You Don’t Need To Be An Expert

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

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

SUCH documentation as does exist regarding the successful defense of self, others, home, and hearth by the intended victims of violent criminal bacteria is most encouraging. Obviously, it is inspiring. It is GOOD to hear or to read in the news that a private citizen thwarted a dangerous attacker — and we shall be honest: It makes us feel real good if he thwarted them in a manner that left those violent perpetrators permanently out of action.

But there is more to be had from the studying of reports of successful self-defense than the feeling of inner satisfaction and justice that these stories engender. There is a lot to be LEARNED. Yes, one can learn a great deal from all reports of all violent crime; whether the bacteria or the victim prevailed in the outcome, but if you wish to know "what it takes to be successful in defending yourself" you simply cannot do better than to take a long hard look at those stories describing the people who DID it, and detailing, in many instances, HOW they did it.

We have been studying this since the 1960‘s. We have not only read countless news stories and police reports, we have also spoken with those who had defended themselves successfully. In many instances these "success stories" did involve the intended victim‘s recourse to martial arts skills. But in many more than that, the successes had nothing at all to do with any formal martial arts or self-defense training, per se. The following is that which we have found to be the most important factors responsible for victims‘ successes in protecting themselves against violent, dangerous physical attack:

1. The victim fought back.

With or without "skill" THIS proved to be the most important factor responsible for successful self-defense. Fighting back. In some instances the victims fought back with techniques of defense that they had acquired during formal training under qualified experts; in the majority of instances the victims simply fought back in whatever physical manner they were able. It was not the debilitating injuries that the intended victims were able to inflict upon the scum who attacked them that accounted for the success of the defensive effort. It was the mere fact that the victims did not accept being violated. They physically resisted — quite often, awkwardly. But their resistance caught the vermin off guard, and enabled the victims to prevail.

2. The victim got very angry.

RAGE manifested the moment the individual who had been successful in defending himself realized that he (or she) was being targeted by a violent offender. In some instances the rage was downright murderous — and there was little other than this furious mental state that prompted the intended victim in his response to the event.

3. The victim attacked.

We know of no instance when a "purely defensive" approach to handling a violent attack has ever been successful. In fact, we have heard of instances when persons who "only tried to cover up" or to "get away" prompted increased fury in the assailants.

4. The intended victim had no concerns about either being injured or with injuring his assailant.

Clearly, a person under attack who fights back does not wish to be injured. That is not the point. The point is that those people who successfully defended themselves have done so by abandoning concern over
being injured — for the time being. They also were not hesitant about hurting their attacker. Neither humanitarian nor legal concerns arose in the successful defender‘s mind to block his all-out retaliatory efforts.

5. There was no "squaring off" and "fighting" per se. The intended victim simply exploded when the attacker(s) moved against him.

Being effective in defending himself was not attributable, in the case of the private citizen who did so, to being a “better fighter” than his assailant. (Whether the victim was in fact a better fighter or not appears to have invariably been a moot point). In a real emergency “fighting skill” per se, in the conventional, competitive sense that the term is generally employed in today‟s context in the field of martial arts, did not seem to matter.

Pretty straightforward stuff, eh? And the bottom line — lesson-wise — from this analysis of actual situations from which completely normal people had extricated themselves is: YOU NEED NOT BE AN “EXPERT” IN A MARTIAL ART IN ORDER TO DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY.

Now we must emphasize that being a genuine expert in a good COMBAT system is certainly an asset. Only a fool would deny that. However, the important point is that expertise in a formalized system of unarmed (or even armed) combat does NOT rate as the "top" or as the "key" requirement for effectively handling a difficult or dangerous situation on the street or anywhere else. Simply FIGHTING BACK OFFENSIVELY AND WITHOUT ANY WARNING WHILE FUELED WITH RAGE, AND NOT CONCERNING ONESELF WITH EITHER ONE’S OWN INJURIES AT THE MOMENT, OR WITH HOW BADLY ONE INJURIES ONE’S ATTACKER, appears to be the key element to success. Add to that expertise in, say, the physical techniques of American Combato or another quality system of close combat, and your chances of successfully stopping whoever intends to harm you or yours are excellent, if not nearly-certain.

Keep constantly in mind that relatively simple, basic physical skills are all that is required — technique-wise — in order to prevail in a close combat defense emergency. Thus, do not believe that "only after you‘ve trained for many years", or "not until you‘ve qualified for brown or for black belt" can you feel certain that you "have the skill" that you‘ll need to defend yourself. If you are getting that particular sense — or if it has been formally stated to you — then you are probably training in a classical/traditional martial art, and not in a practical method. Even in a classical/traditional method, it will not do to merely have acquired performance capabilities in order to employ your techniques for real. Remember that! You will need that which we have summarized in the preceding paragraph; and if your goal is self-defense and being able to handle a close combat situation, you might as well train in a system that will give you that which you want in one tenth or less the time that a classical/traditional method might give it to you — technically speaking.

We have had great success in teaching persons of statistically average strength and agility to adequately handle the majority of violent unarmed confrontational predicaments involving single attackers that typically occur, after a period of three months‘ or less serious training. There are no miracles and there is no magic. However, with practical, reliable, war-proven skills in which a reasonably intelligent and disciplined person is willing to train properly for several months, a sometimes surprisingly effective capability in self-defense can often be developed.

This much we can assure anyone: You do not need to become an expert in order to become well able to defend yourself.