

My daughter, April, grew up around martial arts, but didn't engage in formal training until she became an adult (I did insist she have some self-defense training). But, her entire exposure to martial arts, from childhood up has been our methods and theories, and it made a difference. When she was just a green belt, we were at a seminar with my teacher, Sensei George Dillman. The group was practicing a tuité technique and April was partnering with a tall, male, white belt. Being a male, he couldn't let a small woman put him in pain, so he was resisting the application of the technique. When April felt the resistance, she treated it as ordinary training and (in the way we always practice)immediately kicked her partner on Sp-11 to break his structure. He folded over, and she applied her technique – it was nothing special. (HE was shocked and dismayed, and Sensei was impressed, telling me, "Your daughter is very well trained!")
All of our training is that way. You just do it, layering principles and concepts in order overcome resistance. And to train this way, we have to be good training partners, attacking with intent, receiving our partner's counters so that good technique is nothing special.
Recently, after teaching a class to a group of newcomers to our principles, I asked April for her impressions. "They kept backing away," she said. We have often seen this, people wanting to know, but not wanting to feel. I can remember trying to teach a man, who panic stricken, backed away saying, "Don't DO it on me, it hurts." One of his colleagues laughed at him and said, "That's why it's called a MARTIAL art."
So, I have a saying – See it, feel it, do it. – which describes my learning philosophy. First you must "see it", observe, watch, pay attention to what is happening, how the technique is being performed, watching for nuance. This also means to listen to the explanation given by the teacher. But, there is a word of caution here. A good teacher will tell you what he or she is doing, though maybe not everything. If you are watching carefully, you can pickup the things the teacher is not saying, things which are intended for a later lesson. A bad teacher however, if that bad teacher is a decent martial artist, will tend to tell you something which is different from what the teacher is doing. A bad teacher simply passes on the script which she or he heard from another teacher. But, the bad teacher has never reverse-engineered the technique to understand what is actually happening. So, the old saying, do what I do, not what I say, applies to this phase of learning. Do what you observe, especially if that differs from what you are told.
Second, you must feel it. If you can understand how the technique works from within your own body, then it becomes easy to manipulate your opponent's body. There are three main ways to gain this skill. One: to the extent it is possible, practice on yourself. Much can be learned by poking, prodding, twisting and manipulating your own joints and points. Two: when working with a partner, help your partner make the technique work better on you by literally telling him/her how to create more pain in you. Three: (and this is the most useful step) volunteer to be the uke for the senior teachers. (Uke is the person on whom the teacher demonstrates a technique. The term means "one who receives", and is properly pronounced "oo-kay" though Americans commonly pronounce it "oo-kee".)
Chris Martingilio and Mike Mellgren waste no time stepping up to volunteer as uke for whichever senior is instructing. By allowing the senior to demonstrate on them, they get to feel how a move is supposed to be applied, and they pick up subtleties that others miss. So, while many around are backing away, grateful that Chris and Mike are being subjected to the pain, they are wisely enjoying a level of learning that the others are unaware of (otherwise, there would be a line of people asking to be uke). Now, I do admit that as the old man and the senior, it's nice to not have to act as uke much any more. But, I am ever so grateful for the years I was on the receiving end of Sensei's techniques, and I applaud Chris's and Mike's choice to step up often.
Third, and last, you must actually do it. How can you know that a knockout is possible unless you have performed knockouts? How can you know what correct application feels like unless you do it. Kyusho-jitsu and tuité are not primarily theoretical (despite the time and energy which goes into learning and understanding the theory). They are practical, in the hands as much or more than in the head. In the end, this knowledge requires hands-on training, and lots of it. In the end, there is no substitute for practice. So, see it, feel it, do it.
Thanks for reading.
Now, go train!
CT












A while ago, when I taught a sai-jitsu seminar, I learned that one attendee would be a teacher from one of those American-Karate-Black-Belt-Schools-of-Excellence-of-America schools. I figured the poor guy would be completely and hopelessly lost when exposed to genuine classical sai usage (as opposed to competition flash). So, I was watching for him to arrive, and he did. But, then I noticed his sai, not holographic toys, but actually decent Shureido® brand.
I went up to talk with him, and he told me that he had wanted to supplement his contemporary American Competition Karate Style with something traditional. So, he began to study a solid and very legitimate kobudo system. I figured he would be right at home during the training. Well, that was almost true.
During the seminar, I taught methods of the sai which are in accordance to the nature and shape of the weapon. However, these methods differ considerably from what is typically taught. So, my traditionally trained guest was stunned and dismayed to be performing the exact movement he was taught, but to devastating effect, (finding that even the subtle aspects of the movement were integral to the technique).
What is significant is that classical sai methods are very obvious (once you have been shown them, it is like, "Duh!") and kind of easy to perform (the weapon does the work). My experience is that, once a person learns the classical use of a weapon – any weapon, really – it becomes incredibly easy to understand how most weapons are to be used. And reading the kata becomes pretty easy. However, classical weapons use is not cool, not flashy, and not nice – just real.

The management of dan rank is difficult in any group. For example, how should we handle the person who has trained for a long time, but hasn't attained the skill or understanding to receive a promotion? Should a black belt be awarded on the basis of years of training? And what about the economic needs of the school to use ranking as a means of student retention? (When asked by a senior student about the rank awarded to an unqualified individual, one Grandmaster commented, "Oh, that is just business.") And what about the individual who thinks they deserve the rank, even though the testing authority has not agreed? (I have seen people become angry at the testing board for not passing them, rather than asking why they have not risen to the standard.) And what of the rank-chasers, those who go from group to group, enticed into a new organization with the promise of promotion? (By the way, I've been accused of being a rank-chaser. Oh well.)
Organizationally, rank is a complication as well. Promotion can both help and hurt a group's growth. For example, if a group is reaching into a new area of the world (the way DKI – Dillman Karate International – has) it is common for the first person of rank who joins to become the local head, and to receive a rank indicating that position of leadership. But, often, as others join, much better practitioners become part of the group, yet, they are given lower rankings so they do not seem like a threat the the leader.
And, who should decide rank in an organization, anyway? Should the individual teacher have authority over his or her student's rank? Should the head of the organization make the decision? Should the organization itself, through a testing board, be the sole arbiter of rank?
Within the gathering of my own students, I decided to try a hybrid approach. I hold my students responsible for overseeing the ranking of their own students up to the rank of nidan. But then, for sandan, every candidate must test before our board, and no sandan rank is issued without the board test. (And, I hold myself to this standard and refuse to issue any sandan rank on my own.) In this way, we try to create a "choke point", a place where all advancing students are subjected to a quality assurance measure. This helps the organization to insure that similarly ranked students in different schools and clubs have similar skill sets, knowledge levels and technical abilities. This helps different teachers to evaluate their students against the students of other teachers, in order to identify areas of instruction where improvement is needed. And this helps the individual student to know that, upon passing and promotion, their sandan rank legitimately represents a genuine achievement.
Our testing board is assembled in two parts, the evaluation team and the grading team.
The evaluation team is composed of 4th - 6th dans. They evaluate the candidates' performance on objective and specific criteria. Candidates are judged on technical skill (correctness of movement, body mechanics and technique); on application competency (the ability to demonstrate actual ability against an opponent in both the fixed settings of kata breakdown, and the dynamic setting of the stress drill bogu-randori); and knowledge of the required areas of content (kyusho-jitsu and tuité-jitsu). After the test the scores are tallied and the determination is made whether the candidate has passed the evaluation portion of the test. The first-time candidate cannot receive promotion without passing the evaluation portion, but, passing the evaluation portion is not a guarantee of promotion.
The grading team is composed of 7th dan and above, and has the task of determining the actual rank a passing candidate receives. This is because we are sometimes receiving people into the group who already have years of experience in the martial arts. We need them to go through the sandan board test as a way of insuring that they have the skills to represent DKI, but, if they have the years of training and the level of skill to warrant a rank higher than sandan, it is not appropriate to under-rank for the sake of some kind of rite of passage.
I mentioned that a person cannot be promoted on their first board test unless they pass the evaluation portion. However, there is more to rank than simple fulfillment of a set of technical requirements. For example, everyone has some physical limitation which interferes with their ability to perform exactly. Part of mastery in the martial arts is overcoming our limitations and finding effective ways to compensate for our weaknesses. So, sometimes truly great martial artists have very poor skills in certain areas. How can they be properly rated? And this is also part of the role of the grading team. As senior instructors, the grading team members have the skills to evaluate the bigger picture, to measure the martial artist as a whole. So, the grading team, after consultation with the evaluation team, makes the final determination on pass/fail for returning candidates. And those candidates can be promoted even if they come short on the technical portions, provided that their overall performance reveals that they have the competency which corresponds to the rank.
Our theory is that this combination of functions allows us to balance objective quality control with respect to specific content and competencies, against a more global view of the entire martial artist. But, in the process, we have also found that the board itself must grow. In order for criteria to be fairly and consistently applied, the graders have had to receive training in what they are grading and what they are looking for. We have developed a specific testing procedure, scoring sheet for the evaluation team, and clearly articulated roles for the examiners to try to standardize the testing process (so each candidate "takes the same test"). And here, again, balance has become an issue.
What is it we are after, martial artists who can mimic a set of expectations, or martial artists who have a creative grasp of the material? We need for the candidates to have solid technical skills (for the sake of quality control and maximum growth) but we also need for them to demonstrate the less quantifiable attributes of creativity and flexibility in performance. As a result, our testing procedure includes major sections of open demonstration (kata bunkai portions), during which the candidate demonstrates for the board whatever the candidate chooses, rather than performing a preset group of techniques. So, we have had candidates demonstrate application of kata wearing (and utilizing in the bunkai) law enforcement gear, demonstrate empty hand kata bunkai as cross-interpreted with Modern Arnis, demonstrate standing kata movements as ground grappling, demonstrate novel pressure point knockouts and surprising takes on movement and use. And every test ends with the question, "Is there anything else you would like to show us or demonstrate?" – a chance for candidates to share areas of additional knowledge and skill.
Our sandan test is very challenging, and many candidates do not pass (though many return to try again), but, it does assure that I present to my Sensei only those who can truly represent what Dillman Karate International is all about. And it also insures that within DKI, KJK is known as a source and center of excellence.
Thanks for reading, now go train.
CT