Ahhhhh - the first time I saw the video I thought he had forgotten to look to the rear - now I see that it is indeed part of the kata -... Hmmmm - I can see the point of drills that focus on removing improper behaviour - None of my students will ever stand near me with hands behind their back, or in pockets or folded across their chest - I have taught them that it is an invite for bad things to happen <EVIL GRIN> - However I agree that to put a mistake deliberately into a kata seems like a highly sub-optimal thing to do.
You're training the same movement correctly though, if you're doing it several times correctly I find it hard to believe doing it once incorrectly will somehow unwrite the several previous ones. If anything I'd see it more likely that someone practicing the kata would more often than not do the right thing during their practice of the kata, forgetting they need to train as if they failed to do something. There's also the argument that there are already many deliberate mistakes in a lot of the kata, but that's for the sake of another thread. It is an interesting argument though, as now it makes me wonder if some of what is in a kata could be because A didn't work you now try B. EDIT: I don't think the shootout with the pocket full of shells thing applies. I have used that example many times, but that was something they did every single time and it was not for training purposes, just cleanliness. I see the mistake less "he forgot to look" and more "he's attacked from behind", thus responding to it.
No, there should be no such thing as a trained mistake. If there is, remove it. By having just one variant which is a mistake (as in this instance), what you are doing is countermanning your training while you are training it. You need the training to be consistent in order for it to be recognised as powerful, and therefore worth adopting to your unconscious, which is really what is going on when you're looking at training an immediate, spontaneous, unconscious responce. By giving it something that contradicts the rest, it puts a second option, which leads to internal conflict, which leads to doubt over the veracity (and remember, we're talking unconscious here, what you may think consciously in terms of "common sense", or "rational thought", as that has no place in training an unconscious responce), which leads to a lack of belief that the main version is powerful and worth training and relying on. Training for the possibility of failure is different to training a mistake in order to overcome it. When it comes to the pocket full of shells example, that is what happens when training something powerful and dependable is done with a flawed training method. In order to get the most effectiveness out of the training method, remove anything that contradicts the aim that you are going towards. So while it may not make them make the mistake, it actually contradicts the habit, and the reasons the initial action is in there. So if you want the LEO (or whoever is training in this system) to check behind themselves each time, get them to check behind themselves each time. It really is that simple. With regard to the highlighted section, that would be an example of training to handle failure without training failure itself. Which is the way it should be.
First off, I can see my last post isn't as clear as I had hoped it to be. I apologize, I had just gotten off of work and hadn't slept in almost 24 hours, yet wanted to be stubborn and keep posting. Hopefully this should clarify things. As I mentioned before, I don't see it as training a mistake. I see it as a reaction. Let's say you're in a rubbish filled alleyway lined with all sorts of hiding places, and you just engaged a target in front of you. As you return your firearm to your holster, the next thing you know another opponent attacks you from behind in an attempt to remove your firearm. In this way it's training for failure rather than training a deliberate mistake. In the example of the pocket full of shells, the difference is this was trained all the time. Same with the example of the officer who trained thousands of handgun disarms where he would quickly return the weapon to his training partner. He did thousands of repetitions this way the whole time with no variation, thus when confronted with an actual suspect in this way he quickly disarmed the suspect then handed the firearm right back to him. The same way how they went from officers using their index and thumb as a simulated gun in scenarios in the academy to having recruits wear fake guns now after they had some cases of recruits doing that on the street rather than actually drawing their firearms. Again, lots of repetition of a single action. In these cases, the trained response was not the intended action as it was something that was not thought of as affecting the primary action. In the Hojutsu example, what is demonstrated is a response against an attempt to disarm you. This would be akin to training only one particular block against a particular style of punch with no other variation, then engaging an opponent who throws a punch in a completely different way than you've trained for. There is no adaptability, thus your chances of succeeding greatly diminish. For the record, in my own academy and their firearms training, they have never emphasized for recruits nor officers to look behind them prior to holstering their firearm. Nor has any of my military training.
Observation and gathering additional situational awareness before effectively giving up what is your tactical advantage is a no brainer. What branch of the military were/are you ?
Actually my service does emphasise this aspect - everytime we holster we do a scan, then a shoulder check to see if any other threats are present. We then holster, pat the mag on the gun ( to ensure it is still solidly in place) and sweep a hand along the side to ensure that nothing is tangled I do it without thinking now and it is something we were taught from day one
Ha, not a problem there! Although I must say that it was far more eloquent, well thought out, well reasoned, and well presented than many other posters in the forum who have far less of an excuse! The things that disagree with you, though, are the fact that every other time Rod looks in all directions before returning the gun to it's holster, in case it is needed again ("The gun is holstered reluctantly, just like the sword is returned to it's scabbard because it's taken out for an important reason, and only put back when you're sure" 3:36-3:45 on the original video, Fred Hall), which tells us that that is considered an important, if not vital and integral concept within this system, as well as Mr Hall stating explicitly "... he scans left, right, and forgets to look behind him" (3:52). It contradicts the approach presented, and is given the applicational reason (bunkai) of "forgetting to look behind him(self)". It is a deliberate mistake embedded in the kata. Actually, it isn't just the repeated action. A big part of it, and why it gets imprinted the way it does, comes down to the mindset when it's being trained. A police officer trains in a very serious way, as the skills are there purely to save their lives. As a result, it is highly valued (on an unconscious level). Essentially, the unconscious mind, where the use of such skills is really trained, and where it comes from when needed, takes the trained action as being powerful, and able to generate success, which is why the training works. Unfortunately, as these people and officers found, any flaws that exist in the training gets imprinted just as powerfully. Yeah, I get the contingency idea that that part of the kata is attempting to address, however the way it does it weakens the rest of it, with a worst case scenario being the mistake coming out in a real situation. You can still transition to defending against an attempted grab at your firearm without building in a mistake (from the perspective of the approach of this system) in the first place. No, it's more like training a kata in which you get hit in the face. Again, training a contingency is fine, great and expected, even. But it doesn't require countermanning your own tactical concepts to the point of deliberately making a mistake in the kata. That is just a difference between the systems, though. From the bunkai explanations from Mr Hall on the video, as well as the consistency shown (aside from the single mistake) demonstrate that the approach of Mr Hall feels that it is an important tactical application.
This thread makes for interesting reading on the subject of "Soke Hall" http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=78910&highlight=Jeff+Hall
I agree. Just because it's not demonstrated doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Heard some good things about Magpul as well, haven't had the pleasure of any training with them yet. Active duty Marine Corps first, now US Army Reserves. On my last year of this enlistment, still on the fence about going for more. It is interesting. I enjoyed the article, and surprisingly for Bullshido there was some well thought out responses. I'd just say if the idea of Hojutsu-Ryu bugs you but you still want the training, he has several other programs that could be of interest to a student, including his Integrated Fighting Systems. Jeff Hall offers a lot more than pajamas and bowing. http://www.forceoptions.net/
Had the pleasure of working along side 10th Mountain and US Marines (not sure which Marine unit specifically) in Basrah in 2009.
Perhaps he just said it wrong. Perhaps you forgot for a number of reasons: tunnel vision, loss of night vision due to the muzzle flash in your face, there's another target in front of you who's now fleeing and you don't want to take your eyes off them, etc. A kata is really just a group of combinations and tactical responses, not an entire fight in and of itself. There's many inexplicable things we do in a kata that may not make sense but may just be an easy way to transition to the next response you are wanting to train. From my own experiences, people will often more than not choose to do the right thing than the wrong thing. A perfect example is the tactical reload (our term for it at least). With a normal reload, you bring the pistol back to your box, drop the magazine on the ground, slam a fresh one in, then as you present on target you ready it. For a tactical reload, you usually still have rounds in the magazine but are switching out for a full one without wasting all of your rounds in the other magazine (all while behind behind cover). For a tactical reload, you have to secure your magazine on your person as you may need those rounds later. This is, in essence, a "mistake" as in the other case you just let the magazine drop onto the ground. Many of our tactical reload drills are the same as our regular reload drills. Trying to hold onto an empty magazine when someone else is shooting at you is probably not a good idea. I've seen many many shooters just let the magazine drop on the tactical reload (doing the "right action") but I've never seen anyone perform a tactical reload instead of a regular reload. I wouldn't call it that extreme, but I see your point. Agree to disagree, I guess.
Guys, Thank you very much for your input. It has been an invaluable learning experience. I have talked to Jeff Hall. We will be taking out the failure to "check 6" in the kata. Though there are tactical reasons at times not to check 6, the majority of the time you should. We will be doing the kata in the future in range gear. We believe in training like you are going to fight. Jeff will also find a more appropriate title other than "Soke". We will also be dropping "Ryu" from the name and probably just use "Hojutsu". Regards to all, Rod -"Sometimes the teacher....Always the student"
Ironing out the kinks and quirks in a system like Mr. Hall's is probably only natural, as it still is pretty young compared to a lot of the older systems. Much respect for him to be so willing to adapt and change as needed.
Agreed - that takes a lot of class and I applaud him for being honorable, open and forthright. Kudos from Dr. Lecter....whatever that is worth!!
I'm sorry, Kuma, but you're grasping at straws there... There was no discharge of the weapon, so no loss of night vision due to muzzle flash. If there's another target in front of you (suspect, possibly armed), why would you be putting your gun away? Perhaps the founder of the system, the man who designed the kata itself, and is providing the bunkai commentary "said it wrong"? As far as tunnel vision, honestly you're going in the exact wrong direction there. One of the things I like a lot about the firearm drills (the complete scan ones) in the kata are that they give a very good answer to the issues of adrenalised tunnel vision, by ensuring the LEO/gunman scans all the way around him each time, which gives a focus on the peripheral vision, minimalising the issues and negative effects of tunnel vision. By removing the rear scan (with the idea that maybe your vision is tunneling) is to basically remove a potentially life saving habit. Really a bad idea there. And honestly, I feel that Rod informing us that it will be taken out of the kata is confirmation as well. I agree that there may be some occasions where a rear check is not needed, or advised (back against a wall, for instance), but in this instance we know there is an opening in that direction, as that is the direction the gunman starts facing... and I doubt he would be facing a wall. Hmm, I'd disagree with that. Kata is a highly efficient training tool and device (or it really should be, which is the root of my comments about the kata presented here), which is a collection of strategic and tactical lessons. This is why it all needs to be congruent throughout the entire sequence. Simply putting together combinations and finding some way to string them together (looking for an easy transition) does not make a kata at all. It makes a string of combinations. Everything should have a definate purpose, and should be expressions of definate lessons. If such aspects are missing (incongruence in the execution or design, aspects having contradictory lessons, certain things in there for convenience's sake, or really in there for anything less than a powerful relevant lesson) then it's an indication that the person who designed it doesn't know what a kata really is, or how it works. As I said, that was my take on this kata when I first saw it, and I still stand by that (although it is many times better than XMA-style forms, which share many of the same issues, just presented in a different fashion... there it's more for aesthetic appeal. Frankly, if I was to find myself judging a competition such as that, I would tell each of the competitors to go away and not come back until they knew what a kata was!). For the same reason I am not fond of systems that require their junior Dan grade students to create their own forms/kata as part of their grading, as I don't think they have anywhere near the understanding needed to do so. It ain't easy, after all... What you seem to be describing to me, though, is that the person has trained in a simple, effective (powerful), gross-motor method of reloading, and then added a second, more complex, fine-motor method based around the initial simple drill. When put under pressure, the majority of people go to the gross-motor, simple one, as unconsciously, it is recognised as the more powerful and successful of the two. Frankly, that's what I'd expect to happen. So what that comes down to is wasted time training the non-used version, which is better than trying to do a more complex movement by holding onto the clip, and putting themselves in a dangerous situation by focusing more on that than on the gun and situation at hand. Importantly, though, the "left behind" form is more complex, which is part of why it is left behind in practice. With the missing check, that is simpler than including the check, so it's more likely to come out as a mistake when trained in that way. But, in essence, your unconscious will always choose what it feels is the best of any two options, based on experience, opportunity, confidence, and personal belief. In a survival situation, it will mean going to what is considered the most powerful. And if there are two viable options presented, then it will usually go with the simpler... which can lead to the mistake coming out. Finally, in one of the clips you posted earlier, you made the comment that the officer was overconfident, and that lead, at least in part, to the tragedy that occurred. Personally, I'd rather give LEO's and Military Personnel a method of ensuring their safety, and put their full confidence in that, rather than give them an "option" of not ensuring it. And that we shall. Honestly, Kuma, I'd just take it back to the quote in your signature: "We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training". Hi Rod, Thank you for this post. I'm personally still convinced that the unarmed portion needs to be brought much more into line with the firearms aspect of the kata, but I'm very impressed at the way you took the points on board (both yourself and Mr Hall). I wish you all the best as you continue developing these skills (as a student, and a teacher). EDIT: Sorry, this has been bugging me a little, and I keep forgetting it... Hey, Robert, While I don't disagree about the biggest issue being whether or not the skillset is effective when giving it to LEOs'/Military etc (although I have had some concern over the particulars here, in a way), I just want to point out some of the level of gaps in using terminology when not understood. With regard to the bolded section above, you are likening the term "Soke" to the English word "soak", yeah? Uh, it's pronounced "Soh-kay". When basic pronunciation isn't known, the validity of arguments about whether or not the terms should or shouldn't be used kinda disappears, I'm afraid. Okay, I know that makes me look rather, uh, pedantic (not an unfair comment, it must be said), it does show the lack of knowledge on this subject by those discussing it if no-one picked it up.
Soke is a title or role that, in this sense, means founder of a system. Soke Kubota founded Gosoku Ryu. Dai (Kanku Dai, Bassai Dai) means "junior" or "lesser" or "next to." Soke Dai means "next to the founder" in this context. I am Shihan Dai. That means next to the Master (or not quite the master). That's a title given by Soke Kubota.
I am also a practitioner of Hojutsu Ryu, and good friends with Rod Kuratomi. Trained with him for 30+ years. This is the real deal, folks!
This is entirely logical. In Choy Li Fut weapons forms, we always have a section at the beginning where we do some empty hand techniques. It is for essentially the same reason. It is to say that even if you have a weapon, remember you can still do other techniques if it comes up. Don't be so reliant on your weapon that you forget to say - throw a kick - if the situation opens up.
