Fighting techniques and training methods

[Brian S]

All arts that aspire to be "fighting arts" have their own syllabus of fighting techniques and, of course, their own training methods of developing them.

But all out fighting is different from just about any other competitive physical activity, because you cannot train the exact event in todays world.

Boxing? Judo? Basketball? Tennis? They CAN all be done because, of course, they have a system of rules that both define the event and offer protection to the people involved. But all out fighting has not. It has no rules and no protection, so we cannot do it as a training aid.

Training, then, becomes about how best to prepare ourselves for the eventuality of an all out fight whilst getting round this problem. We design a syllabus of techniques, and then our methods of developing our effectiveness at them.

In my view there are three broad ranges of fighting arts -
Mainstream Traditional Arts (as per the Karate club at the sports centre)
Full contact competitive sporting arts (like MMA, Judo, Boxing etc) and
Reality based self defence.

Of course, even each of these three broad ranges can contain vastly different methods. But now I finally get to my point. Since we cannot train by having an all out no rules fight, which broad range best prepares us for the eventuality?

In my view, mainstream TMA is out. Most of the actual fighting techniques are diluted. Basic punches and high kikcs are in, yet attackes to the eyes, throat and other vital areas are out. Their claims of "training" these things during Kata are clearly silly. Also, their actual training methods are the poorest of the three broad ranges. Flicky kicky sparring, Kata and air striking are the order of the day. And how realistic is that? Yes, they will tell you that the real benefits come after many years training........ as if the longer it takes to get good at something is somehow evidence that it is better?

Full contact competitive sporting arts are far far better. OK, many of the most dangerous techniques are also out. No throat strikes or knee stomps etc. But the actual training methods are first class. They DO provide an environment were their syllabus can be practiced all out against a resisting training partner. These arts, whether striking, grappling or both, produce outstanding physical specimins who are, even with the ommissions mentioned above, armed with an array of pressure tested and proven effective techniques that can still take people out.

But where do the reality based self defence practitioners come in all this? The training mehtods in this community vary wildly, from combat fatigue clad porkers who make all kinds of silly special forces experience claims, to hard working, realistic, pressure testing open minded thinkers who constantly examine what form real fights take, and concentrate on designing programmes that prepare their trainees for that eventuality. No, they cannot break each others necks or gouge each others eyes out. But they can come up with radical training ideas that both train these more deadly techniques and protect their people. The better clubs also ensure that their people are phycsically prepared, by designing relevant fitness regimes. And, of course, they are the only one of the 3 broad ranges who emphasise the non physical aspect of a confrontation - like awareness, avoidance, communication, deception etc. But, for the purpose of this article, I'm merely talking about the physical aspects.

There is tension between fighting techniques and trainng methods. The more deadly the technique, the harder it is to devise realistic training methods. The less "deadly" (like right crosses and arm bars etc), the easier it is to devise realistic training. The people who "win" are the ones who get the best from both worlds.

I guess it isn't hard to see which side I'm on. Since this is a personal view I will take the liberty of scoring each of the ranges for both fighting techniques and training methods. Maybe this will promote some discussion. Here goes, scoring out of 10.

Mainstream TMA

Techniques - 3
Training methods - 2

Full contact arts

Techniques - 7
Training methods - 10

Good RBSD

Techniques - 10
Training mehtods - 8


Add the non physical development from RBSD, and all of these scores could dramatically increase. Any of the three broad ranges could do this but, of course, at the moment only the RBSD people do so in any numbers (despite a lot of "we do this too, its easy" type claims.

Any comments?

[kobukai]

There are many different self defense scenarios. So it depends on the scenario and your view of that scenario. Just as an example, someone punching a civilian, and someone punching a law enforcement officer will illicit different responses. The civilian will endeavor to protect himself using whatever self defense methods he has with little regard for rules or restraint. An LEO's response may be governed by specific rules of response. So the same scenario is viewed differently depending on who you are, and what particular social position you may be in.

That being said, I was interested in two specific subjects you alluded to. One being self defense for us regular people, and the other being reality defense as used by the military or police.

The reason I feel I can speak to this is I happen to have trained in both types of positions, and now train people in both those types of positions.

For the unarmed civilian, self defense at its base level is escape. Techniques for escaping from an assailant, being able to release holds, avoid strikes, and get up off the ground and run are important. At the other end of the spectrum would be the civilian in an all out brawl with an attacker, or against a weapon wielding attacker, and the defender has no way to escape. In this case, the person needs to train in a method that gives technical proven answers to most of the common unarmed and armed attacks. The person must drill these methods until they are unconscious. Then the student must practice unrehearsed defense against a bigger stronger "attacker" in a stressful training setting until experience and timing against unrehearsed violent attacks are learned. In reality, this is about as good as a civilian person (who is not going to go the route as a professional MMA fighter) is going to get.

For the military/paramilitary operator/law enforcement officer - the story can and should be different. BOTH both have one common thread. I have been teaching these professionals for a long time, and every single one is concerned with the same thing. They CANNOT train so hard in class that they get hurt and then are non-operational. This is a FACT that those who fantasize about being an operator, or lie about training operators seem to want to ignore. Unarmed self defense is NOT the main fighting style for these people. It is an adjunt, but necessary training method. A firearm is usually the main method of defense for these professionals. Only if the mission goes wrong, whether it be a military mission, a security mission, or an arresting/restraining mission - ONLY if it goes wrong will these officers need to resort to unarmed self defense.

This is why what they do for training in unarmed self defense needs to be easy to learn, easy to execute, and easy to remember. It has to be learned in a relatively short amount of time in a high stress, but safe training atmosphere. Weapon disarms, a couple of answers to the most common unarmed attacks, ground work, and restraining methods are what they need to train in for their job.

These professionals seem to do best with one initial training session that lasts perhaps 24 hours spread out over several weeks (to allow for work and recuperation). Then this is followed up by 1 day refreshers several times a year. Dont forget - the unarmed combat we love so much is a SECONDARY tool to them - as it should be.

Dont let the "reality defense" name fool you. Unless the instructor has been in the position himself and understands the needs, AND is an instructor that is called upon by LEO and the MIL to instruct them - it is unlikely they are providing the product these professionals need.

SOOO - if you are a civilian - train in a style that is appropriate for your self defense needs, and let the military and law enforcement folks train in a style appropriate for their needs. If you are in a position as an instructor - instruct each of these groups appropriately.

[Brian S]

Im in the police. The techniques I was taught were appalling.

And the military? I know about WW2 Combatives. But what else is there of worth? From what I hear many specialist units do no H2H, and Rangers base their defence on Gracie jiu Jitsu.

[kobukai]

Well we all know the new system in the Army. And there is the LINE system in the Marines. Everyone in those branches gets the introductory session which can be anywhere from 4 - 8 hours. Those who get stationed in a place where there is an instructor can train more in these systems. And that is a big step forward, because there hasnt been a consolidated system in the military really since the 40's.

What happens more than not now with the military is soldiers who are interested can participate in off post self defense systems. Some are ok, some are very good. Then there are the progressive units who hire civilian or retired military instructors to come to their units and train them. There are some very progressive high speed units, as can be imagined, SEALS and other special ops units who hire in. But there are also some not so high speed units, regular infantry battalions, national guard units, chem batts, MP units who regularly hire in too. The civilian/ex mil instructor names get around and it seems there is a handful of names I run into all the time. Most you've never heard of. Thats the way the real ones like it.

As for law enforcement, there is no program. Virtually all units hire in, or are lucky enough to have someone on their force who is trained and gets a local program together. I can say, however, that I have had the privilege to teach at units like the Washington DC police academy, training their academy instructors who then went on to incorporate what I had to offer into the self defense part of their program. Now their recruits get a decent amount of self defense and restraining. I know they have had other instructors in over the years too.

I run a program a few times a year and bring LEO's to my private training facility who then go back to their departments and get a small group together to train. Sometimes with success - sometimes not.

That is the reality of it.

[Brian S]

I am glad that some military and some police get good instruction.

I doubt that these things are best for civillian self protection, however, as they have different aims.

Military? Kill your enemy.

Police? Subdue your enemy.

Civillian? Get home in one piece.

[matt little]

Originally posted by Brian S
Military? Kill your enemy.

Police? Subdue your enemy.

Civillian? Get home in one piece. [/B]

True, but the line between military and LEO ROE is not this clear cut, especially in today's post-911 special-ops/SWAT world...

[hedkikr]

The thread began as a "my style is better than your style" kind of piece so the truth needs to be revealed. Thank you Russ S. for revealing the truth. Admittedly many of the "traditional" systems haved morphed into sport-ified versions of truely dangerous systems. Open tournament styles (the most popular & "progressive") heads the list of "kicky-flicky" kroddy. When I trained in Gracie JJ in 1993 (Torrence, CA), there were a lot of really tough guys but because of the popularity (thanks UFC), it too is getting diluted. I remember how hard it was to earn a blue belt. Now spin-offs (not necessarily Gracie) appear in every other "studio" that wants to capitalize in ground fighting. (I stopped because it was too expensive & trafic on the 405 is hell).
Any classical style needs to reach back to their roots to discover their meaning & purpose because the self-defense was the goal (not show business, chains & franchizes, not local cable shows by self-proclaimed soke, SEAL instructor, warrior-monks). Furthermore, people who don't understand kata are always launching the same tired argument "kata won't save your life". As Russ knows, LE & military train tactics until they can do them in their sleep. That's all kata are but put together in a format to contain several seperate techniques that flow - they are not a single fight against multiple opponents. Arguement #2: you gotta train for 10 years before you're good enough to defend yourself...not even close. After 1 class, my students know how to strike if they can't avoid, escape or negotiate their way out of dander. Are they Jet Li? NO. But they are better than before that class. And w/ each class, over months or years, their skill level will reflect their personal dedication, fitness level & ability to think during crisis. Will it protect them in an actual crisis? Nobody knows because of the unknowns: weather & terrain, availability of weapons, presence of hostile or supportive others, physical condition or illness, etc. Not even NHB can make guarentees although I truely admire their training & skill. Punching the air is just a training tool that seems to be over utilized. I believe in hitting an Impact Pad (not makiwara) w/o gloves.
I'm done for now.
(I'm glad Russ S. signed on...listen & learn)

[hedkikr]

Oh yeah, one more thing. I plan to be practicing karate for many more years (I'm 50 y/o). Will I absorb the punishment I did @ 30? I doubt it, but my timing is better.