Close combat skills and practical techniques of self-defense — if they are effective — are characterized by the following attributes:—
a) They cause swift and serious injury.
"Injury", please note — not "pain". Pain is subjective, and, as a professionally trained and licensed hypnotherapist we can tell you without hesitation that there are some people who can literally ignore pain, per se. These persons are capable, for example, of undergoing surgery with no anesthesia save hypnotic suggestion! Amazing in the extreme . . . but true, nonetheless.
It may be assumed that anyone immersed in a deadly combative engagement is in a heightened state of mental-emotional focus and his threshold of pain, even if normally low, is momentarily very high. Pain is not going to bring a dangerous enemy to a stop . . . not in serious combat.
Injury will.
Massive shock to the body‘s central nervous system and/or the cessation of breathing is what stops a determined killer. Reliable combat techniques smash important bones and bone connective tissue, rupture or shock severely, vital organs; and/or they abruptly stop the enemy‘s breathing.
Unpleasant? Of course it is. We will say it again: Combat has nothing to do with competition.
b) They can be applied in almost any conceivable situation.
The really good close combat techniques (ie chinjab smash, handaxe chop, low side kick, tiger‘s claw, hammerfist smash, etc.) are infinitely adaptable. In an elevator, on a staircase, in an enclosed office area or restaurant waiting section, in a parking garage, etc. etc. etc. it flat out doesn‘t matter much. The best techniques of genuine close combat and self-defense are not necessarily 100% adaptable — but they come damn close to being that!
When we were culling skills from the WWII systems, kenpo-karate, ju-jutsu, varmannie, rough-and-tumble ("street" and "alley") fighting, taekown-do, and other methods, we used the acid tests for the attributes we are herein describing. Naturally, we found that most of the classical/traditional skills, and even many of the so-called ―modern self-defense skills just didn't cut the mustard. So we got rid of them.
c) They can be utilized when one is in poor shape.
Even those of us whose profession it is to teach this sometimes have days or weeks when we neglect our own training a bit. The statistically average student of self-defense almost never remains in training for more than six months to a year. Often, following his training, especially after passing the age of 35 or 40, he often neglects to stay very fit. Suppose he is attacked when out of shape? If the combat skills that he spent time in learning and practicing "back then" were really good ones, then he may rest assured that he should be able to do something pretty effective, should he be so unfortunate as to need to employ his training in self-protection.
Now understand: We believe wholeheartedly in the need to stay in good shape. We also know that strength and condition are great assets in any combative engagement, and we are not saying that allowing oneself to get out of condition is "good". It isn‘t. It is very foolish. However, we are saying that if one does get out of shape after acquiring good combat skills, one will still be able to employ much of what he had learned, despite his being in less than stellar shape.
d) They work against larger, stronger — even more highly skilled — individuals.
We have often been accused of being "brutal" or "cruel" or "too violent" in our espousal of the kinds of techniques that we advocate. This is unfortunate, since the kinds of skills that we (and those few others of our ilk, who share our commitment to realism and practicality in self-defense) teach amount to nothing more than WORKABLE actions — in other words, actions that can be counted upon to work against attackers whose possess greater strength and size than oneself. These actions must be "brutal". There is no other way!
There is a good reason why combative sports have weight classes, and why careful attention is given to who "fights" whom in the properly run contests and events (of judo, boxing, karate, wrestling, kick boxing, etc.). In real combat, there are no rule-setters, and no referees to see that the rules are obeyed. It is "anything goes", and when it is anything goes you‘d best be certain that the techniques upon which you rely are the most dangerously destructive, efficient "damagers" and "cripplers" that exist! It is just common sense to gouge an enemy‘s eyes, to break his leg, to crush his windpipe, or to wrench his spine, when you are the sudden victim of a deadly, surprise attack, and it‘s either you or him. Good techniques offer no "guarantee" of victory. But techniques that will not work (or that will not work "as well") when your adversary is larger and stronger than yourself virtually guarantee that you‘ll not prevail.
e) They can be learned quickly.
There is way too much B.S. being promoted as "self-defense" and "hand-to-hand combat". Nothing wrong with elaborate and fancy skills. If you like them, train in them all you want. But get it straight that the stuff you can rely upon when it‘s "balls to the wall" is readily learnable, and easily acquired. If weeks or months of "preconditioning" — stretching, bending, twisting, contorting, etc. — is demanded before you can "begin to grasp the proper movement" involved in the technique and begin to understand how it should be done, FORGET IT!
Real combat techniques that save lives are very simple. Most of them can be taught and developed within a few hours, and only an expert who will be a professional teacher really is advised to spend time on techniques that demand a bit more time to "get".
Most people who just want to be able to defend themselves require a couple of dozen generalized self-defense reactions, perhaps six good, basic blows using the natural weapons, maybe four or five combinations, and a stranglehold and a throwing action or two. Quality skills that fulfill this requirement may be conveyed in a three to five month course easily.
Yes, combatives training can be a lifetime pursuit for those of us who love the activity and who are fascinated by the pursuit of excellence in all of its skills. But the simple task of learning how to defend oneself or prepare for battlefield combat need take very little time. Good techniques can be learned quickly.
f) They are readily retainable.
Ten or 20 years after learning quality combat techniques they will be available — albeit at somewhat reduced efficiency. We personally know of several instances that occurred during the last 25-30 years, during which WWII trained individuals (one with the O.S.S., one with the wartime FBI, and another who had served in the USMC Raiders) made speedy work of assailants who had thought the "oldsters" would be easy game! What techniques did they employ? Edge-of-the-hand blows, chinjabs, and low stomping kicks. That‘s it. Decades after learning skills that were imparted under wartime emergency conditions, and within only a few hours of formalized instruction, were immediately and effectively accessible when they were needed! That‘s the kind of stuff you want to learn for self-defense.
g) They require no "warmup", no special clothing, no specific environmental conditions in order to be done.
We remember the ads for "karate stretch jeans" that used to appear in one of the popular martial arts magazines. Amusing. Okay for the kid who into some martial art because it‘s a fad. The ads showed a well known karate exponent — a tournament champion — executing high kicks in these jeans that were designed to enable the wearer to do high kicks!
Nice gimmick.
Utter bullshit for combative preparation.
We also remember how, when we were a student of taekwon-do, both ourself and others in the class needed at least twenty minutes or so of warming and loosening up and stretching before we could render our mainstay "side thrust kick" with anything resembling the height and the authority at that height, that our stylistic bias advocated.
Okay for classical training. Suicide for close combat.
Many techniques that are popularly taught require certain environmental conditions to be effective — or even to be executed. A cleared area, for example. Or a debris-free, even ground. Or a mat(!). Or good lighting. Or hands unencumbered by gloves or by mittens. Or a minimum of outer clothing. Etcetera. Such skills may make for excellent an interesting theatrical martial arts — or they simply may be enjoyable to learn for their own sake. But they are not the ones to learn and to master and to rely upon in a dangerous, real emergency!
h) They are obviously effective, even to a complete novice.
Self-defense students, soldiers, police officers, etc. need to be immediately confident in the authenticity and reliability of that which they are taught. If a student (who, remember, will neither likely stay with training for a long time, nor train with absolute dedication for a short time) does not feel confidence in what he is being taught, then he will likely never summon the nerve to use it, should he find himself in a tight spot.
Anyone, in other words, can understand (once shown, and having had it demonstrated carefully on himself) that the chinjab smash is a powerful, practical, and reliable technique. The application, on the other hand, of some complex wrist or arm lock (or fancy throw) will almost certainly leave an intelligent novice wondering — ―But will this really work against a strong guy?
i) They cannot be done to anyone in practice, "full bore".
Judo and kick boxing competitors, wrestlers, boxers, karate contact fighters, etc. can utilize vigorous contact when participating in their matches and sparring sessions because the techniques that they do can be done safely. For example, if a man is able to execute his falls, he can be thrown with full power by his opponent, regardless of the throw. Boxers hit for real. So do contact karate fighters and kick boxers. Wrestlers really wrestle . . . etc. But never can a hand-to-hand combat trainee ―really chop a training partner across the neck or throat, ram his fingers into his eyes, kick him in the testicles or knee, or crush his sternum or rip his ears off. He can TRAIN CAREFULLY on these actions with a partner, but — clearly — they remain too dangerous to carry to conclusion, except in a real emergency.
Combat arts trainees strike posts, dummies, heavy bags, etc. — but they do not strike each other!
The few throwing actions that are suitable for hand-to-hand combat, such as the flying mare (shoulder throw), the chinjab smash-to-tiger‘s-claw and palm-to-kidney takedown, etc., can be practiced carefully, but applying one full force would mean tragic consequences. They are just too dangerous.
One would think that the obvious fact that anything that can be "played" full force is too mild for a deadly encounter would be all too evident. However, when we observe how people are assured — constantly — that the sporting/competitive techniques that they are training in ―can be used for self-defense too, it becomes obvious that an awful lot of B.S. is being passed on to a very gullible public.
j) They are readily adaptable to multiple attacker situations, weapon attacks, and attacks under odd, unusual, or extreme conditions.
Many martial arts skills demand that their applicant have plenty of room, that the ground be firm, cleared, and free of debris, or that lighting be adequate, and that there be lots of warning before the action in question is attempted. Often, the opponent must be in a certain set stance or position, etc. Many techniques are utterly worthless the moment a second and third attacker enters the picture. Ditto for weapon attacks.
The proven techniques of functional close and hand-to-hand combat are extremely versatile and adaptable to anything that might occur, and to the widest possible variety of situations and circumstances. If a technique has too limited application, it generally means that it is not practical for real combat.
k) They can be employed by either gender, and are usable by persons of any age.
There is a reason why the senior Gracie is "retired" from competition! One does not and cannot "retire" from the position of human individual
— and as a human individual one may be called upon to defend oneself or those whom one loves at any age.
Men do not fight women (or attack them) in rationally orchestrated sporting combat events. However, it is a sad and true fact that women are sometimes attacked by men, and so, that which they learn as self-defense must enable them to at least stand a good chance of disabling or killing a determined male assailant if and when their life is ever threatened.
Anyone of either gender may at any age need to defend him/herself against a powerful and dangerous human predator. If a technique requires physical or chronological parity with one‘s foe in order to stand a reasonable chance of working, FORGET IT!
We wish to say again that we in no way intend to be critical or disrespectful of any martial art or theory of martial arts training. We speak exclusively about close combat, and if or when an individual‘s interest lies in a direction other than practical application it is probable that our views will hold little if any value for him. Our focus — our only concern — is real world close combat and self-defense.
© COPYRIGHT 2008 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2008 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
American Combato
No comments:
Post a Comment