“Striking” martial arts and hand-to-hand combat systems have existed for millennia in both Eastern and Western Hemispheres. These systems and styles have been used and practiced in such diverse demographic segments as general civilian populations (Kung-Fu, Karate, Tae Kwon Do, Savate), professional sporting competitors (Boxing, Kickboxing/Muay Thai, MMA), military personnel (MCMAP, Krav Maga), and law enforcement officers/agents (Taiho Jutsu), among other groups. Such combat systems that involve striking techniques utilize body parts (fists, palms, elbows, feet, knees, etc.) as well as non-ranged, melee weapons (swords, bayonets, batons, etc).
Practitioners of such martial arts styles and hand-to-hand combat systems commonly use a variety of devices and apparatuses to train, drill and improve their techniques. One of the most common is the heavy bag, which has existed in some form or another since the advent of striking arts, whether made of animal hide and filled with sand or made of modern plastics and filled high-density synthetic gel. Another well-known device is the Wing Chun Kung Fu Wooden Dummy which has been, and continues to be, associated with advanced close-quarter hand-to-hand combat training—in both actual instruction and popular media. Two of the most fundamental reasons that such martial arts training devices have existed, can continue to exist, are: (1) another human training partner may not always be available, and (2) even if another human training partner is available, one cannot safely practice full-force striking on a human partner, even if the partner is wearing training padding, unless one is intentionally trying to harm that partner or “go for a knockout.”
All training devices for the striking arts, from historically generic devices such as the heavy bag, to even recently-patented devices such as U.S. Pat. No. 8,029,422, may be evaluated and analyzed according to seven fundamental metrics: (1) Platform Mobility/Human Interactivity, (2) Available Training Spectrum, (3) System Completeness, (4) Configurability, (5) Demographic Usability, (6) Ease of Deployment, Storage & Transport, and (7) Cost-to-Training-Benefit Ratio. While no training device known to the inventor has high values across all of these characteristics, it would be desirable for a single training device to embody these seven fundamental metrics in a robust manner.
(1) The evaluation factor, “Platform Mobility/Human Interactivity,” largely depends on the device's size, weight, and shape. Bulky devices such as heavy bags and wooden dummies are virtually completely immobile, e.g., mounted on walls, heavy bases, or suspended from the ceiling/overhead structures. Because these devices are fixed-position platforms, they cannot be handheld by a human partner and have no potential for the spontaneous human interactivity and training challenges that a partner can provide. Other larger devices, such as the foam body shield, and smaller ones, such as the focus mitt, are handheld platforms that allow for human interactivity, for example, where the holding partner may manually manipulate the device to simulate a moving target. However, in the absence of a partner, these handheld, mobile-platform devices have severely reduced training potential to a solo practitioner. It would be valuable for a training device to be able to be effective both as a stand-alone, static apparatus as well as providing a high degree of human interactivity when a partner is available to manipulate it in a mobile manner.
(2) The evaluation factor, “Available Training Spectrum,” describes how robust a device is in terms of providing for training in different sub-categories of both offensive and defensive techniques. Devices such as the heavy bag and smaller wall-mounted pads, such as the makiwara, are “target-only” and thus are restricted to the practice of offensive techniques such as punches and kicks. Furthermore, target-only devices often provide curtailed categories of offensive training due to limitations in: (i) size of available targeting area, (ii) available striking vectors, and/or (iii) limit for safe striking force. For example, a heavy bag: (i) provides substantial targeting area, (ii) allows for several striking vectors, such as frontal straight attacks like jab punches and front kicks, and side-vectoring attacks such as hook punches and spinning kicks, but cannot meaningfully accommodate vertically-vectored attacks such as rising uppercut punches or falling axe kicks, and (iii) has only a moderate limit for safe striking force; because the heavy bag has significant density, weight, and inertia, and therefore less “give” than a human body, striking it at full force can result in a recoiling force that may harm a practitioner's joints, bones, and soft tissue. The smaller makiwara, on the other hand: (i) has a limited targeting area, (ii) provides only one primary striking vector, frontal straight, and (iii) also has a low limit for safe striking force, given that it is often wall-mounted and thus often completely immobile. Handheld, partnered devices generally allow for better offensive training along these dimensions as they: (i) have the potential to offer significant targeting area, (ii) can be manipulated by a partner to offer multiple striking vectors, and (iii) are often softer and lighter and can therefore be struck safely with a high degree of force. However, the usefulness of handheld devices disappears when a partner is unavailable, and many of them, such as the body shield, are for offensive-training only (“target-only”). While there exist devices that allow for both offensive and defensive technique practice, such devices tend to be similarly limited to one of the two primary defense types: either (a) Contact Defenses, such as parrying/blocking, or (b) Non-Contact Defenses, such as evasion. The famous Wing Chun Kung Fu Wooden Dummy provides a fixed array of 3 protruding arms and one leg. Practitioners can practice Kung-Fu style blocking and other contact defenses on the protrusions while delivering counterattacks to the central trunk, but the wooden dummy provides much less training potential for non-contact, evasive defenses such as ducking and dodging. On the other hand, in Boxing, a trainer may don two focus mitts and hold them up as moving targets for the boxer to punch; additionally, the trainer may also swing or jab one or both focus mitts at the boxer for the boxer to practice evasive defenses such as bobbing and weaving. However, the focus mitts are seldom, if ever, used to effectively hone contact defenses such as direct forearm blocking. Therefore, while only a small minority of devices exist that provide training for some offensive and some defensive techniques, such devices are more accurately described as incomplete-spectrum training devices, as they typically have limitations on both the offensive and defensive technique categories for which they are effective. It would therefore be valuable for a single device to offer a truly full-spectrum training potential where a practitioner can work on all elements of all categories of offensive and defensive techniques.
(3) The evaluation factor, “System Completeness,” refers to whether a device is usable by itself for training as a self-contained system, or whether a device is useful only as an accessory to enhance a separate, existing device. Common devices such as the heavy bag, wooden dummy, makiwara, body shield, and speed bag, among others, are self-contained systems. Self-contained systems also include devices such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. D169,243, an “ornamental” heavy bag design, and U.S. Pat. No. 8,029,422, a target-only device with a single, soft striking plane. Contrarily, other devices are accessories, which require to be attached to other self-contained systems for the sole purpose of enhancing that system. Most of these accessories are intended to be affixed to a conventional heavy bag to either increase targeting surface area, such as the common “clapper”-type attachments, or, popularly, to mimic the functionality of the classic wooden dummy-type protrusions and layout, such as in U.S. Pat. No. 5,800,319; U.S. Pat. No. 6,063,011; U.S. Pat. No. D584,785; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,302,831. It is important to note that without a proper, separate self-contained system to attach to, these accessory-type devices are useless by themselves. Accordingly, it would be desirable for a martial arts training system to be a completely self-contained system which includes its own specific, pre-existing, multi-functional accessories.
(4) The evaluation factor, “Configurability,” reflects a device's inherent capacity to be adapted into alternative forms and additional functions for a broader training experience. Most, if not all, common and known devices, such as the heavy bag (which is a “target-only” device), and the wooden dummy (which provides an incomplete training spectrum), are not designed to be configurable into a multiplicity of different iterations, because they have one fixed form and inherently limited function and may only be configured in a limited manner by third-party accessories, if at all. In other words, conventional striking training devices are not at all meaningfully configurable as a single, self-contained unit. It would be valuable for a single device to be self-configurable for a multitude of functions, without requiring separately purchasing third-party accessories.
(5) The evaluation factor, “Demographic Usability,” measures a device's relevance to the unique training needs of a particular practitioner demographic. The heavy bag and body shield are usable by civilian, sporting, military, and law enforcement demographics, because the hand-to-hand combat repertoires of such diverse demographics share some basic, overlapping techniques (for example, generic punches) appropriate for training with these common devices. However, there exist specialized training devices intended to serve the unique and specific needs of certain demographics. For example, the “tire man” is an outdoor, fixed-platform device frequently used for infantry bayonet melee training. Devices that are usable by multiple demographics, such the body shield, tend to be generic devices which are simpler in design and limited in functionality, i.e., military personnel may use a body shield to train common, unarmed striking techniques such as basic punches and kicks, but require the separate tire man to train bayonet techniques. At the same time, such specialized, non-generic devices such as the tire man are often exclusively relevant and only useful to a specific demographic. That is, the tire man is very useful to military personnel/infantry who would be armed with a bayonet, but the tire man has virtually no relevance or training value vis-à-vis the needs of, for instance, an MMA kickboxer or police officer, who would never carry a bayonet. Furthermore, many different demographics also train in the use of different types of weapons, and there exists very few devices that are applicable to weapons training, let alone that are applicable to a diverse range of weapons. It would therefore be very valuable for a single device to be broadly relevant to as many of the training needs of as many different demographics as possible, including training involving a diverse variety of weapons.
(6) The evaluation factor, “Ease of Deployment, Storage & Transport,” relates to the user-friendliness of the device, which can significantly affect an individual's or organization's decision regarding whether to acquire a training device, and/or how many of the devices should be acquired. Many of the most popular and traditional combat striking training devices, such as the heavy bag and wooden dummy, are very heavy and require considerable set-up time and effort. Once they are deployed, e.g., usually mounted to a ceiling, wall, or other load-bearing structure, they are very difficult to move, let alone store in or transport to a different room or location. Conversely, smaller and lighter devices such as a focus mitt or body shield may be more convenient to store and transport, but requires a human partner to properly deploy, and cannot be meaningfully self-deployed by a solo practitioner; that is, one cannot effectively hold a target for oneself to punch or kick. Analogously, devices which are by design strictly accessories, such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,063,011 and U.S. Pat. No. D584,785, require a larger self-contained system or device to attach to in order to be deployed, and by themselves are functionally useless. It would be desirable for a device to be easily deployed, stored, and transported, and yet still provide high value in the other fundamental characteristics.
(7) The evaluation factor, “Cost-to-Training-Benefit-Ratio,” (“CTBR”) is another primary consideration for individual practitioners and organizations in the device-acquisition decision making. Larger, bulkier, fixed-position devices such as heavy bags can costs hundreds of dollars, while wooden dummies can cost over a thousand dollars, as well as likely requiring additional expenditures of funds, time, and effort to correctly deploy. The CTBR advantages of larger devices, such as the heavy bag and wooden dummy, generally arise, for example, from characteristics such as their higher durability, but are counterbalanced by CTBR disadvantages such as less ease in deployment, storage, transport, and lack of human interactivity. While smaller devices such as focus mitts cost significantly less, their CTBR is virtually nil when no partner is available. Other smaller items such as speed bags and makiwaras that do not require a partner may have a lower price point, but also have overall lower CTBR due to inherent form and function limitations, such as limited targeting areas, limited available striking vectors, and limited training spectrum. Attachment devices similar to those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,800,319, U.S. Pat. No. 6,302,831, and U.S. Pat. No. D584,785, can be relatively costly, in many instances in the hundreds of dollars. Moreover, these devices typically must be attached to an also costly, separate device, such as a heavy bag; otherwise, these accessory-type devices have no meaningful CTBR on their own, when detached. It would be very valuable for a single device to combine a reasonable price point and robust characteristics that would support a high CTBR.
There is no prior art combat/striking/melee training device known to the inventor which possesses such high values in all seven of the afore-mentioned fundamental, device-evaluation metrics.