How to hold a pair of sai, 101.

OK, let's start off with a few assumptions that I should clarify before going into this.

1. My club has a heavy focus on applied martial arts. Be able to use what you train. It is our belief that both Karate/Kenpo and Kobudo were intended to be methods of survival or warfare. They were combative in the past. If we are not training with this intent in mind today then we are really not pursuing the same thing as the originators of the system. It's fine to go your own way but don't think you are practicing the same thing as your system's originators. Only since the late 1800's have we moved away from combative use into other qualities of the martial arts.

2. The Sai is a multi-range weapon. There are two main positions for the weapon. Open, with the 'pointy' part out and the handle in your grip. And Closed, with the length of the weapon along your forearm and the end of the grip out in front. Each position allows you to do things in different ranges. Closed is for a closer range and open a slightly longer range. And I suppose you can throw it too but that gets into tactics and strategy a little deeper than I want to go for now. 

Now, in a recent advanced (Shodan and up) class last week we began working on something that should be basic. Sai 101 stuff. This may be old news to some but I was not shown this coming up. I have yet to run across anyone else who was either. I always thought the basic ready position for sai was either both weapons open or both closed. This is how we always learned it before and it seems to fit well with a lot of the things we see in the katas. We have found that the paired sai work very well as a one up, one down kamae. Or, one open and one closed at the same time. Specifically with the lead hand closed. Think sword and shield position and you're pretty close.

What's interesting is that since I have started using it I have yet to shoot any holes in the idea. I see it everywhere now in the katas. We might be on to something. A few points of support...

Now that I'm looking for it, it shows up consistently throughout our Sai kata. I would have a hard time saying it is not the basic on guard position at this point. If you are working from a ready or semi-ready posture you can tie everything to this guarded lead hand and open chambered hand.

Also, it fits with the traditional idea of how the weapons were carried and drawn from the hip. Try it. Place two sai in your belt on your left hip. One just outside of the other. Now play around with different ways to smoothly remove them both into a good ready position. Did you end up with a cross draw for the right hand and a thumb hook to lift out the left? The one in the right hand is open and the left is either closed or awkwardly fumbled to an open guard. Flipping this open would be slower and more likely to lose the weapon. Me too. It's natural. It's fast and you can perform most kata techniques starting from here.

This is very similar to the way I teach other weapons such as the escrima (tanbo for our Okinawan stylists). We don't normally fold the front weapon (when using two) but the rear hand is always in a high chamber. We found this to be the preferred place to start from. Keeping the weapon back and chambered allows you to use it in either a full step forward, a half step (cutting step) in , or from punching range without a step. It makes it more versatile while eliminating the need to load before striking.

I realize reading this that the whole topic is kind of dull and basic...unless you've never heard of it. As I said, most of the people I know who practice with sai fall into that category. If you are looking for applications in your sai kata, give this a try.

I am not my instructor.

One of the first things I told my group of new students was that my goal is to make them better martial artists than I am. Of course, I didn't mention that I'm also working to make me better than I am currently. I'm slowly coming to the light on an idea and like so many other things you learn, it was right there all along. I just wasn't ready to see/understand it until now.


I am not my instructor. For a long time my goal was to pursue him. To be as good as he is. Well, that's only the start. My goal should be to become as good as I possibly can. To just become as good or better than any one person is really setting limits for myself. Now, my instructor may be the best, most effective practical martial artist I have met. Sure. But, I don't want to stop there. And what if I never get 'there'? What if he is always better than me? He has a head start so it would only be natural that as long as we are both making progress then he will be leading me. But, paths can split and they can re-connect later too. I recently found this to be true in a visit to an old dojo.

I rarely get to train with my first school. I only recognize a few faces anymore. Luckily the head instructor and his family are around still. Good guy and an excellent technician. I owe them a lot. But I do not owe them for any understanding of practical martial arts. It's the kind of school that made you really good at everything but the 'martial' part. On a recent training went as usual but something was different. They were looking deeper into techniques. We talked afterwards and it seems the instructor has discovered some practical influences that made him want to know more. They are just scratching the surface but it's a step forward. A big one. The art just got deeper for everyone he teaches from this moment on.


So, I don't think we should train to become a carbon copy of anyone else. After a point if I am still training to match someone's ideas of "perfect" or "complete", then I am not maximizing my own study. Different body types and experiences. Different strengths and weaknesses. I have to find the best possible way to train for me. And the most appropriate goals. People study for a variety of reasons. And within those reasons they each count a variety of ways to advance.


The goals can be the same but the route that you take to get there may be wildly different. This goes back to the idea of strategy and tactics. A takedown that works for one guy in class may not be the best option for someone else in the exact same situation. It's just a reality. I address this in class all the time.

I tell my training partners that I am going to show them a number of ways to do a technique. Say, to defeat a lapel grab. After all there are numerous ways in our forms that demonstrate this. We will practice them all in the most effective way we can. We will play with them and see what works and what does not. I don't expect you to use all of them anytime someone grabs you this way. That would actually be a real problem as too many answers for the same stimulus cause a freeze. Pick your favorite and do it well. Don't worry about how I do it or how my instructor does it. Try the technique. If it's a keeper plug it in as your chosen tactic for responding to the situation then train it until it is your own.


If we look to kata as a guide we see this exact process. This is why there are small differences in katas. Why one style does it with the arm turned this way and another with the arm turned that way. This individuality used to be encouraged in traditional arts.

We have lost a lot on the journey through time. And one of the most important missing pieces is the time and encouragement to play with your techniques. There is so much to learn and I know there have to be some standards but, only sticking to the standards will not keep the method of fighting alive. Take it out of the box and work it until it fails, tweak it then work it again!  Failure is the beginning of competency. This is how you feed your art. This is also what sets me apart from those before me. Ironically, it is also one of the things that connects us to the past.

I know that traditionalists equate this to the idea of "Shu, Ha, Re" or "Copy, Perfect, Transcend" and I'm sure that it is. Like I said, I'm just really starting to understand it...again. Funny how perspective changes with time and experience.


Just a thought as you continue forward in your training. Your instructor is there to guide and teach. He corrects you at first and gets you to a point where you are ready to learn on your own. This time is invaluable! After enough serious practice you begin to see that if everyone painted exactly like Monet, it would not be art, it would just be paint by number.


More martial ramblings.

Everything is cross training.

Everything is cross training. I've been looking at this for awhile now. I brought it up in the last post briefly so, I thought I'd put it up and see if anyone else has opinions about it. And as usual, just to get it out of my head in a somewhat organized manner.

To start let's take three seemingly unrelated activities and watch them converge. Three things I have experience with and can readily relate. Martial arts, weight/resistance training, and shooting.

All three have good and bad habits that can be learned. Every technique, lift or rep is up for criticism when you want to improve performance. The line of movement should be clean and consistent for all three. There is a most efficient way to punch just as there is a most efficient way to press heavy things overhead. Proper bone alignment will allow you to hold that weight or prevent weapon jams or transfer maximum energy into a strike. Of course balance and breathing are important in all three as well.

Similar movement patterns. Here's the good part. I have noticed that correct stances and breathing, skeletal alignment and similar muscular tension are the same, if not identical across the board. I'm sure there are a number of other activities that this applies to as well. Over time I have studied/trained in the three above activities under a number of separate instructors. I have reached a point now where my stance is almost exactly the same on the range as it is when addressing a punch (minus the pointing of imaginary weapons!). My hips and spine align in almost identical ways whether I am trying to punch correctly or press a kettlebell overhead 20 times. In all cases it seems that closer is generally better, within appropriate circumstances. For example, there is such thing as too close for a carbine rifle. Or sitting on the floor as opposed to standing over a weight you are trying to lift perhaps. But long range shooting is less effective. Being too far from the bar when lifting can cause injury, and backing up in a physical conflict can get you in trouble fast.

I like the idea of a common set of habits. It makes for better and faster transfer to other skill sets. Especially with any activities that are closely related to a violent scenario. When put under pressure you will default to a percentage of what you can do instinctively or habitually. It's nice to have less things to process.
 So, when you think about it anytime you are training one skill, you are really practicing all of them to some degree. Habit forming.  If you are practicing good habits, this is good news. If not, then you are effectively cross training or cross contaminating weakness into the system.

Tomahawks and learning to stand.

Wow. It's been a long time. A lot has been going on lately with the class. Good stuff. We have a good group, and slowly moving forward. Slow is good. Gives me time to re-evaluate and watch. To think it through and adapt the lessons. Still, at times I wish it was faster. This whole teaching thing is a work in progress. More about that later maybe.

Two ideas floating around in my head recently. Thought I would get them out on here.

First, hatchets. Well, tomahawks, hatchets, small axes of any kind as a weapon. They seem to be everywhere lately. Even my sister has one now!

We played with this at the last Kobudo class for a change of pace. Using a tomahawk and knife or machete as paired weapons against a long or mid range weapon. Specifically a 6ft. staff or a sword (training katana). Some things we have seen still hold true. Two short weapons are faster. You need to be in close and you need a good, constant 'flow' of techniques. But it's not the similarities that I noticed.

This weapon is short but heavy on one end. It has a blade (in this case a single blade, no spike or hammer on back) that can be used for hacking and hooking. The weight is the first issue. Simply put, they don't move like escrima, sai or other common kobudo weapons. The 'hawk is top heavy by a lot and requires more of a chamber. The hooking works but can be a liability also. Especially against a stronger (two handed) weapon. And it interrupts the 'flow' when you stick too long.

Using the weapon in the way we were I noticed that the actual bladed surface never really got used much. At least, it wasn't cutting to meat very often. Lots of possible variables. I was working against the hands of my opponent a lot and never could get the blade involved in a way I felt was consistently effective. Then it hit me, I'm trying to use the tomahawk in the same way I would use kama (short Okinawan sickles). Seems like a similar weapon at first but it isn't. The weight and location of the blades make a big difference. The length of the blades too. With kama, when you hook the weapon and slide up to the hands you are cutting the fingers or wrist depending on the direction. And the removal of the blade is still a cutting motion. Same is true for hooking limbs. They really should come with safety goggles and a mop. In short, the Tomahawk taught me some things about the use of the kama.

Second thought. Structure. Frame. Setting a good, strong foundation to work from.

This has been something that we have been working a lot in class. It is one of the things that a new martial artist misses for a while but it's essential. Not that there is any secret to it. Most people have a sense of it I think. Everyone who has ever played a contact sport has felt it. At least briefly.

I am constantly seeing crossover between martial arts and weight-lifting. Structure applies to both. Using the skeleton to support what the muscles are doing. You can lock out and hold heavy weight overhead. The dynamic and harder part is getting the weight up there. You can extend a punch or block and hold it out. Connecting can be a challenge. With good structure (read "good technique"), you can snap it into place and resist a strong force once you are set. Even less than fully locked will do in many cases if the surrounding structure is right (this would have to include balance I guess). In one of my old dojos the instructor used to go around pushing, pulling and standing on students between counts of techniques. He was checking our stance. I get it now. Proper structure = good resistance = best transfer of power when applying your technique. In more direct martial arts terms, you can't punch as hard standing on the bed. You need to build in framework which lets you transfer power from the floor. Any cushion will bleed power off. Applies on the ground also, just not in the way we traditionally see it used.

This makes sense to me but communicating it in words can be difficult. I'm trying to get my students to FEEL it. Getting everyone to understand that stances are just traditional ways to find structure is the real goal.

Enough rambling for now.

Some Kobudo thoughts.

More thoughts about Kobudo.
Based on some recent reading, specifically some input by Rory Miller, I'm trying to refine the "What" for our kobudo arts.
The theory is that weapon arts are for a planned attack or defense. Versus the sudden, unexpected fight for your life defense of unarmed martial arts. To put it in more clear, modern terms, if you were about to begin a military action to either assault an enemy or defend against a likely enemy assault you would want to arm yourself as well as possible. These are the two major scenarios where weaponry is used. The same is true for traditional Okinawan arts. As a guard or soldier to the Ryukyu kingdom it would make sense that you would be trained to use the weapons of the day.

This hypothesis allows us to make a few assertions:
Weapons were (most likely) not carried around for self defense purposes by the average citizen.
Weapons were (most likely) used in combative applications against both armed and unarmed opponents with staffs, spears, thrown weapons, and more.
Unarmed arts are for emergency defending, as in civil self defense. This fits in line with the fact that for many years Kobudo and Karate were not taught alongside one another. They were separate arts...for separate purposes.

A re-definition of strategy.

This has been on my mind a lot lately. Trying to pin-point what it is in martial arts (specifically Kenpo/Karate  and Kobudo of Okinawan lineage) that makes for a "better" fighting method. It has taken some thought and study but I think I've nailed down some of it enough to write it out. In doing so, I have refined my ideas of overall strategy a little.

The setup
1. You have to know what question you are attempting to answer.
In our case, this is a question of how to prevail in a self-defense situation with a lot of unknowns and poor odds. One attacker or more? Armed, angry, under influence or any combination of these.
This is just defining our specific problem in order to define our solution.

2. The universal fight plan.
It seems to be true across cultures, locations and time (to some extent. technology will always play a role here). When a primate (including humans) aggressor or group of aggressors has cause or need worthy of physical violence, the plan generally breaks down like this: gain advantage by whatever means (numbers, weaponry, surprise, target selection...), use repeated strikes to beat the target into submission (either submission of will or physical ability), continue until resistance (resistance = a threat) stops, accomplish goals (steal wallet). Sometimes there is a verbal threat or challenge first but, this is usually how it works. I think on some level this has become instinct. It's in our DNA so it is probably a time-proven way of taking what we want. It is generally unspoken amongst attackers and requires almost no thought to carry out until non-melee weapons are introduced. See schoolyard fights of any age groups, professional hockey, Rodney King video, etc.

The strategy is the first piece. Training to implement and stick to it is the rest. As I see it now, I am explaining our strategy as follows:

(survive) this part kind of goes without saying, it's instinct. If someone is hitting you then stop getting hit by whatever means. The 'whatever means' is the tactic, and traditional MA can provide some help here.

Gain the initiative
The one with the initiative is in charge, be that person! This is the hard part because often this step involves recovering from things suddenly going wrong. You are likely to be on your heels at first. Launch some kind of offensive and make the other guy deal with it rather than just letting him dominate the offense. Again, MA has tactics for this but people don't like them because they are not easy to practice and not always successful (if you are practicing correctly). It's called a fight for a reason.

Control the initiative
Here's the real secret, if there is one. Don't try to fight toe to toe with someone and expect your kung fu to beat his kung fu. That's a different kind of fight and it is not in line with our strategy. Instead, get to a better position than the other guy and capitalize on the opportunity. The window, just like the fight, will not last long. You need to train to create dominance (openings) and know it the moment it is there so you can capitalize. "Hit" them when and where they are weakest, and repeat until the next step can be achieved.

Exit
As soon and safely as possible! This is the goal. Always remember the goal. You are either dominating or leaving. There is no winner but there may be a second, third or fourth opponent. Don't stick around. We used to always hear in traditional karate classes that, "If you are not there, you can't be hit." This was used in regards to moving out of the way of a strike but, on a larger scale it holds true. The ideal fight would go like this. He throws a punch, you dodge it. Then you run away. But there is often more to it than that. You're cornered in an elevator/train/bathroom stall. Maybe you have your grandmother with you and she's not much of a sprinter.  Or one guy grabs/distracts you while the other guy swings. Everything is situational.

The piece I'm focusing on right now is finding the dominating position in the fight. If all goes to plan (which it usually never does) I will have a response that leads into some scenario where the opponent's options are limited or he at least has fewer or worse options than I do. Kata provide tactics to use for this and Kihon skills give us the dexterity and habits of movement (good techniques) that increase my odds of making these tactics work.

Just thinking out loud some.

Unarmed weapons kata?

Been awhile. Plenty to say, just not enough time to say it.

Anyhow, just got back from a nice morning of Kobudo class. And for a brief few weeks this time each year the weather is perfect. 70 and sunny. No bugs and a soft breeze. Makes for a long class sometimes.

We spent some time going through some Bo disarms. The setup: one guy has a Bo (would apply to any 5-6 foot pole arm weapon) and the other guy gets a hand or hands on it.

For the guy who had the Bo, this is potentially a big problem. Worst case, the formerly unarmed opponent gets a dominant grip and takes the weapon.

For the unarmed guy, the strategy is to close in fast and hard to negate the weapon's advantage. Establish a grip on the weapon to take it out of the fight (mostly) and begin a beatdown at close range. Though it is difficult to do while trying to control a long weapon. Unlike single handed weapons you can't really dominate the grappling over the weapon with a single hand. Not for more than a split second.

So, backing up and looking at the bigger picture here. From my research the Bo and Sai were pretty much a police (armed palace guard)tool. They would have been used much like police today use various methods of non-lethal force such as mag lights, nightsticks, and handcuffs, etc.

It seems likely that a common opponent in the golden age of Chinese and Okinawan Kobudo would be an unarmed person. Same as today, but without the same likely-hood of pocket knives and guns. Not that armed opponents are unlikely but the odds suggest a Bo vs. empty hand encounter. Probably. Same with Sai. Always researching this but so far, that's what I have. If we assume this is true or even possible then Bo katas would be built for use primarily on an unarmed opponent? What is the worst-case in this engagement for the guy with the Bo? OK, let's train that and see if it fits into our kata. And then it gets interesting.

Shiho Nuke, one of the first and most basic Bo kata in our system, is FULL of techniques for two guys grappling over control of a single Bo. the sequence seems to also follow a strategy. Basicly, get a good grip, turn/twist/peel away from Uke and either 1. strike and takedown or  2. get free and smash repeatedly. Sounds right. Seems to work in our small group sample. Oh, and looks like the kata.

The next step is to carry this into other weapons. The Sai being the next logical step since the historical application is similar. I've always had some questions about the kata for this weapon also. Sure it can be used against a Bo. Yep, I can block and trap his stick as I smash with the other hand. But is this what it was meant for?  You ever look at a kata and wonder "What could that movement possibly be doing and why would you want to move like that?" Or in the case of Sai kata, "Why would you open the Sai and do something only to flip it 'closed' again?" Afterall, a big part of the advantage of the Sai is having it open and using the extended range to do greater damage at a greater distance. It's bothered me for years. In weapon sparring (we put on hockey gloves, helmets and any other padding we think will help and go at it full speed and 3/4 power) I have rarely ever wanted to 'close' the Sai. Those things are just too much more effective with the points forward. Then I disarmed the other guy and discovered the whole fight changed around me. Just like the example above, the unarmed guy's best bet is to get in and control the weapon(s). He is not a threat at more than an arms range and he is actually where I want him if he stays there. Now the dual personality of the Sai comes into play. It is made for up close grappling, poking and hooking as much as it is for smashing when deployed at length. This will take some more kata research but it's a project that seems worthwhile. More to come.