This originally started out as an e-mail to Bradley J. Steiner. As happens with my e-mails probably far too often, it's come alive and turned into a blog post...
A lot is being read into this clip: much about how the majority of people did nothing, or ran away when they could have responded quickly and likely ended this attack before anyone was killed. At the beginning of the attack, there are probably over a dozen people immediately adjacent to the shooter. That crowd could have beaten the bastard to death within a matter of seconds and it's likely that none of them would have been injured to a life-threatening degree.
However, the video camera has a better angle than any of the observers. It's away and above the action. Roughly 90% of the panicked bystanders likely never saw the shooter initially and were simply moving away from the sound an dalong with the rest of "the herd". Think... if you were standing there and were five or ten people deep, (scratching yourself, picking your nose or reading a newspaper) would you stand there looking for the shooter when you heard the first shots or do your best to GTFO?
I was looking at how restrictive ones options would have been. If I were not close enough at the inception of the shooting, I'd be deciding whether or not I could still manage to rush (or even FIND)the shooter while tripping over the stampeding bodies around me. Once the crowd clears, he's moved to a significant distance and the "hero" gets killed attempting to close that distance unarmed and without any element of surprise or advantage. In fact, the hero has already been shot at least once. The others who attempted to intervene did so in a half-hearted and non-committal fashion. None of them actually make an attempt to attack the attacker but instead close while maintaining just enough distance to allow him to continue putting bullets into them.
So understand that if you're in the target zone... YOU ARE A TARGET and running towards or away from a nearby doesn't do much more than change the impact point from your chest to your back. The officer shot in the first seconds ran away... and he died. If you're ten feet away from the shooter but 75-feet away from cover... RUSH AND KILL THE SHOOTER! Accept that you're going to get shot but not necessarily die. Don't think about dying. In fact your chances of surviving are a hell of a lot better if you do everything within your power to take that worthless SoB with you. The survival ratio for gunshot wounds is actually quite good. Fighting back increases your odds of survival.
Honestly... it's easy to talk about rushing the shooter... but we MUST remember that we're looking to GO FERAL! Summon the ABSOLUTE MOST HATEFUL, BRUTAL, BLOODTHIRSTY RAGE that you can possibly muster... try to multiply that 1,000-fold and GO FOR IT! Can't imagine that? Well, if you're a parent, imagine someone attempting to abduct or harm your child. Hopefully... your response would be something akin to what I'm describing. If not... then please consider giving your children up for adoption. Your unfit to care for the innocent.
Two things that occurred to me after watching this multiple times were 1) initially he's almost TOO CLOSE for someone to draw and use a firearm. Anyone with decent hand-to-hand skills could hit him half-a-dozen times in a vital area before most people can draw, acquire and pull the trigger. Probably better to simply start wailing on the guy, beat him to the ground and kick his skull in. 2) Once the crowd clears he's now almost TOO FAR AWAY to shoot at with a handgun. Your backstop is the crowd at that point and he looks to be in excess of 50-feet away. I suppose some IDPA commando will claim to be able to easily make that shot while hunching, clenching his bowels and fighting tunnel vision. You also have incoming rounds and people running across your field of fire.
You cannot escape the instinctive body responses and you cannot "train them away". You CAN train to recognize, accept and compensate for them somewhat. You'll feel the fight-or-flight, the adrenal dump, the visual and auditory exclusion to a degree whether shooting, running away or towards, or standing still. It's one reason that witnesses can see a violent scene point-blank and not recover critical and obvious details in a conscious state.
If you train to expect this, you're less likely to freeze... which is the one thing that likely WILL get you killed.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, December 17, 2010
Learning Techniques Is Not The Same Thing As Developing Them
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IF you had a mind to do so, you could purchase a manual that would teach you the information you needed to know in order to fly a plane. Or you could buy an instructional medical text that would explain the procedure necessary for performing open heart surgery. Or — you could probably “learn how” (theoretically) to fly a plane or do open heart surgery within a day or so of personal classroom lecture by an expert. The problem is not learning how to do such things; the problem is becoming able to do them.
It’s very similar with close combat and self-defense.
It is probable that we could explain and describe with sufficient clarity to convey a full intellectual understanding of the contents and particulars of our System to any intelligent adult in less than 50 hours. However, it would be a very prodigious individual, indeed, who could pass from white belt to green belt — our first two promotional levels — in only 50 hours of combined class and individual practice time.
It’s not that the techniques or tactical and strategic concepts are complicated or difficult to learn. Quite to the contrary; they are easy to learn. That’s why they are so practical and effective. However, they must be acquired through practice. Only repetitious drill imparts physical ability. Combat techniques are motor skills, not mathematical formulae which, once read and remembered, remain forever available in your mind. You have to spend time in physically practicing and drilling in order to make the techniques of personal combat, with and without
weapons, “yours”.
Although we cannot speak for other systems, styles, schools, or instructors, we will offer our opinion that most if not all would be in agreement with us. Assuming that the acquisition of any form of physical skill is in question, then it stands to reason that practicing it sufficiently to achieve the capability to do it would be axiomatic.
And more. The art of close combat and self-defense is a CRITICAL skill; it is not a “recreational” or a merely mundane, utilitarian skill. If and when you ever need to employ unarmed hand-to-hand combat techniques, a stick in personal defense, or a knife or a pistol, etc. in military or other desperate close combat, it will be a grave matter of life or death, and you will need your skill very, very badly, indeed!
If you really want to be able to use the techniques of close combat then reconcile yourself to the need for practice, practice, and still more practice.
One of the reasons we wish to emphasize this point is precisely because quality techniques are easy to learn (if they weren’t, they’d be useless for emergencies) and this can be misleading for the novice. Upon seeing how readily he can understand and begin to perform the skills that he is taught he mustn’t get the idea that that is that, and now he’s ready to go to war! He is far from ready to do anything after he is taught a new technique, except begin hard and regular training on that technique.
Though few will actually do this, we recommend the following in order to
experience and really feel what we are talking about in regard to mastering a technique and becoming able to DO it, as well as “knowing” it:
Take your favorite unarmed combat blow. It could be a hand strike, an elbow
blow, a kick, or whatever you wish. Now set aside fifteen minutes every day, seven days a week, for the next two months and religiously work to your absolute limit on that single technique. Focus mentally and physically. Go all out. Visualize. Go for as hard and intensive a fifteen minute workout on that single technique as your mind and body will permit you to perform. After two months of doing this DAILY (no days off, seven days a week for two months straight) see for yourself the results. That technique will be YOURS. And you will know it and feel it. The impulse to do the technique instantly and automatically will spring forth in a crisis, because you have subconsciously internalized and motormemorized it. Now . . . you can DO it.
You can follow this same procedure with a counterattack that you are especially keen to learn, or with an attack combination, etc. You can (and should) follow it as well with all weapon training.
The unbelievable “Jelly” Bryce (check him out on the internet) was a combat
point shooter whose abilities would never be believed if they were attributed to a fictional character in an action/adventure novel. Yet he was REAL. His “training”? He repeated endless — hour after hour — drill with his draw and point action, in front of a mirror. Result? This man actually DREW ON, AND THEN SHOT AND KILLED, TWO CRIMINAL GUNMEN WHO HAD THEIR WEAPONS IN THEIR HANDS AND POINTED AT HIM! Talk about phenomenal ability.
Bryce was an anomaly. Without the hereditary factors that made Bryce what he was no one could duplicate the man’s capabilities. However, without the hard, relentless practice and drill that this hereditary anomaly willingly and devotedly put in daily, Bryce would never have risen to the heights of incredible combative handgun proficiency that he did in fact rise to.
There is always a price to be paid for anything worthwhile. In the case of close combat and self-defense ability and confidence, the price consists of first coming to appreciate what you need to learn and master, and second, settling down and into the hard, disciplined course of serious training.
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IF you had a mind to do so, you could purchase a manual that would teach you the information you needed to know in order to fly a plane. Or you could buy an instructional medical text that would explain the procedure necessary for performing open heart surgery. Or — you could probably “learn how” (theoretically) to fly a plane or do open heart surgery within a day or so of personal classroom lecture by an expert. The problem is not learning how to do such things; the problem is becoming able to do them.
It’s very similar with close combat and self-defense.
It is probable that we could explain and describe with sufficient clarity to convey a full intellectual understanding of the contents and particulars of our System to any intelligent adult in less than 50 hours. However, it would be a very prodigious individual, indeed, who could pass from white belt to green belt — our first two promotional levels — in only 50 hours of combined class and individual practice time.
It’s not that the techniques or tactical and strategic concepts are complicated or difficult to learn. Quite to the contrary; they are easy to learn. That’s why they are so practical and effective. However, they must be acquired through practice. Only repetitious drill imparts physical ability. Combat techniques are motor skills, not mathematical formulae which, once read and remembered, remain forever available in your mind. You have to spend time in physically practicing and drilling in order to make the techniques of personal combat, with and without
weapons, “yours”.
Although we cannot speak for other systems, styles, schools, or instructors, we will offer our opinion that most if not all would be in agreement with us. Assuming that the acquisition of any form of physical skill is in question, then it stands to reason that practicing it sufficiently to achieve the capability to do it would be axiomatic.
And more. The art of close combat and self-defense is a CRITICAL skill; it is not a “recreational” or a merely mundane, utilitarian skill. If and when you ever need to employ unarmed hand-to-hand combat techniques, a stick in personal defense, or a knife or a pistol, etc. in military or other desperate close combat, it will be a grave matter of life or death, and you will need your skill very, very badly, indeed!
If you really want to be able to use the techniques of close combat then reconcile yourself to the need for practice, practice, and still more practice.
One of the reasons we wish to emphasize this point is precisely because quality techniques are easy to learn (if they weren’t, they’d be useless for emergencies) and this can be misleading for the novice. Upon seeing how readily he can understand and begin to perform the skills that he is taught he mustn’t get the idea that that is that, and now he’s ready to go to war! He is far from ready to do anything after he is taught a new technique, except begin hard and regular training on that technique.
Though few will actually do this, we recommend the following in order to
experience and really feel what we are talking about in regard to mastering a technique and becoming able to DO it, as well as “knowing” it:
Take your favorite unarmed combat blow. It could be a hand strike, an elbow
blow, a kick, or whatever you wish. Now set aside fifteen minutes every day, seven days a week, for the next two months and religiously work to your absolute limit on that single technique. Focus mentally and physically. Go all out. Visualize. Go for as hard and intensive a fifteen minute workout on that single technique as your mind and body will permit you to perform. After two months of doing this DAILY (no days off, seven days a week for two months straight) see for yourself the results. That technique will be YOURS. And you will know it and feel it. The impulse to do the technique instantly and automatically will spring forth in a crisis, because you have subconsciously internalized and motormemorized it. Now . . . you can DO it.
You can follow this same procedure with a counterattack that you are especially keen to learn, or with an attack combination, etc. You can (and should) follow it as well with all weapon training.
The unbelievable “Jelly” Bryce (check him out on the internet) was a combat
point shooter whose abilities would never be believed if they were attributed to a fictional character in an action/adventure novel. Yet he was REAL. His “training”? He repeated endless — hour after hour — drill with his draw and point action, in front of a mirror. Result? This man actually DREW ON, AND THEN SHOT AND KILLED, TWO CRIMINAL GUNMEN WHO HAD THEIR WEAPONS IN THEIR HANDS AND POINTED AT HIM! Talk about phenomenal ability.
Bryce was an anomaly. Without the hereditary factors that made Bryce what he was no one could duplicate the man’s capabilities. However, without the hard, relentless practice and drill that this hereditary anomaly willingly and devotedly put in daily, Bryce would never have risen to the heights of incredible combative handgun proficiency that he did in fact rise to.
There is always a price to be paid for anything worthwhile. In the case of close combat and self-defense ability and confidence, the price consists of first coming to appreciate what you need to learn and master, and second, settling down and into the hard, disciplined course of serious training.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Are You A Grappler Or A Hitter? — And Ought You Consider Transitioning?
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
JUST as there are individuals who, intellectually, are more
“scientific/mathematical” and other individuals who are more “verbal/artistic”, so it is the case in combative inclinations that some people tend to be more inclined to favor a grappling/throwing type of combatives, and others who prefer a striking/kicking type of combatives.
If you are involved in the martial arts for competition and sport, fitness, esthetic satisfaction, cultural fascination, or any combination of those reasons, then it makes not the slightest bit of difference which type of martial orientation you elect to pursue. All are excellent, all offer enormous benefits, and each one is as “real” and as “authentic” as the other. Let no commercial goof ball who is after your money tell you any different! Follow and train hard in that which you enjoy the most.
However, if your purpose in training is to acquire the ability to defeat an enemy in hand-to-hand combat and/or to defend yourself and your family against determined and dangerous physical attackers, it DOES make a difference — a big difference — what approach you decide to pursue in acquiring the skills, tactics, and knowledge that you will need to satisfy your objective. That which works in real combat is known, and has long been objectively established and proven. War, and the application of various approaches to self-defense in various “urban
jungles” throughout the world for over 100 years has taught us without doubt and beyond question what is required to meet the requirements of actual man-to-man close-in armed and unarmed combat.
Primarily, it is a “hitting” (or, to use a more substantial term, “percussionary”) approach that close combat and self-defense requires. Fully 90-95% of effective close combat is striking, kicking, butting, biting, kneeing, gouging, jabbing, and clawing. The rest is simple throwing and strangulation/choking skills. These lastmentioned techniques are not the same as the throwing skills commonly taught and advocated in judo and wrestling.
That blows and not throws comprise the last of combative work is an uncontested and axiomatic truth in professional circles. Even in Kodokan Judo — an Art that is largely to be classified as a grappling/throwing type of art — the advanced and most trusted senior students are made privy to atemiwaza (“body smashing”) techniques, so that they will be able to defend themselves under deadly, extreme conditions and in circumstances where their contest-oriented methods are insufficient.
We are not suggesting that “hitting is better than grappling”. We are insisting that, in real combat, it is largely striking and kicking and gouging and related actions that need to be emphasized.
So what is to be said about those whose orientation and inclination is toward grappling/throwing, if there are any in that camp who seek to train for practical purposes? Simple: Insofar as they perceive their need to be self-defense and actual hand-to-hand combat, these individuals need to reorient their training so that they work at and on more combatively-functional skills.
There is no reason why any martial art study cannot be drastically modified — if self-defense is what the participant is now seeking — so that combative effectiveness and practical realism is achieved. Transitioning from whichever art form one has been training in (i.e. classical/traditional or sporting/competitive) to
combat can be accomplished — normally within a period of only two to three months training time. The same thing applies insofar as the more specialized transitioning from grappling to hitting, is concerned.
It is not desirable to attempt to do both one’s former mode of training and a combatively-oriented form of training. Attempting to depart in two directions at the same time is never a good idea. Make up your mind what you want.
“Hitters” who hail from sporting/competitive venues (i.e. competition karate, kick boxing, Western ring boxing, or bare knuckle type boxing) may have a slightly easier time transitioning to combat training, since they are already “hitters”; but make no mistake about there being a real need for drastic alteration in the curriculum! One neither utilizes the clenched fists for punching as a primary “natural weapon” in hand-to-hand combat, nor does one limit oneself to the kind and style of match hitting (i.e. sparring) that typifies all percussionary sporting methods. Blows and related impact actions that comprise the repertoire of the hand-to-hand fighter are considerably more dangerous, brutal, ruthless, and underhandedly foul than are even the most “aggressive” sporting approaches. However, having learned how to properly generate speed, power, and accuracy, while at the same time having mastered balance during the delivery of strikes and the ability to follow up and keep on hitting does give a “hitter” some degree of advantage when he transitions to hand-to-hand combat.
One advantage that a grappler often has is his familiarity with close-in contact and body-holding; in addition to having some familiarization with how the human body moves when in violent close combat contact. A grappler has a “feel” for body movement up close, when grabbing and holding contact has been secured by either or both parties in the encounter.
One thing that all— hitters, grapplers, and “in-betweeners” — who are involved in a competitive/sporting venue MUST begin afresh to acquire, is a proper degree of COMBAT MINDSET. No competitive sport involves this mental conditioning (nor should it), and until the trainee gets his psyche around the mental aspect of the matter, he will not be an optimally effective all-in hand-to-hand combatant. In this regard, at least, hitters and grapplers have the same task when training for hand-to-hand combat.
So . . . if you’re hitter or a grappler you have a job ahead of you if you wish to transition to close combat and self-defense. You’re already far along the way to possessing the physical fitness and agility, and understanding of body mechanics if you’re good at the hitting or grappling art you’ve had training in; but you do need a new repertoire of skills and a deep revision of your attitude and mental set, so that you’re prepared for combat, instead of a “combat sport”.
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
JUST as there are individuals who, intellectually, are more
“scientific/mathematical” and other individuals who are more “verbal/artistic”, so it is the case in combative inclinations that some people tend to be more inclined to favor a grappling/throwing type of combatives, and others who prefer a striking/kicking type of combatives.
If you are involved in the martial arts for competition and sport, fitness, esthetic satisfaction, cultural fascination, or any combination of those reasons, then it makes not the slightest bit of difference which type of martial orientation you elect to pursue. All are excellent, all offer enormous benefits, and each one is as “real” and as “authentic” as the other. Let no commercial goof ball who is after your money tell you any different! Follow and train hard in that which you enjoy the most.
However, if your purpose in training is to acquire the ability to defeat an enemy in hand-to-hand combat and/or to defend yourself and your family against determined and dangerous physical attackers, it DOES make a difference — a big difference — what approach you decide to pursue in acquiring the skills, tactics, and knowledge that you will need to satisfy your objective. That which works in real combat is known, and has long been objectively established and proven. War, and the application of various approaches to self-defense in various “urban
jungles” throughout the world for over 100 years has taught us without doubt and beyond question what is required to meet the requirements of actual man-to-man close-in armed and unarmed combat.
Primarily, it is a “hitting” (or, to use a more substantial term, “percussionary”) approach that close combat and self-defense requires. Fully 90-95% of effective close combat is striking, kicking, butting, biting, kneeing, gouging, jabbing, and clawing. The rest is simple throwing and strangulation/choking skills. These lastmentioned techniques are not the same as the throwing skills commonly taught and advocated in judo and wrestling.
That blows and not throws comprise the last of combative work is an uncontested and axiomatic truth in professional circles. Even in Kodokan Judo — an Art that is largely to be classified as a grappling/throwing type of art — the advanced and most trusted senior students are made privy to atemiwaza (“body smashing”) techniques, so that they will be able to defend themselves under deadly, extreme conditions and in circumstances where their contest-oriented methods are insufficient.
We are not suggesting that “hitting is better than grappling”. We are insisting that, in real combat, it is largely striking and kicking and gouging and related actions that need to be emphasized.
So what is to be said about those whose orientation and inclination is toward grappling/throwing, if there are any in that camp who seek to train for practical purposes? Simple: Insofar as they perceive their need to be self-defense and actual hand-to-hand combat, these individuals need to reorient their training so that they work at and on more combatively-functional skills.
There is no reason why any martial art study cannot be drastically modified — if self-defense is what the participant is now seeking — so that combative effectiveness and practical realism is achieved. Transitioning from whichever art form one has been training in (i.e. classical/traditional or sporting/competitive) to
combat can be accomplished — normally within a period of only two to three months training time. The same thing applies insofar as the more specialized transitioning from grappling to hitting, is concerned.
It is not desirable to attempt to do both one’s former mode of training and a combatively-oriented form of training. Attempting to depart in two directions at the same time is never a good idea. Make up your mind what you want.
“Hitters” who hail from sporting/competitive venues (i.e. competition karate, kick boxing, Western ring boxing, or bare knuckle type boxing) may have a slightly easier time transitioning to combat training, since they are already “hitters”; but make no mistake about there being a real need for drastic alteration in the curriculum! One neither utilizes the clenched fists for punching as a primary “natural weapon” in hand-to-hand combat, nor does one limit oneself to the kind and style of match hitting (i.e. sparring) that typifies all percussionary sporting methods. Blows and related impact actions that comprise the repertoire of the hand-to-hand fighter are considerably more dangerous, brutal, ruthless, and underhandedly foul than are even the most “aggressive” sporting approaches. However, having learned how to properly generate speed, power, and accuracy, while at the same time having mastered balance during the delivery of strikes and the ability to follow up and keep on hitting does give a “hitter” some degree of advantage when he transitions to hand-to-hand combat.
One advantage that a grappler often has is his familiarity with close-in contact and body-holding; in addition to having some familiarization with how the human body moves when in violent close combat contact. A grappler has a “feel” for body movement up close, when grabbing and holding contact has been secured by either or both parties in the encounter.
One thing that all— hitters, grapplers, and “in-betweeners” — who are involved in a competitive/sporting venue MUST begin afresh to acquire, is a proper degree of COMBAT MINDSET. No competitive sport involves this mental conditioning (nor should it), and until the trainee gets his psyche around the mental aspect of the matter, he will not be an optimally effective all-in hand-to-hand combatant. In this regard, at least, hitters and grapplers have the same task when training for hand-to-hand combat.
So . . . if you’re hitter or a grappler you have a job ahead of you if you wish to transition to close combat and self-defense. You’re already far along the way to possessing the physical fitness and agility, and understanding of body mechanics if you’re good at the hitting or grappling art you’ve had training in; but you do need a new repertoire of skills and a deep revision of your attitude and mental set, so that you’re prepared for combat, instead of a “combat sport”.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Finding A Good Teacher
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IN last month’s edition of Sword & Pen we discussed the fact that you did not need to be an expert in order to be able to defend yourself quite adequately. Merely possessing a compact but reasonably adaptable repertoire of practicalskills, and the mindset required to bring them into play when necessary, backed up with a level of strength and fitness that permits power and speed to be behindthose skills and their application, is enough. Naturally, an expert is certainly better off in a crisis than is someone with only minimal skill, but the fact of the matter is this: You can, within a period of several months in many cases, acquire an adequate level of technical knowledge and physical skill with which to defend yourself, in most cases, if you train in a viable close combat and self-defense system. We are obviously partial to that System which we founded in 1975 (i.e. American Combato (Jen•Do•Tao)) and which we teach today, but we readily acknowledge that there are other good methods and approaches taught by others — most especially other Associate Teachers in our Federation — ICMAF — that will certainly deliver what is needed.
A teacher — or, more specifically, a teacher of those skills that you require in order to be able to defend yourself — most definitely does need to be an expert; and the more expert he is, the better. In addition to being a technical expert, the person who teaches, must also possess teaching ability; for without teaching ability it is hit or miss whether, while being taught by this individual, you actually learn that which he is supposedly teaching you.
So how do you find a good teacher of close combat and self-defense? What
professional qualifications and what personal qualities should any prospective teacher possess, before you decide to train under him?
The task was a lot easier 20 to 25 years ago, before this aspect of that which we refer to as the “martial arts” became the fad that in some circles it has become today. The commercializers have caught on to the lingo. With backgrounds in everything from kick boxing and competition judo and karate to (what we personally regard as) the irrelevant and somewhat distasteful background that some have garnered in the challenge event stuff, and on to classical/traditional jujutsu, karate methods, or “kung fu”, those purporting to be teaching serious hand-to-hand combat, unarmed self-defense, practical close combat skills, and armed and unarmed “close range interpersonal confrontations” survival (the Pentagon’s term!) advertise that they —
• Teach skills rooted in the “WWII methods” tradition. (They use the names
“Fairbairn”, “Applegate”, “Biddle”, and “O’Neill”, etc. as though these men were their neighbors or cousins!)
• Teach only simple, practical techniques — “none of the fancy, classical stuff”, etc.
• Are “combat experts”, not competitors
• Do not waste your time with non-combatively effective skills , , ,
etcetera.
Appealing to the psycho type segment out there, some now claim to be offering training that “the government doesn’t want you to have”, the elite military units “don’t want you to know”, and/or training that will “make you someone who is feared”, ad nauseum.
These “teachers” are, in our opinion, the ones to run from. Even if that which they offer technically contains an element of the physically practical, the tone, the attitude and the mindset that such purveyors present is toxic garbage, and negates whatever possible value their skill repertoires might contain. It is not sane, healthy, or desirable in any way, to become the kind of swaggering beast who revels in violence.
Anyone promising to reveal “secrets” should be avoided.
The techniques of close combat are simple, yes; but that does not mean that just anyone is competent to teach them. Western boxing is simpler still (a lot simpler) than close combat and self-defense, yet there are very few men, comparatively speaking, who possess the technical knowledge and expertise, coupled with the teaching ability that makes them legitimate, sought-after boxing trainers. Do not simply enroll with the first person whose rhetoric sounds impressive and who claims to be a “combatives” teacher.
While many who teach close combat have backgrounds (and black belts) in the
more traditional martial arts, this is not true of every one. Jack Dempsey and Bernard Cosneck (a boxer and a wrestler, respectively) collaborated while in the U.S. Coast Guard on devising and teaching a most excellent hand-to-hand or “combat judo” course for officers. Wesley Brown (famed instructor of U.S. Naval aviators during WWII) was a wrestler. So was his partner, Joe Begala. Men with serious backgrounds in boxing and wrestling have on occasion developed an interest in close combat (generally, because they had taken up boxing or wrestling mainly for self-defense and/or because they were pretty tough dudes to begin with, even before they came to their sport). We, ourself have a background in jujutsu, taekwon-do, varmannie, and boxing, in addition, obviously, to decades of WWII-based close-in and unarmed hand-to-hand combat, with and without weapons. We were fortunate to have been able to study with the late Charles Nelson for a considerable time — as Nelson was a real WWII era trainer, who himself trained under Biddle, in the Marine Corps — and Rex Applegate, someone who needs no introduction to anyone in this field.
Nor is it necessarily true that an excellent teacher is also the “baddest dude on the block”. Just as we do not select a cardiologist according the the health of the physician’s own heart, so we do not select a close combat teacher solely on the basis of his personal ability to “kick ass”. Yes, of course, a qualified close combat and self-defense teacher will be a technical expert; but he will rarely if ever have any “championships” or trophies to display. Rather, he will be an expert in combat, and a master at teaching it. (O’Neill was a technically
“superior” judo man, than Fairbairn. O’Neill held the rank of Godan [5th degree], while Fairbairn held the rank of Nidan [2nd degree]. Yet, O’Neill learned real world hand-to-hand and practical self-defense from FAIRBAIRN, since it was Fairbairn, despite his lesser ability at shiai and randori, who was [and still remains] the undisputed SUPERIOR when it comes to close combat and selfdefense).
Most good teachers are fairly on in years and quite beyond the age of those who are in the martial arts limelight as “champions” and competition winners. First, because, as we have said, men almost invariably come to the combative aspects from some other type of background — in general. One of our greatest mentors, the late Col. Rex Applegate, had come from a “background” of brawling. Not exactly a martial “art” — but certainly a “background”, nonetheless.
Second, because it takes time, experience, and maturity, as well as a great deal of serious research into how best to utilize both the practicalized WWII era methodology and the best that may be extracted from the classical/traditional arts. (Only a fool or an incompetent dismisses all classical/traditional skills and doctrine as “unnecessary”!)
That which some may feel is taught to them simply, and even cavalierly by a real pro, is the result — as the quality doctrine it is — of decades of dedicated effort, research, study, and experience.
The result of amateurish attempts to “cash in” on the “combatives” movement, and to jump on the bandwagon that is being driven by professionals, is, for instance, the diluting of real combatives with that which one observes in the “challenge event” arenas. The goal is of course to make the most, commercially, out of the public’s belief that groundfighting is a crucially important aspect of hand-to-hand combat (it IS NOT), while at the same time offering a hefty dose of “chinjabbing”, “edge-of-the-hand chopping”, “low kicking”, and tons of
references to “Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, and O’Neill”.
Be really careful about “military instructor backgrounds” or “law enforcement backgrounds”.
First off, hand-to-hand combat occupies a very low priority in the scheme of “essential subjects” that soldiers, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and law enforcement personnel must learn. Even the USMC’s new “martial arts program” is — in our personal opinion — sadly lacking. Don’t point to that, please, because the curriculum would better be tossed entirely, and the WWII hand-to-hand “combat judo” type training, which was then given to the Raiders, would better replace it, in our opinion! Marines are FIGHTERS, warriors . . . .killers, plain and simple. They are not “policemen”; and their training in police-type bullshit should be dumped! And I say this after hearing the opinion of an active duty Lieutenant Colonel, who is an assistant teacher in an ICMAF Associate Teacher’s School on the East Coast, as well as being an ICMAF Associate, himself. I also have U.S. Marines — and U.S. Marine combat veterans amongst my own Black Belts and lower-ranked student body.
Hand-to-hand combat in the armed services’ “elite units” is sometimes better — depending upon how well qualified an instructor may or may not be present to do the teaching. And as far as those outside the military who have “trained SEALs, and trained Special Forces” . . . etc. (as we, our self have done), these people have done some short-term work only. They are not “official trainers” or anything like that, despite their ads.
Those who are active duty military and who are teaching hand-to-hand combat are teaching brief programs, and the material is sometimes good, sometimes not so good. But rarely if ever is any member of any “special forces type” unit in any of the armed services officially given more than — at most — 30 to 40 hours of hand-to-hand close combat training. Some members have received none.
Present or retired law enforcement trainers who teach/taught “defensive tactics” do not necessarily possess the knowledge, background, and skill to be worthwhile teachers of close combat and self-defense, either. It really depends upon the individual. His personal level of competence and ability must be carefully scrutinized and assessed. Unfortunately, many who “teach police” are simply graduates of weekend or week-long courses in what is essentially watered-down nonsense, geared to the politically correct requirements of whichever department they work for, or had worked for. There are certainly some outstanding men with
backgrounds in law enforcement who also know a great deal about close combat — but a law enforcement background (either as a career officer, or as a “teacher of defensive tactics”) is no assurance that the individual is professionally qualified to teach close combat and self-defense arts. Once again, we must emphasize that our statement here in no way is intended to be derogatory in regard to “police” per se. We have the highest regard for honorable and good sworn police officers,
and we respect the work that they do when they serve and protect our rights and our safety; but we must be objective and accurate about this matter of teaching combat arts, since a lot may hinge upon that which our visitors undertake to study — and with whom they undertake it.
This is reality. We love, respect, and admire our armed forces and our police, and we revere the heroes who wear our Nation’s uniform and guard our Country and our way of life; so don’t listen to any slob who opens his mouth to proclaim that “Steiner doesn’t respect the military, and he doesn’t like cops”. S—T we don’t! We love our military and we have always considered it a privilege and a pleasure to train military and police (some of whom have earned black belts from us), and we wish that these official guardians were being properly trained in close combat skills by their organizations of employ. We are the former Washington State Director of The American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. What we don’t respect are the commercializing types who use references to the military and police to bolster their “credibility” in the eyes of a gullible, self defense seeking public. Hell! You’ve got court officers and parole officers out there who actually have the temerity to use that “credential”(?) to authenticate themselves as combat teachers! R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s! Some private security guards, private investigators, and firefighters also have been known to tout their backgrounds as — SOMEHOW — being evidence that they are qualified professionals in the close combat and self-defense field! (Note: All of these occupations are themselves perfectly respectable and worthy. But they offer absolutely zero evidence that the person with a background in any one of them necessarily is a combatives teacher of any merit!)
A good teacher of close combat and self-defense will have a serious track record spanning many years in this specific field. He will be doing this full time. He may have published articles or even a book or two, and his teaching record will reflect, not “competition” or “championship victories” or “classical/traditional accomplishments”, etc. but COMBAT TRAINING; and practical, realistic selfdefense training. Do your research. Meet the teacher. If possible, take a few lessons from him. Take a month or two of classes. Find out how he teaches.
Opinions voiced about a teacher, a school, or a system today should, unless you are absolutely certain of the reliability of the source of the opinions being presented (and you CAN’T be, without knowing a lot more than you’ll likely know when you hear or read what you hear or read), be ignored. Find out for yourself. Often, petty jealousies, resentments, or outright dishonesties account for much of the negativity that you may have heard about “instructor A” or “teacher B”, etc.
We would recommend strongly that you study the material that we present here in SWORD & PEN, and on our other site, www.seattlecombatives.com. We do not say this in order to “sell ourself” to you — our reputation and standing has long since been established — but in order to facilitate your selecting another properly qualified and credentialed teacher, in whatever city, town, or hamlet you may reside in! With the education that we can give you, you will be able to make an informed decision regarding any prospective teacher. And we acknowledge readily that there are some good ones out there who are perhaps unknown to us, personally. But they are still good; and you want to find them, if you are obliged
to seek training right where you now reside.
Use common horse sense. Don’t believe promises that any program will make you “unbeatable”, or “feared”, or a “badass dude”, etc. Stay away from people who even want to sell their product on such a basis.
You want low kicks that are basic and simple; lots of simple open hand strikes, with some judiciously taught punches; great emphasis on blows, gouges, knee and elbow smashes, head butts, and biting; ferocious mindset; no ground grappling; no competition skills, or diluted contest-oriented tactics. Enormous emphasis on followup, and on simple, basic combination attacks. Frank acknowledgment of the importance of strength training and physical hardihood.
There are some good teachers out there. We’d love nothing more than the privilege, pleasure, and opportunity to teach you, our self. But if, for whatever reason, that is simply not feasible, then we hope we’ve provided some assistance in pointing you toward another school and instructor near where you live, and with whom you can entrust your mind and body for professional level training.
Bradley J. Steiner
Sword and Pen – November 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
IN last month’s edition of Sword & Pen we discussed the fact that you did not need to be an expert in order to be able to defend yourself quite adequately. Merely possessing a compact but reasonably adaptable repertoire of practicalskills, and the mindset required to bring them into play when necessary, backed up with a level of strength and fitness that permits power and speed to be behindthose skills and their application, is enough. Naturally, an expert is certainly better off in a crisis than is someone with only minimal skill, but the fact of the matter is this: You can, within a period of several months in many cases, acquire an adequate level of technical knowledge and physical skill with which to defend yourself, in most cases, if you train in a viable close combat and self-defense system. We are obviously partial to that System which we founded in 1975 (i.e. American Combato (Jen•Do•Tao)) and which we teach today, but we readily acknowledge that there are other good methods and approaches taught by others — most especially other Associate Teachers in our Federation — ICMAF — that will certainly deliver what is needed.
A teacher — or, more specifically, a teacher of those skills that you require in order to be able to defend yourself — most definitely does need to be an expert; and the more expert he is, the better. In addition to being a technical expert, the person who teaches, must also possess teaching ability; for without teaching ability it is hit or miss whether, while being taught by this individual, you actually learn that which he is supposedly teaching you.
So how do you find a good teacher of close combat and self-defense? What
professional qualifications and what personal qualities should any prospective teacher possess, before you decide to train under him?
The task was a lot easier 20 to 25 years ago, before this aspect of that which we refer to as the “martial arts” became the fad that in some circles it has become today. The commercializers have caught on to the lingo. With backgrounds in everything from kick boxing and competition judo and karate to (what we personally regard as) the irrelevant and somewhat distasteful background that some have garnered in the challenge event stuff, and on to classical/traditional jujutsu, karate methods, or “kung fu”, those purporting to be teaching serious hand-to-hand combat, unarmed self-defense, practical close combat skills, and armed and unarmed “close range interpersonal confrontations” survival (the Pentagon’s term!) advertise that they —
• Teach skills rooted in the “WWII methods” tradition. (They use the names
“Fairbairn”, “Applegate”, “Biddle”, and “O’Neill”, etc. as though these men were their neighbors or cousins!)
• Teach only simple, practical techniques — “none of the fancy, classical stuff”, etc.
• Are “combat experts”, not competitors
• Do not waste your time with non-combatively effective skills , , ,
etcetera.
Appealing to the psycho type segment out there, some now claim to be offering training that “the government doesn’t want you to have”, the elite military units “don’t want you to know”, and/or training that will “make you someone who is feared”, ad nauseum.
These “teachers” are, in our opinion, the ones to run from. Even if that which they offer technically contains an element of the physically practical, the tone, the attitude and the mindset that such purveyors present is toxic garbage, and negates whatever possible value their skill repertoires might contain. It is not sane, healthy, or desirable in any way, to become the kind of swaggering beast who revels in violence.
Anyone promising to reveal “secrets” should be avoided.
The techniques of close combat are simple, yes; but that does not mean that just anyone is competent to teach them. Western boxing is simpler still (a lot simpler) than close combat and self-defense, yet there are very few men, comparatively speaking, who possess the technical knowledge and expertise, coupled with the teaching ability that makes them legitimate, sought-after boxing trainers. Do not simply enroll with the first person whose rhetoric sounds impressive and who claims to be a “combatives” teacher.
While many who teach close combat have backgrounds (and black belts) in the
more traditional martial arts, this is not true of every one. Jack Dempsey and Bernard Cosneck (a boxer and a wrestler, respectively) collaborated while in the U.S. Coast Guard on devising and teaching a most excellent hand-to-hand or “combat judo” course for officers. Wesley Brown (famed instructor of U.S. Naval aviators during WWII) was a wrestler. So was his partner, Joe Begala. Men with serious backgrounds in boxing and wrestling have on occasion developed an interest in close combat (generally, because they had taken up boxing or wrestling mainly for self-defense and/or because they were pretty tough dudes to begin with, even before they came to their sport). We, ourself have a background in jujutsu, taekwon-do, varmannie, and boxing, in addition, obviously, to decades of WWII-based close-in and unarmed hand-to-hand combat, with and without weapons. We were fortunate to have been able to study with the late Charles Nelson for a considerable time — as Nelson was a real WWII era trainer, who himself trained under Biddle, in the Marine Corps — and Rex Applegate, someone who needs no introduction to anyone in this field.
Nor is it necessarily true that an excellent teacher is also the “baddest dude on the block”. Just as we do not select a cardiologist according the the health of the physician’s own heart, so we do not select a close combat teacher solely on the basis of his personal ability to “kick ass”. Yes, of course, a qualified close combat and self-defense teacher will be a technical expert; but he will rarely if ever have any “championships” or trophies to display. Rather, he will be an expert in combat, and a master at teaching it. (O’Neill was a technically
“superior” judo man, than Fairbairn. O’Neill held the rank of Godan [5th degree], while Fairbairn held the rank of Nidan [2nd degree]. Yet, O’Neill learned real world hand-to-hand and practical self-defense from FAIRBAIRN, since it was Fairbairn, despite his lesser ability at shiai and randori, who was [and still remains] the undisputed SUPERIOR when it comes to close combat and selfdefense).
Most good teachers are fairly on in years and quite beyond the age of those who are in the martial arts limelight as “champions” and competition winners. First, because, as we have said, men almost invariably come to the combative aspects from some other type of background — in general. One of our greatest mentors, the late Col. Rex Applegate, had come from a “background” of brawling. Not exactly a martial “art” — but certainly a “background”, nonetheless.
Second, because it takes time, experience, and maturity, as well as a great deal of serious research into how best to utilize both the practicalized WWII era methodology and the best that may be extracted from the classical/traditional arts. (Only a fool or an incompetent dismisses all classical/traditional skills and doctrine as “unnecessary”!)
That which some may feel is taught to them simply, and even cavalierly by a real pro, is the result — as the quality doctrine it is — of decades of dedicated effort, research, study, and experience.
The result of amateurish attempts to “cash in” on the “combatives” movement, and to jump on the bandwagon that is being driven by professionals, is, for instance, the diluting of real combatives with that which one observes in the “challenge event” arenas. The goal is of course to make the most, commercially, out of the public’s belief that groundfighting is a crucially important aspect of hand-to-hand combat (it IS NOT), while at the same time offering a hefty dose of “chinjabbing”, “edge-of-the-hand chopping”, “low kicking”, and tons of
references to “Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, and O’Neill”.
Be really careful about “military instructor backgrounds” or “law enforcement backgrounds”.
First off, hand-to-hand combat occupies a very low priority in the scheme of “essential subjects” that soldiers, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and law enforcement personnel must learn. Even the USMC’s new “martial arts program” is — in our personal opinion — sadly lacking. Don’t point to that, please, because the curriculum would better be tossed entirely, and the WWII hand-to-hand “combat judo” type training, which was then given to the Raiders, would better replace it, in our opinion! Marines are FIGHTERS, warriors . . . .killers, plain and simple. They are not “policemen”; and their training in police-type bullshit should be dumped! And I say this after hearing the opinion of an active duty Lieutenant Colonel, who is an assistant teacher in an ICMAF Associate Teacher’s School on the East Coast, as well as being an ICMAF Associate, himself. I also have U.S. Marines — and U.S. Marine combat veterans amongst my own Black Belts and lower-ranked student body.
Hand-to-hand combat in the armed services’ “elite units” is sometimes better — depending upon how well qualified an instructor may or may not be present to do the teaching. And as far as those outside the military who have “trained SEALs, and trained Special Forces” . . . etc. (as we, our self have done), these people have done some short-term work only. They are not “official trainers” or anything like that, despite their ads.
Those who are active duty military and who are teaching hand-to-hand combat are teaching brief programs, and the material is sometimes good, sometimes not so good. But rarely if ever is any member of any “special forces type” unit in any of the armed services officially given more than — at most — 30 to 40 hours of hand-to-hand close combat training. Some members have received none.
Present or retired law enforcement trainers who teach/taught “defensive tactics” do not necessarily possess the knowledge, background, and skill to be worthwhile teachers of close combat and self-defense, either. It really depends upon the individual. His personal level of competence and ability must be carefully scrutinized and assessed. Unfortunately, many who “teach police” are simply graduates of weekend or week-long courses in what is essentially watered-down nonsense, geared to the politically correct requirements of whichever department they work for, or had worked for. There are certainly some outstanding men with
backgrounds in law enforcement who also know a great deal about close combat — but a law enforcement background (either as a career officer, or as a “teacher of defensive tactics”) is no assurance that the individual is professionally qualified to teach close combat and self-defense arts. Once again, we must emphasize that our statement here in no way is intended to be derogatory in regard to “police” per se. We have the highest regard for honorable and good sworn police officers,
and we respect the work that they do when they serve and protect our rights and our safety; but we must be objective and accurate about this matter of teaching combat arts, since a lot may hinge upon that which our visitors undertake to study — and with whom they undertake it.
This is reality. We love, respect, and admire our armed forces and our police, and we revere the heroes who wear our Nation’s uniform and guard our Country and our way of life; so don’t listen to any slob who opens his mouth to proclaim that “Steiner doesn’t respect the military, and he doesn’t like cops”. S—T we don’t! We love our military and we have always considered it a privilege and a pleasure to train military and police (some of whom have earned black belts from us), and we wish that these official guardians were being properly trained in close combat skills by their organizations of employ. We are the former Washington State Director of The American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. What we don’t respect are the commercializing types who use references to the military and police to bolster their “credibility” in the eyes of a gullible, self defense seeking public. Hell! You’ve got court officers and parole officers out there who actually have the temerity to use that “credential”(?) to authenticate themselves as combat teachers! R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s! Some private security guards, private investigators, and firefighters also have been known to tout their backgrounds as — SOMEHOW — being evidence that they are qualified professionals in the close combat and self-defense field! (Note: All of these occupations are themselves perfectly respectable and worthy. But they offer absolutely zero evidence that the person with a background in any one of them necessarily is a combatives teacher of any merit!)
A good teacher of close combat and self-defense will have a serious track record spanning many years in this specific field. He will be doing this full time. He may have published articles or even a book or two, and his teaching record will reflect, not “competition” or “championship victories” or “classical/traditional accomplishments”, etc. but COMBAT TRAINING; and practical, realistic selfdefense training. Do your research. Meet the teacher. If possible, take a few lessons from him. Take a month or two of classes. Find out how he teaches.
Opinions voiced about a teacher, a school, or a system today should, unless you are absolutely certain of the reliability of the source of the opinions being presented (and you CAN’T be, without knowing a lot more than you’ll likely know when you hear or read what you hear or read), be ignored. Find out for yourself. Often, petty jealousies, resentments, or outright dishonesties account for much of the negativity that you may have heard about “instructor A” or “teacher B”, etc.
We would recommend strongly that you study the material that we present here in SWORD & PEN, and on our other site, www.seattlecombatives.com. We do not say this in order to “sell ourself” to you — our reputation and standing has long since been established — but in order to facilitate your selecting another properly qualified and credentialed teacher, in whatever city, town, or hamlet you may reside in! With the education that we can give you, you will be able to make an informed decision regarding any prospective teacher. And we acknowledge readily that there are some good ones out there who are perhaps unknown to us, personally. But they are still good; and you want to find them, if you are obliged
to seek training right where you now reside.
Use common horse sense. Don’t believe promises that any program will make you “unbeatable”, or “feared”, or a “badass dude”, etc. Stay away from people who even want to sell their product on such a basis.
You want low kicks that are basic and simple; lots of simple open hand strikes, with some judiciously taught punches; great emphasis on blows, gouges, knee and elbow smashes, head butts, and biting; ferocious mindset; no ground grappling; no competition skills, or diluted contest-oriented tactics. Enormous emphasis on followup, and on simple, basic combination attacks. Frank acknowledgment of the importance of strength training and physical hardihood.
There are some good teachers out there. We’d love nothing more than the privilege, pleasure, and opportunity to teach you, our self. But if, for whatever reason, that is simply not feasible, then we hope we’ve provided some assistance in pointing you toward another school and instructor near where you live, and with whom you can entrust your mind and body for professional level training.
Bradley J. Steiner
Friday, November 5, 2010
You Don’t Need To Be An Expert
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
SUCH documentation as does exist regarding the successful defense of self, others, home, and hearth by the intended victims of violent criminal bacteria is most encouraging. Obviously, it is inspiring. It is GOOD to hear or to read in the news that a private citizen thwarted a dangerous attacker — and we shall be honest: It makes us feel real good if he thwarted them in a manner that left those violent perpetrators permanently out of action.
But there is more to be had from the studying of reports of successful self-defense than the feeling of inner satisfaction and justice that these stories engender. There is a lot to be LEARNED. Yes, one can learn a great deal from all reports of all violent crime; whether the bacteria or the victim prevailed in the outcome, but if you wish to know "what it takes to be successful in defending yourself" you simply cannot do better than to take a long hard look at those stories describing the people who DID it, and detailing, in many instances, HOW they did it.
We have been studying this since the 1960‘s. We have not only read countless news stories and police reports, we have also spoken with those who had defended themselves successfully. In many instances these "success stories" did involve the intended victim‘s recourse to martial arts skills. But in many more than that, the successes had nothing at all to do with any formal martial arts or self-defense training, per se. The following is that which we have found to be the most important factors responsible for victims‘ successes in protecting themselves against violent, dangerous physical attack:
1. The victim fought back.
With or without "skill" THIS proved to be the most important factor responsible for successful self-defense. Fighting back. In some instances the victims fought back with techniques of defense that they had acquired during formal training under qualified experts; in the majority of instances the victims simply fought back in whatever physical manner they were able. It was not the debilitating injuries that the intended victims were able to inflict upon the scum who attacked them that accounted for the success of the defensive effort. It was the mere fact that the victims did not accept being violated. They physically resisted — quite often, awkwardly. But their resistance caught the vermin off guard, and enabled the victims to prevail.
2. The victim got very angry.
RAGE manifested the moment the individual who had been successful in defending himself realized that he (or she) was being targeted by a violent offender. In some instances the rage was downright murderous — and there was little other than this furious mental state that prompted the intended victim in his response to the event.
3. The victim attacked.
We know of no instance when a "purely defensive" approach to handling a violent attack has ever been successful. In fact, we have heard of instances when persons who "only tried to cover up" or to "get away" prompted increased fury in the assailants.
4. The intended victim had no concerns about either being injured or with injuring his assailant.
Clearly, a person under attack who fights back does not wish to be injured. That is not the point. The point is that those people who successfully defended themselves have done so by abandoning concern over
being injured — for the time being. They also were not hesitant about hurting their attacker. Neither humanitarian nor legal concerns arose in the successful defender‘s mind to block his all-out retaliatory efforts.
5. There was no "squaring off" and "fighting" per se. The intended victim simply exploded when the attacker(s) moved against him.
Being effective in defending himself was not attributable, in the case of the private citizen who did so, to being a “better fighter” than his assailant. (Whether the victim was in fact a better fighter or not appears to have invariably been a moot point). In a real emergency “fighting skill” per se, in the conventional, competitive sense that the term is generally employed in today‟s context in the field of martial arts, did not seem to matter.
Pretty straightforward stuff, eh? And the bottom line — lesson-wise — from this analysis of actual situations from which completely normal people had extricated themselves is: YOU NEED NOT BE AN “EXPERT” IN A MARTIAL ART IN ORDER TO DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY.
Now we must emphasize that being a genuine expert in a good COMBAT system is certainly an asset. Only a fool would deny that. However, the important point is that expertise in a formalized system of unarmed (or even armed) combat does NOT rate as the "top" or as the "key" requirement for effectively handling a difficult or dangerous situation on the street or anywhere else. Simply FIGHTING BACK OFFENSIVELY AND WITHOUT ANY WARNING WHILE FUELED WITH RAGE, AND NOT CONCERNING ONESELF WITH EITHER ONE’S OWN INJURIES AT THE MOMENT, OR WITH HOW BADLY ONE INJURIES ONE’S ATTACKER, appears to be the key element to success. Add to that expertise in, say, the physical techniques of American Combato or another quality system of close combat, and your chances of successfully stopping whoever intends to harm you or yours are excellent, if not nearly-certain.
Keep constantly in mind that relatively simple, basic physical skills are all that is required — technique-wise — in order to prevail in a close combat defense emergency. Thus, do not believe that "only after you‘ve trained for many years", or "not until you‘ve qualified for brown or for black belt" can you feel certain that you "have the skill" that you‘ll need to defend yourself. If you are getting that particular sense — or if it has been formally stated to you — then you are probably training in a classical/traditional martial art, and not in a practical method. Even in a classical/traditional method, it will not do to merely have acquired performance capabilities in order to employ your techniques for real. Remember that! You will need that which we have summarized in the preceding paragraph; and if your goal is self-defense and being able to handle a close combat situation, you might as well train in a system that will give you that which you want in one tenth or less the time that a classical/traditional method might give it to you — technically speaking.
We have had great success in teaching persons of statistically average strength and agility to adequately handle the majority of violent unarmed confrontational predicaments involving single attackers that typically occur, after a period of three months‘ or less serious training. There are no miracles and there is no magic. However, with practical, reliable, war-proven skills in which a reasonably intelligent and disciplined person is willing to train properly for several months, a sometimes surprisingly effective capability in self-defense can often be developed.
This much we can assure anyone: You do not need to become an expert in order to become well able to defend yourself.
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
SUCH documentation as does exist regarding the successful defense of self, others, home, and hearth by the intended victims of violent criminal bacteria is most encouraging. Obviously, it is inspiring. It is GOOD to hear or to read in the news that a private citizen thwarted a dangerous attacker — and we shall be honest: It makes us feel real good if he thwarted them in a manner that left those violent perpetrators permanently out of action.
But there is more to be had from the studying of reports of successful self-defense than the feeling of inner satisfaction and justice that these stories engender. There is a lot to be LEARNED. Yes, one can learn a great deal from all reports of all violent crime; whether the bacteria or the victim prevailed in the outcome, but if you wish to know "what it takes to be successful in defending yourself" you simply cannot do better than to take a long hard look at those stories describing the people who DID it, and detailing, in many instances, HOW they did it.
We have been studying this since the 1960‘s. We have not only read countless news stories and police reports, we have also spoken with those who had defended themselves successfully. In many instances these "success stories" did involve the intended victim‘s recourse to martial arts skills. But in many more than that, the successes had nothing at all to do with any formal martial arts or self-defense training, per se. The following is that which we have found to be the most important factors responsible for victims‘ successes in protecting themselves against violent, dangerous physical attack:
1. The victim fought back.
With or without "skill" THIS proved to be the most important factor responsible for successful self-defense. Fighting back. In some instances the victims fought back with techniques of defense that they had acquired during formal training under qualified experts; in the majority of instances the victims simply fought back in whatever physical manner they were able. It was not the debilitating injuries that the intended victims were able to inflict upon the scum who attacked them that accounted for the success of the defensive effort. It was the mere fact that the victims did not accept being violated. They physically resisted — quite often, awkwardly. But their resistance caught the vermin off guard, and enabled the victims to prevail.
2. The victim got very angry.
RAGE manifested the moment the individual who had been successful in defending himself realized that he (or she) was being targeted by a violent offender. In some instances the rage was downright murderous — and there was little other than this furious mental state that prompted the intended victim in his response to the event.
3. The victim attacked.
We know of no instance when a "purely defensive" approach to handling a violent attack has ever been successful. In fact, we have heard of instances when persons who "only tried to cover up" or to "get away" prompted increased fury in the assailants.
4. The intended victim had no concerns about either being injured or with injuring his assailant.
Clearly, a person under attack who fights back does not wish to be injured. That is not the point. The point is that those people who successfully defended themselves have done so by abandoning concern over
being injured — for the time being. They also were not hesitant about hurting their attacker. Neither humanitarian nor legal concerns arose in the successful defender‘s mind to block his all-out retaliatory efforts.
5. There was no "squaring off" and "fighting" per se. The intended victim simply exploded when the attacker(s) moved against him.
Being effective in defending himself was not attributable, in the case of the private citizen who did so, to being a “better fighter” than his assailant. (Whether the victim was in fact a better fighter or not appears to have invariably been a moot point). In a real emergency “fighting skill” per se, in the conventional, competitive sense that the term is generally employed in today‟s context in the field of martial arts, did not seem to matter.
Pretty straightforward stuff, eh? And the bottom line — lesson-wise — from this analysis of actual situations from which completely normal people had extricated themselves is: YOU NEED NOT BE AN “EXPERT” IN A MARTIAL ART IN ORDER TO DEFEND YOURSELF SUCCESSFULLY.
Now we must emphasize that being a genuine expert in a good COMBAT system is certainly an asset. Only a fool would deny that. However, the important point is that expertise in a formalized system of unarmed (or even armed) combat does NOT rate as the "top" or as the "key" requirement for effectively handling a difficult or dangerous situation on the street or anywhere else. Simply FIGHTING BACK OFFENSIVELY AND WITHOUT ANY WARNING WHILE FUELED WITH RAGE, AND NOT CONCERNING ONESELF WITH EITHER ONE’S OWN INJURIES AT THE MOMENT, OR WITH HOW BADLY ONE INJURIES ONE’S ATTACKER, appears to be the key element to success. Add to that expertise in, say, the physical techniques of American Combato or another quality system of close combat, and your chances of successfully stopping whoever intends to harm you or yours are excellent, if not nearly-certain.
Keep constantly in mind that relatively simple, basic physical skills are all that is required — technique-wise — in order to prevail in a close combat defense emergency. Thus, do not believe that "only after you‘ve trained for many years", or "not until you‘ve qualified for brown or for black belt" can you feel certain that you "have the skill" that you‘ll need to defend yourself. If you are getting that particular sense — or if it has been formally stated to you — then you are probably training in a classical/traditional martial art, and not in a practical method. Even in a classical/traditional method, it will not do to merely have acquired performance capabilities in order to employ your techniques for real. Remember that! You will need that which we have summarized in the preceding paragraph; and if your goal is self-defense and being able to handle a close combat situation, you might as well train in a system that will give you that which you want in one tenth or less the time that a classical/traditional method might give it to you — technically speaking.
We have had great success in teaching persons of statistically average strength and agility to adequately handle the majority of violent unarmed confrontational predicaments involving single attackers that typically occur, after a period of three months‘ or less serious training. There are no miracles and there is no magic. However, with practical, reliable, war-proven skills in which a reasonably intelligent and disciplined person is willing to train properly for several months, a sometimes surprisingly effective capability in self-defense can often be developed.
This much we can assure anyone: You do not need to become an expert in order to become well able to defend yourself.
You Can’t Complain If You Did Vote
I'm only posting this to stimulate discussion. I can see both sides of this argument. Honestly, Not voting, complaining, yet remaining in a disentigrating Republic makes little sense to me, but the "choices" offered by ANY of the parties is dismal and brings to me no hope for the future. Not voting relegaes you to living under the decisions of others with no mechanism to respond or object. Voting between multiple, selections that differ only on their face and in their marketing rhetoric is equally futile however.
Chris
Information Liberation
November 4, 2010
One of the most common sayings among statists and government people is “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote.”
The idea is, if you didn’t try to influence the machinery of the state, then you have no right to complain about what the machinery of the state does to you against your will.
The idea is, of course, laughable on it’s face.
As with all statist memes, the reality is the opposite. You can’t complain if you *did* vote!
Why? Because, *gasp* you voted for it!
By taking part in the state’s voting ritual, you affirm the legitimacy of the system, you tell the government how you want the state’s machinery to run, you say how you want to force people to live.
By not voting, you are voicing your displeasure with the system, you are showing it has no validity in your life, you’re showing it’s irrelevant and the system is an illegitimate fraud.
The biggest constituency in America is not republicans or democrats, the biggest constituency is non-voters! Whether it be because they don’t care, don’t have the time, don’t think their vote counts for jack squat, or think voting is inherently immoral because it involves telling strangers how to live, the non-voter is the largest voter! They’re voting not to take part in the state’s charade!
Certainly an argument could be made, “I don’t want the state to rob from me etc., so therefor I try to minimize it’s damages.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but for the average voter, I think it’s likely they go in the booth with the intent of trying to tell other people how to live. Of course, they get the oppressive nanny state they ask for, and when it comes to burn them, all the sudden they start to complain. Not enough to actually question the system, just enough to go back next election and vote for some other clown who tells them everything they want to hear and talks to them like an idiot. While I would never actually say they “can’t complain if they did vote,” the fact of the matter is, if anyone has any less of a right to complain, it’s voters, not non-voters. You don’t grant someone the right to rule over you and then complain because they don’t do everything you want, that they would act in their own best interests, and not yours, is to be expected. If you only did the same, we wouldn’t be in this horrible mess.
I did not vote in this election out of principle, previously I never voted because I just didn’t care, the reality is the same regardless. I do not grant the system any authority, nor do I grant the goon-squad government any legitimacy. The state is a gang of robbers and thieves writ large, they have absolutely no right to tell anyone else how to live, they have absolutely no right to expropriate their neighbors wealth, and they have absolutely no right to threaten their neighbors with guns if they don’t comply with their arbitrary dictates. That a group of strangers voted for them to do it changes nothing.
Chris
Information Liberation
November 4, 2010
One of the most common sayings among statists and government people is “you can’t complain if you didn’t vote.”
The idea is, if you didn’t try to influence the machinery of the state, then you have no right to complain about what the machinery of the state does to you against your will.
The idea is, of course, laughable on it’s face.
As with all statist memes, the reality is the opposite. You can’t complain if you *did* vote!
Why? Because, *gasp* you voted for it!
By taking part in the state’s voting ritual, you affirm the legitimacy of the system, you tell the government how you want the state’s machinery to run, you say how you want to force people to live.
By not voting, you are voicing your displeasure with the system, you are showing it has no validity in your life, you’re showing it’s irrelevant and the system is an illegitimate fraud.
The biggest constituency in America is not republicans or democrats, the biggest constituency is non-voters! Whether it be because they don’t care, don’t have the time, don’t think their vote counts for jack squat, or think voting is inherently immoral because it involves telling strangers how to live, the non-voter is the largest voter! They’re voting not to take part in the state’s charade!
Certainly an argument could be made, “I don’t want the state to rob from me etc., so therefor I try to minimize it’s damages.”
That’s all fine and dandy, but for the average voter, I think it’s likely they go in the booth with the intent of trying to tell other people how to live. Of course, they get the oppressive nanny state they ask for, and when it comes to burn them, all the sudden they start to complain. Not enough to actually question the system, just enough to go back next election and vote for some other clown who tells them everything they want to hear and talks to them like an idiot. While I would never actually say they “can’t complain if they did vote,” the fact of the matter is, if anyone has any less of a right to complain, it’s voters, not non-voters. You don’t grant someone the right to rule over you and then complain because they don’t do everything you want, that they would act in their own best interests, and not yours, is to be expected. If you only did the same, we wouldn’t be in this horrible mess.
I did not vote in this election out of principle, previously I never voted because I just didn’t care, the reality is the same regardless. I do not grant the system any authority, nor do I grant the goon-squad government any legitimacy. The state is a gang of robbers and thieves writ large, they have absolutely no right to tell anyone else how to live, they have absolutely no right to expropriate their neighbors wealth, and they have absolutely no right to threaten their neighbors with guns if they don’t comply with their arbitrary dictates. That a group of strangers voted for them to do it changes nothing.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Head Butting
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
ONE of the most powerful and devastating surprise blows that may be delivered in a close-in attack situation is the head butt. Not everybody likes head butting, but no one who is training for practical self-defense can afford not to learn head butting. It is important, valuable, practical, and may be executed with good results by anyone of any size — including women and children.
Whenever an adversary moves in close - which is almost always, if he gets the chance - a smashing head butt into his face will at the very least stun him for sufficient time to followup with stomp kicks, chops to the throat or neck, elbow smashes to the solar plexus or sternum, uppercut punches to the solar plexus, knee blows or front kicks to the testicles, etc. Whenever seized from behind in a body hold ("bear hug") over or under the arms, snapping your head back into the attacker‘s face is an excellent move to make, among others (like kicking or elbowing back, or/and grabbing the testicles), etc.
We do not recommend using the head as a battering ram against the abdominal area, although it is true that this might sometimes be an effective action. Our objection to this particular use of the head is that it leaves you open for a knee to your face or a blow to your skull or brain stem, as an attacker who is sharp might well react speedily as he sees you coming.
A proper head butt cannot be defended against. When for example, a body hold is applied from behind the assailant is completely open to having his face smashed with the back of your head — and there is no avoiding the blow if it snaps into him without warning.
From the front a head butt must be applied very close in; almost kneeing distance (i.e. practically body-to-body). You look your adversary in the eye and then suddenly snap you head forward to look at his belt, as your forehead bashes him in the nose. Be extremely careful to avoid bringing your head back before butting. Just look at his belt and let the butt strike him without warning.
By overlapping both palms quickly behind the adversary‘s head or neck, the head butt is increased in severity. In some circles this has been referred to as the "Danish kiss". We like to follow it up, when we do it, with a sharp knee to the adversary‘s testicles.
When seized by more than one opponent, close in, smashing into one or more with a head butt can be effective. Not only the front and back of the head, but also that part of your skull above and about an inch or two to the rear of your ear is a powerful striking surface.
Always head butt by getting your entire body behind the blow. Don‘t "flop" your head back or forward by relaxing your neck. Your neck should be tensed, and your body should be smartly driven behind the head butt in a smooth motion.
Some tips for developing the head butt:
• Never practice on a hard surface (makiwara, etc.). Use a heavy bag or other padded striking aid that gives completely with the butting action. You should not try to "build up" the striking surfaces of your head as you might build up your hands and your elbows, etc.
• NEVER use head butting to break objects (boards, etc.). Not only is this a completely unnecessary practice, it may be hazardous.
• Make full defensive as well as offensive use of head butting. Lace it into counterattacks and attacks whenever possible, if you find that the technique is to your liking.
Do bear in mind that powerfully delivered head butts are extremely dangerous and must be employed only in legitimate self-defense. This makes them valuable, of course, but it also places a requirement for discretion and sound judgment upon the shoulders of all who develop the technique — exactly the way all serious combative skills impose a demand for maturity, judgment, and sound reasoning in every student and teacher who trains in the methods.
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
ONE of the most powerful and devastating surprise blows that may be delivered in a close-in attack situation is the head butt. Not everybody likes head butting, but no one who is training for practical self-defense can afford not to learn head butting. It is important, valuable, practical, and may be executed with good results by anyone of any size — including women and children.
Whenever an adversary moves in close - which is almost always, if he gets the chance - a smashing head butt into his face will at the very least stun him for sufficient time to followup with stomp kicks, chops to the throat or neck, elbow smashes to the solar plexus or sternum, uppercut punches to the solar plexus, knee blows or front kicks to the testicles, etc. Whenever seized from behind in a body hold ("bear hug") over or under the arms, snapping your head back into the attacker‘s face is an excellent move to make, among others (like kicking or elbowing back, or/and grabbing the testicles), etc.
We do not recommend using the head as a battering ram against the abdominal area, although it is true that this might sometimes be an effective action. Our objection to this particular use of the head is that it leaves you open for a knee to your face or a blow to your skull or brain stem, as an attacker who is sharp might well react speedily as he sees you coming.
A proper head butt cannot be defended against. When for example, a body hold is applied from behind the assailant is completely open to having his face smashed with the back of your head — and there is no avoiding the blow if it snaps into him without warning.
From the front a head butt must be applied very close in; almost kneeing distance (i.e. practically body-to-body). You look your adversary in the eye and then suddenly snap you head forward to look at his belt, as your forehead bashes him in the nose. Be extremely careful to avoid bringing your head back before butting. Just look at his belt and let the butt strike him without warning.
By overlapping both palms quickly behind the adversary‘s head or neck, the head butt is increased in severity. In some circles this has been referred to as the "Danish kiss". We like to follow it up, when we do it, with a sharp knee to the adversary‘s testicles.
When seized by more than one opponent, close in, smashing into one or more with a head butt can be effective. Not only the front and back of the head, but also that part of your skull above and about an inch or two to the rear of your ear is a powerful striking surface.
Always head butt by getting your entire body behind the blow. Don‘t "flop" your head back or forward by relaxing your neck. Your neck should be tensed, and your body should be smartly driven behind the head butt in a smooth motion.
Some tips for developing the head butt:
• Never practice on a hard surface (makiwara, etc.). Use a heavy bag or other padded striking aid that gives completely with the butting action. You should not try to "build up" the striking surfaces of your head as you might build up your hands and your elbows, etc.
• NEVER use head butting to break objects (boards, etc.). Not only is this a completely unnecessary practice, it may be hazardous.
• Make full defensive as well as offensive use of head butting. Lace it into counterattacks and attacks whenever possible, if you find that the technique is to your liking.
Do bear in mind that powerfully delivered head butts are extremely dangerous and must be employed only in legitimate self-defense. This makes them valuable, of course, but it also places a requirement for discretion and sound judgment upon the shoulders of all who develop the technique — exactly the way all serious combative skills impose a demand for maturity, judgment, and sound reasoning in every student and teacher who trains in the methods.
When to "Unload"
Seriously? Right about :17 he should have launched into this guy... and NOT with a reverse punch either! He's WIDE OPEN for knee strikes to the jewels. As someone else said, as soon as he starts his "I'm a chicken hawk" dance.
He shouldn't be standing "squared off" and he shouldn't be leaning agains the door frame. He's lucky that this idiot didn't pull a knife because at under 2', he'd have eaten it before he had any idea what was happening.
He shouldn't be standing "squared off" and he shouldn't be leaning agains the door frame. He's lucky that this idiot didn't pull a knife because at under 2', he'd have eaten it before he had any idea what was happening.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Relation Between Technical And
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
HARD training in close combat and self-defense skills provides a lot of extremely beneficial exercise. However, one does not (or certainly should not) approach combatives work for exercise, per se. Train in combatives for combat and self-defense, pure and simple. Let the ancillary exercising benefit be a plus that you accept as "coming with the territory".
Exercise in addition to your combatives training is all but essential. It is essential if you aspire to maximum development of your combatives potential; the technical practice alone will not get you to your personal peak. Look at the example long established by every elite military unit in the world. Soldiers who are trained as Rangers, Special Forces troopers, etc., and sailors who train to be Navy SEALs, receive hundreds of hours of technical skills work with all sorts of weapons, survival techniques, and war gear. However, no matter how rigorously these men train in physically demanding skills and activities, they always follow a rugged physical training program in addition to everything else that they do.
Perhaps a short-term student of self-defense who is "only looking for the basics" can obtain that which he is seeking simply by learning and practicing a set of combat skills. But all of us who are in this for life, and for whom combatives is a complete martial art will want to follow a rigorous, consistent physical training regimen, in addition to our technical practice.
The finest physical training is weight training — weight training done sensibly and progressively either with adjustable barbells and dumbells ("free" weights), with Nautilus machines, with pulleys, with rubber or spring cables ("chest expanders"), or even with improvised weights. But the body can be brought to a peak of strength and condition only when subjected to demands that compel the muscles to increase in strength, and the organs and bone structure to manage overload. Such exercising cannot continue progressively forever, since after two or three years of correct training a person will reach his genetic maximum. However, maintenance of the peak achieved is highly desirable, and this is easily done by continuing to workout sensibly with weights once one has built up to his genetic limits.
Weight training will do wonderful things for your technical ability. You will of course be stronger. However, if you train correctly, you will become much more agile, faster, better coordinated, and tougher. Your body will become better able to "take it", too; weight training builds resilience.
Weight training also provides great mental benefits. Confidence always increases when you can feel yourself growing stronger, and actually see the increased strength in the increasing amount of solid iron and steel that you can lift. You know that you are stronger than most people (and if you train regularly and correctly, you will be stronger than most people, since most people do not follow a regular weight training program) and this enhances your confidence in being capable of fighting back well, if any situation requires that you do so.
The only caution that we wish to leave our readers with is not to confuse the roles of technical and physical training. They beautifully complement each other — but neither one replaces the other.
If you train hard in low front and side kicks (the two key kicking techniques of serious unarmed combat) you will develop excellent, reliable kicks. If you augment this practice by working out on heavy barbell squats two or three times a week, you will greatly bolster your kicking formidability. However, merely squatting will never replace the need for technical practice of the kicks (just as no amount of kicking practice can ever produce the sheer power in your hips and legs that squats will produce). The two activities (technical practice of skills and hard progressive resistance exercise) are perfect complimentary activities. If you are after optimum development and confidence, make both of them a regular part of your routine.
The exercises that typically precede a ju-jutsu or karate class are largely useless for serious combatives. Yes, the limbering and stretching warm you up for the Class, and possibly assist you in improving your flexibility — but that flexibility is not necessary for close combat, and it just may prove injuriously detrimental if you continue it through your later years. We have known numerous individuals who, as black belt holders, had acquired lifetime injuries through too much over-stretching. Unless you are genetically predisposed to be extraordinarily flexible YOU ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF SERIOUS AND POSSIBLY PERMANENT INJURIES DOING MANY OF THE “EXERCISES” THAT ARE PRACTICED IN CLASSICAL/TRADITIONAL MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOLS.
The marvelous thing about properly performed weight training is that it develops you in a healthful, balanced, complete way. When you are 90 you will still be able to train with weights. And if — at 90 — you have been training with weights for four to seven preceding decades, you will be stronger, fitter, and more healthy than most men less than half your age! Look at Jack LaLanne. He‘s in his middle 90‘s, and he works out every day. He is more agile and fit at 95 than many college students are, in their early 20‘s!
Weight training is the ticket to the strength, health, and fitness that you‘re after. It is a "natural" adjunct to combatives work, since it not only builds all round solid fitness, it produces raw strength more efficiently, safely, and speedily than anything else can — and you need strength in close combat.
When, as a boy of sixteen, we began weight training, we had already been a student of martial arts in one form or another for a long time. Yet, we were not genetically favored with either strength or athletic acumen. Within two months of beginning a systematic weight training program we experienced a literal TRIPLING of our ability in martial arts work. We experienced a boost in confidence that was almost uncanny. Our hitting ability shot up so dramatically that we wondered if we were dreaming. And (in ju-jutsu) we began to experience an ability to throw practice partners with an authority that we had not up until then been able to generate; and several people with whom we trained even commented on this. "What‘s happening," one ju-jutsu partner asked us. "You‘re stronger, Brad!" Before our first month of weight training had elapsed we had already decided that this was going to remain a lifetime activity and habit, just as our martial arts work would.
We hope we can turn you onto this path, if in fact you haven‘t started on it, already. Combine your practice (regularly, consistently, effortfully) with a serious program of progressive resistance physical training . . . and watch the results!
No, you will never be a superman unless your genetics has programmed you for such development. But you can get super results — and attain the optimum level of development that your genetics permits. And NOTHING CAN OR WILL HELP YOUR TECHNICAL AND MENTAL ABILITY IN CLOSE COMBAT AND SELF-DEFENSE MORE THAN THAT!
Sword and Pen – October 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
HARD training in close combat and self-defense skills provides a lot of extremely beneficial exercise. However, one does not (or certainly should not) approach combatives work for exercise, per se. Train in combatives for combat and self-defense, pure and simple. Let the ancillary exercising benefit be a plus that you accept as "coming with the territory".
Exercise in addition to your combatives training is all but essential. It is essential if you aspire to maximum development of your combatives potential; the technical practice alone will not get you to your personal peak. Look at the example long established by every elite military unit in the world. Soldiers who are trained as Rangers, Special Forces troopers, etc., and sailors who train to be Navy SEALs, receive hundreds of hours of technical skills work with all sorts of weapons, survival techniques, and war gear. However, no matter how rigorously these men train in physically demanding skills and activities, they always follow a rugged physical training program in addition to everything else that they do.
Perhaps a short-term student of self-defense who is "only looking for the basics" can obtain that which he is seeking simply by learning and practicing a set of combat skills. But all of us who are in this for life, and for whom combatives is a complete martial art will want to follow a rigorous, consistent physical training regimen, in addition to our technical practice.
The finest physical training is weight training — weight training done sensibly and progressively either with adjustable barbells and dumbells ("free" weights), with Nautilus machines, with pulleys, with rubber or spring cables ("chest expanders"), or even with improvised weights. But the body can be brought to a peak of strength and condition only when subjected to demands that compel the muscles to increase in strength, and the organs and bone structure to manage overload. Such exercising cannot continue progressively forever, since after two or three years of correct training a person will reach his genetic maximum. However, maintenance of the peak achieved is highly desirable, and this is easily done by continuing to workout sensibly with weights once one has built up to his genetic limits.
Weight training will do wonderful things for your technical ability. You will of course be stronger. However, if you train correctly, you will become much more agile, faster, better coordinated, and tougher. Your body will become better able to "take it", too; weight training builds resilience.
Weight training also provides great mental benefits. Confidence always increases when you can feel yourself growing stronger, and actually see the increased strength in the increasing amount of solid iron and steel that you can lift. You know that you are stronger than most people (and if you train regularly and correctly, you will be stronger than most people, since most people do not follow a regular weight training program) and this enhances your confidence in being capable of fighting back well, if any situation requires that you do so.
The only caution that we wish to leave our readers with is not to confuse the roles of technical and physical training. They beautifully complement each other — but neither one replaces the other.
If you train hard in low front and side kicks (the two key kicking techniques of serious unarmed combat) you will develop excellent, reliable kicks. If you augment this practice by working out on heavy barbell squats two or three times a week, you will greatly bolster your kicking formidability. However, merely squatting will never replace the need for technical practice of the kicks (just as no amount of kicking practice can ever produce the sheer power in your hips and legs that squats will produce). The two activities (technical practice of skills and hard progressive resistance exercise) are perfect complimentary activities. If you are after optimum development and confidence, make both of them a regular part of your routine.
The exercises that typically precede a ju-jutsu or karate class are largely useless for serious combatives. Yes, the limbering and stretching warm you up for the Class, and possibly assist you in improving your flexibility — but that flexibility is not necessary for close combat, and it just may prove injuriously detrimental if you continue it through your later years. We have known numerous individuals who, as black belt holders, had acquired lifetime injuries through too much over-stretching. Unless you are genetically predisposed to be extraordinarily flexible YOU ARE RUNNING THE RISK OF SERIOUS AND POSSIBLY PERMANENT INJURIES DOING MANY OF THE “EXERCISES” THAT ARE PRACTICED IN CLASSICAL/TRADITIONAL MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOLS.
The marvelous thing about properly performed weight training is that it develops you in a healthful, balanced, complete way. When you are 90 you will still be able to train with weights. And if — at 90 — you have been training with weights for four to seven preceding decades, you will be stronger, fitter, and more healthy than most men less than half your age! Look at Jack LaLanne. He‘s in his middle 90‘s, and he works out every day. He is more agile and fit at 95 than many college students are, in their early 20‘s!
Weight training is the ticket to the strength, health, and fitness that you‘re after. It is a "natural" adjunct to combatives work, since it not only builds all round solid fitness, it produces raw strength more efficiently, safely, and speedily than anything else can — and you need strength in close combat.
When, as a boy of sixteen, we began weight training, we had already been a student of martial arts in one form or another for a long time. Yet, we were not genetically favored with either strength or athletic acumen. Within two months of beginning a systematic weight training program we experienced a literal TRIPLING of our ability in martial arts work. We experienced a boost in confidence that was almost uncanny. Our hitting ability shot up so dramatically that we wondered if we were dreaming. And (in ju-jutsu) we began to experience an ability to throw practice partners with an authority that we had not up until then been able to generate; and several people with whom we trained even commented on this. "What‘s happening," one ju-jutsu partner asked us. "You‘re stronger, Brad!" Before our first month of weight training had elapsed we had already decided that this was going to remain a lifetime activity and habit, just as our martial arts work would.
We hope we can turn you onto this path, if in fact you haven‘t started on it, already. Combine your practice (regularly, consistently, effortfully) with a serious program of progressive resistance physical training . . . and watch the results!
No, you will never be a superman unless your genetics has programmed you for such development. But you can get super results — and attain the optimum level of development that your genetics permits. And NOTHING CAN OR WILL HELP YOUR TECHNICAL AND MENTAL ABILITY IN CLOSE COMBAT AND SELF-DEFENSE MORE THAN THAT!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Career progress...
A month or so ago I began looking at my finances along with alternative training options. Honestly, I’m becoming a bit discouraged looking at my savings account and the calendar when I estimate that I have another year or more to wait for the opportunity to attend the CASS training course. I still have a strong desire to attend that course and it’s focus is on International, high-risk contracts which is where I initially wish to specialize. I want to work in Latin and South America.
However, I learned something years ago that apparently still holds true: You will NOT prepare unless you are invested in that preparation. When I was studying for the A+ certification, I didn’t get serious about it until I has actually scheduled to take the test. Once I’d done that I buckled down. Before I‘d made that financial commitment, I wasn’t truly focused on it.
How does this relate to my own career plans? I’ve decided to apply for a one-week course through a company named ICON. They offer a reasonably priced, entry-level course and I hope to be accepted and attend in January of 2011. While their emphasis is celebrity and VIP protection... training is training and I believe that the exposure may alleviate some of the issues I have with my motivation. Their reputation seems to be fairly solid. I’ll be submitting my application to ICON today.
The course is a mixture of theory and practical application and while I know enough not to expect employment from this type of training alone, it’s a strong platform for additional courses. If I’m successful in this course, I may enroll in their advanced course later in 2011 in order to further strengthen my background (and pad my resume`). Taking both of these so close together may be a bit of a financial burden however. I’ve also looked into the courses offered by Sexton but I have yet to contact them and their web site is not up to date. Their Personal Protection Specialist course runs approximately 6 days. I’d like to get more details on this and their more advanced PPS course. I’m not sure about taking multiple entry-level curses. The schools may differ in their focus, but the foundation skills should overlap and I would assume they would be similar.
I can see an advantage in taking various training courses with a mixture of celebrity\V.I.P., corporate and high-risk (para-military) focuses. While I may have a preference, when entering the industry, its likely that I’ll be looking to take whatever viable contracts present themselves. It will behoove me to have training exposure to each aspect of the industry rather than specializing early on. Having exposure to a variety of markets increases the opportunities.
Taking these courses will delay my attendance of the CASS course by approximately three to six months. This means that I’ll likely be attending in Orlando in early 2012 as opposed to late in 2011. Practically speaking this may be a “smarter” approach. While I do not doubt I would do well with the CASS training, it’s a HUGE step and I was looking at essentially relocating immediately following the training. That would equate to even more expense.
Following the alternate path allows me to “get my feet wet”, get the basics down and then build upon that. It will also give me exposure to this type of training without blasting on a 29-day juggernaut course. Finally... and this is the primary reason I’m electing to take this path: I can begin training NOW rather than 18-months from now. One other contributing factor is that I can remain employed and yet still attend the training.
Financially, I can actually manage both of these courses much easier than I can the CASS course (assuming I’m still employed at my currentjob after 01/01/2011). The two of them together cost about what the CASS course does when I include airfare, food and lodging. However, the expenditures are spread out over several months. The trick may be scheduling so much time off so close together. Then again, it’s normal to get two weeks of vacation annually. I’ll simply be taking my vacation periods separated by about 1 month.
However, I learned something years ago that apparently still holds true: You will NOT prepare unless you are invested in that preparation. When I was studying for the A+ certification, I didn’t get serious about it until I has actually scheduled to take the test. Once I’d done that I buckled down. Before I‘d made that financial commitment, I wasn’t truly focused on it.
How does this relate to my own career plans? I’ve decided to apply for a one-week course through a company named ICON. They offer a reasonably priced, entry-level course and I hope to be accepted and attend in January of 2011. While their emphasis is celebrity and VIP protection... training is training and I believe that the exposure may alleviate some of the issues I have with my motivation. Their reputation seems to be fairly solid. I’ll be submitting my application to ICON today.
The course is a mixture of theory and practical application and while I know enough not to expect employment from this type of training alone, it’s a strong platform for additional courses. If I’m successful in this course, I may enroll in their advanced course later in 2011 in order to further strengthen my background (and pad my resume`). Taking both of these so close together may be a bit of a financial burden however. I’ve also looked into the courses offered by Sexton but I have yet to contact them and their web site is not up to date. Their Personal Protection Specialist course runs approximately 6 days. I’d like to get more details on this and their more advanced PPS course. I’m not sure about taking multiple entry-level curses. The schools may differ in their focus, but the foundation skills should overlap and I would assume they would be similar.
I can see an advantage in taking various training courses with a mixture of celebrity\V.I.P., corporate and high-risk (para-military) focuses. While I may have a preference, when entering the industry, its likely that I’ll be looking to take whatever viable contracts present themselves. It will behoove me to have training exposure to each aspect of the industry rather than specializing early on. Having exposure to a variety of markets increases the opportunities.
Taking these courses will delay my attendance of the CASS course by approximately three to six months. This means that I’ll likely be attending in Orlando in early 2012 as opposed to late in 2011. Practically speaking this may be a “smarter” approach. While I do not doubt I would do well with the CASS training, it’s a HUGE step and I was looking at essentially relocating immediately following the training. That would equate to even more expense.
Following the alternate path allows me to “get my feet wet”, get the basics down and then build upon that. It will also give me exposure to this type of training without blasting on a 29-day juggernaut course. Finally... and this is the primary reason I’m electing to take this path: I can begin training NOW rather than 18-months from now. One other contributing factor is that I can remain employed and yet still attend the training.
Financially, I can actually manage both of these courses much easier than I can the CASS course (assuming I’m still employed at my currentjob after 01/01/2011). The two of them together cost about what the CASS course does when I include airfare, food and lodging. However, the expenditures are spread out over several months. The trick may be scheduling so much time off so close together. Then again, it’s normal to get two weeks of vacation annually. I’ll simply be taking my vacation periods separated by about 1 month.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Next Time You Hear Of “Challenges” To “Prove” Combat Skills, Think About This!
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have never, do not now, and never will have anything to do with that aspect of what some people consider today to be "martial arts" that is known as “challenge events”, “cage fighting”, MMA, UFC, etc. and so on. If you like that stuff, then be our guest. Enjoy yourself. But it isn’t something we wish to be associated with.
Since there is such popular coverage in the martial arts mainstream media pertaining to this relatively "recent kid on the block", as it were, a percentage of those who are looking for practical combat and defense skills may be led to believe that the ground fighting/challenge event/competition/MMA/UFC venue is where they should apply themselves in order to acquire the skills and tactics that they wish to possess.
We are all for freedom of choice, so, again, if that approach to “martial arts” is your cup of tea, then go for it. However, with all this talk of "challenges", we wanted to clarify something that many apparently just do not get. Namely, there is no correlation between competition and combat. None. And this fact is perhaps most eloquently and clearly proven beyond doubt by the very nature of all of these "challenges". We do realize that this is not the intention of those who push the venue as being in fact "combat" or "self-defense" training. The popular challenges are in effect challenges that prove NOTHING WHATEVER ABOUT CLOSE COMBAT OR SELF-DEFENSE.
A notable point: Remember that since the serious introduction of the numerous karate and combat-oriented ju-jutsu systems (those that stress atemiwaza, remaining on your feet, and throwing the other guy to the ground, etc.) there have been — nationwide — literally thousands of incidents where individuals thusly trained have done a splendid job of defending themselves.
Just as a matter of interest, it might be enlightening to know how many individuals have successfully employed the competitive groundfighting and the other popular contest-oriented skills and tactics successfully in REAL MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND PRIVATE CITIZEN SELF-DEFENSE ENCOUNTERS — i.e. in ACTUAL SELF-DEFENSE AND HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT.
It might interest people to know this. As far as a proven track record — i.e demonstrated effectiveness in and under real world combat conditions is concerned, not only the karate (taekwon-do, Okinawa-te, ch’uan fa or "kung fu", etc.) but ESPECIALLY the WWII system-based and modern close combat methods built on and expanding upon those war-tested principles, have ALL come through "field testing" — again and again and again, for decades — in actual wartime, and in peacetime. Even if those trained in these methods and approaches were all to be defeated 100% of the time in the contest arena, that means NOTHING in regard to their efficacy in actual combat (which is their forte, just as the competitive arena is the grappler/groundfighter/challenge event entrants’ forte). Such frequent defeats as have occurred (when, we believe unwisely, karate and other combat-oriented martial arts experts have been duped into playing the sportsman’s game) prove nothing, since actual combat experiences have often been very well handled by these very contest losers. THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TAKING LOSSES IN CONTESTS SERIOUSLY insofar as any conclusions about proficiency in actual combat is concerned.
IF a genuinely meaningful venue were to be established through which entrants might be "challenged" to test, verify, and validate the merits of that which they train in, then the following would have to be implemented:
• Testing the individual’s ability to respond to full force, unrehearsed surprise attacks from behind
• Testing the individual’s ability to meet the challenge of unrehearsed attacks from all and any quarter by multiple (2, 3, 4 and possibly even more) attackers
• Testing the individual’s ability to counter weapon threats (handgun, shoulder weapon, knife) and outright weapon attacks (knife, club, etc.)
• For members of military and special law enforcement (SWAT) as well as normal duty police patrol officers IN FULL DUTY COMBAT GEAR : testing their ability to meet the challenge of all types of hand-to-hand engagements under all sorts of battle and field conditions, against all types of potential assailants — armed and unarmed
• Testing how well the individual can meet the challenge of defending himself when one arm and hand is completely disabled. Against all types of attack — multiples, weapons, from behind, etc.
• Testing how well the individual can cope with attacks that catch him off guard in normal, everyday environments:
— speaking on a public phone
— in a restroom
— in a restaurant
— on staircases
— in wooded park areas
— on cement sidewalks
— in crowded stores
— in a darkened theater or night club
— in an office setting
— in his home
— in a parking garage
— when handicapped in all sorts of ways (even blindfolded, or when
at reduced efficiency due to illness, etc.
— when with a loved one (or two!) and forced to defend them (either in
addition to or instead of, oneself)
A "challenge" insofar as being relevant to hand-to-hand combat and self-defense is concerned must logically be a challenge to demonstrate technical superiority in dealing with hand-to-hand combat and self-defense contingencies — not competitive matches.
Now that we have presented that which we have presented, let us once again emphasize this: WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY “CHALLENGE” OR CONTEST EVENTS OUGHT EVER TO BECOME A PART OF COMBAT AND SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING. OUR PURPOSE HERE IS MERELY TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS IN THE “MINDS” OF THOSE WHO INSIST THAT CONTEST AND COMBAT ARE SYNONYMOUS.
The combat arts and methods have ALREADY met the necessary challenge; which is, of course, that of actual combat. To introduce competitive methods and means would, as Fairbairn so aptly noted during WWII, merely serve to dilute and greatly weaken the value of the skills and of the training.
We cannot resist adding this one, final note. It actually speaks to something that embarrasses those who have permitted themselves to be duped into the "challenge" nonsense much more than it is a criticism of the groundgrapplers and MMA, etc. crowd . . .
Historically, the challenged has always enjoyed the choice of weapons, location, terms of combat, etc. Yet the modern "challenges" amount to something more along the lines of: “I challenge you to fight my game on my terms, according to my rules, in the venue I am most at home in, and with all of those restrictions that may well block off and completely prevent you from doing or using that which favors your approach to combat."
This sounds to us uncomfortably like dirty pool. Just a thought.
How about someone accepting one of those (in our opinion) ridiculous "challenges" but demanding HIS terms for the encounter? Perhaps fighting with one arm only used in the fight?
Well, we’re back to what we began with. We have no quarrel with those whose thing is competition. We do know and wish to teach all who are looking for the truth, that contest and combat are completely different — in all ways. Decide which you prefer, and go for it. But know that a choice is involved here.
Don’t be duped by the "challenge" thing. The guys who excel in the contests are terrific, tough athletes, and are formidable, indeed. But their art is that of competitive sport, not hand-to-hand combat. Besides, the finest champions of all (in judo, boxing, wrestling, sport karate, kick boxing, etc.) restrict their challenges to those who, like themselves, are avid participants in the same sport that they - the champions - are champions in!
We love what the late Bruce Tegnér used to say about two genuine experts each attempting to "prove" that his art was superior by fighting the other expert — for real. Quite correctly, Tegnér said that all that the two would ever end up "proving" is that each of them is a FOOL. We cannot escape the feeling that many people have, during the last couple of decades, been solidly establishing their foolishness by attempting to prove something in a context that is irrelevant and entirely beside the point!
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have never, do not now, and never will have anything to do with that aspect of what some people consider today to be "martial arts" that is known as “challenge events”, “cage fighting”, MMA, UFC, etc. and so on. If you like that stuff, then be our guest. Enjoy yourself. But it isn’t something we wish to be associated with.
Since there is such popular coverage in the martial arts mainstream media pertaining to this relatively "recent kid on the block", as it were, a percentage of those who are looking for practical combat and defense skills may be led to believe that the ground fighting/challenge event/competition/MMA/UFC venue is where they should apply themselves in order to acquire the skills and tactics that they wish to possess.
We are all for freedom of choice, so, again, if that approach to “martial arts” is your cup of tea, then go for it. However, with all this talk of "challenges", we wanted to clarify something that many apparently just do not get. Namely, there is no correlation between competition and combat. None. And this fact is perhaps most eloquently and clearly proven beyond doubt by the very nature of all of these "challenges". We do realize that this is not the intention of those who push the venue as being in fact "combat" or "self-defense" training. The popular challenges are in effect challenges that prove NOTHING WHATEVER ABOUT CLOSE COMBAT OR SELF-DEFENSE.
A notable point: Remember that since the serious introduction of the numerous karate and combat-oriented ju-jutsu systems (those that stress atemiwaza, remaining on your feet, and throwing the other guy to the ground, etc.) there have been — nationwide — literally thousands of incidents where individuals thusly trained have done a splendid job of defending themselves.
Just as a matter of interest, it might be enlightening to know how many individuals have successfully employed the competitive groundfighting and the other popular contest-oriented skills and tactics successfully in REAL MILITARY, LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND PRIVATE CITIZEN SELF-DEFENSE ENCOUNTERS — i.e. in ACTUAL SELF-DEFENSE AND HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT.
It might interest people to know this. As far as a proven track record — i.e demonstrated effectiveness in and under real world combat conditions is concerned, not only the karate (taekwon-do, Okinawa-te, ch’uan fa or "kung fu", etc.) but ESPECIALLY the WWII system-based and modern close combat methods built on and expanding upon those war-tested principles, have ALL come through "field testing" — again and again and again, for decades — in actual wartime, and in peacetime. Even if those trained in these methods and approaches were all to be defeated 100% of the time in the contest arena, that means NOTHING in regard to their efficacy in actual combat (which is their forte, just as the competitive arena is the grappler/groundfighter/challenge event entrants’ forte). Such frequent defeats as have occurred (when, we believe unwisely, karate and other combat-oriented martial arts experts have been duped into playing the sportsman’s game) prove nothing, since actual combat experiences have often been very well handled by these very contest losers. THERE IS NO POINT IN EVEN TAKING LOSSES IN CONTESTS SERIOUSLY insofar as any conclusions about proficiency in actual combat is concerned.
IF a genuinely meaningful venue were to be established through which entrants might be "challenged" to test, verify, and validate the merits of that which they train in, then the following would have to be implemented:
• Testing the individual’s ability to respond to full force, unrehearsed surprise attacks from behind
• Testing the individual’s ability to meet the challenge of unrehearsed attacks from all and any quarter by multiple (2, 3, 4 and possibly even more) attackers
• Testing the individual’s ability to counter weapon threats (handgun, shoulder weapon, knife) and outright weapon attacks (knife, club, etc.)
• For members of military and special law enforcement (SWAT) as well as normal duty police patrol officers IN FULL DUTY COMBAT GEAR : testing their ability to meet the challenge of all types of hand-to-hand engagements under all sorts of battle and field conditions, against all types of potential assailants — armed and unarmed
• Testing how well the individual can meet the challenge of defending himself when one arm and hand is completely disabled. Against all types of attack — multiples, weapons, from behind, etc.
• Testing how well the individual can cope with attacks that catch him off guard in normal, everyday environments:
— speaking on a public phone
— in a restroom
— in a restaurant
— on staircases
— in wooded park areas
— on cement sidewalks
— in crowded stores
— in a darkened theater or night club
— in an office setting
— in his home
— in a parking garage
— when handicapped in all sorts of ways (even blindfolded, or when
at reduced efficiency due to illness, etc.
— when with a loved one (or two!) and forced to defend them (either in
addition to or instead of, oneself)
A "challenge" insofar as being relevant to hand-to-hand combat and self-defense is concerned must logically be a challenge to demonstrate technical superiority in dealing with hand-to-hand combat and self-defense contingencies — not competitive matches.
Now that we have presented that which we have presented, let us once again emphasize this: WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY “CHALLENGE” OR CONTEST EVENTS OUGHT EVER TO BECOME A PART OF COMBAT AND SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING. OUR PURPOSE HERE IS MERELY TO SHOW THE ABSURDITY THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS IN THE “MINDS” OF THOSE WHO INSIST THAT CONTEST AND COMBAT ARE SYNONYMOUS.
The combat arts and methods have ALREADY met the necessary challenge; which is, of course, that of actual combat. To introduce competitive methods and means would, as Fairbairn so aptly noted during WWII, merely serve to dilute and greatly weaken the value of the skills and of the training.
We cannot resist adding this one, final note. It actually speaks to something that embarrasses those who have permitted themselves to be duped into the "challenge" nonsense much more than it is a criticism of the groundgrapplers and MMA, etc. crowd . . .
Historically, the challenged has always enjoyed the choice of weapons, location, terms of combat, etc. Yet the modern "challenges" amount to something more along the lines of: “I challenge you to fight my game on my terms, according to my rules, in the venue I am most at home in, and with all of those restrictions that may well block off and completely prevent you from doing or using that which favors your approach to combat."
This sounds to us uncomfortably like dirty pool. Just a thought.
How about someone accepting one of those (in our opinion) ridiculous "challenges" but demanding HIS terms for the encounter? Perhaps fighting with one arm only used in the fight?
Well, we’re back to what we began with. We have no quarrel with those whose thing is competition. We do know and wish to teach all who are looking for the truth, that contest and combat are completely different — in all ways. Decide which you prefer, and go for it. But know that a choice is involved here.
Don’t be duped by the "challenge" thing. The guys who excel in the contests are terrific, tough athletes, and are formidable, indeed. But their art is that of competitive sport, not hand-to-hand combat. Besides, the finest champions of all (in judo, boxing, wrestling, sport karate, kick boxing, etc.) restrict their challenges to those who, like themselves, are avid participants in the same sport that they - the champions - are champions in!
We love what the late Bruce Tegnér used to say about two genuine experts each attempting to "prove" that his art was superior by fighting the other expert — for real. Quite correctly, Tegnér said that all that the two would ever end up "proving" is that each of them is a FOOL. We cannot escape the feeling that many people have, during the last couple of decades, been solidly establishing their foolishness by attempting to prove something in a context that is irrelevant and entirely beside the point!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Ear, Nose, And Throat Specialist — YOU?
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WELL, not exactly the kind of ear, nose, and throat specialist that we find in reputable medical facilities, but you might one day find it very helpful to have developed the ability to zero in instantly on one of those three extremely vulnerable target areas of the human body, and destroy or injure it, in order to save your life.
EARS:
Just about everyone has two of them. They are within reach, and they are delicate. Seizing them violently is one of the tricks we teach our students in American Combato, in order to facilitate multiple knee blows to the enemy’s testicles.
"Boxing" the ears with that which Fairbairn referred colorfully to as the “thunderclap” (cupped palms blow) is a terrific way to drop an adversary. This dangerous blow can cause concussion and cerebral hemorrhage, under certain conditions. A great blow when you are seized from the front and pulled toward your attacker, or when an attempt is made to apply a frontal underarm body hold. The double ear box is also a great followup blow, after your man has been injured and disoriented.
(Do not open the attack with this blow, since it leaves you wide open for a moment).
After ear boxing — or simply after grabbing the ears suddenly — a strong grip on each ear followed by an archer’s movement will rip one or both ears off the enemy’s head. Grabbing one ear and then chinjabbing with the other hand is also likely to rip an ear off. But you’ve got to do it powerfully!
Smacking an ear always distracts a man. It may be done with the back or with the palm of the hand.
One hand ear boxing is excellent on the attack. It turns the adversary’s head upon impact, and automatically cocks your hand for a handaxe chop or hammerfist blow.
Biting an ear (we hate to say it, but like Mike Tyson did, except with a REAL BITE) and then ripping it off the head, is an excellent action to take when close in to the adversary.
If, in a lethal situation (military combat, for example; or defending against a home invader) you happen to have a sharp commando type dagger, driving it into the ear and through the brain will prove most decisive.
Remember that the ear box places both hands in a perfect position to drive thumbs to the eyes, following impact. A nice bonus.
NOSE:
Always a sensitive, easy target — and usually a convenient one — to hit. A powerful normal fist punch in the nose is always effective, but we would STRONGLY recommend using a heel of the hand blow, instead. Just direct a powerful heel-of-the-hand blow to the center of the attacking individual’s face and you will hit his nose. While not per se a "fatal" blow, it can always be counted upon to be a disorienting blow, and followup of a severe and aggressively destructive kind should end the encounter.
The bridge of the nose is a great target — especially for the handaxe chop and the hammerfist smash. By breaking the thin bone normally covered by the bridge of a pair of glasses, profuse bleeding, complete disorientation, and intense pain, coupled with an inability to see for at least several moments is the near certain result. This is an easy bone to break, and even a child or a small woman can do so, in an emergency. The heel of the hand is also a good weapon to employ against the bridge of the nose, especially in a downward smash, following a chinjab blow that landed only lightly, or that missed its mark.
The point right underneath the nose, above the upper lip (the “philtrum”) is extremely vulnerable to a handaxe chop that is directed into it. A slightly upward directed blow is best. Pat O’Neill favored this particular strike and target point, and always urged the "Forcemen" whom he trained to use it automatically in an encounter, when they could do so.
By striking a hooking heelpalm blow (like a boxer’s “hook”, but employing the heel of the hand as the striking weapon) to the side of the nose and into the corner of the eye or inner cheekbone of the enemy, an excellent disabling hit can be rendered.
Biting the nose always makes good sense in an anything goes fight for survival and defense — and you can actually bite the nose off the enemy’s face if you exert full force and determination with your jaw muscles and teeth.
Driving a finger deep up an adversary’s nostril will make him pull his head back, and will expose his throat (for a blow or for a bite).
Either nostril is an excellent target for a pen, pencil, thin blade, or other object capable of penetrating deep. Deep enough and the brain will be struck — which if hit with a sufficiently forceful and penetrating thrust, will be fatal.
THROAT:
The throat is probably the closest to a "certain stop" target there is in the human body — providing a forceful, crushing blow is directed against it (the handaxe chop being the best). In a long time ago conversation with that marvelous producer of practical firearms training films, Alec Jason (ANITE PUBLICATIONS — producer of DEADLY FORCE, and other classic, outstanding videos) the retired SFPD detective asked us "What shot would you take to what target area with your handgun, if you only had one shot and you had to stop the guy right now?" Our answer, which we recall pretty much word for word was: “In a situation where we had only the chance of one, single hit, and it was life or death, we’d rather rely upon a powerful open hand chop to the attacker’s throat than we would any single shot from any handgun.” Retired detective Jason was a little surprised by our answer, but he did not disagree!
Obviously, when it’s life or death, a powerful, fast chop to the throat should be employed without hesitation.
The web of the hand (hand yoke) strike is a non-lethal blow that is sometimes useful to discourage a pest, or to set a suspect up for a restraining hold (if you are a police officer). The best use of this strike however is to index the hand for the potentially lethal throat lock. The fingers seize the upper part of the windpipe — under the jaw — in a pincher grip. By crushing hard and jerking forward, a fatal injury to the breathing apparatus of the body will be effected.
The throat lock is an excellent attack, and should be perfected by anyone training in practical self-defense.
Remember, when you secure a throat lock with your fingers, if you hold onto that grip and then smash your attacker’s head powerfully with a heel of the hand blow, hammerfist smash, or elbow strike, using your opposite arm, you will effect an injury that will likely prove lethal.
Biting into the throat (or neck) is always effective — but please, it’s got to be a ripping, tearing animal-like bite, not a reluctant nip!
The area immediately to either side of the throat is highly vulnerable to any sharp blow (again, the handaxe is best).
A half-fist strike into the throat is an excellent blow, or if you have strong fingers, a fingertips thrust to the throat is good.
Charlie Nelson taught us a terrific little trick for striking the throat with the fist: After clenching the fist normally, cant the wrist slightly upward. Now snap those foreknuckles (the same ones that hit with the half-fist blow) to the attacker’s throat. You will find that your fist fits very naturally into that area between the opponent’s jaw and his neck. This is a quick, snappy blow, and should be followed up immediately with more destructive actions.
Remember the classic “rising block” that virtually every style of karate invariably teaches? Well, this blow served as a striking action as well as a block in William Chow’s original kenpo-karate. It is still excellent when used to hit. In kenpo-karate the blow was normally directed against the arm or arms — ostensibly to break the enemy’s elbows. We believe that a far better use of the blow is into the throat or underside of the jaw and throat of a taller, larger attacker who moves in close. It will stop his advance cold, and followup should be immediate.
One final unarmed tactic that targets the throat is a little-known technique developed by Pat O’Neill as a counter to an enemy closing in suddenly from the side. Let’s say that your enemy is moving in against you on your left side. You snap your body toward him with a sharp pivoting action while bringing your left forearm high in a lateral movement across your own forehead (fist clenched). Simultaneously, your right arm (fist clenched) applies a lateral forward blow across your high abdominal area. Both of your forearms form a "wall" of sorts, and your attacker will drive himself into this wall as he moves in to attack you. Your left forearm will slam hard into his throat. Your right arm will hit his midsection. Followup!
Attacks to the ears, nose, and throat target areas may of course be undertaken with all sorts of improvised weapons and objects-at-hand. The main thing is: Attack and devastate those vital, key target areas, when you are in a desperate, dangerous self-defense situation! “How” you do it is important to a degree, but that you do it — and do it fast — is what counts the most.
There is no place for squeamishness or hesitation in close combat and self-defense. Remember: there is no relation between what you do without hesitation and immediately in a personal defense emergency, and that which you might do in any sporting/competitive "match". Get it clear, straight, definite, and decided, as to which type of encounter you wish to be ready for.
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WELL, not exactly the kind of ear, nose, and throat specialist that we find in reputable medical facilities, but you might one day find it very helpful to have developed the ability to zero in instantly on one of those three extremely vulnerable target areas of the human body, and destroy or injure it, in order to save your life.
EARS:
Just about everyone has two of them. They are within reach, and they are delicate. Seizing them violently is one of the tricks we teach our students in American Combato, in order to facilitate multiple knee blows to the enemy’s testicles.
"Boxing" the ears with that which Fairbairn referred colorfully to as the “thunderclap” (cupped palms blow) is a terrific way to drop an adversary. This dangerous blow can cause concussion and cerebral hemorrhage, under certain conditions. A great blow when you are seized from the front and pulled toward your attacker, or when an attempt is made to apply a frontal underarm body hold. The double ear box is also a great followup blow, after your man has been injured and disoriented.
(Do not open the attack with this blow, since it leaves you wide open for a moment).
After ear boxing — or simply after grabbing the ears suddenly — a strong grip on each ear followed by an archer’s movement will rip one or both ears off the enemy’s head. Grabbing one ear and then chinjabbing with the other hand is also likely to rip an ear off. But you’ve got to do it powerfully!
Smacking an ear always distracts a man. It may be done with the back or with the palm of the hand.
One hand ear boxing is excellent on the attack. It turns the adversary’s head upon impact, and automatically cocks your hand for a handaxe chop or hammerfist blow.
Biting an ear (we hate to say it, but like Mike Tyson did, except with a REAL BITE) and then ripping it off the head, is an excellent action to take when close in to the adversary.
If, in a lethal situation (military combat, for example; or defending against a home invader) you happen to have a sharp commando type dagger, driving it into the ear and through the brain will prove most decisive.
Remember that the ear box places both hands in a perfect position to drive thumbs to the eyes, following impact. A nice bonus.
NOSE:
Always a sensitive, easy target — and usually a convenient one — to hit. A powerful normal fist punch in the nose is always effective, but we would STRONGLY recommend using a heel of the hand blow, instead. Just direct a powerful heel-of-the-hand blow to the center of the attacking individual’s face and you will hit his nose. While not per se a "fatal" blow, it can always be counted upon to be a disorienting blow, and followup of a severe and aggressively destructive kind should end the encounter.
The bridge of the nose is a great target — especially for the handaxe chop and the hammerfist smash. By breaking the thin bone normally covered by the bridge of a pair of glasses, profuse bleeding, complete disorientation, and intense pain, coupled with an inability to see for at least several moments is the near certain result. This is an easy bone to break, and even a child or a small woman can do so, in an emergency. The heel of the hand is also a good weapon to employ against the bridge of the nose, especially in a downward smash, following a chinjab blow that landed only lightly, or that missed its mark.
The point right underneath the nose, above the upper lip (the “philtrum”) is extremely vulnerable to a handaxe chop that is directed into it. A slightly upward directed blow is best. Pat O’Neill favored this particular strike and target point, and always urged the "Forcemen" whom he trained to use it automatically in an encounter, when they could do so.
By striking a hooking heelpalm blow (like a boxer’s “hook”, but employing the heel of the hand as the striking weapon) to the side of the nose and into the corner of the eye or inner cheekbone of the enemy, an excellent disabling hit can be rendered.
Biting the nose always makes good sense in an anything goes fight for survival and defense — and you can actually bite the nose off the enemy’s face if you exert full force and determination with your jaw muscles and teeth.
Driving a finger deep up an adversary’s nostril will make him pull his head back, and will expose his throat (for a blow or for a bite).
Either nostril is an excellent target for a pen, pencil, thin blade, or other object capable of penetrating deep. Deep enough and the brain will be struck — which if hit with a sufficiently forceful and penetrating thrust, will be fatal.
THROAT:
The throat is probably the closest to a "certain stop" target there is in the human body — providing a forceful, crushing blow is directed against it (the handaxe chop being the best). In a long time ago conversation with that marvelous producer of practical firearms training films, Alec Jason (ANITE PUBLICATIONS — producer of DEADLY FORCE, and other classic, outstanding videos) the retired SFPD detective asked us "What shot would you take to what target area with your handgun, if you only had one shot and you had to stop the guy right now?" Our answer, which we recall pretty much word for word was: “In a situation where we had only the chance of one, single hit, and it was life or death, we’d rather rely upon a powerful open hand chop to the attacker’s throat than we would any single shot from any handgun.” Retired detective Jason was a little surprised by our answer, but he did not disagree!
Obviously, when it’s life or death, a powerful, fast chop to the throat should be employed without hesitation.
The web of the hand (hand yoke) strike is a non-lethal blow that is sometimes useful to discourage a pest, or to set a suspect up for a restraining hold (if you are a police officer). The best use of this strike however is to index the hand for the potentially lethal throat lock. The fingers seize the upper part of the windpipe — under the jaw — in a pincher grip. By crushing hard and jerking forward, a fatal injury to the breathing apparatus of the body will be effected.
The throat lock is an excellent attack, and should be perfected by anyone training in practical self-defense.
Remember, when you secure a throat lock with your fingers, if you hold onto that grip and then smash your attacker’s head powerfully with a heel of the hand blow, hammerfist smash, or elbow strike, using your opposite arm, you will effect an injury that will likely prove lethal.
Biting into the throat (or neck) is always effective — but please, it’s got to be a ripping, tearing animal-like bite, not a reluctant nip!
The area immediately to either side of the throat is highly vulnerable to any sharp blow (again, the handaxe is best).
A half-fist strike into the throat is an excellent blow, or if you have strong fingers, a fingertips thrust to the throat is good.
Charlie Nelson taught us a terrific little trick for striking the throat with the fist: After clenching the fist normally, cant the wrist slightly upward. Now snap those foreknuckles (the same ones that hit with the half-fist blow) to the attacker’s throat. You will find that your fist fits very naturally into that area between the opponent’s jaw and his neck. This is a quick, snappy blow, and should be followed up immediately with more destructive actions.
Remember the classic “rising block” that virtually every style of karate invariably teaches? Well, this blow served as a striking action as well as a block in William Chow’s original kenpo-karate. It is still excellent when used to hit. In kenpo-karate the blow was normally directed against the arm or arms — ostensibly to break the enemy’s elbows. We believe that a far better use of the blow is into the throat or underside of the jaw and throat of a taller, larger attacker who moves in close. It will stop his advance cold, and followup should be immediate.
One final unarmed tactic that targets the throat is a little-known technique developed by Pat O’Neill as a counter to an enemy closing in suddenly from the side. Let’s say that your enemy is moving in against you on your left side. You snap your body toward him with a sharp pivoting action while bringing your left forearm high in a lateral movement across your own forehead (fist clenched). Simultaneously, your right arm (fist clenched) applies a lateral forward blow across your high abdominal area. Both of your forearms form a "wall" of sorts, and your attacker will drive himself into this wall as he moves in to attack you. Your left forearm will slam hard into his throat. Your right arm will hit his midsection. Followup!
Attacks to the ears, nose, and throat target areas may of course be undertaken with all sorts of improvised weapons and objects-at-hand. The main thing is: Attack and devastate those vital, key target areas, when you are in a desperate, dangerous self-defense situation! “How” you do it is important to a degree, but that you do it — and do it fast — is what counts the most.
There is no place for squeamishness or hesitation in close combat and self-defense. Remember: there is no relation between what you do without hesitation and immediately in a personal defense emergency, and that which you might do in any sporting/competitive "match". Get it clear, straight, definite, and decided, as to which type of encounter you wish to be ready for.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Scoop On “Pressure Point Fighting”
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have for decades now been adamant about the fact (and it is a FACT) that pain compliance techniques, and in fact pain per se, as a means of stopping a determined and dangerous aggressor, is woefully insufficient. First, because such skills almost invariably depend upon fine motor articulations. Such actions cannot successfully be relied upon in serious hand-to-hand combat. Second, because pain per se is SUBJECTIVE. As a professional, licensed hypnotherapist of more than 20 years, we can tell you that some people can — literally — ignore any degree of pain. Some people (admittedly, not too many) can have deep abdominal surgery or tooth extractions with no anesthesia. Hypnosis — the power of suggestion — is quite sufficient. They do not pay attention to that which would make most of us (our self included) collapse from the pain!
But "pain compliance" via pressure point skills does not cause anywhere near one fiftieth the pain that would be felt from surgery or from having a tooth pulled without anesthesia. Some pressure point techniques — applied correctly — will cause some people to wince and give up.
Unfortunately, fanatical murderers, gang members, home invaders, kidnappers, rapists, and muggers, etc. tend not to be in the "wince and give up" category. These bastards need to be maimed or killed, more often than not, in order to stop them.
One of the greatest law enforcement defensive tactics instructors who ever lived, and a personal friend of ours, Robert J. Koga, devised a most powerful and effective method for police control of suspects when he served as a teacher with the LAPD in the 1960’s. However . . . those skills — and all non-injurious pain compliance skills — have no legitimate use in situations when one is attacked by a dangerous assailant. Police do sometimes have need for compliance-control skills, and for them and those in similar occupations where security and peace keeping is the idea, okay, they serve a purpose. Such people sometimes need to control pests, nervous but not dangerous physically resistant suspects, and annoying riff raff. But police also need man-stopping methods for dangerous encounters, and any experienced street cop will attest to this. Private citizens and members of our armed services (possibly excepting military police, when acting within the parameters of that specific MOS ) do NOT need and should not waste their time and energy learning "compliance" and "non-injurious" methods. The political correctness of this B.S. today, and its popularity in the martial arts field certainly provides an alarming statement about the lack of common sense, the fantasy-worshipping, and the plain stupidity of those who are seeking a "nice" method of self-defense. One might also argue that it says something a bit more foul about those who cash in on these customers — but that’s another story.
Demonstrations of pressure point fighting, just like demonstrations of most martial arts skills, can be visually impressive and dramatically convincing. But a martial arts demonstration is not a violent incident, and the fact that something looks good when performed by well rehearsed experts in front of an audience does not mean that the demonstrated techniques translate into combatively effective techniques, when attempted under combat conditions.
"But what about those seminars and demonstrations in which subjects from out of the attending group or audience are invited to participate and to experience the effectiveness of the methods?" one might ask. "I have seen people rendered utterly helpless by those techniques."
The answer is that what you saw was an essentially cooperative, believing individual subject himself to a demonstration that he already was convinced would be effective in causing him to react as claimed by the demonstrators. This is what happens quite often when one observes one of those popular televangelists cause people from the audience to swoon. It is their (i.e. the peoples’) belief in and inner anticipation of that which is being done to them that causes the reaction.
Let an expert in pressure point fighting try to stop the attack of any member of an outlaw biker gang with that bulltshitty nonsense! He will quickly discover that when a really tough hombre is coming at you with murder in his heart, the last thing you can afford to try is some idiotic pain compliance nonsense.
What stops a dangerous, determined attacker in a serious physical encounter is MASSIVE SHOCK to the central nervous system or/and INTERFERENCE WITH THE ATTACKER’S BREATHING. "Subjective" has nothing to do with anything, here.
Break a man’s knee and he falls. Period. Even if, miraculously, he was so high on drugs, or so insane or drunk that he didn’t feel any pain (highly unlikely) he would fall.
Smash into a man’s carotid sinus with a powerful open hand chop, and he collapses. He likely would "feel" nothing. But he’d be unconscious (in some rare cases, perhaps dead) because when blood flow to the brain is suddenly interrupted, one collapses. Period.
Crush a man’s throat, he ceases offensive action, and drops dead.
Unpleasant as such actions are (and we concede, no decent human being would ever dream of using such actions unless his life or limb, or the life or limb of another innocent person hung in the balance) THEY WORK RELIABLY. "Pain compliance", "pressure point fighting", "humane self-defense", "non-injurious self-protection", ad nauseum does not work in those life-threatening predicaments when dangerous physical aggression by a would-be killer must be contended with. And that is the type of situation that should be of preeminent concern in any legitimate, authentic, professionally taught program of close combat and self-defense.
Sword and Pen – September 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
WE have for decades now been adamant about the fact (and it is a FACT) that pain compliance techniques, and in fact pain per se, as a means of stopping a determined and dangerous aggressor, is woefully insufficient. First, because such skills almost invariably depend upon fine motor articulations. Such actions cannot successfully be relied upon in serious hand-to-hand combat. Second, because pain per se is SUBJECTIVE. As a professional, licensed hypnotherapist of more than 20 years, we can tell you that some people can — literally — ignore any degree of pain. Some people (admittedly, not too many) can have deep abdominal surgery or tooth extractions with no anesthesia. Hypnosis — the power of suggestion — is quite sufficient. They do not pay attention to that which would make most of us (our self included) collapse from the pain!
But "pain compliance" via pressure point skills does not cause anywhere near one fiftieth the pain that would be felt from surgery or from having a tooth pulled without anesthesia. Some pressure point techniques — applied correctly — will cause some people to wince and give up.
Unfortunately, fanatical murderers, gang members, home invaders, kidnappers, rapists, and muggers, etc. tend not to be in the "wince and give up" category. These bastards need to be maimed or killed, more often than not, in order to stop them.
One of the greatest law enforcement defensive tactics instructors who ever lived, and a personal friend of ours, Robert J. Koga, devised a most powerful and effective method for police control of suspects when he served as a teacher with the LAPD in the 1960’s. However . . . those skills — and all non-injurious pain compliance skills — have no legitimate use in situations when one is attacked by a dangerous assailant. Police do sometimes have need for compliance-control skills, and for them and those in similar occupations where security and peace keeping is the idea, okay, they serve a purpose. Such people sometimes need to control pests, nervous but not dangerous physically resistant suspects, and annoying riff raff. But police also need man-stopping methods for dangerous encounters, and any experienced street cop will attest to this. Private citizens and members of our armed services (possibly excepting military police, when acting within the parameters of that specific MOS ) do NOT need and should not waste their time and energy learning "compliance" and "non-injurious" methods. The political correctness of this B.S. today, and its popularity in the martial arts field certainly provides an alarming statement about the lack of common sense, the fantasy-worshipping, and the plain stupidity of those who are seeking a "nice" method of self-defense. One might also argue that it says something a bit more foul about those who cash in on these customers — but that’s another story.
Demonstrations of pressure point fighting, just like demonstrations of most martial arts skills, can be visually impressive and dramatically convincing. But a martial arts demonstration is not a violent incident, and the fact that something looks good when performed by well rehearsed experts in front of an audience does not mean that the demonstrated techniques translate into combatively effective techniques, when attempted under combat conditions.
"But what about those seminars and demonstrations in which subjects from out of the attending group or audience are invited to participate and to experience the effectiveness of the methods?" one might ask. "I have seen people rendered utterly helpless by those techniques."
The answer is that what you saw was an essentially cooperative, believing individual subject himself to a demonstration that he already was convinced would be effective in causing him to react as claimed by the demonstrators. This is what happens quite often when one observes one of those popular televangelists cause people from the audience to swoon. It is their (i.e. the peoples’) belief in and inner anticipation of that which is being done to them that causes the reaction.
Let an expert in pressure point fighting try to stop the attack of any member of an outlaw biker gang with that bulltshitty nonsense! He will quickly discover that when a really tough hombre is coming at you with murder in his heart, the last thing you can afford to try is some idiotic pain compliance nonsense.
What stops a dangerous, determined attacker in a serious physical encounter is MASSIVE SHOCK to the central nervous system or/and INTERFERENCE WITH THE ATTACKER’S BREATHING. "Subjective" has nothing to do with anything, here.
Break a man’s knee and he falls. Period. Even if, miraculously, he was so high on drugs, or so insane or drunk that he didn’t feel any pain (highly unlikely) he would fall.
Smash into a man’s carotid sinus with a powerful open hand chop, and he collapses. He likely would "feel" nothing. But he’d be unconscious (in some rare cases, perhaps dead) because when blood flow to the brain is suddenly interrupted, one collapses. Period.
Crush a man’s throat, he ceases offensive action, and drops dead.
Unpleasant as such actions are (and we concede, no decent human being would ever dream of using such actions unless his life or limb, or the life or limb of another innocent person hung in the balance) THEY WORK RELIABLY. "Pain compliance", "pressure point fighting", "humane self-defense", "non-injurious self-protection", ad nauseum does not work in those life-threatening predicaments when dangerous physical aggression by a would-be killer must be contended with. And that is the type of situation that should be of preeminent concern in any legitimate, authentic, professionally taught program of close combat and self-defense.
Friday, October 1, 2010
When To Defend Against Armed
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
RECENT news stories brought to our attention by students have reported individuals being murdered by armed scum after complying with the felons’ demands, surrendering their money or other property, and offering no resistance. Regrettably, this is nothing new. There exists — as there always has existed — an element of the so-called "human" species who revel in the taking of human life; homo sapien bacterial filth that, in a reasonable world, would be snuffed out of existence the moment it made its propensities for predation known. Unfortunately, today‘s deteriorated social milieu sees academically credentialed morons standing firm as apologists for these unconscionable pieces of s—t, spewing their advocacies of "tolerance", "forgiveness", "mercy", and "understanding" from ivory towers. Ivory towers which, in our opinion, ought to be toppled, when you consider the subversive garbage that emanates from them today.
If you doubt that the very concept of justice is no longer regarded as important or as being a necessary guide for that body of codified custom which we refer to as the "law" in our society, then think about this: MARTHA STEWART HAS DONE MORE HARD TIME THAN USAMA BIN LADEN.
In any case, armed, violent felons abound. This is the age of the psychopath. Psychopaths comprise that collection of sewage that are regarded by the mentally challenged as our "national leaders", and they are in that class which in a better time might have been referred to as constituting "the dregs of society". The only hope for your protection, security, and defense, and for the protection, security, and defense of those you love, is YOU. Never before in the history of this Nation — and Western Europe — has the private citizen needed the ability to defend himself and fight back against dangerous predators as badly and desperately as he needs it today.
The question arises: “If you ever find yourself facing an armed adversary, how do you decide whether to take defensive, counterattacking action, or simply comply with his demands?”
First of all, let us dismiss the matter of how one must deal with an outright attack. That is, a situation where there is no "threat" per se, during which the armed criminal employs his weapon so as to intimidate you into surrendering your money, car keys, etc.; but where the criminal forthrightly attempts to use the weapon to injure or to kill you.
Obviously, if running away is possible, that is what you should do. IF YOU CANNOT RUN AWAY, AND IF YOU FIND YOURSELF CONFRONTING SOMEONE WHO IS EMPLOYING A DEADLY WEAPON (OR AN IMPROVISED ITEM AS A DEADLY WEAPON — WITH LETHAL INTENT — THEN YOU FOLLOW THE PROPER TWO-STEP COUNTERMEASURE:
1. DODGE, EVADE, PARRY, BLOCK ASIDE, OR OTHERWISE REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE IMMEDIATE PATH OF THE WEAPON, AND THEN . . .
2. USE EVERY MEANS AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO NEUTRALIZE YOUR ATTACKER, LETHALLY. SHOW NO MERCY, HAVE NO RESTRAINT, DO NOT RELENT UNTIL IT IS OBVIOUS TO YOU THAT YOUR WOULD-BE MURDERER IS UNCONSCIOUS. (WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY DEAD OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT).
Okay. That is the procedure to follow (using the best techniques you know and have command of) when the attack is outright. Now, let‘s address the matter of a "threat"; a threat in which the armed felon expresses a demand for property, and says or implies that if you comply you will not be injured. What then?
The answer is that IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOUR JUDGMENT AT THE TIME/ With a deadly weapon pointed at you, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself. It makes no difference whatever what the criminal says. He has given up any right to forbearance on your part the moment he leveled the weapon against you.
No one — not even the most highly qualified teacher of close combat — can make your decision for you, ahead of time. You need to decide.
Our personal advice is: If you believe — really are convinced — that by giving the scum your money or your vehicle, etc., he will leave and injure neither yourself nor any other innocent person, then give him what he wants. Not because it would be wrong, for instance, to kill him. It would not be. It would doing a great public service, and acting in a reasonable, moral, and — assuming you felt that your life was at stake — it would in our lay person’s opinion also be acting in a lawful manner. (Note: Check with a lawyer for any actual legal advice, or for a reliable statement of how the law might regard any action that you take).
The reason we would suggest the possibility of complying as an option is because you must use deadly force when defending against a deadly weapon, and once you begin to counter the armed scumbag you will use that level of force, and it will be you or him. This will entail risk for yourself; and we‘d rather not see a decent human being risk his own life when he needn‘t do so — even if there is a good chance of his eliminating an element of subhuman trash from the social landscape.
If you have any slight doubt or "hunch" about what an armed individual truly intends to do; i.e. if you do not feel 100% convinced that his intention is robbery only, but that he will kill yourself or another innocent person, THEN ACT FAST AND KILL HIM FIRST!
That‘s it, people. Like how we put it or not, we are giving you the scoop, and we are not perfuming it for those with sensitive ears.
Concern Number One is protecting innocent life and limb. You want to crush or rip apart the armed enemy‘s throat, gouge his eyes, smash him in the carotid artery/break his knee/or strike him in one or another of his vital points, in order to drop him to the deck, eliminate his ability to use his weapon, and then set him so that you keep on attacking him with kicks, downward blows of the knees, heel palms, handaxe chops, etc., until he is absolutely, clearly, and positively NO LONGER A THREAT. If at any point you can safely run away and escape, we recommend doing that.
Tips:—
• Never allow yourself to be tied up
• Do not permit yourself to be locked in the truck of a car
• Never submit to being handcuffed
• Do not enter a closet, cell, or other area of apparent inescapable confinement
• Do not allow yourself to be ―proned out‖ (except in a bank robbery scenario)
• Do not allow yourself to be taken away in a vehicle of any kind, from the scene where the threat originates
• Do not get down on your knees
Feign compliance in all of the above instances, then ATTACK LETHALLY. YOU WILL BE FIGHTING FOR YOUR LIFE, AND POSSIBLY FOR THE LIVES OF THOSE YOU LOVE.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
RECENT news stories brought to our attention by students have reported individuals being murdered by armed scum after complying with the felons’ demands, surrendering their money or other property, and offering no resistance. Regrettably, this is nothing new. There exists — as there always has existed — an element of the so-called "human" species who revel in the taking of human life; homo sapien bacterial filth that, in a reasonable world, would be snuffed out of existence the moment it made its propensities for predation known. Unfortunately, today‘s deteriorated social milieu sees academically credentialed morons standing firm as apologists for these unconscionable pieces of s—t, spewing their advocacies of "tolerance", "forgiveness", "mercy", and "understanding" from ivory towers. Ivory towers which, in our opinion, ought to be toppled, when you consider the subversive garbage that emanates from them today.
If you doubt that the very concept of justice is no longer regarded as important or as being a necessary guide for that body of codified custom which we refer to as the "law" in our society, then think about this: MARTHA STEWART HAS DONE MORE HARD TIME THAN USAMA BIN LADEN.
In any case, armed, violent felons abound. This is the age of the psychopath. Psychopaths comprise that collection of sewage that are regarded by the mentally challenged as our "national leaders", and they are in that class which in a better time might have been referred to as constituting "the dregs of society". The only hope for your protection, security, and defense, and for the protection, security, and defense of those you love, is YOU. Never before in the history of this Nation — and Western Europe — has the private citizen needed the ability to defend himself and fight back against dangerous predators as badly and desperately as he needs it today.
The question arises: “If you ever find yourself facing an armed adversary, how do you decide whether to take defensive, counterattacking action, or simply comply with his demands?”
First of all, let us dismiss the matter of how one must deal with an outright attack. That is, a situation where there is no "threat" per se, during which the armed criminal employs his weapon so as to intimidate you into surrendering your money, car keys, etc.; but where the criminal forthrightly attempts to use the weapon to injure or to kill you.
Obviously, if running away is possible, that is what you should do. IF YOU CANNOT RUN AWAY, AND IF YOU FIND YOURSELF CONFRONTING SOMEONE WHO IS EMPLOYING A DEADLY WEAPON (OR AN IMPROVISED ITEM AS A DEADLY WEAPON — WITH LETHAL INTENT — THEN YOU FOLLOW THE PROPER TWO-STEP COUNTERMEASURE:
1. DODGE, EVADE, PARRY, BLOCK ASIDE, OR OTHERWISE REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE IMMEDIATE PATH OF THE WEAPON, AND THEN . . .
2. USE EVERY MEANS AT YOUR DISPOSAL TO NEUTRALIZE YOUR ATTACKER, LETHALLY. SHOW NO MERCY, HAVE NO RESTRAINT, DO NOT RELENT UNTIL IT IS OBVIOUS TO YOU THAT YOUR WOULD-BE MURDERER IS UNCONSCIOUS. (WHETHER HE IS ACTUALLY DEAD OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT).
Okay. That is the procedure to follow (using the best techniques you know and have command of) when the attack is outright. Now, let‘s address the matter of a "threat"; a threat in which the armed felon expresses a demand for property, and says or implies that if you comply you will not be injured. What then?
The answer is that IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOUR JUDGMENT AT THE TIME/ With a deadly weapon pointed at you, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself. It makes no difference whatever what the criminal says. He has given up any right to forbearance on your part the moment he leveled the weapon against you.
No one — not even the most highly qualified teacher of close combat — can make your decision for you, ahead of time. You need to decide.
Our personal advice is: If you believe — really are convinced — that by giving the scum your money or your vehicle, etc., he will leave and injure neither yourself nor any other innocent person, then give him what he wants. Not because it would be wrong, for instance, to kill him. It would not be. It would doing a great public service, and acting in a reasonable, moral, and — assuming you felt that your life was at stake — it would in our lay person’s opinion also be acting in a lawful manner. (Note: Check with a lawyer for any actual legal advice, or for a reliable statement of how the law might regard any action that you take).
The reason we would suggest the possibility of complying as an option is because you must use deadly force when defending against a deadly weapon, and once you begin to counter the armed scumbag you will use that level of force, and it will be you or him. This will entail risk for yourself; and we‘d rather not see a decent human being risk his own life when he needn‘t do so — even if there is a good chance of his eliminating an element of subhuman trash from the social landscape.
If you have any slight doubt or "hunch" about what an armed individual truly intends to do; i.e. if you do not feel 100% convinced that his intention is robbery only, but that he will kill yourself or another innocent person, THEN ACT FAST AND KILL HIM FIRST!
That‘s it, people. Like how we put it or not, we are giving you the scoop, and we are not perfuming it for those with sensitive ears.
Concern Number One is protecting innocent life and limb. You want to crush or rip apart the armed enemy‘s throat, gouge his eyes, smash him in the carotid artery/break his knee/or strike him in one or another of his vital points, in order to drop him to the deck, eliminate his ability to use his weapon, and then set him so that you keep on attacking him with kicks, downward blows of the knees, heel palms, handaxe chops, etc., until he is absolutely, clearly, and positively NO LONGER A THREAT. If at any point you can safely run away and escape, we recommend doing that.
Tips:—
• Never allow yourself to be tied up
• Do not permit yourself to be locked in the truck of a car
• Never submit to being handcuffed
• Do not enter a closet, cell, or other area of apparent inescapable confinement
• Do not allow yourself to be ―proned out‖ (except in a bank robbery scenario)
• Do not allow yourself to be taken away in a vehicle of any kind, from the scene where the threat originates
• Do not get down on your knees
Feign compliance in all of the above instances, then ATTACK LETHALLY. YOU WILL BE FIGHTING FOR YOUR LIFE, AND POSSIBLY FOR THE LIVES OF THOSE YOU LOVE.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
If You Duel You’re A Fool
© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
THE System of knifework that we developed many years ago derives from two key methods: Primarily, the Fairbairn/Applegate System, and secondarily the Biddle/Styers System. In addition, it contains a substantial amount of material that we personally originated (such as "neck traps", and certain other niceties). What it does not contain or include is an emphasis upon knife vs. knife fighting, or "dueling". Our students do learn how to handle a situation (very, very unlikely) in which — knife in hand — they confront an enemy who is also in possession of a knife in his hand; however, this sort of thing practically never actually happens. And attempts to prepare students to use a fighting knife in self-defense or hand-to-hand combat by having them square off and play "blade tag" with each other, is absurd.
The use of duels as a means of developing a high level of ability in the art of knife fighting is in our opinion (as it was in the opinions of Fairbairn, Applegate, Sykes, O‘Neill, and others whose methods were war-based and produced as a result of actual combat studies and experiences) foolish. Unfortunately, with the exception only of a portion of the doctrine which it espoused, we must relegate the Biddle/Styers System to this category, as well. Some of Styers‘ material is excellent and makes perfect sense; but the whole idea that one may anticipate the likelihood of encountering a knife-wielding adversary against whom one will proceed to employ one‘s own knife is based more upon the influence of Anthony Biddle (a fencer, and Styers‘ mentor) and NOT upon reality. During WWII Biddle even introduced bayoneted rifle dueling(!!!) which — thank goodness — the USMC had the good sense to dispense with shortly after being exposed to it!
We remember, during one of our countless conversations with the late Col. Rex Applegate, discussing knifework and how it really goes down in a close combat encounter. "I have never heard of one single incident in all of WWII when a knife vs. knife fight occurred," he told us. "Fairbairn had the same view," he continued. "Knife vs. knife is for criminals who fight with each other in bars, and for the movies. Soldiers, police, and civilians who use knives in self-defense don‘t need to concern themselves with that sort of thing."
Okay. Years before even meeting Col. Applegate, we were a student of Charles Nelson. And while he never went into the matter at great length with us, he definitely expressed the same idea that Applegate did. Charlie had been a combat marine during WWII, had bunked with John Styers, and had learned ju-jutsu ("combat judo") under, among others, Col. Anthony Biddle. Nelson became a combat judo instructor, himself. "Nah," Charlie had told us, "ya ain‘t gonna see no knife 'fights‘. All that happens is one guy attacks the other with a knife — and one of 'em gets killed during the fight."
And that is pretty much it.
If, for example, I have a knife in my hand, I am NOT going to give the other guy an opportunity to draw his (if we assume that he possesses one, and that I know about it). Nor will "the other guy" give me a chance to acquire my fighting knife, in any hand-to-hand situation where his knife is in his hands, and it is his objective to kill me. Possibly a complete FOOL will pause and caution his target-victim to draw a blade; but anyone with the brains that is possessed by a handful of gravel will not!
So why is knife dueling a part of many "knife fighting seminars", popularly taught courses, and DVDs? Why, also, are the utterly asinine histrionics that are inevitably taught to students of the bali-song folding knife offered as legitimate knife fighting fare? Very simply because it attracts and appeals to students who do not know any better; and it makes for an interesting and "fun" instructional period for teachers looking for a way to retain those students. It‘s dramatic, and it has all of the excitement and fun of sparring (something else that is absurd in close combat and self-defense training, but that is another story).
To become proficient in real world knifework what is required is, first and foremost, a mindset enabling you to attack and to kill another human being with a sharp blade. This is a hell of a lot harder for many people than one might at first believe. It is one thing to shoot a man at a distance with a firearm. That is, for some people, an agonizingly difficult thing to drive themselves to do; but it is, to a degree, "sanitized". One can shoot someone and not feel him die, so to speak, or "get your hands dirty" (read: bloody). Knifework is hand-to-hand stuff, and very personal. It takes a measure of physical strength in most cases (expecting your enemy to "let you do it" goes beyond optimism!), and you must go for the vital target areas with fierce determination and speed. Often, some basic unarmed combat must accompany the knife actions, in order to get to the enemy‘s vital points and dispatch him.
If we assume the right mindset, then simple technique is called for. We are not going to describe it here, but we will say that it bears no relation to the nonsense that is being vomited out by so-called "experts" in their dramatic seminar presentations. The only point we want to make — because we see that it is necessary to make it — is that proper knifework does NOT involve training to duel.
From the standpoint of defending against knife attacks, you can learn a great deal if you study realistic knifework, yourself. You will realize that a determined knife assailant is quite often impossible even for an expert to defend against. You will also learn why nearly every single "knife defense" that is taught amounts to little more than unusable nonsense.
The knife is a fabulous weapon in hand-to-hand combat. Learning its proper use should be high on your list of priorities. Respect the knife. No matter how expert you become, it is NEVER certain that you will be able to defend successfully against a knife attack. And for heaven‘s sake don‘t train in knife dueling. Not only will no one be likely to give you the opportunity use that which you acquire; you will be deluding yourself, and acquiring nonsense, instead of practical, viable skill in knifework.
With the knife — as with the stick, as with the handgun, as with any hand-held weapon, or with no weapon at all — ATTACK. Leave all "duels" to the Three Musketeers.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
THE System of knifework that we developed many years ago derives from two key methods: Primarily, the Fairbairn/Applegate System, and secondarily the Biddle/Styers System. In addition, it contains a substantial amount of material that we personally originated (such as "neck traps", and certain other niceties). What it does not contain or include is an emphasis upon knife vs. knife fighting, or "dueling". Our students do learn how to handle a situation (very, very unlikely) in which — knife in hand — they confront an enemy who is also in possession of a knife in his hand; however, this sort of thing practically never actually happens. And attempts to prepare students to use a fighting knife in self-defense or hand-to-hand combat by having them square off and play "blade tag" with each other, is absurd.
The use of duels as a means of developing a high level of ability in the art of knife fighting is in our opinion (as it was in the opinions of Fairbairn, Applegate, Sykes, O‘Neill, and others whose methods were war-based and produced as a result of actual combat studies and experiences) foolish. Unfortunately, with the exception only of a portion of the doctrine which it espoused, we must relegate the Biddle/Styers System to this category, as well. Some of Styers‘ material is excellent and makes perfect sense; but the whole idea that one may anticipate the likelihood of encountering a knife-wielding adversary against whom one will proceed to employ one‘s own knife is based more upon the influence of Anthony Biddle (a fencer, and Styers‘ mentor) and NOT upon reality. During WWII Biddle even introduced bayoneted rifle dueling(!!!) which — thank goodness — the USMC had the good sense to dispense with shortly after being exposed to it!
We remember, during one of our countless conversations with the late Col. Rex Applegate, discussing knifework and how it really goes down in a close combat encounter. "I have never heard of one single incident in all of WWII when a knife vs. knife fight occurred," he told us. "Fairbairn had the same view," he continued. "Knife vs. knife is for criminals who fight with each other in bars, and for the movies. Soldiers, police, and civilians who use knives in self-defense don‘t need to concern themselves with that sort of thing."
Okay. Years before even meeting Col. Applegate, we were a student of Charles Nelson. And while he never went into the matter at great length with us, he definitely expressed the same idea that Applegate did. Charlie had been a combat marine during WWII, had bunked with John Styers, and had learned ju-jutsu ("combat judo") under, among others, Col. Anthony Biddle. Nelson became a combat judo instructor, himself. "Nah," Charlie had told us, "ya ain‘t gonna see no knife 'fights‘. All that happens is one guy attacks the other with a knife — and one of 'em gets killed during the fight."
And that is pretty much it.
If, for example, I have a knife in my hand, I am NOT going to give the other guy an opportunity to draw his (if we assume that he possesses one, and that I know about it). Nor will "the other guy" give me a chance to acquire my fighting knife, in any hand-to-hand situation where his knife is in his hands, and it is his objective to kill me. Possibly a complete FOOL will pause and caution his target-victim to draw a blade; but anyone with the brains that is possessed by a handful of gravel will not!
So why is knife dueling a part of many "knife fighting seminars", popularly taught courses, and DVDs? Why, also, are the utterly asinine histrionics that are inevitably taught to students of the bali-song folding knife offered as legitimate knife fighting fare? Very simply because it attracts and appeals to students who do not know any better; and it makes for an interesting and "fun" instructional period for teachers looking for a way to retain those students. It‘s dramatic, and it has all of the excitement and fun of sparring (something else that is absurd in close combat and self-defense training, but that is another story).
To become proficient in real world knifework what is required is, first and foremost, a mindset enabling you to attack and to kill another human being with a sharp blade. This is a hell of a lot harder for many people than one might at first believe. It is one thing to shoot a man at a distance with a firearm. That is, for some people, an agonizingly difficult thing to drive themselves to do; but it is, to a degree, "sanitized". One can shoot someone and not feel him die, so to speak, or "get your hands dirty" (read: bloody). Knifework is hand-to-hand stuff, and very personal. It takes a measure of physical strength in most cases (expecting your enemy to "let you do it" goes beyond optimism!), and you must go for the vital target areas with fierce determination and speed. Often, some basic unarmed combat must accompany the knife actions, in order to get to the enemy‘s vital points and dispatch him.
If we assume the right mindset, then simple technique is called for. We are not going to describe it here, but we will say that it bears no relation to the nonsense that is being vomited out by so-called "experts" in their dramatic seminar presentations. The only point we want to make — because we see that it is necessary to make it — is that proper knifework does NOT involve training to duel.
From the standpoint of defending against knife attacks, you can learn a great deal if you study realistic knifework, yourself. You will realize that a determined knife assailant is quite often impossible even for an expert to defend against. You will also learn why nearly every single "knife defense" that is taught amounts to little more than unusable nonsense.
The knife is a fabulous weapon in hand-to-hand combat. Learning its proper use should be high on your list of priorities. Respect the knife. No matter how expert you become, it is NEVER certain that you will be able to defend successfully against a knife attack. And for heaven‘s sake don‘t train in knife dueling. Not only will no one be likely to give you the opportunity use that which you acquire; you will be deluding yourself, and acquiring nonsense, instead of practical, viable skill in knifework.
With the knife — as with the stick, as with the handgun, as with any hand-held weapon, or with no weapon at all — ATTACK. Leave all "duels" to the Three Musketeers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)