© COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sword and Pen – August 2010 Issue
[Reprinted With Permission]
www.americancombato.com
www.seattlecombatives.com
SIMPLY because people — even a lot of people — believe or feel that something is true does not mean that that which they believe is in fact true. Nor does the fact that many people might want very much for something to be true indicate anything at all about its truth or falsehood. One does not determine what is true or false by taking a poll — or by putting the matter up to a vote. Not only is it possible for the majority to be wrong, history has consistently shown that the majority nearly always is wrong.
Today we observe the overwhelming majority of those who participate in the martial arts following programs of instruction and practice that may be quite excellent for purposes of aesthetic satisfaction and the mastery of classical physical art, or for the enjoyment of vigorous competitive matches, yet which is not suitable for personal defense and hand-to-hand combat. The problem is this: Many if not most of those who come to the martial arts do so for self-defense. They are only peripherally interested in Asian culture and tradition (if they are interested in it, at all), and the only reason they agree to practice competition skills and to engage in matches is because they have been led to believe that doing so will assure them the attainment of their objective, which is self-defense ability, and confidence.
We have said this, and we will continue to repeat this message again, and again:
There is absolutely no correlation between matches, sparring, competitive “fighting”, or sporting contests of any kind and REAL COMBAT. Nor is there more than a small percentage of classical/traditional martial arts that may be adapted — by experts — to serious, dangerous, anything goes hand-to-hand combat with determined, hardened physical attackers. Close combat and self-defense is a study and a discipline unto itself.
We do not say this as an attack on classical/traditional or sporting/competitive martial arts. They are fabulous activities, and so long as the individual understands precisely what the art that he is enrolling to study can and will ultimately give him, and so long as that is what he wants, everything is fine. But we believe that those whose purpose is the attainment of combat skill and the ability to defend themselves ought to know clearly that what they need is a COMBAT/SELF-DEFENSE system; they do not want classical/traditional or sporting/competitive doctrine.
Okay. If we can finally come to the realization that combat and contest are unrelated, and that each requires its own, unique, very specific approach when it comes to training and skills acquisition and development, we have taken Step #1. We are finally out of the woods, and we are no longer entertaining the nonsense that by excelling in any of the competitive venues we are thereby establishing hand-to-hand combat capabilities. Step #2 consists of determining which of the so-called all combat, or “reality based” systems of so-called "martial art" make sense. There are, after all, all sorts of points of disagreement amongst many who, realizing that self-defense/close combat is not the same as competition and contest, differ in regard to how real combative engagements ought properly to be handled.
For our readers‘ information, we would like to point out that even amongst the (today) venerated “WWII instructors” there was some disagreement. For example, Applegate (who was Fairbairn‘s protégé, at the outset of the two mens‘ relationship during WWII) vigorously disagreed with several of the throwing actions that Fairbairn initially introduced in his wartime system; and Applegate refused completely to teach the ―bent arm hold‖ vs. a downward knife stab as a first option — preferring, as we do, to teach a much simpler parrying action; or better yet, a simple, fast sidestep.
Despite the differences between Fairbairn and Applegate, there were many more similarities . . . precisely as there were between all of that era’s truly knowledgeable and experienced teachers.
Different teachers will inevitably tend to flavor their teachings with that which they, as individuals, personally have found to be the most practical and effective skills. However, if you are a prospective student and wish to have a clear understanding of what genuine close combat and self-defense teachers will universally teach and agree upon, it is this:
• Simplicity, destructiveness, adaptability, learnability, and retainability are always critical touchstones for assessing what is worth including in a combat system
• Absolute ruthlessness and savagery mark the quality tactics and skills of close combat
• No ground grappling!
• Blows, gouges, butting, biting, kicking — those are the best techniques
• No force "continuums". When you are attacked you EXPLODE and destroy the enemy — you attack relentlessly - stopping only when you are no longer in danger
• Use anything at hand to assist yourself in destroying the enemy — preferably a fighting knife, handgun, or tomahawk. Use an improvised weapon, if you can get your hands on one. "Bare hands" are used only when bare hands is all you have
• No high kicks, and only minimum use of the clenched fists in punching (to soft targets, only)
• No preparatory "fighting" type stances
• No "one shot stops" — follow up!
• Only a very few throws; and such throws as are worthwhile are those that cannot be safely employed with any force, even on a mat
• Expect multiple attackers, a weapon, any attack to be potentially deadly, and that your enemy will be your physical superior, and better skilled than yourself
• Frank acknowledgment of the value of physical strength, fitness, and hardihood
• Enormous emphasis on mindset and proper psychological conditioning for combat (not for "competition")
• Very little emphasis on "blocking" — almost all (90% at least) emphasis upon ATTACKING FEROCIOUSLY and by using the element of surprise, whenever possible
In reality, then, the "different schools of thought" that exist in the field of practical close combat and self-defense are not so very different, after all. They all have the same "flavor" as it were.
This much may be counted upon, however. There will never be any correlation suggested by any worthwhile close combat or self-defense teacher between combat and sport. Whatever else — whatever little else! — really professional teachers may disagree on, they all understand, acknowledge, and agree that close combat and self-defense is a world apart from classical/traditional and sporting/competitive activities.
Bradley J. Steiner
No comments:
Post a Comment