Rookie To Pro, Its All The Same – Mark Hatmaker

“Diligence passe sens” (“Great is drill.”) Henry VIII

A common request among combat rookies and even intermediate players (and if we are honest some long-timers still think this way, too) is “What’s next?” or “What’s the next super-secret neato technique to master?” And I get this attitude, I mean who doesn’t want some new bit of information to chew over, some new skill to toy with and occupy the mind? For some, familiarity breeds contempt and if most of us don’t feel contempt for what we know we must do, we can at least admit that sometimes another day in the gym working on variations of the same things as we did last week can occasionally lead to a bit of staleness.
But, despite the occasional battle with “This again?” we must come to terms with and embrace the fact that this is the way of all great and serious endeavors. Let’s look to other sports for illustration.

If we were to step onto the court of any winning basketball team during practice, would we expect to see something unlike what we see in a basketball game itself, that is, athletes working on passing, shooting, rebounding, the full court press, et cetera?

In football practice from Pop Warner to the NFL you will see variations of the same drills and plays.

In tennis you will not see athletes forgoing tried and true serves in favor of developing jumping  spinning back serves with a half-gainer twist.

In a good boxing gym you will see amateur and pro fighters alike working the bag with the exact same arsenal.

In good MMA gyms you will see good double leg takedowns and the same handful of go-to submissions being worked by rookies and pros alike.

In other words, if even those at the top of their games, those who play their given games for money are subjected to the exact same regimen as the beginner (with a difference in intensity, of course) than why would any of us not at that particular level expect to do something different to get to that same status?

There is a sometime tendency to see Drills as finite in that once a particular skill has been honed to an acceptable useful level we get to move on and leave it behind as we play with the next toy.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Manny Pacquiao still hones and drills the exact same jab that any 1st day boxing rookie must work on.

Demian Maia still throws hooks in and uses the same rear-naked choke that any strip mall aspiring blue belt understands.

You can go on and on with examples of tactics and techniques that you are introduced to in your first year of training being much of the basis of what you will see emerge victorious in rings and octagons the world round.

We must not approach drilling as a soon to be reached destination with some threshold arrived at where we get to stop. Drilling must be a continuous process as we will never quite know what individual repetition or single drill session will be the one that does the job to make that tool what it is.

Here’s a passage from Ralph Waldo Emerson on the subject of drilling:

At West Point, Col. Buford, the chief engineer, pounded with a hammer on the trunnions of a cannon, until he broke them off. He fired a piece of ordnance some hundred times in swift succession, until it burst. Now which stroke broke the trunnion? Every stroke. Which blast burst the piece? Every blast.”

Emerson and Colonel Buford’s lesson still holds, we never have any way of knowing which day of drilling our jab, our double leg, or our double-wristlock will be the day that puts it over the edge, the day that makes it move from the commonplace to the extraordinary.

But while we may not know the single instance that does the job, we do know that every instance contributes to the one (if such a one even exists). And with this wisdom in mind we should follow in the steps of Henry VIII, Emerson, Colonel Buford, Manny Pacquiao, and every other top athlete who does what rookies do, but they do it better because they never stopped working on what works and pursued something else. They just kept drilling and drilling and drilling.

 

Clarification, Scepticism and Individuality Part III – Jamie Clubb

Scepticism.

 

Critical thinking is woefully absent from the martial arts world. Martial arts subculture is largely based on a simple principle of following a teacher without question. Likewise, the system or style is considered to be sacred. Nevertheless, critical thinking has played a huge role in the development of virtually all martial arts. Every system or style has its root in one teacher’s critique. All the great founders were sceptics to some degree. However, they were also human and prone to seeing everything from their perspective. As time moved on they became surrounded by sycophants and further entrenched in believing their way was the only true way. Martial artists have done a great job of bringing scientific concepts into the refinement and progression of their systems, but few have fully embraced the scientific method as a whole.

The martial arts cross-trainer needs to apply critical thinking on his journey. This can make the quest quite lonely as our natural instinct is to try to find a tribe. Martial artists who switch styles will typically regard their new style like a new relationship and convince themselves that everything about the new class is better than the last one. On the other side of the coin a good number of martial artists will spend their time cross-training telling everyone about the greatness of their base art. Rather doing their best to completely absorb new material they will preach to their unfortunate training partner about what they do and why they do something in the main system they train. The critical thinker needs to be wary of both these temptations. He engages with the material and then later properly questions it with a rational and logical mind. Through this process the individual cross-trainer should understand that there is no certainty that anything will work, but he will also start accumulating a list of the most probable options.

Due to the tribal nature of martial arts and the lack of overall transparent regulation, irrational thinking has touched virtually every system of combat in some way or other. Pre-scientific ideas have persisted to be a part of many martial arts systems. Sometimes they remain as part of an appeal to tradition argument within the various schools wishing to continue a lineage. However, many modern systems don’t need such an excuse to buy into all sorts of quackery and unproven pseudoscientific concepts. Likewise, philosophical and religious concepts have been forcefully melded with the practice of martial arts and absorbed as absolutes. This dogma takes many different forms and appeals to novelty are just as responsible as appeals to tradition for their continued propagation. Cults of personality have also arisen where followers support the belief that their leader can never be wrong. The martial arts cross-trainer needs to be able to recognise these factors both in others and in themselves.

However, there is at least one caveat the eager sceptic or critical thinker must take on board before he questions everything: be wary of pseudoscepticism. The pseudosceptic denies rather than doubts. He is more of a cynic than a sceptic or is keen to cast scorn over anything outside of his own narrow view. They mask their confirmation bias with scientific sounding language, but fail to adopt the scientific method. They might apply a double standard by applying keen scepticism to one concept and yet not to his preferred choice. However, on the other hand, he might attempt to bolster his argument by attempting to drag down a view accepted by mainstream science as an equal opinion. Reasoned and informed questioning should be a regular part of healthy learning.

Scepticism allows the martial arts cross-trainer to truly free their mind and to resist certainty whilst allowing logical methods – such as Occam’s Razor and the Scientific Method – to lead them to the most effective solutions.

 

Options for Police Officers During A Traffic Stop – Dan Donzella interviewed by Tim Boehlert

In March I had the good fortune of networking with a gentleman on Facebook that seemed to agree with some of my postings – and he had some very good insights to add. I’m always reluctant to reach out and ask too many questions for fear of pushing people away, because in my business, it’s always hard to find like-minded professionals. And while it’s great therapy for me to exorcise some deep-seated thinking, it’s often disturbing to others not acclimated to what I did for years.

I’d like to introduce you to Dan Donzella. Dan is a Martial Artist, an Instructor/Consultant for Police Departments and also a Firearms Instructor. I had asked Dan outright if we could have a phone conversation – I was very curious about his thoughts and experience, and wanted to develop a conversation off-line. We spent over an hour poking around some dark corners, and I finally had to pop some disturbing questions on him! Lo and behold, not only did he agree, but also HELL YEAH! He agreed with my viewpoints.

Understand one thing about some of our civil servants. They are not always forthcoming with talking about, let alone sharing information that is of a specific nature. They generally don’t talk about the job with outsiders, in my opinion of course. I’ve found that many are reluctant to get into specifics or to talk about issues. I’ve also found that training is never discussed.

During my many years of security employment I’ve sought to learn from others – and who better to teach a newbie than a certified Police Officer? I also seek to give back – teach them things that we’d do, based solely on our own abilities or our guidelines. Knowledge is useless if it’s not shared.

In a nutshell, it was great to finally get to the one thing that always bothers me – training. Can we talk about some of it? What are your thoughts about what is taught? Did you see stuff that bothered you? Can we do better? What would you do if you could?

While we have a lot to explore, Dan was kind enough to accept a challenge from me to write his very first article. Dan is a teacher, but not a writer, and we both have that in common, and although he has more ability in many areas than I, we both want to teach better. Dan sent me a few lines of an idea, and I had to wring the rest out. I added my stuff, and took a co-writer option to encourage and guide him through the process, and my expectation is that the next article will be his entirely – and even if I have to edit it, we will strive for autonomy!

What follows is the ‘interview’ process that we undertook after that first phone call where I’d planted the seed to encourage him to share some of his expertise.

TB: Dan, I don’t know much about your background, but you seem to have ties to LE in our community, and we seem to have some very exclusive friends in the MA arena as well as some common friends in the Police community. I also know that you spent some time with a local PD, and did some DT training with their officers. Can you expand on that a bit?

DD: In 2007 a proposal was made to create a Regional Police Academy for numerous police departments. The purpose of this Academy would be to provide standardized training to new recruits while eliminating overlapping policies and tactics and providing a much-better prepared Police force that would be more well equipped to work together with other agencies.

The Department knew me because I had previously taught some of the high-ranking officers. The head of this project felt that the weapons retention course was out of date. He felt that it was inadequate because it was driven by a defensive mindset – strictly addressing problems from a defensive stance. I put together an offensive minded course that was so well received by the movers and shakers that I was then given the task of assessing the Defensive Tactics program and to try and put together a more-modernized version for new recruits as well as seasoned officers.

In doing so, I started by assessing the weapons retention training. Because I am a firearms instructor, and had spent some time on the streets with many of the officers, I was able to find several things that I felt ‘we can do better.’ After being exposed to some of the current training, I knew that I’d have a lot of work to do.

TB: I can’t imagine what it would be like to have the responsibility of designing any program for Police Officers – where do you start, what do you prioritize, and how do you cram it all into such a short program, yet provide them with a responsible end-product?

DD: As you may have guessed, it’s nearly impossible to cover all aspects of police work in a school setting. Your FTO (Field Training Officer) and years of experience are crucial parts of a larger puzzle that isn’t the same for any two recruits. 

After completing my new Weapons Retention curriculum I began working with the various units within the Police Department. Each job is different though. For instance Traffic Division vs. Street Patrol. I had the unique opportunity to work Traffic Division with the Captain of that division for 2 years. I was getting a lot of questions from officers on “what if’s”, and the most common question I got was about how to extract a person out of their car. What they were asking me was “is there a ‘best’ way to remove the person and not have it end up escalating into a all-out brawl?” What gets taught universally in academies is that officer safety should ALWAYS be their first priority.

TB: Can you share any of the issues that you discovered in the field?

DD: The major mistake that I witnessed in the field was that the officers would reach in over the driver with their entire body and with both hands to unfasten the driver’s seat belt. This simple and too common method/error would expose the officer’s firearm, leaving the officer vulnerable to possible attack.

TB: You see a lot from a different perspective once you know more – based on years on the street, and/or in other training that you’ve pursued. So, based on this ‘mistake’, how did you address it?

DD: What I came up with were the following changes for those stops where the officer was dealing with a non-cooperative, non-compliant and possibly combative citizen:

[1] The officer should first place his/her right knee against the driver’s hip. This limits the driver’s ability to move offensively against the officer, and also allows the officer to ‘feel’ any sudden movements, but still allows a reasonable degree of control.

[2] Next, the officer places his/her your right forearm across the driver’s jaw-line turning their head away and towards the passenger side of the vehicle. You may ask why the forearm across the jaw? This is a control situation where the officer may need to assist the driver to unbuckle their seatbelt. The driver may be non-compliant for any number of reasons – medical emergency, or perhaps just being plain uncooperative. Reaching across the body without controlling the head in this manner could give the driver a means of pulling the officer into a chokehold. The forearm might actually not even touch the driver but still creates a safer entry technique. Prior and on-going assessment of the situation is always critical. The driver might fake a medical condition to gain surprise or advantage allowing them to get the upper hand on the officer, so always be on your guard.  

[3] If needed, i.e. with a combative suspect, apply directed pressure against the driver’s head and into the headrest, rearward momentum. Unbuckle their seat belt with your left hand. Most drivers will​ exit on their own once they realize that the officer has experience with this behavior and advantage.  There’s an old saying in the fighting arts,  “Where the head goes, the body will follow.” By using this pain compliance technique, whether the suspect is feeling pain or not, the positioning of their head in this manner and using the suspect’s weight against them bypasses having to deal with their combativeness or resisting limbs to an extent, and is much safer for the officer. It’s called pain compliance for a reason, and it is a legal demonstration of the use of less-than-deadly force.

[4] Instead of fighting with the suspect while citizens are filming you, reach around and behind his head, insert your finger into his carotid artery (the brachial plexus region of the exposed neck) or up under the jaw into his glands with your right hand, the mandibular process. Pull his head up and back, out of the door and down towards the rocker panel. Be patient, as your fingers will penetrate more if the driver resists, making it even more effective and the driver will eventually lose his grip on anything in the car, including the steering wheel and fall out of the vehicle, where he can be cuffed and searched.

[5] It is actually possible to cuff them hanging out of the vehicle. It is a painful technique but with no lasting injuries. The exact same entry using the knee and forearm can be used in any situation entering the suspect’s vehicle. Use it in a much more forceful way if the driver is reaching for a weapon. By smashing him with your knee, elbow and forearm on your way to the hand reaching for the weapon.

So, while some drivers will grab onto the steering wheel, and some have even locked their feet behind the brake pedal, this technique may provide a best-defense entry and extraction strategy, safe for all, because some officers would hit their arms or try to peel their fingers off of the steering wheel, and some would be bitten as a result.

TB: I’ve heard the saying that goes something like this “the threat determines the outcome” and I always took that to mean, that they choose to fight or not, to cooperate or not, and when it’s over – you simply oblige them – and I’m not saying this is true nor the reality for you, but in my world it was often very true.

DD: I have patterned the majority of the arresting techniques that I teach in a way so that they look as non-aggressive as is possible if being filmed. Every department has to deal with the advent of this trend to capture everything the Police do while performing their duties. It does matter how it looks as much as how effective it is, which should always be the officer’s priority.

TB: Times have certainly changed. Respect for the law is a thing of the past, sadly. And the media has all but gutted the Police Officer’s ability to get home safe every day. Because of their lack of understanding, one-sided and under-researched articles, and outright deceptive reporting practices, our officers are in more danger every day. The media has painted them as thugs, and with the thought that all they want to do is to use force irresponsibly. That has impacted how the public responds and acts when coming into contact with officers.

DD: An officer stops cars all day long, never knowing what to expect. Sadly, there are too many road rage confrontations, and while some citizens solve it by displaying verbal outbursts only, others end up using deadly force.

Every officer wants a safe traffic stop where the driver of the stopped vehicle stays in their vehicle, the officer does his job, whether it be issuing a warning or writing a citation and then to have them both get back on their separate ways. Unfortunately, today a pleasant, non-combative stop can turn into a shoot-out. It happened just today, again, to a new officer, who was killed by the driver after a ‘routine’ traffic stop. No stop is ever routine, and the word ‘routine’ should be banned from every Police officer’s mind.

TB: Anything else that you’d like to share Dan?

DD: We all have seen videos of bar fights and how some bouncers handle the situation. Inexperienced ones get in the brawl and throw punches and toss patrons around. For a club that’s a bad ‘solution’ which can ultimately result in lawsuits, losing their liquor license or losing the business due to adverse reactions from their patrons. An experienced​ bouncer wants to defuse the mayhem. He can handle the patron with total control using different controlling techniques while adapting to his resistance and without causing harm, which is a sheer pleasure to watch!

In conclusion, constant training and improving not only your skills but also knowledge in your chosen field is a must. You must upgrade yourself, training facilities can last only so long and they must be upgraded as well. Having teachers who ‘think out of the box’ are crucial in this endeavor.

TB: I’d like to thank Dan for taking up the challenge and for sharing some unique insights about his training ideology. It’s good to know that there are teachers like him out there that our Police Officers can utilize. And depend on. Dan and I have both seen the effects of incomplete training and we’ve both sought to change that status quo in our own ways. As teachers, we both agree that more can be done, however. We need to get beyond the false sense of security that ‘we’ve learned all that we need.’ That simply is not true.

 

Clarification, Scepticism and Individuality Part II – Jamie Clubb

Clarification

There are several reasons why we find clarification missing from a typical martial arts class. Suppression by governments, suppression by occupying powers and prevailing tastes have led many martial arts teachers to become creative in the way they have justified teaching violence. Desires to blend in personal views of religion and philosophy became so strong within the Asian martial arts subculture in the past century that many have come to accept a pseudo-history whereby martial arts were not skill-sets simply designed to subdue and/or neutralise the enemy. In the west, middle and upper class intellectuals felt a need to justify their training in violent activities such as boxing, wrestling and fencing, and welded on their own philosophical validations. Such validations were then made to retrospectively stretch back into a respective country’s history with the comparable 19th century romanticisation of medieval chivalry in the west, bushido in Japan and xia in China. Another motive to obscure the objectives of martial arts classes is the often commercial need to appeal to a wider audience and to offer more to retain students.

Because of my emphasis on clarification I make my teaching service-driven. I begin any course – be it a one-to-one or a seminar for a group – by asking my client what they specifically want and offer an honest answer as to how I can best fulfil that demand. If I agree to take on the client I can then stick firmly to our agreed objective without risk of either of us deviating. I deviate and tangent enough within a subject, so I am grateful for those parameters to keep me in check.

I recall once being asked by a small group to teach a martial arts course. The attendees really weren’t sure what they wanted, but it appeared that their primary interest was to undertake a fitness activity. After we worked out a rough definition of what sort of fitness they were after we agreed upon a combat conditioning course with a leaning towards Muay Thai. All went well until just after the first class one member of the group made a passing comment about what they could now do if someone tried to attack them. The comment was made half-jokingly, but nonetheless the group immediately began a serious hypothesis on how they would apply the skills they were learning and followed this with an honest evaluation on whether they would a) remember them and b) have the courage to use them. The entire conversation must have lasted less than two minutes before I felt I had to interrupt. I quickly explained that, as per my brief and our agreement, the course they were embarking upon was not for self-defence. It wasn’t really a Thai Boxing course, but used aspects from this art as an engaging way to improve cardiovascular fitness, strength and flexibility. I explained that if they wanted to learn practical self-protection I had a course that focused on this discipline.

What put them off then, as it had done when I first offered it, was the two most important ends of the self-protection training scale. Good self-protection training consists of mainly personal security non-physical “soft” skills. At the other end good self-protection training should include some form of pressure testing. Both are quite simple and straightforward, but aren’t necessarily comfortable. The former can be boring and difficult to absorb for someone who doesn’t have much interest in psychology, behaviour science, criminology, criminal law or the adaptation of warfare/law enforcement strategies. Besides, they can be difficult to apply and can override certain behaviours outside of the class. It is one thing to practice your combination work on the heavy bag or to go through katas, but it is another to properly assimilate a self-protection mind-set into everyday life. Pressure testing is usually not popular with many who don’t have a predisposition for this type of combat. Self-defence pressure testing should be a form of very intensive asymmetrical fighting and that isn’t usually a very pleasant experience.

Physical fitness is important in self-defence, but is largely a by-product of punitive mental conditioning through various ordeals and the development of good physical “hard” skills. Many civilians don’t really want actual self-protection or self-defence training they just want to produce a physical expression against their fears of interpersonal violence. This is easily catered for by hitting pads and performing techniques on compliant partners. One can see why so many martial arts teachers are tempted to leave it at this stage and exploit the demand for delusion in the market. There is almost an unwritten and unspoken contract between the student who asks the teacher “Tell me a lie that will make me feel better” and the teacher who justifies his willingness to do this by obeying the economic law of supply and demand.

Be clear about the purpose and context of your training. It’s a simple rule that is easily forgotten.[i] Whether you are approaching a new class, training with a new teacher, beginning a certain exercise or training a particular technique, the cross-trainer needs to be clear about his objective. He needs to be clear about why he is dedicating his time and energy into this particular area of study. It is naïve to rely on even the best of teachers to take you exactly where you want to go. Unless the teacher is helping to manage your personalised cross-training programme, he is going to have a different agenda. His job is to teach you the discipline you have chosen in his own way. If you are undertaking one-to-one training he will tailor it more to your demands, but it is still a lot to expect him to understand how this experience will fit in with your overall martial arts education.

Besides you don’t really want him to do that. You want him to teach you what he knows best. For example, imagine asking a Western Boxing coach to improve your Muay Thai punching techniques. In principle, this is a great idea. However, you are not really getting the most of his experience and knowledge if you insist on having you both stand more square on, change footwork and to limit upper body movements in line with Muay Thai. Your purpose here is to train in Western Boxing as if you are a western boxer. Outside of the lesson it is time for you to put the work in and see how it applies to your Muay Thai game.[ii]

Being clear about the purpose of any exercise is crucial for a cross-trainer. Being actively involved in different disciplines calls for strict and mindful time management. Objective defines an exercise – be it to test a single technique or test one’s abilities in a certain area. If the agreed objective of a technique exercise is test the efficiency of a rear naked choke then it is pointless to continue with another technique when the choke has been thwarted. A better use of time, energy and resources would be stop and restart. Unfortunately the cognitive reasoning of the brain often takes a back seat once matters get heated in a physical situation. It is quite common to see a pressure test centering on take-down defence deteriorating into a ground game.[iii]

The same attitude should be carried over into your solo training. This is where a lot of the good work is done and also wasted. It can be mentally tough enough for most people to take the initiative to train properly outside a class in the first place, be it alone or with a fellow student. It is even harder to then apply cognitive thought processes to encourage greater skill development and continued learning outside of a classroom environment. The cross-trainer has to go beyond what has been prescribed in lessons. He needs to do more than rehearse routines to fulfil grading criteria and needs to do more than improve his physical fitness. However, this takes a special extra kind of effort and a lack of commitment to this type of effort is what leads to the cross-trainer becoming confused with the various tools he has at hand. It is much less taxing on the mind to just lose one’s self in the superficial demands of an undetailed workout.

So the heavy bag ends up being used as a one dimensional repository for any random move the student chooses to throw. Shadow boxing becomes a freestyle dance of favourite movements. Focus mitt holding becomes a more energised version of the punching bag situation but little more. This comes from the person training not having a clear plan in their head and therefore not getting the most out of their training equipment, their training partners or themselves. If you are going to use the bag as a stand-in for a training partner then you are going to need to imagine the fight and stick to certain target zones so that you hit accurately. You also going to have to move with the bag or around the bag, depending on the context of you are training. You are going to have to plan your rounds or sets. Is this going to be about technique, improving speed or developing raw power? Are you going to theme your workout as lessons are often structured? What other equipment are you bringing into your training session?[iv]

Clarification defines the purpose of what you want to do in all that you do. Begin with a clear idea and make sure you return to that idea as often as possible.

[i] Ibid.

[ii] See my chapter on “Attribute Training” in my aforementioned e-book to understand how to get the most out of these lessons.

[iii] My chapter on “Specific Training” in “Mordred’s Victory and Other Martial Mutterings” details the importance of specialised pressure tests.

[iv] I have a chapter on “Solo Training” in “Mordred’s Victory and Other Martial Mutterings” that can help provide more insight into this often abused side of learning.

 

Clarification, Scepticism and Individuality Part I – Jamie Clubb

The Three Missing Fundamentals to Clear, Purposeful and Bespoke Combative Training

Part 1 – The Cross Trainer and the Information Age

The Information Age aptly describes the era of the modern mainstream martial arts cross-trainer. Unfortunately The Confusion Age is an equally fitting title. The meteoric rise of the internet has provided most in the developed world with more instant access to knowledge and data than ever before in the history of civilization. Similarly, training in multiple combative disciplines is no longer the practice of the hard-core martial arts enthusiast or the heretical renegade who is forced to travel huge distances across the country and even the world to seek out knowledge. Today not only is there an unprecedented variety of fighting arts readily available within a geographical region but we have seen the proliferation of full-time martial arts training centres, where cross-training is actively encouraged by gym owners and embraced by certain clubs that offer training in different systems by guest teachers.

There is a flawed assumption that this age of information and cross-training should lead to the enlightenment of more people. Unfortunately such wishful thinking is without reckoning on human nature. Our cognitive reasoning is beset by a range of biases that shape how we filter and view information. Our tribal instincts push us towards the comfort of others with similar biases to reinforce our views. More access to information also means more access to misinformation and disinformation. The pursuit of knowledge can easily be derailed by the propagation of falsehoods and myths, especially if there is cognitive comfort in these stories. Furthermore, the sheer volume of information – even good information – at an unprepared researcher’s fingertips can often result in learning little more on his desired subject than if he hadn’t switched onto the internet in the first place.

To muse over metaphors once again, it is unsurprising that the phrase “surfing the net” became popular during the internet’s formative commercial days. If progress in any aspect of civilisation can be seen as a steady narrow current of knowledge that often has to gradually trickle its way around and often through hard rocks of prejudice, tradition, irrational protectiveness and fear in order to become established into the main stream (forgive the pun) then using the internet can be compared to handling a tidal wave. Rather than having to handle and carefully manage the gradual, steady flow of information used to fill a gulf of ignorance, the unprepared researcher is overwhelmed by a forceful mass of data that washes over him. Struggling for breath in his effort not to be drowned in the overload of facts he becomes numb to everything. He becomes confused. He becomes prey to his own bewilderment and also to the sharks of disinformation, which thrive and swim in the sea of knowledge. In the blinding chaos that is information overload the flailing researcher may even mistake such sharks for a valid float. Here is where conspiracists, pseudoscientists, pseudohistorians, archaists and purveyors of Bullshitsu strike progressive learning down. Yet we still have the skilful surfer or rider of the waves who has a far better chance at negotiating all the information available. Such individuals are no less vulnerable than the drowning non-swimmer – surfers still drown and are eaten by sharks – but they have developed skills and therefore have more available tools at their disposal.

The directed cross-trainer is comparable to the scientifically minded researcher. He can entertain ideas without being threatened by them or absorbed by them. He does well to ride the waves of information in the direction that will not overturn and engulf him; he won’t get drawn off-course to attractive islands and forget his way and he is experienced at spotting the sharks of disinformation.[i]

Below are three fundamental areas that are often not taught to students wishing to pursue cross-training. Whilst it is commendable that instructors encourage students to seek out different disciplines and research for themselves, many get discouraged when they start becoming confused. Confusion is entirely unnecessary if we think about what constitutes cross-training. As children we study multiple subjects in our most formative years often with different teachers who have different approaches. When we play sports, we learn many different games. Most occupations can easily be broken down into several different disciplines and skillsets. We know that historical martial arts practice comprised of cross-training and comparisons might be fittingly made with today’s military. The tribal nature of martial arts has led to the creation of a structure that makes students and teachers often feel unsure and vulnerable again when they train outside their usual art. Others ride through this anxiety and even embrace other arts, sometimes completely abandoning old systems for new, but struggle to blend different skillsets.

[i] See my chapters “The By-Product Myth” and “The Calypso Effect” in my e-book “Mordred’s Victory” for in depth discussions on how martial artists often get side-tracked in their training objectives.

Part II on clarification follows next week.

 

POINTY END GOES IN THIS WAY – JOHN KOVACS

Seems like an eye blink ago when I was sixteen. This thing called time has over taken me. A mere moment ago I was young kid living in New York City. I was young teenager enjoying the seventies in the Big Apple and all that it offered. How can you even begin to explain to the young people of today that they really missed out on some the greatest music that ever will be? Or what a disco experience was like? How does one describe the smell of the old Bowery along with CBGB’s and the grit? When I visit Forty Second Street today, it looks like Disneyland to me, Lion King Reigns supreme. Gone are the porn shops and Kung-Fu stores that sold posters of Bruce Lee. Union Square Park is so gentrified I feel like I am in a foreign country.
Martial Arts in the City were a very different thing back then. You knew peoples provenance. If your lineage was not traceable you were put on notice. A few guys from an infamous dojo on the lower East Side would have fun “visiting” people who seemed suspect in their so called “credentials”. Tournaments pitted “East Coast versus West Coast”, “Karate versus Kung-Fu”, and Aaron Banks put on the greatest martial art extravaganza on the planet. There was still some semblance of stylistic “purity” back then, in that you could tell a Goju-Ryu man from a Tae Kwon Do man. Shotokan was clearly distinguishable from various Kung-Fu. No such thing as what is now called “MMA” back then. Although when we had style versus style disputes in a tenement hallway or South Bronx rooftop, things became a bit dicey to say the least.
When it came to the street of course it was all about survival. We had guys who would show us “Jail House” boxing, and we would always have fun with the brothers “slap boxing” in the street. Improvised weapons ruled the day. Cheap, simple and efficient were the guiding ideology. None of us knew anything about “FMA” back then. We had seen some Iaido and Kendo but not much else. Some guys knew a bit about native weapon fighting from family, like some guys we knew from the islands. I had experienced a bit of Magyar Gypsy knife while visiting Hungary. But nothing was fancy or full of heavy “theory”. Pointy end goes in this way was the operative theme.
Quick deployment and concealability, and the ability to ambush someone dominated our approach. An icepick in a paper bag was unseen but felt when thrust forward. A cheap fish weight attached to a dog collar hit like a black jack. A box cutter and screw driver were subway specials – and I don’t mean the sandwich version.

Cheap, accessible and disposable made sense to us. None of us could afford a nice knife, although some guys would carry a Case pocket knife. We knew about the “throw away”. We learned that from many of the underworld types – gangsters, gang members and guys we knew from the “joint”. No glamor in shanking a dude multiple times with an ice pick. No movie fantasy about guts spilling open from a box cutter slash through a thin t-shirt on a hot summer day. When the stuff hit the proverbial fan it was on.
Today I see a lot of what I call “fancy stuff”. Expensive exotic looking curved knives from faraway places are sold all over the internet. Beautiful folders and fixed blades that while costly and nice eye candy, you would be hard pressed to throw away if ever used. I see knife “templates” that while fun to practice, are too complicated to perform under unpredictable circumstances and duress. By and large I don’t see deployment taught and the need for a truly predatory mind set. Some guys are making money selling workshops teaching the fancy fluff and stuff. While I don’t begrudge them in trying to earn a living, it would be nice if they could interject an occasional “real” method or principle in what they propagate.
But I get it. People say they want to learn “self-defense”. But in my experience when you attempt to teach that, people get appalled. They blanch and change color right before your eyes. They say things like “wait that is too intense for me, can you tone it down” or “I don’t know if I could ever do that to somebody”. But teach them a form of religion disguised as martial arts, or a form of rolling around the mat like dogs in heat, and they sign up in droves. Some families have made a great deal of money brain washing the masses on the efficacy of their invincible legendary methods. And yes, maybe on some beach in Brazil, mano a mano with mucho machisimo, it has validity, but in crowded bar, or moving crowded subway car, I don’t know. If you are in the street when you are being ambushed by multiple predators, probably armed and in low light conditions, it ain’t a Jackie Chan movie. And a huge obese aging pony tailed Aikido Guy who never gets a scratch in the movies when fighting the bad guys, is not coming to your rescue. And what if the defender is unarmed? Are people by and large still so gullible? The first mistake of a defender is that he was caught unarmed. And if he is armed, he needs to be trained and willing to use his covert weapon of choice.
The combat mindset should be an important principle to inculcate. Does not matter what you know if you are not willing or unable to make it so. Keep it simple. Learn blunt impact and edged weapon methods with an eye toward ultimate survival. Become familiar with firearms. It never ceases to amaze me how so many martial art “experts” I know who are teaching public workshops and classes know nothing about firearms. They self same Guros also make lame excuses about this ignorance. But yet they often teach gun disarms! In my simple logic how can you defend yourself against something if you don’t know how to use it and how it functions (and hence its strengths and weaknesses)? This is also my logic when I see martial art “experts” teaching students how to defend themselves against a blunt impact weapon or a knife. And of course if you don’t understand the mind set of true predator, it puts you in a moral and ethical conundrum. The predator has no “compassion” or “empathy” as a so called “normal” person would be conditioned to have. So that passive “just re-direct and control” “non-Violent” approach is gonna get ya killed. Doesn’t anyone see the lack of logic in the term “non-violent” martial arts? Self-protection will be anything but non-violent.
Train hard. Use your common sense if you can. Become well rounded in your approach. Keep it simple. Don’t buy into the fancy stuff. And if you do, have fun with it but don’t confuse it for authentic self-protection. If you train in a so called martial-art for the exercise benefits, that’s wonderful. But try to comprehend that authentic martial arts for real world survival is not about just the workout. If you live in a gun culture please at least become familiar with what that means. You don’t need to be an expert shooter by any means. But at least have a cursory knowledge for your own benefit.

 

Mental Conditioning and Neurolinguistics Part II – Darren Friesen

12. Give them context. I had a former student that told me he could never ever put a knife into somebody under any circumstance. I told him I could change his mind in less than one minute. He laughed. I asked to visualize, really clear and detailed imagery, a just- released violent criminal. Inhumane. Non-empathetic. Vile. No regard for human sanctity and precious human life. (Not evil incarnate, inhuman or a mindless killing machine as this takes away the humanity and if it can bleed, it can be destroyed.) He was coming home from a long day at work, the only thing on his mind seeing his beautiful wife and cute kids. He walks in to see his kids unconscious and bleeding on the floor. His wife has her mouth muffled by a hand and this guy is on top of her ripping her clothes off. There’s a knife laying on the dresser and there’s one thing standing between her and your kids’ lives…you. He will not stop and there are no police coming to help you. She’s looking at you with horrified eyes and the life slowly leaving them. Could you put a knife in somebody? (Now I know this is extreme, unlikely to happen for the vast vast majority and a horrible vision to have to picture but it goes toward context and the ability and moral/ethical justification within that context and to achieve scenario-specific goals…remember, the vast majority of us are deeply hardwired for resistance to taking human life….and this is a good thing, rendering a lot of what we learn in “martial arts” and “self-defense” moot…semantics are simply not semantics pertaining to violence) I saw his body language change during the process…red face, clenched fists, body rocking, smile vanished and a look of glaring intensity. He said “yes, under those circumstances I’d be able, without doubt.” It turned out to be about 90 seconds but you get my point. That’s context. Visceral imagery. We don’t train to stab a guy at the bar that accidentally (or not, for that matter) dumps a beer on us. We too often teach universal or general in a specific. Poor conditioning. (hard-wiring is already there so this is not hard-wiring, it’s conditioning…we’re altering the hard-wiring)

13. Mantras reinforced to develop proper mindset. Here are a few examples that I use: “When all else has failed and there is no other solution than a physical response, I will be brutal, unforgiving and un-empathetic in my attack until the threat has subsided. I will dominate with incredible speed and power, both of mind and body.” “I will learn to function with adrenaline dump and will overcome my fear and use adrenaline as power.” “I will do whatever it takes to survive, thrive and live for my loved ones.”

14. Learn targeting, not sequencing. Don’t have a specific response for a given attack. Train yourself to always see targets. They are ALWAYS available from ANY position. Ones that do damage, that create shock and awe, that give psychological trauma, that cause injury and inflict brutal pain..now…not later that evening.

15. Don’t (even unintentionally) put weapons in their hands and have them dismantle an unarmed fighter. A. It’s illegal and you’ve just taught them unbeknownst to them (and often unbeknownst to the blank instructor) to escalate the level of force exponentially given the circumstances. B. You’ve gone against the average person’s innate resistance to utilizing this type of violence on another human being. C. You’ve messed with their context and unconsciously given them a skill set most are simply unable to process, especially without that specific context.

16. No tapping or submission training. It is self-defeatist. If a student perpetually learns to tap when things start to hurt or as a “safe word” you are conditioning them to fail. Teach them to read body language so they know when they’re hurting someone, facial reaction. I once had a friend who had been training with some law enforcement friends on the weekends. They did BJJ and every time (he was a big guy so it took some effort on their part) he said they’d end the wrestling match with a rear naked choke and told him that there was no counter…once that was on, it’s over. He asked if I had any solutions. I told him, “tap.” He said, “Well, yes, then I’m done and the fight’s over. What can I do to counter once I’m caught?” “Tap.” “You’re not getting it, D, I need a counter.” I told him “I’m giving you one, you’re just not listening. Tap. They release instinctively, it’s how they’re trained. They’ve done it hundreds of times and, by now, it can’t be overrun. Tap. And when they release, attack them like a hungry f*$#ing tiger.” The lights went on. “But that’s dirty.” “I know, you’re right, it is. Do you want the counter or not.” “But we’re friends!” “Not during a real fight you’re not. You wanted a counter, take it or leave it. It will put you on top, they won’t be expecting it and the appalling shock of you not playing by their rules will put them on their heels while you get the first few shots in. That’ll change the bloody dynamic of the game. Permanently. They’ll never make that mistake again even while on the job. It’ll help you in the immediacy, them in the long-term. Everybody wins.” “Jesus, Darren, it’s just grappling with beers on the weekend!” “Yeah, well, that’s the difference, I look at it from a different mindset, I try and be a  problem-solver. You had a problem , I gave you a way to solve it. It’s not pretty, it’s not nice but, dammit, it sure is effective, isn’t it?” Tools like visualization allow the student to go through the steps needed to end the scenario, whether it be verbal, physical, intuitive, psychological, tactical or what have you. Have them do it successfully in their mind’s eye. Then have them do it with ugly success. Then imperfectly and with flaw. Then have them develop a plan b or a perpetually-adaptive method when their first avenue doesn’t work as planned. They aren’t given one-size-fits-all solutions, they’re given tools to adapt to the changing playing field. It will forever help them, in life or in the fire. Until what point to continue the assault? Until the threat ceases to be a threat if all else has failed and the physical is all that’s left. No gloating, no admiring your shots, no yelling in victory, no stopping. No re-dos. Dear God, if you want to get Darren mad, ask for a re-do. “That didn’t look good, stop and let me try that again.” Um..no. Billy, keep attacking Jimmy, please. Learn to thrive in the unpredictability of chaos. It’s human to be hit, to err, to screw up and have something look ugly. (Remember, if I do anything that looks absolutely beautiful, it’s by accident, not intent) Teach them to become focused, pragmatic and goal-oriented. Means to an end. Make your training your reality: a. Growl. Learn to become feral. Let the inner animal loose every so often so you know what he or she looks like and can recognize him or her when he/she’s needed. b. Train biting, pinching, scratching, twisting, tearing, ripping, clawing. Then practice counter-biting, counter-pinching, counter-scratching, counter-twisting, counter-tearing, counter-ripping, counter-clawing. c. Learn the physiology of that animal. What does he look like now that you recognize him? How do you access that state change on a dime when needed? What are the things that matter to you? Your trigger points? What’s worth fighting for and what is not? This is the definition of flipping/flicking the switch. It’s often paid reference to but very rarely explained. Plan before when it’s okay for him/her to come out and play ahead of time…during is too late. Again, the whats are usually what are stressed, not nearly enough of the hows, whens and whys. Eyes roll back in head, immense power runs through your body, a viciousness takes hold, something snaps. Look in the mirror and see what he looks like. Get a visual, auditory (what does he/she sound like? things he/she says? tone and intensity?), kinesthetic and tactile processing in place. Practice brings it to the fore, then returning back to the you that your loved ones see every day. Practice seeing how fast you can access Mr. Hyde from Dr. Jekyll. Again, use context. What matters to you? Who’s important? What would have to be done to them or you to pull Mr. Hyde out of the closet? Remember, he’s not you, he’s a part of you that only comes out when absolutely needed, not when your wife nags you or the kids are misbehaving. It’s okay to have him, it doesn’t make you an awful person as he has a voice, a rare one, but a powerful one nonetheless.

Context is bloody king. Remember, it’s not the system, the belts, the techniques but the will to utilize the tools necessary if and when needed. Mindset. The mind is by far the most dangerous weapon we possess.

This is just the tip of the iceberg and I’m often reticent to share openly information like this as it is both controversial and can be misused, from someone who understands and more so from someone who doesn’t. I have been pushed by some close confidants to put it out there as, who better than someone who uses the methods responsibly and with care to explain it with caution as opposed to someone egregious and negligent. High praise, let’s see what comes of it.

 

 

Mental Conditioning and Neurolinguistics Part 1 – Darren Friesen

As neurology and neuro-linguistics develop, there has proven to be a direct correlation to the words one chooses to how the brain and body are conditioned, including and especially as it pertains to self-defense. A block of its own volition signifies a reactionary move which means the practitioner is forever behind the eight ball of real aggression. Words are not just words. They represent the images, sounds, feelings (both tactile and kinesthetic) and internal feedback of how we process meaning and, therefore, how we act based on that meaning. I have never been a big believer in quick solutions to evolutionary problems as they pertain to a wide variety of things – making money, being happy, having success – as these are all tangible things that are person-dependent. But for combatives or self-defense, my experience is they make a world of difference in the beginner mind. My intent here is to inform, give some different and progressive methodologies to conscientious and open-minded instructors to help keep their students safe. Just some examples of how this connection can be averted into a different entity in the mind of process:

  1. Block becomes destroy (example: “I defended against the punch with a high-rising block” becomes “I destroyed the punch with my elbow)
  2. .Fighting becomes terminating violence (A match or duel with a unknown outcome and no definitive answer for duration of conflict, expectation of victory, pain tolerance and threshold caveats and factoring in potential loss and doubt in the mind becomes a method to overwhelm the threat by any means necessary until the threat has ceased) If you see me “squaring off” outside of an attribute drill (which is what sparring is, it’s not actual violence) I’ve already let things get out of hand.
  3. Defend becomes hard counter/pre-emptive action (transfers the power back to the one on the receiving end and in a proactive manner)
  4. Joint-locking or joint manipulation (I’m not a big believer in either but it’s an example) becomes joint-breaking or hyperextension (a “lock” has no end – either you let go when he submits and start the dance from square one again, he/she becomes accustomed to the pain and resists or you hold indefinitely until tomorrow morning when one of you breaks mentally. A joint-break or hyperextension signifies damage, damage that cannot be undone without medical assistance and recovery time.
  5. Entry becomes overwhelming forward pressure/explosion
  6. Trap becomes limb destruction or disruption
  7. “You did that wrong, do it again” can be “What better and more efficient way do you think you could’ve done that to get the result desired?”
  8. Instead of yelling, cultivate their problem-solving ability
  9. Reverse engineer modern problems with potential and highest-percentage outcomes.
  10. Challenge their intellect and give them the avenue to solve the problems with their own analysis without spoon-feeding them.
  11. Push them. “I’ve seen you hit harder, did that bomb have emotional intent or are you just going through the motions?” Every strike needs emotional intent. What matters most to you that you want to return to. The audacity of this person to try and take that away from you or you from them.”

 

Don’t Forget to Bring the Violence! – Joseph Lamb

Violence is a funny thing. As a civilized society, we almost universally condemn violence. We all think of ourselves as being so evolved that we never have to stoop so low as to use violence in any way. Violence is not the answer. People, for the most part, forget that we are all just highly-evolved animals, and that violence is part of the animal kingdom. Walk into any urban court house on a Monday morning, and watch how many people are being arraigned on violent criminal charges. We are violent by nature, but we are conditioned throughout our upbringing that violence is wrong and unacceptable. This is a good thing, to a point; the vast majority of us are able to conform to social norms of non-violence, and we get through our days without acting out. This conditioning becomes a problem when violence is necessary. It can prevent a person from properly defending themselves. Despite what some people would want you to believe,words don’t stop violent attacks.

As an executive protection professional, it is my job to avoid violence for my principal/client. I conduct threat assessments and security advances prior to my principal’s arrival at a particular location. I also plan travel, evacuation, and escape routes in order to be prepared for a worst case scenario. I do not like violence, but I am mentally and physically prepared for it. I certainly don’t want to strike someone in the throat, kick them in the groin, or shoot them, in order to protect my principal, but I am prepared to use whatever level of force that is necessary because that is my job.

In a self-defense scenario where violence is either imminent or already taking place, you have to be able to flip the switch and bring the violence if escape is not an option. Generally speaking, if you strike first with the superior level of violence, you will be the victor. You do not want to be engaged in a prolonged encounter, you want to end it as fast as possible. This is part of the mindset needed for not only engaging in professional protection work, but for everyday self-defense scenarios. Quite literally, we are all in the protection business; you may not have a client paying you to provide protection, but you are responsible for your own protection, as well as your family and loved ones.

As a former law enforcement officer, I can assure you, the police do not prevent violent crime, they only respond to it after the fact. You can apply many of the same concepts and principles from executive protection work to your own daily life. Why travel through a bad section of the city when you can take a slightly longer route through a safer area? Why walk down an unlit street at night when you can go a block over and walk in a properly lit area? Why go to an ATM at night and withdraw cash, when you can likely just use your debit card for your anticipated purchase? Why vacation in a foreign country that is in the midst of political upheaval?  This list could go on and on. It’s all about mitigating risk factors to reduce your odds of being put in a violent encounter.

I am not imparting any new wisdom here. Nothing I am writing about is a new idea or concept. Heck, even the title of this article is not an original idea (Thank you, Jeff Burger)! The point is, although we would all like to avoid a violent encounter, many of us do not take the few additional steps necessary to increase one’s chances of mitigating that risk. The all-important, situational awareness is key. In fact, projecting that situational awareness into the future will help you consider what “could” go wrong in a given situation, thereby allowing you to plan for it accordingly. Many people, particularly those who do not train in martial arts or self-defense, never think about how they would react in a violent encounter. In my view, this is fatal. If you don’t train and you’ve never even thought about how you might react if thrust into a violent encounter, then you probably won’t react at all.

Years ago, while still working in law enforcement, I was conducting a scenario-based training exercise involving a new, female officer. For this exercise, the officer knew only that she was responding to a call for a man (me) acting strange. When she entered the room, I was standing with a chair in front of me, so my hands were not completely visible, and I was mumbling. The officer walked right up on me, as I drew a training gun out of my waistband and pointed it at her. She froze. She didn’t verbalize, she didn’t attempt to draw her weapon, she didn’t try to disarm me, and she didn’t even try to get out of the line of fire. Clearly, she had never given a thought as to what she would do if she was ever in a violent encounter such as this.

Previously, I had mentioned that the person engaged in a violent encounter who acts fastest, and with the superior level of violence, is usually the victor. Clearly, there can be legal ramifications to this. If you successfully defend yourself in a violent encounter, you may or may not be charged criminally, or sued civilly. So many factors play into the potential legal battle, and laws vary from state to state, and country to country. Generally, in the United States, to defend yourself legally you will need to be able to articulate why you acted the way you did to justify your actions, and this explanation must pass the “reasonable person” standard; would a reasonable person in the same situation and with the same level of training and experience have acted the same way.

In Massachusetts, where I am licensed to practice law, the claim of self-defense is considered an affirmative defense- you are claiming that you were justified in taking this action.  That is to say, once you assert this defense in court, the burden now shifts to the prosecution to prove that it wasn’t self-defense. This is not typically an easy burden for the prosecution, because it must be proved, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that you did not act in self-defense. All things considered, you are likely to end up in court one way or the other. Even if you are not charged criminally because the prosecution agrees that it was likely self-defense, that doesn’t prevent you from being sued successfully in civil court. Civil court has a much lower burden of proof than the, “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal court. Like many of the contributors here have written before, there are several stages to self-defense, and the potential court battles are all a part of it.

Think. Be prepared. Make smart choices. You ARE in the protection business, so take it seriously. Others may be counting on you.

 

A Duty to Act: Understanding Police Decisions – Tim Boehlert

This forty page digital digest by Tim Boehlert is a comprehensive examination, summary, and reference guide that is the result of Tim’s attending a multiday seminar on police use of force.

The seminar centered around the legal and practical aspects of police use of force along with both citizen and police rights and responsibilities.

The digital digest is also filled with links and references for further study and investigation.

Click here to download.