SHODAN PART 6: JUTSURI NO KATA AND KOTOBA NO HYOGEN
Part 6 of Jan de Jong's (JDJ) jujutsu shodan grading includes two parts: jutsuri no kata and kotoba no hyogen.
Jutsuri no Kata
The description of the jutsuri no kata in the abovementioned book is: 'Oral examination on technical aspects on any technique in all the grades up to and including Ikkyu.'
This grading follows on from Part 5 of the ikkyu grading: 'Oral examination on technical aspects on any technique in Ichimon to Gokyu.'
These gradings are indicators of the instructor element in JDJ's jujutsu grading system. They are indicators that ikkyu and shodan gradings were designed by JDJ to produce high quality instructors as well as high quality practitioners, if not more so. These gradings are a major innovation that was introduced by JDJ into his grading system.
These gradings are known as 'theory gradings.' While the idea is laudable, it's execution was, and is in all JDJ ryuha, flawed because the theory was/is lacking. I can now provide the theory that fulfills the promise of JDJ's innovative theory gradings.
Here I'll defer to my chapter on forces in my as yet unpublished book on the science behind all fighting techniques. The following is the introduction to that chapter:
You will recall from chapter one that Gracie and Gracie suggest that a black belt is a fully qualified teacher who knows why a given move works in addition to knowing how to perform the move. That is, they suggest, a black belt understands the biomechanical principles that underlie the move. Biomechanics is the study of forces and their effects on living systems (McGinnis 2005), therefore, a black belt is expected to understand the mechanical concept of force and its effect on humans in the martial arts. This chapter provides that understanding which is sorely lacking in the martial arts.
There is a bit to unpack in the above extract.
Gracie and Gracie are right, and they are wrong, when suggesting that a black belt is a fully qualified teacher. They are right in terms of the general perception by the public (and maybe Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu), but they are wrong for two reasons: (1) Most Japanese martial arts consider shodan to be a 'beginner's' grading in that the student has mastered the basics. They are not considered to be teachers of any description until 3rd-5th dan. (2) Most martial arts do not teach students/practitioners to be teachers. Teaching requires a different set of skills and knowledge to that of a practitioner. That is why I argued that Greg Palmer was the best teacher at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS) - because he was a trained teacher. However, Greg also lacked an understanding of biomechanical principle that underlie techniques.
Greg used to say that this is where the JDJ jujutsu grading system was different to most other martial arts grading systems. In the Japanese martial arts, shodan is considered to be a beginner-type grading (see above) whereas in the JDJ jujutsu system, shodan is the equivalent of a 'master' grading in most other grading systems because of the teaching (including theory) elements, and the extensive kyu grading system that came before. In fact, the same may be said of ikkyu given that JDJ developed the kyu system as a one-off grading system with ikkyu being the instructor grade.
In this way, Gracie and Gracie are correct in terms of JDJ shodans (and ikkyus) being fully qualified teachers, at least compared to most martial arts, because there are teaching elements in those gradings. But there is room for significant improvement in those elements, and those improvements are relatively easy to introduce and implement, with the aid of my teachings on the science behind all fighting techniques.
Gracie and Gracie describe the basis of the theory grades in JDJ's grading system. The basis lies in understanding how a technique works. Gracie and Gracie go on to explain that this basis involves an understanding of the biomechanical principles that underlie techniques. I can categorically state that that understanding is missing in the JDJ tradition and in most, if not all, martial arts. My book on the science behind all fighting techniques is designed to fill that void.
The theory grades are no theoretical exercise. They form the basis for teaching, learning, and correcting techniques and performances. It can be done better and provide a consistent standard of instruction for the organisation and its offshoots (see below).
In the section on 'Force' in the abovementioned chapter in my book:
Kreighbaum and Barthels (1996) suggest that the
visualisation of forces is a necessary skill for, among others, teachers and
coaches because forces account for the changes in the motion and shape of all
things in the environment. It would also be a beneficial skill for students for
the same reason.
After a brief introduction to the mechanical concept of force:
The last sentence has been emphasised for obvious reasons.
After explaining the mechanical concept of force that is very easy for the layperson to understand and apply, the following is an extract from the section that refers to JDJ's theory gradings:
The black belt grades in the jujutsu grading system developed by Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan (see chapter one) are as much about producing proficient teachers as they are about producing proficient practitioners. Each of the black belt grades include theory gradings, which reflects Gracie and Gracie’s suggestion that a black belt is a fully qualified teacher that is expected to know why a technique works in addition to knowing how to perform it (see chapter one). The theory grading in shodan (first dan) requires the candidate to answer questions on techniques without demonstration. A favourite question of de Jong’s was: ‘What are the forces involved with tai gatame ude kujuki (body-set arm breaking)?’
Figure 4.1 Tai gatame
ude kujuki (body-set arm breaking). Photo courtesy of Paul Amyes. Reprinted
by permission.
De Jong had an intuitive understanding that forces are what
makes techniques work, however, neither he nor the grading candidates possessed
knowledge of the mechanical concept of force. Their lack of knowledge often
resulted in convoluted explanations by grading candidates that may or may not
have focused on the essential elements of the technique. De Jong and the
grading candidates would have been better served if they had an understanding of
the mechanical concept of force when asking and answering those most insightful
of questions.
Given the above insight, this is a question that I have asked many of JDJ's and JDJ ryuha ikkyu and yudansha and I have never been disappointed in not receiving an accurate and concise answer; an accurate and concise explanation of what makes the technique work. An accurate and concise explanation is available, as I've suggested above, and that accurate and concise explanation is easily understood by a recipient of said explanation and who has no knowledge of the concept of mechanical force.
I then go on to explain teaching with forces:
The learning of students will be accelerated if they are first taught how to learn. First teach them the mechanical concept of force. Explain that forces are what makes every technique work; that a force is either a push or a pull and that it has a PoA, direction, and magnitude; that the purpose of applying a force is to change the motion of an opponent or to deform their tissues in order to cause pain and/or injury; and then consistently teach techniques using this force-based approach. The students will learn to look for forces when a technique is taught; to look for the essence of the technique. When they come to identify and correct errors in their own or other’s performance, they will go directly to the heart of the technique.
First, there is an obvious lack of content given that the elements of force have not been shared here but are the subject of the chapter in question. Second, if anyone is interested in learning the concept of force which goes directly to the heart of every technique taught in the martial arts or used in violence generally, please feel free to contact me.
The above extract refers to the learning by students and teaching them how to learn. The following is an extract from the introduction to my book on the science behind all fighting techniques:
The title of Carr’s (2004) Sport Mechanics for Coaches might imply that it is only for
coaches, however, Carr explains that his book is written for coaches, teachers,
athletes, and sports fans. After explaining how a knowledge of sport mechanics
helps produce better sporting performances, Carr explains that his book will
help those who coach to become better coaches. That is in line with Gracie and
Gracie’s assertion that a knowledge of the why of techniques makes for far
better martial arts teachers. Carr also suggests that athletes will discover
that the information contained in his book will help improve their
performances. Even though I led with Gracie and Gracie’s teacher reference, The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques
is written for both martial arts teachers and students (and anyone interested
in fighting techniques generally). It will make for far better teachers, as
Gracie and Gracie, and Carr suggest. It will also make for far better students.
It will make for far better students because (a) they will have far better
teachers, and (b) their own knowledge of why a technique works will mean that
they will not be as reliant on their teacher’s knowledge of why a technique
works and they can take greater responsibility for their own learning
experience.
The theory, an understanding of what makes every technique work, does not necessarily need to be the sole province of instructors. It can be shared with students so that they know what to look for when learning and correcting techniques before they even enter a class. However, this cannot be shared with said students if the instructors do not know that theory.
You will recall from a previous post that the core of all learning is the identification of similarities and differences. A more complete question would have been, what are the similarities and differences between these three techniques?
One of the similarities is that all three techniques are designed to apply forces in order to cause uke to fall to the ground/mats. A difference is in the application of forces in each of the three techniques, and the difference between throws and takedowns.
In my chapter on throws and takedowns, I demonstrate that there is no accurate, definitive distinction between throws and takedowns in the martial arts and martial arts literature. For instance, the three abovementioned techniques are included in the Kodokan Judo (KJ) syllabus. A unique feature of KJ is the classification of their techniques. Classification is one of the proven highly effective means of identifying similarities and differences. In the KJ classification, there is a throwing class (nage waza) but no takedown class (taoshi waza). Does that mean that KJ does not teach takedown techniques/taoshi waza?
In my book, I have developed a biomechanical definition (which is classification; see above) of throwing techniques and takedown techniques. An answer to the abovementioned question would include classifying the three techniques as either a throw or a takedown, which in turn would feature an explanation on the application of applied forces to achieve the objective of the technique.
From my chapter on throws and takedowns in the abovementioned book:
What does a student know when they are told that they are
about to learn a particular throw or takedown when no distinction is made
between those two types of techniques? They know that they are about to learn a
technique where forces are applied to cause an opponent to fall to the ground.
What does a student know when they have been taught the above biomechanical
difference between throws and takedowns, and they are told that they are about
to learn a two-legged takedown? They know that forces will be applied (see
chapter four) to the opponent that: ...
They know all of this before they even know the name of the
technique let alone having seen it demonstrated, just because of the
biomechanical classification of throwing and takedown techniques. They know
what the gist of the technique is, what makes it work, and they can look for
those elements when the technique is demonstrated. When they come to correct
errors in their or other’s performance, they know where to start because they
know the mechanical elements that make the technique work.
This is also called previewing. Previewing involves using the known to understand the unknown. An example of previewing would be teaching o soto otsohi: 'o soto otoshi is like o soto gari except that ...' Here we run into another small problem. JDJ did not know how to perform o soto otoshi, even though the technique is included as a defence in the gradings a number of times. If JDJ did not know, nor did his instructors and nor did his students.
I came to know by studying outside of JDJ's teachings. I came to know after reading Toshiro Daido's Kodokan Judo: Throwing Techniques which is the best book by far on the subject, and which liberally uses the identification of similarities to teach throwing techniques and their variations.
There was no consistency in teachers in the JDJSDS. The development of a theory body of knowledge as suggested above would provide some consistency in the teachers and their teaching in the JDJSDS and the JDJ ryuha. It would also provide a point of differentiation for marketing purposes and produce superior results faster.
Kotoba no Hyogen
The translation of kotoba no hyogen according to the abovementioned JDJSDS book is 'expression (hyogen) of the language (kotoba), terminology.'
The description of the grading in the same book is: 'Oral examination of Japanese terminology used in Ichimon and Ikkyu . General Japanese terminology for weapons will also be examined, e.g., bo, jo, nunchaku, etc.'
This part of the grading is carried on from part 4 of the ikkyu grading which included ju jitsu rekishi (history) and kotoba no hyogen. Jutsuri no kata was a separate grading in ikkyu (part 5).
The description of the kotoba no hyogen part of part 4 of the ikkyu grading is: 'Oral examination of Japanese terminology used in Ichimon to Gokyu. General Japanese terminology for weapons will also be examined, e.g., bo, jo, nunchaku, etc.'
Why did JDJ include these types of gradings in his grading system?
His original grading sheets were all in English so there was no need for translation. Later on, the grading sheets were recast using Japanese terminology. The obvious reason for the necessity of terminology gradings is that the recasting required an understanding of Japanese terminology to understand the grading sheets.
Zak, a full-time instructor for JDJ before my instructors, informed me that JDJ used Japanese terminology for techniques 'always.' He also informed me that things were a lot less formal in his day (1963-1974) and there was no kneeling (seiza), bowing, and 'sensei ni rei' to start classes.
For those JDJ ryuha who have reverted to producing grading sheets using English terms, why then persist with the kotoba no hyogen gradings? It is user friendly to produce grading sheets using English terms, but what is the point of this grading in that case?
JDJ once told me that the reason he introduced these gradings into his grading system was so that his instructors could understand the terms when used in books outside of his system of jujutsu. There are two problems with that explanation: (1) the instructors did not tend to study anything outside of JDJ's teachings as previously explained, and (2) JDJ used different terms at times than are commonly used. For instance, the commonly used shiho nage is JDJ's tekubi te nage, kote geashi is JDJ's tekubi hineri, etc.
Conclusion
JDJ's theory gradings are a major innovation and contribution to all martial arts gradings. It focuses on producing qualified teachers, which is generally lacking in the martial arts. Unfortunately, the theory is lacking, which is where my work comes in to fill that void, and in an easily accessible and useful way.
No comments:
Post a Comment