The Martialist: The Magazine For Those Who Fight Unfairly

Return of the Superelite Commandos

A Humorous Second (Third? Fourth?) Look at Hikuta

By Phil Elmore

In one paragraph on page xiii of the book, DOK Lee uses the word "elite" three times (four if you count "superelite"). "These elite commandos were hired by a number of governments around the world to solve 'impossible' problems," Lee writes. "They were so superior they could even purposely get captured by enemy soldiers and be taken into their camps. Once in the camp, using Hikuta, a handful of these superelite, professional soldiers would destroy the entire camp... This elite, professional soldier group was kept top secret and eventually disbanded in the late 1940s."

Supposedly, one of the last surviving members of this secret, elite, superior, superelite commando group, one "Pappy Joe," taught DOK Lee Hikuta. In the 1993 book, Lee states that he has studied Hikuta for 43 years. One presumes that at the time of his death he had spent roughly five decades as a practitioner of this (elite and superior) art.
- From PhilElmore.com's Original Hikuta Review

One of the things I always enjoyed when I subscribed to Liberty magazine was the spirited way in which Libertarians on opposite sides of an issue would argue with each other, their essays firing away at their opponents' arguments. I adore that type of exchange. Give me a collection of angry essays written by members of different Objectivist camps, for example, and I'm happy for hours. I used to be notorious for the punishing and verbose arguments I had online on political and philosophical bulletin boards, hammering away point by point and demolishing quasi-intellectual challengers.

While these exchanges are best when they take place among people who share a common background, it's possible to enjoy them (if to a lesser degree) when they occur between opponents with fundamentally different approaches. Thus I owe my friend Raymond Brennan, and Ireland-born martial artist and prolific contributor to online fitness and martial arts publications, a debt of gratitude for the enjoyment he has provided me.

This article was bound to be written. After Dolfzine, a well-known online publication, published Raymond Brennan's "Hikuta: A Reflection" and my own follow-up article (it appears here in unedited form), Ray published a follow-up to the follow-up in an attempt to refute my criticisms of his piece. While this is perfectly understandable, his attempt to defend his work misses the mark in several areas. I do, however, commend him for gamely stepping into this particular arena – and welcome future opportunities to debate him on more interesting topics.

Even the editor of Dolfzine appears to have had enough of the Hikuta issue, stating plainly (in a note attached to Ray's more recent article) that he'll accept no more submissions on the topic. Can you blame him? Let's take a look at the basic points Ray makes in his rebuttal while examining precisely how these don't quite do the job they're intended to do.

Ray rightly points out that I'm the one who introduced him to the allegedly ancient Egyptian fighting system of Hikuta, sending him a copy of the tape I purchased from an online auction site. You would think, given this fact, that Ray would understand just how much time I've spent (some would say wasted) viewing the tape, performing the drills depicted, and testing the material by myself and with teachers – a process through which I usually go whenever I evaluate something new. Still, he's not me and can't know at what I spend my time (other than writing articles), so it's understandable that he might think I've missed the boat on the topic.

Ray takes a look at the picture I used to illustrate the Hikuta Hand, a technique involving a loose fist and a protruding thumb.

In his article, Phil Elmore offers us a photo of his own hand (above) demonstrating what he claims to be the Hikuta Hand. In reality, it bears no resemblance to the Hikuta Hand, but can rather be best described as a hand formation of his own devising, which is guaranteed to result in jammed fingers at the very least. This can be characterised as merely a "loose fist." It is plainly inaccurate. There are several glaring mistakes... The thumb should not be projected forward... Executed correctly, the fingers should be off his palm slightly or, perhaps. just barely touching (whichever is more comfortable). Should a fighter attempt a hand strike with this correct finger placement, his fingers will move smoothly past his palm – not jamming them, breaking them, stubbing them or harming them in any way.

The problem with this microanalysis of what one presumes is every millimeter of my somewhat hairy forearm and fist is that it flies directly in the face of what is supposed to be the Hikuta concept. If the system is as fast, easy, and natural as it is presented to be, something that can enhance the practitioner's ability to perform a wide variety of tasks, something that can be learned very quickly, should a Hikuta hand be a matter of such precise concentration?

Ray reports having used the Hikuta hand without thinking, instinctively and while under emotional stress. One wonders how much time this allowed for measuring the precise angle of the thumb or verifying the exact air space between palm and fingers. Still, Ray's point is clear. Surely if I understand the Hikuta technique, I should be able to make a passable ancient Egyptian-inspired loose fist, shouldn't I?

I criticized one of the photos in Ray's article, so any of the photos in mine are fair game (and we'll come to that). The problem with dismissing my criticisms by reading far too much into that single photograph, however, is that this simply doesn't address the real problems with the loose fist. These are the very real problems I outlined in my original article.

Held loosely as shown in my photo, the fingers will indeed slide past the palm on contact, unless you strike the target at a severe angle on the "finger side" of the loose fist. This does not alter the problem of the loose fingers themselves. Allowing the fingers to "mold to the shape of the target," to be anything but curled and clenched into the hand, is what creates the risk of jammed and broken digits.

Similarly, no miniscule adjustment in the position of the thumb will alter its vulnerability to being sprained or broken. Leaving your thumb on top of your hand – forward, pointing slightly upward, pointing up quite a lot, hailing a cab, or flagging down passing motorists – is simply a foolish thing to do that increases your chances of injuring yourself. Complaints to the effect of "Elmore's thumb isn't pointed up far enough" don't alter these problems and don't address the fundamental (and unproven) nature of the absurd Hikuta Hand technique.

Ultimately, however, this is much ado about nothing. Examine any picture from the few Hikuta materials available and examine the photo of my hand. They are the same technique. It's understandable that believers in the system could see "glaring mistakes," but the problem isn't with minute variations in the placement of the fingers. The problem rests with the Hikuta Hand concept itself.

Moving on the to subject of Hikuta's history, which has vexed many believers in the system, Ray says the following:

[The history of Hikuta] does appear to appeal to quite a number of people in terms of mystery and romance. In his article Elmore characterises all Hikuta practitioners as believing blindly in the purported history of Hikuta yet nothing is farther from the truth. Hikuta Master Jack Savage, on his own website, offers several different theories concerning Hikuta's history and concludes that the history of it is an open question.

I don't believe I said this in my original article. What I said, in fact, was this:

Such a history creates unrealistic expectations for a fighting system that, the reader is supposed to believe, was kept virtually secret for at least decades (if not centuries)... Now we come to Hikuta's history, which – to be blunt – sounds laughably fabricated. ...Mr. Brennan writes what is essentially an elaborate apology for Hikuta's dubious historical claims, rightly stating that many established martial arts have dubious histories. ...Mr. Brennan's conclusion seems to be that because other, better-known arts have fabricated or questionable histories, Hikuta's own historical liberties can be forgiven.

I can't agree with this conclusion, however. The traditional martial arts of the world don't present themselves (with a few exceptions – there are always individual practitioners who think too highly of their arts) as super-deadly, super-elite systems better than anything that has ever existed since the dawn of time. Most traditional martial artists recognize both the mythological aspects of their arts' origins (if it is very old) as well as the limitations of the their style in the real world.

At the same time, the history of Hikuta would seem to be presented, at least by DOK Lee, as evidence of the art's exceptional efficacy. If the alleged link to ancient Egypt is not an attempt to create credibility through association with a great civilization whose specifics are lost to antiquity, why is it included? If the history of the art isn't important to Hikuta's practitioners and is not seen as historically truthful, why invoke it at all? Saying, "other arts have dubious histories too" does not excuse apparently fabricated historical claims.

...The link to Hikuta's past is lost with the mysterious "Pappy Joe," as described in the 1993 book and in Mr. Brennan's article. But DOK Lee isn't hundreds of years dead and gone. He was alive until just recently. If this "Pappy Joe" really existed, he would have had to exist within relatively recent memory. How, then, do we justify this loss of Hikuta's origins to the mists of time? [emphasis added]

I don't recall, therefore, having a great deal to say about "all practitioners of Hikuta," but I do believe the way the art's founder presented it is important to how it is perceived. I'll say it once more for the true believers: If Hikuta's history is not important, it cannot be used to establish the art as the stuff of superelite commandos. If Hikuta's history is contrived or mythological, this robs the art of any credible claims to being "combat-proven." This, in turn, supports the thesis of my original rebuttal, which was that there are proven methods that are far more natural and much less risky than Hikuta's techniques. Finally, if DOK Lee died only recently, why was he unable or unwilling to provide a less contrived-sounding substantiation for the system he founded and was selling? I find this troubling and no amount of brushing it aside will change that fact.

Ray takes issue with my assertion that palm strikes are much more natural than any sort of "loose fist" technique when engaged in real fighting. He attempts to counter this by asking, "Yet in basic street fighting how often does one see (or experience) the use of a palm strike in contrast to the use of a fist. I see closed-fist punches as more 'natural' than palm strikes."

Interestingly, Ray is both wrong and right, here. Regarding palm strikes, one sees open-hand slaps used instinctively all the time in real fights, though one does not necessarily stop to identify them as "palm strikes" as one ought to do. Ray is correct, however, in that – perhaps thanks to our Western boxing heritage or to any of a number of other factors – closed fists are used as often if not more so than slaps.

Where I believe Ray is mistaken, however, is in his interpretation of my article. I didn't say anything about palm strikes versus closed fists. I spoke of palm strikes being more natural than the Hikuta Hand, an unnatural and contrived formation that will lead to injury (in my opinion). A closed fist is not simply the limp Hikuta Hand; it is a curled fist (or it would not be closed). The loose fist is not closed at all, but left open (or it would not be loose).

Granted, I am not a superelite commando (though I do moonlight as a less-than-elite commando if I'm good and liquored up) and thus one could argue that this is semantics. I'll let the superelite commandos in the audience figure that out for themselves.

Ray also makes the curious statement, "If palm strikes are so natural, then surely systems such as Canadian Combato wouldn't exist, by definition, as no-one would need to learn how to use them." This is interesting logic, as by his own definition, Ray is saying the Hikuta Hand cannot be "natural" (for then there would be no need for the system to exist).

Ray even goes so far as to criticize my criticism of a picture depicting a Hikuta instructor demonstrating a sniper posture. I pointed out that this photo depicts several substantive errors in rifle technique. (My original article included support for this assertion – support that was removed during the editing process prior to the publication of that issue of Dolfzine.) Ray attempts to counter my claim by asserting that the photo was used in a reputable magazine and must therefore (one presumes) be beyond reproach.

Any publication presuming to depict realistic modern warfare should be ashamed to publish such a picture, in my opinion. Ray states that my criticism of the Hikuta instructor's rifle skills "are [sic] ill-founded," but his appeal to authority does not change the errors clearly visible. The individual pictured is showing too much forehead, has his cover turned backwards, is positioned next to a tree (this is incorrect because trees draw fire), and is not tight enough to his weapon. One can clearly see sunlight glinting off the barrel of the rifle, too. If these are not substantive errors in rifle technique, what are? The use of the photo in any publication, no matter how highly esteemed, does not mitigate them.

Ray's most convincing argument is that derived from his own experience, as one would expect:

I believe that Hikuta works because I USED IT in a real-life situation in a local dojo, which I described in my original article. I knocked down a fully grown adult male with one strike of the Hikuta Hand, after only a few month's practice. It is not something I have "chosen to believe," but rather something that has worked for me in real life. I am, like most people, interested in hard evidence, not emotion-driven rhetoric.

I share his disdain for emotion-driven rhetoric. That is why readers with active minds simply cannot accept such emotional testimonials, which contradict both common sense and the experiences of countless fighters and martial artists. A "few month's practice" simply cannot turn anyone into a superelite commando or a dojo terror who can knock down grown men like bales of straw. I believe Ray, an experienced martial artist with years of training, simply does not give himself enough credit for the benefit that proven and more conventional training has produced over the years of his practice.

Ray caps his rebuttal of my article by stating, "To have an informed opinion, one has to actually do the various drills as demonstrated by DOK Lee." That is very true. Sadly, after spending a great deal of time doing just that, I cannot come to the conclusions to which he comes. While it would be wonderful to become a believer in a system that promises so much, I cannot take that route. I can only devote myself to diligent study and hard work.

It's a shame there are no shortcuts.

I wish there were.

The Martialist would like to extend heartfelt thanks to Raymond Brennan for being such a sport in discussing and defending his article(s). Ray, as a writer willing to debate earnestly, honestly, and civilly, is a rare breed. The publisher of The Martialist is proud to consider him a friend.