06/08/2024
It's a bit embarrassing but after three decades teaching jujutsu, I've only just started to critique how we teach, within our context of self defence. And it is really fascinating! Two things have made this happen: honest, open-minded fellow instructors, and helmets and gloves.
In thinking about the context of self defence, we have looked at the physiological factors such as anaerobic activity and psychophysical factors such as arousal levels and sympathetic nervous system responses, and considered their impact on the ability to do jujutsu under pressure. From the dozens of real-life videos we have watched, most fights last less than 40 seconds and this is dictated by the above. By 40 seconds, an attacker simply runs out of puff and intent.
So why, as teachers, have we been putting our pupils through training activities when they don't fit our context? Why do we do multiple 3-minute rounds of outfighting sparring when our observations of real fights show they are mostly over in 30 seconds? Is having pupils bouncing around doing outfighting sparring actually imbedding experiences that don't support good self defence outcomes?
How much of class time do we have pupils working in the 'white zone' at normal heart rate? We know this is important for learning because in this zone the frontal cortex is fully operational. But if we then move the class into a randori exercise, do we structure it to move the pupils out of 'white zone'? How often do we structure a randori exercise to blast them through 'yellow zone' and well into 'red zone', so they are working in short bursts of activity at 160 BPM? Then how do the techniques and tactics hold up?
This is where well-structured exercises wearing helmets and gloves are invaluable to test if what we think should work in a self defence context actually does. Do a combination of set moves to close the gap get the pupil to a safe place? Or is it better to teach fundamental strikes, movement and clinching at an early stage, and then get them to 'just do jujutsu' at a later stage to close that gap? Our testing shows the former results in us eating a bunch of punches to the head and poor success, while the latter results in fewer knocks and more opportunistic strikes delivered on the way in. You don't know until you've tried.
"Everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face". Or get gassed.
This is exciting learning for our teachers and really revealing for our pedagogical biases.