PDA

View Full Version : Close quarter Combatives



combatsombo
5th May 2001, 13:39
Steve Sweetlove seems to have caused quite a stir with his remarks regarding to Boneheads in the Martial Arts. I think the problem both myself and Steve have is that we see a difference between a Martial Art and Fighting. Both Steve and myself started our Martial Careers in Judo and both believe in the philosophy of Jigaro Kano (Judo is more than a Martial Art or Sport, it is a means of physical and cultural attainment). Therefore we believe that Martial Arts can be a vehicle to produce better human being’s. Steve has the added responsibility of being a Policeman.

After saying this we both realize that there is a place for Self Defense and I emphasize the SELF DEFENCE. The training with weapons will always be a topic for discussion. I have tried most of the Japanese weapons not any level I might add, because things like Iaido, Jodo etc have that philosophical element; I have also tried various forms of fencing and enjoyed myself trying out some of the medieval weaponry. I find it hard to justify teaching ordinary Joe Public how to use a knife of any description. There may be certain sections of our society that need to know how to use these deadly weapons and how to kill people for instance the armed forces but the ordinary citizen I do not think so.

Should the Martial Arts be there to develop people into Barbarians NO. What do I mean by Barbarian, here is an example a local Jiu Jitsu instructor moved to a small village in England he decided to teach Jiu Jitsu. Remember we are in a village where the majority of the inhabitants have never seen an act of real violence apart from what is on their TV. With in 2 weeks he has taught his students how to poke some one in the eye, kick at the knee to break it, he then goes on to promise that if they train hard they will learn how to break many other bones and be able to use various sorts of weapons!!!!!!!

To say we live in a more violent society is a very hard thing to prove I do not think living in the 1930, or through the war years was a harmonies experience. Of course if you live in places like Kosovo etc there may be a need to learn how to preserve your life but for the great majority of us those dangers are just not there.

I believe that Martial Arts is more then fighting and I also believe a lot of what people call Martial Arts in reality is only Fighting or shall we call it the Barbaric Arts

I await for the response who wish to justify there existence.

Derek McDonald
5th May 2001, 22:39
I think I understood Mr. Sweetlove's viewpoint as expressed in the infamous but now deleted "I can't believe it!" thread. He is concerned with the safety of his fellow citizens including those who uphold the law. I saved my post from the deleted thread and have re-posted it below. It is the viewpoint of an "American Constitutionalist" and reflects as much.

I too have been to a gun or knife show and wondered about some of the people in attendance.

I too have passed personal judgement on those who do not fall into my view of what is "normal" and "appropriate".

The problem with those judgements is that the people who fall into my view of what is "normal" and "appropriate" are usually people who are least outwardly similar to me. This is a typically "human" way of looking at things that places the thinker in a position of moral authority. I’m not really qualified to be in that position.

Behind any circumstance of mass suffering in man’s history you will find a government or peoples taking a position of moral authority to justify the control or domination of others—The Holocaust, slavery, Biafra, Spanish Inquisition, Soviet Union, etc. etc.

The real issue in deciding who should or should not have access to weapons and combative training is whether one believes that people can be trusted to think for themselves. If one believes that all human beings are created equal and have a right to self-determination, then how can we take away their right to defend themselves? Or for that matter, their right to collect weapons for sport or hobby.

Every human being has a right to peace and life. Access to weaponry and the ability to use those weapons has always been a factor in upholding those rights. There is no argument here; history provides the proof.

The strong take from the weak because they can. The best way to make someone weak is to first convince them that they do not need to be defended, and then to take away their ability to do so.

There will always be conflict in the world; this is the natural way of things. To think otherwise is at the least naïve and at most fatal. Taking away or limiting my options to deal with conflict is not the answer.

It would be wonderful if people were perfect and deviant behaviors were unknown. But that is not the case. In America our government is—in theory—regulated by a system of checks and balances, one of which being an armed populace. Realizing that there is a statistical probability that not every elected official is "good" or has my best interests at heart, I am not willing to give up the only real leverage I possess. I am not ready to trade the right and responsibility of defending myself for the "security" of a police state.

Respectfully,
Derek McDonald

Neil Hawkins
6th May 2001, 04:41
I do not agree with teaching CQC style techniques to the general public. I have taught it to Military personnel and Law Enforcement people, and some very senior martial artists.

I think that if you are making a serious study of martial arts, then an understanding of CQC its development, history and application is essential. After all it is fighting at its most practical and lethal. However I am very choosey as to who learns it for the same reasons.

I think the problem is the "quick fix" that Derek talks about, CQC is quick to learn and effective, however it lacks the element of control that is necessary to address the wide range of situations that we may be faced with today. I still firmly believe that some forms of Jujutsu are the best self defence that you can learn. The problem with it is that is does take a long time to become proficient.

The trick in effective self defence training is to balance practicality against control, my training includes a large section of theoretical discussion. We talk about consequences, about the law, about how far each individual will go and the stresses and post trauma that can be expected after any violent conflict. We also do a lot of scenario based training to build on reflexes and appropriate response.

CQC is necessary for people that regularily go into dangerous situations, such as the military, or police. But it is also useful for businessmen that travel to Central America, Africa or parts of Asia. But in these circumstances you must have a very good understanding of tactics, and an appreciation for the big picture. Many CQC instructors have a tunnel vision that deals purely with the conflict at hand without appreciating the positioning required for multiple attackers, or the controlled response that may be required to prevent you from being killed rather then robbed.

It is a dangerous subject and should be taught with caution.

Regards

Neil

Joseph Svinth
6th May 2001, 09:13
A lot of these CQB folks also forget to mention legalities. Now, laws vary from town to town, county to county, state to state, and country to country. Very confusing. For my money, the simplest general rule is this:

1. If you see something that needs to be killed, kill it.
2. If you see something that doesn't need to be killed, don't kill it.
3. And if you see somebody trying to kill something that doesn't need to be killed, try and stop them.

Many CQB teachers also have a tendency to assume that every situation requires the same response, namely kill or be killed. IMO, this is incorrect, as one's duty at the time of the assault, mayhem, or fatality plays an important role in judging the appropriateness of a particular response. (And the response will be judged, as out in town, the cops tend to arrest whomever is standing up at the end of the fight, and to presume that flight constitutes an admission of guilt.)

***

FWIW, my own posting in the now-deleted thread asked why we should regulate what some people do and not others. For example, eye-gouging: Should it be taught? Lots of people say no, as doing so would only incite violence. Okay, then please note that in 1985 a university professor named Elliott J. Gorn published a detailed history of eye-gouging, complete with how-to instructions, called "‘Gouge and Bite, Pull Hair and Scratch’: The Social Significance of Fighting in the Southern Backcountry," _American Historical Review_, 90 (February to December 1985); reprinted at http://ejmas.com/jmanlyart_gorn_0401.htm . A decade later, a former West Point instructor named Dave Grossman published a book called _On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society_ (Boston: Little, Brown, 1995); see also http://www.killology.com . In it were detailed descriptions of how to teach people to gouge eyes, shoot one another, etc. Yet, so far as I know, the incidence of eye-gouging on campus has not significantly increased as a result of these publications.

Joseph Svinth
6th May 2001, 09:20
PS -- before somebody jumps Martin ("Combat Sombo") about needing a name, note that he links to his website in his profile.

Martin -- You can make your signature a default and include your URL in it if you like, thus perhaps driving some traffic your way. :)

Neil Hawkins
6th May 2001, 15:41
I got asked a question off-line, but my response was too long for the private message, so I thought I would put it here as it is pertinent...


I have no problem with teaching people that need to know, the problem is that 99% of the 'normal' people that attend CQC training will never get into the situation where they need the skills, and the other 1% can avoid the situation by being aware of their surroundings.

I am not labelling anybody, but it has been my experience that if you give the people skills they will try and use them, often escalating a problem that may or may not have resulted in violence anyway. Most of the time there are indicators that precede conflicts, people intent of fighting will miss them, but people with limited skill pick up on them and get out early.

Statistically the number of random attacks on people, ones without any warning, in 'normal' city areas is very small. There are a number of psychopaths that will just attack, and regardless of your training you are likely to be overwhelmed.

The thing about CQC is that it is offensive, rather than defensive, this puts you in a sticky situation legally and morally. I know all the arguements, and don't want to go over them again, but I have yet to hear of a situation that could not be avoided through either common sense (don't go into the neighbourhood), awareness (turn around and walk away), or standard self defense.

To me, self defense is all about escape, you do what is necessary to get away intact. CQC is all about
elimination, a totally different mindset, and one not suited to all people.

As for the discussions on disarming the populace, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think that a baton, pepper spray or whatever are perfectly suitable weapons to be carried on the street. However, and here's the catch, the person should be trained in the use of the weapon.

Many people that carry weapons do so with no training what-so-ever, and the weapon is a liability to them in a conflict. Luckily, many people that pull a weapon do not know how to use it and focus on the weapon so much that it is easy to disarm them if you have the training.

That said, I don't agree that you need lethal force weapons in most areas, I don't think the general public should carry guns or knives on the street. But I would carry them myself if everyone else carried them legally.

To close, I'll just say that there are some very dangerous people out there, and if they want to get you they probably will. The best method of survival is to not fight at all, be aware of your surroundings, observe people carefully and don't antagonise anyone unnecessarily. If you have to fight do so ruthlessly, but know when to stop and run. Self defense is about escape, not fighting.

Hope this answers your question.

Regards

Neil

Tetsutaka
6th May 2001, 18:59
Great posts, guys.

My $.02 -- When I created Sage Systems and Close Quarters Concepts(TM), I made conscious effort to develop a curriculum that was as heavy on psychology as tactical response. It is absolutely irresponsible to neglect one for the other.

If "extreme measures" are what's called for, then so be it. But we must be honest when we ask ourselves what we are likely to "see" in our lifetime.

One of the things I do when I help a client set up their own training regimen, I do a series of interviews with them regarding their beliefs, the environment they typically encounter, as well as the locations they intend to cross.

Most "CQB" courses teach "tactical situational awareness", but we also spend time on "strategic" planning as well. Anything less would be "uncivilized." ;)

Derek McDonald
7th May 2001, 16:08
Regarding who should or should not be taught CQC or any other type of MA: I assert that it should be left to the individual instructor to decide, but definitely NOT any government agency. I base this opinion on several points, the first being the issue of qualification: I (the instructor) am much more qualified to make an on-the-spot assessment of a student’s fitness for training than a bureaucrat who has not met the instructor or the student. The next issue is freedom. My thoughts on freedom are displayed in the second post in this thread but the general thrust is thus: Better to take individual responsibility for who trains and what gets taught (I’m speaking to instructors and students), than to abdicate control to big brother. And finally, I acknowledge that mistakes may made by individual instructors (student turns out to be unstable and uses new knowledge to more efficiently commit crime), but mistakes will definitely be made by the government (consider Timothy McVey and Lee Harvey Oswald, both recipients of government training).

I realize that if you have already given up your rights to keep and bear arms (and to be proficient in their use) you may be less than receptive to this line of thought. But in America we still have a chance to hang on to what our forefathers fought for.

If we allow ourselves to be watched, who will watch the watchers?

Respectfully,
Derek McDonald

Walker
7th May 2001, 17:24
I have just begun to chew through “The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe,” so this is a grain of salt comment, but it seems that nothing new is going on here.

“In 1285, the authorities were driven to reiterate penalties already more than a century old: ‘As fools who delight in their folly do learn to fence with buckler, and thereby are encouraged in their follies, it is provided that none shall keep school for, nor teach the art of fence within the City of London under pain of imprisonment for forty days.’ ... p.8

This of course worked just as well as all similar prohibitions tried throughout history.

Try as you might it is impossible to contain the flow of ideas and curiosity. Declare it Year One, burn all the books, but the people find a way and persist.