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.