based upon the same logic. Interestingly, this argument has always been used disparagingly within this community and often as a means to disproving the “Pan-European” theory. Of further note within this field is that scholars often specialize in national systems (i.e. German, French, Italian, English et al), as well as in particular time periods.

In order to study these manuscripts effectively, a method was needed to accurately extrapolate combative data from historical sources. One such example is Walczak's ADVISE Method (2006)¹⁴⁸; consisting of Analysis, Division into Groups, Verification, Interpolation, Synthesis and External Input. Such a process inevitably does not make use of Combat Logic to direct its learning, preferring to base its entire data stock on historical sources. Some of the terms which he attempts to introduce¹⁴⁹ are certainly based upon computing language, especially the handling of data.  

Figure 26 – Cultural transmission. The Architect developed his system based upon local customs, influences from local schools of thought, as well as amongst his own language. When he moves to another country, he teaches not only the scientific Combat System, but also his cultural insulation.

The modern practice of hereditary Combat Systems from Far East Asia in the West seems, indeed to be an anachronism, as well as an anatopism. The introduction of Asian arts to Europe is anatopism in as far as we now have Anglo-Saxon masters of Oriental artforms and customs. It is an anachronism as far as Modern Japan has little need for the practice of feudal Martial Art forms other than for cultural reasons. Just as the modern Englishman has no need to learn archery or Tilting at the Joust, neither does the modern Japanese have any necessity in learning these arts. It is for this reason that the feudal arts now descend into “sportification” rather than functional requirements.

In this format, Combat Logic has become truly a taxidermy of ideas. The Combat Logic of the East is preserved for Westerners within the formaldehyde of cultural anatopism and creative anachronism. Within the vinegar is the subject of Combat Logic, yet the vinegar in which it is preserved is the contemporary culture in which it was once practiced. In the East, where these Martial Arts began, there was never a requirement to learn etiquette or the language of the country. They simply used their every-day language coupled with the formal etiquette already inherent in the wider social scope. Bowing to seniors is not a practice isolated to the sphere of Martial Arts; it is a cultural phenomenon. It is like Boxers in Britain who might enter the Boxing gym and shake hands with their trainer by way of introduction, then proceed to carry out their training in common English.

The practice of Western Boxing in China may inevitably be practiced in the Chinese language, as well as picking up some cultural customs such as bowing to the instructor upon entrance to the Gym (similar to shaking hands with the trainer in the West). This bowing does not define the Combat System taught, but rather reflects the wider society in which it happens to be practiced. Although the artform itself does not require this, it gains the attribute due to the sociological context in which it is practiced. So logically speaking, the practice of Karate would not require the etiquette of Okinawan society being supplanted into Western society.

As we have seen, Martial Arts are products of closed-societies. They were created as Nationalistic fighting methods, and therefore they do not exhibit entire truths. Okinawan Martial Artists of the past practiced Okinawan Combat Logic because they lived in Okinawa, but sought other knowledge where they could find it – they travelled to China to learn Chinese Combat Systems to become better fighters and improve the function of their techniques. They maintained Karate because of their closed society, they harboured “secret” techniques for their own nationalist agendas. They had no reason to realise that their art was based upon the same elemental truths as anyone elses.

The divisions of feudal countries are still with us to this day. Martial Artists (through incidence, or perhaps choice) have decided to maintain divisions of cultural function in fighting. Modern Martial Artists, as human beings of the modern age, have decided to divide themselves into groups based upon old feudal guides. For example, feudal period Martial Arts of Okinawa are taught as Karate, and feudal period Martial Arts of Thailand are called Krabbi Krabong. This would be fine in a world in which fighting is different for each culture around the world, but Combat Logic cannot be within a culture, only within the universe itself. Martial Artists choose to define themselves by the old feudal groupings which no longer exist in the post-feudal age.

From the delusion of anatopism, we may trace a logical weakness in the entire concept of “Style”. In fact, any style is a fallacy since it is merely an expression of Combat Logic. When one departs from any minor part of what defines it as “this” rather than “that” then the entire concept is impotent. As Tony Blauer once remarked, there are no “styles” of self-defence, yet since Martial Arts are originally designed for a functional purpose in self-defence, this idea can be applied to the Martial Arts. Just as Combat Logic is universal, it accepts all Martial Arts as being partial truths of its whole. A Partial truth, when departing even a little from its definition, instantly becomes another partial truth, but never the entire totality of Combat Logic.

The concept of “karate” is therefore only valid to an Okinawan, and is simply a linguistical expression to describe the practice of unarmed combat. In English we use the term “Boxing”, and so “Okinawan Boxing” is just as equal a term as “Karate” is in Okinawa. Some Westerners revel in the use of foreign language in practicing the Martial Arts as such an exposure to culture is a novelty for them. However, the use of such a term instantly creates the concept that Karate IS a product, definable by that which is included in the Syllabus and that which is not. As the Tao Te Ching relates, the idea of “good” makes anything else “bad”, and therefore the idea of “Karate” makes anything else not karate.

As I have mentioned previously, a master Samurai would have been open to the idea of high kicking, should he have found it had a value to him. A knight would have been open to the idea of Muay Thai should he have thought it would have been of use. The Okinawan fighter would no doubt have used any moves which could prove to be useful in combat; yet the preservation of Karate as what it is (or rather what it was) means that many Martial Artists often observe “ah, that’s a high kick with the shin; we don’t have that in Karate”, or “that’s a phoenix eye fist, we don’t have that in Tang Soo Do, but we do have a single knuckle fist”. Of course, in the latter example, the technique described is the same technique, the fact that the southern Chinese named it “Fong Yen Kuen” is merely superficial incidence based upon the locality in which it was practiced and recognised as such. How absurd an idea that Martial Artists should think that their style does not make use of certain movements which may be of use to them?

For example, say for a moment that you consider yourself a Wing Chun practitioner. Whilst in practice, you find that one of Wing Chun’s premises in insufficient, such as the Butterfly Knives and you omit it, would you be continuing to practice Wing Chun? If your experimentation finds a certain “classical” technique to be unreliable, would you still use it? If you omitted certain movements because of this, could you really still call it Wing Chun? I have met a lot of Ninjutsu practitioners who, because they omit the classical firearms, moxibustion, and horseriding elements, call it Ninpo Taijustu. Then, when practicing, they add Boxing techniques and Muay Thai kicks, yet they still maintain that they practice Ninja arts. So now the style resembles nothing that the original Ninja used to practice, so why maintain using the name “Ninjustu”, or even “Ninpo Taijutsu”?

There are many Martial Artists whom recognise that certain Anachronistic Combat Systems require changes, (whilst some techniques are not wrong, they are not as practical as they could be), so they install changes to adapt the style. Those who practice “Combat Karate”; are they still justified in calling it “Karate” given the cultural connotations attached to the term? Many Martial Artists are true to their artform choosing to stick to it and “improve” it. Yet by improving, they are moving in theory towards Combat Logic¹⁵⁰. So a Wing Chun practitioner is improving the art towards Combat Logic and so is the Karate practitioner – eventually both will be practicing close interpretations of Combat Logic, yet these similar approaches will be divided because one is called “Wing Chun” and the other “Karate”. If they are all fine, or adequate, then why maintain any "style"? Are they not superficial "boxes" and "labels" which divide people into "this style" or "that style"? In this case, there is no real division other than a particular habitus, a specific set of social conventions and a single representative noun which once divided the two.

But is linguistic expression, or country of origin really the justification for division? What is the Chinese style of using the body in combat? Do the Chinese have different bodies to other nations, or are subject to different laws of time and space? They still have gravity, they still have attack and defence, they still have attacks with the arms and legs, so we must propose the question: why maintain a “Chinese style”?

The Concept of an Anthropic Combat System

The social context which lead to the development of Pre-scientific Combat Systems, conceived from subjective and non-systematic discoveries, separated from each other by Institutionalisation in closed-societies, litter the human species’ opinion of hand-to-hand combat. The vast body of knowledge upon the subject of fighting, and the training secrets for preparation for fighting may be found in the seven thousand year old history of human civilisation. All Martial Arts in existence are human strategies based upon Combat Logic, but manifested in particular ways due to subjective Perspective.

To the Tibetans, Mount Everest is known as Chomolungma, but to the Nepalese, it is called Sagarmatha. Both recognise the mountain, but refer to it by different names. Of course, the mountain viewed by the Nepalese is not a different mountain to that viewed by the Tibetans. It is one and the same landmass known by differing names by the people in the vacinity. The name is dependant upon the position (and cultural background) of the viewer. The Philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 -1716) created what is now known as the Principle of Indiscernibles. This meant that the Tibetans’ view of the mountain, and the Nepalese view of the mountain are two perspectives of the same mountain. What both cultures are doing is describing in their own terms the same mountain.

This mountain, to continue the allegory, may be likened to the Combat Logic which we have already discussed at length. Combat Logic is the universal which will never cease to exist, but there are many views possible of this Combat Logic. It reveals itself to man’s understanding via his experience in fighting, and hence it has revealed itself to people all around the world.

To explain this concept, Buddhists use an interesting parable, of six blind scholars who attempt to discern a white elephant (representative of truth). The scholar at the back, groping the tail exclaims “ah, it is a rope”; whilst the scholar at the front disagrees wholeheartedly, proclaiming “ah, it is a thick branch of a tree”, whilst grasping the elephant’s trunk. The third blind scholar concluded, that what he is feeling is a pillar, which was at ods with the man beside him who stated that what was in front of him was a large fan, whilst touching the elephant’s ear. The fifth scholar further disagreed, rubbing the elephant’s belly and concluding, “it is a huge wall”. Finally, the sixth scholar touched the tusk of the elephant, and observed that it must be a solid pipe. The tale continues;

“Every one proposed his view and they disputed and controverted, and wrangled, and litigated, and bickered, and quarreled, and called each other names, and each one imprecated all the others, and each one denounced all the others, and they abused and scolded, and they anathematised and excommunicated, and finally every one of them swore that every one else was a liar and was cursed on account of his heresies. These blind men, every one of them honest in his contentions, being sure of having the truth and relying upon his own experience, formed schools and sects and factions and behaved in exactly the same way as you see the priests of the different creeds behave. But the master of the noble, mighty elephant knows them all, he knows that every one of them has a parcel of the truth, that every one is right in his way, but wrong in taking his parcel to be the whole truth.

Not one of these sectarians observed the fact that the elephant was perfectly white and a marvel to see, for all of them were purblind. Yet I would not say that they were either dishonest or hypocrites. They had investigated the truth to the best of their ability.

The master of the elephant is the Tathâgata, the Enlightened One, the Buddha. He has brought the white elephant representing the truth, the noble and mighty elephant, symbolising strength and wisdom and devotion, into the land of the blind, and he who listens to the Tathâgata will understand all the schools, and all the sects and all the factions that are in possession of parcels of the truth. His doctrine is all-comprehensive, and he who takes refuge in Him will cease to bicker, and to contend, and to quarrel.” (Carus, 1906, 111-113)

In effect, by means of this story, Buddhist scholars aim to highlight the importance of overcoming the Rashomon effect. Life is, by its definition, subjective; but to attribute any of those perspectives as anything more than a perspective upon a greater whole would be entirely delusional.

The Martial Arts are filled with people who garb themselves in feudal costume, people who bow to a flag of a certain country and people all around the world who practice many different forms of Martial Arts. Today, each art is separated from the others by its rituals and methods originating from the country in which it was cultured. Even within those styles, such as Tae Kwon-Do, there are separations between ITF and WTF based upon national political differences. Many have questioned whether unification of TKD could ever be achieved, and more Martial Artists have questioned whether unification of the Martial Arts could ever be achieved. Through all this, there are universal facts shared by all of the above. They are all human, and subject to the principles of kinesiology and biomechanics of the human body in application to the use of force in conflict. Martial Artists, at the root of it, are practicing and learning the application of the human body in fighting¹⁵¹.

As humans we believe we are free, but by creating divides we have limited freedom – which is not really freedom at all. On both sides of any divide, there are people standing up for their opinions and their perspective. Each stand on their side, ignorant of the other through choice or simple ignorance; whilst the birds above them may fly where they please. It is obvious where true freedom resides.

The limiting factor and cause of this divide is preference. If both sides can soberly and logically see the truth in what they do, based upon verifiable facts, then both are truths. We should admit that both are true rather than declare the other wrong. The scientist seeks to discover why both should be truths and attempts reconciliation. Each faction of Martial Arts style declares itself under its motifs and what makes it unique. The Karate men stand beneath their flag of Karate, opposite the Kuoshu men who stand beneath their flag of Kuoshu. Little do they realise that they do not declare a fighting method better but the country of its origin. After all, Karate merely means “Empty hand” and is a term synonymous in Okinawa for ritualised combative behaviours. It is not a style, but a word used by its indigenous country to identify ritualised fighting. All around the world we can see countries using their own descriptions of ritualised fighting. Wushu is the Chinese word for “Martial Arts” and regardless of its perceived connotations “Martial Arts” is a term which could be applied to any Martial Art of the world – just as the English words “Martial Arts” can be applied to any ritualised fighting method regardless of origin. So Karate too, is a word the Okinawans’ use to recognise “Martial Arts” and so English Boxing could be named “Igirisujin-ryu Karate” [Englishman’s School of Empty Hand]. So when declaring that “Karate” is the best, they are in effect declaring that fighting (or rather eskirmologics) as it has been cultured (and ritualised) in Okinawa is better than any other systematisation of fighting elsewhere in the world.

A similar consideration would be if modern boxers were to wear the costume of the Queen’s “Beefeater” (Yeomanry Guard) and use the customs and etiquette of the 17^th century English gentleman. It would be preposterous for any serious Boxer to consider that such rituals would make one a better boxer (maybe a more responsible boxer?).

However, the essential consideration of Eskirmology is that Ritual and Combat Logic (eskirmologics) are required to be separated prior to any significant progress. Cultural ritual, such as that seen in highly ritualised arts as Iai-jutsu demonstrate that the fighting techniques have become inter-twined with the rituals of the Japanese nation. Having a national identity creates the important identity of the Martial Art, but it does not make the art more efficient or practical. It is a novelty adopted by Martial Artists keen to absorb themselves into and experience another culture.

As I have stressed, fighting exists in all corners of the world, and as we have discussed throughout the course of this work, it is unavoidable. Since this is the case it was inevitable that the Chinese would develop Combat Systems, and the Koreans would develop Combat Systems, and the Europeans would develop Combat Systems, and the Aztecs would develop Combat Systems. As human beings, we have cultured fighting, and created systems for combat. All human cultures have their own labels, their own institutions, their own terms for essentially the same sets of data and the same problems. Their solutions however contribute to the human picture of Combat Logic. By means of a separate course of development, the Chinese have developed solutions not conceived in England, and the English have created solutions which Chinese society did not conceive. Different world-views derived different Combat Systems and allowed approaches which complete our human picture of Combat Logic. The view is panoramic and the view is beautiful.

From this objective view, we are building towards a set of data about Combat Logic which encompasses all the solutions and opinions of fighting from across the human species. Particular world-views, concepts of Time and Space, physical culture and the sanctioned ways of expressing the human body in particular pockets of the world allow us to unite the data into a singular database. We combine the data, and not elements which overlap, concepts which are apparent the world-over, and recognise a simple truth; that mankind has exploited, refined and developed various Combat Systems based upon a universal underlying Combat Logic. By recognising this, we can see that knowledge is duplicated, but each culture adds a wealth of its own knowledge to the human database of Combat Logic.

So what of the Combat Systems which predate this bussling metropolis of multicultural combat data? If we drop the local names of Karate, and replace them with “Fighting [Eskirmologics] as it has been cultured in Okinawa” then we can see that the logical constant is fighting. It matters not where the Combat System arose, but that human beings have discovered and observed truths in their separate pockets of the world. Okinawan Combat Systems exhibit the perspective upon fighting as it grew up in the Ryukyu archipelago. It reflects their influences from cultural exchange, their history and most importantly the kinds of fighters, and types of combats which the Combat System was intended to apply. Likewise, Muay Thai represents fighting as it was viewed in Thailand, expressing their bodies within the physical culture of Hindu and Buddhist world-views. Kenpo in Japan represents the cultural exchanges made between them and the Chinese Buddhists, and likewise Jujutsu and Aikijutsu, Kenjutsu and Iai-jutsu, and the other Combat Systems of the Bushi represent the particular pressures, conditions and problems faced by them. Their solutions inevitably reflect all those contributions, and perfectly suit the problems which they were designed to cope with. With the spirit of adaptation, Combat Systems were refined, practiced and transmitted by human beings all around the world because of their visceral value.

Therefore, as a panoramic database, with thousands of contributions, benefiting from the closed-societies which created them; competing against one-another for superiority and advantage, we now have a wealth of knowledge upon which to build our map of Combat Logic. This map represents the truth of fighting, and it encompasses all decisions which could ever be made in combat. We can see partitions of those truths appearing in the Okinawan’s discoveries, the Thai’s discoveries or the African’s discoveries, but not all decisions made in all Combat Systems. The more specialised the data from a particular set of choices, the greater this adds to our picture. The expertise of the Fencer in prolongation and linear action on one extreme, and the expertise of the Aikidoka in compliance and revolving actions on the other both demonstrate specialisations which complete our view of Combat Logic, and indeed the Systems resulting from that Logic.

We are all human and exist in great variety. Modern society now exhibits Combat Institutions which foster Totemism; nationally-specific motifs, anachronistic costume, ethnic ritual, and the use of foreign terminology makes no difference to proficiency in fighting. It is delusional to think that the wearing of a Gi in practice is the only way to learn fighting. It is also delusional to believe that one can only learn how to fight by learning a Martial Art. That having been said, it is not possible to learn Karate without entering the Karate dojo. If we say that we are training in the fighting rituals of a specific country, then it is necessary to have actually trained in the rituals of that country’s martial-tradition.

This raises yet another delusion present in the Martial Arts - the issue of identity. The Martial Art is recognised by the trappings of the national-specific tradition, and by its name. So if a Karate-Do practitioner changed his artform to fit with a more modern approach (as many self-defence masters are), perhaps take away the need for the wearing of Gi, and the use of Japanese terminology in classes, then what is left which is distinctly “Karate-Do”? I have heard of many masters who declare that they prefer to focus upon a single artform and improve that. Whilst this is loyal to a specific Combat System, we must ask; at what point does changing the Combat System require that the Martial Art is re-defined? All that would be left would be the name and the trappings of language. If an artform such as Karate-Do is improved to fit with Combat Logic, does such a change require that the art is termed Eskirmological Karate-Do, or just Eskirmology inspired by Karate-Do?

This problem does little more than highlight the fact that a return to Combat Logic is where the Martial Arts are logically heading. The practice of any Martial Art with the knowledge that it does not comply with the logic of fighting means that the artform is deficient. The Law of Institutionalisation begins from the delusion that the product of the founder’s scientific study will deliver mastery in the same way. It is an assumption by the master that his teachings will circumvent the process of discovery which he made. This circumvention is what makes the master the master and the student forever a student. The master was self-sufficient and informed himself from the wealth of knowledge of Combat Logic abundant in the world around him. His student, on the other hand, perpetually faces his master like a dog waiting for scraps. He is inclined to dogmatise, to ritualize and to practice the specific techniques rather than adhering to a superordinate functional principle.

A Combat System cannot exist apart from a living host. It is a set of data defined by performance, and requires a performer. In which case, the transmission of a Combat System will always involve the download of data from one person to another. This process is long and gradual requiring habituation, acclimatisation and accommodation. Yet besides the physical requirements, the transfer of this data also is made by someone with particular experiences to someone with different experiences. The transfer of data from a Japanese expert of Jujutsu to a Western student often involves the transfer of culturally-derived anachronism, requiring a student to undergo rituals derived from social rituals maintained by the military class.

The concept of a Martial Arts Organism is an extremely useful paradigm to exploit in our reasoning here. Considering that the Martial Arts developed like organisms in a natural environment, we may draw similarities between evolution of animals and the evolution of the Martial Arts. Just as an animal develops to suit his environment, so too are Systems an adaptation of behaviour to an environment. A fish is perfectly designed for its environment. The needs of its environment have helped shape its development. On a single reef, we may find many fish of the same type, but with minor differences which demonstrate kinds of specialisation. Some fish have developed tough beak-like mouths for tearing seaweed from rocks. Others are invulnerable to the stings of anemones. Each has become specialised in the fish’s natural environment. We may consider this to be similar to the Martial Arts of feudal Japan, in which the school becomes specialised in a certain aspect demanded of it in its natural environment. Instead of having the sea as its environment, the Martial Arts Organism has the Militant Society. Martial Arts such as Karate and Jujutsu are different because they required specialisation in their environment. The jujutsu master in Samurai armour would have little need for striking techniques which do little damage to armour. Hence, they are entirely suitable - but such suitability will only be maintained so long as the environment persists. Take, for example, if seaweed were to decrease on the rocks in the environment of the seaweed tearing fish. His specialisation will be rendered redundant when the purpose of his function has disappeared. Without the Militant Society and the culturally specific environment of that Militant Society, this is the same redundancy which we may find with the Traditional Martial Arts.

Outside its intended context, the arts become necessarily and inevitably altered. Now let us consider the pressure of anatopism on the Martial Arts. A fish out of water is a common saying, yet it is strangely applicable given our current context. Eastern traditions first of all outside the Militant Society, but now outside the very culture in which it was created leads to a yet further distance from its original environment.

Should we really consider traditional Martial Arts to be non-functional? Surely, art-forms which were once relied upon by feudal warriors would not have spent their lives practicing such Martial Arts? The Koryu Combat Systems must have been the realistic fighting systems which we have today. They must have been the practical and defence oriented arts which we now associate more readily with Krav Maga, or Russian ROSS – arts associated with a no-nonsense and practical approach to fighting and self-defence. Yet Koryu Combat Systems, when compared with the named systems, show a marked short-fall and impracticality when used in practice in a modern society. We have seen that Anachronism is at work in the Martial Arts, and perhaps we can place the cause of unrealistic practice in this phenomenon. It is not the fact that the Martial Arts themselves, as a product, but rather the practice of such a product outside of its original setting. With the loss of necessity behind the training of traditional Martial Arts, we are likely to pursue not only unrealistic methods, but also luke-warm practice.

A large part of modern self-defence training requires the flooding of adrenaline in order to build“immunity” to the adrenaline boost. This is very important, but such an overwhelming effect from adrenaline may have been lower than it is today. Due to the warrior’s proximity to warfare, as well as to his own death must have created a decreased effect of the adrenaline rush. When one becomes one with a certain fear, making it actual and real must have lowered the fear surrounding it. Fear stems from the unknown, but when we become one with fighting and self-defence, we learn that there is little to fear. Hence, the traditional Martial Arts may have originated with Martial Artists who had an increased exposure to this adrenaline in their lives and therefore a much decreased level of negative adrenaline side-effects. The swamping of the modern human by adrenaline demonstrates that many of the practitioners will rarely become face-to-face with this kind experience, due to very little regular exposure in their lives.

Whatever reason it may be, we now have a commanding view of the Martial Arts, as we are now knowledgeable enough of the context to allow us the wisdom to make predictions. The future of the Martial Arts of a feudal age will continue their devolution in Western society, as well as in the Westernised societies of the East. Many of the true “gong fu” skills are dying away, and masters who once trained their bodies to endure pain (turning their skin into leather-like armour), or simply the true dedication required of a martial practice, are now few and far between. In order to become powerful Martial Artists, the Martial Arts school needs to replicate the feudal society (not in historical fashions, dress-code, language or etiquette, but rather in principle) so that students adapt to a militant environment. There should be plenty of opportunity to come face-to-face with fear in order to personify Combat Logic.

We should be capable of recognising the transitional period in which we now stand, whereby militant Martial Arts developed for War are now found amongst the civilian classes who no-longer require the arts with such high necessity. In feudal times, and in the traditional Martial Art’s original practice, the art was aggressive, firm and practical being a “bu-jutsu”, rather than a “bu-do”.  Fanciful artifice was not only impractical, it was contrary to the arts purpose for existence; the mastery of Fighting (and Combat Logic). That having been said, we no longer practice these arts with a battlefield intention. We do not require martial fortification like those who actually entered war. Apart from the modern soldiering minority who require this kind of training, it is an advantage for the modern civilian practitioner to focus upon the spiritual, yet it is a mistake to judge with our modern eyes the practices of a feudal past. It is easy to witness the devolution right before our eyes. We are able to see uncoordinated or too coordinated Martial Arts routines and applications, mastery of Martial Arts but no mastery of fighting, and anatopistic understanding of a culture other than one’s own. It was inevitable that such an occurrence would happen in a post-militant age. We would not have seen anything of this kind and on this scale in the Militant Society in which our ancient martial ancestors were born. Of course, false masters have always existed, but true masters were much higher in number in those now seemingly far-off times. A false master in feudal times would not have flourished so easily with such a powerful predator as functional reality. Without this, the post-militant arts (outside the military) drift closer and closer to sanitisation and ultimately, regulated sport.

We are able to make the startling but rational conclusion that the ultimate delusion is not due to inefficiency of the system, nor of the people involved, but rather one imposed by Space and Time itself.

In our period of transition, we may summarise the contributing factors of the Martial Arts Delusion to be:

1. Combat Systems as products of developmental factors:

   1. Pre-scientific inquiry: Due to limited data, non-systematic approach and subjective perspective, the architect and his understanding of fighting, his personal attributes, both physical and psychological contrive to create his habitus.

   2. Specific context or circumstances: The selections of techniques to cope with specific circumstantial problems (anachronism).

   3. Instructionism, Pedagogic Device: The changes enacted by the Architect to teach the System to others and develop Reflexive Body Techniques.

   4. Institutionalisation: The totemism and codification of the Combat System.

2. Combat Systems as product of receptive factors

1. Sanctionism: Codification and eventual Sanctification of the data

2. Anatopism and Anachronism: As westerners receiving the Combat System packaged with cultural rituals. Some aspects of Bushi ritual still maintained in Combat Schools are anachronistic even in Japan.

3. Auto-didacticism vs Instructionism: The difference between the developmental factors and the receptive factors

4. Idiosyncrasy: Our own preconceptions about what we are studying

The result is that we have Combat Systems devised for particular circumstances. Take for example the brief list supplied below:

• Bourgeois Armed, Armoured Intermale Antagonistic Combat (Koryu bujutsu)

• Proletariat Armed, Unarmoured Intermale Combat (Eskrima, Arnis De Mano, Kali)

• Proletariat Unarmed, Unarmoured Intermale Antagonistic Combat (Shotokan Karate Do)

• Proletariat Unarmed, Unarmoured Antagonistic Type 1 Combat (Wing Chun)

As we can see, each Combat System has a particular combat, particular conditions and particular predicates which contributed to its development. Due to this, it is often tragic to hear of the derision made by some practitioners regarding the efficacy of some Combat Systems. Many of these systems might be applied to recreational contexts, wherein we might hear of Mixed Martial Artists declaring that Karate Do is useless for “real fighting” (they mean of course the conditions of the arena). Karate Do, when we examine its composition as a Combat System, we can see examples of an Abrogative strategy – when the Karateka enters into range, he enters in order to terminate further risk. His mode of action is concentration of full-force often using a finger or a knuckle to a weak spot, by entering outside the opponent’s Range of Motion. He is taught to enter, terminate and exit. Yet due to the constraints placed upon him by the arena, the means of attenuating the affect of his concentrated force (to make the sport “safe”); his behaviour set is invalidated. He must exit and attempt the operation again - behaviour foreign to the intention of the Combat System and its behaviour set. To criticize the Karate-Do Combat System in this context is akin to criticizing the penguin for not surviving on the Savanah. The fencer, or boxer on the other hand uses a system developed for this kind of sport attenuation; he has an “Iteration-based” strategy. He enters to terminate, but due to the inability to terminate, he exits and attempts an entrance to hit once again. The iterations of this operation are repeated until the opponent is finally terminated¹⁵².

By extension of this example, we may observe that many Combat Systems are attempted in circumstances outside their particular devised behaviour-set. Karate may well be ineffective in recreational combat, yet it was not devised for recreational combat. Likewise, Aikido might not be functional for self-defence (predative combat) yet it was not devised for predative combat. Understanding this allows us to recognise strengths of a particular Combat System and not to deride its weaknesses. Karate was developed by strong males keen to exploit their physical advantage against other men. It is based upon the operational set; “enter from distance out of his ROM; if there is opposition, parry it out of the way, then retaliate with a powerful blow”. We therefore recognise the problems it faces; what if the opponent is stronger than us? What if our action is unsuccessful? What if his position is besieged and we cannot access his exposures? What if he is a wrestler and attempts to catch our strike, or tackles us to the ground? These are questions posed which, although they can derive suitable solutions, they do not have any Worked Examples to sanction answers.

Moreover, Aikido follows the pattern for a bilateral operational set. It was developed for harmony in action so that an aggressive action will be re-aligned into equilibrium. Its method is “wait for the opponent to attack, then in the moment of his convergence seek to extend this equilibrium beyond the vector of his Base of Support (BOS)”. Yet, like Karate, we must ask questions about how this would work in reality. What if the opponent is a wrestler and does not allow himself to be unbalanced easily? What if the opponent is an experienced joint-lock expert and is also keen to adhere to your hands? What if the opponent is a Wing Chun man who does not place himself in positions which compromise his balance? In which case, the basis for Aikido’s operational set only allows for specific applications.

Many Combat Systems maintain similar problems due to their partitioned data sets. Indeed, they maintain a “policy” to combat which allows it to proceed only on their terms. In fact, we have been a little unfair in our criticism, since these Combat Systems were never devised to work against one-another in this manner. The evidence suggests to what extent these Systems are partitioned. If they cannot cope with other Combat Systems, then they are proven to be incomplete.

IV. The case for reformation

THE MARTIAL ARTS

REFORMATION

Development of an Anthropic Combat System

We are at a position in the history of the scientific exploration of fighting and development of Combat Systems where it now exists in the form of separate “schools of superstition”. We have seen in the course of our discussion that Combat Systems derived from real-world testing are the most eskirmological, due to their necessity to be so (The Battlefield Paradigm). We have also noted that proto-scientific investigation into the development of Combat Systems coincided with the “devolution” and “commoditisation” of those systems into forms more Attenuated, Recreational and transcendental. We also know that these “commoditised” forms do not suit the risk of combat as efficiently as Eskirmological Combat Systems. With the framework we have described we can now consider our position to be quite commanding, which will allow us the freedom to generate modern Combat Systems which comply both with the logic of combat, and also with the desirable attributes of practitioners in an Industrialised Society. Such an attempt has never been achieved before, and therefore it is down to us to attempt it.

Grove (1897, 1) explains that the history of investigation into efficient fighting solutions, and their encapsulation into credible Combat Systems was slow, in fact “…very little progress was made for a long period, and the ‘noble science’, as it was very early called, remained in a terribly imperfect state, hindered and encumbered by infinite pedantry and nonsense, and taught by pragmatical and very foolish Masters of Fence to pupils who were content to follow egregiously wrong systems, although skill in disposing of an adversary was literally a matter of most vital concern to them.” That having been said, such a criticism is warranted for the majority, but there have been luminaries who attempted to reform and identify Combat Logic.

We have seen how the scientific method was still developing when it was applied to the development of Combat Systems in the West. Science was applied to Recreational Combat Systems, and so were not accurate representations of Eskirmological systems. Later, the integration of Pre-scientific Combat Systems from Asia into the West has not impacted scientific development of Eskirmological Combat Systems, but has further lead to the commoditisation of Recreational Combat Systems. They have subsequently neither attributed to a universal understanding of fighting. They continue, and persist, to be closed in nature protecting their own specific traditions.

The evidence and “prophets” of Combat Logic may be found in the history of Eskirmology. The German Master of Combat Joachim Meyer stated in 1570 that although “Everyone thinks differently from everyone else, so he behaves differently in combat…” inevitably, “…we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat, yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis.” (Forgeng, 2006) Indeed, that basis is Combat Logic. Scholars from around the world attempted reform of the institutions in order to study this single basis, yet such a reform never happened. The sciences of physics, chemistry etc all matured into what we know them as today, but Combat Science neglected the science of hand-to-hand combat. Today, we have an opportunity to do what all those luminaries fought (and indeed died) for, as Guerra de la Vega stated in 1681;

“Nowadays, Destreza is constrained to exhibitions and it must be taken back to its roots; it must be a science again, learning from nature, allowing masters to show and share their opinions.”

We have an abundance of data streaming towards us, not only of the event of combat (including internal responses), but also of the many different Combat Systems which have already made explicit the possibilities of Combat Logic. It is our advantage over all the previous generations of mankind that we may pool this knowledge together to form a Combat System, not devised for specific circumstances, but for all predictable circumstances. We have arrived at a point, as Galileo stated in a letter dated 1610 to his friend Kepler, that “…modern observations deprive all former writers of any authority, since if they had seen what we see, they would have judged as we judge”. And it is therefore with good intentions that we dispute the findings of those who preceded us because if they had had access to the “data stream” as we do, then they would have come to the same conclusions as we do now – to ignore the data, but to adhere to their pre-scientifically derived knowledge is to do us and them a significant disservice.

Developments have been made all around the world, specialisations in the use of percussive attacks from a distance (Fencing, Boxing), the entrance to terminate risk (Shaolin, Shotokan), tactile skills (Wing Chun, Ngo Cho Kuen, Pak Mei Kuen, Fujian White Crane), non-percussive wrestling (Jujutsu, Judo, Sumo, Ssireum, Boke, Catch-as-catch-can, etc), as well as non-resistance (Taijiquan, Aikido). It is up to us to take the aspects of Combat Logic and meld them into a universal system, covering all the permutations of Combat Logic. Such a system would inevitably transcend all nationalist identities; abandon prejudices to knowledge in order to map the known possibilities of such logic. It is for these reasons that I term such a system to be “Anthropic” meaning, quite simply, a “human” Combat System; or one which explores the multitude of possibilities of Combat Logic as it is able to be experienced by the human mind, and within a human body.

Based upon our previous discussions, and in light of the pit-falls previously experienced by our ancestors in attempting to reform the many Combat Systems around the world into a normalized database of human Combat Logic, we may be able to map the kind of System which this Anthropic Combat System would be.

An Anthropic Combat System would be required to comply with:

1. Functionality: Identify all the possible scenarios of fighting and appraise them in light of the need to Impose and to Protect.

   1. Universality: Be devised for any one, of any size, strength, gender etc to be used against anyone of any size, strength, gender etc, who used any strategy and in any particular type of combat; Duelling or Brawling, Tussling or Sparring.

   2. Scalability: Be devised with the capacity to be used in a life-or-death situation (i.e. Serious Combat), but also supply the rules by which one may derive the capacity to be used in recreation.

   3. Contingency: To be able to cope with the various problems presented in real-life such as KEC (Knife-enabled crime), multiple aggressors, limited space etc. Particularly the most extreme examples of combat (such as those in ambush, or battlefield environments).

2. Hierarchical architecture: Outline the structure of knowledge of those systems from Theoretical to Technical and how that relates to the study of a range of Combat Systems.

3. Transparency: Be open about the reasons for selection of particular behaviours over others. Non-sentimental about the system; based upon the requirement for a legitimate method. Open to third-party studies and corroboration, knowledge sharing and pressure testing.

4. Explication: Generate Action-Scripts to make explicit the decisions to be made and the functions required.

5. Invent suitable solutions in direct response to the problems identified in 1.

6. Corroboration and Cross-reference: To appraise existing solutions from existing Combat Systems, to integrate where they are useful, but discard that which does not comply.

7. Encapsulation: To encapsulate all Combat Logic knowledge into a simple and accessible format, separate the skillsets and traits which comply with play combat and serious combats.

8. Empowerment: To offer a student the tools to make his own investigation into it in order to seek his own refinement, reflection and transcendentalism, by means of

   1. Skills of assessment

   2. Problem-solving

   3. Concepts of development

   4. Experience

This last point, Empowerment, is perhaps the most important element of a modern Anthropic Combat System; offering the tools to a student to allow him his own investigation. Such an empowerment offers them the same glimpse of Combat Logic as was the vital ingredient required to develop a Combat System by the original architects of the martial arts which already exist. We shall cover this important part of the Anthropic Combat System later.

Although the concept of Anthropic Combat System is entirely new as it is presented in this work, the attempt to unite data from various Combat Systems is certainly not new. Barton-Wright was perhaps one of the first Western gentlemen to accept Asian data-sets into the development of his own Combat System. His school, known as the Budokwai, was formed after having studied two forms of Jujutsu whilst traveling in Japan. He named his solution “Bartitsu”, using a corruption of his own name and “jutsu”. His System was based upon the collaboration of modified English Boxing, some modified Savatte, La Canne (thanks to his colleague Pierre Vigny) as well as his wrestling skills from the jujutsu he studied in Japan. In his own words, Barton-Wright explained that,

“Bartitsu therefore resolves itself into this: if one gets into a row and plays the game in the recognised style of English fair play – with fists – the opponent will very likely rush in and close, in order to avoid a blow. Then comes the moment for wrestling in the secret Japanese way. Instantly the unwary one is caught and thrown so violently that he is placed hors de combat, without even sufficient strength left to retire unassisted from the field … the art of walking-stick defence is taught for a variety of purposes. It may be used safely against an opponent armed with a dagger – in which case the latter has no chance at all – against a quarterstaff, against kicking, boxing, etc.”

(Barton-Wright, 1902)

Barton-Wright was interested, for all intents and purposes, in the concept of an Anthropic Combat System; the integration of the best data to compile a Combat System applicable to any situation and against any kind of attacker¹⁵³.

And Barton-Wright was certainly not the only Westerner to collaborate data from Eastern and Western Combat Systems. Fairbairn (1931, 1942a, 1942b) made substantial efforts to combine data from Asian Combat Systems with Western understandings of Combat Logic to generate an effective Combat System.

Perrigard (1946) has also presented a correlative case for the importance of an Anthropic Combat System, if only for promotion of his own Arwrology. Perrigard, a doctor who attempted to found a coherent modern scientific Combat System based upon Western Medicine, summarised this situation, asserting that

“Many of the present methods are incommensurate with the needs. Often old smug institutionalised methods of instruction have adherents, generally of the gerontocracy class, whose sclerosed intellect eclipses their vision. They become negationists, refusing to abrogate out-moded customs.” (1943, viii).

It seems that Perrigard is aware of the impact of Institutionalisation upon the martial arts, and is keen to apply modern science to the composition and building of a system.

As such, the teaching of effective and logical Combat Systems should be at the forefront of modern teaching of self-defence. It is the moral responsibility of all self-defence instructors to teach Combat Systems based upon the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. As Perrigard continues (1943, xi), “All knowledge is not new, but much quietly becomes obsolescent. It is high time that all these old miscellaneous bits of teaching were objectively evaluated, and the few effective methods incorporated into one master programme for teaching all-out hand-to-hand fighting methods.” We have demonstrated that the respected master who discovered the “secrets” of fighting, which all students sign up to learn, did nothing more than use his powers of logic. His advantage, if any, was that he lived in a society where fighting was necessary, not frowned upon or judicially prohibited, and his feudal surroundings aided in his pragmatic experimentation.

In considering the efficacy of a system, Applegate (1976) highlights the “illusion of ease” existing in many martial arts circles, wherein there is a strong “implication that this can be accomplished without personal risk or injury to the user…” and that this is one example of the “…fallacies evident in many instruction courses in close combat offered to the public.” He continues by suggesting that we may test the efficacy of such combat methods by asking a simple question:

“Will this work so that I can use it instinctively in vital combat against an opponent who is determined to prevent me from doing so, and who is striving to eliminate me by fair means or foul?”

This question is answered by Applegate, that - given the circumstances of its highly institutionalised and pedagogical framework which protects the “real knowledge” from the regular practitioners - “many highly advertised techniques cannot measure up to this simple standard.” In response to this demand for real knowledge, Applegate offers his own opinion of existing methods prior to the outlining of his own System:

As a result of…war and a demand by the public for books and techniques on methods of fighting, bookstores were flooded with books and pamphlets on the subject of unarmed combat. Many of these, purporting to be genuine jiu jitsu, bore titles and slogans intended to appeal to the gullible. Courses which would take a sincere judo student months to master were offered in “ten easy, self taught lessons.”

Extravagant claims of success of the unarmed judo exponent against an armed enemy are frequently made. Students of many judo courses, given recently, are “quickly” taught a specific number of jiu jitsu tricks. When the course is completed and students are called upon to use what they have learned against a determined opponent, they usually find themselves helpless, unless the attacker performs in the specified manner taught in the course. Such courses obviously do not give the student the training necessary’ to adapt him to the uncertainties of combat. Many tricks advocated in jiu jitsu, and certain combat books, are not practical because they cannot be applied quickly enough. They are based on the assumption that the opponent will stand still, allowing the hold or throw to be applied.

He explains the difficulty of attempting to use sanctified methods from the Far East in self-defence, particularly in Predative Combat events;

“Types of hand-to-hand combat that demand set positions and complicated manoeuvres—for the attacker and his opponent–are practically useless when the ordinary man finds himself projected into physical combat at an unexpected time.

To be able to rely upon and use instinctively a specific hold or throw for each set or different position of an opponent is a difficult task. To be able to do so swiftly and instinctively demands months and sometimes years of practice. It takes time to train the mind and body to react to each set of conditions instinctively and in the Described method.”

And so the need to develop a system for Hand-to-Hand combat is still essential. As Morrah explains, the need for this kind of Combat System is still relevant to the modern world;

“It is important for fighting men to know how to fight. The science of warfare has been developed to a fine point undreamed of even twenty years ago. With precision-built weapons of destruction, nations now know more about how to wipe each other out than they have ever known before. However, in the making of more efficient killing tools, most men have forgotten to learn how to fight without any weapons.” (Morrah, Dirty Fighting)

Yet in agreement with Grove, Castle (1885, 7) described that the result of “unmethodical” developments of fencing meant that progression did not happen, and its refinement “so long remained stationary”. Little could he have known that over one hundred years later, his words would now aptly describe the progress of an Anthropic Combat System.

Svinth (Green & Svinth, 2003, 263-270) describes how the modern US military actually devoted very little development of Hand-to-hand Combat Systems, even though (as Grove lamented) it was of vital importance to them. Due to lack of funding, Larson reported to Svinth that they could not afford to develop a specific system, so they had to seek an “off-the-shelf” solution (ibid, 266). The solution they made use of was Gracie Jujutsu, a Combat System devised for competition and the arena. Whilst it was recognized as inefficient to an extent, it was easy to retain and promoted competition between soldiers, allowing it to increase ability quickly.

This System, known as line because of the manner in which training took place, was later replaced by the acronym LINE (Linear Infighting Neural-override Engagement) to promote a more scientific approach. It was used by the US military between 1989-1998, and was derived principally from Gracie Jujutsu. Although it was an “off-the-shelf” solution, it was required to comply with a specification. The prerequisites of the System’s design were that,

1. all techniques must not be vision dominant; techniques may be executed effectively in low-light conditions, or other impaired visibility conditions (i.e., smoke or gas)

2. extreme mental and physical fatigue

3. usable by the Marine / soldier while wearing full combat gear

4. proper execution of the techniques must cause death to the opponent

5. gender neutrality; must be usable by- and against- either gender

In 1999, General James L. Jones took the first steps towards developing a program specifically developed for the Military. This program became known as the MCMAP (Military Corps Martial Arts Program), and was composed of Tae Kwon Do and Aikido. The document recording the method of the US military (MCRP 3-02B which superceded the FM-3-25-150, itself based upon a 1942 War Dept. doc FM 21-150) actually demonstrates little theoretical basis for the selections of techniques, and neither have they selected techniques based upon any reasoning other than that they have been used in existing Combat Systems.

Whilst these former examples are attempts at an Anthropic Combat System, they are still products of investigation. They do not offer students the ability to study Combat Logic for themselves, nor allow them the tools to appraise any and all Combat Systems. In which case, they have also been proven to be prone to succumb to the Martial Arts Delusion.

There has, to my knowledge, been but one person who has attempted at not only creating an Anthropic Combat System, but also offer students the tools to make their own investigation into Combat-Logic. This single case also most accurately demonstrates the Martial Arts Delusion as an observable process (of individual didacticism, instructionism, codification and institutionalisation). Because this example still has an effect on people today, it is a system popular enough to allow us to use it as a case-study. This example was Jeet Kune Do, created by Bruce Lee.

Lee was an exceptional martial artist, and in terms of modernist reform, his attempt has yet to be bettered in terms of scope, influence and theoretical basis. He was perhaps the first Asian martial artist to question the development and composition of Asian Combat Systems, and his attempts to avoid undue institutionalisation are clear. His ideas have arguably had the largest and most wide reaching effect on the world of martial arts and one which I believe could potentially lead to universal Martial Arts reform. Let us consider his attempt at an Anthropic Combat System in the next section.

V. A pointer of the way: Bruce Lee

A POINTER OF THE WAY

Lee’s Anthropic Combat System

Amid the many examples we could use to back up the argument for recognising the Martial Arts Delusion, there is one which is most poignant, as we can specifically trace the progression from individual inspiration via scientific inquiry, institutionalisation by means of transmission, to sanctification and ultimate crystallisation. It is of course, the Case of Jeet Kune Do.

Bruce Lee; Autodidact and Scientific Reformist

Working from a basis in philosophical enquiry Lee took an objective world-view – perhaps an idealization of how the world of Martial Arts should be. In comparing the world of Martial Arts with a hypothetical view of how the world of Martial Arts should be, he was able to assess how far existing systems had been polluted by needless institutionalization. He had begun serious work on conducting a scientific enquiry of fighting as an event, comparing pre-sciences and assessing them against his own eskirmological enquiries¹⁵⁴.

The elements of the delusion which we have previously outlined can be traced directly within Lee’s notes. A Combat System as a product of personal investigation (Little, 2001, 153,161,167) and the delusion of submitting to another person’s combative habits (Little, 1997a, 18, 21;), becoming an automaton or machine (Little, 2001, 342-343), a second-hand artist due to synthetic learning (Little, 1997a, 327-328, 330; ), due to ritualisation (ibid, 208; Lee, 1975, 14-23) and the effect of institutionalization (ibid, 156,158,156,174-175,197). All these matters were of deep concern to Lee, and his process of experiencing Combat Logic, and the subsequent refinement of the self by means of this dedication was what he labeled “Jeet Kune Do”.

One of the chief causes of synthetic teaching (as we have previously highlighted) can be attributed to the effect of society by means of Institutionalisation as well as of subjectivism infused into Combat Systems based upon cultural and national guides (Little 1997a, 174-175). Unlike previous systems which were devised to teach an individual (the “architect’s”) set of behaviours, Lee was more interested in the role of a Pointer to Truth rather than Giver of Truth (Little 1997a, 150,159,179; Lee 1975, 14) and the need for a system to empower individuals to create their own positive habits and skills (ibid, 139,150,159,161-162,169,178-179). It is this approach which makes his notes sound so revolutionary. No longer should people submit to “second-hand” artistry, the repetition of set patterns of movement and recite them in combat like a mindless drone. His perspective demanded empowerment, the process of self-discovery (ibid, 150; Lee, 1975, 23-25, 200-204) and to express oneself (Little 1997a, 139) instead of imitating (ibid, 208). Yet with Jeet Kune Do, we find contradictions which subvert and restrict its capacity to assume its position as an Anthropic Combat System.

Perhaps one of the unresolved problems with Jeet Kune Do (as represented in his notes) is that the dichotomy between a Framework and Personal System are ambiguous. Lee is keen to assert that his approach is unbiased, that we (as users of his approach) are objective and that it is “possessed of all angles, but itself if not possessed”, so much so that one can “enter the mould but not be imprisoned by it” (ibid, 161-162). In which case, he may make use of elements from Combat, or even from existing Combat Systems, and use them for his benefit rather than be restricted and confined by it. This rhetoric confirms the approach we have suggested previously to overcome subjectivism by objective study, to look at combat from all possible angles (ibid, 162; “formless form” Lee 1975, 23-25, “circle with no circumference” ibid, 200). This is what we expect of Combat Logic, to look at the sum and not become entrenched by specializations, or confined to pockets of it¹⁵⁵. Lee is also keen to impress the object of the study as Combat Logic, or “the root” and not the “branches” (1997, 54-55, 327-328, 385).

Yet in his keenness to portray his approach as an ultimate freedom, he fails to explicate (in his writings at least - though he may have been personally aware) that such freedom must comply with Combat Logic; itself being a constraint. If Combat Logic defines all aspects of what can be done in fighting, and a Pre-scientific Combat System is a partition of one or several aspects of that Combat Logic (but rarely the sum), then his approach is truly possessed of all but not itself possessed¹⁵⁶.

Anthropic Combat is defined by human bodies, which when required to act and react must conform to mechanical laws. A strike can only be powerful when it has the dedication of the body mass, kinetic linkage of multiple joint complexes, as well as efficient and smooth action. All these things must define movement, and in doing so instantly places rules upon which actions are powerful, or fast. In which case, they cannot be “any movement”, but variations upon the rules by which movements are powerful or fast. This is inevitably what a “framework” should consist of – teaching a student the biomechanical and strategic rules which define effective behaviour (i.e. the Cybernetics of Combat Systems). It is only upon this basis that a student may proceed with his studies towards “personal expression”. A standard knowledge base such as this would facilitate the student’s own ability to be auto-didactic, to recognize when movements are useful, and which behaviours to discard. Without Combat Logic upon which to measure one’s ideas and reference them, they are liable to incline towards fantasy and inefficiency.

The result is of course that Lee’s Jeet Kune Do effectively demonstrates the simultaneous requirement for a Scientific Method, perspective and inquiry as a means to Auto-didacticism, as well as the physical standards and basis upon which a particularly “martial” method must comply – in other words - a “system”.

As a Conceptual Framework for Auto-didacticism

All Combat Systems must be based upon legitimate scientific behaviours derived from Combat Logic. The need to impose and to protect outlines the requirements of action and reaction, and the human form dictates the manner in which these can be achieved. It is upon this basis that Combat Systems may be developed. Yet Combat Systems are rarely based solely upon these aspects. They are often derived from subjective impressions and perspectives of this logic, and rarely upon a complete picture.

Bahm (1993, 12) outlines the important attributes of the scientific attitude which comply perfectly with the qualities and outlook prescribed by Lee. Bahm suggests that there are at least six major characteristics; curiosity, speculativeness, willingness to be objective, open-mindedness, willingness to suspend judgement, and tentativity.

Lee regularly portrayed the martial arts student as a slave to instructivism. The student follows what Dave (1975) describes as,

• Imitation: Observing and patterning behavior after someone else. Performance may be of low quality. Example: Copying a work of art.

• Manipulation: Being able to perform certain actions by following instructions and practicing. Example: Creating work on one's own, after taking lessons, or reading about it.

• Precision: continually practicing until the skill is perfected

• Articulation: Making use of many aspects from strategic and tactical and being able to meld them into a single practical action.

• Naturalisation: The level of full internalisation, by which the skill has been adopted and no longer requires conscious thought.

Lee describes the learning process in similar terms used by Suzuki in his Zen and Japanese Culture, wherein he offers his description of the process of learning. He goes so far as,

“To state it in terms of swordsmanship, the genuine beginner knows nothing about the way of holding and managing the sword...when the opponent tries to strike him, he instinctively parries it….But as soon as the training starts, he is taught how to handle the sword...and many other technical tricks - which makes the mind ‘stop’ at various junctures. For this reason whenever he tries to strike the opponent he feels unusually hampered…” (Suzuki, 1938, 99)

This process of acquiring ritual and going through the process outlined by Dave above, demonstrates how the effect of learning causes the student to become clumsy and uncoordinated. From his initial instinctive ability to preserve himself, the student can parry blows, yet his “skill” is illusory. His reactions are natural, but the mechanics of the skill (the “technique”) is flawed. By necessity then, the student is trained how to parry blows with strength, with mechanical superiority or in a manner which secures equilibrium and protection from further attacks. For this reason, the school teaches the effective manner in which to parry, but in doing so, the student “stops” because of the conscious effort to remember the compound kinesthesic mechanics his body must perform. Unnatural as it might feel, the technique is superior to his instinctive parries because his body now conforms to a means of parrying which favours the logic of combat. As Suzuki continues,

“…as days and years go by, as his training acquires fuller maturity, his bodily attitude and his way of managing the sword advance toward ‘no-mind-ness,’ which resemble the state of mind he had at the very beginning of training when he knew nothing, when he was altogether ignorant of the art. The beginning and the end thus turn into nextdoor neighbors.”

The difference is of course self-evident; though he performs his conditioned responses without conscious effort, his behaviours now conform to Combat Logic. Yet Lee seems to be concerned with this intermediate period, he dislikes this process of adhering to another person’s solution, going so far as getting a tongue-in-cheek dioramic grave to a hypothetical “once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess” (Little, 1998, 87). Lee’s informant on this process may well have been Munenori who observed that,

“When a man in the beginning of his life is ignorant of everything, he has no scruples, finds no obstacles, no inhibitions. But after a while he starts to learn, and becomes timid, cautious, and begins to feel something choking in his mind, which prevents him from going ahead as he used to before he had any learning. Learning is needed, but the point is not to become its slave. You must be its master, so that you can use it when you want it.” (ibid, 152)¹⁵⁷

Lee’s solution was a three-part process (1997a, 51, 299);

1. Sticking to the nucleus

2. Liberation from the nucleus

3. Returning to the original freedom

Lee is evidently interested in the constructivist mode of learning we encountered earlier on behalf of the Architect. Lee is attempting to supplant the ability to autodidact onto the student. Yet we must note something interesting when we consider the first point of Lee’s process “sticking to the nucleus”. If “original freedom” is the instinct described by Suzuki, then perhaps the nucleus is Combat Logic, yet this process of understanding Combat Logic cannot happen innately, there must be someone to “Point the Way” (as Lee describes). This facilitator of learning must deliver a set of ideas to the student to allow him to discern Combat Logic for himself. This discerning is a long and arduous process, so with each generation it seems key to impart some kind of knowledge which will be beneficial to the next generation. The set of principles, strategies and techniques might be called a “Combat System”, and inevitably the defining aspects of Combat Systems inevitably arise.

Perhaps unknown to Lee, this concept of adhering to a process of development, then liberation from the process is recognizable in Shuhari, a Buddhist process of learning found in Okinawan Combat Systems. McCarthy (1999, 102; 1987, 59; Zier, 2001, 4) translates the concept as;

1. Shu - Obedience

2. Ha - Separation

3. Ri - Divergence

This process is designed to ultimately lead to kensho (enlightenment), correlative to Lee’s three-part process. The inevitability of being indoctrinated into ritual is arguably a process by which the student must learn the basis of study of those who preceded him. This offers the student the commanding position to research and postulate his own ideas based upon the concepts and “framework” offered by his predecessors. However, it seems Lee’s disagreement is with the cultural delivery of such a process in the form of a restrictive and rigorous instructionist approach, as we outlined earlier with the help of Levine (1991).

As a response to this, Lee accepted the “schooling” institution as a limiting factor, and ultimately closed his schools (1997a, 59), continuing to enforce the concept that JKD was a process and not a conclusion (a boat to get one across, but not to be carried on one’s back; Lee, 1975, 205-208; Little, 1997a) resigning to “what it all amounts to” (ibid, 62).

As we have seen, however, Lee’s criticism may well have been unfounded (as argued by Smith (1999)) since the upper levels of Combat System are designed for the precise purpose of Divergence. Smith (1999) argued that the root of Lee’s criticism was based upon his lack of experience in any of the upper-levels of any Combat System, and had he had that experience, he would not have been so fervent in his call for reform. This point however is quite dismissive of Lee’s work, which is for the most part based upon means through which a significant liberation of the mind may be reached. Whilst Smith is correct that he was technically an “outsider” to the majority of the styles which he critiqued, this fact in itself demonstrates the required call for reform of Combat Logic. Moreover, Smith failed to place emphasis upon the problems of institutionalization and instructivist means of education at the heart of other Far East Asian Combat Systems. Lee’s approach might be considered naïve by some (Miller 2000), yet it was certainly much more empowering than most; and this is certainly a doctrine most appealing to post-modernist audiences, a resonant message founded upon what we might refer to as the “democritisation of combat logic”. Lee was against the concept of the Giver of Truth rather than the Pointer of the Way. He recognized authority, but did not recognize submission in the traditional manner required by those Far East Asian institutions. Smith’s critique of Lee’s approach actually also critiques his sources¹⁵⁸, of which Krishnamurti, Buddhism and Taoism also had similar teachings of rejection of institutionalism and liberation of “self”.

In a sense, Lee’s three part process already exists, yet it is not the process which Lee is attempting to reform. It is the unquestioning conservative and totalitarian culture which demands that first there must be a necessary indoctrination into the views of those who preceded you. This kind of indoctrination is ultimately risky; because the result is that you will already have a pre-built perspective from those progenitors. This may inevitably hamper creativity and imagination, cramping the ability to have innovative thinking and an inability to criticize that which is acceptable as “truth”.

In Lee’s attempted abandonment of institutionalized Combat Logic, he returned to Combat Logic as it could be seen in nature. But his subjectivist mode for discovery was ultimately flawed, but full of promise. A Combat System depended upon reaction to an opponent based upon the rules of Combat, the science of interaction by means of Force and the biological cues which subsume all kinds of combats. We have seen how Combat Systems have indeed been diluted and ineffective, and we have identified the specific reasons why this is the case. Lee demands reform to this occurrence, as he was not a reformist in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, but the age of Globalisation. Lee’s call for reform was not for an Eskirmological Combat System, nor a Recreactional Combat System; but a universal, modern, scientific and ultimately human catalogue of combat data; arguably, an Anthropic Combat System.

As a prototype for Anthropic Combat System

Wong and Cheung once recalled “By the time Lee came to Los Angeles, he had scrapped his modified Wing Chun and searched out the roots of combat, to find the universal principles and concepts fundamental to all styles and systems” (1990, 9–10). Lee also referred to his system as Scientific street fighting (Gong, in Green, 2001, 205).

Bruce Lee used the term “Framework”, his idea was that his pupils should learn a “standard” system, one which contains all the possible choices a Combat System can make, then it is up to the practitioner of that method to choose to specialise in certain areas. It was by accident that I came to consider this same motive, by studying the range of choices which a Combat System could make, I had to identify all choices; recognise the choice of one polarity in one Combat System, and the other polarity in another Combat System. As a consequence, the resulting Combat System is different in composition and defined differently because of these choices. However, that range of choices still exists, and the selection of one or the other creates a massive partition in the information a Combat System may present. The purpose of Lee’s “framework” was perhaps to deliver the entire range of possible choices to a practitioner and to define those choices in order to structure the information of Combat Systems and a Combat Science.

All Combat Systems are partitioned data, the result of choices by egoist masters of combat who consider the choices of their particular system to be superior to all others. Even modern systems, based upon scientific discovery and devised by scientifically-minded fighters make biased choices, considering one or the other polarity to be superior to the other. In fact, each choice has its own circumstances in which it flourishes and is successful; meaning that the choice betrays the founder’s own preference for particular circumstances.

The development of a framework will necessarily, and to some extent unavoidably, be constructed by an Architect. The framework I present in this current work is one intended to be a neutral, and wide-reaching framework designed to inform all martial arts practitioners in a scientifically based Combat System. It is upon the basis of this Combat System and its composition that martial artists may be able to see deviations in the format of other Combat Systems. Lee’s own process seems to, as far as is observable, reduce to the following describable method:

1. Statement of the Problem

2. Identification of Components of the Problem

3. Outline hypothetical solutions to each problem presented

4. Seek corroboration and solutions in existing Combat Systems

   1. If no solutions presented, invent a solution

   2. If solution already exists, undergo pressure-testing

      1. Positive feedback: Integrate

      2. Negative feedback: return to 4a.

5. Appraise database in light of new data

   1. Make retrospective amends to database if necessary

6. Integration of new data into database.

Lee was evidently aware of existing Combat Systems and the fact that they were partitioned data-sets. The boxing man only punched, and the judo man only threw (Little, 1997a, 21), and thus each system specialized in a particular aspect of combat. Perhaps by uniting them into a single mass, he could measure the kind of relationships, as well as their shared and unshared components. In a bid to unite the many perspectives, Lee set about studying each and attempting to identify the core trends between styles (ibid, 37-45), as well as to interpolate the missing elements, and extrapolate other kinds of applications for those systems. If we refer back to my diagram (fig. 10) on the selections from the range of options offered by Combat Logic, we can see how Lee may have observed Combat Systems, and more importantly what he aimed to to with his Jeet Kune Do approach. Perhaps Lee’s aim was to build the repository of Combat Logic in the centre of the diagram. In building this repository, he consulted the existing databases (i.e. Combat Systems) in order to integrate that data to reveal the options available to Combat Logic. It is merely speculative as to whether Lee saw his Jeet Kune Do in this way, but it is certainly a useful device to articulate the process seen in his notes and articles.

Lee’s core interests are in developing a Combat System which transcends the individual’s skill or perspective of a combat. His sources for such an endeavour may be traced to the Combat Systems we have previously described from the West, and developed with a scientific world-view. In a letter to James Lee (31^st July 1965) Lee wrote “ I’m having a Gung Fu system drawn up – this system is a combination of chiefly Wing Chun, fencing and boxing” (Little, 1998b, 110-111; Tom & Wong, 2009, 12). This fact is also evidenced in the Acknowledgements of his Tao of Jeet Kune Do (1975), which mentions Haislet (1940), Castello (1933), Castello & Castello (1962) and Crosnier (1951). Tom & Wong (2009, 15-17) similarly cite evidence that Driscoll (undated) and Nadi (1994) were also sources. Lee borrowed terminology from these texts, particularly in the construction of his Five Ways of Attack (1997a 102-129; Lee 1975, 194-199)

Recognising that Combat sometimes begins from a distance (as per our ICM), Lee began by considering the solutions to the problem of standing at distance from an opponent. Lee’s selection of a set of Ballistic behaviours demonstrates his recognition of the importance of including at-distance behaviour-sets. He recognized the problem identified by Capoferro, that we must attempt to strike the opponent in a quick time, but also allow him to exit should his attack be unsuccessful. For this reason perhaps Lee recognized an existing solution in the form of Fencing, a system with a set of behaviours designed as an explicit response to the stated problems of Ballisticism. Amongst all the human pinnacles of Ballistic skillsets, Fencing exhibits perhaps the most logical and efficient (1975, 59-68, 162-199; 1997a 90-94, 174-179). Since Foil Fencing is only an art of thrusting, and the use of a Sabre and Epee are not conducive to an effective manner of punching, Lee was forced to consider another artform renouned for its isolation of, and specialisation in, Ballistic skills. This caused him to assess, appraise and integrate another set of existing solutions – and consequently added Boxing skills into his Framework skillset (Lee 1975, 93-96, 98-115, 142-159; Little 1997a 205-261; Haislet 1940, 7-8).

Yet Lee was evidently well aware of the intermediate proxemic, one which his previous training had favoured significantly. Lee’s background in Wing Chun made it a convenient choice for him for his Tactile behaviour set. Whilst Inosanto (1980, 66) lists Northern Praying Mantis, Southern Praying Mantis, Choy Li Fut, Eagle Claw, Western Boxing, Hung Gar, Thai Boxing, wrestling, Judo, Jiu Jitsu, along with 'several Northern Gung-Fu styles' as having been consulted by Lee, he ultimately observes that “It is obvious that Wing Chun was the main nucleus and all the other methods evolved around it” (ibid, 67). Wing Chun was an obvious choice for a system based upon efficient biomechanical actions to control, respond and defend at an arms-reach proxemic. He did not include the entirety of the Wing Chun curriculum as part of his system, but only the techniques which he considered most viable to serve the needs of combat (principally the methods of parrying). Lee’s addition of HIA (Hand Immobilisation Attacks), LIA (Leg Immobilisation Attacks) demonstrate his attempt at integrating modern Fencing’s scientific taxonomy to account for the tactile skills exhibited in Wing Chun.

The corps-a-corps proxemic, as well as the interim controlling of limbs (which Lee describes as “joint-locking”) are also covered in Lee’s notes, although they are much less developed than the former proxemics. Only around 5% of Lee’s 1975 work includes grappling skills (115-123) of which most is illustration, and his list of “Some Weapons from JKD” (ibid, 74-75) only includes “Wrestling” and “Judo” besides significant listings of hand and foot percussive skills for both Ballistic and Tactile proxemics. Little (1997a, 74-86) demonstrates a few more examples, yet it would perhaps be realistic to say that Lee had not developed the Immobilisation attacks as thoroughly as the other proxemics.

That having been said, the fact that Lee did look at all the proxemics demonstrates that he was aware that combat involved an ICM. His use of Fencing terminology (such as Attack By Drawing, “stop-hit”, “tempo”, “cadence”) evidences his own application of the bulk of scientific data built by the progenitors of that science of arms. He also united those forms with the data found in the “Sweet and Noble Science” of Boxing and melded them perfectly with the Tactile skills from Wing Chun. Yet it seems Lee was perhaps unaware as to why those Combat Systems were different and why those Systems were the most effective for his purposes. Moreover, the fact that such skills which composed his System were derived and extracted from such Combat Systems labeled “fencing”, “boxing”, “wing chun” and “wrestling” were of little concern to him. He actively rejected such labels by avoiding the superficial, penetrating the complex and “going to the heart of the matter” to “pinpoint the key factors” (ibid, 12).

As a prototype for Eskirmology

Jeet Kune Do, in my opinion, was meant to be a science with a deep philosophical tone. Since I have not personally trained or met with Lee, I am unable to verify whether this was indeed the case, but by assessing his range of notes in context with that which we have already outlined, we may see that JKD had the potential to be the world’s first truly scientific approach. There are a number of points which I feel sum up this view based upon that which I have previously mentioned;

The existential phenomenon of Subjectivism:

• Description of the Rashomon effect (“The consequence is quite understandable, for a person cannot see a fight “as is” - because he is so often blinded by his chosen segments from the point of view of a kung fu stylist, a boxer, a karate man, a wrestler, a judoka, or anyone who is trained in a particular method, and naturally he will interpret the fight according to the limits of his particular conditioning” (Little, 2001, 134))

• The inclination to ritualize behaviours.

• The negative effect of instructionism.

• The need to find one’s own creativity, habitus and expression.

• Experience as one’s true teacher.

• The Pointer of the Way as a revealer, and builder of awareness of, experiences.

Description of the event of combat:

• Interest in the function in order to consider one’s own creative expression (“freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond system” – i.e. views combat eskirmologically)

• Allusion to fighting as a VARE (indirectly – at least as an unpredictable event)

• Allusion to Primary Instinctive Response as “original freedom”

• Tactics more important than actual technique (the digital vs. analogue learning analogy)

The attempt to have an anthropic scientific method:

• Scientific Method: An interest in the truth rather than the perspective (“true observation begins when one is devoid of set patterns”)

• Development of what Lee termed a “Framework” (Anthropic Combat System)

• Combat Logic to be studied (and discovered) with scientific reasoning, as well as Pragmatic experimentation; as separate from the expressionism and pedagogy of ritualised fighting.

• Universal Combat Logic, rather than a nationally-specific perspective (“…it is primarily concerned with the blossoming of a Martial Artist, and not a “Chinese” Martial Artist, and so forth…a Martial Artist is first a human being, which is ourselves; nationalities have nothing to do with Martial Art” (Little, 1997a, 28))

The problems with Institutionalisation:

• Description of the Law of Institutionalisation, as well as suggesting the “causes of ignorance”.

• Liberation from a submission to ritual and confining expressionism by means of liberating pragmatism.

• Look past the institution to see the information upon which it has been built.

• Recognise the personality of the founder and the traces of that founder in the Combat System.

Consultation of existing databases:

• Use of ritualised behaviours to support reasoning, but not justify them.

• Elaboration of Combat Systems.

Each of these points demonstrates that Jeet Kune Do was arguably a step towards creating a scientific study of fighting, the Martial Arts and self-defence. However, due to the pressures of the Law of Institutionalisation, his artform’s step towards scientific validation and discovery of Combat Logic did not reach its potential.

Everything which Lee wrote on the topic is testament to this consideration. Everything he described as Classical, his opinion of it, and his learning to overcome it is further evidence of his inevitable direction towards a truly objective scientific study, and most importantly validation of fighting methods. Jeet Kune Do attempts the construction of a method based upon pragmatism and freedom, so much so that Lee placed much effort into describing the qualities of an ideal Jeet Kune Do man, many of which could be used to describe a scientist.

Lee’s system attempted to deliver Method to the Martial Artist. Arguably, all East Asian Combat Systems were Closed-systems, a product predesigned with an incidental set of culturally determined behaviours. This was suitable for its closed sociological context, but in the globalised world of Hoplologisms, they suddenly allowed only for the improvement of a student based upon a closed-social guide. Jeet Kune Do was pre-designed to allow the student to question, to devise his own Path without undue influence from Institutionalisation and contrived anachronism. Previous Martial Arts delivered a Product (based upon a Method of Inquiry into Combat Logic by its founder) leaving consequent students disenfranchised. Jeet Kune Do, on the other hand, attempted to enfranchise the student by delivering him the ability to discern Combat Logic for himself – and utilise the stock of human eskirmologics for his own benefit by using an Objective method.

Objectivity is the standard doctrine of martial science. In other words, the scientist is not “attached” to the value of the result. He experiments with a mind to discover the truth rather than proving his own ideas. Therefore he is neither for nor against any ideas about fighting - he is interested in the truth and is indifferent to what he expects to find. East Asian Combat Systems are delivered to the student as finished products, without any requirement to actively construct. The truth is, it would seem, whatever the Combat System has devised it to be – and all pedagogic devices are designed to deliver the student to a particular “modelled” truth.

Given the particular delivery which Lee made with Jeet Kune Do, it retains a potential risk in that its practitioners would seek the opposite of formality, and he must have been aware of this fact since he mentioned that “Seeking the opposite of a system is to enter another conditioning.” (Little, 1997a, 332) If practicing Traditional Martial Arts is a form of entrenchment into ritual, then Lee’s process demands that we climb out of the trenches of ritualised fighting and allow ourselves to be observers of the entire landscape outside the bounds of “style”.

This kind of observance and constant learning is also a staple of the Scientific Method. It is a constant quest, never a conclusion, but always a process of remaining open to learning. Physicists would never declare that they know all there is about physics, and neither would biologists declare that they know everything about living creatures. Martial Artists believe that their Martial Art represents all there is to know about fighting, and are not interested in testing and experimenting with its conclusions. In opposition to this, Lee once said that an intelligent mind is continually learning and never concluding – and Martial Arts styles are, by their definition a conclusion and therefore they cease to be intelligent. We must remember that an intelligent mind is never satisfied with conclusions, but rather constantly seeks to inquire. It does not mean daily decrease, but daily optmisation and integration of the “right” data into a body of knowledge. We could apply this definition to anyone who pursues a scientific study, in the hope of learning about the world around us, and not readily accepting existing beliefs and dogmas.

Lee, however, recognised this risk manifesting with his own Method – in which case, he was keen to guide his students away from the kind of over-concern and totemism exhibited in other schools by concentrating on the concept of “Jeet Kune Do” itself. A good scientist has never got bogged-down by the process of using the scientific method. The scientific method is not used in isolation of the truth, but rather it is a method by which we may secure a truth, and be assured that using an epistemological method will lead us to the most verifiable and objective truth. Lee was conscious of the fact that practitioners might mistake Jeet Kune Do as the Way, rather than the method for reaching the Way. The final chapter of the Tao Of Jeet Kune Do makes this clear, entitled “It’s just a name” (ibid, 205-208) expounding upon his earlier note that creating a name causes fear (ibid, 11). Lee likens his approach to a boat, designed for the journey, to facilitate the transition, but not to be worshiped for its function.

It was a vehicle after all, with a function of the delivery of the practitioner to the expression and understanding of the self. There is no point in identifying oneself as practicing the Scientific method, just as much as there is no real point in identifying oneself as being a practitioner of “Jeet Kune Do”. The method exists as a tool to lead one to the desired state of mind, rather than being that state of mind. Therefore Jeet Kune Do is not a Combat System as a body of knowledge existing prior to the use of martial science, but rather it is the beginning of the process towards true martial science. It is not for converting A to B, but for recognizing A as B. Whether Lee was consciously working towards Science, or whether he accidentally stumbled upon a Scientific Method in his process towards discovering the truth; his approach is undeniably scientific in nature.

However, something inevitable has happened to Jeet Kune Do. It is not a universal Combat Science which ALL Martial Artists can apply to fighting – it is something only JKD practitioners study. Hence, we do not have a genuine science of fighting as it was intended to be, but rather another System with all the qualifications as with any art form under the social pressure of the Law of Institutionalisation.

Failure of JKD to realise its potential as universal Martial Science

To many readers, it may seem strange that, out of the many examples of Combat Systems, I would devote an entire section to Jeet Kune Do. Yet I wish to stress that the Law of Institutionalisation impresses itself upon all human endeavours – even one designed specifically not to succumb to it. Previous Combat Systems did not consider this existential element as part of its creation, but Jeet Kune Do did. Lee recognised the difference, and although he attempted to avoid it, and made the pitfalls explicit, derided the problems of institutionalisation and jovially satirised the blind followers of other “truths”, JKD has paradoxically also fallen foul of those same sociological dynamics. Let us take a look at this in a little more depth.

Bruce Lee discovered the eternal truths of Combat Logic. He took an objective view of the Martial Arts in order to critically analyse them and their reasoning. Little (2001) demonstrates Lee’s studies of both Western & Eastern philosophy. He wrote many essays upon the works of Descartes, Socrates, Plato, as well as the Taoist teachings as part of his philosophical studies. In this way, it proves his JKD applied to more than simply Martial Arts; he drew on what was useful and what it could give to him, rather than simply looking at “Chinese philosophy” or “Taoist teachings”. He looked “outside-the-box” and in this way he had begun to see the universal the “anthropic” truth above the relative perspective. The science of fighting manifested in the human species’ expression rather than the Chinese, or Korean expression. After all, as Lee once philosophically noted “In the greater, the lesser is, but in the lesser, the greater is not.” (Little, 1997a, 333)

As I have stressed, the purpose of Jeet Kune Do was to serve as a methodical vehicle to discovering Truth. In fact, it was a means by which the student may be empowered to deliver himself to Truth – in effect it was a process of self-discovery by means of Combat System. This fact is evident throughout his works, presenting his system as a method rather than a conclusion (Little, 1997a, ), as well as a means to self-discovery (Little, 1997a, ) It was a process which was inspired by Taoism (Little, 2001, 2-1227,29,41,43-52,), Buddhism (using such terms as “is-ness”, “such-ness” et al; Little, 1997b) and Western Philosophy (Little, 2001, 53-90), and followed a similar line of logic as my own approach. It is process and change; and “Jeet Kune Do (JKD)” was his name designated to that scientific approach. It was an important attempt at scientific reform by means of what Bolleli refers to as “epistemological anarchism” (Bolleli, 2003,171-183).

However, when Lee classified JKD as a Martial Art form, he instantly condemned his science to the Law of Institutionalisation; the very problem he had pin-pointed was wrong with other Martial Arts. He aptly described at length the process of crystallisation of Combat Systems through dogmatic social complexes¹⁵⁹. When the founder passes away, the art becomes codified based upon what the founder had taught. This finite teaching of infinite possibility becomes the parameter to making the Combat Logic definite. When the founder was alive, there were unlimited directions the art could take. However, what Lee failed to do was provide provisions to prevent this happening to his own Martial Arts approach. Ironically, his description of this process of institutionalisation was also applicable to what happened to Jeet Kune Do after his death.

We can see that although Lee came to many conclusions about the direction of the Martial Arts, he failed to expound much of the basic logic which made his reasoning acceptable to Martial Artists. He made leaps in reasoning, perhaps believing his leaps to be readily understood and reconcilable to practitioners from other Combat Systems. Yet they did not witness his view of Combat Logic, they were unaware of it, and his discussions of it were considered profound, but difficult to reconcile appropriately. The basis of his art form therefore depended upon a higher level of intellectual and philosophical reasoning than was readily accepted by mainstream Martial Artists.

Much of this foundation upon which his intellectual inquiry was based was left undefined. He did not define the “Fight In Itself” as a “Volatile Aggressive-Resistant Event” (or similar) in which the truth of fighting existed. This was his reasoning for the idea that the truth of fighting was different for each individual came from the fact that no amount of institutionalised conditioning could apply to a spontaneous continuum. Consequently, an informed fighter’s conduct in a fight is a “classified response to one’s chosen inclination”. In other words, the spontaneity of the fight is destroyed by the dictates of the System. Moreover, his theories for his vehicle of JKD were based upon the problems of institutionalised fighting as a response to Primary Instinctive Response (PIR - one’s “primary freedom”) and Combat Logic (the fight-in-itself) as seen in the preceding sections of this book. Without this reasoning, the ground upon which JKD stands is a foundation of sand¹⁶⁰. Without these definitions, Jeet Kune Do was indeed a true Proto-science.

This is unfortunate because Lee’s works display a changing and evolving mentality; a fluid evolution of eskirmological theory coupled with practical utility. His application of scientific reasoning as well as Taoist and philosophic approaches show real promise for a true martial science.

It is regrettable therefore, that after he died and without his direction, the art suffered the same fate of other art forms Lee had criticized. Lee’s Combat System became codified and HIS art form (his expressionism) became known as Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do. Now, when the term JKD is used, it is used synonymously with the founder. Furthermore, many Martial Artists have not realised the profundity of his truth; they consider it as a Martial Arts style - the Martial Arts style of Bruce Lee. Using this as an example, we have witnessed Jeet Kune Do pass from epistemological method of enquiry to an institutionalised Combat System.

What Jeet Kune Do should have been

There is no real proof of what Lee intended for his artform, and since he is no longer with us, there is no real authority on what he had intended for his approach. If we ask his students, we come up with differing opinions, which further proves the effect of the law of institutionalisation. The absence of the founder leads to Institutionalisation, as supported by Kent & Tackett (1988, 9), “Ever since the tragic and untimely death of Bruce Lee there has been a controversy about just what Jeet Kune Do is. If you ask 10 different Bruce Lee students you are likely to get 10 different, although similar, answers.”

Our primary source upon Lee’s art form is therefore what he has actually written. Since these are his own words, not those passed on via another we can accept that they are his truth. There is another problem with this, however, as I realise from my own experience; the works which we consider to be Bruce Lee’s words – Tao of Jeet Kune Do (1975), and the fantastic compilations of Lee’s notes by John Little – are (as Kent & Tackett mention) “compilation[s] of several volumes of written notes and observations”. For this reason, whilst casting an eye over my own notes, it becomes clear that they are part of a process¹⁶¹. There are notes I have made which I do not agree with later, nor would I wish to be published as a representation of my ideas – an observation that I’m sure Lee would have been aware. There is no real authority upon Lee’s world-view other than Lee himself and the succinct set of articles Lee wrote for Black Belt Magazine in summary of his approach are therefore an important source for his own views and the intended future he had planned for them.

In Lee’s work, there is good evidence to suggest that he was aware of the Law of institutionalisation, since he placed much emphasis on his having not created a new style. “Actually, I never wanted to give a name to the kind of Chinese gung fu that I have invented, but for convenience sake, I still call it ‘jeet kune do’…I stress again, I have not created or invented any kind of Martial Art. Jeet Kune Do is derived from what I have learned, plus my evaluation of it. Thus, my JKD is not confined by any kind of Martial Arts. On the contrary, I welcome those who like JKD to study it and improve it.” (Little 1997a, 59) In effect, it seems that Lee wanted his approach to be studied and improved, since he was aware that tradition and the forming of tradition “…could be a hinderance to progress”.

To improve it, we must critique the approach philosophically as we already have discussed, not for the sake of critique, but to keep the principle of Combat Logic alive. We must compare it which what we know of Combat Logic and assess whether its method delivers us to genuine knowledge of it. Therefore Jeet Kune Do remains relevant as a Method of inquiry and separate from the product of knowledge to which it delivers us.

Besides the importance of the approach based upon the stop-hit and other preventative methods of fighting, we may do well to define Jeet Kune Do as a “a proto-scientific study of fighting, drawing corroboration and inspiration from an eclectic range of sources with an undercurrent of Taoist philosophy”. Lee’s stratagem of combat was based definitely upon scientific experimentation, the fact that the purpose of all movement in fighting should be to attack the opponent. “Jeet Kune Do uses all ways and is bound by none, and likewise uses any technique or means which serves its end. Efficiency is anything that scores.” Does this not sound like an eskirmological statement? Although he also taught biomechanically sound actions, he also taught that the Martial Artist should not be overly concerned with the “way” in which he fights but rather the intention of the fight – to win. With this, Lee has alluded to the ancient law of the military – which is also to win.

Lee wrote much upon the subject of “The way of ‘no way’ and ‘formless form’”. It is reasonable to conclude that Lee’s approach was one of optimization of bodily movement to conform with the convergent point of attack as well as using those techniques in no defined order, pattern or system. The techniques are optimized, but there is no dictate as to how they should be put together or used, and with this in mind, it is an art form with no form. Lee describes that “the highest art is no art. The best form is “no form” To be bound by traditional Martial Art style or styles is the way of the mindless, enslaved Martial Artist, but to be inspired by the traditional Martial Art and to achieve further heights is the way of genius.¹⁶²” (Compare this to my analogy of the Sherker in the Law of Institutionalisation)

Using traditional Martial Arts then, and accepting them as being partial truths (or pre-sciences), expert knowledge in certain areas of fighting, but none of them containing the entirety of truth, it seems Lee has come to the same conclusion as we have in our section on Combat Systems. The fact that someone trained in Tae Kwon Do can call themselves a master of kicking, but not a master of fighting, or a boxer can be an expert at using the fists but not a master of the entirety of a fight, means that they are confined within a partial response to a Volatile Aggressive-Resistant Event (VARE).

Shortly before Lee died, it seems that he had indeed taken steps to avoid the Law of Institutionalisation and its effect on JKD. Having observed the trend of tradition and institutionalisation of Martial Arts pre-dating his approach, Lee closed all his schools and informed all his students who were teaching at that time to also close their schools. Lee tells us,

“I do not believe in schools…I’ve disbanded all the schools of Jeet Kune Do because it is very easy for a member to come in and take the agenda as “the truth” and the schedule as “the Way” (Little, 1997a, 59)¹⁶³.

This statement, even in isolation of everything else, suggests with certainty that Lee had himself witnessed the Law of Institutionalisation, and had actively taken steps to avoid it. It is difficult for us to imagine what Lee considered to be a better method of teaching JKD outside a schooling system, but there is no reason why he would not have used the same method as we shall describe later (that of Pragmatic experimentation, or using Combat Logic as one’s teacher).

Although Jeet Kune Do was Lee’s approach to fighting, he was torn between the use of the term to describe his approach and the name which should be used as an approach to other people’s interpretation of JKD. He taught JKD to others and the approach which he himself had used was not passed on. As we know, there is a difference in the way the founder learned and the way in which he will condense his knowledge to offer it as a product to his own students. What Lee could have done as a provision is write a set of explicit guidelines by which students should direct their study, but not dictate what they should actually study. What Lee’s students learned from him was his personal approach, but what Lee intended was perhaps to teach his method of thinking. What made Aristotle the incredible thinker was that Plato had taught him the art of thinking, rather than any particular knowledge. What made Plato a greater thinker was that Socrates did the same for him. To seek knowledge is to seek a product, but to know how to think is to approach any topic and generate knowledge about it for oneself.

A rose garden will yield roses and a violet garden will yield violets and so there is no reason to believe that someone else using Lee’s Method will come to the same conclusion (in the form of “Jeet Kune Do”). Even so, Lee attempted to resolve the issue of his attachment as Architect to his approach;

“It is ridiculous to attempt to pin down so-and-so’s type of gung fu as ‘Bruce Lee’s jeet kune do’. I call it jeet kune do just because I want to emphasise the notion of deciding at the right moment in order to stop the enemy at the gate.” (ibid, 49)¹⁶⁴

As we have seen, by emphasizing it with the very name Jeet Kune Do, the “interceptive fist”, Lee concurs with the pinnacle concept of all those Combat Scientists who came before him. This preventative action was a means to reducing risk, and in this way, the name demonstrates a deep understanding of Combat Logic, based principally upon the concept of the “stop-hit” as we described it earlier.

In most elements of fighting, Lee demonstrated strong opinions against the pedagogics which existed in existing Hoplologisms. He oriented his entire approach toward inquiry and examination to understand the science behind fighting. In which case, he realised that the human experience should be aimed not at the means but at the ends. Many anachronistic schools maintained rigourous abstracted pedagogical exercises designed to deliver someone to a particular level, but never the end result. Each part was a step, a rung on a ladder. Lee believed that every rung should be oriented towards an axel, like spokes on a wheel rather than rungs on a ladder. The exercises should relate directly to the desired result. His Jeet Kune Do was principally a science and philosophy of fighting, yet it may holistically be considered a philosophical framework through which one could experience creativity, mental liberty and enfranchisement.

Jeet Kune Do represents Lee’s study and method for acquiring genuine knowledge of Combat Logic and follows the definition of science as being a study of the world outside the human mind. It is therefore scientific to study not that which is a partial truth but to study the whole truth. Science avoids bias and Lee’s work supports the idea that his JKD was martial science. “Jeet kune do is only a name. The most important thing is to avoid having bias in the training.” (ibid, 56) Above all, the greatest evidence for Bruce Lee’s approach for being defined as a proto-eskirmology is to read Lee’s words themselves. Nothing more can supply better evidence, and I suggest that readers – should they not agree with this conclusion - take my proposition and re-assess Lee’s works within this context. I am certain that they will then realize how many elements of Lee’s art fit together so coherently with a sensible proposition as Eskirmology.

Reasons for Jeet Kune Do’s institutionalisation

It has been stated many times in JKD circles that an individual approach to Martial Arts is where the truth in combat may be found. This alludes to Lee’s concept that the truth in combat is subjective. Indeed this is true, his psychological perspective, physical attribute and skills are unique to him, but the principles and concepts upon which that subjectivism is based is entirely universal. The mechanics of force, the reduction of risk through coherent and logical strategy and the biomechanics of applying the human body are shared by all human beings. In a truly scientific move, Lee made a note that there are two parts to the world as we are able to know it:

1) The World Itself, and

2) The human mind.

With this note, he was alluding to the works of Aristotle and Kant who considered that there is a definite difference between the reality of the world, and that which we are able to perceive and understand. We can only know 1 via 2. Since we know that 2 can be wrong and prone to misperception, we cannot truly know 1, but make an assessment of 1 within the confines and limits of 2. By considering the truth to be outside the human mind, we must consider that Martial Art is flawed. The truth of combat requires a logical consideration, rather than impressionistic and aesthetic consideration. Partiality of Combat Logic, or choosing one side over the other alternative is a central theme in the works of Lee. He devotes much effort in establishing the subjective truth of the Martial Arts, but the objective truth that was exponential to all subjective truth. This is why Lee had begun to look into the actual science behind the Truth of fighting, which existed outside of the human mind. The “scientific method” allows us to view the world in a definite, real way not a fantasy way based upon subjective position. In which case, besides identifying the fact that each person’s Martial Art will be different and unique due to that person’s individuality; it is also this key element which establishes JKD’s limitation.

Perhaps the absolute limiting factor here is choice itself. Choice in choosing your own path means that we may CHOOSE to learn from certain sources and CHOOSE to ignore others. This choice not only limits your learning by placing emphasis upon subjectivism, but may also effectively limit your open-mindedness. This choice means that you would not find the truth that is universal, but only the truth as you know it via your preferential perception. An often misinterpreted element of JKD is the personalised system of fighting, in which those who misinterpret the line pick-and-choose in their own discretion the techniques which they prefer. What Lee prescribed was an Eskirmological core – a framework - in which anthropologically sound fighting techniques should be studied, but the way in which they were applied was personal. Lee demands that we learn all the options, we practice the “map” and understand the entirety of combat options available to us, and it is up to us to compile the ratio of methods which suit our unique attributes.

Although Lee identified the causes, he failed to create provisions for the avoidance of crystallisation. Firstly, he continued to call his Martial Art a Chinese style. Perhaps this was due to the fact that he had strong identifications with his heritage. But by doing so, he inadvertantly put his personal mark on his System. Lee highlighted that the truth in Martial Arts exists outside of nationalistic identity, because we are all human. By stating that the truth was outside national identity - yet classifying JKD as a Chinese style - he instantly placed a “stamp of Bruce Lee” upon the Method. It was this which made it proto-eskirmological – and rather “Bruce Lee-logical”. Subsequently, he identified the problem, but had not quite brought a solution to fruition.

As we described earlier, just as Lao Tzu stated that the “The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao”, the intrinsic meaning of the idea is ironically lost by defining it in terms which humans are able to understand – with definition all other possibilities and any other connotations the term was supposed to have are lost. Lee also anticipated that by defining what the truth in combat was, Jeet Kune Do could potentially separate it from the truth it attempted to reach. Dan Inosanto remembered; “Shortly after he coined the term ‘jeet kune do’ in 1968, Bruce was sorry he'd done that. He felt that the name itself would be a limitation, that it might imply some sort of Chinese Martial Arts style. Bruce felt that JKD was beyond limitations of nationality and culture.”¹⁶⁵

Enter the Codifiers

Since Lee’s passing, his approach evolved into two different poles of instruction. Both evidence the dichotomy between his actual doctrine of progression and investigation, and the other the doctrine of the Law of institutionalisation.

The first is the result of the Law of Institutionalisation wherein it is a system preserved “as taught by Bruce Lee”, and is lead by those who were personally trained by Lee. They teach JKD the way in which JKD was taught to them. This has created a tradition based upon the founder’s teachings; yet, it is inevitable (considering the fact that Lee was both an exceptional Martial Artist as well as famous actor and film star) that this kind of securing of his teachings would happen - given the value of his direct teachings being preserved in the specific “Bruce Lee” way. Many of the “Nucleus” of practitioners in fact profess to teach the Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do, or “Bruce Lee’s Way of the Intercepting Fist”. They use language such as “keeping the founder’s teachings alive”, “teaching the art the way Bruce Lee taught it” etc. Ted Wong, one of Lee’s original students stated that “you have to preserve his art at some point to prevent it from completely disappearing. So right or wrong, that’s my desire, to preserve Bruce’s Jeet Kune Do. I’m doing it to honour him”¹⁶⁶. Poteet, another of Lee’s students mentions in his biography that his training method was the means to “give something back to my teacher.” His website (JerryPoteet.com) is subtitled “Keepers of the Flame”¹⁶⁷. This is precisely the sort of language used by the students of Dong Hai Chuan (the founder of Baguazhuang), Morihei Ueshiba (the founder of Aikido), or Jiguro Kano (the founder of Judo). We can imagine the students of any of these masters stating, at some point after the death of the founder, the precise words of Wong. At some point, students must preserve that which they were taught – hence the inevitable pull towards Institutionalisation.

“Keeping the founder’s art alive” is not a negative occurance. On the contrary, it is indeed positive. Those who have been touched by the founder of a Martial Art must keep the art alive and teach it in the way they were taught. From a Combat Logical perspective, we must avoid attributed emotional content to either occurance – neither is right nor wrong. On the other hand, it should be remembered that this practice is what Lee specifically recognized as “the cause of ignorance” – the point at which the survival of the school becomes more important than bringing the student to enlightenment. Lee mentioned that tradition is the mechanism to sanctify habits (as I have discussed earlier), and it seems that perhaps his Jeet Kune Do is currently at risk of becoming a tradition. This is evidence of the law of institutionalization in action. Kent offers a quotation from a leading JKD Concepts criticism of this Original approach

“A problem with “Original JKD” is that it has become a classical system. This means that the practitioners adhere to tradition instead of thinking for themselves and continuing to search for improvement, they believe in a product (a set system) instead of the process (constant improvement and moment-to-moment relationship). Anything new is considered invalid.”

We can therefore observe two occurances from this situation, a branching of two opinions on the same teachings – the personal art taught by those who knew the founder (out of respect), and the continuance of the motivation of the founder towards progressive scientific study. This prediction is granted clarity when we consider the situation in which Lee’s proto-science now finds itself. The goals of The Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Nucleus consist of many provisions which re-enforce the institutionalisation of JKD. This is a perfect modern example of the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation and we can safely consider that this has been the same process at work in other more ancient Combat System institutions. Perhaps we could even reason that historical architects might also have created Combat Science, but their process was also institutionalised?

The other development (chronologically the first to develop after Lee’s death), is therefore the proliferation of the conceptual framework which Lee expounded. Known as Conceptual Jeet Kune Do (or JKD Concepts), its practitioners build and improve the methods which Lee taught. Kent (1998) tells us that the origin of this phrase was due to a realization that the public wished to learn more about Lee and his art. Yet the instruction was offered with a necessary disclaimer “Dan would make a point of explaining to the participants that since JKD was such an individualized thing, he really couldn’t “teach” en masse it to a large group…Dan also asked the promoters of these seminars that if they used “Jeet Kune Do” in their advertising, that they used the term “JKD Concepts”, because that is what he would illustrate, “concepts” of JKD but not JKD itself” (ibid). They apply pragmatic experimentation as well as logical reasoning. In this way, it is a progressive tradition, and its practitioners do not become attached to the art. They are not sentimental about Lee’s art and develop it in many different ways, whilst recognising and crediting Lee as founder.

Changing the art simply because progression is required by the doctrine is not true progression. Progression means filling the gaps in the ideas, but it does not mean changing concepts which work. Kent describes the difference as “Adding vs. Refining”. The problem here is, as Lee stated, those who do not have the ingenuity of the founder have difficulty realizing which parts work or not and thus teach the whole lot. The “Nucleus” institution is perhaps a direct response to this fear. The aims of The Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do Nucleus are designed to ensure that Bruce Lee is given firstly recognition and secondly that his system is not changed for the sake of change. So both approaches are, logically, justified - however, the concept of Jun Fan JKD serves to sanctify and promote the founder, and use the terms “keeping the flame alive” etc. By maintaining the institution, it becomes a barrier from receiving the truth because of the Law of Institutionalisation.

On 27^th March 1981 Jun Fan Jeet Kune Do’s path into becoming an institutionalised Combat System came to fruition. Kent & Tackett (1998, 8) tell how Jeet Kune Do was inducted into The Kuoshu Federation of the Republic of China in which the generations from Bruce Lee became recognised. Kent & Tackett further report that it became a recognised Chinese Martial Art acquiring an officially sanctioned and institutionalised hierarchy with “Elders – direct descendants of Bruce Lee”; “Pai Sho – Direct descendants of elders”; “Affiliates”, and “Participants & Liaisons”. With this we can see that Lee’s science and philosophy of combat has been defined as being held by a key group of people with a direct link to it’s founder and thereby the particular school’s “truth”. It therefore has become a Hoplologism, rather than an anthropic combat science.

The move towards science

Bruce Lee raised our consciousness to observe ritualized and institutionalized Combat Systems, as well as highlighting the need to question the function. His ideas brought to light many of the Martial Arts Delusions which I have discussed throughout the course of this book. Lee’s approach provoked the need to question Combat Systems in the process of revealing the truth about Combat Logic. As Lee alluded, science is a way in which we may come closer to understanding combat phenomena and the wider world around us. I say “alluded to” because he did not apply the scientific method formally, and neither did he identify that his method was in fact comparable to a scientific method. I have attempted this here by suggesting that his method could be described as scientific, but because it did not adhere to it formally, Jeet Kune Do might be termed a Proto-science.

Science and its Method is based upon an ingenius scheme devised to reveal the truth. It is perhaps the most accessible and secure path available to us to discern the truth; we may use this method to discover the truth in combat, and simultaneously, the truth about ourselves and life itself. Consequently, we should theoretically be able to reason how science may aid us in achieving a more infallible method of understanding fighting.

VI. Reformation through personal liberation

REFORMATION

THROUGH

PERSONAL LIBERATION

Reforming Combat Systems

We have seen how, on the humble basis of data, Combat Logic information is acquired, processed and internalized. The quality of this initial process dictates the efficacy of each and every consequent step in the sequence. Those who genuinely seek Truth naturally gravitate towards the scientific method, but we have seen that attempts to question previously inherited data is difficult and are met with opposition. One attempt at overcoming this problem was made by Bruce Lee, yet his attempt at universal reform ultimately failed to become the driving force required to homogenize combat science into a modern and universally accepted science in its own right.

In summarising the components of our hypothesis, we may see that there have been four phases:

1. Truth – Inquiry must always depend upon rational questioning and scientific method, yet application of such a scientific method to the martial arts is a modern phenomenon. Investigation of truth inevitably requires experience and relationship with truth, which is to an extent quite personal.

2. Instructionist Transmission of Truth – The product of the above enquiry is taught to others, and the data held within that system is accepted by the student unquestioningly.

3. Social Institutionalisation of Truth – The achievement of the Architect is revered by a recipient group who have consensus to deify the Architect.

4. Scientific Reformation to return to Truth – Non-conformists, Audo-didacts and more-often-than-not those who are unattached to institution naturally gravitate towards Truth, reject sanctification and seek to reform the entire subject by means of establishing scientific method and empowerment of the “self”.

To translate these into the terms of the Social Psychologist, it begins with information, which convinces members of the society, such that consensus on the information is “majority influence” or “conformity”. In order to change, modify or improve said information, it is necessary for “innovation” to occur, such that it is changed through “minority influence” (Avermaet, in Hewstone et al; 1997, 488).

Modern attempts at reform are not without their own obstacles and a challenge, stemming predominantly from public perception of what “science” is. When many people think of science, they think of Physics, Biology, Chemistry etc. They consider a science of fighting to be simply a scientific explanation for Martial Arts technique. Science is widely used to explain Martial Arts in the physical dimension. Concepts such as Momentum, Force, Velocity, Mass, Rotation, Equilibrium etc are all useful in describing the physical techniques of combat, and have been applied widely by scholars (Bardosi, 1990; Diacu; Darkin, 2002; McGonagill, 2004; Sprague, 2002; Starr, 2008; Walker, 1975, 1980; Wilk, 1983; et al). On the other hand, we know that these physical techniques do not exist without a logical purpose – a purpose dictated by Combat Logic, and so understanding the aforementioned concepts will tell us how to optimise kinesiology, but little about how to fight tactically - they do little to improve the “efficacy of action”. There is thus a critical difference between using science to explain Martial Arts techniques, and using scientific logic to reason why those techniques may or may not be fit for purpose.

We have already built up a fundamental base of scientific research in the previous parts of this book. We have traced the science of fighting, or what should form the basis of study in Eskirmology. A science such as this has not existed in a defined state, so we are pretty much beginning from scratch¹⁶⁸. Any science, when disembarking from the separate fields which preceeded it must have began from a similar state¹⁶⁹. Since we have a blank canvas, we must first and foremost, state what the science is, and how it is composed. In order to truly call it a science, we must use a method which is scientific, since we are attempting to base the science upon what is true and not that which is false. A solution which applies to nature cannot be improved, because it applies to the source. As Miyamoto once said, “When you cannot be deceived by men you will have realised the wisdom of strategy...The wisdom of strategy is different from other things. On the battlefield, even when you are hard-pressed, you should ceaselessly research the principles of strategy so that you can develop a steady spirit.”

We might begin with a blank slate, knowing only the human form; its mechanics and kinesiology, and that it must take part in the biological event of combat. By reasoning as to the necessary components of fighting we can determine what we need to create a true method of fighting.

We then reach a point whereby we can assume that what we need would have already been considered before and would therefore already be part of a Martial Arts system. This is when the Pre- and proto-sciences become extremely valuable. An art such as boxing specialises in punching, so it would be within reason to believe that the optimum techniques of punching could be found in boxing. Leaving the flaws in this example aside, it does clearly demonstrate the reasoning behind Bruce Lee’s method of studying other Martial Arts for the “truth in combat”. It was not to piece together techniques out of preference, but to find techniques which comply with our tactical parameters. When looking for an efficient, simple and direct technique of attack, the obvious source would be fencing, since it uses direct lunges, which are efficient and simple. Lee needed a technique which matched these parameters, it was not important that it came from a source known as “fencing”. The truth is outside of pigeon-holed sources. There is no difference between fencing and any other art other than the aspects of nationality and use of a weapon. It too is a human method of fighting, based upon the laws in which we are all subject and ultimately confined.

This is why we must consider the techniques of Martial Arts, to “take what is useful and discard the rest”, or as Musashi Miyamoto recorded; to “distinguish between good and evil, study the Ways of different arts one by one…This is the practical result of strategy...To attain the Way of strategy as a warrior you must study fully other Martial Arts and not deviate even a little from the Way of the warrior. When your spirit is not in the least clouded, when the clouds of bewilderment clear away, there is the true void.” There is Combat Logic.

The difference between Martial Art and Martial Science

There are many Martial Artists who declare that they teach Martial Science - a brief search on the internet will demonstrate results of martial science teachers. None, however, discuss anything which fits into any real definition of what martial science is, should or could be. Hence, we would do well at this point to state categorically what martial science is and the way in which it differs from Martial Art.

Most people in the world are unaware of any real science involved in fighting, and assume that the Martial Arts represent the truth in fighting. We have discussed the components of the Martial Arts as an institutionalised form of fighting. As such it fits into the classification of Art perfectly. The main parameter of art is the fact that it is a “personal interpretation”, but we must ask what indeed we are interpreting? Surely, there must be some kind of logic behind these arts in order to make an “interpretation”? Of course, I am questioning emptily at this stage, because we know that there is, but the question leads on to how we can possibly know the logic rather than the interpretation.

We saw in our discussion of ritualised fighting that there will always be a founder of a Martial Art, a person who was an expert of fighting and who knew so much that he/she could create the next Martial Art. In this way, its truth exists with the founder, and in the need to retain the truth, the school becomes ritualised. The founder’s interpretation of fighting was based upon his own personal relationship with Combat Logic and his resultant subjective view of combat. His Martial Art existed within him and in his own perspective on the world. This is one of the key reasons, as we have seen, where schools break into denominations over the same doctrine, based upon differences of opinion and emphasis upon that doctrine. Hence, the tradition is a pyre for the perpetual funeral of the founder interpretation, a shrine to his ideas and ultimately an altar upon which to sacrifice the primary freedom of his indoctrinated students. Clinging, in a futile manner, to the interpretation for the small glimpse it may give us at the truth, or as Lee put it; focusing on the finger rather than looking to the moon. This subjectivism is the root of missing the truth behind the art. As the Buddhist sutra stated “every one is right in his way, but wrong in taking his parcel to be the whole truth.”

Moreover, the style becomes entirely nationalistic and is often defined by the country in which it originated. Martial Arts such as Karate and Capoeira or La Savate are infused with the character of their respective nations. Capoeira in fact is synonymous with Brazil and has a deep depth of its country’s spirit. This means that the art form is felt to be the property of a certain nation and people. Besides the nationalistic ownership of the Martial Art, it is also common for the system to be “owned” by a closed circle of people (such as the school, or the family). This means that it belongs to a relatively small social group and is unlikely to have made progression from external influences.

On the other hand, true Martial Science is the sensible antithesis of all of the above. Science is not the product of a single person, but the sum product of many contributors. However, the difference between art and science is the fact that art belongs with the founder, the artist and individual. Science belongs to mankind. Each “discoverer” of the nature of the external factors of Combat Logic changes our knowledge of the subject. A scientific idea stands until another can be proven to supercede it. Moreover, the discovery of the new idea, no matter where it was discovered in the world, joins part of the knowledge formed by humanity. Science is therefore owned by mankind, since it is based upon the categorical discovery of the external world; not a perspective, but a view which is universal to all perceivers. Martial science is the contribution of millions of years of evolution as well as thousands of years of human ritualised fighting. With so much depth of source knowledge to utilise, it is no wonder that it offers an exciting possibility to anyone wishing to pursue the truth.

Science is a culture which is the collective property of mankind, meaning it is not nationalistic. It transcends all nationalistic vices, since it is a truth inherent in the world, shared by all people, no matter what country from which they originate. In this way, all the ideas of science tend to agree as it is independent of national and/or political background. Science is discovered by the human brain, and not created by it; as is the creative definition of Art. Science is independent of the human mind and exists in the external world. It is for this reason that it is objective and not subjective, finding its foundations in the truth outside the human perspective and opinion.

It is for this reason that I place the truth in fighting in science and, although the Martial Arts retain a “partial truth” from the founder’s study of the world around him, his truth is only partial. He did not have the experiences of all men in fighting, only his own. He did not have the greatest amount of knowledge in the subject so that he could create something definitive. His teachings form Martial Art, which is a personal expression. Martial Science is a way of studying the world around us in order to come to categorical conclusions regarding fighting; these can be validated and verified by anyone around the world. You do not have to be from a certain school of Martial Arts, or from a certain country to study it.

Martial Science represents the universal truth behind all partial Martial Arts truths. This is my reasoning for believing that martial science represents the most logical “next step” in the evolution of the Martial Arts. Not only becoming the property of a globalised humanity, not defined by nationalism or race, but to all peoples, based upon the concept of truth.

THE BENEFITS OF MARTIAL SCIENCE OVER MARTIAL ART

Liberation from Pre-Scientific Combat Systems

“Everyone should be respected as an individual, but no one idolized”

Albert Einstein

“Everything you hear is an opinion, everything you see is a perspective.”

When the Royal Society of Science was founded in 1660, their aim was to reject institutionalised information, and the effect that social groups have on their members. They wished to avoid heresay, folktales, urban myths and “old-wives tales”; they wished to test “institutionalised” knowledge. In a bid to do so, they pursued a personal relationship and intellectual alignment with reality. As we saw earlier, Descartes considered the universe to be rational and intelligent, and the more rational and intelligent we seek to be, the more aligned with the universe we are. This super-objective was summed up in their motto nullius in verba “on the word of no man”. Their modus operandi was based upon the scientific method, and upon testing, experimentation and active scientific inquiry, challenging dogmatic views and rejecting the sanctified views of society when they conflicted with the results of their method.

Recognising the effect of Institutionalisation

The first step to any real break-through in understanding the world around you is to realise the effect which institutionalised ideas have had on you. This veil conceals reality in which one’s socially-informed norms (such as those historically or religiously generated – and therefore inherited), ideas or prejudices regarding other cultures, different lifestyles etc are all effects of institutionalisation. They are therefore subjective, and as living beings we are only capable of knowing the world from our subjective perspective. My perspective is merely a perspective, a specifice one from a range of possibilities. The recognition of other people’s perspectives delivers wonderment, and celebration in the great and deep variety contained in the world around us. By recognising that these institutionalised world-views are subjective and not necessarily shared by other cultures, we may attain a more objective view. We become emporer’s of our own thoughts, not affected slaves to other people’s thoughts and views.

In any process towards truth, varying perspectives are incredibly humbling to a subjective perspective; they widen the perspective and open it to other possible perspectives which we may not have considered. The Old Testament (Acts 17:26) records, “From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth” and although it is speculative, perhaps the meaning of these words was not literal, but rather universal. From one man, or from one form of human (two arms, two legs, with cognition) the species has spread out and his mind and ideas about the world (his rituals etc) have shaped the institutions of those nations. This was the origin of “culture”. Hence, the differences in culture are a rich array of evidence of mankinds’ varied understandings and approaches to the world around him. Without such variety, the distillation and unification of these varied datasets might be much more liable to discrepancy. By recognizing duplication in data, we see corroboration, identify and recognize patterns which add greater weight to our conclusions. We also see particular sets of data coming from some cultures which has been refined and perfected only in this culture. Their social conditions favoured that approach and favoured a particular perspective which allowed this conclusion to be formed – a perspective which may not have been “normative” elsewhere. This stock of data has now been inherited by our modern globalised society, and this wealth of information is available to us like never before. Modern attempts at integration of datasets does not preclude conclusion, but allows us to isolate the right information, and also inquire into that which is missing. It allows us, more than anything else, to perhaps conceive and pose the most relevant questions.

Although one culture might view Space-Time as a Tao, as a continuum in which past, present and future are united, or that a culture considers space to be made up of four-dimensions, enables all those who transcend “culture” to realise the truths in each perspective. In which case, each perspective is valid to one who is capable of non-adherence to any particular culture. As radical as this sounds, this non-conformity does not require rejection of culture or any such extreme action. It simply requires recognition and awareness.

Recognise the effect of Institutionalisation

Acceptance of one’s Subjectivity within a wider Objective world

Firstly you were born as an organism with an instinctive need to preserve yourself, and therefore combative reflexes are innate. What is not innate are the mechanical rules which make those reflexes safe and effective – and hence why it takes so long to learn them. Your own expression stems from an individual incidental manifestation of the universal logic of Fighting. Hence, in order to become a good fighter, you must transcend your own subjectivism to witness the truth of fighting.

Musashi Miyamoto in his Dokkodo alludes to the human organisms’ acceptance of his subjectivism but who also lay witness to the objectivity of his environment. For this reason, at least four of his Dokkodo precepts relate to this quality. He mentions that one should “Accept everything just the way it is” and therefore the human organism does not place his own meaning or subjective interpretation upon nature’s indifferent logic. The human being has little concern for the problems of ants for example, and neither does nature have any real attachment to any organism which exists within it.

The second precept in relation to this quality evokes the subjectivity of the human organism. Perhaps it is designed to allow him to transcend partiality and biased perspective which of course is most important in attempting to see the truth. Miyamoto states; “In all things have no preferences”. In all things – not just the Martial Arts, proving his Dokkodo refers to more than simply the sphere of Martial Arts.This precept is extremely important to the organisms understanding of his life as much as Combat Logic. Witnessing the objective truth requires a certain amount of replication of indifference in the self, and therefore sentimentality is to be avoided. Such sentimentalism of ideas is the root of the Law of Institutionalisation; something Miyamoto also stresses that one should avoid by sternly instructing “Do not act following customary beliefs.”

The purpose of a tool is in its use. Just as the car is useless without the driver, so is the weapon without its wielder. Indifference and lack of sentimentality should therefore also extend to the actual tools used when Miyamoto declares “Do not collect weapons or practice with weapons beyond what is useful.” No doubt this was a precept followed by many successful warriors in contemporary Japan, as we have described in the delusion of Anachronism.

Using a scientific method to overcome subjectivism and reach true objectivity

Following the path of Combat Logic gives one a unique perspective on the world. Not adhering to the words of others, the eskirmologist knows the truth intrinsically and therefore is capable of recognising when the words of others do not comply with the truth. It seems that therefore the study of Combat Logic creates its own Quality Policy. Either one knows Combat Logic or not, there is no in between. As Miyamoto tells us in Go Rin No Sho, “When you cannot be deceived by men you will have realised the wisdom of strategy”. This is the advantage to all masters who pursue the truth of Combat Logic with the use of the Scientific Method.

Each master of fighting we have looked at promoted themselves in the history of the Martial Arts from Martial Artists to Martial Scientists. Each did something very simple; they observed the nature of fighting and considered it philosophically and scientifically with a mind to creating an improved system of defence. Some great warriors have graced history, and some great masters are present in our world, but few have sought to improve their system of fighting and its application to fighting. When considered together in this way, we can plainly see that martial science has existed for a very long time. When viewed together in this context, it can be considered that they are all talking about the same thing; studying the nature of fighting with a mind to improvement of Institutionalised fighting. With their use of our study, Eskirmology can be seen as the catalyst for the creation of better Martial Arts systems. Using the study of fighting, Martial Arts masters from Liechtenauer to Lee have modified their systems of Institutionalised fighting to meet the needs of Instinctive/natural fighting.

In the same way, we as modern martial scientists may be able to consider the use of our previous studies upon fighting and institutionalisation to work towards a much more conclusive system of self-defence. We shall use this knowledge of fighting; the pit-falls of Institutionalised fighting and the progressive ideas of Bruce Lee to develop a truer system of fighting which is and can be used in defence of Instinctive Fighting. Many Martial Artists have studied their various schools of thought, and mastered their particular fields, often quoting the master, such as ”Bruce Lee said this, so we do it like this”, or “Ueshiba said to do it like this, so we do”. These are massively important personalities in the world of the Martial Arts, but we should consider that no one master has the totality of knowledge on Combat Logic and therefore we should seek to study all the “fingers which point to the moon”. Their systems of thought exist to show us the way, give us the direction based upon their contemplation and meditation, but it is up to us to look past the teachings, to the background, to the distant “something” which the master is attempting to describe.

It is the frustration of any master of fighting who is at a loss to truly describe the path to enlightenment in any satisfactory terms. Unfortunately, every language in the world is at a loss to supply adequate terms to describe the inner-meaning to the words of these masters. As Lao Tzu once said “the tao that can be named is not the true tao”, any words they could use do not cut to the true meaning. Likewise, Musashi noted that only the study of the world will lead you to a conclusion that is true.

“Language does not extend to explaining the Way in detail, but it can be grasped intuitively. Study this book; read a word then ponder on it. If you interpret the meaning loosely you will mistake the Way. …”

In a truly Danikian¹⁷⁰ move, exchanging the words “the Way” with “Combat Logic”, we may become aware of the meaning of this quote. Ueshiba further mentions the inability to express experience with teachings and words;

“True Budo

Cannot be described by

The brush or by the mouth-

The gods will no allow you

To rely upon words!

Budo-

No voice, no form

No shadow;

Question the gods as much as you like

But they will not reply.

No voice to see,

No heart to hear:

The true [eskirmological] techniques.

Initially the world

Learned directly from the gods.”

Of course, as eskirmologists (and as above), we may replace the words “the gods” with Combat Logic to make a more accurate picture of Ueshiba’s meaning for our purpose. Read the pieces again, but this time replace “the gods” with “Combat Logic”. In his final piece, Ueshiba alludes to using Science as a method to learning “initially” and “directly” from the gods. This again relates to our concept of returning to the Source of the Martial Arts by directing our study to Combat Logic itself, as well as the initial study of Combat Logic made by the founder of the school.

This inability to describe experience and knowledge in words is also found in religion, whereby all religions tell you that enlightenment comes when one has logically broken down reality to understand the deeper meaning. It seems odd to me that today, science and religion are contending fields of study since the truth of religion is written in terms which are not explicit but describe the deeper meaning of things. There is no logical way, however, that the bible and other texts could possibly have understood the world around them without some kind of science¹⁷¹. The tales of Genesis, or the Wu-ji of Taoism, and any other religious tellings of the creation, are the similar descriptions of “the beginning” understood by modern science today (known as the “Big Bang Theory”).

It is the same problem with the Martial Arts. At a loss to describe in explicit scientific terms, the truths of other styles of fighting become ritualised and dogmatic. I am of the belief that fighting has existed since the dawn of time, and holds a very deep residence within the human mind, which means that any truth in this subject can also only be found within the human mind. The Martial Arts schools which exist are the truths as others have found them; but we can only know fighting from within ourselves. It is something which cannot be taught, but discovered via people like Lee, Ueshiba, Liechtenauer, Silver, Capoferro, Danet, Miyamoto et al and similar personalities pointing us in the right direction. As I have previously stressed, too many become caught up with concentrating on the finger to see all the heavenly glory. The finger has been pointing for a very long time, and hopefully by using a scientific view, we shall come to a scientific conclusion which adds weight to the conclusions of those gifted masters who preceded us. Which honours the master more: mindlessly following his path, or seeing his path through to fruition as he intended it to be?

We would be able to study eskirmology with the benefit of the philosophies taught by Oyama, Miyagi or Funakoshi etc, whilst at the same time not requiring to define our practice as “Karate Do” (the specific Okinawan term referring to the discovery and institutionalisation of Combat Logic in Okinawa). As better solutions come into being, based upon scientific and pragmatic research & experiment, we would do well to keep up with progression. There are not many people who write using quills, because pens superseded them. Not many people use the horse and carriage, because cars do the job far more efficiently. After all, no Martial Artist truly practices for the altruistic purpose of keeping an art alive. It is a by-product of practice for the benefit of the self – even if it is for the love of the practice. If the art benefits the self, then it is passed on to the next generation for their benefit. And so the natural selection of the Martial Arts Organism will continue. Hence, the elemental purpose of Martial Arts practice is for what the individual may benefit from. If he may benefit more from the study of many different sources, then he should study in this way.

Perhaps we cannot have it both ways, but there could be reconciliation. As Eskirmologists, we accept that fighting is universal and that humans have a shared application in fighting due to our shared physiology. We also accept that what makes the Martial Arts such a flavoured and interesting study is the amount of variety. It would be a boring world if we entered the ice-cream shop only to find vanilla on the menu. Luckily, our enjoyment of ice-cream, like our enjoyment of the Martial Arts is extended due to the sheer variety. Therefore Eskirmology is a kind of martial syncretism. It accepts that Combat Logic has its own laws, and our bodies are limited in their application to these laws. Hence, we are able to practice many different Martial Arts, cross-training and experiencing the Martial Arts of many different countries in order to fully understand Combat Logic as it has been cultured by various nations and civilisations around the world.

The purpose of the book has been to prove, not that the Martial Arts themselves are a delusion, but to argue that Martial Artists are under a delusion due to the sporadic truths within them. Their history demonstrates to us that, like most sciences in their proto- or formative stages, they are evidenced in separated schools and partial truths. Chemistry, which is recognised as one of the staples of the scientific method was formed based upon the divided alchemical schools which preceded it. When the knowledge of alchemy became publicly available, they were able to assess the subject openly, comparing and contrasting opinions in a scientific way. We are concerned with the understanding of truth, and not upholding tradition for the sake of upholding it.

If one thing is clear about the approach of those enlightened masters of combat shared, it is their pursuit of Combat Logic. Mastery of Combat Logic means alignment with it. To dedicate one’s intellectual powers of observation, reflection and assimilation to it, to place oneself in the experience of it is to pursue it efficiently. Whilst the words of others count as sign-posts on the journey of awakening these intellectual powers, they cannot penetrate the inner depth of meaning, nor articulate the experience of such meaning with as much accuracy as the first-hand experience itself. Meaning cannot be given, it must be experienced and for that reason, even the most profound teachings often are delivered to the intellectual deaf. Without the required Schemata, or the interest to internally elaborate or correlate that message with the internal data of the mind, that message is forever silenced.

Using a scientific method to overcome subjectivism

The Self - The Alpha & Omega

“Better to have your own view, however small, than to live in another’s view, however grand it may seem”

- Bagavadha Gita (3:35)

The purpose of any system of teaching is as an aid to the understanding of the individual, and therefore the system exists because of the individual. As Yagyu Munenori demonstrated, knowledge is indeed important, but the individual (the conduit of that knowledge) is far more important. Suzuki similarly explains that FEMA (to use Cynarski’s acronym) “…are not intended to be for utilitarian purposes only or for pure aesthetic enjoyment, but are meant to train the mind; indeed, to bring it into contact with the ultimate reality…The mind has first to be attuned to be the Unconscious…One has to transcend technique so that the art becomes an ‘artless art’ growing out of the unconscious” (Herrigel, 1989, p. vii). We may witness therefore that pursuit of good fighting abilities requires understanding of combat by means of science, which requires the mind and devotion. This devotion then develops the self, which improves the self. It is the result of one task, and devotion to that task, which ultimately improves life itself. Mastery of the Martial Arts requires a relationship with Combat Logic rather than a relationship with information derived from a social group. It is a personal experience, and one which informs one’s own relationship with reality.

As Confucius tells us, the origin of all things in man’s universe, the way his structured world reflects his psychology, is ultimately based upon his self-cultivation;

“The ancients who wished to illustrate illustrious virtue throughout the kingdom, first ordered well their own states. Wishing to order well their states, they first regulated their families. Wishing to regulate their families, they first cultivated their persons. Wishing to cultivate their persons, they first rectified their hearts. Wishing to rectify their hearts, they first sought to be sincere in their thoughts. Wishing to be sincere in their thoughts, they first extended to the utmost their knowledge. Such extension of knowledge lay in the investigation of things.

Things being investigated, knowledge became complete. Their knowledge being complete, their thoughts were sincere. Their thoughts being sincere, their hearts were then rectified. Their hearts being rectified, their persons were cultivated. Their persons being cultivated, their families were regulated. Their families being regulated, their states were rightly governed. Their states being rightly governed, the whole kingdom was made tranquil and happy.” (Legge, 1893, 1)

Based upon his self-knowledge, he structures his world and his groups. A set of these individuals create groups, these groups make societies and institutions. All these existing elements stem inevitably from the simple truth of “self”. With this concept, we have effectively come full-circle, returning to the cause of combat in the first place. In the early chapters of this book I stated a truth regarding the statistics of violence in society and the inability for police services and government to contain and control such violence. I said,

“…such institutions are like water on flames, they may be able to manage its existence on a social level, but they fail to mitigate the causes for its ignition at a psychological level.”

I mentioned such an “ignition” using the imagery of fire to demonstrate that if individuals master themselves, then there will be no need to resort to physical conflict. As Confucius conceived, the entire structure of human society is based upon the individual. Perfection of individuals creates a perfect family, which creates perfect states and perfect kingdoms. Through the devotion of one’s intelligence to investigate and to understand the nature of the universe and life within it, and because of that very process, one will embark on perhaps one of the greatest voyages known to man - the exploration of the self. The voyages in space and time are pointless when they are devoid of meaning; and meaning is derived from the self. So self-perfection is the ultimate aim of all endevours. All mankind finds pleasure in their interests, their pursuits, hobbies and endevours. These pleasures form their escapism from institutionalisation, but more importantly, they are the embarkation into alignment with reality by means of experiencing that which contributes to inner-wellbeing and happiness. Schopenhauer jested that the Wisdom of Life was properly a Eudaimonology, a Logic of Happiness. Release from the existential stresses of human life, the dedication of intellect and consciousness and the experience of individualism.

One of the barriers to individualism, as we have seen, is feeling the need to seek outside, often materialistic sources of comfort and contentment. They are also most often derived from social acceptance. Although intelligence manifests itself in the mind of the human animal, that human animal is tied to the social and evolutionary history which contributed to the development of that intelligence. Extraction and release of the mind from those existential tithes is arguably the underlying purpose of all schools of philosophy and religion, to align oneself with “Reality Logic”. One of the paths to that “Reality Logic”, merely one of the aspects or microcosms mirroring a greater Reality Logic is Combat Logic. Experiencing the rules of Combat Logic, then applying them to all other aspects of Reality is the path to enlightenment. From simple rules, multiplied in the many combinations and variations of their interactions may be found the grandeur of the universe. Those simple rules manifest in all things and can certainly be found in Combat Logic.

But as I have stressed, to mistake “a path” or “a message” from “a mind” or “a personality” is to miss the Logic surrounding “all paths”, “all messages”, “all minds” and “all personalities”. We must therefore percieve systems and institutions in the context they deserve; as the catalysts for intellectual stimulation, for reflection and perfection. Those systems and institutions were created for that single function, and social aspects of hierarchy were secondary as a necessity of santifying the initial message. We must seek this initial message and witness its traces in all institutions and schools.

The avoidance of a “blinkered” and “close-minded” inquiry from a single perspective which only convolutes this process is a requirement of a true view. To act in the mould of those who preceded us is to miss our own more important internal experience, learning and introversion.

In the final section of Bruce Lee’s Tao of Jeet Kune Do, the powerful pull to one’s individual inclination to ritualised fighting is summed up perfectly.

“There is a powerful craving in most of us to see ourselves as instruments in the hands of others and, thus, free ourselves from the responsibility for acts which are prompted by our own questionable inclinations and impulses. Both the strong and weak grasp at this alibi.” (Lee 1975, 205)

As human beings, we question ourselves constantly, and many would believe their innate reflexes (which have been valuable to the individual’s survival for millions of years) to be subordinate to the efficiency of human solutions to the problem. In this way, we believe that devised solutions are much better than those we are born with. Bruce Lee continues this reasoning;

“Similarly, we have more faith in what we imitate than in what we originate. We cannot derive a sense of absolute certitude from anything which has its root in us [ourselves]. The most poignant sense of insecurity comes from standing alone and we are not alone when we imitate.”

Social Psychologists call this the Informational Influence (Hewstone et al, 1997, 493), the fact that people “yield to others because they trust the others’ judgement more than their own”. This is probably due to an intrinsic distrust and awareness of one’s own limitations in the subject. That we are liable to assume another must know more than us is due to our own perception and awareness of how little we know. Such is the case with the Martial Arts. Many Martial Artists hide behind the hundred year old Martial Art – holding on to the belief that the founder’s opinion of the Martial Art was the be-all-and-end-all of the solution, neglecting to realise the potential of their own innate abilities to be one’s own Architect. Furthermore, we can see in competitions that some fighters have been known to blame the Martial Art for their loss in the fight, rather than one’s own use of the System itself.

So what is the solution to this problem, and how do we overcome it? When you are practicing your Martial Art, consider who you are truly expressing. Before you walked through the doors of that Dojo/ Dojang/ Kwoon etc, would you have fought in this manner? Those blocks which you use, those postures which you stand in; “The crane stance”, the “Horse stance”, they are expressions of the style – not you. You have become the actions of the style. You are the style. What you represent is the expression and martial opinion of a series of fighters who existed before you. When you hold your guard and prepare to carry out the fundamental procedure of the style in combat, you are reciting the style’s expression; you are dictated by the style and are a puppet of the expression and pedagogy which the style has become. Do you think the founder fought in this way? Do you think that he clung to ideas about combat in the way you are clinging to his system? His expression was rooted in his first-hand (organic) experience of combat, yet you now depend upon his second-hand vehicle of showing you his organic experience. You are screened from the truth in fighting because of your institutionalised training.

We must trust in our abilities as a cognitive being to be sufficient and supplement this with intelligent study. Study the world, and study nature. There is nothing in the world that does not stem from nature. Study fighting in its most elemental form. Do not study from secondary sources, or tertiary sources, but the authentic source. To those who seek mastery of the Martial Arts, seek that which the founders had sought and not to follow in the institutionalised way - try to realise the aim of the founder - Ask yourself: “what was he/she trying to achieve?”¹⁷² After all, he was coming up with a solution to Combat Logic using the tool of the human body. There is certainly no mystery to it.

Martial Arts are solutions to a universal problem, some teach punching, some teach locking, some teach kicking - none are wrong, but some have departed from scientific Combat Logical utility. It is up to you to strip the art down to what is universal and Combat Logical. In the words of Bruce Lee “Take what is useful and discard the rest”. I would hope that you have come to realise that that which is scientifically practical is universal.

Question everything. Go to the root to understand the branches. Everything has something to teach you. Consider the universe as your source of wisdom. In the words of Morihei Ueshiba: “Contemplate the workings of this world, listen to the words of the wise, take all that is good as your own. With this as your base, open your own door to truth. Do not overlook the truth that is right before you. Study how water flows in a valley stream, smoothly and freely between the rocks. Also learn from holy books and wise people. Everything—even mountains, rivers, plants, and trees—should be your teacher.” However, consider that all these external things can only teach because of your aptitude and inclination to learn. Therefore, your spirit should be like a mirror; absorbing the world around you, not interfering, but simply reflecting it. Do not think “I’m going to study Tang Soo Do”, because you’ve limited yourself to a single version of truth. Why lengthen and convolute your journey to the truth? Tang Soo Do is a path to that truth, but as the proverb states, there is but one moon seen by all. So seek to see the moon! Study All and you will see the One as Nothing. To some this may seem strange, but to the wise, this will make complete sense. There is no doctrine greater than the truth. Truth is the root of all Martial Arts systems, and therefore we should not consider ourselves as students of Lee’s school or Miyamoto’s school, but rather the “Scientific Truth School”. To be instructed by life and by the mysteries of the world around us is the ultimate form of learning.

The secret of realising the so-called secrets of Martial Arts is to look at what is in your sight. The secret is that there are no secrets. Consider that the secrets descend from the founder of the style. The founder of the art discovered the truth, and naturally, after his passing this truth on was protected by his followers in order to keep control of the school. However, if the founder discovered it in his own path, you may follow the path to reach the same conclusion¹⁷³. In the words of the Greek philosopher Plato in his book Meno, “by a process of mere questioning, will he attain a true science, knowledge in the fullest sense by the recovery of such science out of himself.”

Only then will what was once hidden become plain to you. Others will recognise the innovation of your thought, because they realise it has always been there - but they were unaware of it. Gravity has always been present on the earth, but the innovation of Newton was that he brought it to people’s attention. If gravity had always been present, what did he truly say that was innovative? He simply saw what was in his sight (the apple falling) & what was once hidden (the existence of gravity) became plain to him.

Lee looked at what was plain to him; the movements of the human body and their application to fighting - and what was out of sight became visible. By looking at what is in your sight; what is unknown will become evident to you.

That was the purpose of JKD;

“Again let me remind you - Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back.” (Little, 2001, 60)

I hope that you shall feel inspired and empowered to become a martial scientist; to find your own personal expression of the universal truth in fighting. Don’t look at a Grandmaster of the Martial Arts and wish to be like that. You are like that; the potential is within you. The Grandmaster is he who has realised himself. He has done nothing else but dedicated himself to the discovery of the truth. Does this mean it is not possible for you? You are human are you not? If it is humanly possible, then it is possible for you to do it too. You know who you are, and who you want to be.

Embrace the world, and be one with it. Follow the path of the Grandmaster and you will become a Grandmaster. It is society who judges the Grandmaster, which is simply a by-product of his journey. He has not sought to be a “Grandmaster”; only to be a master of himself. Perhaps Lee was speaking from personal experience when he noted; “We are told that talent creates its own opportunities. Yet, it sometimes seems that intense desire creates not only its own opportunities, but also its own talents as well.”

So to become the best; the first and last place for your search is within you. Take nothing for what it is at first sight, not even this book. Research everything yourself and trust your logical progressions so long as they are based upon factual evidence. Use this book as a “consciousness-raiser” and do your own discovery. Do not take my word for the truth, think of it as the “finger pointing away to the moon”. Seek out the works of revered authors, compare their opinions with others and measure it against your own pragmatic experience. This is the true path to mastery – of one’s self and inevitably the Martial Arts. This is the eskirmological path; there is nothing more, this is all it takes. I have attempted to break the chains of tradition with this book, but it is up to you where you may go with your freedom. This is the alpha and omega of the Martial Arts – it is not about the outwardly material objects such as belts or any social recognition. Measure yourself against others, but don’t expect others to measure you.

There is no need for us to feel guilty in our pursuit of eskirmological Combat Systems, to disregard the fanciful and deluded data offered to us by our ancestors. They did the best they could with the information which was available to them. Yet inevitably, theirs was a quest for truth. If they had access to such data, they would have exploited it. We owe it to them to find out the truth, and to dedicate our lives to that same pursuit. After all, as Galileo stated “if they had seen what we see, they would have judged as we judge.” Look back over the course of our discussion in this book and consider the words which Lee left for us – his words are poignant, appeal to overcoming the Law of Institutionalisation, and sum up The Martial Arts Delusion better than I could:

“To live is a constant process of relating, so please cease all that mental chattering, come on out of that protective shell of isolation, that proud conclusion, or whatever, and relate DIRECTLY to what is being said. Cease all that intellectual or mental mumble jumble and return to your senses, and bear in mind I seek neither your approval, nor to influence you. Instead of making up your mind and saying “So this is this,” and “That is that,” I will be more than satisfied if as a result of this [article] you begin to learn and investigate everything for yourself from now on.” (Little, 2001, 129)

Bibliography

Agrippa, Camillo (1553); Trattato Di Scientia d’Arme, con un Dialogo di Filosophia di Camillo Aggrippa, Milanese.

Alanson Lombard, F (1868); Pre-Meiji education in Japan: a study of Japanese education previous to the restoration of 1868, Kyo Bun Kwan (Methodist Pub. House).

Albuquerque, Capoeira, Warrior’s Dreams Publications.

Ali, Ahmed (1993); Al-Qur’an, A contemporary translation, Published by Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Allanson-Winn, R.G (1985); Boxing; The All-England Series, George Bell & Sons.

Amberger, J. Christoph (1998); The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts, Hammerterz Forum.

Andrzejewski, X and Elbaum, L; Biomechanical Analysis Of The Front Kick With The Dominant And Non-Dominant Limb In The Shito-Ryu Style Of Karate, Department of Physical Therapy, Florida International University; Miami, Florida USA

Anglo, Sydney (2000); The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, published by Yale University Press.

Anonymous (1945); The Complete Instructor in Boxing, Swimming, Gymnastics, Pedestrianism, Hoseracing, Prize fighting, Boat racing and other Sports.

Anthony, M L. (1999); Does Westernisation = Modernisation?

Archer, John & Benson, David (2002); An ethnographic study of sources of conflict between young men in the context of the night out, Psychology, Evolution & Gender 4.1 April 2002 pp. 3–30.

Archer, John & Benson, David (2008); Physical Aggression as a Function of Perceived Fighting Ability and Provocation: An Experimental Investigation, Aggressive Behavior, Volume 34, pages 9–24.

Archer, John & Thanzami, Vanlal (2009); The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men, Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009) 315–321.

Archer, John (1994), The Dynamics of aggression: biological and social processes in dyads and groups, Routledge.

Aristotle, The Basic works of Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon, Introduction by C.D.C Reeve, Published by The Modern Library; Classics. 2001 paperback edition.

Armstrong (1986) ‘Weapons and Systems’ Hoplos, Vol. 5: No. 1&2, pp.26-30

Arus, E., Karate Motion Efficiency Analysis, Sendo-Ryu Karatedo Federation and the USA Sticky Hands Combat Jujutsu Federation

Assunção, Matthias Röhrig (2005); Capoeira: a history of an Afro-Brazilian martial art, Routledge.

Aurelius, Marcus; A new translation by Gregory Hays. Meditations, Phoenix publishing, 2003.

Aurelius, Marcus; Meditations, Penguin Books, 1964.

Bahm, Archie J. (1993); Axiology: the science of values, Rodopi.

Baofu, P (2009), The Future of Post-Human Martial Arts: A Preface to a New Theory of the Body and Spirit of Warriors, Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Bardosi, Z. (1990); Kinematical Movement Evaluation of the Straight-line Karate Techniques. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium of the Society of Biomechanics in Sports, July 3–9, 1990, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 23-30.

Barkow, J., Cosmides, L., & Toobey, J (1992); The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baumeister RF, Boden JM. (1998); Aggression and the self: high self-esteem, low self-control, and ego threat. See Geen & Donnerstein 1998, pp. 111–37

Belonoha, Wayne (2005); The wing chun compendium, vol.1, Blue Snake Books.

Bertrand, Leon (1958); The Fencer’s Companion, published by Gale & Polden Ltd.

Bin, Wu (1992); Chinese Wushu Series: Essentials of Chinese Wushu, published by Foreign Languages Press, Beijing.

Bloomfield, Louis A., (1977); How Things Work: the Physics of Everyday Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bokun, Zhu (2009); “The Idea of the Group in Chinese Philosophy”, Cultural Heritage & Contemporary Change Series Iii. Asia, Vol. 7a: The Human Person And Society, Chinese Philosophical Studies, Viia. Edited By: Zhu Dasheng

Bolelli, D (2003) On the Warrior's Path: Philosophy, Fighting, and Martial Arts Mythology, Frog Ltd; 2nd edition

Boutell, C & Lacombe, P (1996); Arms and Armour in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Combined Books.

Bowett, D. W. (2009); Self-Defence in International Law, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.

Bowman, P (2007); Enter the Zizekian: Bruce Lee, Martial Arts, and the Problem of Knowledge, Research papers from the School of Arts. Roehampton University.

Bowman, P (2008a); Theorizing Bruce Lee: Deconstruction, Postcoloniality and Political Subjectivization, Swansea University. Dept. of Politics and International Relations Research Seminar.

Bowman, P (2008b); Jeet Kune Do, In Theory. Blogspot (http://theorizingbrucelee.blogspot.com/2008/12/jeet-kune-do-in-theory.html)

Bowman, P (2010a); Theorizing Bruce Lee: Film-Fantasy-Fighting-Philosophy, Rodopi.

Bowman, P (2010b); The Globalization of Martial Arts, in Martial Arts of the Modern World (2^nd Edition).

Brookman, F (1999); Dying for Control: Men, Murder and SubLethal Violence, The British Criminology Conference: Selected Proceedings. Volume 3, Papers from the British Society of Criminology Conference, Liverpool.

Brown, Terry (1997); English Martial Arts, Anglo-Saxon Books.

Buckler, Scott and Castle, Paul and Peters, Derek (2009) Defining the Martial Arts: A Proposed Inclusive Classification System. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. pp. 1-9.

Butler, Dom Cuthbert; Western Mysticism; Augustine, Gregory, and Bernard on Contemplation and the Contemplative Life, published by Dover Publications, Inc. Originally published 1926.

Capoeira, Nestor (2002); Capoeira; Roots of the Dance-Fight-Game, published by North Atlantic Books.

Carlile, Richard (1893); Manual of Freemasonry - in three parts, published by William Reeves, New Temple Press.

Carman, W. Y. (2004); A History of Firearms: From Earliest Times to 1914, Courier Dover Publications.

Carus, Paul (1906); Amitabha, A Story of Buddhist Theology.

Cashmore, Ernest (2003); Sport Psychology: The Key Concepts, Routledge.

Castle, Egerton ; Schools and Masters of Fencing; From the Middle Ages to the Eighteenth Century. Published by Dover Publications, 2003 edition.

Chananie (1980a); The Physics Of Forces In Aikido: Making The Weak Equal To The Strong, Scientific American

Chananie (1980b); The Physics Of Forces In Judo: Making The Weak Equal To The Strong, Scientific American

Chananie, J. (1999); The Physics of Karate Strikes, Journal of How Things Work, Vol. 1, Fall 1999.

Chen, C. Y., Huang, C., Tang, J. P., Chen, T. Y. (1997). Biomechanical Analysis of the wushu Jump-Slap-Kick. In Book of Abstracts from the XVIth Congress of the International Society of Biomechanics (p. 91). Tokyo.

Cheng, Huikun (1996); Chinese Wushu Series; Advanced Routines of Long-Style Boxing, Foreign Languages Press, Beijing.

Cheng, S. Y. (1995). A Biomechanical Analysis of Straight Leg Swing Kick & Flexor Kick Under Various Leg Position of Single Hit Foot & Cross-Tap Foot. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. National College of P.E. & Sports, Taiwan.

Cheng, S. Y., Hong, D. M. (1994). A Qualitative Analysis of "Flying Kicks" in Chinese Martial Arts. Chinese Martial Arts Research 6, 3-14.

Cheung, William & Lee, Mike (1988); Advanced Wing Chun, Black Belt Communications

Chinese Philosophical Studies, Viia, Cultural Heritage & Contemporary Change Series Iii. Asia, Vol. 7a.

Chu, Robert & Richie, Rene & Wu, Y (1998) Complete Wing Chun: The Definitive Guide to Wing Chun's History and Traditions, Tuttle Publishing.

Clayton, Bruce D., (2004); Shotokan's Secret: The Hidden Truth Behind Karate's Fighting Origins, Black Belt Communications.

Clymer, Rev. Dr. R Swinburne (1957); The Hidden Teachings of the Initiate Masters, Enlarged and completely revised with many additions, The Philosophical Publishing Company.

Co, Alezander (1997); Five-Ancestor Fist Kung-Fu: The Way of Ngo Cho Kun, Tuttle Publishing.

Coakley, J.J. (2003); Sports in Society: Issues and Controversies, McGraw-Hill.

Cooke, G. (1974); Traditional Buddhist Sects and Modernization in Japan, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1/4 December.

Cynarski W.J. (1999) Sociological and anthropological conditions of the Far Eastern fighting arts on the example of Japanese budō. Research

Cynarski W.J. (2005) Sociological Aspects of Far Eastern Martial Arts. Research Yearbook. Studies in Physical Education and Sport 11: 103-108.

Cynarski W.J., K.Obodyński (2005) Martial Arts in the process of institutional and ideological change on the example of Aikijutsu. International Journal of Eastern Sports & Physical Education 3 (1): 118-129.

Cynarski, W. J., Sieber, L., & Litwiniuk, A. (2005). Perception, understanding and adaptation of Asian martial arts in the West: a sociological analysis. Archives of Budo 1, 13-18 (www.archbudo.com).

Cynarski, W.J. (2006), The institutionalization of martial arts. European

Cynarski, Wojciech J & Obodyñski, Kazimierz (2007); Humanism of the Today's Budo, Research Yearbook, Vol 13, Nr 2, 2007, 209-215

Cynarski, Wojciech J. Litwiniuk, Artur (2008); Hierarchy of values in case of practitioners of far eastern martial arts in Poland.

Cynarski, Wojciech J., Seiber, L (2007); A Martial Arts Warrior as a Tourist.

Cynarski, Wojciech. J., Litwinuik, A. (2008); Scientific Conference: Martial Arts, Combat Sports, Humanism (Budō, Kakugi, Jindō). 2nd International Scientific Conference, Targowiska near Krosno. Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2008, 15, 140-143.

Daigan & Matsunaga, A. (1974); The Concept of Upāya in Mahāyāna Buddhist Philosophy, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 1/1 March.

Darkin, L. What do all Martial Arts have in common? How to generate force & how to counter force, (2002), www.martialartsandsportscience.com.au

Darwin C (1872); The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. John Murray, London.

De Mente, Boye (2003); Kata: the key to understanding & dealing with the Japanese, Tuttle Publishing

Delaney, T., Madigan, T., (2009); The Sociology of Sports: An Introduction, McFarland.

Delp, C; Albers, M (2006); Kickboxing: The Complete Guide to Conditioning, Technique, and Competition, Blue Snake Books.

Delp, Christoph (2005); Muay Thai Basics: Introductory Thai Boxing Techniques, Blue Snake Books.

Dempsey, Jack (1950); Championship Fighting – Explosive Punching and Aggressive Defence.

Diacu, F, On the Dynamics of Karate, Martial Arts and Math.

Dinstein, Yoram (2001); War, aggression and self-defence, Cambridge University Press

Docciolini, Marco (1601); Trattato in materia di scherma, Google eBook

Donohue, J.J. & Taylor, K. (1994) ‘The Classification of the Fighting Arts’ Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Vol. 3: No. 4, pp.10-37

Draeger (1981) ‘The Martial-Civil Dichotomy in Asian Combatives’ Hoplos, Vol. 3: No. 1, pp.6-9

Draeger, D.F. & Smith, R.W. (1980) Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts, New York: Kodansha International

Draeger, Donn F (1992); Weapons and fighting arts of Indonesia,

Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (1970); Ethology. The Biology of Behavior.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt I (1989); Human Ethology. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Eichberg, Henning (1998): Body Cultures. Essays on Sport, Space and Identity. London: Routledge.

Eichberg, Henning (2007); The body, the power and the people - New perspectives of body politics, in Petersen, A. (2007); The Body in Question. A Socio-Cultural Approach. London & New York: Routledge.

Eichberg, Henning; How to study body culture - Observing human practice, University of Southern Denmark, Centre for Sports, Health and Civil Society.

Eichberg, Henning; Sport, body and ethics - between public, commercial and civil logics, University of Southern Denmark, Centre for Sports, Health and Civil Society.

Eisenburg, David, with Thomas Lee Wright; Encounters With Qi - Exploring Chinese Medicine, published by Jonathan Cape, 1986.

Evangelista, Nick; The Art and Science of Fencing. Published by Masters Press. 1996.

Foley, B (2002); Boxing, the Common Law and the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 199, 12 I.C.L.J. 15

French, S.E. (2003); The Code of the Warrior: Exploring Warrior Values Past and Present, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Friday, Karl, Seki, Fumitake (1997); Legacies of the sword: the Kashima-Shinryū and samurai martial culture, University of Hawaii Press

Fromm, Erich (1973); The anatomy of human destructiveness, Published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fumiaki Shishida (2008); Some Questions Accompanying the Acculturation of Japanese Martial Arts, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University. 5, 197-211, 2008

Glasl, F. (2004); Konfliktmanagement: Ein Handbuch für Führungkräfte, Beraterinnen und Berater.

Glass, S., Reeg, E.A. & Bierma, J.L. (2002); Calorific Cost of Martial Arts Training in Novice Participants, Journal of Exercise Physiology Online, Vol. 5, No. 4.

Gray, Christine D. (2004); International law and the use of force, Oxford University Press

Gray; Professor C H Leonard (2006); The Concise Gray’s Anatomy, Published by the Wordsworth Reference Series.

Grayson, “Boxing Clever”, (1992) 142 NLJ 48,

Grayson, Sport and the Law, 3rd Edn. (Butterworths, 2000) at 268-273

Green, Thomas, Svinth, Joseph (2003); Martial arts in the modern world, Greenwood Publishing Group.

Gunn and Ormerod, (1995) The Legality of Boxing, 15 LS 181

Guthrie, E.R. (1938). The Psychology of Human Conflict. New York: Harper.

Hackenschmidt, George (1910); Complete Science of Wrestling, published by Athletic Publications Ltd. Second edition.

Heindel, Max (1922); The Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers. Published by The Rosicrucian Fellowship. Third edition, seventh printing.

Hewitt, John (1860); Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe From The Iron Period of the Northern Nations to the End of the Seventeenth Century, Oxford & London: John Henry and James Parker.

Hewitt, John (1860); Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe From The Iron Period of the Northern Nations to the End of the Seventeenth Century – Vol. 2 the Fourteenth Century, Oxford & London: John Henry and James Parker.

Hewstone, M; Stroebe, W; Stephenson, G.M (1996); Introduction to Social Pyschology, Blackwell Publishers.

Hey, Richard (1784); A Dissertation on Duelling, J. Archdeacon Printer to the University; for J & J Strand, B White, in Fleetstreet, and G. Wilkie., in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London.

Higaki, Gennosuke (undated); Hidden karate: the true bunkai for the Heian katas and Naihanchi, KIAI, LLC

Higley, J. Dee; Individual Differences in Alcohol-Induced Aggression: A Nonhuman-Primate Model,

Hillson, D A. and Hulett, D T. (2004); Assessing Risk Probability: Alternative Approaches, PMI Global Congress Proceedings – Prague, Czech Republic.

Hobbes, T (1996); Leviathan, Oxford University Press. Originally published, 1610.

Holland Jones, J. (2008); Evolutionary Game Theory, Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford University.

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York.

Hwang, I. S.(1987). Analysis of the Kicking Leg in Taekwondo. In J. Terauds et al. (Eds.), Biomechanics in Sport III & IV (pp. 39-47). Del Mar, CA: Academic.

J. A. Mangan, Fan Hong (2003); Sport in Asian society: past and present, Routledge.

Jin Xiping, George Mclean (2009); The Human Person And Society

Jones, J H (2008); Evolutionary Game Theory, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Journal for Sport and Society 3 (1): 55-61

Kan, K. (1991). Chinese Wushu Practical Guide. Taipei: Wu Chou.

Kang Uk Lee, Tang Soo Do; The Ultimate Guide to the Korean Martial Art. Published by A & C Black (publishers) Ltd. 1989.

Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, The Everyman Library, 1993.

Kassing, Gayle (2007); History of dance: an interactive arts approach, Human Kinetics, 2007

Kellett, Rachel E. (2008); Single combat and warfare in German literature of the high Middle Ages, MHRA

Kent, Chris; & Tackett, Tim (1988); JunFan/Jeet Kune Do- The Textbook; A Comprehensive Training Source Guide, Unique Publications.

Kernspecht, K (1985); On Single Combat, EWTO.

Kernspecht, K (2011); Kampflogik 3, EWTO

Kesava Chandran, C., Harikumaran Nair, R. & Shashidhar, S. (2004); Respiratory Functions In Kalaripayattu Practitioners, Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 2004; 48 (2): 235–240.

Kimm, Dr. He-Young (1991); Hapkido, Andrew Jackson College Press.

Klein, Zdenek (1996); The Ethological Approach to the Study of Human Behavior, Int J Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine 1996; 8(Suppl):67–72

Kleinman, A., Becker, A.E. (1998); "Sociosomatics": The Contributions of Anthropology to Psychosomatic Medicine, Psychosomatic Medicine 60:389-393.

Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kong Tzu (Confucius), I Ching (The Book of Changes)

Kukkiwon Edition (2000), Taekwondo Textbook, O Sung Publishing Company, English edition.

Kyle, D.G (2007), Sport and spectacle in the ancient world, Wiley-Blackwell.

Lager, L. Kraft, A (2000); Mental Judo: To Achieve Success in Business, Social, Professional, and Family Life.

Lao Tzu, translated and introduced by Lionel Giles; The Sayings of Lao Tzu; Translated from the Chinese, 1972, eleventh edition.

Laski, Harold J. (2005); The Rise of European Liberalism; An Essay in Interpretation, Aakar Books.

Lattuada, Riccardo (2003), From the Gladiators to Tiger Man: Knowledge, Confrontation, Spectacle and Death in the spectacle of the duel, in Gladiators at Pompeii - Luciana Jacobelli, L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Lawrence A. Kane, Kris Wilder (2005); The Way of Kata: A Comprehensive Guide to Deciphering Martial Applications, YMAA Publication Center Inc

Lee, Bruce; Tao of Jeet Kune Do, published by Ohara Publications, Inc. 1975.

Legge, (1893); The Great Learning, Confucius.

Lemieux, P., McKelvie, S.J. & Stout, D. (2002); Self-reported Hostile Aggression in Contact Athletes, No Contact Athletes and Non-athletes, Athletic Insight, The Online Jounal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 4, Issue 3.

Leonard, C.H, The Pocket Anatomist; Concise Gray’s Anatomy, Wordsworth Reference, 2006.

Levine, Donald N. Martial Arts as a Resource for Liberal Education: the Case of Aikido, The Body: Social process and cultural theory, Fetherstone, M., Hepworth, M., Turner, B.S., 209-224. 1991.

Li Tianji & Du Xilian, A Guide to Chinese Martial Arts, published by McLaren Publishing, 1998.

Little, J, Lee, B (1997a); Jeet Kune Do; Bruce Lee’s Commentaries on the Martial Way, Charles Tuttle, 1997.

Little, J, Lee, B (1997b); The Tao of Gung Fu, Tuttle Publishing.

Little, J, Lee, B (1998); Letters of the dragon: an anthology of Bruce Lee's correspondence with family, friends, and fans, 1958-1973, Tuttle Publishing

Little, J.R; Wong, C.F (2000); Ultimate Martial Arts Encyclopedia: The Best of Inside Kung-Fu, Contemporary Books.

Little, John, Lee, Bruce (2001); Bruce Lee - Artist of Life. Published by Tuttle Publishing.

Liu, Y., Chuang, L., Lang, D. (1995). Comparison and Biomechanical Analysis of the Chinese Martial Arts Forward Snap Kick and Forward Heel Kick. Chinese Martial Arts Research 8, 45-72.

Loland, S. (2002); Fair Play in Sport: A Moral Norm System. London & New York: Routledge.

Longhurst, Percy; Wrestling by Percy Longhurst. Blackie’s Sports Series, Published by Blackie and Son Limited, 1938.

Long-Ren Chuang, Wei-Hua Ho, Yu Liu, Tyzz-Yuang Shiang, Biomechanical Analysis of punching Different Targets in Chinese Martial Arts, Department of Chinese Martial Arts, Chinese Culture University. ISB XXth Congress - ASB 29th Annual Meeting July 31 - August 5, Cleveland, Ohio. P443.

Lorden, Mike (2003); Practical self-defense, Tuttle Publishing

Lorenz K (1935); Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. J Ornithol 83:137-413.

Lorenz K (1943); Die angeborenen Formen möglicher Erfahrung. Z Tierpsychol 5:235-409.

Lorenz K, Hydén H, Penfield W, Magoun HW, Pribram KH (1969); On the Biology of Learning. Harcourt Brace & Company, New York.

Lorenz, Konrad, On Aggression, Routledge Classics, 2002.

Lowry, Dave (2002); Traditions: Essays on the Japanese Martial Arts and Ways, Tuttle Publishing

Lu, Chunlei (2008): Martial Arts, Violence, and Public Schools, Brock education, Vol 18; Brock University, Canada

Lu, ShengLi; Translated by Zhang Yun; Combat Techniques of Taiji, Xingyi and Bagua - Principles and Practices of Internal Martial Arts, Published by Blue Snake Books, 2006.

Luijendijk, D (2008); Kalarippayat, Lulu.com

Ma, Mingda (2001), Reconstructing China’s Indigenous Physical Education, Jan 2001, Journal of Chinese Martial Studies

Maliszewski, M. (1992) ‘Meditative-Religious Traditions of Fighting Arts and Martial Ways’ Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Volume 1, Number 3, pp.1-104

Marchionni, Alberto (1847); Trattato di scherma: sopra un nuovo sistema di giuoco misto di scuola italiana e francese, Dai Tipi Federigo Bencini

Masculinity, and the Boundaries of Psychology, History of Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, 79-91.

Mauss, Marcel (1936); Les techniques du corps, Journal de Psychologie, XXXII, ne, 3-4, 15 mars - 15 avril 1936.

McCarthy, P. Lee, M (1987); Classical Kata of Okinawan Karate, Black Belt Communications

McCarthy, Patrick & McCarthy, Yuriko; (1999) Ancient Okinawan Martial Arts, Tuttle Publishing

McFarlane, S. (1990); Mushin, Morals, and Martial Arts – A Discussion of Keenan’s Yogācāra Critique, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1990 1714

McFee, G (2004); Sport, rules, and values: philosophical investigations into the nature of sport, Routledge.

McGonagill, B. The Physics of Martial Arts, Classical Mechanics, (2004)

Melhim, A.F. (2001); Aerobic and anaerobic power responses to the practice of taekwon-do, Br J Sports Med 2001; 35:231-235.

Meyer, Joachim; translated by Jeffrey L. Forgeng; The Art of Combat - A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570. Published by Greenhill Books, 2006.

Midgley, M. Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Routledge Classics, 2002.

Min, H. K. (1979). Martial arts in the American education setting. Quest, 31 (1), 97-106.

Mitchell, D. (1984) The Official Martial Artists Handbook, London: Sphere Books Limited.

Mohammadzadeh, Y. Boostani, M.H. & Boostani, M.A. (2009); The Comparison of Some Pyschological Skills of Superior and Non-Superior Male Karate Kas Dispatched to Japan World Competitions (2008), World Journal of Sports Sciences 2 (2): 121-124.

Morrris, Desmond (1970); The Naked Ape, A Bantam Book / published by arrangement with Jonathan Cape Ltd.

Mulholland, G (2008); Four Shades of Black, The Traditional Path to Building The Complete Fighter, Summersdale.

Nicholson, I.A.M (2001); "Giving Up Maleness": Abraham Maslow,

Nisbett RE, Cohen D. 1996. Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview

Nishiyama, Hidetaka & Brown, Richard C. (1990); Karate: the art of "empty hand" fighting, Tuttle Publishing

Norman, V (1969); Arms and Armour: Pleasures and Treasures, George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd.

Oakeshott, R. Ewart; The Archaeology of Weapons; Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry, published by Dover Publications, 1996.

Oates, J. C. (1987). On Boxing. Garden City, NY: Dolphin / Doubleday.

Omiya, Shiro; The Hidden Roots of Aikido; Aiki jujutsu Daitoryu - Secret techniques of an ancient Martial Art.published by Hachiman Shoten, Tokyo; Distributed by Kodansha America, Inc. 1998.

Orlando, B. (1997); Martial Arts America: A Western Approach to Eastern Arts. Frog, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California.

Pan Hungchao, C. (2009), “Daoism As A Source For Democracy In China” Cultural Heritage & Contemporary Change Series Iii. Asia, Vol. 7a: The Human Person And Society, Chinese Philosophical Studies, Viia. Edited By: Zhu Dasheng, Jin Xiping, George Mclean.

Papworth, “Boxing and Prize Fighting: The Indistinguishable distinguished?” (1994) 2 Sport & LJ 5,

Papworth, “Parliament and the Boxing Bill”, (1996) 4 Sport and LJ 24.

Paradis, E (--); Bourdieu, Bodies and Boxing: The Multidimensionality of Bodily Capital,

Park, Y. J. (1990). A Biomechanical Analysis of Taekwondo Front-Kicks. Microform Publications. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.

Pater, Walter; Plato and Platonism, A Series of Lectures. Macmillan and Co. Ltd, 1905.

Pieter, W., Taaffe, D. and Heijmans, J. (1990) Heart rate response to taekwondo forms and technique combinations. A pilot study. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 30, 97-102.

Plamenatz, J (1992); Man & Society – Political and Social Theories From Machievelli to Marx: From The Middle Ages to Locke. New York: Longman Publishing Group.

Plato, The Essential Plato, Introduction by Alain de Botton, Translated by Benjamin Jowlett, Published by Book-of-the-Month Club, Inc. 1999.

Pohl, Karl-Heinz (1999); Chinese thought in a global context: a dialogue between Chinese and western philosophical approaches, BRILL.

Poliakoff, Michael. B; Combat Sports in the Ancient World; Competition, Violence and Culture, Published by Yale University Press, 1987.

Popper, Karl R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, originally 1934.

Prigogine, I (1980), From Being to Becoming, San Fransisco: W H Freeman & Co.

Quinn, Khaleghl; Khaleghl Quinn’s Art of Self Defence, published by Thorsons, An imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 1993.

Redmond, Rob (2008); Kata: The Folk Dances of Shotokan, fourth edition, Rob Redmond.

Reid, H. & Croucher, M. (1983) The Way of the Warrior: The Paradox of the Martial Arts, New York: The Overlook Press

Ribeiro, JL; Ogoday, B; De Castro, SD; Rosa, CS; Baptista RR; Oliverira, AR; (1996); Heart Rate and Blood Lactate responses to Chang Quan and Daoshu forms of Modern Wushu, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2006) CSSI, 1-4

Roob, Alexander (2005); Alchemy & Mysticism, The Hermetic Museum, published by Taschen GmbH.

Rosenbaum, M (2004); Kata and the transmission of knowledge in traditional Martial Arts, Boston, Massachusetts: YMAA Publication Center, Inc.

Rosenbaum, M (2008); Comprehensive Karate: From Beginnner to Black Belt An Introduction to the History, Kata and Practice of Tradititional Karate, NETH Publishing.

Ross, D (2004), Zhen Wei Academy: A Brief History of Gong Fu/Kung Fu, Zhen Wei Academy

Russell, Bertrand; History of Western Philosophy, published by Routledge 2004.

Sacripanti A (1988); Biomechanical classification of wrestling standing techniques. Int. Simp. of Biomechanics in Sport Bozeman USA.

Sacripanti, A (1987); Biomechanical classification of judo throwing techniques (Nage Waza). Int. Simp. of Biomechanics in Sport Athens Greece.

Sacripanti, A; Contest Dynamics: General Biomechanical Theory Of The Contest Sports, University of Tor Vergata Rome /ENEA Italy/ FILPJK – Italy

Salam, Abdus (1895); Physical Education in India, W. Newman & Co.

Sartre, Jean-Paul; Being and Nothingness, Routledge Classics, Reprinted 2005, 2006

Sawyer, Tom; Noble Art - An Artistic & Literary Celebration of the Old English Prize-Ring, published by Unwin Hyman Publishing, 1989.

Schmidt, R.J. and Royer, F.M. (1973) Telemetered heart rates recorded during karate katas: A case study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 44, 501-505.

Schmidt, RJ., (1983) “Japanese Martial Arts as spiritual education”, Somatics, Autumn/Winter.

Shamsuddin, Sheikh (2005); The Malay art of self-defense: silat seni gayong, North Atlantic Books.

Shaw, D.K. and Deutsch, D.T. (1982) Heart rate and oxygen uptake response to performance of karate kata. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 22, 461-468.

Shaw, Scott (2001); The Tao of Self-Defense, Weiser.

Sherwood, F.P., Jun, Jong S. (2007); The Social Construction of Public Administration: Interpretive and Critical Perspectives, SUNY Press.

Shimizu, Satoshi; Cultural Struggles on the Body in Japan and Asia: When should we use ‘modern’ or ‘traditional’ body techniques? Institute of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Japan.

Shishida, Fumiaki (2008); The Process of Forming Aikido and Japanese Imperial Navy Admiral Isamu Takeshita: Through the analysis of Takeshita’s diary from 1925 to 1931, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan.

Shum, Leung & Chin, Jeanne (2001); The Secrets of Eagle Claw Kung-fu: Ying Jow Pai, Tuttle Publishing

Simon, Bernard; The Essence of the Gnostics, Arcturus Publishing Limited. 2004.

Skinner, B.F. (1947); 'Superstition' In The Pigeon, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Indiana University 38, 168-172.

Smith, Joseph Wayne (1992); Wing chun kung-fu: weapons & advanced techniques, Tuttle Publishing

Smith, William (1848); Dictionary of Greek and Roman antiquities Walton and Maberly.

Spencer, D. C. (2009). ‘Habit(us), Body Techniques and Body Callusing: An Ethnography of Mixed Martial Arts’. Body & Society, 15, 119-143.

Sugden, J. P. (1996). Boxing and Society: An International Analysis: Manchester University Press.

Suzuki, Daisetz Teitarō (1938); Zen and Japanese culture, Volume 0, Issues 691-9842, Taylor & Francis

Talhoffer, Hans; Translated by Mark Rector, Medieval Combat; A Fifteenth-Century Illustrated manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat. Published by Greenhill Books, 2000.

Tankosich, Mark J. (2004); Karate ni Sente Nashi: What the Masters Had to Say, Hiroshima University of Economics Journal of Humanities, Social and Natural Sciences Vol 27. No. 1.

Taylor, John (1804); The Art of Defence on Foot with the Broadsword and Sabre; adapted also for the Spadroon, or Cut and Thrust Sword. Improved, and augmented with the Ten Lessons of John Taylor, London: T. Egerton, at the Military Library near Whitehall.

Tedeschi, Marc; Tae Kwon Do; Traditions, Philosophy, Technique. Weatherhill Inc. 2003.

Terry, Charles M. (2006); The Martial Arts, Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am, 17 (2006) 645–676

Thibault d’Anvers, Girard, The Academy of the Sword (L’academie de l’espee) Modern translation and Analysis by John Michael Greer, 1630. Modern text published by Chivalry Bookshelf. 2006.

Thompson, G. The Fence: The Art of Protection, Summersdale Publishing, 1998.

Thompson, George (1994); Verbal Judo: the Gentle Art of Persuasion, William Morrow Publishing.

Tinbergen N (1951); The Study of Instinct. Oxford University Press, London.

Tinbergen N (1963); On aims and methods of Ethology. Z Tierpsychol 20:410-433.

Ting, Dr. Leung; Five Pattern Hung Kuen, Books 1 & 2, published by Leung’s Publications, 1989.

Ting, Dr. Leung; Wing Tsun Kuen, Leung’s Publications, 1978. Renewal edition.

Toguchi, Seikichi (1976); Okinawan Goju-Ryu, Black Belt Communications

Toguchi, Seikichi (2001); Okinawan Goju-Ryu II: Advanced Techniques of Shorei-Kan Karate, Black Belt Communications

Tradescant Lay, G. & Squier, Ephraim George (1843); The Chinese as they are: their moral and social character, manners, customs, language: with remarks on their arts and sciences, medical skill, the extent of missionary enterprise, etc, G. Jones.

Turnbull, Stephen (1998); The Samurai Sourcebook, published by Cassell & Co.

Turnbull, Stephen; with foreword by Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, (1991); Ninja, The True Story of Japan’s Secret Warrior Cult. Published by Firebird Books,

Ueshiba, Morihei, Stevens J (1999); The Essence of Aikido, Spiritual Teachings of Morihei Ueshiba, Compiled by John Stevens, Kodansha.

Ueshiba, Morihei, Stevens, J (1996); Budo Teachings of the Founder of Aikido, introduction by Kisshomaru Ueshiba, Kodansha.

Van Rijckenborgh, Unmasking, published by Rozekruispers, Harlem - the Netherlands, 1958.

Various (1855); Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature, Science and Art. Vol 36, Leavitt, Trow & Co.

Various (1869); Chamber’s encyclopaedia: a dictional of universal knowledge for the people. Appleton.

Various (1869); Notes and queries on China and Japan, Vol. 3, C.A. Saint.

Vertonghen, J. & Theeboom, M. (2010); The social-psychological outcomes of martial arts practise among youth: A review, Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9, 528-537

Volavka, J (1999); The Neurobiology of Violence: An Update, Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 11:3, 307-314.

Wacquant, L. J. D. (1995). The pugilistic point of view: How boxers think and feel about their trade.Theory and Society, 24(4), 489-535.

Wacquant, L. J. D. (1998). The Prizefighter's three bodies. Ethnos, 63, 325-352.

Walker, Jearl D., Karate Strikes. American Journal of Physics 43, 845-849 (1975).

Warner, Gordon & Draeger, Don F.; Japanese Swordsmanship - Technique and Practice, published by John Weatherhill Books, Inc. 1982.

Warren Chase, K (2003); Firearms: a global history to 1700, Cambridge University Press

Wells, H.G; The Outline of History; Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind. Published by Cassel and Company Ltd. Popular edition, 1930.

Westbrook & Ratti, (1970); Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere; An Illustrated Introduction, Charles E. Tuttle Company, Inc. 1970.

Westbrook & Ratti; Secrets of the Samurai, The Martial Arts of Feudal Japan, Tuttle Martial Arts, 1991 edition.

Wildish, P. (2000) The Big Book of Chi, London: Thorsons.

Wilk, S.R. et al., The Physics of Karate, American Journal of Physics 51, 783-790 (1983).

Wilson (undated), Great Representation, Translation of Capoferro, Ridolfo.

Wilson, B. R. (1976); Aspects of Secularization in the West, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 3/4 December.

Wirsing, A J., Steury, T.D., And Murray, D. L. (2002); Relationship Between Body Condition And Vulnerability To Predation In Red Squirrels And Snowshoe Hares, Journal of Mammalogy.

Wong Kiew Kit, (1996); The Complete Book of Tai Chi Chuan - A Comprehensive Guide to the Principles and Practice, Element Books.

Xenia Andrzejewski, X and Elbaum, L. Biomechanical analysis of the front kick with the dominant and non-dominant limb in the shito-ryu style of karate, Department of Physical Therapy, Florida International University.

Yearbook. Studies in the Theory of Physical Education and Sport 6: 75-88.

Yimm Lee, J & Lee, Bruce (1972); Wing chun kung-fu, Black Belt Communications

Yofie, D B; Kwak, M (2003); Judo Strategy: Turning Your Competitors' Strength to Your Advantage, Harvard Business School Press

Zehr, E.P. and Sale, D.G. (1993) Oxygen uptake, heartrate and blood lactate responses to the ChitoRyu Seisan kata in skilled karate practitioners. International Journal of Sports Medicine 14, 269-274.

Zhao Da Yuan; translated by Tim Cartmell (1993); Practical Chin Na - A Detailed Analysis of the Art of Seizing and Locking, Unique Publications.

Žižek, Slavoj (2009); Violence: six sideways reflections, Profile Books.

Notes & references