Thursday, September 30, 2010

If You Duel You’re A Fool

© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

THE System of knifework that we developed many years ago derives from two key methods: Primarily, the Fairbairn/Applegate System, and secondarily the Biddle/Styers System. In addition, it contains a substantial amount of material that we personally originated (such as "neck traps", and certain other niceties). What it does not contain or include is an emphasis upon knife vs. knife fighting, or "dueling". Our students do learn how to handle a situation (very, very unlikely) in which — knife in hand — they confront an enemy who is also in possession of a knife in his hand; however, this sort of thing practically never actually happens. And attempts to prepare students to use a fighting knife in self-defense or hand-to-hand combat by having them square off and play "blade tag" with each other, is absurd.

The use of duels as a means of developing a high level of ability in the art of knife fighting is in our opinion (as it was in the opinions of Fairbairn, Applegate, Sykes, O‘Neill, and others whose methods were war-based and produced as a result of actual combat studies and experiences) foolish. Unfortunately, with the exception only of a portion of the doctrine which it espoused, we must relegate the Biddle/Styers System to this category, as well. Some of Styers‘ material is excellent and makes perfect sense; but the whole idea that one may anticipate the likelihood of encountering a knife-wielding adversary against whom one will proceed to employ one‘s own knife is based more upon the influence of Anthony Biddle (a fencer, and Styers‘ mentor) and NOT upon reality. During WWII Biddle even introduced bayoneted rifle dueling(!!!) which — thank goodness — the USMC had the good sense to dispense with shortly after being exposed to it!

We remember, during one of our countless conversations with the late Col. Rex Applegate, discussing knifework and how it really goes down in a close combat encounter. "I have never heard of one single incident in all of WWII when a knife vs. knife fight occurred," he told us. "Fairbairn had the same view," he continued. "Knife vs. knife is for criminals who fight with each other in bars, and for the movies. Soldiers, police, and civilians who use knives in self-defense don‘t need to concern themselves with that sort of thing."

Okay. Years before even meeting Col. Applegate, we were a student of Charles Nelson. And while he never went into the matter at great length with us, he definitely expressed the same idea that Applegate did. Charlie had been a combat marine during WWII, had bunked with John Styers, and had learned ju-jutsu ("combat judo") under, among others, Col. Anthony Biddle. Nelson became a combat judo instructor, himself. "Nah," Charlie had told us, "ya ain‘t gonna see no knife 'fights‘. All that happens is one guy attacks the other with a knife — and one of 'em gets killed during the fight."

And that is pretty much it.

If, for example, I have a knife in my hand, I am NOT going to give the other guy an opportunity to draw his (if we assume that he possesses one, and that I know about it). Nor will "the other guy" give me a chance to acquire my fighting knife, in any hand-to-hand situation where his knife is in his hands, and it is his objective to kill me. Possibly a complete FOOL will pause and caution his target-victim to draw a blade; but anyone with the brains that is possessed by a handful of gravel will not!

So why is knife dueling a part of many "knife fighting seminars", popularly taught courses, and DVDs? Why, also, are the utterly asinine histrionics that are inevitably taught to students of the bali-song folding knife offered as legitimate knife fighting fare? Very simply because it attracts and appeals to students who do not know any better; and it makes for an interesting and "fun" instructional period for teachers looking for a way to retain those students. It‘s dramatic, and it has all of the excitement and fun of sparring (something else that is absurd in close combat and self-defense training, but that is another story).

To become proficient in real world knifework what is required is, first and foremost, a mindset enabling you to attack and to kill another human being with a sharp blade. This is a hell of a lot harder for many people than one might at first believe. It is one thing to shoot a man at a distance with a firearm. That is, for some people, an agonizingly difficult thing to drive themselves to do; but it is, to a degree, "sanitized". One can shoot someone and not feel him die, so to speak, or "get your hands dirty" (read: bloody). Knifework is hand-to-hand stuff, and very personal. It takes a measure of physical strength in most cases (expecting your enemy to "let you do it" goes beyond optimism!), and you must go for the vital target areas with fierce determination and speed. Often, some basic unarmed combat must accompany the knife actions, in order to get to the enemy‘s vital points and dispatch him.

If we assume the right mindset, then simple technique is called for. We are not going to describe it here, but we will say that it bears no relation to the nonsense that is being vomited out by so-called "experts" in their dramatic seminar presentations. The only point we want to make — because we see that it is necessary to make it — is that proper knifework does NOT involve training to duel.

From the standpoint of defending against knife attacks, you can learn a great deal if you study realistic knifework, yourself. You will realize that a determined knife assailant is quite often impossible even for an expert to defend against. You will also learn why nearly every single "knife defense" that is taught amounts to little more than unusable nonsense.

The knife is a fabulous weapon in hand-to-hand combat. Learning its proper use should be high on your list of priorities. Respect the knife. No matter how expert you become, it is NEVER certain that you will be able to defend successfully against a knife attack. And for heaven‘s sake don‘t train in knife dueling. Not only will no one be likely to give you the opportunity use that which you acquire; you will be deluding yourself, and acquiring nonsense, instead of practical, viable skill in knifework.

With the knife — as with the stick, as with the handgun, as with any hand-held weapon, or with no weapon at all — ATTACK. Leave all "duels" to the Three Musketeers.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

MAXIMS FOR THE MODERN, RATIONAL STUDENT

© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

ONE of the most annoying and irritating things that we recall from the "classical/traditional" aspects of our martial arts training many years ago was the interminable "philosophical mouthings" of people who were essentially horses‘ asses trying to sound profound, "deep", and important.

Americans pretending that they are Chinese, Japanese, or Korean sages, and affecting (or doing a miserable acting job in their attempts to perfect) the mannerisms and idiosyncrasies of "ancient Asian martial arts masters" is of course laughable bullshit — to rational, mature, serious-minded adults. Unfortunately, there are some people in the martial arts who are, ahem, somewhat removed from that desirable position on the evolutionary scale. The more bullshit you present to them, the more they believe that they are initiates into some "secret world of fighting mysteries".

We were thinking about this the other day and realized that there are a lot of sensible, practical, justice- and life-serving concepts — reasonable concepts, and lucid, intelligible concepts — that we routinely espouse and remind our personal pupils of, and that visitors to this site might find worth considering, themselves. Most of these would be regarded as politically incorrect, or "socially unpalatable", etc. About that we could not care less. What we do care about is that we know from well over four decades of teaching that these ideas are RIGHT, that they help people who come to understand, accept, and live by them to live more effectively and securely, and that they amount to a refreshing breath of clean, wholesome fresh air where, unfortunately, there is more often than not, a huge deluge of psychologically toxic crap.

Consider the thoughts and precepts that we live, and teach, by:

• I do not believe in using non-injurious force, because violent offenders do not concern themselves with trying not to injure those whom they choose to attack.

• I do not believe in mercy because violent offenders do not demonstrate mercy.

• I will not hesitate to use a weapon to defend myself or those I love, because violent offenders use weapons. And I shall always endeavor to be better armed than the violent filth who would prey upon me.

• I do not care at all about how badly my attacker is injured, because my attacker does not care about how badly he injures me.

• I do not have any respect for my attacker‘s life since, by attacking me, he has demonstrated that he has no respect for mine. AND MY LIFE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIS!

• I do not care at all about the age of my attacker; whether he is very young, or very old. If he is young, then he is agile, lithe, without a fully formed mind, and hence deadly dangerous. If he is old, then he has experience, knowledge, guile, and cunning. And, he ought to know better. So he is deadly dangerous. But in all cases, when he attacks he is merely "an enemy to be stopped", and nothing more, regardless of his age.

• I fear only that "post traumatic stress disorder" that might come from losing a desperate battle with a deadly enemy. To my way of thinking, anyone who experiences stress after neutralizing a felon, because he has neutralized that felon — perhaps lethally — has rocks in his head.

• I will offer no violent home invader the opportunity to surrender. Any criminal offender violently breaking into my home will be met with deadly force. The only way that one or more home invaders will leave my home is in a body bag.

• If I am armed with a handgun or shoulder weapon I will fire "warning shots" into the kill zone of my attacker. I will waste no ammunition firing into the ground or into space — nor do I wish to “warn” anyone bent upon my murder or the murder of those I love. And ammunition is too expensive to waste.

• I will ALWAYS call the police if it is feasible to do so, and let them handle any violent situation. However, realistically, I do not expect to be given the opportunity to call 911 in a street attack, home invasion, mugging, gang assault, attempted kidnapping, rape, or other atrocious act of violence that I may one day need to confront. So I remain prepared always to decisively neutralize whomever I must, whenever I must, and however I must.

• My loved ones constitute my top priority. Threaten them with injury, harm, or death, and I will die killing you, if need be, in order to stop you.

• My "rule book" is very short. It‘s single page upon which appears but one word: WIN.

• I am not dismayed at the prospect of killing someone or of maiming someone who needs to be killed or maimed in order to stop him from carrying out his horrific course of action. Some people need to be maimed or killed or they will maim and kill others.

• I believe only in the rights of the VICTIM. The moment another person begins to act as a predator he has signed his resignation from the human race, has NO rights as far as I am concerned; and will be treated with the same mercy afforded an infectious disease.

• I believe only in compassion for the VICTIM. History has proven that the greatest aid civilized man can give the dangerous, predatory psychopath and similar types is to treat him with "understanding", "compassion", and "mercy". To bloody hell with that!

• Do not speak to me of of how much force I "may" use in defending myself. I will be the judge of what I need to do when I am forced to defend myself, and the last thing I need is someone or some system stepping in after the fact and prattling to me about how I hurt the poor bastard who intended to kill me, "too much".

• It is the violent bully, troublemaker, mugger, terrorist, home invader, tough guy, kidnapper, rapist, or you-name-it who is responsible for whatever damage occurs as a result of his actions — including whatever damage HE may suffer, himself!

• My children have my permission — my encouragement — to defend themselves if set upon and bullied. Your school policy of "zero tolerance for violence" will bring a lawsuit against you, the school, and every stinking administrator in the city, if my child is expelled or reprimanded for defending himself. (Attitude to be expressed to any school teacher in one of the modern public prison centers where the law requires children to remain for indoctrination and weakening of their characters and souls, until age eighteen).

• Save your bullshit, your words, your speeches, your damn lectures and all of your stinking social theories. I WILL NOT BE ANOTHER’S VICTIM. Period.

Now we are certainly not suggesting that the foregoing will be accepted by (or acceptable to) the majority of those who fancy themselves “martial artists”. Remember: we are concerned only with rational students of the combat arts, who live in the modern, 21st century. This certainly eliminates the vast majority of those who are present-day participants in one or another of the numerous "martial arts" that are out there — whether these individuals be participants at the student, teacher, or professional level. It also eliminates the sporting/competitive people — not because sportsmen and competitors wouldn‘t "get it", but because within the parameters of sport and competition that which we present is irrelevant.

Nor is it our intention to suggest or to imply that we believe in, advocate, espouse, or otherwise condone anything that is questionable from the standpoint of the law. We always advocate obedience to the law. We are simply presenting that which, in our humble opinion, constitutes what we regard as a sensible or "ideal" creed for the modern proponent and teacher of those so-called martial arts that are geared solely to the demands of close combat and self-defense.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Different “Schools Of Thought” Regarding Practical Close Combat Methods?

© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com


SIMPLY because people — even a lot of people — believe or feel that something is true does not mean that that which they believe is in fact true. Nor does the fact that many people might want very much for something to be true indicate anything at all about its truth or falsehood. One does not determine what is true or false by taking a poll — or by putting the matter up to a vote. Not only is it possible for the majority to be wrong, history has consistently shown that the majority nearly always is wrong.

Today we observe the overwhelming majority of those who participate in the martial arts following programs of instruction and practice that may be quite excellent for purposes of aesthetic satisfaction and the mastery of classical physical art, or for the enjoyment of vigorous competitive matches, yet which is not suitable for personal defense and hand-to-hand combat. The problem is this: Many if not most of those who come to the martial arts do so for self-defense. They are only peripherally interested in Asian culture and tradition (if they are interested in it, at all), and the only reason they agree to practice competition skills and to engage in matches is because they have been led to believe that doing so will assure them the attainment of their objective, which is self-defense ability, and confidence.

We have said this, and we will continue to repeat this message again, and again:

There is absolutely no correlation between matches, sparring, competitive “fighting”, or sporting contests of any kind and REAL COMBAT. Nor is there more than a small percentage of classical/traditional martial arts that may be adapted — by experts — to serious, dangerous, anything goes hand-to-hand combat with determined, hardened physical attackers. Close combat and self-defense is a study and a discipline unto itself.

We do not say this as an attack on classical/traditional or sporting/competitive martial arts. They are fabulous activities, and so long as the individual understands precisely what the art that he is enrolling to study can and will ultimately give him, and so long as that is what he wants, everything is fine. But we believe that those whose purpose is the attainment of combat skill and the ability to defend themselves ought to know clearly that what they need is a COMBAT/SELF-DEFENSE system; they do not want classical/traditional or sporting/competitive doctrine.

Okay. If we can finally come to the realization that combat and contest are unrelated, and that each requires its own, unique, very specific approach when it comes to training and skills acquisition and development, we have taken Step #1. We are finally out of the woods, and we are no longer entertaining the nonsense that by excelling in any of the competitive venues we are thereby establishing hand-to-hand combat capabilities. Step #2 consists of determining which of the so-called all combat, or “reality based” systems of so-called "martial art" make sense. There are, after all, all sorts of points of disagreement amongst many who, realizing that self-defense/close combat is not the same as competition and contest, differ in regard to how real combative engagements ought properly to be handled.

For our readers‘ information, we would like to point out that even amongst the (today) venerated “WWII instructors” there was some disagreement. For example, Applegate (who was Fairbairn‘s protégé, at the outset of the two mens‘ relationship during WWII) vigorously disagreed with several of the throwing actions that Fairbairn initially introduced in his wartime system; and Applegate refused completely to teach the ―bent arm hold‖ vs. a downward knife stab as a first option — preferring, as we do, to teach a much simpler parrying action; or better yet, a simple, fast sidestep.

Despite the differences between Fairbairn and Applegate, there were many more similarities . . . precisely as there were between all of that era’s truly knowledgeable and experienced teachers.

Different teachers will inevitably tend to flavor their teachings with that which they, as individuals, personally have found to be the most practical and effective skills. However, if you are a prospective student and wish to have a clear understanding of what genuine close combat and self-defense teachers will universally teach and agree upon, it is this:

• Simplicity, destructiveness, adaptability, learnability, and retainability are always critical touchstones for assessing what is worth including in a combat system

• Absolute ruthlessness and savagery mark the quality tactics and skills of close combat

No ground grappling!

• Blows, gouges, butting, biting, kicking — those are the best techniques

• No force "continuums". When you are attacked you EXPLODE and destroy the enemy — you attack relentlessly - stopping only when you are no longer in danger

• Use anything at hand to assist yourself in destroying the enemy — preferably a fighting knife, handgun, or tomahawk. Use an improvised weapon, if you can get your hands on one. "Bare hands" are used only when bare hands is all you have

• No high kicks, and only minimum use of the clenched fists in punching (to soft targets, only)

• No preparatory "fighting" type stances

• No "one shot stops" — follow up!

• Only a very few throws; and such throws as are worthwhile are those that cannot be safely employed with any force, even on a mat

• Expect multiple attackers, a weapon, any attack to be potentially deadly, and that your enemy will be your physical superior, and better skilled than yourself

• Frank acknowledgment of the value of physical strength, fitness, and hardihood

• Enormous emphasis on mindset and proper psychological conditioning for combat (not for "competition")

• Very little emphasis on "blocking" — almost all (90% at least) emphasis upon ATTACKING FEROCIOUSLY and by using the element of surprise, whenever possible

In reality, then, the "different schools of thought" that exist in the field of practical close combat and self-defense are not so very different, after all. They all have the same "flavor" as it were.

This much may be counted upon, however. There will never be any correlation suggested by any worthwhile close combat or self-defense teacher between combat and sport. Whatever else — whatever little else! — really professional teachers may disagree on, they all understand, acknowledge, and agree that close combat and self-defense is a world apart from classical/traditional and sporting/competitive activities.

Bradley J. Steiner

Monday, September 13, 2010

A Cycle of Avoidance

Just making a note here: Avoiding ownership of a task neglecting responsibility for notifying affected parties or ignoring (what should be) obvious required steps is NOT a formula for success. Tribal knowledge is an equation for disaster and failure and simply remaining below the radar when the fallout occurs does NOT remove one from the realm of responsibility.

It certainly seems to be de rigueur in certain circles to follow this methodology and the predictable outcome is repeated with the regularity of the seasons. In fact, the practice has become almost a foregone element of the production process.

This is post is simply a recognition of the mechanism. It's laughable and it shows in part, the passing of the torch from one generation of (mis)management to another. Interestingly... the ones who bluster and protest the loudest at the incremental failures produced from such failures of management and communication are often those who should have verified that said information was successfully disseminated throughout the organization to the involved parties.

Another issue that has been observed over the years is the use of verbal intimidation on the part of specific (but certainly not limited to) persons upon their subordinates. Behavior that would normally be identified as inappropriate and unprofessional is tolerated (and as a result encouraged) provided it is only directed at a limited segment of the employee base: namely contingency staff. This is behavior that, if directed at formally employed personnel would likely result in accusations of creating a hostile work environment.

Those most heavily and most adversly influenced by the aforementioned practies are those with the least amount of control over the same...