Who Was The Best Teacher at the JDJSDS Revisited

The first post in this series has garnered a lot of interest. There have been some defensive comments, which is only to be expected, but there have also been some supportive comments, for which I am grateful and encouraged.

I do appreciate receiving comments as they make me think about what I'm sharing. As this post shows, I'm not above going back and clarifying issues, nor am I above changing my views if evidence is presented that indicates an error in those views. In fact, writing and receiving comments is a big part of my learning experience.

Some of the comments that I received in response to my first post caused me to revisit that post. To make it clear, the intention of this series of posts is to identify and explore certain 'faults' in the teachings of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) tradition in order to learn from them and improve on the impressive body of work that JDJ put together over his lifetime.

Kaizen

Why do I focus on 'faults'? That was a question that I came to ask myself when engaged in the project described in the first post and which precipitated this series of posts. Upon reflection, it is because I have a kaizen mindset.

Kaizen is a Japanese word that literally means 'change for the better.' It is the philosophy behind the continuous improvement ideology.

The 'dark side' of a kaizen mindset is a focus on things that can be changed for the better in order to continuously improve, aka faults. This focus is sometimes not appreciated, even when it is intended to improve things for the better, as I have found.

When I have discussed the kaizen concept with certain members of the JDJ tradition, they endorsed the concept. Kaizen is good. Changing for the better is good. Continuously improving is good. However, when faults are pointed out in what they are doing, the response is often not so good.

One of the reasons why they respond negatively can be found in the work of Wilfed Bion. I came across his work when engaged in a group project during my MBA. Long story short, Bion is a WWI tank commander who went on to become one of the most influential figures in psychoanalysis. In his work on group dynamics, he suggested that there are two groups: the 'work group' and the 'basic assumption group' (the 'as if' group).

The work group is the group that works to accomplish the task that the group was formed to accomplish. The basic assumption group act 'as if' they are working to accomplish the task that the group was formed to accomplish, and they believe they are doing so, but their priority is something else, e.g., maintaining the status quo. There are examples of this that I have encountered in the JDJ tradition.

I have a kaizen mindset and am most definitely part of the work group (at least in certain areas of my life).

  

Insight and Understanding

The learning from 'faults' in the teachings of the JDJ tradition is also about gaining insights that lead to a new and better understanding. This is consistent with cognitive psychologist Gary Klein's views on the subject in Seeing What Others Don't: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights.

The five triggers for gaining insights that Klein identifies are: connections, coincidences, curiosity, contradictions, and creative desperation. Klein also identifies obstacles to gaining insights: stupidity, forgetfulness, lack of alertness, delusion, flawed beliefs, inexperience, passivity, over-confidence, and rigid reasoning styles. Many of those triggers and obstacles will be seen in action in this series of posts that in essence is about gaining insights that lead to a new and better understanding of the techniques in the JDJ jujutsu grading system and the grading system itself.

What I can say at this stage is, first, teaching and doing what is taught unquestioningly is an obstacle to gaining insight and understanding (and it is not kaizen). Second, insights that can lead to a new and better understanding can only be gained if one goes looking for answers to questions. An example of that will be clearly demonstrated in a future post that focuses on Ken Tai Ichi no Kata which is part of the shodan gradings.

Instructors

As I said above, the intention of this series of posts is to identify and explore certain faults in the teachings of the JDJ tradition for the purposes of kaizen, insight, and understanding. I seem to have been sidetracked in the first post by my discussion regarding Greg Palmer being the best teacher in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS). An assertion that I stand by, but which is not intended to diminish the teaching efforts of the other instructors in the school. 

My focus on Greg for that post came about through the project that I was engaged in where I was identifying faults in certain teachings. In order to support my assertions, I referred to the fact that I had trained extensively under JDJ's 'senior instructors' and JDJ himself.

I identified the 'senior instructors' in the first post as Peter Clarke, Robert Hymas, and Paul Connolly because they are the only ones to be awarded rokudan by JDJ. I was focused on them because they are instrumental to the story about the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system which I was working on because it explained some of the faults that I was discussing (see next post).

The instructor I was working with responded to my training experience with the fact that they too had trained under the 'senior instructors' and JDJ. Fair point.

It was around this time that I was questioning who was I to find fault in the teachings of my instructors and JDJ? In order to explore and answer that question, I developed a martial arts-related curriculum vitae (CV) for myself. 

The difference between 'trained extensively under' and 'trained under' came to be a point of differentiation (see below). I also came to realise another point of differentiation was that I trained also extensively under Greg Palmer, in fact, he was probably the biggest influence on my knowledge and understanding.

Greg was a professionally trained teacher and thus his approach to teaching came from a professionally trained teacher's perspective. That enhanced the learning experience not only for his students but also for himself. His technical understanding was so well regarded that when he and I went to do the theory gradings in nidan and sandan, JDJ would say that there was no need to examine our theory knowledge and understanding because he knew that it was there.

An email from a respected source reminded me that all of the instructors had an input into my knowledge and understanding. And when I say 'all', I do mean all as I trained under all of them. It was remiss of me not to acknowledge them in the first post and my only defence is that I was locked into tunnel vision as explained above.

In addition to the 'senior instructors' and Greg, I trained extensively under Ian 'Lloydo' Lloyd and Robert 'Rob' Kirby, and to a lesser extent under Debbie 'Deb' Clarke, Hans de Jong, and John Copley.

The abovementioned respected source accurately described Lloydo as 'a very practical bloke who [was] not as dynamic as others, had a good understanding of the mechanics of [techniques].' That is a fair assessment. The not being dynamic means that he was very compact in his movements. His unique method of punching caused me to question how it was so effective and I have included the findings of that question in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques.

Apparently 'lol' is outdated these days, but I did smile when I demonstrated this form of punching on a couple of highly graded students this year, 40 years after being taught it by Lloydo, and they were surprised at the force applied from such a compact movement. :)

The 'core of all learning' is the identification of similarities and differences. The four proven highly effective means of identifying similarities and differences are classification, comparison, creating analogies, and creating metaphors. Greg obviously used these strategies to teach, however, so did Lloydo. He was a master at using the creating metaphors strategy to teach techniques. Forty years on and I'm still using his 'bear claw' metaphor to teach yoko tekubi hishigi.

Rob was unique to the JDJ instructor pool in having trained and graded highly in another martial art (taekwondo). He also had police training under his belt which is regimented and informed by teaching theory. JDJ would later go on to explain that this approach, informed by his involvement with the SAS, produced superior results and was the impetus for his introduction of the mon grades into his grading system (see later posts). Rob was also unique within the JDJ instructor pool in knowing how to train students rather than just teach them. This is one of the things that I took from him to produce some of the best performances by students in gradings according to JDJ.

Herein lies a valuable lesson - the difference between teaching and training. For the most part, training was left up to the individual student at the JDJSDS, with the exception of Rob's classes, and then later mine.

Deb's greatest influence on me was probably when I was assisting her teaching the women's self defence (WSD) course that she developed. The course is ingeniously put together and is not just another WSD course taught by a martial artist. This involvement caused me to study and research WSD for a chapter in my second book on a new and better understanding of our natural and learned responses to a threat. 

CV Extract

I explained above that when I was questioning whether I was qualified to find fault in the teachings of the JDJ 'senior instructors' and JDJ himself, I wrote a martial arts-related CV for myself. I also referred to a differentiating factor being the difference between 'extensively trained under' and 'trained under.' When I started writing that CV, I started with my training, and I was quite surprised by the results even though I lived those results.

Most people start training by attending one or two classes a week and maybe doing a bit of extra training. I started training (April 1983) by attending at least two classes a day, six days a week, and doing a lot of extra training. Just taking the classes into account, that means that my one week's training was the equivalent of most other's 6-12 weeks; my one year's training the equivalent of most other's 6-12 years; and my five year's training the equivalent of most other's 30-60 years training. And that was basically my commitment for 20+ years. 

As explained above, my training involved training under all of the instructors at the JDJSDS, to varying degrees, and so I was exposed to all of their experiences.

From the commencement of my training at the JDJSDS, I graded every grading weekend (every three months) and I excelled in each of those gradings. That should come as no surprise given the abovementioned training regime.

After 1.5 years training, graded 3rd kyu (orange belt), and having never assisted an instructor teaching at the JDJSDS, I was asked by JDJ to take over the Melville branch from Paul Connelly. Ironically, being graded 3rd kyu made me ineligible for inclusion in the 'instructors' class. Within five years I was invited into the 'instructors' class, even though I had been instructing for a number of years prior to that invitation and by then it included instructing at the JDJ hombu. 

I taught for JDJ from the time that he first invited me to do so and was a full-time instructor for five years in the mid-to-late 90s where I taught more classes and private lessons than any other instructor and I was the chief examiner on more gradings than any other instructor.

In 1985, my training was supplemented when I was invited to join Greg's demonstration team for his nidan grading (Ju Jitsu no Jitsuen). This involved intensive training under Greg's supervision twice a week for six months (in addition to the abovementioned training regime). JDJ acknowledged that Greg's demo was the best demo that was presented for the nidan grading. That demonstration and team then went on to represent JDJ and the JDJSDS in a State Open competition organised by Brian Mackie.

There are also personal attributes. A kaizen mindset. An analysist by nature, nurture, and now pathology. A systems thinker (seeing connections; see Klein above) that enables me to see the forest and the trees. High attention to detail. Obsessive.   

There is a lot more to my CV than the above (which may or may not be presented in a future post). The point is that I am more than qualified to find fault in the teachings of the JDJ instructors and tradition. And I only do so in the pursuit of kaizen and insight that can lead to a new and better understanding.

Next Post

The JDJ jujutsu grading system was long considered to be 'best practice' by those in the JDJ tradition. As it turns out, not so much, in fact, it is a possible 'extinction event' for the JDJ tradition if adopted unquestioningly. 

The following is a comment that I received in relation to the first post: 

I appreciated the input of all the teachers at JdJ they each had a different perspective/approach. Where I think problems lie is the assumption that every student wants to become an instructor and so have a perfect understanding of the theory and practice. To my mind this has meant that the grading system has become very unwieldy and overly long.

That is a very astute observation and analysis. One that I have long shared. The words that I use to describe the JDJ jujutsu grading system are disjointed, overly cumbersome, and overly burdensome. I also describe it as a first attempt that is in need of modification. 

The next post will look at the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system. I will explain how it came to be and describe some of the conceptual problems in the grading system that are a product of its development. This analysis can provide the opportunity for insights to be gained that can lead to a new and better understanding that might pave the way for the continued existence of JDJ's teachings.

 

Series Warning (Red Pill) and Qualification

Following the reactions to my previous/first post in this series, it would appear that I should have included a warning and qualification in that post.

This series of posts is intended to explore the 'faults' in some of the teachings of the instructors in the JDJ tradition. In this way, it is taking the 'red pill':

The red pill and blue pill represent a choice between the willingness to learn a potentially unsettling or life-changing truth by taking the red pill or remaining in the contented experience of ordinary reality with the blue pill. The terms originate from the 1999 film The Matrix.

If the reader wants to maintain the status quo, take the blue pill and read no further.

If the reader takes the red pill and reads future posts, they will be exposed to potentially unsettling and/or life-changing truths in relation to the teachings of the JDJ tradition and its instructors, however, there is a huge upside in doing so ... not the least of which is that they might be able to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

I am generally not a 'believer' of any sorts but rather follow in the tradition of Bertrand Russell:

In science men change their opinions when new knowledge becomes available; but philosophy in the minds of many is assimilated rather to theology than to science. The kind of philosophy that I value and have endeavoured to pursue is scientific, in the sense that there is some definite knowledge to be obtained and that new discoveries can make the admission of former error inevitable to any candid mind. For what I have said, whether early or late, I do not claim the kind of truth which theologians claim for their creeds. I claim only, at best, that the opinion expressed was a sensible one to hold at the time when it was expressed.

Theology = belief = 'an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.' 

One cannot argue against a believer because proof is irrelevant to the believer. While loyalty is an admirable trait, blind loyalty, not so much. One cannot argue against the blindly loyal because they are by definition blind. One cannot argue against a member of the 'as if' group whose primary motivation is the preservation of the status quo when their stated motivation is in effective and efficient technique (this will be discussed in the next post).

I don't believe, I know. I am, as Russell said, prepared to change what I know when facts are presented proving otherwise. I knew that JDJ and his instructors were right about everything, until facts were presented otherwise. Those facts often originated in questions about some of their teachings which paradoxically came about because they were good teachers. In this way, I came to see further by standing on the shoulders of giants. 

It turns out that this series of posts may be interactive of sorts. This is where I continue to learn, by thinking about the comments that are received. I never dismiss comments, even abusive ones, and I always give them due consideration. I suppose this is part of my message - question what is being taught. Don't accept what I say without question if it doesn't jibe with your understanding, but understand your understanding.

I received the following comment from a former instructor who I respect highly. They are knowledgeable and thoughtful, as in thinking about what they say; they are loyal, but not blindly so:

Irrespective of who the best instructor was or is, it should be about self-improvement and understanding- take what is good, learn from what isn’t.

There is no equivocation here in saying 'they are not wrong,' rather, I will say unequivocally that they are right. The problem here is that one cannot learn 'from what isn't' unless one knows 'what isn't.' One cannot learn if they accept what is taught unquestioningly. One obviously has to do so when starting out, however, with experience, understanding should develop which may lead to questioning the original teaching.

My advice for what it’s worth is that - techniques are for analysis, Instructors/trainers will always be unique and are therefore to LEARN from - good and bad.

Their advice is worth a great deal. The reference to 'techniques are for "analysis"' is a whole subject in itself, as future posts will demonstrate. The idea that instructors/trainers will always be unique and are to learn from - good or bad, is again spot on the money, however, that cannot happen if their teachings are received unquestioningly. 

The qualification is, as alluded to above, the reference to faults in teachings is not a reference to faults in all of the teachings. A great deal of the teachings are without fault, however, I am drawn to the faults, as I will explain in the next post, but only in the spirit of kaizen, to change for the better. And in those faults, insight that can lead to a new and better understanding resides, as the abovementioned respected former instructor suggests.

A qualification to the qualification is that the jujutsu grading system that JDJ developed is a major problem. One which has the potential of seeing the demise of the JDJ tradition. This will be discussed in further detail in future posts.

Jan de Jong's Grading System First Draft

I have completed researching and writing The Science Behind All Fighting Techniques. I am currently in the process of completing the first draft of Fear and Fight: Understanding Our Natural and Learned Responses to a Threat. One thing that I have learned that no matter the amount of research, the first draft is always too long and lacking in focus.

Shihan Jan de Jong developed his jujutsu (and aikido and pencak silat) grading system. It was a first draft, and consequently, it is too long and lacking in focus. JDJ was the embodiment of the spirit of kaizen, continuous improvement. It behoves the instructors that follow on from JDJ to reflect on JDJ's work and improve on his grading system; that is providing that they can.

The namesake school continues to teach JDJ's grading system without any major modifications/improvements. I have been informed that they dropped the grading that examined sword use basics, which makes no sense at all. The basis of effective teaching is to teach basics and then progress from there. That is the underlying methodology of the mon grades that JDJ introduced was to introduced the basics before the student attempted the kyu or dan grades. How effective that was is another issue, however, it conformed to the modern, effective way of teaching as JDJ acknowledged in an interview. JDJ modified/improved his grading system accordingly, which the current incumbents have retreated from in this instance.

Another instructor has done away with the mon grades (see 'interview' above) altogether in order, as he says, to return to the original Tsutsumi (Hozan?) Ryu system. This modification is based on an incomplete understanding of the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system as all of the grades above the first four kyu grades are heavily influenced by JDJ's Yoseikan exposure.

One instructor has significantly modified JDJ's grading system, changing it totally. While I might challenge the basis of the modification(s), I have to applaud his adoption of JDJ's kaizen spirit with regards to the grading system.

Another instructor has implemented an idea that JDJ had been contemplating for at least three years prior to his passing, even though said instructor was not privy to JDJ's contemplations. He has introduced two streams, a practitioners stream and an instructors stream. Not all yudansha will go on teach and therefore, why should they be required to undertake the instructor's gradings. This is something that JDJ wrestled with for a number of years prior to his passing. An issue that we discussed on many occasions without any resolution. JDJ would be very interested in this instructors efforts, which are in the best tradition of JDJ's kaizen spirit.

The original JDJ jujutsu grading system is a first draft. It is a lumbering, behemoth. The current instructors teaching JDJ's jujutsu grading system can continue teaching JDJ's first draft or they can use what JDJ attempted to provide his instructors' with - insight. The insight will provide for redrafts, until finally a sophisticated, efficient, succinct, and focused grading system is developed.

Shihan Jan de Jong's Legacy

It's 15 years to the day that Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan pasted away. Many tributes are being posted on Facebook in honour of de Jong and his impact on people. This gave me pause to reflect on de Jong's legacy.

I have studied de Jong's jujutsu grading system. Not just engaged in it but really studied it. I used 'the core of all learning' to study his grading system. The core of all learning, as I explain in my The Science Behind Fighting Techniques manuscript that I have just submitted to a publisher, is the identification of similarities and differences. It was by comparing what we do with what others do that I gained enormous insights. I learnt more about what we teach by studying what others teach than I could have simply by studying what we teach.

His grading system is a remarkable achievement. It is one of the most comprehensive grading systems in the world. It is all the more remarkable in that he developed it from what I believe to be scratch.

In Jan de Jong's Unique Grading System, I explain how he uniquely included gradings in his grading system that examine a candidates knowledge of why a technique works and their teaching abilities. His grading system uniquely develops black belts who are qualified teachers who know why a technique works in addition to knowing how to perform the technique (a la Gracie and Gracie, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: Theory and Technique).

The grading system is unique in using the shinken shobu no kata method to examine student's technical abilities. The term was taken from judo, however, the shinken shobu no kata used by de Jong is different to that taught by judo. Judo's shinken shobu no kata is a true kata in terms of choreographed attacks and defences. De Jong's is a kata in the sense that there are prescribed attacks and defences, however, those attacks are delivered in a random order thus simulating a fighting environment.

This method is used at the end of each class with various variations. Attacks are initiated based on the instructor's signalling which the defender cannot see. The defender can defend with any technique or they can defend using only the technique prescribed by the instructor which the attacks vary.

This method is in between true kata and free fighting. It instills a 'one punch, one kill' mindset; a committed defence that is designed to finish the fight there and then which free fighting often does not. The closest I've seen to it is Kyokushin karate's one-step sparring.

What is de Jong's legacy? Kaizen - continuous improvement. Those who are teaching can teach what de Jong taught, but, is that living up to de Jong's legacy? De Jong's grading system was a first effort, a remarkable achievement but still a first effort. There are errors in both technique and theory inherent in that grading system, which are the result of the lack of information that existed at the time he was developing it. In the spirit of kaizen we can address those errors. We can refine his grading system; grading system 2.0. I think this is what he would have wanted. For us to adopt the spirit of kaizen which was how he lived his budo life.

I think that to honour de Jong is to 'see further than he did.' As Newton said, 'If I can see further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.' He was a giant; we need to study and learn what he built, and then build upon that.

The Way of Kaizen

The Way of Kaizen is the title of my article published in this month's Blitz magazine. It is what I consider to be Shihan Jan de Jong OAM 9th Dan's legacy. Would love to hear some feedback on the article.