In the UK the recent release of crime statistics indicating a marked rise in the percentage of both moped related robberies (both of the vehicle and using the vehicle as a means of facilitating crimes) and acid attacks have caught the attention of the media. This has not escaped the attention of a number of self defence instructors who are using heightened public awareness of these attacks as a means of encouraging students to try their systems, with interesting videos, photos or online advice on how to deal with such attacks.
It is worth noting two things about both phenomenon: firstly when numbers are (relatively) low (in the hundreds), any increase is going to register as a higher percentage increase – which is what we have here; secondly these crimes are thankfully generally concentrated in small areas of the country as a whole. In saying that, I do not wish to downplay the awfulness of these crimes for the unfortunate victims (or witnesses, friends and families, or the emergency services) and in particular I hope that measures can be taken to licence and control the sale of corrosive liquids and increase their viscosity so as to make it harder for them to be used in this way.
This does not change the fact that on a scale of likelihood for most people, the odds on being a victim are comparable to those of being a victim of gun crime – incredibly low.
I have not given the matter of defending against moped riding assailants (whether on foot or while in a car) or of acid attacks detailed attention beyond reading accounts and making observations from footage (as opposed to setting aside the time to run multiple training simulations to trial and establish high percentage solutions) because it is very low on the likelihood of things that are likely to happen to me or my students. That is not to say that I am not intending to study it in detail to see how my current approaches apply, but I am not the type of instructor to knock out half-baked fantastical knee jerk crowd pleasing improbable and impractical solutions. Those who follow my videos on facebook will know that I recently included a ‘prank’ water attack by teenagers on unsuspecting adult trainees as one of the opening scenarios of one of my SIM DAYS, but this rather contrived event was done as a tool to raise awareness within my group of both the danger, speed and the difficulty of handling such an event – not to illustrate a fantasy response.
My personal knee jerk response to the increase in this particular type of attack is that the most practical immediate approach is to include Acid First Aid in the written syllabus for my students, and include it in the questions in their theory exams to ensure they have a familiarity with measures that can help reduce damage.
We should not lose perspective. If you are teaching a regular ‘self defence’ class or a martial arts class orientated towards the same, then the core priority for your students is actually stuff that they don’t really want to be spending a lot of training time on, because most of them are using your classes as an exercise medium. While I talk about training my students to avoid, deter, negate and escape aggression and physical violence, the reality is that a large part of that is covered in reading and writing exercises, and the majority of my classes are spent on the physical escape aspect with that and the other elements combined in my Sim Days.
So what is that escape?
Well there’s lots of stuff I could teach, but I know what I should be focusing on. Boring though it may seem, the core aspect, the bread and butter of any physical self defence training, has to be pre-emptive striking and defending against the most common form of physical attack. My students love the challenge of doing Failure Cascades, and they are a great form of dynamic (and often alive) training that helps reduce the unpredictability of violence and improves their responses by linking drills, and they enjoy switching tactics for those rare occasions where it might be more appropriate to control a person rather than simply escape, but ultimately they need to be able to hit hard and not get hit in the first place. That might not sell well, it might not be cool, it might sound too simple, it may not result in flashy videos or thousands of online followers, but it is evidence-based practice.
The meta-concept is the "Looking Glass." A reference to Lewis Carroll's book. You cross a threshold of experience and things that made sense in a certain way now make sense in a different way. When you were eight years old, girls were icky and there were girl germs and love was stupid. And love songs were stupid and poetry about love was stupid... right up until you fell in love for the first time. You stepped through the looking glass and even though an eight-year-old could tell you were being stupid it didn't matter. Because the logic and reality of one side of the looking glass no longer applies.
Falling in love. Having a child. The death of a parent. The death of a close friend. Your first fight. Your fiftieth fight. All are thresholds, and once you cross the threshold the way you think and the way you see the world changes on a fundamental level.
"Let it go." "Forgive." "Just get over it." From one side of the looking glass, this is worthless, meaningless advice. But everyone who has crossed that particular threshold has, at some point, decided to let go. From the other side of the looking glass, it is simply obvious.
"Put him down." "He never gets a move." "I own every beat in the rhythm." These are simple tautologies on one side of the looking glass, near-impossibilities on the other.
One of my friends has a metaphor for power generation. "Spill the tea." I'm close enough to the threshold to see it, but nowhere near close enough to use it.
When someone gives you advice from the other side of the looking glass, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not true. Conversely, when you cross a threshold, it doesn't make your new truth truer than the earlier truth. Just different.
The world is better than ever before. In the US, poverty doesn't mean what poverty means. The poorest people I know own computers that would not have been available to any government at any price in the 1970's. If you are reading this, you have access to a computing system that didn't exist not that long ago. You cannot believe you are poor if you have access to a system that no one in your grandfather's world could have imagined. Measure. Do you have access to hot water, ice, food from multiple continents despite any season and more knowledge than you could mine in a lifetime? Then you are a god, beyond what any Roman emperor could access. and you live in a golden age.
There is an old saying about academic politics: The politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.
Here's the deal. Since the mid/late 1800's, we have an ideal. We are all products of our culture and early education, so shift this 200 years in any direction and it might make no sense, but here goes:
- People matter.
- Equality is important.
- Individual liberty is important.
- People can continuously improve.
- Society can continuously improve.
- A legitimate government serves the people, it does not rule the people.
And, for as long as this ideal has been held as pretty much universal, there has been a constant tension between liberty and egalitarianism. They are mutually incompatible. If you allow maximum freedom (liberty) there will be wild disparities in possession, friendships... anything you care to measure. Conversely, there is no way to have egalitarian outcomes except by controlling individuals. Yes, I am aware that there is an entire branch of political philosophy devoted to proving that there is no antagonism between freedom and equality. Any six-year-old can shatter those pathetic arguments.
A quick and dirty way to phrase this, imagine a basketball game: If you value liberty more than equality, you want the rules applied equally to the two teams. If you value equality more than liberty, you will believe that any score that doesn't end in a tie is prima facie evidence of unfairness and you will continue to tweak the rules until all games are ties.
In the dawn of the 21st century, we forget that "poor" used to mean "starving" not obesity. Not that long ago, poor people in North America couldn't read, and now they have access to free Harvard courses. That a (personal example) an eight-year-old bottom of the line economy car can outperform the hotrods we dreamed about as children.
Bringing it home, people are tribal. They seem to need an 'us' and a 'them.' The less actual difference there is, the more vicious and heated the rhetoric needs to be. Communist, fascists and socialists were never enemies because they were different. They were always enemies because their policies appealed to the same people. They were similar enough to compete for resources. Civil wars are more vicious than other wars because of the similarities between the sides, not the differences.
And this big, scary divide in US politics right now? It is really simple. We agree on almost everything... except where we should strike the balance between individual liberty and equality. And because that is such a relatively minor point, tribalism demands that we get vicious about it.
Tribalism demands. We needn't obey. (Obviously) I'm heavy on the individual liberty side. We don't need to agree. We both want people to be happy. I believe that unfettered opportunity will have that effect for more people and, as an aside, that a few people pushing the envelope changes everyone's potential. If you believe stuff makes people happy and managing the output of stuff will make more people's lives better, you aren't my enemy. We just disagree.
First, distinguish between external and internal criticism. External criticism comes from other people. It may be wrong, misguided, actively designed to sabotage you… listen anyway. The more you want to find a reason to ignore or deny it, the more important it is to listen. If it is bad advice, you should be able to explicitly and dispassionately articulate why it is bad. But be careful. There’s a reason why watching for your own cognitive biases is a lifetime commitment.This post is really about internal criticism. Do you know why an outside copyeditor is necessary to a professional writer? Because you can’t catch your own errors. If you knew how the word was spelled, you would have spelled it right the first time. Yes, there are clumsy finger errors, etc. Quibbles. The point is, you generally don’t make errors you recognize as errors. Almost always, the decision you made in the moment was the one you judged to be best in that moment, with the information you had and the time you had to think. If you think of something better, cool. That’s a learning experience.One example. Just a synopsis, it would be really long to type. Climbing with a partner. His jumar (ascender) got jammed. Halfway up a slippery cliff. Rope wedged in the same crack as the jumar. Starting to get cold and wet. Only decision I could see was to unhook and free climb to get above him and work from there. Shitty climb on slippery rocks with no protection and a 40 foot fall.It worked. Six months later I thought of an easier, safer solution, and I was kicking myself for not thinking in a few minutes of something that took a half year of unadrenalized pondering. Sigh.Examine effects, not feelings. Most people’s problems are second or third order. Writing the essay is the primary problem. Worrying about the grade you might get is the secondary problem. Worrying about what people will say about your grade is tertiary. A big piece of ‘non-attachment’ is ignoring the secondary and tertiary concerns. Which is actually easy, because the primary problem/solution is usually physical and real, as opposed to both emotional and imaginary (and if it’s going to happen in the future it is imaginary in this moment.)Be in the moment. Related to the last one, but I get very specific about this. I mean to be in your senses. Look, listen, smell, touch, taste. Don’t look and then start an internal dialogue describing what is right there. Look, don’t describe. Listen, don’t judge. Live, don’t interpret. I know that’s hard, but it is really powerful.With a lot of attention/practice/mindfulness, you can do this with your internal states as well. This lets fear, anger, love, rage, annoyance, self-doubt—all that stuff— move through you without sticking. You can feel anger without becoming angry, and love without becoming stupid.Think less. The less time you spend thinking in words, the easier the last two points become. Meditation, solitude, hunger and fighting are some of the paths I’ve found. Those are in order, from easiest to hardest, but also from least to most effective.After Action Debrief. I’ve written about it here XXX link XXX. I f you’re going to have a critical voice in your head anyway, you might as well train it to be useful. In a nutshell, the AAD is just three questions: What happened? What went well? What could I/we do better next time?That’s it, but you have to be strong enough to say, “That went about as well as it could have.” Let yourself have your wins.
Focusing pain. Sudden sharp pain tends to clarify your mind and order your priorities. Give yourself some pain if you are too much in your head. Snap your ear whenever you catch yourself in your critical head.
There are more strategies that work. Remember that your brain can and should be exercised and disciplined, just like your body.
There are lots of ways to train the martial arts, and many different and differently weighted reasons to do so. There is a danger however that through misguided training weighting choices, we may actually be hindering the skill development either of ourselves or of our students or worse, reducing it.
Stamina is a useful attribute, although often ‘sport specific’ due to the tasking placed on different muscle groups by different activities. In baseline terms, in our daily lives, most people want the ability to climb flights of stairs, walk several miles or run short distances without discomfort.
Stamina training is important if you are engaging in a sporting event; you need to have the resilience to remain ‘at your best’ for as long as possible, and you need the ability to recover your equilibrium in brief rest breaks. To train for this you do need to regularly work at a pace that taxes the body, progressively pushing yourself so that you can keep going for longer.
Training with a raised heart rate (and where possible raised adrenaline levels) can also replicate and illustrate what the body is capable of doing under the stresses of a situation that may cause an increased adrenaline level. This is an important facet of a good training programme, however for reasons which I will explain below, care should be taken as to the percentage of training this forms.
Where personal training time is short, I have in the past advised using martial arts movements as a substitute for general aerobic training to maximise training time and technique repetition. This advice does come with a caveat however: repeating martial arts technique is only good if the technique is good. While repetition is a pathway to good technique, sustained repetition of poor technique trains poor technique. As a result it is important to vary training speeds and intensities and drills to ensure that students are not wasting time drilling bad technique (and are training fast recovery of equilibrium as well as fast technique).
Developing will power
Dig deep. Push yourself. Keep on going. You can do it. We’ve all heard these phrases. Stamina training has long been recognised as one of the delivery methods of the developing the mind-set to ‘keep on going’, to ‘keep fighting’ or to ‘stay in the game’. Providing it is calibrated to continuously stretch and expand (rather than break) the comfort zone, this is a further reason why stamina training of some kind should play a key part in the training of those physically healthy enough to engage in it.
Developing skill related fitness
In physical terms skill may be defined as possessing reliable efficient and appropriate movement to achieve a desired result. There are six skill-related fitness components: agility, balance, coordination, speed, power, and reaction time. Skilled martial artists typically aim to excel in all six areas.
- Agility is the ability to change and control the direction and position of the body while maintaining constant rapid motion.
- Balance is the ability to control or stabilise the body, either when a person is standing still or when moving.
- Coordination is the ability to use the senses together with parts of the body during movement. Using the hands and eyes together is known as hand-eye coordination.
- Speed is the ability to move your body or parts of your body swiftly.
- Power is the ability to move the body parts swiftly while applying the maximum force of the muscles. Power is a combination of both speed and muscular strength.
- Reaction Time is the ability to reach or respond quickly to what you hear, see, or feel.
Practice doesn’t make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. To develop skill related fitness I have written in the past about the different benefits of different speeds and intensities in training and how some types are better for developing stamina, others for ‘testing’ ability, while others for developing ability.
If you want to have a reliable skill set then it needs to be practiced repeatedly, correctly. Training martial arts technique with a raised heart rate and (if possible) raised adrenaline levels needs to be done to test skill and to develop spirit. The issue comes when sustained ‘high speed’ or ‘intensive’ stamina training utilising martial arts training occupies too high a proportion of training time. When I see people engaging in this form of training, particularly if they are going ‘all out’, then usually after the first few minutes their guard drops and their technique becomes sloppy – and that is the individuals who looked as if they had good technique to begin with.
There seems to be a belief that the more time people invest in this training, the longer their skill set can be maintained, so they are making progress. This belief is fostered by the illusion created by them being able to move for longer, perhaps maintaining power levels for longer or even increasing them slightly. The problem is that for most of the time they are rehearsing technique at a low skill level: they are practicing, but not practicing perfectly. They are deskilling themselves by drilling bad technique. They are increasing their stamina which means that they can hold a skill level for longer, but because they are predominantly rehearsing the six skill related fitness attributes at a low level, their overall optimum skill level is decreasing.
This does not mean that there is no place for intensive martial arts training. It has its place as a test of ability, but that place is as an occasional event, and if weekly as a small fraction of that weekly session. Running, rowing, cycling, swimming, skipping or controlled high repetition lifting are all ways in which stamina can be increased – often in a time efficient manner due to the different pace compared with martial arts training. The greatest efficiency however is that these do not detract from the development of skill related fitness in the martial arts, which means that the skill level that is held for longer is a higher skill level overall.
Where do I get the right to say that they are wrong and I'm right? Fair question. This is the way my brain works: These are people I care about and generally, but not always, that means I admire their intelligence*. If they believe X and I believe Y, I assume I'm wrong. I then, depending on the question go to first sources (like the actual court case). Or go to the data (the Bureau of Justice Statistics, commonly). Or design an experiment (Who is more hateful, X or Y? Let's type "All x should die" and "All y should die" into google and see who is talking about killing most.)
I think that's pretty solid. Confidant that it is far more than the people I am disagreeing with have done.
But here's the question, and it's really two three questions.
1) Should I even bother to tell them I disagree? I know a few sense it, but as long as it stays submerged, the friendship continues fine. Understand, they are usually passionate about their position-- one even said it was important enough it was okay to be wrong. I can't even wrap my head around that, largely because I'm not passionate about the positions. I am relatively passionate about the path to those positions.
2) If I decide to have this disagreement, how? Facts don't actually sway people. For that matter, if we agreed on an experimental design and their position was mathematically proven flawed, my experience is that they would double down. And never forgive me.
Oooh. There's a third question.
3) Most of them are happy being passionate. It may come across in words as feeling outcast and beleaguered and under constant attack, but that belief makes them feel special and gives their life meaning. If someone is wholly invested in their enemies as a core of their identity, is pointing out that their enemies** are imaginary a dick move?
The challenge here is not winning the argument. My ego doesn't need the strokes of winning. The challenge is preserving the friendship and, possibly, helping a few friends avoid a path that will be hard to recover from.
*There are other virtues I admire besides intelligence. No one has to be perfect or superior in all categories to be my friend.
** And this is a really fine line because there are always a few real assholes. There are millions of good christians, but the 70 (or less) members of the Westboro Baptist Church make the news. There are tens of thousands of people working to make a better world, but the loudest, shrillest and stupidest two percent become the poster children for 'Social Justice Warriors.' As long as that worse 2 % or 70 individual or whatever exist, the enemies, just barely, miss being completely imaginary.
We all build the mental worlds in which we live, and we don’t all live in the same world, even if we believe we do. Some worlds, like Terry Pratchett’s Discworld, we know are just fantasy. After all, the Discworld is a flat disc that is carried by four giant elephants on the back of a turtle that swims through space. Most martial artists build their personal training worlds on the backs of four elephants, elephants that I like to think of as the Fantastic Four (though admittedly some don’t even see or recognise all of them). These elephants that hold up our individual training worlds are Legality, Training Practicality, Training Viability, and Underpinning Psychology. The question is, “Are your elephants fantastic, or fantastical?”
Elephant One: Legality
What is legal in self defence does vary from country to country, however often people make a number of very flawed assumptions when it comes to what is legal and what is illegal.
A common misunderstanding of reasonable force is that it is somehow less effective or more gentle or gentlemanly than just ‘going for it’. That is not the case. Using reasonable force should not put you in any greater danger because you are simply using force when it is necessary to a level in response to the threat you perceive. A further myth is that ‘you can’t use force’. Here in England the late Professor of Law Gary Slapper noted that the Criminal Prosecution Service had found in 2005, when they looked at prosecutions over the preceding 15 years, there had been over 20 million crimes that they had looked into with regard to the use of force, but during that time there had only been 11 cases where people had been prosecuted for excessive use of force in self defence.
What is legal largely depends on context rather than techniques themselves. As a result it is more correct to think in terms of situations where doing something is likely to be interpreted as illegal: for example continuing to injure someone if they are unconscious or otherwise visibly ‘out of action’. In similar vein doing something that is likely to take a life is not necessarily going to be viewed as illegal if under the circumstances action is necessary and you have a reasonable belief that the threat to you is lethal and can convey that in subsequent interviews. Remember, even a simple punch to the head can be lethal. Engaging in legal use of force in self defence does not mean that you won’t be arrested because the Police have a duty to ensure that you have not acted in breach of the law.
Much of this comes down to having a thorough training methodology based on an understanding of the laws in the land in which you live, and being able to describe your actions in a manner consistent with those laws. In an online discussion with fellow instructor the excellent Marc MacYoung I once described the “I’d rather be judged by twelve rather than carried by six” approach as indicating “a casual approach to training and ROE that is bad for the trainee and bad for others in the environment they enter. To me the phrase implies an acceptance of uncertainty and a faith in the correct judgement of others, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t want the people I train questioning their decisions or ability to act or wondering whether they are going to go to court – I want them to be so clear on the self protection ROE that there isn’t any doubt clouding their minds or confusing their actions.” Marc immediately replied that he’d upgrade my ‘casual’ to ‘sloppy’ and he’s right. With the access to information and good training that is available these days there is no excuse for instructors to demonstrate approaches that are unnecessary.
A fellow instructor and I discussed the issue of ‘historical’ techniques recently and how they fit into this. I’m referring to applications of forms that are clearly likely to maim or kill someone when they no longer pose any threat. From an intellectual perspective these applications may have historical value, so should we teach them? If you teach them you are certainly liable if someone uses them in class, and could be liable in a private prosecution if they are used outside of class. Saying “I don’t teach this but you can do…” then demonstrating what you claim not to teach does constitute teaching a technique. In such instances my personal view is don’t teach it. You aren’t legally going to use it because it will never be necessary, and any student that has been trained to a level to be trusted with such knowledge should be able to spot the option without it being taught.
Elephant Two: Training Practicality
“Do not expect the combat fairy to come bonk you with the combat wand and suddenly make you capable of doing things that you never rehearsed before. It will not happen”
On Combat, Lt Col D Grossman, 2004
Under pressure people fall back to natural behaviour and the things they have drilled the most often; if the drill was appropriate to the physical, mental and chemical situation in which they now find themselves.
There are a number of things that some instructors make look very easy and simple to do, while not actually doing them. In fairness some of these are easy to do, the issue is that the students aren’t doing them (because to do so would involve an injury that would knock them out of training) and therefore aren’t actually getting good at doing them. The further issue is that because they aren’t actually being done people often have an over-exaggerated idea of how effective they might be against a resisting, emotionally charged and adrenaline fuelled (and maybe drug loaded) aggressor with a high pain threshold and a real intent to continue to harm you rather than stop on experiencing injury.
Most striking can be practiced through hitting a person slowly, and greater delivery power developed on pads or armour. Similarly a lot of grappling can be tested to a high degree. Once you get into ‘too deadly to train’ however you are getting onto more dubious territory. There’s no denying that some of that stuff works, but it may not work as well as you think – to a large degree because not everyone notices pain or injury when they are in a state that is causing them to be violent, but mainly because you’ve never really trained it.
Elephant Three: Training Viability
This is the corollary to the above.
I’m not going to flag up specific techniques although I’d invite you to take a good ‘third eye’ look at what you are doing and ask yourself – “Does this really work?” There’s stuff out there that works on a relaxed training partner but is not going to make any significant difference to someone whose mental focus is on hurting you. Pain compliance is great, if the other person notices pain. In similar vein there are moves that require very specific angles and set ups and incredibly frequent practice to maintain to use in a highly specialised training model.
With this in mind you need to be clear as to how what you are training fits within your long term and short term training aims. What is good for physical and mental exercise (long term health and continued interest in the discipline) may be timewasting or dangerous so far as self defence is concerned. That’s not an issue if self defence isn’t the reason why you are training.
Elephant Four: Underpinning Psychology
Can you hit another person as hard as you can?
Can you hurt or injure another person?
Can you hit someone in the face?
Can you claw at someone’s eyes?
Can you deliberately break a neck?
Can you deliberately hit someone with a blunt or bladed weapon?
Can you stab someone?
Can you shoot someone?
Can you do any of the above from behind?
This may seem like a strange list, it’s certainly not exhaustive, but until they have given themselves permission to do things like those listed above, a lot of people are temperamentally unsuited to actually hurting others. That temperament is something that does not necessarily go away with most martial arts training, and just because many people have been able to do such things under extreme pressure with no training at all does not mean that you or your students will be similarly motivated or enabled by circumstances.
Teaching people to do physical things that they are not mentally capable of doing is a waste of time. Exploring ‘red lines’ that might exist in lists like the one above through discussion of when they might be legally or morally acceptable is vital if you want students to have given themselves permission to do those things (or anything at all). Without that underpinning belief and release from inhibition students are far better off developing their ability to deliver simple unarmed powerful striking and throwing techniques that are equally effective.
These four elephants work together to bear the burden of your training world. They can be extraordinarily well-prepared and subject to regular review, or they could be a complete fantasy, a passed-down myth that has never been challenged by rigorous research or testing. Choose your elephants carefully for they carry your world.
Jumping into this anyway, because it is important.
Criticism is a shitty teaching paradigm. Telling people they are doing things wrong, even telling them what they are doing wrong is literally worse than useless: Useless teaching would leave students unimproved. Criticism actually makes the students worse.
This will probably be a hard sell. When I came up through the (primarily Japanese) traditional martial arts, stern criticism was the standard teaching method. I've even had an instructor say, "Only perfect is good enough." And I was cautioned not to praise students because it would make them lazy. In the law enforcement world, right after I was promoted a senior sergeant told me, "Do you know why you'll never be a good sergeant? Because you don't understand that everyone is lazy and dishonest and our job is to catch them and punish them." Her crews were consistently poor performers because they spent more time watching their backs around her than doing the job.
But it's only a hard sell because we are all so used to it. When something is shitty, being the norm doesn't make it less shitty. We know criticism is poor teaching methodology.
Why is it bad? Let me count the ways.
- It's all brakes, no engine. Criticism stops behavior. If that behavior isn't replaced with a better alternative, improvement can only happen by luck.
- Criticism almost always works off the wrong metric. The instructor judges a strike (for instance) by whether it looked right. In striking, looks don't matter for shit, it's a kinesthetic skill.
- Criticism, especially of the wrong metric, is usually arbitrary. The coach may be looking at foot placement one minutes and hand position the next, may focus on a minor problem in stance and miss the big problem (something that would result in injury) in the hands.
- The instructor's reaction becomes the student's metric. Not whether the technique worked, not how much energy was delivered, but whether they got yelled at or not. Getting better, when you are measuring improvement by the wrong metric, is nearly impossible.
- When the student is anticipating the instructor's reactions, the student is thinking. Cognitive processing is too slow to use effectively in a hand-to-hand conflict and thinking about irrelevant things is worse. Excessive criticism makes your students slow.
- When the students are driven to avoid criticism, it pushes them from a gains maximization to a loss minimization strategy. In other words, they are no longer trying to win, they are trying not to lose, and that is usually a very weak, passive and reactionary strategy when the shit hits the fan.
- And to compound point six, the game they are trying not to lose isn't even the right game. They are worried about what sensei will say, not working to put the bad guy down.
- At the extreme end of this, when everything is criticized, the only strategy left to the students is to do as little as possible, to become as passive as possible. The condition is called, in psychology, "Learned Helplessness." Constant criticism creates passive people, which is another word for victims.
- Reward even small improvements. It doesn't have to be anything big, just a "Good job" or a nod. Just as people decrease behaviors that are criticized (punished) they increase behaviors that are rewarded. Rewarding small improvements creates a vector toward further improvement.
- Tell the students what to do. Avoid telling them what not to do. "Avoid telling them what not to do" is only seven words but because of the double negations 'avoid' and 'not' it is tons less clear than "Tell the students what to do." Positive statements are clearer than negative statements.
- Don't criticize bad techniques, replace them. Instead of telling someone her stance is wrong, show her where her feet should be and explain why.*
- Use the right metric. If you are teaching strikes properly, it will show on the heavy bag.
- Let nature judge. A lot of the wrong ways to do things hurt. That's why they are the wrong ways. Improper hand positioning hurts your wrist when you punch the heavy bag. A canvas bag will teach you when your punching angles are off. All the wrong ways to do a break fall hurt. If you use the right metrics, you almost never have to criticize because the world takes care of that for you.
That's bullshit, and if you have that little voice in your head, kill it.
*Quick note on explaining. I find it very useful to explain the underlying physiology or physics that make something work. If the principles are true, they apply everywhere and if the student understands the principles, he or she can adapt them under stress. That said, the principles work. They have visible effects. If you have to explain that something worked when it clearly didn't, you're wrong. You aren't explaining, you're attempting to brainwash.
Machiavelli (if I'm attributing it to the right person) specifically applied it to fighters. I don't think that's necessarily true--everyone takes micromanagement as an insult. But it's more explicit in dangerous professions. A firefighter I know is incensed that he has to spend more time in each report documenting his PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) than his job. He showed me one report-- nearly half a page of what equipment he put on and in what order. Barely four lines on extracting the subject from the wrecked car.
When you are entrusted with life or death decisions, being treated like a child throws a huge mixed message.
So here's the deal. If you are a micromanager, you aren't a leader. You aren't even a shitty leader. You're a busybody who likes to feel important by interfering with better people than yourself. If you have employees who need to be watched every second either you need to hire adults or, more likely they aren't the problem.
When you get the micromanager who always finds fault, it is something else. If everything a worker does is wrong, no matter how closely they follow policy or even if they were just following the last set of orders, what's going on isn't even management, micro or otherwise. It is straight-up victim grooming. Creating a field of passive people for the manager's games.
I doubt if most micromanagers realize what they are. Humans are excellent at rationalizing and it's easy to reframe micromanagement as "Being explicit" or "I'm a hands-on guy." But on the tiny chance someone reads this and sees through their own bullshit and decides to change... it won't be easy.
No matter your intentions, all those years of micromanagement have instilled in your people the idea that you don't trust them-- and that they can't trust you. They will literally assume that you turning over a new leaf is a trap. That you will give them enough trust to show some initiative and then will ruthlessly punish them for that initiative.
This easily becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you change your behavior and don't notice any benefit for a day or a week or a month, it is easy to revert. The reversion just becomes further evidence that your attempt at change was insincere.
Note: Going out of my lane a little, but setting up for the next post, which is about the teaching equivalent of micromanagement.
The loss of life and terrible injuries that occurred in the low-tech vehicle and knife attacks in London earlier this month shocked many across the world.
A Thank You
Before I write further on this topic I want to pay tribute to three particular groups of people.
Firstly the professional responders to the event. The courage and professionalism of those on-duty who delayed or stopped the attackers, provided in-situ medical care and who have continued that medical and pastoral care as well as criminal investigation after the event. These are all demanding tasks and like many others around the world I have a tremendous respect for everything you have done.
Secondly those who were just enjoying their personal time or going about normal working lives who did what they could to stop or delay the attackers. From barring doors, getting people inside, throwing objects or directly attempting to stop them. These actions (for which some people paid with their lives) no doubt saved many others, and to act in such a way to help others or protect themselves under such circumstances commands respect.
Finally I want to pay tribute to those survivors who circumstances dictated did not directly have to fight the attackers, but who followed the direction of others to wait inside, to run, and who succeeded in protecting themselves from harm, no doubt to the great relief of their friends and families. These were natural actions and nobody should forget that fact. Some among them may be blaming themselves, wishing or thinking they could have done more, and that is also a natural response after such a traumatic event. They are not to blame, they have nothing to apologise for; they did not cause this event and the reality is that it is highly unlikely that they could have done anything more than they did, and that we are thankful for their safety that they did not.
Taboos and Adrenaline
There are many unspoken taboos when it comes to discussing events such as this, and there are many things that armchair warriors say that should be dismissed.
One taboo I would like to address is that of the effect of adrenaline in unanticipated violent events such as this. It is something that I have written on in my books and in martial arts magazines, as have many of my respected peers. Freezing and/or fleeing, experiencing memory distortion of time, recalling future projections of events that did not happen recorded as memories, creating ‘false’ memories based on the brain struggling to arrange events, visual perception narrowing, aural perception narrowing, and suffering memory gaps are all normal responses. I have seen all of these occur in training programmes I have run and studied many accounts of them happening under stress in real events. I have also experienced some of these myself in violent events outside of training. Loss of bladder or bowel control under the influence of high adrenaline is also a natural programmed biological response, and one that men can be more susceptible to than women (due to the higher intensity of the initial male adrenal dump and the quantities of liquid men imbibe on a night out). No-one should feel ashamed if this happened to them in an event such as this. No-one should mock anyone if they saw or heard it happen to them. All that has happened is that their body has prepared them for the anticipated event.
Aftermath – Martial and Media Myths
Since the event, I have been approached a number of times by people concerned by what they saw in the media about these attacks. “How can you deal with that?” I have also seen a number of dangerous half baked Hollywood approaches advocated in the press and online by instructors using the event to bring themselves greater publicity, and while I have no objection to seeing more people engage in martial arts or self defence training, I do worry when the material advertised betrays a deep ignorance of the subject matter.
I have written in the past on knife crime and you can find one of my articles in Jissen and in my book Karate and Self Defence, and another here on Headlines, knives and kneejerk reactions. While a significant problem, knife crime still makes up only a small proportion of overall violent crime in the UK, and in the majority of instances the knife is used as a tool of coercion rather than to injure or kill. Such crimes naturally can cause other forms of injury, and I do not wish to belittle these in any way, but the vast majority of people are at low risk of being a victim of knife crime, especially compared with the risk of being a victim in a road traffic accident or of having cancer or heart disease – all of which can be terrible and traumatic events for sufferers and their families.
Carrying a weapon
In some countries people legally carry knives or guns as defensive tools or deterrents against being a victim of violent crime. These can work, especially if the people have the training necessary to utilise such tools effectively under the conditions of the surprise and stress of an unexpected event. In the UK however carrying an object with the intention of using it as a weapon is illegal.
If anyone in the UK is tempted to break the law and carry a blade for the purpose of self protection I invite them to undertake a simple reality check. For most people the odds of being targeted are so low that you are wasting your time and risking a criminal conviction. Carrying a knife increases the likelihood of using it and escalating the level of violence in a confrontation with unnecessary life changing consequences.
If those arguments do not convince you then there is a simple reality check that you could either experience professionally at a Filipino Martial Arts (FMA) School or try with rubber blades smeared with jam. If you watch a knife on knife altercation with skilled knife users you will see how hard it is to deal with a trained aggressive attack. If you try it with jam you’ll see how covered you get in a jam v jam event. Fighting a knife with a knife is not cool, it isn’t practical under pressure, and will take decades of regular practice to gain a proficiency that could give you a high percentage of success. That success will also depend on who you are. Are you really prepared to kill someone else to protect yourself or others? If you are not then it is unrealistic to train to do so. You have to have that resolve.
In my book Karate and Self Defence I wrote about ways to test and develop your knife defences if you are a martial artist. It is an uncomfortable process. It is possible to survive an attack with no injuries, but it is not a situation anyone should want to find themselves in. It is a last resort if the need is there to protect yourself or others and escaping without contact is not a viable option.
Forget the Movie Fu. If your jacket isn’t already off then don’t expect to have the time to disrobe and use it as a flail. Don’t think you’ll have time to take off and use your belt. Such things are for prearranged choreographed action scenes. Do not buy into such rubbish or bolt-on knife defence courses – they will only work if fully integrated and drilled with your normal training.
The solution is no different to normal self defence training.
Avoid trouble if you can.
Deter by appropriate confident but non threatening body language.
Negate aggressive situations through appropriate social behaviour.
Escape the confrontation through running if possible, but if you believe an attack to be imminent escape by taking necessary reasonable sustained action with speed and aggression. That means using anything to hand to help you if you believe the other person to be bigger, stronger or have another advantage such as a weapon. If attacked with a weapon it is reasonable to believe your life is in danger and you must have the resolve to respond with the same level of violence.
The real solution should be to keep on doing what you are currently doing. Be alert out in public, as you should be, but go out and live your life. The risk you face is lower than the everyday risks you face in your transport choices. Worrying about what might happen should not prevent you from living what is.
When I die, these are the things that I will have wished I said and possibly the things you would have wished to have heard. I'm thinking of my son right now, but that's just a focal point. If your dad (or whoever) had the words, these are the words that need to be said:
You have never disappointed me. You might have felt that, but know it was never so. When you were born, I held in my arms a perfect example of perfect human potential. An awe-inspiring bundle of possibility. Innate power and potential of cosmic proportions.
In Greek myth, the heroes were half gods. Heracles, the son of Zeus and a mortal mother; Aeneas the son of Aphrodite and a mortal father. This is how I see you, how all humans are: Something incredible and powerful and heroic. Supernatural in your birthright.
That is how I see you.
If you sensed disappointment, it was never with you, but with the world. You have had to make compromises; we all have. And I may have sighed because the choice you made was not the choice I wanted, since I wanted to see you as a pure and perfect god. But the choices you made were pure and perfect, given the information you had and the priorities you placed. I might have wanted you to stand above the world, but you were neck-deep in the world, protecting the weak, calculating the consequences. I had a Socratic, imaginary ideal-- you had a gritty reality. You made your choices based on that reality. You made the best choices you could, and I love you for that.
I wish that you could see yourself as I see you. The strength, the growing wisdom, the compassion, the insight. You are mightier than you can possibly imagine.
Walk in the world as an Olympian. Nurture your strength and cherish the strength of the minigods all around you. It is a beautiful and complex world, and you are an integral part of that beauty and complexity.
"We want an unarmed defensive tactics system for our officers that works the same for all officers regardless of size, gender or age, that will work on all threats regardless of size, strength or mental state and has zero risk of injury to the offender."
"You realize that's impossible, right?"
"You don't have anything? We'll keep looking."
The latest. A request for comprehensive self-defense training but with absolutely no element of violence. This one is tempting. Not the material. As requested, it's simply stupid. It's the students. The people who want this do home visits on people who are in the system. Often alone, this student base has daily contact with a population that frequently have criminal records and a history of violence. These are kids (adults, but at a certain age, everybody starts to look like a kid) going into harm's way to do good things. If anyone needs a comprehensive program, these are the people.
Naively, I alsoused to believe that there was always a non-violent solution, but even then I realized there wasn't always time to find that solution. I was wrong. There are people who enjoy hurting others, and only force or the threat of force will stop them. Predators who can't feel closure without pain. Really bad guys who need to see someone break. People who honestly believe that acceding to a verbal solution is an act of cowardice.
" You boys have been real nice, but I guess now it's time to make you fuck me up." When I asked, "Why?" later the old man said, "If I went to jail and didn't fight, I wouldn't be a man." People satisfying needs with pain isn't limited to the BDSM world.
Realistically, the big gains in SD are in the non-violent soft skills. Recognizing and avoiding dangerous places and people. Recognizing when an individual is setting you up or weakening your position. Escape, evasion and de-escalation. Usually, by the time things go physical, it's pretty desperate. This isn't how to out-fight a fighter, but how to deal with a bigger, stronger threat who chose the time and place and conditions (weapon, numbers...)
This isn't a Disney movie. Things can go very bad. The belief that there is always a non-violent solution creates blindspots and vulnerabilities. If any belief is that precious to you, you will fail to recognize and respond to the exceptions. People don't train for things they don't believe in. It is a belief that makes one voluntarily both blind and unprepared.
You all know this. But some people don't get it. More accurately, they refuse to get it. Teaching the impossible isn't a new problem. It starts with education. Over the years, I've found a bag of tricks to get people to see. That's why I use Maslow, and where the distinction between aggressive, destructive (including self-destructive) and assaultive behavior comes in. Why we discuss ethics explicitly. Personal clarity between what people want and what people need.
Whoah. Damn. Rewind and erase. I just strawmanned all over myself. Shit. All the objections and blindspots I just talked about? Realizing... You don't see these in the field. EMTs, nurses, police, corrections, security, even the people manning the desk at the local VA-- every last one I've talked to has recognized the need for something truly comprehensive. They're usually the ones who contact me. The impossible demands have all come from desk pushers, people who write and protect policy. People who live in idealistic abstraction of the real world.
Unfortunately, they tend to be the ones who control what the line staff get.
Not to self: Remember not to confuse institutions with people.
It's all good. Remember watching Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer all those years ago and the Island of the Misfit Toys and you thought, "That's me" ? Me too. And it's all good.
Don't like who you're supposed to like? Care about things other people think are too small or too big? You dig into history while the people around you parrot what their peer group says? Fuck 'em. Seriously, fuck 'em. No one is trying to make you better. They're just trying to make you more like them. That's how they define better-- conformity.
Not that long ago, a friend wanted to introduce me to one of his people. I asked, "What's he like?" R said, "He's broken, but he's broken our way." R is one of the most effective individuals I know, even if he is broken. Because he's broken my way.
It's all good. We are all misfit toys. Find your family-of-choice. Cherish them deeply and protect them fiercely. Be proud. You may be a broken toy in this strangely plastic hothouse world, but when that world shatters you are the one who will function. They still won't like you, but they will need you. And that is something.
Happy birthday, HM
This may sound a strange sentiment coming from me. I love history. I’m definitely not an expert on the history of my predominant martial art medium (karate), but I am relatively well read and have made a few observations on it in magazine articles and books in the past. When I read about the history of my art I don’t look at it from the perspective of someone who is native to the land of its origins, or speaks that language; but I do approach it with both a degree and a doctorate in history and an understanding of what constitutes good practice.
For many people it seems to be incredibly important who their teacher was, who taught their teacher, what each person’s seniority within the dojo was and so forth. Great importance may be attached to what has been written about their form of karate or its predecessor. This can often lead to fierce arguments as to what is right, what is wrong, what is pure, what is adulterated, and who is closest to ‘the original’, as if that is an arbiter of quality.
Now I’m interested in what has gone before, but I take it with a pinch of salt. I treat claims and anecdotes without evidence in martial arts history as I would treat them in any other form of history. When it comes to the application of an art however, I prefer a scientific approach or, where that is not possible, an empirical approach.
I want to know if the type of warm up I am doing is detrimental or beneficial to my and my students’ health, and that the pace and nature of the physical activity I do throughout the lesson maximises positive physical and mental development while minimising the risk of long or short term injury. I want to know if the techniques I’m teaching or being taught are suitable for the purpose claimed. I want to know if the teaching models I’m using are the most effective for promoting sustained skill development. So while I have an interest in history, I’m more interested in checking what I do and teach is compatible with current scientific approaches, or failing that the empirical tests of well researched literature in the field or appropriate physical testing.
The belief held by someone in the past, while interesting and informative, does not make that belief true.
A training method that was used successfully in the past is not automatically the best training method for the present.
A good teacher does not necessarily create another good teacher.
Being wrong does not diminish the value of a teacher in the past. Time has simply given you the opportunity to see the fault and make the appropriate adjustment.
I have written here before that we in the modern world have far greater opportunities to be superior and more knowledgeable practitioners than the icons of the past. We stand on their shoulders and we move onwards: training, researching, testing and learning in a global community of like-minded people.
The history of our arts is a record of its course to the present, possibly true, possibly myth, maybe some deliberate obfuscation and invention – it doesn’t matter. What is important is that you are here, now, training, learning, and hopefully moving forward to ensure that you are as good as you can be.
Last weekend taught a full two-day seminar dissecting principles and application at Randy King's KPC Self Defense in Edmonton. Taking each of my eleven principles*, digging into it as much as time would allow, then playing and experimenting. It does no good to have something you intend to use in chaos just as a mental picture. You have to play with anything to understand it. You have to play with it to make it a part of you.
It was the first time organizing the information this way and teaching it all at once. It was some pretty deep water. The feedback was solid. Randy said it best, albeit in nerd speech: "I think I just leveled up as an instructor. This will help me steal the magic better."
Aside-- Stealing the magic. Ever run into an instructor who could do things you simply couldn't? Not talking the bullshit magic stuff like chi balls. Setting so he couldn't be lifted (structure) or push you across the room with almost imperceptible movement (structure + line and circle + balance). It's just good physics, but often the really good instructors can't explain what they are doing so they have real trouble teaching it. Understand the principles and you know what to look for. You can learn the good stuff they can't articulate well enough to teach. The stuff that looks like magic.
One of the attendees was Rick Wilson. Rick is the 60+ year old guy that the jocks are a little worried about playing sumo with. The guy who has studied traditional stuff and rejected traditional stuff and come full circle to find the body mechanics behind the traditional stuff. Smart. Really deep base of knowledge.
At some point, I think it was after InFighting last year, Dillon started calling Rick the Dark Wizard. His body mechanics are that good. And this is coming from Dillon...
Anyway, Randy and I had coffee and burgers with Rick. Good talks. About teaching, communication and writing. Trying to find decent answers to shitty and deadly situations. And in the details got yet another system of power generation to work on. Multi-directional joint expansion. I just started playing with joint expansion at all but here's yet another can of worms. Also Rick's "clamp" which is definitely going to improve my explanation of bone slaving (which is one piece of structure.)
*Everyone should have their own list. Mine happens to have eleven. There are many good ways to organize information
Setting a boundary is not a negotiation or a conversation. It is a very different communication mode than most people ever use. This is why most people find it so hard, and why most people can safely ignore your boundaries. It is not enough to know the pattern, you have to practice. And the real practice is not in learning the pattern, it is in sticking to the pattern.
The pattern is simple:
- State boundary
- Repeat boundary (Louder)
- State penalty
- Apply penalty
"Back off!" "I said back off!" "One step closer and I will knock you on your ass!" Knock on ass.
"Go to bed." "I said, go to bed!" "If you do not go to bed right now, you will get a spanking and I will put you in bed." Spank and carry.
The example in Scaling Force:
“I’ve told you to leave the door open when you come into my office.”“What’s your problem? Are you afraid to be alone with me?” Trying to joke, trying to make the boundary setter defensive. Do you see the predator dynamic here?“Open the door.” Simple, direct statement. No argument, no reasoning, nothing in the voice that could turn it into a question. One of the worst phrases is “I need you to do X for me” as it places all the power on the threat and sounds like a plea on two levels, “need” and “for me.” Do not use this tactic when dealing with potential predators. It’ll backfire.“Whatever. I wanted to talk to you about…” Disregarding “no” or pretending to ignore boundaries is a huge red flag that you are dealing with a predator.“Open the door.” Staying on message.“Geeze, can’t you stay on the subject?” Again, trying to shift blame/responsibility, implying that the predator is the one who wants to get the job done and the potential victim is hung up on something minor.
“Open the door or I will file that complaint. Now!” The only thing added to the statement of boundaries is the penalty. “Now” acts as an ultimatum. Once you take this verbal step you must be ready to act on your threat. If the threat ignores you (some will, most won’t) and you fail to follow through, you will have marked yourself as easy meat.------------------------------------------------------------------
I normally avoid the words always and never, but this one comes close. Deviation from this pattern turns the boundary setting into something that is not boundary setting. If you need to set a boundary, doing something else rarely works.
It's hard to stick with the pattern because we aren't used to it. If you explain the reasons behind your boundary, it's now a conversation, not boundary setting. The conversation may work, but what comes out is an agreement, not a boundary. Agreements require the consent of all involved parties. You set your boundaries around the things that are more important than other people's consent.
Exception: You can make the reason (provided it is simple, not too personal, and doesn't invite follow up questions) the introduction to step 1, e.g. "You're too close. Back off." NOT "Back off, you're standing too close." NOT "I had a really bad childhood and when people with beards get within arms reach of me I sometimes have panic attacks so back off." You get the idea.
If you just keep repeating the boundary, it's a broken record and meaningless. No one respects it. Empty noise.
If you state the penalty but can't bring yourself to apply the penalty, it's just posturing, an empty threat. Not only does this erase the boundary, the person now knows you to be just an empty threat. All of your boundaries disappear.
If you skip the two middle steps, you aren't setting a boundary. The first statement was a warning. It's a different thing.
You can pretty accurately gauge the level of predation that you're dealing with by how they challenge the boundary.
"Back off." Most normal- and normal in this context means someone with no ill will towards you and no language barrier or mental issue that prevents them from grasping that this is a declarative statement-- will back off. The might be bewildered or upset, and will probably ask for an explanation, but they will respect the boundary. You can explain a respected boundary if you choose to, just be aware that damn near everyone assumes that knowing the reasons gives them the right to break the rule.
Socially awkward/language barrier/mental illness/drugs may just blow by step one, but step two stops them.
Predators however have three common responses to step 1, "Back off" One is to open their body language, soften their voice and gently violate the boundary while asking you a question, "Honey, why do you want to be like that? You aren't afraid of me, are you?" The second is to turn it back on you, try to trigger a common social guilt that makes you feel bad for setting your own boundaries, such as, "What, you got a problem with (ethnicity, gender, religion, any of the hot-button labels.)" Or, "You think you're so special you can tell me what to do?" The third is to trigger a monkey dance by demanding the third step, "Oh, yeah? What are you gonna do about it?"
Step two tends to stop the low level predators as well. All of the common predatory responses to the first step are trying to divert you into a predictable social script. If you fall for them, it shows you can be manipulated and more important, those scripts are predictable. Ignoring the hook and going for the second step means you are hard to control and unpredictable. Most predators will give it a pass.
Real world notice #1: Sometimes, you'll be setting boundaries say, at work, where there is a long term relationship. This guy might be a creep and you need to set boundaries, but you also have to work with him, maybe for years. Some of them will flirt with the edge of the boundary and try to turn it into a game to see if and when you will cave.
Some predators will push to step three, mostly to see if you have a step three or just go into broken record mode. Once you have stated the penalty, you have revealed that you do in fact have a plan to deliver consequences. Even the more serious predators back off here unless they are sure they can get away with it. And are willing to cross those lines. If the rapist knows he has to kill to keep you from reporting, he has to make a choice.
Real world notice #2. A lot of self-defense is taught as if the incident will happen in a sterile laboratory environment. The sexually aggressive creep at the office didn't back off until step three. That's pretty predatory. But he did back off, so win! Yay! But never forget that assholes are very good at punishing people for standing up to them, and this is a long game. The creep will tell everyone to listen how unreasonable you are and how petty and how you were going to write him up just for standing there... It's a long game, but you can play a long game, too.
A week ago I held another of my Sim Days for a mixture of my students and guests.
Although every karate lesson I teach revolves around pre-empting or responding to HAOV (habitual acts of violence), attacks taken out of any context, no matter how dynamic, alive or sustained, are one dimensional. It is in my Sim Days where my students experience the broader context of the tactical, ethical and legal repercussions of aggression and violence through simulating how they might respond to events in multiple scenarios, whether on their own, with peers, and with children (or adults).
These are training events that comprise elements that test a participant’s response, but also give them training in more optimal approaches and multiple opportunities to learn from what they and others have experienced throughout the day. The core-learning element of the day is not the experience of the short scenarios themselves, but the unpressurised frame by frame group discussions on the video footage of the same that takes place throughout the day. It is always gratifying to see how well trainees respond to this and how much they take forward to future scenarios.
As an instructor, I have an obligation to study the footage to see what I can learn to help maximise the performance of my students. Identifying mistakes or less desirable behaviour means that I must question what I’m teaching and how I’m teaching in order to help each individual progress.
I accept that what I’m looking at in my training days is artificial. There are many different compromises I have to make to ensure that the training is safe. It is however, as many participants with direct professional or personal experience of real violent events have attested, as close to the reality of the pressures of conflict management as is safe to create.
Training safety does present limitations. There are a number of things that cannot be done because of the injuries that might ensue. There are areas of the body that are not attacked, and obviously all contact to the head must be pulled because of the high risk of concussion in multiple person events when many are role-playing. While participants are clearly acting under the influence of adrenaline, they obviously do not have the full pressure of the consequences of a real event, which could elicit more extreme tactics. Nonetheless, when reviewing and learning from a person’s actions I hold the following maxim to be true: if you cannot do it in training then it is foolish to assume that you will be able to do it outside training.
So what has prompted this particular blog post?
On the last Sim Day I had the highest ratio of junior to seniors I’ve ever had. 1:1.
I like having younger participants on the training days since people do respond differently as both bystanders and participants when the threat is to or from a younger member of society, especially if they are behaving as if they are acting in loco parentis for a friend’s child. Furthermore, statistically in England the 16-24 age group has the highest risk of being a victim of violent crime and accounts for the largest proportion of offences.
On this occasion I had a group of three 13 year olds and two 14 year olds; all boys training alongside five adults. They all had between 65 – 120 hours of training. I felt that this was a great age to try this training experience as they are at a time where confidence in their ability does not necessarily account for the advantage that size, weight and strength gives fully grown adults. At the same time they were strong enough (in numbers) to pose a threat to the adults, while being young enough to elicit protective parental responses from them too.
Throughout the day I noticed the majority of the younger students having difficulty hitting the head. Now they were aware that contact to the head needed to be pulled, and had actually practiced punching both each other and the adults in this manner (the adults were all veterans of a number of these events and had long dropped any qualms on making contact and had the experience to calibre contact appropriately).
This is not uncommon. It has been my experience that a lot of people have difficulty switching from hitting an inanimate object like a pad to making contact against a person. The aversion to hitting the head or face is particularly common. This aversion is generally reduced by practice, just as the ability to shrug off direct verbal abuse is improved through practice, but it is a trait worth noting.
As attacks to the head are among the most common HAOV, my students naturally spend a lot of time delivering them and defending against them. They regularly practice striking pads in simulated head shots and they deliver these in appropriately skilled fashion for their age and time training. Despite this, the combination of the pressure of the event and a natural disinclination to hit the face meant that most of them struggled in their first few scenarios, especially in ‘leading’ with a strike to the head (as opposed to following through if necessary), and thus for safety I should assume that outside of training the same hesitation could occur.
I am not overly concerned by what I witnessed because I already have strategies in place to give my students alternatives. Many of my drills (including some of my pre-emptive drills) initiate with elbow point or forearm strikes to the body (acknowledging both the aversion to striking the head, the proximity of most violent encounters, and the potential short and long term injuries and consequences of the action) such as a slightly modified version of morote uchi uke, and knee strikes to the leg and body play a prominent role in the training I deliver. Throughout the day I saw my students effectively utilising these body shots with far greater ease than any shots to the head.
So what will I take away from this? Will I stop teaching head shots? No. Will I continue to teach body shots? Yes. What I will do is put a greater weighting on body pre-empts in my classes to ensure that from the start of their training journey my students have something that is more likely to fit within any initial limitations that they set themselves.
On Saturday, under my supervision, four teenage boys (aged 13-14) experienced a fake abduction. This was a single scenario in a multi faceted training day for both adults and teenagers. While this is a very rare event, it is perhaps one feared the most by parents, and so we wanted to see what we could learn from replicating an example.
Like all training, we had to make compromises for safety. The most glaringly obvious compromise was that the boys knew they were going to experience an abduction attempt. They also knew which vehicle the attacker(s) would use. What they didn’t know was how many people would be involved or how we would set them up.
That wasn’t the only compromise:
– due to a scheduling clash we had to stage our scenario outside a venue filled with young children with open doors for ventilation, so the teenagers couldn’t shout for help or bang on the vehicle,
– the vehicle wasn’t scrapped so we couldn’t kick it or hit people into its bodywork.
– for safety all shots to the head were pulled; the attackers wore headgear in case of backward uncontrolled strikes,
– the teenagers were bare-headed and we decided to proceed on the basis that the attackers would use body shots to subdue them so as to preserve their looks.
Each teenager entered the scenario ‘blind’, not having seen the ones that went before or having had opportunity to get any information from the previous participants. They were asked to walk down a particular passageway as if on their way home from school or visiting a friend. An aggressor would run up behind like a jogger, and then grab the boy to lift him into the van where a second person could assist in controlling them. A third man was behind the wheel.
This obviously represented a possible attack. More people could have been involved. We could have used a fake weapon for intimidation. The aim of the exercise was for all of us to see how difficult it was to escape once the attack had begun, and how quickly it could be done.
The results were chilling as you can see here.
Of the four participants, three were taken with the van ready to drive away within 12 seconds from first contact. The longest resistance lasted 35 seconds, and had he not been pulling his shots (for safety) that young man might have escaped or caused his attackers to abandon their attempt for fear of being caught. As it was we did attract some outside attention.
One of the most obvious things to take away from the exercise is that awareness of your environment is everything. Anyone listening to music on headphones would be easy prey. Hoodies would reduce peripheral vision and reaction time. Choice of routes, walking in company, wide corners and how you react to people around you in terms of innocuous hand positions (scratching the back of your neck for example) would make a difference in reducing the odds of being a victim and in being in a better position to resist.
These abductions featured bear hugs in what is their most likely use. These particular scenarios reinforced that unless you act before it is fully on, you are not going to get out very easily, and you probably won’t have a stable ground platform to work on. I teach bear hug defences to illustrate principles of movement, and to try and ingrain the reaction to move before it is on, but I recognise that the attack is both rare (because there are very few scenarios in which someone would do it) and that once it is on then most defences I’ve seen demonstrated (including my own) are ineffective until the person starts to release you.
If you want to theorise about bracing against a van, or pushing off from a van, or a car boot… try it. Come up with ideas, but then try them until you have some high percentage solutions.
This was nothing more than a training exercise, but it has given all those participating something to think about.
Roughly, meaning is important. Syntax is the effective ordering of symbols to deliver meaning. Grammar is an attempt to codify syntax to make it both easier to deliver meaning and easier to detect sloppy syntax. Until grammar becomes it's own thing.
Roughly, fighting is to have an effect to serve the goal. The principles (leverage, structure, etc.) and building blocks (power generation, strikes, takedowns etc.) are the means to achieve that goal. "Form" is an attempt to codify the principles and building blocks. Both to make fighting easier to teach and to make it more efficient. And it works, until form becomes it's own thing separate from effect.
Good grammar is never wrong, exactly. And it's never wrong to punch with good form. This is (sort of) axiomatic because because good form is supposed to be what a punch with perfect body mechanics looks like.
This is where I hit the wall. It's an image, partially visual, mostly kinesthetic in my head, but the words that surface are a mess:
Communication can happen with absolutely no proper grammar or syntax-- Think comforting an infant. And fighters can be devastating even with no recognizable form and shitty body mechanics. A 2x4 upside the head doesn't need a lot of skill. But that in no way means you should eschew skill. A 2x4 plus good body mechanics is better than a 2x4 with shitty body mechanics.
It doesn't hurt to comfort an infant using grammatically correct phrases, unless your focus on being grammatically correct makes your language stilted and unnatural. Then the kid will get weirded out. It doesn't hurt to fight with good form, because good form is just good body mechanics. Unless you are so focused on doing things "right" that your movements become stilted and unnatural and you get your ass kicked.
A focus on form, whether in grammar or fighting, can cover up a lot of ignorance. If I can't refute your arguments, I can make fun of your spelling. If I don't have any real understanding of how the human body works, I can focus on form the way I memorized it-- knowledge memorized substituting for understanding. With understanding, I can teach you to hit harder, with knowledge I can teach you to look like my sensei did when he was hitting hard.
When form/grammar become it's own thing. This is looking like a universal. Grammatically correct nonsense is still nonsense. Punching air while looking right is still punching air. We create these systems to make things better, to make a specific goal easier to accomplish. Whether that goal is conveying information or knocking someone down. But in almost every case, certain people are drawn to become masters and keepers of the system, and to them, the system becomes the goal itself. Has there ever been a piece of great literature that was grammatically perfect? I'm sure Shakespeare had someone correcting his grammar. In fighting and SD, these are the couch sitters that will tell you you survived wrong. Universal-- I'm thinking of ways that bureaucracies originally designed to solve problems become self-perpetuating machines, sometimes at great cost. Cough*Rotherham*Cough.
And that's even assuming the form is based on what we think it is. Kicking with the instep is less likely to injure your target and more likely to injure you than kicking with your shin... but it makes a slapping noise that is much harder for a referee to ignore. "Ain't" was a forbidden word in my grade school. Not because it was unclear, but because our teachers wanted us to sound like s specific socio-economic class.