Next Time You Hear Of “Challenges” To “Prove” Combat Skills, Think About This!

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

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

WE have never, do not now, and never will have anything to do with that aspect of what some people consider today to be "martial arts" that is known as “challenge events”, “cage fighting”, MMA, UFC, etc. and so on. If you like that stuff, then be our guest. Enjoy yourself. But it isn’t something we wish to be associated with.

Since there is such popular coverage in the martial arts mainstream media pertaining to this relatively "recent kid on the block", as it were, a percentage of those who are looking for practical combat and defense skills may be led to believe that the ground fighting/challenge event/competition/MMA/UFC venue is where they should apply themselves in order to acquire the skills and tactics that they wish to possess.

We are all for freedom of choice, so, again, if that approach to “martial arts” is your cup of tea, then go for it. However, with all this talk of "challenges", we wanted to clarify something that many apparently just do not get. Namely, there is no correlation between competition and combat. None. And this fact is perhaps most eloquently and clearly proven beyond doubt by the very nature of all of these "challenges". We do realize that this is not the intention of those who push the venue as being in fact "combat" or "self-defense" training. The popular challenges are in effect challenges that prove NOTHING WHATEVER ABOUT CLOSE COMBAT OR SELF-DEFENSE.

A notable point: Remember that since the serious introduction of the numerous karate and combat-oriented ju-jutsu systems (those that stress atemiwaza, remaining on your feet, and throwing the other guy to the ground, etc.) there have been — nationwide — literally thousands of incidents where individuals thusly trained have done a splendid job of defending themselves.

Just as a matter of interest, it might be enlightening to know how many individuals have successfully employed the competitive groundfighting and the other popular contest-oriented skills and tactics successfully in REAL MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND PRIVATE CITIZEN SELF-DEFENSE ENCOUNTERS — i.e. in ACTUAL SELF-DEFENSE AND HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT.

It might interest people to know this. As far as a proven track record — i.e demonstrated effectiveness in and under real world combat conditions is concerned, not only the karate (taekwon-do, Okinawa-te, ch’uan fa or "kung fu", etc.) but ESPECIALLY the WWII system-based and modern close combat methods built on and expanding upon those war-tested principles, have ALL come through "field testing" — again and again and again, for decades — in actual wartime, and in peacetime. Even if those trained in these methods and approaches were all to be defeated 100% of the time in the contest arena, that means NOTHING in regard to their efficacy in actual combat (which is their forte, just as the competitive arena is the grappler/groundfighter/challenge event entrants’ forte). Such frequent defeats as have occurred (when, we believe unwisely, karate and other combat-oriented martial arts experts have been duped into playing the sportsman’s game) prove nothing, since actual combat experiences have often been very well handled by these very contest losers. THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TAKING LOSSES IN CONTESTS SERIOUSLY insofar as any conclusions about proficiency in actual combat is concerned.

IF a genuinely meaningful venue were to be established through which entrants might be "challenged" to test, verify, and validate the merits of that which they train in, then the following would have to be implemented:

• Testing the individual’s ability to respond to full force, unrehearsed surprise attacks from behind

• Testing the individual’s ability to meet the challenge of unrehearsed attacks from all and any quarter by multiple (2, 3, 4 and possibly even more) attackers

• Testing the individual’s ability to counter weapon threats (handgun, shoulder weapon, knife) and outright weapon attacks (knife, club, etc.)

• For members of military and special law enforcement (SWAT) as well as normal duty police patrol officers IN FULL DUTY COMBAT GEAR : testing their ability to meet the challenge of all types of hand-to-hand engagements under all sorts of battle and field conditions, against all types of potential assailants — armed and unarmed

• Testing how well the individual can meet the challenge of defending himself when one arm and hand is completely disabled. Against all types of attack — multiples, weapons, from behind, etc.

• Testing how well the individual can cope with attacks that catch him off guard in normal, everyday environments:
— speaking on a public phone
— in a restroom
— in a restaurant
— on staircases
— in wooded park areas
— on cement sidewalks
— in crowded stores
— in a darkened theater or night club
— in an office setting
— in his home
— in a parking garage
— when handicapped in all sorts of ways (even blindfolded, or when
at reduced efficiency due to illness, etc.
— when with a loved one (or two!) and forced to defend them (either in
addition to or instead of, oneself)

A "challenge" insofar as being relevant to hand-to-hand combat and self-defense is concerned must logically be a challenge to demonstrate technical superiority in dealing with hand-to-hand combat and self-defense contingencies — not competitive matches.

Now that we have presented that which we have presented, let us once again emphasize this: WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY “CHALLENGE” OR CONTEST EVENTS OUGHT EVER TO BECOME A PART OF COMBAT AND SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING. OUR PURPOSE HERE IS MERELY TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS IN THE “MINDS” OF THOSE WHO INSIST THAT CONTEST AND COMBAT ARE SYNONYMOUS.

The combat arts and methods have ALREADY met the necessary challenge; which is, of course, that of actual combat. To introduce competitive methods and means would, as Fairbairn so aptly noted during WWII, merely serve to dilute and greatly weaken the value of the skills and of the training.

We cannot resist adding this one, final note. It actually speaks to something that embarrasses those who have permitted themselves to be duped into the "challenge" nonsense much more than it is a criticism of the groundgrapplers and MMA, etc. crowd . . .

Historically, the challenged has always enjoyed the choice of weapons, location, terms of combat, etc. Yet the modern "challenges" amount to something more along the lines of: “I challenge you to fight my game on my terms, according to my rules, in the venue I am most at home in, and with all of those restrictions that may well block off and completely prevent you from doing or using that which favors your approach to combat."

This sounds to us uncomfortably like dirty pool. Just a thought.

How about someone accepting one of those (in our opinion) ridiculous "challenges" but demanding HIS terms for the encounter? Perhaps fighting with one arm only used in the fight?

Well, we’re back to what we began with. We have no quarrel with those whose thing is competition. We do know and wish to teach all who are looking for the truth, that contest and combat are completely different — in all ways. Decide which you prefer, and go for it. But know that a choice is involved here.

Don’t be duped by the "challenge" thing. The guys who excel in the contests are terrific, tough athletes, and are formidable, indeed. But their art is that of competitive sport, not hand-to-hand combat. Besides, the finest champions of all (in judo, boxing, wrestling, sport karate, kick boxing, etc.) restrict their challenges to those who, like themselves, are avid participants in the same sport that they - the champions - are champions in!

We love what the late Bruce Tegnér used to say about two genuine experts each attempting to "prove" that his art was superior by fighting the other expert — for real. Quite correctly, Tegnér said that all that the two would ever end up "proving" is that each of them is a FOOL. We cannot escape the feeling that many people have, during the last couple of decades, been solidly establishing their foolishness by attempting to prove something in a context that is irrelevant and entirely beside the point!