Michał Kruszewski1

 Jozef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland;

Author for correspondence:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 Michał Kruszewski: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6056-754X


Abstract

Background and Study Aim: In every hand-to-hand combat training system, offensive and defensive actions are key elements, and only simultaneous attack is possible, but not simultaneous defence (of course, during one-on-one combat). Perhaps one of the greatest paradoxes is the fact that even in many scientific and educational publications, aikido is classified as a martial art, although it is clearly a self-defence art. A paradox of a similar scale is the necessary exposure to sophisticated forms of attack from a partner during training, but aikido does not include the teaching of offensive actions in its programme. The cognitive goal of this work is the innovative application of complementary research methodology in determining the effectiveness profiles and motor and somatic potential of those military cadets who have twice fought testing fights in a vertical posture with four randomly selected peers, regardless of weight categories.

Material and Methods: The author imitatively analyses unique, unpublished research findings from Mariusz Kisiel's master thesis on testing fights in a vertical posture (TFVP) of military cadets (n = 31). The profiles concern 9 cadets out of 11 who stood out in the observed group due to their unique body weight. Exclusion criterion: body weight dominance over competitors while winning all TFVP. Criteria for identifying empirical variables in relation to the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat without weapons (F-Index of TFVP): motor potential (FITNESS, i.e. the sum of points International Physical Fitness Test); somatic potential (body mass and BMI); workload (arbitrary units). The unification of indicators is based on the ratio of the result to the highest value of the variable among the persons with whom the cadet covered by the profile fought. The excepxion to the determination of the ratio indicator is workload. A correlation coefficient was calculated between the empirical variables.

Results: The greatest variation in proportion indices occurs in the F-Index (od 75% do 0%), and the smallest (approximately 30%) in somatic potential (body mass and BMI). The F-Index correlates only with workload at the threshold of statistical significance (r = 0.663). The greater the effectiveness, the higher the energy cost. Cadets with the lowest body weight (58 kg and 59 kg) did not lose all TFVPs. Their effectiveness, F-Index = 37.5% and 62.5% respectively, proves that the simple formula of hand-to-hand combat competition, devoid of brutality, provides reliable information about a person's predisposition or lack thereof to fight without weapons.

Conclusions: A significant interpretative limitation is the absence in these secondary analysis results of the S-Index (proportion of scuffles won), which provides more accurate information on ‘dispositional feasibility’ within the framework of evaluating 'possibility of action'. However, social accepxance of the escalation of bloody spectacles shows that fighting without weapons can pose a deadly threat, especially in the absence of any external control. Therefore, the key practical issues are, on the one hand, the necessary work on clarifying the legal criteria for necessary defence and, on the other hand, improving methods of compensating for the shortcomings of self-defence education based on hand-to-hand combat systems. In situations of extreme danger, the use of verbal-motor self-defence support measures would prevent possible abuse.

Keywords: aikido, INNOAGON, possibility of action, preventive medicine, self-defence, sumo, verbal-motor self-defence


AMA:
Kruszewski M. Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems. Arch Budo J Inn Agon. 2025;21.
APA:
Kruszewski, M. (2025). Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems. Archives of Budo Journal of Innovative Agonology, 21.
Chicago:
Kruszewski, Michał. 2025. " Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems" Archives of Budo Journal of Innovative Agonology 21.
Harvard:
Kruszewski, M. (2025). Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems. Archives of Budo Journal of Innovative Agonology, 21.
MLA:
Kruszewski, Michał. " Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems" Archives of Budo Journal of Innovative Agonology, vol. 21, 2025.
Vancouver:
Kruszewski M. Complementary research methodology versus paradoxes of evaluating the effectiveness of hand-to-hand combat systems. Arch Budo J Inn Agon. 2025;21.