Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Finding A Good Teacher

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

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

IN last month’s edition of Sword & Pen we discussed the fact that you did not need to be an expert in order to be able to defend yourself quite adequately. Merely possessing a compact but reasonably adaptable repertoire of practicalskills, and the mindset required to bring them into play when necessary, backed up with a level of strength and fitness that permits power and speed to be behindthose skills and their application, is enough. Naturally, an expert is certainly better off in a crisis than is someone with only minimal skill, but the fact of the matter is this: You can, within a period of several months in many cases, acquire an adequate level of technical knowledge and physical skill with which to defend yourself, in most cases, if you train in a viable close combat and self-defense system. We are obviously partial to that System which we founded in 1975 (i.e. American Combato (Jen•Do•Tao)) and which we teach today, but we readily acknowledge that there are other good methods and approaches taught by others — most especially other Associate Teachers in our Federation — ICMAF — that will certainly deliver what is needed.

A teacher — or, more specifically, a teacher of those skills that you require in order to be able to defend yourself — most definitely does need to be an expert; and the more expert he is, the better. In addition to being a technical expert, the person who teaches, must also possess teaching ability; for without teaching ability it is hit or miss whether, while being taught by this individual, you actually learn that which he is supposedly teaching you.

So how do you find a good teacher of close combat and self-defense? What
professional qualifications and what personal qualities should any prospective teacher possess, before you decide to train under him?

The task was a lot easier 20 to 25 years ago, before this aspect of that which we refer to as the “martial arts” became the fad that in some circles it has become today. The commercializers have caught on to the lingo. With backgrounds in everything from kick boxing and competition judo and karate to (what we personally regard as) the irrelevant and somewhat distasteful background that some have garnered in the challenge event stuff, and on to classical/traditional jujutsu, karate methods, or “kung fu”, those purporting to be teaching serious hand-to-hand combat, unarmed self-defense, practical close combat skills, and armed and unarmed “close range interpersonal confrontations” survival (the Pentagon’s term!) advertise that they —

• Teach skills rooted in the “WWII methods” tradition. (They use the names
“Fairbairn”, “Applegate”, “Biddle”, and “O’Neill”, etc. as though these men were their neighbors or cousins!)

• Teach only simple, practical techniques — “none of the fancy, classical stuff”, etc.

• Are “combat experts”, not competitors

• Do not waste your time with non-combatively effective skills , , ,
etcetera.

Appealing to the psycho type segment out there, some now claim to be offering training that “the government doesn’t want you to have”, the elite military units “don’t want you to know”, and/or training that will “make you someone who is feared”, ad nauseum.

These “teachers” are, in our opinion, the ones to run from. Even if that which they offer technically contains an element of the physically practical, the tone, the attitude and the mindset that such purveyors present is toxic garbage, and negates whatever possible value their skill repertoires might contain. It is not sane, healthy, or desirable in any way, to become the kind of swaggering beast who revels in violence.

Anyone promising to reveal “secrets” should be avoided.

The techniques of close combat are simple, yes; but that does not mean that just anyone is competent to teach them. Western boxing is simpler still (a lot simpler) than close combat and self-defense, yet there are very few men, comparatively speaking, who possess the technical knowledge and expertise, coupled with the teaching ability that makes them legitimate, sought-after boxing trainers. Do not simply enroll with the first person whose rhetoric sounds impressive and who claims to be a “combatives” teacher.

While many who teach close combat have backgrounds (and black belts) in the
more traditional martial arts, this is not true of every one. Jack Dempsey and Bernard Cosneck (a boxer and a wrestler, respectively) collaborated while in the U.S. Coast Guard on devising and teaching a most excellent hand-to-hand or “combat judo” course for officers. Wesley Brown (famed instructor of U.S. Naval aviators during WWII) was a wrestler. So was his partner, Joe Begala. Men with serious backgrounds in boxing and wrestling have on occasion developed an interest in close combat (generally, because they had taken up boxing or wrestling mainly for self-defense and/or because they were pretty tough dudes to begin with, even before they came to their sport). We, ourself have a background in jujutsu, taekwon-do, varmannie, and boxing, in addition, obviously, to decades of WWII-based close-in and unarmed hand-to-hand combat, with and without weapons. We were fortunate to have been able to study with the late Charles Nelson for a considerable time — as Nelson was a real WWII era trainer, who himself trained under Biddle, in the Marine Corps — and Rex Applegate, someone who needs no introduction to anyone in this field.

Nor is it necessarily true that an excellent teacher is also the “baddest dude on the block”. Just as we do not select a cardiologist according the the health of the physician’s own heart, so we do not select a close combat teacher solely on the basis of his personal ability to “kick ass”. Yes, of course, a qualified close combat and self-defense teacher will be a technical expert; but he will rarely if ever have any “championships” or trophies to display. Rather, he will be an expert in combat, and a master at teaching it. (O’Neill was a technically
“superior” judo man, than Fairbairn. O’Neill held the rank of Godan [5th degree], while Fairbairn held the rank of Nidan [2nd degree]. Yet, O’Neill learned real world hand-to-hand and practical self-defense from FAIRBAIRN, since it was Fairbairn, despite his lesser ability at shiai and randori, who was [and still remains] the undisputed SUPERIOR when it comes to close combat and selfdefense).

Most good teachers are fairly on in years and quite beyond the age of those who are in the martial arts limelight as “champions” and competition winners. First, because, as we have said, men almost invariably come to the combative aspects from some other type of background — in general. One of our greatest mentors, the late Col. Rex Applegate, had come from a “background” of brawling. Not exactly a martial “art” — but certainly a “background”, nonetheless.

Second, because it takes time, experience, and maturity, as well as a great deal of serious research into how best to utilize both the practicalized WWII era methodology and the best that may be extracted from the classical/traditional arts. (Only a fool or an incompetent dismisses all classical/traditional skills and doctrine as “unnecessary”!)

That which some may feel is taught to them simply, and even cavalierly by a real pro, is the result — as the quality doctrine it is — of decades of dedicated effort, research, study, and experience.

The result of amateurish attempts to “cash in” on the “combatives” movement, and to jump on the bandwagon that is being driven by professionals, is, for instance, the diluting of real combatives with that which one observes in the “challenge event” arenas. The goal is of course to make the most, commercially, out of the public’s belief that groundfighting is a crucially important aspect of hand-to-hand combat (it IS NOT), while at the same time offering a hefty dose of “chinjabbing”, “edge-of-the-hand chopping”, “low kicking”, and tons of
references to “Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, and O’Neill”.

Be really careful about “military instructor backgrounds” or “law enforcement backgrounds”.

First off, hand-to-hand combat occupies a very low priority in the scheme of “essential subjects” that soldiers, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and law enforcement personnel must learn. Even the USMC’s new “martial arts program” is — in our personal opinion — sadly lacking. Don’t point to that, please, because the curriculum would better be tossed entirely, and the WWII hand-to-hand “combat judo” type training, which was then given to the Raiders, would better replace it, in our opinion! Marines are FIGHTERS, warriors . . . .killers, plain and simple. They are not “policemen”; and their training in police-type bullshit should be dumped! And I say this after hearing the opinion of an active duty Lieutenant Colonel, who is an assistant teacher in an ICMAF Associate Teacher’s School on the East Coast, as well as being an ICMAF Associate, himself. I also have U.S. Marines — and U.S. Marine combat veterans amongst my own Black Belts and lower-ranked student body.

Hand-to-hand combat in the armed services’ “elite units” is sometimes better — depending upon how well qualified an instructor may or may not be present to do the teaching. And as far as those outside the military who have “trained SEALs, and trained Special Forces” . . . etc. (as we, our self have done), these people have done some short-term work only. They are not “official trainers” or anything like that, despite their ads.

Those who are active duty military and who are teaching hand-to-hand combat are teaching brief programs, and the material is sometimes good, sometimes not so good. But rarely if ever is any member of any “special forces type” unit in any of the armed services officially given more than — at most — 30 to 40 hours of hand-to-hand close combat training. Some members have received none.

Present or retired law enforcement trainers who teach/taught “defensive tactics” do not necessarily possess the knowledge, background, and skill to be worthwhile teachers of close combat and self-defense, either. It really depends upon the individual. His personal level of competence and ability must be carefully scrutinized and assessed. Unfortunately, many who “teach police” are simply graduates of weekend or week-long courses in what is essentially watered-down nonsense, geared to the politically correct requirements of whichever department they work for, or had worked for. There are certainly some outstanding men with
backgrounds in law enforcement who also know a great deal about close combat — but a law enforcement background (either as a career officer, or as a “teacher of defensive tactics”) is no assurance that the individual is professionally qualified to teach close combat and self-defense arts. Once again, we must emphasize that our statement here in no way is intended to be derogatory in regard to “police” per se. We have the highest regard for honorable and good sworn police officers,
and we respect the work that they do when they serve and protect our rights and our safety; but we must be objective and accurate about this matter of teaching combat arts, since a lot may hinge upon that which our visitors undertake to study — and with whom they undertake it.

This is reality. We love, respect, and admire our armed forces and our police, and we revere the heroes who wear our Nation’s uniform and guard our Country and our way of life; so don’t listen to any slob who opens his mouth to proclaim that “Steiner doesn’t respect the military, and he doesn’t like cops”. S—T we don’t! We love our military and we have always considered it a privilege and a pleasure to train military and police (some of whom have earned black belts from us), and we wish that these official guardians were being properly trained in close combat skills by their organizations of employ. We are the former Washington State Director of The American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. What we don’t respect are the commercializing types who use references to the military and police to bolster their “credibility” in the eyes of a gullible, self defense seeking public. Hell! You’ve got court officers and parole officers out there who actually have the temerity to use that “credential”(?) to authenticate themselves as combat teachers! R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s! Some private security guards, private investigators, and firefighters also have been known to tout their backgrounds as — SOMEHOW — being evidence that they are qualified professionals in the close combat and self-defense field! (Note: All of these occupations are themselves perfectly respectable and worthy. But they offer absolutely zero evidence that the person with a background in any one of them necessarily is a combatives teacher of any merit!)

A good teacher of close combat and self-defense will have a serious track record spanning many years in this specific field. He will be doing this full time. He may have published articles or even a book or two, and his teaching record will reflect, not “competition” or “championship victories” or “classical/traditional accomplishments”, etc. but COMBAT TRAINING; and practical, realistic selfdefense training. Do your research. Meet the teacher. If possible, take a few lessons from him. Take a month or two of classes. Find out how he teaches.

Opinions voiced about a teacher, a school, or a system today should, unless you are absolutely certain of the reliability of the source of the opinions being presented (and you CAN’T be, without knowing a lot more than you’ll likely know when you hear or read what you hear or read), be ignored. Find out for yourself. Often, petty jealousies, resentments, or outright dishonesties account for much of the negativity that you may have heard about “instructor A” or “teacher B”, etc.

We would recommend strongly that you study the material that we present here in SWORD & PEN, and on our other site, www.seattlecombatives.com. We do not say this in order to “sell ourself” to you — our reputation and standing has long since been established — but in order to facilitate your selecting another properly qualified and credentialed teacher, in whatever city, town, or hamlet you may reside in! With the education that we can give you, you will be able to make an informed decision regarding any prospective teacher. And we acknowledge readily that there are some good ones out there who are perhaps unknown to us, personally. But they are still good; and you want to find them, if you are obliged
to seek training right where you now reside.

Use common horse sense. Don’t believe promises that any program will make you “unbeatable”, or “feared”, or a “badass dude”, etc. Stay away from people who even want to sell their product on such a basis.

You want low kicks that are basic and simple; lots of simple open hand strikes, with some judiciously taught punches; great emphasis on blows, gouges, knee and elbow smashes, head butts, and biting; ferocious mindset; no ground grappling; no competition skills, or diluted contest-oriented tactics. Enormous emphasis on followup, and on simple, basic combination attacks. Frank acknowledgment of the importance of strength training and physical hardihood.

There are some good teachers out there. We’d love nothing more than the privilege, pleasure, and opportunity to teach you, our self. But if, for whatever reason, that is simply not feasible, then we hope we’ve provided some assistance in pointing you toward another school and instructor near where you live, and with whom you can entrust your mind and body for professional level training.

Bradley J. Steiner

Friday, November 5, 2010

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.

You Can’t Complain If You Did Vote

I'm only posting this to stimulate discussion. I can see both sides of this argument. Honestly, Not voting, complaining, yet remaining in a disentigrating Republic makes little sense to me, but the "choices" offered by ANY of the parties is dismal and brings to me no hope for the future. Not voting relegaes you to living under the decisions of others with no mechanism to respond or object. Voting between multiple, selections that differ only on their face and in their marketing rhetoric is equally futile however.

Chris
Information Liberation
November 4, 2010
One of the most common sayings among statists and government people is “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote.”

The idea is, if you didn’t try to influence the machinery of the state, then you have no right to complain about what the machinery of the state does to you against your will.

The idea is, of course, laughable on it’s face.

As with all statist memes, the reality is the opposite. You can’t complain if you *did* vote!

Why? Because, *gasp* you voted for it!

By taking part in the state’s voting ritual, you affirm the legitimacy of the system, you tell the government how you want the state’s machinery to run, you say how you want to force people to live.

By not voting, you are voicing your displeasure with the system, you are showing it has no validity in your life, you’re showing it’s irrelevant and the system is an illegitimate fraud.

The biggest constituency in America is not republicans or democrats, the biggest constituency is non-voters! Whether it be because they don’t care, don’t have the time, don’t think their vote counts for jack squat, or think voting is inherently immoral because it involves telling strangers how to live, the non-voter is the largest voter! They’re voting not to take part in the state’s charade!

Certainly an argument could be made, “I don’t want the state to rob from me etc., so therefor I try to minimize it’s damages.”

That’s all fine and dandy, but for the average voter, I think it’s likely they go in the booth with the intent of trying to tell other people how to live. Of course, they get the oppressive nanny state they ask for, and when it comes to burn them, all the sudden they start to complain. Not enough to actually question the system, just enough to go back next election and vote for some other clown who tells them everything they want to hear and talks to them like an idiot. While I would never actually say they “can’t complain if they did vote,” the fact of the matter is, if anyone has any less of a right to complain, it’s voters, not non-voters. You don’t grant someone the right to rule over you and then complain because they don’t do everything you want, that they would act in their own best interests, and not yours, is to be expected. If you only did the same, we wouldn’t be in this horrible mess.

I did not vote in this election out of principle, previously I never voted because I just didn’t care, the reality is the same regardless. I do not grant the system any authority, nor do I grant the goon-squad government any legitimacy. The state is a gang of robbers and thieves writ large, they have absolutely no right to tell anyone else how to live, they have absolutely no right to expropriate their neighbors wealth, and they have absolutely no right to threaten their neighbors with guns if they don’t comply with their arbitrary dictates. That a group of strangers voted for them to do it changes nothing.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Head Butting

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

[Reprinted With Permission]

www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com

ONE of the most powerful and devastating surprise blows that may be delivered in a close-in attack situation is the head butt. Not everybody likes head butting, but no one who is training for practical self-defense can afford not to learn head butting. It is important, valuable, practical, and may be executed with good results by anyone of any size — including women and children.

Whenever an adversary moves in close - which is almost always, if he gets the chance - a smashing head butt into his face will at the very least stun him for sufficient time to followup with stomp kicks, chops to the throat or neck, elbow smashes to the solar plexus or sternum, uppercut punches to the solar plexus, knee blows or front kicks to the testicles, etc. Whenever seized from behind in a body hold ("bear hug") over or under the arms, snapping your head back into the attacker‘s face is an excellent move to make, among others (like kicking or elbowing back, or/and grabbing the testicles), etc.

We do not recommend using the head as a battering ram against the abdominal area, although it is true that this might sometimes be an effective action. Our objection to this particular use of the head is that it leaves you open for a knee to your face or a blow to your skull or brain stem, as an attacker who is sharp might well react speedily as he sees you coming.

A proper head butt cannot be defended against. When for example, a body hold is applied from behind the assailant is completely open to having his face smashed with the back of your head — and there is no avoiding the blow if it snaps into him without warning.

From the front a head butt must be applied very close in; almost kneeing distance (i.e. practically body-to-body). You look your adversary in the eye and then suddenly snap you head forward to look at his belt, as your forehead bashes him in the nose. Be extremely careful to avoid bringing your head back before butting. Just look at his belt and let the butt strike him without warning.

By overlapping both palms quickly behind the adversary‘s head or neck, the head butt is increased in severity. In some circles this has been referred to as the "Danish kiss". We like to follow it up, when we do it, with a sharp knee to the adversary‘s testicles.

When seized by more than one opponent, close in, smashing into one or more with a head butt can be effective. Not only the front and back of the head, but also that part of your skull above and about an inch or two to the rear of your ear is a powerful striking surface.

Always head butt by getting your entire body behind the blow. Don‘t "flop" your head back or forward by relaxing your neck. Your neck should be tensed, and your body should be smartly driven behind the head butt in a smooth motion.

Some tips for developing the head butt:

Never practice on a hard surface (makiwara, etc.). Use a heavy bag or other padded striking aid that gives completely with the butting action. You should not try to "build up" the striking surfaces of your head as you might build up your hands and your elbows, etc.

NEVER use head butting to break objects (boards, etc.). Not only is this a completely unnecessary practice, it may be hazardous.

• Make full defensive as well as offensive use of head butting. Lace it into counterattacks and attacks whenever possible, if you find that the technique is to your liking.

Do bear in mind that powerfully delivered head butts are extremely dangerous and must be employed only in legitimate self-defense. This makes them valuable, of course, but it also places a requirement for discretion and sound judgment upon the shoulders of all who develop the technique — exactly the way all serious combative skills impose a demand for maturity, judgment, and sound reasoning in every student and teacher who trains in the methods.

When to "Unload"

Seriously? Right about :17 he should have launched into this guy... and NOT with a reverse punch either! He's WIDE OPEN for knee strikes to the jewels. As someone else said, as soon as he starts his "I'm a chicken hawk" dance.

He shouldn't be standing "squared off" and he shouldn't be leaning agains the door frame. He's lucky that this idiot didn't pull a knife because at under 2', he'd have eaten it before he had any idea what was happening.