© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – February 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
ABSURDLY (in our opinion) this web site and our other (www.seattlecombatives.com) have been officially firewalled by our Nation’s
armed forces. We got this piece of information from one of our students who is
presently on active duty in our military. We can conjecture why this is so, and it leads to very unpleasant observations about the state of our culture and American society in general, in this 21st century.
Somehow, the idea that soldiers, marines, airmen, naval personnel and coast
guardsmen are peace keepers has crept into that which passes for our “thinking” today. This has led to a dangerous reduction in the capability of our armed forces, and also to a drop in the quality of the motivation in those who are now attracted to enlist in one or another of the services. A “social worker” or “police officer” mentality is not the appropriate one for a warrior whose responsibility is the defense of the nation against tough, hard, armed, aggressive, deadly foreign invaders. We knew this once. And when we did (i.e. at the start of and through to the middle of the last century) we won the righteous world wars in which we fought. American citizens were safe when traveling overseas. The very real threat of the MIGHT of America descending upon any who would dare to threaten a U.S. citizen meant that zanies, freaks, and fanatical killers of all types normally left Americans alone. People were attracted to the armed forces by appealing to their desire to stand up for and fight against the enemies of our Republic. Pride in their ability to attack, destroy, and kill when compelled to engage in a war was commonplace. Soldiers were taught to be proud of their prowess; not to apologize for it. The private citizenry was proud of our Nation’s fighting capability, hardly inclined to apologize for it. We had a WAR Department then, not a Department of Defense.
Failing to appreciate the need for and great value in being able to fight and fight well inevitably leads to weakness and to helplessness — in a nation or in an individual.
Let’s say it plainly: Decent human beings should possess the capacity and the
equipment to be a deadly threat to any who pose a deadly threat to them. Being
armed — with knowledge, skill, and weapons — is absolutely nothing to
apologize for, to anyone. In our opinion it is virtually an obligation upon every citizen to be so prepared; however “politically incorrect” the simpering, feminized weaklings may whimper to the contrary.
And they do whimper. Sometimes officially.
Whenever we teach members of our armed services (and we do so unofficially
today, when they come to us — as they often do) we teach them things that,
amazingly, contradict the policies that they are forced to obey as members of their
service. We never advocate the violation of whatever policies regulate these
people as members of our military, but we do hope that circumstances might
change and therefore allow them to make use of that which we teach them. Until
such time, of course, we simply teach them for academic purposes, only, and ask them to retain what we give them, in hopes that the command structure will issue a green light on behalf of that which we teach, in the near future. (Note: This is something like the situation that existed at the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover first became its Director. Special Agents were trained to use firearms, but they could not yet carry them and use them on the job, as the law had not yet authorized the arming of Federal agents. We give our marvelous fighting men our best — and hope and pray that sanity will intervene on high, and that that which we train them to do, they will be officially permitted to do!).
One thing we teach every serviceman is to go NOWHERE when serving overseas
without being armed with a reliable handgun and a razor sharp fighting knife.
Skill in the use of these crucial implements of personal defense is of course
mandatory. The snatching of our uniformed servicemen and holding them
prisoner by enemies of Western Civilization is not an uncommon occurrence. It
isn’t really all that difficult to accomplish, either. All too often our courageous
fighting men are forbidden to carry any weapons when on leave, abroad. Their present systems of unarmed combat are — in our opinion — laughably absurd and ineffective in the extreme. Thus, when on leave, those wonderful people who risk and lay their lives down to protect us are actually forced to be helpless, by official policy!
As a citizen of the United States of America we resent this and see it as a
disgraceful imposition upon some of the most wonderful young people of each
generation. We want our fighting men safe. We want them ready, willing, and able
to fight back and win, and to be able to save their lives and assist their fellows
under any and all conditions. And we could not care less if this bothers anyone or makes them uncomfortable.
We have no power or authority to influence or to alter “official policy”. However,
we do have the power and the authority to influence and to alter our students’ personal survival and self-defense policies. We hope also to be able to influence our readership — those who visit this site. I.e. Y O U!
The problem of abduction (kidnap) is a very real and serious threat. Perhaps it is a
bit more of a threat for females, but it would be the height of folly to ignore the
very real fact that males are also targeted for this form of violation.
It can happen to you; it can happen to a member of your family. This is but one good reason to make learning close combat and self-defense a priority. And if and when you do finally get off your duff and learn how to use your natural and any available manufactured weapons, applying what you learn by remembering the following tactical principles should make you a very hard individual to abduct:
1. Basic Rule: Never allow yourself to be transported away from the scene of the abduction attempt. If it is humanly possible for you to put up a ferocious battle then and there, do!.
The objective of abductors is to abduct you, not to kill you; and so even when they are armed it is not their intention to use their weapons against you lethally then and there, but rather to coerce you into following their orders, or permitting them to do whatever it is their intention to do (tie you up, gag you, shove you into a vehicle, etc.). You are safer resisting abduction efforts at the scene of the attack than you will be later on, if they successfully manage to take you away.
2. If you find yourself being rushed or seized suddenly, without warning, react immediately and as lethally as your capacity permits. Deadly force is legal, moral, and necessary in order to prevent a determined kidnap attempt from being successfully carried out. This is not the time for hesitation or halfway measures. Use deadly force and any weapon — manufactured or improvised — that is available to you! Your ferocity and animal determination to kill and to get away no matter what you must do must be made evident by your growling, grimacing, and relentless efforts to attack and attack and attack!
[Photo: Female executing chin-jab with bracing arm against male assailant.]
REACT LIKE THIS AND YOUR CHANCES OF THWARTING AN ABDUCTION ATTEMPT ARE
EXCELLENT!
3. If you are confronted by one or more weapon-bearing abductors who have
managed to approach you closely before you realize their intention, pretend
complete submission. Give up. Tell him/them that you will do what they want. Plead, “Just don’t hurt me!” Convincingly assure them, if there is time, that you will offer no resistance. THEN ATTACK WITH DEADLY FORCE WHEN YOU PERCEIVE THAT THEY ARE CONVINCED THEY’VE “GOT YOU”.
4. What you must not permit to be done to you:
• Be handcuffed or tied up
• Be locked in the trunk of a vehicle
• Be proned out or made to kneel on the ground
• Be taken aboard a plane or vessel
Murderous resistance must begin — preferably by surprise — when it is clear that any of the foregoing is about to happen.
[Photo: Female bound to chair & gagged.]
ONCE THIS HAPPENS, FIGHTING BACK BECOMES JUST ABOUT IMPOSSIBLE. THE IDEA IN LEARNING HOW TO THWART ABDUCTION IS TO MASTER SKILLS AND ACQUIRE THE
MINDSET THAT ENABLES YOU TO PUT UP FIERCE, LETHAL RESISTANCE BEFORE YOU ARE
RENDERED HELPLESS.
5. Should you be driving and suddenly encounter a roadblock and attack, or
realize that you are being pursued, DO NOT STOP YOUR VEHICLE. (Obviously we are not now referring to police roadblocks, or to the awareness that a police officer is signaling you to pull over!) Keep driving! Place your hand on the horn and blast it constantly as you drive. Never stop your vehicle. So long as it is in motion you are far safer than when it is stopped. In an urban area, drive to a fire or police station.
6. Should you gain the upper hand during your resistance effort, get the hell out of there! Do not attempt to remain and continue fighting, or to remain and call for help, or anything. Get away, and as fast as you are able to do so.
7. In your home common sense can prevent a successful abduction. Be armed. Be
prepared. Be willing and able to greet any forcible entry to your home with
immediate deadly force.
[Photo: General James Lee Dozier - U.S. Army]
Note: NATO’s Deputy Chief of Staff, General James Lee Dozier, for those who
are old enough to remember the incident, was abducted successfully from his
apartment because he opened the door to the kidnappers when they knocked.
GENERAL DOZIER. EVEN THOUGH A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PROFESSIONAL SOLDIER —
RANGER QUALIFIED (SEE FLASH ON THE GENERAL'S LEFT ARM) — COULD DO LITTLE
AFTER CASUALLY OPENING THE DOOR TO MEMBERS OF THE RED BRIGADE, WHO
PROCEEDED TO KIDNAP HIM. KNOW WHO YOU ARE OPENING YOUR DOOR TO!
8. While, ideally, you should always be armed — with a razor sharp fighting knife and a powerful handgun (servicemen; and whenever lawful and feasible,
private citizens, too!) — unless you can bring your weapon into play before
physical contact occurs, you need to create distance, time, and space, so that you can effectively bring your weapon into play. Thus you MUST have unarmed combat abilities, and they need to be really good; no “martial artsy” bullshit or competition technique.
9. Ignore completely any injuries that you sustain as you resist. Knife or gunshot wounds are rarely fatal, and only certain death will result if you pause to assess any injuries. Get away, and then you can get to a hospital. Remain at the scene, and you’ll likely end up in the morgue.
While many will doubtless wince or raise their eyebrows in disdain for the advice
that we have presented, this remains some of the most valuable, authentic,
reliable, and practically usable LIFESAVING advice you’ll ever receive. In fact it parallels such instruction that we have given to the highest priority military and intelligence personnel employed by our Nation.
If an abduction attempt can be prevented by security measures — human and
technological — that is of course ideal. But we are now concerned with the last
ditch option: That of resisting an abduction attempt that could not be avoided
through detection, surveillance, and/or security procedures.
Might you not be killed when attempting to resist, for instance, a terrorist or other abduction? Yes, certainly. However, your “chance” of being killed becomes a near certainty if you do not resist. Besides — let’s be frank — is it not better to die quickly fighting for your life, than to die under torture, perhaps being beheaded on the internet? Is that not a preferable manner for you to die, too, as far as your loved ones are concerned? Which manner of death that you suffer — i.e. an immediate death, or a protracted, public, and tortuously prolonged death — is more likely to haunt those who love and who care about you, for the rest of their lives?
Yes, this subject is hardcore and unpleasant. That’s what real world self-defense
generally is.
We will consider describing some methods for escape and evasion if this present editorial discussion has not turned too many off with that which it has doubtless caused to be conjured up in their minds. (We have, for the time being, only described some principles for coping with the immediate abduction attempt.
Suppose you are in fact a captive? What then?)
To be continued then, at some future time.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Experts Tend To Agree Substantially
© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WHILE the mythology of MMA and contest “fighting” as the “ultimate” in self-defense and hand-to-hand combat continues to dupe the gullible, it is worth
remembering — for those interested in the truth — that real close combat and self-defense teachers tend to agree virtually across the board regarding what does and does not work in actual combat, and what should and should not constitute the “last of learning” when studying the arts of armed and unarmed individual battle.
The primary difference between the real experts and legitimate teachers
themselves (concerning hand-to-hand and unarmed combat, and the combative
employment of personal firearms) pertains more to minutiae. That is, they agree
on core principles and even on basic techniques and skills. Their difference lies in small variances in how they, in their personal interpretations and practical applications of the solid, proven realities of the individual combat phenomenon, seek to achieve the same result. For example: There is no authentic teacher of close combat who does not recognize, accept, teach, and emphasize the low, lashing side kick to an enemy’s knee. Some, like ourself, emphasize the heel of the foot as the contact point. Others drill in the side edge of the foot as the point of impact. Still others — often with previous backgrounds in the Chinese ch’uan fa (“kung fu”) arts — stress kicking with the bottom of the foot. This last derives from the Chinese “tiger’s tail kick” which the external Chinese “boxing” systems tend to stress.
Every legitimate expert in our field also recognizes the comparative undesirability
of using clenched fist punching in close combat, while stressing the open hand — most particularly the chop, using the side of the hand, and the smash using the heel of the hand, etcetera. The exact formation of the chopping hand might vary between teachers; but there is no one who is worth listening to at all, who does not teach its use, and recognize its superiority. Ditto for the heel of the hand smashing blows.
Experts know that blows prevail over holds and throws in real hand-to-hand combat. Evidence of this is abundant. With initial backgrounds in the grappling arts, giants such as O’Neill, Fairbairn, Begala, Brown, Cosneck, and others, literally dumped grappling as the frontline technique for real combat, and stressed striking, kicking, gouging, clawing, kneeing, elbowing, butting, biting, etc. when closing with an enemy in lethal combat. The blows that these experts personally favored may have varied slightly, but not much. And on no account did any of them ever suggest even remotely that pinning, mounting, or striving for a groundlock of any kind made even peripheral sense when the engagement is for real.
Practice methods and drills vary between the close combat/self-defense authorities
of merit, but all disdain “freestyle sparring” and “match” events, since every real expert needs no reminder of the complete difference between doing battle
according to any rules (and ALL of the competition methods have lots of rules!) and going full bore any way one can, in order to knock out, maim, or kill — before the other guy does it to you.
Some legitimate teachers do include training in control methods (i.e. “holds” and
“locks”), but none suggest that these can be used or ought to be attempted against any form of real attack. These skills are to be relegated to law enforcement and security officer uses; maybe, on occasion, to school teachers, “doormen”(i.e. bouncers), and others with a definite peacekeeping responsibility (something that no private citizen acting in self-defense need bother with, and certainly no soldier should care about).
Modern weapons are universally advocated by legitimate teachers of close
combat and self-defense, and the reason for this should be obvious. The antiquated
weapons of the martial arts are not suitable for modern use in self, family, and
home defense — or for street police work or military warfare. Which specific
weapons are advocated by which individual teachers may vary. Some may prefer
the Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotgun (as we do), while others advocate the
excellent and reliable Mossbergs. No major tactical difference. But you won’t find
a legitimate professional claiming that throwing stars ought to be used instead of a
shotgun against home invaders.
DESPITE HIS TV AND MOVIE ACROBATICS, THE LATE BRUCE LEE RECOGNIZED
THAT LOW KICKS, AND ONLY THE SIMPLEST, MOST DIRECT ACTIONS COULD
BE DEPENDED UPON IN REAL COMBAT.
JOHN STYERS (PROTÉGÉ OF ANTHONY J. DREXEL BIDDLE) ADVOCATED THE
EDGE-OF-THE-HAD BLOW, ALBEIT NOT WITH THE “THUMB UPRAISED” HAND
POSITION TAUGHT BY APPLEGATE AND FAIRBAIRN. OUR VERSION OF THE
BLOW — THE “HANDAXE CHOP” AS WE CALL IT — IS TAUGHT DIFFERENTLY
TOO. BUT THE ESSENTIAL ACTION THAT ALL OF US TEACH IS
FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME. YOU’LL NOT FIND ANY LEGITIMATE CLOSE
COMBAT EXPERT WHO DOES NOT STRESS THIS BLOW!
There are, of course, many other points of evidence that prove that those who
know what they are about in this field of close combat and self-defense advocate
very similar skills, tactics, and attitudes. Another example pertains to the
importance of strength.
The importance of strength — raw physical strength — is denied only by fools,
insofar as serious hand-to-hand combat is concerned. Like ourself, many other
professionals urge weight training. This might be regular training with adjustable
barbell and dumbbells, or it might be — or include — work with Nautilus
machinery. But every bona fide teacher who knows anything about the subject
pushes progressive resistance exercise. Some interesting fellows prefer “log P.T.” (somewhat quaint, and reminiscent of WWII commando training) and there might
be some friendly quibbling over whether dumbbells or kettle-bells ought to be employed. But no one — no one — who understands anything at all about real hand-to-hand combat discounts the importance of physical strength and fails to urge strongly that students of close combat build their strength to its maximum.
If you are unable to train with us, personally, you might wish to shop around for a
teacher where you live. There are relatively few, compared to the classical
traditionalists and the competition oriented, but certainly there are some. You can test the authenticity and value of that which they offer, from the standpoint of combat and self-defense, by checking to see if the doctrine espoused approximates that which have been discussing here.
Teachers and schools do vary somewhat; but there is no combat/self-defense
school anywhere in the world that disputes war and street proven doctrine and principles, and that deviates from a core, fundamental focus upon that which we all, who do this for real , know to be axiomatic.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WHILE the mythology of MMA and contest “fighting” as the “ultimate” in self-defense and hand-to-hand combat continues to dupe the gullible, it is worth
remembering — for those interested in the truth — that real close combat and self-defense teachers tend to agree virtually across the board regarding what does and does not work in actual combat, and what should and should not constitute the “last of learning” when studying the arts of armed and unarmed individual battle.
The primary difference between the real experts and legitimate teachers
themselves (concerning hand-to-hand and unarmed combat, and the combative
employment of personal firearms) pertains more to minutiae. That is, they agree
on core principles and even on basic techniques and skills. Their difference lies in small variances in how they, in their personal interpretations and practical applications of the solid, proven realities of the individual combat phenomenon, seek to achieve the same result. For example: There is no authentic teacher of close combat who does not recognize, accept, teach, and emphasize the low, lashing side kick to an enemy’s knee. Some, like ourself, emphasize the heel of the foot as the contact point. Others drill in the side edge of the foot as the point of impact. Still others — often with previous backgrounds in the Chinese ch’uan fa (“kung fu”) arts — stress kicking with the bottom of the foot. This last derives from the Chinese “tiger’s tail kick” which the external Chinese “boxing” systems tend to stress.
Every legitimate expert in our field also recognizes the comparative undesirability
of using clenched fist punching in close combat, while stressing the open hand — most particularly the chop, using the side of the hand, and the smash using the heel of the hand, etcetera. The exact formation of the chopping hand might vary between teachers; but there is no one who is worth listening to at all, who does not teach its use, and recognize its superiority. Ditto for the heel of the hand smashing blows.
Experts know that blows prevail over holds and throws in real hand-to-hand combat. Evidence of this is abundant. With initial backgrounds in the grappling arts, giants such as O’Neill, Fairbairn, Begala, Brown, Cosneck, and others, literally dumped grappling as the frontline technique for real combat, and stressed striking, kicking, gouging, clawing, kneeing, elbowing, butting, biting, etc. when closing with an enemy in lethal combat. The blows that these experts personally favored may have varied slightly, but not much. And on no account did any of them ever suggest even remotely that pinning, mounting, or striving for a groundlock of any kind made even peripheral sense when the engagement is for real.
Practice methods and drills vary between the close combat/self-defense authorities
of merit, but all disdain “freestyle sparring” and “match” events, since every real expert needs no reminder of the complete difference between doing battle
according to any rules (and ALL of the competition methods have lots of rules!) and going full bore any way one can, in order to knock out, maim, or kill — before the other guy does it to you.
Some legitimate teachers do include training in control methods (i.e. “holds” and
“locks”), but none suggest that these can be used or ought to be attempted against any form of real attack. These skills are to be relegated to law enforcement and security officer uses; maybe, on occasion, to school teachers, “doormen”(i.e. bouncers), and others with a definite peacekeeping responsibility (something that no private citizen acting in self-defense need bother with, and certainly no soldier should care about).
Modern weapons are universally advocated by legitimate teachers of close
combat and self-defense, and the reason for this should be obvious. The antiquated
weapons of the martial arts are not suitable for modern use in self, family, and
home defense — or for street police work or military warfare. Which specific
weapons are advocated by which individual teachers may vary. Some may prefer
the Remington Model 870 12 gauge shotgun (as we do), while others advocate the
excellent and reliable Mossbergs. No major tactical difference. But you won’t find
a legitimate professional claiming that throwing stars ought to be used instead of a
shotgun against home invaders.
DESPITE HIS TV AND MOVIE ACROBATICS, THE LATE BRUCE LEE RECOGNIZED
THAT LOW KICKS, AND ONLY THE SIMPLEST, MOST DIRECT ACTIONS COULD
BE DEPENDED UPON IN REAL COMBAT.
JOHN STYERS (PROTÉGÉ OF ANTHONY J. DREXEL BIDDLE) ADVOCATED THE
EDGE-OF-THE-HAD BLOW, ALBEIT NOT WITH THE “THUMB UPRAISED” HAND
POSITION TAUGHT BY APPLEGATE AND FAIRBAIRN. OUR VERSION OF THE
BLOW — THE “HANDAXE CHOP” AS WE CALL IT — IS TAUGHT DIFFERENTLY
TOO. BUT THE ESSENTIAL ACTION THAT ALL OF US TEACH IS
FUNDAMENTALLY THE SAME. YOU’LL NOT FIND ANY LEGITIMATE CLOSE
COMBAT EXPERT WHO DOES NOT STRESS THIS BLOW!
There are, of course, many other points of evidence that prove that those who
know what they are about in this field of close combat and self-defense advocate
very similar skills, tactics, and attitudes. Another example pertains to the
importance of strength.
The importance of strength — raw physical strength — is denied only by fools,
insofar as serious hand-to-hand combat is concerned. Like ourself, many other
professionals urge weight training. This might be regular training with adjustable
barbell and dumbbells, or it might be — or include — work with Nautilus
machinery. But every bona fide teacher who knows anything about the subject
pushes progressive resistance exercise. Some interesting fellows prefer “log P.T.” (somewhat quaint, and reminiscent of WWII commando training) and there might
be some friendly quibbling over whether dumbbells or kettle-bells ought to be employed. But no one — no one — who understands anything at all about real hand-to-hand combat discounts the importance of physical strength and fails to urge strongly that students of close combat build their strength to its maximum.
If you are unable to train with us, personally, you might wish to shop around for a
teacher where you live. There are relatively few, compared to the classical
traditionalists and the competition oriented, but certainly there are some. You can test the authenticity and value of that which they offer, from the standpoint of combat and self-defense, by checking to see if the doctrine espoused approximates that which have been discussing here.
Teachers and schools do vary somewhat; but there is no combat/self-defense
school anywhere in the world that disputes war and street proven doctrine and principles, and that deviates from a core, fundamental focus upon that which we all, who do this for real , know to be axiomatic.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Mixed Martial Arts Is Nothing New
© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
GENUINE martial (i.e. combat) arts have always been “mixed”. That is, if an art can be said to be a “combat art”, or an art that is “of or pertaining to war” then it literally must possess a mixture of techniques THAT WORK, and not be limited or restricted to only one, specific type of skill (i.e. say, throwing).
Fairbairn’s System is “mixed”.
Applegate’s System is “mixed”.
O’Neill’s System is “mixed”.
American Combato (i.e. our System) is “mixed”, etc.
But long before the above listed systems ever came to be, there was ancient Greek
pankration. There was Chinese/Mongolian wrestling, there were variants of the Hindu or Indian form of hand-to-hand fighting called varmannie, and of course there were the many Chinese “boxing” or ch’uan fa forms — today popularly but erroneously referred to as “kung fu”. Several of these forms — notably the ones being promulgated today under the heading of Chin-Na — were the arts that formed the basis of that which the Japanese “borrowed” and renamed ju-jutsu.
And, if you look at the real ju-jutsu that was taught for combat, rather than the esthetic or the so-called “sport” ju-jutsu (this last being really a contradiction in terms; but that doesn’t seem to bother anybody) Chin-Na was once referred to in China as CHI-CHI SU. It was this that became, upon their acquisition of some of its doctrine, the “Japanese’ art of ju-jutsu”. None of these fighting systems were in the least restricted in what they taught. Their emphasis in different arts was on different specific skills, but their curriculums were — as they needed to be for combat — all-inclusive. For the most part, out of practical necessity, arts remaining “pure combat” forms, placed a major emphasis upon blows.
No restrictions or limitations were, however, a part of these arts in their original
(i.e. their combat) forms.
There are five major schools of karate in Japan: the Shotokan, the Shudokan, the Shito-ryu, the Goju-ryu, and the Wado-ryu. Every one of them includes techniques not normally considered “karate” techniques . . . i.e. throwing, holding, and strangling, at the upper black belt levels. The Wado-ryu, which frankly blends ju-jutsu with karate is evidently well “mixed” as a system, even for complete beginners. (Note: Oyama’s extremely hard karate style, the Kyokushinkai, is world renown, is headquartered in Japan — is probably not regarded as a “Japanese” karate system because its Shinan [Founder] was Korean, and the Japanese are, regrettably, inclined to ethnic bias of a rather strong kind — but is absolutely a “mixed” martial art, nevertheless).
What’s more, the Korean arts (most notably Kuk Sool Won, Hauk Sool Won, Hapkido, and the Tang soo do systems) all teach throws, strangulations, holds, locks — in short, a “mixed” curriculum of skills. When we ourself were a student of ChungDo Kwan TaeKwonDo (1960’s), this Korean karate style (rooted in the same original foundation as Japanese Shotokan) included some throwing, as well as a hold or two every now and again. But Young K. Lee who taught taekwondo at the time never advocated the System as a “sport”, or as a form of recreational competition, or “match fighting”, etc. It was a military combat art. And as such, it contained mixed elements of hand-to-hand technique.
So what’s our point?
The sport that goes by the designation “mixed martial arts” (or MMA) today is based upon an idea that is not at all unique, or new. However, in an effort to be “all inclusive” in a sporting form of so-called “martial art”, the MMAers have produced and participate in what some might observe appears to be mere “brawling with sport-oriented techniques”. The techniques are not sharp, powerful, crisp karate blows; nor are they well-executed, bone-jarring ju-jutsu throws. The “holds” are of a submission (rather than a “control him and kill him”) variety, and the chokes are straight from sport judo. There’s a bit of Western wrestling in there here and there; but never done in a manner that a Master Wrestler like, for example, Gene Le Bell would render it. And several of our acquaintances who are real boxers have noted that the smattering of that which is passed off as “boxing” in MMA is, to be kind, somewhat underwhelming. It isn’t good, solid boxing, they assure us.
Okay, so are we criticizing MMA? Only insofar as some might be misled into believing that MMA prepares one for hand-to-hand combat or actual self-defense.
The same mistake that is sometimes made regarding the UFC, cage fighting, etc.
We have no quarrel with anyone who enjoys any of these sports, and we have
not the slightest desire to persuade anyone inclined to be a “champion”
competitor in any of them to abandon his goals. If you enjoy these types of
sporting/competitive venues then go for it! Good luck to you, and we hope that
you achieve the satisfaction and the success as a competitor that you are
seeking.
There is not, however, any correlation between sporting competition and serious individual combat. The danger in attempting to utilize any sport as preparation for hand-to-hand and close combat is that, necessarily, the techniques that you employ to win your matches are and must be “safe” — diluted, watered down, and nonmaiming or killing actions. While this is as it should and must be, it also defines one of the major differences between sport and combat.
MENTAL ATTITUDE/MINDSET , is also (and, to combat veterans, obviously) an enormous difference. The mindset of the sports competitor who is determined to win is not related to the mindset of either the violent felon or enemy soldier determined to kill his adversary however he can do so; nor is it related to that adversary’s mindset, which is equally determined to stop his enemy by any means conceivable — in order to prevail and survive.
The absence of weapons, the nature of the terrain, the absence of multiple
attacking enemies, etc. etc. go further to prove the huge difference between
competition and combat; but sensible individuals will have gotten the message by
now.
To make it even clearer by example:
A “mixed martial sport” might see the champion soften his opponent up with a few punches, use a throw to get him down, and then go for a submission hold.
A combatant would smash into his adversary with chops to the carotid artery, finger thrusts to the eyes, or/and potentially neck-breaking chinjabs. He might then bring his enemy to the deck by breaking his knee with a side kick (or perhaps by applying a cross-buttock — combat-effective — “hip throw”), Then he would conclude the encounter by kicking his downed enemy’s head in or crushing his sternum with a heel stomp. He might even jump on his with both heels.
All hand-to-hand fighters use “mixed” martial skills. Nothing new about this. It is the way it has always been. But the sporting form of unarmed contest that is known as MMA today is NOT hand-to-hand combat.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
GENUINE martial (i.e. combat) arts have always been “mixed”. That is, if an art can be said to be a “combat art”, or an art that is “of or pertaining to war” then it literally must possess a mixture of techniques THAT WORK, and not be limited or restricted to only one, specific type of skill (i.e. say, throwing).
Fairbairn’s System is “mixed”.
Applegate’s System is “mixed”.
O’Neill’s System is “mixed”.
American Combato (i.e. our System) is “mixed”, etc.
But long before the above listed systems ever came to be, there was ancient Greek
pankration. There was Chinese/Mongolian wrestling, there were variants of the Hindu or Indian form of hand-to-hand fighting called varmannie, and of course there were the many Chinese “boxing” or ch’uan fa forms — today popularly but erroneously referred to as “kung fu”. Several of these forms — notably the ones being promulgated today under the heading of Chin-Na — were the arts that formed the basis of that which the Japanese “borrowed” and renamed ju-jutsu.
And, if you look at the real ju-jutsu that was taught for combat, rather than the esthetic or the so-called “sport” ju-jutsu (this last being really a contradiction in terms; but that doesn’t seem to bother anybody) Chin-Na was once referred to in China as CHI-CHI SU. It was this that became, upon their acquisition of some of its doctrine, the “Japanese’ art of ju-jutsu”. None of these fighting systems were in the least restricted in what they taught. Their emphasis in different arts was on different specific skills, but their curriculums were — as they needed to be for combat — all-inclusive. For the most part, out of practical necessity, arts remaining “pure combat” forms, placed a major emphasis upon blows.
No restrictions or limitations were, however, a part of these arts in their original
(i.e. their combat) forms.
There are five major schools of karate in Japan: the Shotokan, the Shudokan, the Shito-ryu, the Goju-ryu, and the Wado-ryu. Every one of them includes techniques not normally considered “karate” techniques . . . i.e. throwing, holding, and strangling, at the upper black belt levels. The Wado-ryu, which frankly blends ju-jutsu with karate is evidently well “mixed” as a system, even for complete beginners. (Note: Oyama’s extremely hard karate style, the Kyokushinkai, is world renown, is headquartered in Japan — is probably not regarded as a “Japanese” karate system because its Shinan [Founder] was Korean, and the Japanese are, regrettably, inclined to ethnic bias of a rather strong kind — but is absolutely a “mixed” martial art, nevertheless).
What’s more, the Korean arts (most notably Kuk Sool Won, Hauk Sool Won, Hapkido, and the Tang soo do systems) all teach throws, strangulations, holds, locks — in short, a “mixed” curriculum of skills. When we ourself were a student of ChungDo Kwan TaeKwonDo (1960’s), this Korean karate style (rooted in the same original foundation as Japanese Shotokan) included some throwing, as well as a hold or two every now and again. But Young K. Lee who taught taekwondo at the time never advocated the System as a “sport”, or as a form of recreational competition, or “match fighting”, etc. It was a military combat art. And as such, it contained mixed elements of hand-to-hand technique.
So what’s our point?
The sport that goes by the designation “mixed martial arts” (or MMA) today is based upon an idea that is not at all unique, or new. However, in an effort to be “all inclusive” in a sporting form of so-called “martial art”, the MMAers have produced and participate in what some might observe appears to be mere “brawling with sport-oriented techniques”. The techniques are not sharp, powerful, crisp karate blows; nor are they well-executed, bone-jarring ju-jutsu throws. The “holds” are of a submission (rather than a “control him and kill him”) variety, and the chokes are straight from sport judo. There’s a bit of Western wrestling in there here and there; but never done in a manner that a Master Wrestler like, for example, Gene Le Bell would render it. And several of our acquaintances who are real boxers have noted that the smattering of that which is passed off as “boxing” in MMA is, to be kind, somewhat underwhelming. It isn’t good, solid boxing, they assure us.
Okay, so are we criticizing MMA? Only insofar as some might be misled into believing that MMA prepares one for hand-to-hand combat or actual self-defense.
The same mistake that is sometimes made regarding the UFC, cage fighting, etc.
We have no quarrel with anyone who enjoys any of these sports, and we have
not the slightest desire to persuade anyone inclined to be a “champion”
competitor in any of them to abandon his goals. If you enjoy these types of
sporting/competitive venues then go for it! Good luck to you, and we hope that
you achieve the satisfaction and the success as a competitor that you are
seeking.
There is not, however, any correlation between sporting competition and serious individual combat. The danger in attempting to utilize any sport as preparation for hand-to-hand and close combat is that, necessarily, the techniques that you employ to win your matches are and must be “safe” — diluted, watered down, and nonmaiming or killing actions. While this is as it should and must be, it also defines one of the major differences between sport and combat.
MENTAL ATTITUDE/MINDSET , is also (and, to combat veterans, obviously) an enormous difference. The mindset of the sports competitor who is determined to win is not related to the mindset of either the violent felon or enemy soldier determined to kill his adversary however he can do so; nor is it related to that adversary’s mindset, which is equally determined to stop his enemy by any means conceivable — in order to prevail and survive.
The absence of weapons, the nature of the terrain, the absence of multiple
attacking enemies, etc. etc. go further to prove the huge difference between
competition and combat; but sensible individuals will have gotten the message by
now.
To make it even clearer by example:
A “mixed martial sport” might see the champion soften his opponent up with a few punches, use a throw to get him down, and then go for a submission hold.
A combatant would smash into his adversary with chops to the carotid artery, finger thrusts to the eyes, or/and potentially neck-breaking chinjabs. He might then bring his enemy to the deck by breaking his knee with a side kick (or perhaps by applying a cross-buttock — combat-effective — “hip throw”), Then he would conclude the encounter by kicking his downed enemy’s head in or crushing his sternum with a heel stomp. He might even jump on his with both heels.
All hand-to-hand fighters use “mixed” martial skills. Nothing new about this. It is the way it has always been. But the sporting form of unarmed contest that is known as MMA today is NOT hand-to-hand combat.
Monday, March 28, 2011
You Must Have Unarmed Combat Ability
© COPYRIGHT 2011 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
THERE are those who love firearms (“gun nuts”). There are those who love
knives. Both interest groups enjoy an abundance of monthly periodicals that cater
to their interests, just as “martial arts” aficionados enjoy a ton of monthly appearing mainstream “literature” (albeit 99% of which is of highly questionable value, if not outright bullshit — precisely as is true in the case of 99% of that which appears in the gun and knife rags!), Oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of those in any of those three categories think of their little niche as exclusive, and they disdain involvement in and mastery of that which the other categories offer.
Fatal mistake, as far as practical defense and actual combative preparedness is
concerned.
This much is true: There are times when you need a firearm; times when you need
a knife; and times when you must rely upon your bare hands. If you are thoroughly prepared and competent in but a single approach to individual combat, then you are two thirds unprepared! (We should also consider the stick in our discussion, as stick work is certainly essential in the individual’s total scheme of defensive preparation. And we might thus legitimately assert that by possessing expertise in but one of four necessary areas of training you are three quarters unprepared). You hopefully get the drift of where we’re going with this.
Combat handguns, shotguns, and shoulder weapons certainly occupy an important
place in self-defense training. So do knives and stick implements. However, good
as any particular fashioned and manufactured weapon may be, it is not only
inappropriate to resort to the use of weaponry in all instances, it is often not possible. Those who spend time practicing quick draw at the range because they wish to be able to speedily access a sidearm in a close quarters crisis when, say, they are suddenly jumped in a street attack, have no idea of what real world violence entails, and what — realistically — they will be able to do about it, if it comes unexpectedly to them.
It takes a relatively long time to execute a “quick draw” from a maximum
concealment holster that is worn under normal daily attire (quite possibly attire
that includes a coat), as opposed to simply driving a powerful leg-breaking kick
into an assailant, or chopping him across the carotid artery! More: While you are
attempting to execute that quick draw, your attacker (or attackers) will — a) Have a great opportunity to seize, punch, and beat you into unconsciousness, and b) Be made plainly aware that you are armed, and no doubt will take that gun away from you, either while in the process of carrying out, or shortly after accomplishing “a”.
We have seen and heard of absolutely ridiculous “techniques” being taught — using folding knives (and in the case of law enforcement officers, their
“expandable batons”) — where, having been seized from behind in a mugger’s
strangle, the defender acquires his weapon(!) and executes some technique against
his attacker that frees him from the hold. Again — unarmed action is the only speedy action that stands a chance of being speedy enough in such a situation . . . (unless of course the “attacker” is a practice partner) to actually work. One’s concealed weapon — or one’s holstered sidearm, if one is a uniformed officer — cannot be brought into play quickly enough. That mugger will have snapped you backward and perhaps choked you out before you can even get your folding knife or expandable baton in hand!
We are 100% in favor of the use of modern weapons in personal defense and close
combat. We regard weapons as integral to the overall program that we ourself
teach, and this has always been the case. But make no mistake about it, weapons are not enough.
You must have unarmed combat ability.
Often, in situations where you are not only justified but well advised to access, say, a loaded handgun, you will be unable to do so until and unless you secure sufficient distance, time, and space. Well executed blows of the hands and feet, and practiced maneuvering that works in hand-to-hand situations will enable you to do this — and will enable you to save your life and quite possibly the lives of others. Your “target” in a close quarters combat situation will not be a cardboard outline, conveniently placed ten to 30 feet away, in broad daylight, giving you time to prepare ahead of time for the event, and giving you plenty of distance, time, and space right now to enable you to draw from your range rig, and place two neat holes in the kill zone. Get real.
Gun trumps knife, right? We have heard potbellied, beer-drinking, gun buff
“yahoos” who “roll their own” in their garages assert that, in a situation where a punk pulled a knife they’d “just shoot him”. Really? You think so? Well, if you had a handgun positioned and leveled at the “punk”, and if you were all set to pull the trigger, and if that “punk” was perhaps 25 to 30 feet away, and had not yet drawn his knife, but was seen by you in time to be undertaking to do just that . . . maybe you could “just shoot him”. But in the real world, if you lack unarmed combat skills, any determined would-be killer will get you first. He will get in close and he will have stabbed and slashed you ten times before you can even think of reaching for that holstered sidearm under your jacket.
Not that you could be certain of defending yourself adequately even if you were an unarmed combat expert. The knife attacker still has a great advantage. But if your body is trained to move correctly and to make ferocious and immediate use of your natural weapons, you stand a chance of surviving.
Real world, people; real world.
And the idiocy that is advanced as “self-defense use of the folding knife” would
be comical, if it were not presented seriously, and in a tone that suggests the
advocate of this crap is some kind of “combat expert”!
Yes, certainly a stoutly constructed folding knife can be an excellent weapon in a
defensive emergency. However, it is nowhere near as effective a weapon as a fixed
blade combat knife, and all of those who believe that their “combat folders” make them bad news for muggers are fools.
It takes time to access and then open a folding knife. Time is what you have
precious little of in any violent emergency, and “going for your folding knife”
sets you up exactly as going for your holstered handgun does, in any predicament
where you are attacked by one or more street bacteria up close. And face it: This is how it generally happens.
Again, unarmed skills are instantly available, and will clear the way for your being able to access that folder. What’s more, hitting your attacker — jabbing, smashing, and pounding him real hard in his vulnerable target areas — with the ends of your closed folding knife in hand is often the best preliminary tactic that allows you the time to open the folder, in the first place. Unarmed combat training teaches you how and where to hit your attacker with that closed folding knife, and this is important.
Few weapons are as effective for practical defense as a good, strong walking stick
(or, for a police officer, a simple hardwood baton — NOT one of those damn “expandable” pieces of s—t that deserves to be discarded along with pepper spray and mace). Still, one might find that an attacker seizes one’s walking stick (or baton), and a struggle ensues in which unarmed combat skills will prove essential for achieving dominance over the aggressor.
Quality training in unarmed close combat provides the key foundational elements
for success in all close combat — armed included:
√ It teaches you to have self-confidence (as opposed to confidence in a hand held
weapon).
√ It teaches you how to move, position yourself, and interface with potential and
actual troublemakers.
√ It teaches you how to strike and how to kick, and it trains you in the enemy’s
vital target areas . . . areas as susceptible to weapon as to unarmed trauma.
√ It teaches you attitude and mindset, without which no weapon on earth is of any value; and with which, even some random object-at-hand will serve well and lethally in a dangerous emergency.
√ It trains you in general self-defense tactics and strategy, in the principles of
protection, and in the realities of close-in individual battle.
√ It enjoins you to establish a serious routine of personal physical training, so as
to get and stay fit, strong, conditioned, ready, and confident that you are able to
meet whatever comes.
The modern student of self-defense, as we have been emphasizing since the late
1960’s, needs unarmed and armed modern combat skills in order to be a rounded, balanced, ready-for-anything combatant.
The word to all of you weapons buffs: If you keep those weapons for self-defense, then make certain you’ve got a solid capability with unarmed combat to
bolster and to back up their use!
Sword and Pen – January 2011 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
THERE are those who love firearms (“gun nuts”). There are those who love
knives. Both interest groups enjoy an abundance of monthly periodicals that cater
to their interests, just as “martial arts” aficionados enjoy a ton of monthly appearing mainstream “literature” (albeit 99% of which is of highly questionable value, if not outright bullshit — precisely as is true in the case of 99% of that which appears in the gun and knife rags!), Oddly enough, the overwhelming majority of those in any of those three categories think of their little niche as exclusive, and they disdain involvement in and mastery of that which the other categories offer.
Fatal mistake, as far as practical defense and actual combative preparedness is
concerned.
This much is true: There are times when you need a firearm; times when you need
a knife; and times when you must rely upon your bare hands. If you are thoroughly prepared and competent in but a single approach to individual combat, then you are two thirds unprepared! (We should also consider the stick in our discussion, as stick work is certainly essential in the individual’s total scheme of defensive preparation. And we might thus legitimately assert that by possessing expertise in but one of four necessary areas of training you are three quarters unprepared). You hopefully get the drift of where we’re going with this.
Combat handguns, shotguns, and shoulder weapons certainly occupy an important
place in self-defense training. So do knives and stick implements. However, good
as any particular fashioned and manufactured weapon may be, it is not only
inappropriate to resort to the use of weaponry in all instances, it is often not possible. Those who spend time practicing quick draw at the range because they wish to be able to speedily access a sidearm in a close quarters crisis when, say, they are suddenly jumped in a street attack, have no idea of what real world violence entails, and what — realistically — they will be able to do about it, if it comes unexpectedly to them.
It takes a relatively long time to execute a “quick draw” from a maximum
concealment holster that is worn under normal daily attire (quite possibly attire
that includes a coat), as opposed to simply driving a powerful leg-breaking kick
into an assailant, or chopping him across the carotid artery! More: While you are
attempting to execute that quick draw, your attacker (or attackers) will — a) Have a great opportunity to seize, punch, and beat you into unconsciousness, and b) Be made plainly aware that you are armed, and no doubt will take that gun away from you, either while in the process of carrying out, or shortly after accomplishing “a”.
We have seen and heard of absolutely ridiculous “techniques” being taught — using folding knives (and in the case of law enforcement officers, their
“expandable batons”) — where, having been seized from behind in a mugger’s
strangle, the defender acquires his weapon(!) and executes some technique against
his attacker that frees him from the hold. Again — unarmed action is the only speedy action that stands a chance of being speedy enough in such a situation . . . (unless of course the “attacker” is a practice partner) to actually work. One’s concealed weapon — or one’s holstered sidearm, if one is a uniformed officer — cannot be brought into play quickly enough. That mugger will have snapped you backward and perhaps choked you out before you can even get your folding knife or expandable baton in hand!
We are 100% in favor of the use of modern weapons in personal defense and close
combat. We regard weapons as integral to the overall program that we ourself
teach, and this has always been the case. But make no mistake about it, weapons are not enough.
You must have unarmed combat ability.
Often, in situations where you are not only justified but well advised to access, say, a loaded handgun, you will be unable to do so until and unless you secure sufficient distance, time, and space. Well executed blows of the hands and feet, and practiced maneuvering that works in hand-to-hand situations will enable you to do this — and will enable you to save your life and quite possibly the lives of others. Your “target” in a close quarters combat situation will not be a cardboard outline, conveniently placed ten to 30 feet away, in broad daylight, giving you time to prepare ahead of time for the event, and giving you plenty of distance, time, and space right now to enable you to draw from your range rig, and place two neat holes in the kill zone. Get real.
Gun trumps knife, right? We have heard potbellied, beer-drinking, gun buff
“yahoos” who “roll their own” in their garages assert that, in a situation where a punk pulled a knife they’d “just shoot him”. Really? You think so? Well, if you had a handgun positioned and leveled at the “punk”, and if you were all set to pull the trigger, and if that “punk” was perhaps 25 to 30 feet away, and had not yet drawn his knife, but was seen by you in time to be undertaking to do just that . . . maybe you could “just shoot him”. But in the real world, if you lack unarmed combat skills, any determined would-be killer will get you first. He will get in close and he will have stabbed and slashed you ten times before you can even think of reaching for that holstered sidearm under your jacket.
Not that you could be certain of defending yourself adequately even if you were an unarmed combat expert. The knife attacker still has a great advantage. But if your body is trained to move correctly and to make ferocious and immediate use of your natural weapons, you stand a chance of surviving.
Real world, people; real world.
And the idiocy that is advanced as “self-defense use of the folding knife” would
be comical, if it were not presented seriously, and in a tone that suggests the
advocate of this crap is some kind of “combat expert”!
Yes, certainly a stoutly constructed folding knife can be an excellent weapon in a
defensive emergency. However, it is nowhere near as effective a weapon as a fixed
blade combat knife, and all of those who believe that their “combat folders” make them bad news for muggers are fools.
It takes time to access and then open a folding knife. Time is what you have
precious little of in any violent emergency, and “going for your folding knife”
sets you up exactly as going for your holstered handgun does, in any predicament
where you are attacked by one or more street bacteria up close. And face it: This is how it generally happens.
Again, unarmed skills are instantly available, and will clear the way for your being able to access that folder. What’s more, hitting your attacker — jabbing, smashing, and pounding him real hard in his vulnerable target areas — with the ends of your closed folding knife in hand is often the best preliminary tactic that allows you the time to open the folder, in the first place. Unarmed combat training teaches you how and where to hit your attacker with that closed folding knife, and this is important.
Few weapons are as effective for practical defense as a good, strong walking stick
(or, for a police officer, a simple hardwood baton — NOT one of those damn “expandable” pieces of s—t that deserves to be discarded along with pepper spray and mace). Still, one might find that an attacker seizes one’s walking stick (or baton), and a struggle ensues in which unarmed combat skills will prove essential for achieving dominance over the aggressor.
Quality training in unarmed close combat provides the key foundational elements
for success in all close combat — armed included:
√ It teaches you to have self-confidence (as opposed to confidence in a hand held
weapon).
√ It teaches you how to move, position yourself, and interface with potential and
actual troublemakers.
√ It teaches you how to strike and how to kick, and it trains you in the enemy’s
vital target areas . . . areas as susceptible to weapon as to unarmed trauma.
√ It teaches you attitude and mindset, without which no weapon on earth is of any value; and with which, even some random object-at-hand will serve well and lethally in a dangerous emergency.
√ It trains you in general self-defense tactics and strategy, in the principles of
protection, and in the realities of close-in individual battle.
√ It enjoins you to establish a serious routine of personal physical training, so as
to get and stay fit, strong, conditioned, ready, and confident that you are able to
meet whatever comes.
The modern student of self-defense, as we have been emphasizing since the late
1960’s, needs unarmed and armed modern combat skills in order to be a rounded, balanced, ready-for-anything combatant.
The word to all of you weapons buffs: If you keep those weapons for self-defense, then make certain you’ve got a solid capability with unarmed combat to
bolster and to back up their use!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
How Much Do You Know About Psychopaths?
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IF your answer is “Very little, if anything,” you are in excellent company. Most practicing psychologists know very little if anything about psychopaths. And, truth be told, there are almost certainly more psychopaths teaching the martial arts than there are martial arts teachers who know anything meaningful about psychopaths, per se!
In unfortunately too brief and encapsulated an explanation, the psychopath is an individual who possesses no conscience, for whom the person and property of
others means nothing (save that these others represent “things” for his use,
manipulation, and consumption), and who apparently exists in a kind of “world
consisting solely of himself” and in a universe in which “only the gratification of his own personal impulses” holds any motivational power over him. The psychopath may be defined as being, in his philosophy and behavior, antisocial.
Not all psychopaths are violent offenders. Most violent offenders, however —
certainly the horrific violent offenders — do tend to be psychopaths.
Rent or purchase the motion picture FUNNY GAMES. That is a chilling and
outstandingly enacted presentation of the psychopathic victimization of, for want
of a better term, “normal” people. IN COLD BLOOD is another motion picture
that you might wish to search out, as is the documentary HELTER SKELTER. Of
course you could always read those last two books, as we require our students to
do, but if you’re more inclined to sit back and watch and listen than you are to
read (as many people seem to be, today) then rent the two movies.
The psychologist Robert D. Hare is certainly one of the world’s great authorities
today on psychopaths. In fact he may be considered to be the authority on the
subject by many. His books are highly readable by lay people, and we recommend
them strongly.
TWO OF Dr. HARE’S GREAT WORKS ON THE PSYCHOPATH. WE RECOMMEND
THAT EVERY STUDENT OF SELF-DEFENSE OBTAIN AND STUDY BOTH THESE
OUTSTANDING BOOKS.
Alan Harrington authored a wonderful book, PSYCHOPATHS, which has been on
our students’ required reading list for decades. In fact, one of our students, the
late psychiatrist Gary Tucker, MD (who was head of Psychiatry at the University
of Washington School of Medicine, and who appeared in the “top 100 physicians
in America” book) knew Harrington, and agreed with us that the book is
excellent. Unfortunately it is out of print; but it is well worth hunting for.
THE MASK OF SANITY, by Hervey Cleckley, MD is the classic text on
psychopathy, and has long been on our students’ list of required readings, but
many find this valuable tome to be too onerous a task. We think that tackling it is
well worthwhile.
Some visitors might ask: “I am studying self-defense. Granted I need to know how
to recognize and handle potentially dangerous violent threats, but why would you
recommend my studying psychopaths per se in such depth and detail?”
Our answer is: The martial arts is inundated with mystical and fanciful, and also
with utterly irrelevant B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Your objective, whether you realize it or not, requires that you become a hardheaded realist and focus upon learning about whatever constitutes the real threats in the real world; and psychopaths — especially the violent ones — are your greatest potential problem. Learning about them, getting to understand how to identify them, coming to grips with the serious life-threatening danger that the worst of them may pose to YOU and to YOURS is critical. Do not think that “you can tell” if someone is or is not a danger, merely by his appearance, his initial behavior, or whatever stated beliefs and convictions he might express. Mundo nulla fides (“trust no one”; at least no one who you do not know, personally and well, and for a long time!). Nothing can achieve the necessary cautionary mindset and — if required — mercilessly aggressive and decisive offensive mindset that you MUST POSSESS for self-defense better than coming personally to grips with a serious understanding of how predators think, feel, function, and will gladly strive to violate and injure you in the worst possible ways.
Some unfortunate innocents believe that we exaggerate or embellish when we
speak of the pure evil and the ferocious danger posed to them by would-be
assailants and trouble-making violators. The cure for this — for them — may well be their independent exposure via a careful study on their own of the works of
psychological and psychiatric professionals, to an explanation of the hideously real
threat that the psychopath presents to all decent human beings in modern society.
Our advice: Throw away the books on fanciful nonsense and the macho crap about
how to be the baddest dude in the world of challenge fighting, and start educating
yourself in that which you really need to know about the very real enemy whom you are likely to face if you are ever attacked, and against whom you will also want to be able to defend those you love.
If you know little about psychopaths, correct that as soon as possible! Study this subject! If you are a self-defense instructor you have an obligation to become educated in this area.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IF your answer is “Very little, if anything,” you are in excellent company. Most practicing psychologists know very little if anything about psychopaths. And, truth be told, there are almost certainly more psychopaths teaching the martial arts than there are martial arts teachers who know anything meaningful about psychopaths, per se!
In unfortunately too brief and encapsulated an explanation, the psychopath is an individual who possesses no conscience, for whom the person and property of
others means nothing (save that these others represent “things” for his use,
manipulation, and consumption), and who apparently exists in a kind of “world
consisting solely of himself” and in a universe in which “only the gratification of his own personal impulses” holds any motivational power over him. The psychopath may be defined as being, in his philosophy and behavior, antisocial.
Not all psychopaths are violent offenders. Most violent offenders, however —
certainly the horrific violent offenders — do tend to be psychopaths.
Rent or purchase the motion picture FUNNY GAMES. That is a chilling and
outstandingly enacted presentation of the psychopathic victimization of, for want
of a better term, “normal” people. IN COLD BLOOD is another motion picture
that you might wish to search out, as is the documentary HELTER SKELTER. Of
course you could always read those last two books, as we require our students to
do, but if you’re more inclined to sit back and watch and listen than you are to
read (as many people seem to be, today) then rent the two movies.
The psychologist Robert D. Hare is certainly one of the world’s great authorities
today on psychopaths. In fact he may be considered to be the authority on the
subject by many. His books are highly readable by lay people, and we recommend
them strongly.
TWO OF Dr. HARE’S GREAT WORKS ON THE PSYCHOPATH. WE RECOMMEND
THAT EVERY STUDENT OF SELF-DEFENSE OBTAIN AND STUDY BOTH THESE
OUTSTANDING BOOKS.
Alan Harrington authored a wonderful book, PSYCHOPATHS, which has been on
our students’ required reading list for decades. In fact, one of our students, the
late psychiatrist Gary Tucker, MD (who was head of Psychiatry at the University
of Washington School of Medicine, and who appeared in the “top 100 physicians
in America” book) knew Harrington, and agreed with us that the book is
excellent. Unfortunately it is out of print; but it is well worth hunting for.
THE MASK OF SANITY, by Hervey Cleckley, MD is the classic text on
psychopathy, and has long been on our students’ list of required readings, but
many find this valuable tome to be too onerous a task. We think that tackling it is
well worthwhile.
Some visitors might ask: “I am studying self-defense. Granted I need to know how
to recognize and handle potentially dangerous violent threats, but why would you
recommend my studying psychopaths per se in such depth and detail?”
Our answer is: The martial arts is inundated with mystical and fanciful, and also
with utterly irrelevant B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T. Your objective, whether you realize it or not, requires that you become a hardheaded realist and focus upon learning about whatever constitutes the real threats in the real world; and psychopaths — especially the violent ones — are your greatest potential problem. Learning about them, getting to understand how to identify them, coming to grips with the serious life-threatening danger that the worst of them may pose to YOU and to YOURS is critical. Do not think that “you can tell” if someone is or is not a danger, merely by his appearance, his initial behavior, or whatever stated beliefs and convictions he might express. Mundo nulla fides (“trust no one”; at least no one who you do not know, personally and well, and for a long time!). Nothing can achieve the necessary cautionary mindset and — if required — mercilessly aggressive and decisive offensive mindset that you MUST POSSESS for self-defense better than coming personally to grips with a serious understanding of how predators think, feel, function, and will gladly strive to violate and injure you in the worst possible ways.
Some unfortunate innocents believe that we exaggerate or embellish when we
speak of the pure evil and the ferocious danger posed to them by would-be
assailants and trouble-making violators. The cure for this — for them — may well be their independent exposure via a careful study on their own of the works of
psychological and psychiatric professionals, to an explanation of the hideously real
threat that the psychopath presents to all decent human beings in modern society.
Our advice: Throw away the books on fanciful nonsense and the macho crap about
how to be the baddest dude in the world of challenge fighting, and start educating
yourself in that which you really need to know about the very real enemy whom you are likely to face if you are ever attacked, and against whom you will also want to be able to defend those you love.
If you know little about psychopaths, correct that as soon as possible! Study this subject! If you are a self-defense instructor you have an obligation to become educated in this area.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
On The Need To Be Ambidextrous
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have said it many times before, and it is a truth that bears repeating frequently: Any form of competitive match “fighting” or sporting contests actually train you to do the wrong things, as far as self-defense and close combat is concerned. There is nothing wrong with sporting competition per se, but you are making a huge mistake if your interest is in personal combat and defense skills, and you believe that you can attain your objectives by becoming a competition fighter.
Remember Bruce Lee? Remember the Bruce Lee fad? One of the notable things
about Lee’s teaching is an excellent representative example of precisely how
misleading it really is to confuse that which prepares a man to spar and to compete, versus that which prepares a man to engage an enemy or an adversary in close combat.
Bruce Lee introduced the idea of the STRONG SIDE LEAD in a fighting stance. Unlike the boxer’s weak hand lead, Lee advanced the idea that leading with your strong side made the most sense in serious self-defense (as Lee erroneously imagined “serious self-defense” to be). The truth is, of course, that the practice of consciously leading with either hand or side makes sense only when referring to competition and to sport. Otherwise, for personal combat in self-defense, the idea is nonsense.
If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching
stranger is your left side, then a left side “lead” position makes sense. If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching stranger is your right side, then a right side “lead” makes sense. And here, of course, when we refer to a “lead” we mean in that which we call a RELAXED-READY STANCE — i.e. off-angled, facing the individual at a 45-degree angle — we most certainly do not mean any sort of formal and obvious “fighting stance” per se.
YOU CAN CANCEL A SPARRING MATCH OR CONTEST IF THIS HAPPENS, BUT
YOU JUST MIGHT BECOME A MORE LIKELY TARGET FOR ATTACK! IN A
SITUATION WHERE ONE ARM IS IMMOBILIZED, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO USE
YOUR OTHER ARM T MAXIMUM EFFECT IN AN EMERGENCY!
Being steeped in the absurdity of “competition-as-preparation-for-combat” it is certain that many will not comprehend in the slightest the idea that a fighting stance per se is not needed for self-defense. This is because only two possibilities exist as far as self-defense is concerned:
1. You will be aware of the troublemaker’s
approach, or
2. You will not be aware of his approach.
If you are aware of the approach of ANY STRANGER you will (if properly trained) assume a relaxed-ready stance. You will be off-angled, distanced just outside of arms’ reach - where you will stay - and your eyes will remain on the stranger’s face, as your own hands rest unobtrusively at your own sternum level. Whether your left or right side “leads” will of course depend upon which side most expediently faces the stranger at his approach. Now, you are ready. You will maintain your relaxed-ready position, and you will keep yourself properly distanced until or unless this stranger initiates aggression. If he does, you will ATTACK, and you will keep on attacking until he is no longer a threat. No assumption of any other “stance” is required. In relaxed-ready you are in as excellent a “fighting stance” (and you telegraph NOTHING) as you would be in if
you were in the most exotic “martial arts pose” imaginable.
If you are not aware of the approach of anyone who attacks you, then he will get his initial action in against you, at the very least (assuming that he does not kill, cripple, or knock you out). While such a predicament is not always or necessarily hopeless, it isn’t good. You will be able to cope with such a situation if — and only if — the attacker’s action fails to neutralize you and if you are capable of generating an effective counterattack. But you will certainly not attempt to assume a “fighting stance” after an attack against you is launched, and you have been seized, struck, or rushed.
Is it really that simple? Yes.
There is NO correlation between close combat and self-defense and competition or sport. None. Nada. And one of the great myths (perhaps cons would be a better term, in some instances) is that notion that there in fact is such a correlation, and that if one wishes to be ready to defend himself or handle an enemy in hand-tohand combat then he’d better become some kind of a contest fighter.
When people face off for a contest (or for a “fight” per se, which only morons agree to) then and only then do they utilize “stances”. And only then might it make some sense to suggest that a “weak side” or a “strong side” lead is more or less desirable for the encounter.
BEING “RIGHT HANDED” OR “LEFT HANDED” AND ASSUMING A “FIGHTING
STANCE” THAT REFLECTS THAT PREFERENTIAL METHOD OF EXCHANGING
TECHNIQUES MAKES PERFECT SENSE IN BOXING, KARATE, AND IN ALL FORMS
OF PHYSICAL CONTEST AND SPORT. BUT THIS IS A MISTAKE IN PREPARING FOR
PERSONAL DEFENSE OR UNARMED CLOSE COMBAT.
But back to ambidexterity.
No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a weak side. Preparation for real world personal combat requires that both hands/arms/elbows/legs be equally capable of generating decisive force — and that they be equally able to render accurate and speedy actions under the stress of an emergency situation.
There is a corollary to the above: No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a strong side! If you do feel that you have a “strong side” then you will be influenced accordingly in how you attempt to manage a confrontation. This is an unnecessary impediment to simply attacking and destroying, and in serious self-defense and close combat you cannot afford ANY impediments.
Remember that the first awareness you might have that you are in fact under
attack is a sudden injury to, or immobilizing seizure of, your “strong” arm. Then, consider how your ability to resist and your personal confidence at the moment might be affected. But if you are ambidextrous and function with equal efficiency and strength on both sides with all four limbs you will stand a greater chance of effective retaliatory action.
You may have something in your “strong” hand at the time of an approach.
Obviously, if what is in your hand is a weapon, and if you are holding it properly so that an attack can be initiated by employing it, you will not likely be attacked or approached in the first place (except perhaps by a police officer!). If what you are holding is an object that can serve as a weapon, then you will be obliged to employ your “weak” hand to assist in what you do with that improvised weapon. If the object in your hand will not serve as a weapon, then you will throw it into the adversary’s face if you are attacked, and your followup will likely be with your “weak” hand. Should the weapon/object be in your “weak” and not in your “strong” hand, then you will want to have the ability to use that weapon/object with the same authority as you would, had it been in your “strong” hand.
You cannot afford to have this “weak” and “strong” hand dichotomy
operating in a potentially hindering way against you in any emergency! You want both hands/sides to possess the speed, strength, and capacity for accuracy, so that regardless of whether you are unarmed or armed, and no matter how you may be approached or suddenly find yourself confronting anyone, you are ready.
The attainment of ambidexterity in developing close combat and self-defense
skills is not difficult. Mainly, it is something that you must simply be aware needs doin.
Left-handed people, in our experience, tend to be much more naturally capable of using their right hands well than are right-handed people able to use their left hands. Still, except in the rarest of cases, both left and right-handed individuals need to address the matter of cultivating what we call “bad side proficiency” when they come to training in this subject.
The following suggestions should be helpful:
• Obviously, never fail to practice any technique or action on both sides when you learn them and when you train in developing them. At the very least do an equal amount of training on whichever side and for whichever limb initially tends to be weaker than the other.
• It is very often helpful, especially during the first six to twelve months of training, to devote more time and effort to whichever is your weaker side. It does not follow, by the way, that because you are right-handed you will therefore be “right-legged”, etc. Some people do initially favor, for example, their right hand and their right leg (when hand striking and when kicking), but some people do not. If you find that your right-handedness is accompanied by left-leggedness, do not feel that you are abnormal. You are quite normal, as people do tend naturally to vary in this regard.
• During your daily activities consciously make yourself use whichever hand is your “weak” hand. Carry things in your weak hand. Open doors with your weak hand. Turn on faucets with your weak hand, and turn them off with your weak hand. Lift things with your weak hand. Etcetera.
• Until you feel ambidextrous with any given action, do more repetitions of it with the side that lags behind. This will not be necessary for very long. However, it is a truly valuable way to speed up the process of ambidexterity in combative skills development.
• A most valuable training method is to allow yourself only the use of your “weak” hand and arm when drilling in counterattacking and attacking techniques. This forces you to rely upon what would normally be your weaker side, when training in skills that normally allow you the use of both hands.
• If you have access to a chinning bar, practice simply suspending your weight while holding onto the bar with your “weak” hand. This is an excellent strengthener.
• Going through a normal training class or practice session, use a light (2-1/2 or 5 pound) ankle or wrist weight on your “weak” side limb. Caution: Do not do this more than once a week.
• Aside from the attacking and counterattacking (i.e. “self-defense”) techniques that you must drill in, remember always to train both sides when working on the assumption of a relaxed-ready stance, moving in the relaxed-ready stance, and when executing the various evasive steps (“taisabaki”) of side-stepping, pivoting, turning, etc. that play a critical part in reacting to many forms of physical aggression.
We also want to mention this: Insofar as weapons — stick, fighting knife,
tomahawk, handgun, shoulder weapon — are concerned, it is surprisingly easy to develop ambidexterity. You will see this for yourself as you learn and train, and as you are introduced to the use of weaponry, in the course of your combatives development. We mention it now to round out this discussion. It is mainly with unarmed skills that the matter of developing both left and right sides equally requires serious attention and merits concern by teacher an by students.
Sword and Pen – December 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have said it many times before, and it is a truth that bears repeating frequently: Any form of competitive match “fighting” or sporting contests actually train you to do the wrong things, as far as self-defense and close combat is concerned. There is nothing wrong with sporting competition per se, but you are making a huge mistake if your interest is in personal combat and defense skills, and you believe that you can attain your objectives by becoming a competition fighter.
Remember Bruce Lee? Remember the Bruce Lee fad? One of the notable things
about Lee’s teaching is an excellent representative example of precisely how
misleading it really is to confuse that which prepares a man to spar and to compete, versus that which prepares a man to engage an enemy or an adversary in close combat.
Bruce Lee introduced the idea of the STRONG SIDE LEAD in a fighting stance. Unlike the boxer’s weak hand lead, Lee advanced the idea that leading with your strong side made the most sense in serious self-defense (as Lee erroneously imagined “serious self-defense” to be). The truth is, of course, that the practice of consciously leading with either hand or side makes sense only when referring to competition and to sport. Otherwise, for personal combat in self-defense, the idea is nonsense.
If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching
stranger is your left side, then a left side “lead” position makes sense. If the speediest and most natural position from which to face an approaching stranger is your right side, then a right side “lead” makes sense. And here, of course, when we refer to a “lead” we mean in that which we call a RELAXED-READY STANCE — i.e. off-angled, facing the individual at a 45-degree angle — we most certainly do not mean any sort of formal and obvious “fighting stance” per se.
YOU CAN CANCEL A SPARRING MATCH OR CONTEST IF THIS HAPPENS, BUT
YOU JUST MIGHT BECOME A MORE LIKELY TARGET FOR ATTACK! IN A
SITUATION WHERE ONE ARM IS IMMOBILIZED, YOU MUST BE ABLE TO USE
YOUR OTHER ARM T MAXIMUM EFFECT IN AN EMERGENCY!
Being steeped in the absurdity of “competition-as-preparation-for-combat” it is certain that many will not comprehend in the slightest the idea that a fighting stance per se is not needed for self-defense. This is because only two possibilities exist as far as self-defense is concerned:
1. You will be aware of the troublemaker’s
approach, or
2. You will not be aware of his approach.
If you are aware of the approach of ANY STRANGER you will (if properly trained) assume a relaxed-ready stance. You will be off-angled, distanced just outside of arms’ reach - where you will stay - and your eyes will remain on the stranger’s face, as your own hands rest unobtrusively at your own sternum level. Whether your left or right side “leads” will of course depend upon which side most expediently faces the stranger at his approach. Now, you are ready. You will maintain your relaxed-ready position, and you will keep yourself properly distanced until or unless this stranger initiates aggression. If he does, you will ATTACK, and you will keep on attacking until he is no longer a threat. No assumption of any other “stance” is required. In relaxed-ready you are in as excellent a “fighting stance” (and you telegraph NOTHING) as you would be in if
you were in the most exotic “martial arts pose” imaginable.
If you are not aware of the approach of anyone who attacks you, then he will get his initial action in against you, at the very least (assuming that he does not kill, cripple, or knock you out). While such a predicament is not always or necessarily hopeless, it isn’t good. You will be able to cope with such a situation if — and only if — the attacker’s action fails to neutralize you and if you are capable of generating an effective counterattack. But you will certainly not attempt to assume a “fighting stance” after an attack against you is launched, and you have been seized, struck, or rushed.
Is it really that simple? Yes.
There is NO correlation between close combat and self-defense and competition or sport. None. Nada. And one of the great myths (perhaps cons would be a better term, in some instances) is that notion that there in fact is such a correlation, and that if one wishes to be ready to defend himself or handle an enemy in hand-tohand combat then he’d better become some kind of a contest fighter.
When people face off for a contest (or for a “fight” per se, which only morons agree to) then and only then do they utilize “stances”. And only then might it make some sense to suggest that a “weak side” or a “strong side” lead is more or less desirable for the encounter.
BEING “RIGHT HANDED” OR “LEFT HANDED” AND ASSUMING A “FIGHTING
STANCE” THAT REFLECTS THAT PREFERENTIAL METHOD OF EXCHANGING
TECHNIQUES MAKES PERFECT SENSE IN BOXING, KARATE, AND IN ALL FORMS
OF PHYSICAL CONTEST AND SPORT. BUT THIS IS A MISTAKE IN PREPARING FOR
PERSONAL DEFENSE OR UNARMED CLOSE COMBAT.
But back to ambidexterity.
No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a weak side. Preparation for real world personal combat requires that both hands/arms/elbows/legs be equally capable of generating decisive force — and that they be equally able to render accurate and speedy actions under the stress of an emergency situation.
There is a corollary to the above: No hand-to-hand combat student can afford to have a strong side! If you do feel that you have a “strong side” then you will be influenced accordingly in how you attempt to manage a confrontation. This is an unnecessary impediment to simply attacking and destroying, and in serious self-defense and close combat you cannot afford ANY impediments.
Remember that the first awareness you might have that you are in fact under
attack is a sudden injury to, or immobilizing seizure of, your “strong” arm. Then, consider how your ability to resist and your personal confidence at the moment might be affected. But if you are ambidextrous and function with equal efficiency and strength on both sides with all four limbs you will stand a greater chance of effective retaliatory action.
You may have something in your “strong” hand at the time of an approach.
Obviously, if what is in your hand is a weapon, and if you are holding it properly so that an attack can be initiated by employing it, you will not likely be attacked or approached in the first place (except perhaps by a police officer!). If what you are holding is an object that can serve as a weapon, then you will be obliged to employ your “weak” hand to assist in what you do with that improvised weapon. If the object in your hand will not serve as a weapon, then you will throw it into the adversary’s face if you are attacked, and your followup will likely be with your “weak” hand. Should the weapon/object be in your “weak” and not in your “strong” hand, then you will want to have the ability to use that weapon/object with the same authority as you would, had it been in your “strong” hand.
You cannot afford to have this “weak” and “strong” hand dichotomy
operating in a potentially hindering way against you in any emergency! You want both hands/sides to possess the speed, strength, and capacity for accuracy, so that regardless of whether you are unarmed or armed, and no matter how you may be approached or suddenly find yourself confronting anyone, you are ready.
The attainment of ambidexterity in developing close combat and self-defense
skills is not difficult. Mainly, it is something that you must simply be aware needs doin.
Left-handed people, in our experience, tend to be much more naturally capable of using their right hands well than are right-handed people able to use their left hands. Still, except in the rarest of cases, both left and right-handed individuals need to address the matter of cultivating what we call “bad side proficiency” when they come to training in this subject.
The following suggestions should be helpful:
• Obviously, never fail to practice any technique or action on both sides when you learn them and when you train in developing them. At the very least do an equal amount of training on whichever side and for whichever limb initially tends to be weaker than the other.
• It is very often helpful, especially during the first six to twelve months of training, to devote more time and effort to whichever is your weaker side. It does not follow, by the way, that because you are right-handed you will therefore be “right-legged”, etc. Some people do initially favor, for example, their right hand and their right leg (when hand striking and when kicking), but some people do not. If you find that your right-handedness is accompanied by left-leggedness, do not feel that you are abnormal. You are quite normal, as people do tend naturally to vary in this regard.
• During your daily activities consciously make yourself use whichever hand is your “weak” hand. Carry things in your weak hand. Open doors with your weak hand. Turn on faucets with your weak hand, and turn them off with your weak hand. Lift things with your weak hand. Etcetera.
• Until you feel ambidextrous with any given action, do more repetitions of it with the side that lags behind. This will not be necessary for very long. However, it is a truly valuable way to speed up the process of ambidexterity in combative skills development.
• A most valuable training method is to allow yourself only the use of your “weak” hand and arm when drilling in counterattacking and attacking techniques. This forces you to rely upon what would normally be your weaker side, when training in skills that normally allow you the use of both hands.
• If you have access to a chinning bar, practice simply suspending your weight while holding onto the bar with your “weak” hand. This is an excellent strengthener.
• Going through a normal training class or practice session, use a light (2-1/2 or 5 pound) ankle or wrist weight on your “weak” side limb. Caution: Do not do this more than once a week.
• Aside from the attacking and counterattacking (i.e. “self-defense”) techniques that you must drill in, remember always to train both sides when working on the assumption of a relaxed-ready stance, moving in the relaxed-ready stance, and when executing the various evasive steps (“taisabaki”) of side-stepping, pivoting, turning, etc. that play a critical part in reacting to many forms of physical aggression.
We also want to mention this: Insofar as weapons — stick, fighting knife,
tomahawk, handgun, shoulder weapon — are concerned, it is surprisingly easy to develop ambidexterity. You will see this for yourself as you learn and train, and as you are introduced to the use of weaponry, in the course of your combatives development. We mention it now to round out this discussion. It is mainly with unarmed skills that the matter of developing both left and right sides equally requires serious attention and merits concern by teacher an by students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)