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