Fighting Culture - Be Inspired

[ElusiveFighter]

Street Awareness - READ

Victim Selection And What To Do About It!!

by Randy LaHaie

The more prepared you are to deal with a violent situation, the less likely you will have to.

Preparation Equals Prevention

People are drawn to self-defense training for a variety reasons.

Sometimes, it’s because they’ve been bullied, harassed or victimized in the past.

Sometimes they haven’t been but are concerned about the possibility. They live in a state of angst from a lack of security and confidence in their ability to control the real and perceived dangers in the world.

We are all “wired” with the need for safety in security in life. It’s as fundamental as our need for food and shelter.

In this post, I’ll be discussing the dynamics of what human predators look for when selecting their intended victims and what you can do to reduce the probability of being selected yourself.

In Search Of Safety

Many people turn to self-defense and the martial arts to address their safety and security concerns. It is well know that proper self-defense training builds skill, fitness and self-confidence.

People who train soon become more comfortable with the idea of standing up to harassment, whether from a school yard or workplace bully, a drunk at the bar or a panhandler demanding money.

They become more aware of themselves, their surrounds and their options to deal with volatile situations. They become more indignant that someone would consider them an easy target.

They begin to prepare themselves for the “next time” they are harassed or confronted. Armed with their new-found knowledge and skills, they’ll know what to do and be ready, willing and able to do it.

The irony is however, in the vast majority of situations the incidents that formerly plagued them either stop or never happen. Why is this?

Victim Selection Criteria

Human predators select their victims based on non-verbal and behavioral signals that they give off. They will observe their targets from a distance and often approach and then “test or interview” them to further assess their level of confidence or submissiveness.

In a matter of seconds, the predator acquires a sense of who is and isn’t a suitable target. For every victim that is attacked, many “fail” the test and are passed over.

What are the criteria that predators use to select their victims?

What Does A Predator Look For?

Like a wild animal, the human predator wants an easy conquest. He does not want his job to be any more difficult or hazardous than it has to be.

He will seek out those he perceives as weak, submissive and unlikely to fight back.

He doesn’t want resistance and he certainly doesn’t want to be injured himself. Signs of strength or defiance, whether blatant or implied, are often sufficient to cause him to abandon the selection process and look for a more “suitable” victim.

Bullies don’t pick on people who won’t put up with their <banned word filter activated>. Muggers and rapist won’t attack someone who will pound them into the pavement! Criminals don’t intentionally select people who will confront and challenge their behavior. Rapists, muggers, abusers and bullies look for someone they can dominate and control.

The Grayson/Stein Study (1981)

In 1981 researchers ,Betty Grayson and Morris I. Stein, conducted a study to determine the selection criteria applied by predators when selecting their victims. They made a black-and-white video tape of 60 pedestrians on a busy New York City sidewalk going on about their day.

They later showed that tape to inmates who were incarcerated for violent offenses (rape, murder, robbery, etc.) They instructed them to rate the pedestrians on the basis of who they thought would make easy or desirable victims? The results were interesting.

Within seconds, the participants made their selections. What baffled researchers was the consistency of the people who were and were not selected. The criteria were not readily apparent. Some small, slightly built women were passed over. Some large men were selected. The selection was not dependant on race, age, size or gender.

Many of the convicts didn’t even know why they selected as they did. Some people just looked like easy targets. It appears that much of the predator/prey selection process is unconscious from the perspective of both predator and the potential victim.

Body Language Analysis

Still at a loss of specific selection criteria, the researchers did a more thorough analysis of the movement and body language of the people on the videotape. Here is an overview of their results:

1. Stride:

People selected as victims had an exaggerated stride: either abnormally short or long. They dragged, shuffled or lifted their feet unnaturally as they walked. Non-victims, on the other hand, tended to have a smooth, natural gate.

2. Rate:

Victims tend to walk at a different rate than non-victims. Usually, they walk slower than the flow of other pedestrians. Their movement lacks a sense of deliberateness or purpose. However, an unnaturally rapid pace can project nervousness or fear.

3. Fluidity:

Researchers noted awkwardness in a victim’s body movement. Jerkiness, raising and lowering one’s center of gravity or wavering from side to side as they moved became apparent in the victims analyzed. This was contrasted with smoother, more coordinated movement of the non-victims.

4. Wholeness:

Victims lacked “wholeness” in their body movement. They swung their arms as if they were detached and independent from the rest of their body. Non-victims moved their body from their “center” as a coordinated whole implying strength, balance and confidence.

5. Posture and Gaze:

A slumped posture is indicative of weakness or submissiveness. A downward gaze implies preoccupation and being unaware of one’s surroundings. Also, someone reluctant to establish eye contact can be perceived as submissive. These traits imply an ideal target for a predator.

The Impact of Body Language

If you read between the lines of this research, the whole “Preparation Equals Prevention Theory” makes more sense. The non-victim traits described above are indicators of attitude, athleticism and awareness. They imply a person’s vigilance, confidence or submissiveness and the potential that they can and will fight back.

Self-defense training develops the qualities of movement that discourage victim selection and projects a “don’t mess with me” demeanor.

This explains why a person who had formerly been bullied or victimized takes up the study of self-defense and the incidents that originally plagued him or her stop.

Contrary to what many self-defense instructors advise, I doubt that the solution to reducing one’s victim potential is as simple as taking “body language lessons.” You can’t simply “pretend or fake” confidence and expect to ward off predatory selection.

I doubt that a deliberate attempt to modify the way you walk, move and carry yourself (even if you could do so) would bring about the desired results.

Imagine an awkward, out-of-shape person trying to consciously correct flawed body movements associated to being awkward and out-of-shape. You can’t fake coordination. You can’t fake balance. You can’t fake strength or endurance.

That being said, each of these qualities can be developed through the self-defense TRAINING and can dramatically reduce your risk of assault.

How To Apply This Information?

Much of the predator/prey selection process is subconscious. I believe that it is an evolutionary quality of the subconscious mind that we inherited from our ancestors. In the days of cavemen and dinosaurs, it would have been necessary for survival to select prey that would not turn around and bite your head off! Those who lacked this quality would have soon been eliminated from the gene pool.

It is unlikely that you can consciously and consistently control the non-verbal signals that you project. However, this is not to say that you cannot impact those signals in a powerful and positive way. Here is how to do it.

Develop Your Awareness Skills

The predator is looking for a victim who is unaware, preoccupied and easy to ambush. By becoming more aware of your surroundings, you not only increase the odds of detecting a potential predator, but you project an image of vigilance. This, in itself, can terminate the selection process.

Get Into Shape

Your level of fitness impacts your ability to defend yourself. If you are attacked, your ability to run away or fight off an attacker is dramatically impacted by your physical condition.

Secondly, a strong, coordinated body will automatically project the quality of movement of a non-victim.

Finally, fitness impacts your personality in a positive way. The increased self-esteem, confidence and emotional toughness that results from being in good shape are non-victim qualities that predators want to avoid.

Take a Self-defense Course

Obviously, I’m a strong advocate of self-defense and martial arts training (either at a club or through self-study) to reduce your risk of assault.

For reasons I’ve mentioned, self-defense training reduces the likelihood of having to defend yourself. Learn all you can about confrontational situations and develop skills to deal with them. In addition to strength and conditioning activities, incorporate regular practice of combative skills such as kickboxing drills or punching and kicking a heavy bag.

Knowledge is Power:

Knowledge reduces fear and builds confidence. Confidence is a non-victim quality. Read books, blogs and articles about self-defense. Do what you can to clarify your “mental maps” of how confrontations happen, how to avoid them, and how to respond if they do happen.

The most dangerous attitude to your personal safety is the, “It will never happen to me Syndrome.” The fact that you are reading this post already puts you well ahead in the “non-victim game.”

Conclusion

Your potential of becoming a victim is influenced, in large part, by the unconscious signals you project to a potential assailant.

Predators, whether deliberately or intuitively, form an opinion about how easy you will be to dominate and control. They are looking for a weak, submissive and unaware target that won’t or can’t fight back.

You can control the non-verbal signals you project by investing time in the study and practice of self-defense. Your projected body language will take care of itself.

You can’t fake it. You must earn it. This is not as difficult as you might think. If you really want to prevent or dramatically reduce the probability of becoming a victim, prepare yourself. Preparation equals prevention!

[ElusiveFighter]

My countless salutations to the holy General, who breathed Gods name, obliterated the Tyrannical and inspired many generations to fight and die like Lions. Namasakaar

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=517385068306478&set=a.437536039624715.100581.432861230092196&type=1&theater

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=517389811639337&set=a.437536039624715.100581.432861230092196&type=1&theater

[ElusiveFighter]

THE ROUTINE OF A TRUE WARRIOR - Unique is the way we live our life. We live never leaving the site of our knife. "I'll sacrifice my life", you can't even sacrifice your morning. The true warriors are meditating while you're still yawning. Before you think of even touching a sword. Know this, the greatest warriors meditate on the name of the Lord. Early to bed, awake before sunrise. This is the routine, followed by the wise. First you battle (inner demons), second you pray, Then you are allowed to start your day. Follow this routine and you will conquer any peak. Sayeth the 10th Master " I treasure the discipline, not the Sikh" (A Sikh without true Warrior discipline is empty).

Slightly edited poem from DDT website :-)

[Guest]

I love this topic.

[ElusiveFighter]

Thoughts on Weapons: Pepper Spray, Kubotans, Knife Fighting and Improvised Weapons

by Kelly McCann, Black Belt contributing editor

Photo by Thomas Sanders – Yesterday

Kelly McCann on improvised weapons: An improvised weapon is a mentality, not a tool. In other words, if you have the improvisational mentality, it doesn’t matter what’s at hand. You can use a pen to stab. You can fold a credit card and use it to cut a guy’s face. You can grab a soda can and rip it in half — and you’ll have two knives. Even a videocassette, slung into a guy’s throat, can be more effective, and quicker, than an empty-hand technique.

Kelly McCann on teaching that mentality: You show your students how it’s done by using a lot of examples, after which you teach the principles: how to create leverage, how to inflict pain, how to cut, how to see the “weapon attributes” in ordinary things.

Kelly McCann on everyday carry: Make sure you meet all your state’s legal requirements before getting or carrying a weapon. OC gas, or pepper spray, is great to carry because it’s a distance weapon. You can use it early in an altercation, before you even make contact with the assailant, and not a lot of technique is required.

Kelly McCann on the expandable baton: When it’s legal, an expandable baton is also great because it gives you distance. It’s basically a stick, and everybody can use a stick with some degree of success.

Kelly McCann on the kubotan: The pocket stick — also known as the kubotan oryawara — is good if you have the skills to use it, but it’s not quite as effective as the expandable baton because you have to close with your attacker.

Kelly McCann on blades: Knives are certainly good — if you’ve got the guts to use one. A sharp instrument is a great weapon; trouble is, its use is generally viewed as felonious. If you ever use a knife in self-defense, you’ll probably get killed in court. The opposing attorneys will undoubtedly say that a higher standard applies because you’ve been trained and that you should have tried to … blah, blah, blah. That’s why OC gas and pocket sticks are better weapons for those who know how to use them.

Kelly McCann on weapons for the home: You want layered security. You want to affect the thinking — the decision-making process and victim selection — of anyone who may be looking at breaking in. You want to make him think you’re a hard target.

For the first layer, you should have good lights around your house and good locks.

If someone breaks in, the second layer is a dog.

For the third layer, OC gas and maybe a gun — with the caveat that you have to be properly trained in combative shooting while under duress. A gun is good only if you’ll use it and know when to use it. You also need to consider who else is in the home, who has access to the gun, and what safety measures need to be in place to protect it from theft and/or unauthorized use by a child.

Kelly McCann on mindset: The thing with guns is, a person may be a good shot, but that doesn’t matter if he second-guesses himself right up to the last minute and doesn’t shoot until it’s too late. For that kind of person, OC gas is a better option.

Kelly McCann on using empty-hand skills to get to your weapon: That’s the role of combatives as we teach them. Getting to your weapon may not be the only thing you do once you have control of a situation, but you do want some type of weapon in your hand — whether it’s OC gas or whatever. It just makes sense to have something that gives you an advantage.

Kelly McCann on weapons vs. multiple attackers: You’re probably not going to be able to deal with three on one or two on one without help from an aerosol irritant (OC spray) or some other weapon. The fact is, when you fight one attacker, you can exert control. When you’re faced with multiple attackers and don’t have a weapon, you can’t simultaneously control them.

Kelly McCann on empty hand vs. knife: You can successfully deal with it, but it requires a special mentality. A guy can come at me with a knife, and given no alternative, I may disregard the knife because I know I can be inside the weapon’s arc so fast and hurt him so quickly that he’ll be unable to use it. He might drop it or suddenly realize he needs to get away from me — in other words, decide not to use it.

Those are all forms of disarming. Disarms don’t necessarily mean I have to end up with your weapon in my control. Once you take away a person’s will, the fight is over. A guy comes in and thinks he owns you, and all of a sudden he’s scared stiff. If you’re not willing to get to that level of commitment — turning predator into prey — you’d better not put your hand in that cage. And even then, there’s no guarantee you won’t end up hurt, maimed or dead.

[ElusiveFighter]

THE MYTH OF MILITARY HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT SYSTEMS

By Wim

For the longest time, you couldn’t open a martial arts magazine without seeing an ad for military hand-to-hand combat systems. SEALS, SAS, Special Forces, you name it, somebody will teach you their secrets if you only pay $29.99 for their video… That was a few decades ago. Today, you still see these ads, though the names and faces of the instructors have changed. What’s more, you see these kinds of products advertised all over the internet and especially on Youtube. I think it’s safe to say they have only become more popular over time.

Before I go on, let’s get something straight:

I’m not talking about high-level consulting and training firms that require security clearance to train with. I’m talking about the commercially available, widely publicized books and videos you see advertised all over the place.

I have nothing against instructors using the name of a military unit to sell either their own hand-to-hand combat system or one that is used effectively by that unit. Not at all. For the most part, I see this as a marketing thing and each instructor/author has to make decisions on that front. Often they’re made for them by their publisher, so I’m not going to throw stones on that front because I totally get it. To each his own, along with live and let live.

I’m not saying the instructors who make these videos or books are frauds and what they teach is <banned word filter activated>. That is absolutely not what this article is about. I repeat: I’m not claiming any such thing.

I’m not saying military hand-to-hand combat systems don’t work for civilian self-defense. Please read this again: it’s not about the effectiveness of these systems. That is beyond question; they absolutely do work.

I’m not saying these systems have no value for self-defense. There are most certainly ways to use the content of those curricula for civilian self-defense situations; I’m not denying that.

I have nothing against people who practice these systems for civilian self-defense. The issue isn’t how much fun you have during training or how much you like the system. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with liking military hand-to-hand combat systems. I like them too.

These are the things I’m not saying. As to what I am saying:

I believe there is a myth of military hand-to-hand combat systems in today’s self-defense and martial arts world.

This myth revolves around certain assumptions and it’s those I’d like to talk about.

The myth of origins

To the average citizen, the military is an impressive and sometimes even frightening organization. Soldiers are looked upon as awe-inspiring or frightening, especially combat hardened vets. Of all soldiers, the special branches are the scariest ones. Special Forces, Navy Seals, SAS, etc. are considered the best of the best. So if you want to sell a combat system, it sounds so much better to claim it comes from such an elite unit than from the program taught to basic grunts. So commercially speaking, claiming your system is taught to these units or comes form them makes perfect sense.

The issue I see is this:

To the best of my knowledge, special units like those mentioned above never divulge operational procedures.

These are typically classified information because otherwise every mission would be easily compromised by the enemy. So why on earth would they allow somebody to teach the entire curriculum of their hand-to-hand combat system to the public at large?

Sure, when asked they might answer certain questions about certain topics but giving you an entire, detailed handbook on how they perform combatives during missions? I doubt it. Nor can they divulge details of their missions as these are also classified. If I’m not mistaking, the penalties of spreading such information are pretty high. So why would they let civilians and (in this age of information being readily available worldwide the second it hits the internet) therefor also their enemies, know all the details of how they fight?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

The only thing I do see making sense is teaching declassified systems. Systems that were used once upon a time by these units but are no longer current practice. Or they are the systems somebody taught to such units as a guest instructor, which they then modified to suit their operational needs. In either case, what is commercially available is not by default exactly what those units are doing now.

I could be wrong about this, I readily admit that. But when talking to operators and friends of mine in the military, they suggest I’m not. Regardless, it’s one piece of the puzzle.

As an aside, I find it hilarious that so many practitioners of modern combatives systems are extremely critical of traditional martial arts and their emphasis on lineage. A typical criticism from them is that just because your late great-grandmaster was a bad-<banned word filter activated> fighter, doesn’t mean you are. I find it funny that those very same people then feel the need to claim special forces units as their own lineage, as if that increases their skills in any way. But I digress…

Military hand-to-hand combat systems in action

The myth of superior techniques

There is no doubt that members of military special units kick <banned word filter activated> and take names. No doubt at all because they have proven just that for hundreds of years. The underlying attraction of the hand-to-hand systems they practice is rooted in that fact. But does that mean they are the best hand-to-hand fighters in the world? No, it doesn’t. They simply don’t spend enough time training hand-to-hand combat.

If you look at the total amount of training hours for instance the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program requires to reach their black belt level, you end up with about 150 hours. To put that in perspective (and I know I’m oversimplifying, no need to get upset over it.): 150 hours means you train two hours a day for a couple months. Hardly enough time to qualify as the best at anything… Elite units no doubt spend more hours training hand-to hand combat but still not as much as you’d think is necessary to make you a world-class specialist on this subject.

If you have trouble accepting this, here’s another perspective:

A while ago, I asked a bunch of former and active military personnel how many hours they trained hand-to-hand combat during their service. In all fairness, some of the feedback I got was about how soldiers train on their own in both combatives as well as shooting. But actual scheduled training time? Without exception, the total number of hours was extremely low. For some, there was only a few hours of annual training. Others had weekly training but only a couple hours. For pretty much all of them, the training of other skills took up way, way more time.

Here are some quotes from three of them (names withheld on request):

Ok, back to our hand to hand training. How do I say this? Non-existent?

It was generally looked down upon in the office for Officers to participate in things like combatives.

In other words: even in this specialized part of basic training was next to no room for hand-to-hand combat. I guess it was two or three hours out of three months with little sleep.

And finally, a quote from perhaps one of the deadliest soldiers I know. Somebody who has “converted numerous enemy combatants from horizontal to vertical” as a friend of mine would say. Somebody who will remain anonymous for obvious reasons:

In an average 60-80 hour work week? Combatives get 2 hours per week. Flat.

Read that again…

Two hours per week.

Two. Hours. Per week.

The image of an elite soldier spending all his time doing hardcore combatives is just wrong, no matter how much the ads want to make you believe it. Like I said above, other training and duties take up most of the time. Here’s what the rest of my friend’s schedule looks like:

About 30m per day on weapons maintenance, manipulation and dry fire; with 1-2 hours per week live fire (mostly done at my own expense…) PT is about 2 hours per day, split into 1 hour sessions, 3 on 1 off 2 on one off.

Navigation gets about 4 hours per week.

Special movement skills (skiing/arctic traverse, parachuting, helo assaults, rappeling or mountain) get about 20 per week.

Medical interventions get 2-6 hours per week.

Common tasks (driver/convoy training, VHF coms, professional development/administrative) 2-6 hours per week.

Specialty job skills (for me, this would be signals intercept and analysis stuff or call for fire/precision rifle deployment) get 10-20 hours.

The rest is eaten up in various formalities, mass updates to policies/regulations/operating procedures, and the endless cycle of planning and risk management work to be able to pull off any of the above.

Everything must be done by the book…

I repeat: my friend is one of the deadliest soldiers I know (and I’ve met a lot…) yet he spends no more than two hours a week on combatives. So why on earth would anyone consider him a hand-to-hand-combat specialist?

He doesn’t specialize in hand-to-hand combat.

He specializes in being an insanely effective and deadly professional soldier. Hand-to-hand combat systems are only a very small part of that job description.

Mind you, I’d bet on him against the vast majority of street thugs, criminals and brawlers out there. But primarily because of his mind-set, experience and professionalism. Not because the combatives techniques he learned in the military are superior to all other systems.

I feel it is only logical to conclude that the military doesn’t specialize in delivering hand-to-hand combat specialists. Following that, I believe it is also logical to assume they are not the best source for your civilian self-defense needs, even if there were such a thing as “best”.

The myth of combat proven

One of the recurring marketing arguments for these books and videos is that they are “combat proven” and therefor supremely effective. The reasoning is that if these techniques are used in gruesome missions during a war, then they must be the best thing since sliced bread for self-defense.

There are three problems with this claim: context is still king, teamwork and tool selection.

First up, context. I’ve harped on and on about this here already so I’m not going to dig too deep on this aspect.

The crux of the matter is this: just because elite soldiers use certain techniques during their missions, that doesn’t mean you should use them for civilian self-defense. The context in which these techniques are applicable are completely different from your daily life: military operations have rules of engagement and operational parameters that vary from one mission to the next. A civilian self-defense situation however has to be resolved following the law. Civilian law is generally pretty clear in that you need specific components to be present before you can use lethal force or any force at all for that matter.

The goal is also completely different.

A soldier has to complete his mission, whatever the objectives may be. Generally speaking, this means running away isn’t an option. But as a civilian, this is usually the best option for you as far as the law is concerned: if you have a means to escape, you should use it. Look up “preclusion” and consider how it applies to you but not to a Navy Seal who has to take out a target.

If your mission as a civilian (escape and be safe) is not the same as that Seal (take out the target), then why would you use the exact same tools? It doesn’t make sense.

Second is teamwork. A while ago another friend of mine (former special forces and extremely experienced soldier) made a bunch of people arguing about self-defense go quiet. The point he made illustrates the fundamental difference between civilian and soldiers: soldiers don’t fight alone. I was going to write “never fight alone” but that’s not 100% accurate, even though it’s probably pretty damn close.

Unlike you as a civilian, soldiers do not go out by their lonesome selves to kill enemies; they go as a team. This means their entire mindset is completely different from a civilian like you or me who has to defend himself with a force of only one. Their techniques and tactics reflect that. E.g.: if one soldier engages in hand-to-hand combat, his teammate comes over and shoots the enemy dead, stabs him with a knife, breaks his neck, knocks him out, etc. depending on the mission objectives. In a civilian context, this kind of training is not relevant unless you are living a pretty dangerous lifestyle and have your crew with you 24/7…

Finally there’s tool selection. Soldiers do not use hand-to-hand combat techniques unless they absolutely have to. If they do; it usually means they either fucked up or something went wrong. Some examples:

They run out of ammo.

They are surprised by an enemy at close quarters.

Their weapon malfunctions and there is no time deploy a secondary weapon.

In all of the above scenarios, something happened that prevented them from using their tool of choice: a high-performance firearm. That’s their primary weapon for the simple reason that it outperforms hand-to-hand combat techniques in all possible ways except for non-lethal objectives (and even then…) But non-lethal results are much less a concern for them (see rules of engagement) than they are for you as a civilian. So why would they choose a tool (hand-to-hand- combat techniques) that offers inferior performance and reliability over another (firearms) that is readily available to them?

You might argue that they use hand-to-hand techniques for other goals and you’d be right. But when exactly does a civilian need for instance sentry removal for self-defense?

The myth of authenticity

When you read those book and video advertisements, the ad copy suggest you get the authentic combat system as taught to that particular elite unit. If you think about it in light of what I wrote here above, that should strike you as strange. Why would a civilian learn techniques that were never meant to be used outside of a military context?

To illustrate this context, take a look a this video featuring W.E. Fairbairn, who is one of the fathers of modern combatives.

In the beginning of the video, the context and goals of these techniques are explained clearly:

It’s simply a matter of killed or be killed.

The student is taught the gentle art of murder.

The technique of killing or crippling his opponent with his two hands, at close quarters.

As a civilian, you are only allowed to use lethal force under very specific circumstances, as I explained above. If your first instinct in a self-defense situation is to cripple or kill your aggressor, get ready to spend time in jail.

That said: is lethal force sometimes necessary? Yes, of course.

Would military hand-to-hand combat systems be useful then? Yes they would, they work real well for that.

So why not use them?

Because the vast majority of self-defense situations do not require lethal force.

If you get in a shoving contest with some <banned word filter activated> you bumped into, you can’t just break his neck. If some <banned word filter activated> cuts you off in traffic over a perceived sleight and slaps you in the face, you can’t crush his trachea. Lethal force is not justified in those cases, so using it would be murder. Which is exactly what those combatives techniques are for, remember?

Many (but not all) instructors do realize this and water down what they teach. Some do so because they understand the difference between civilian and military contexts. Others do so because they don’t want to get sued by the relatives of somebody who gets killed by his student. So they teach “SAS-light” combatives instead of the original system. The most effective techniques are taken out or are changed to make them less lethal,adapting them to civilian needs. Then the curriculum is spread out over time to make sure you come back for more. But are you still learning an authentic military combatives system?

How would you know as that’s classified information?

Another aspect of this is how the military sometimes uses outside experts for its training needs. These experts have certain skills the military finds interesting and valuable so they get invited to teach those special units. So in a literal sense, that expert can then claim his system is used by that elite unit. And he’d be right in claiming so. The issue with that is that he’s rarely the only one who gets invited. Other experts get invited too and can make the same claim, so which system is that elite unit using them during its missions? Probably a blend of all the pieces they liked and tested, along with modifications they figured out themselves.

But once again, that specific information is usually classified so who knows?

Conclusion

Let me repeat that I have absolutely nothing against military hand-to-hand combat systems. They are great and work impressively well for their intended goal. It just strikes me as wrong to think these systems can be transposed from a war zone into daily civilian life without problems. Combative techniques and systems are tools. Tools that need to be used appropriately, which is exactly what elite soldiers do: they prepare their missions extensively and select the tools they need for the job. You could do worse than follow their lead and ask yourself these two questions another highly trained professional friend of mine would suggest you ponder:

1) What is your mission?

My answer: to come home safe and sound to my family every day.

2) Which tools do you need for your mission?

My answer: a mix of awareness, avoidance, evasion, de-escalation, non-lethal techniques and a small fraction of lethal ones.

You need to formulate your own answers but once you do, my friend would say:

Do not abandon the mission.

To which I’d add:

Do not abandon the mission, even if you have the coolest tools to do so.

Military combatives systems are cool tools. They absolutely work to take out an attacker. But if you want to use them for self-defense, you need to adapt them to the civilian context so they are in accordance with civilian law and not military law. These two are not the same and the differences are just as important as the similarities. That’s the whole point I tried to make in this article.

An excellent illustration of this is an older movie called The Siege. It shows how the clash between civilian law enforcement and the military way can go terribly wrong. It’s also eerily prophetic if you know this movie came out years before 9/11.

[canadasingh]

elusive fighter

having boxed when I was growing up and attending a mma gym to stay in shape I would have to say that article you posted attacking mma in real life scenerios is misleading

their are some martial arts schools that are a waste of money and time

their are some martial arts school that do teach and people do learn some self defence techniques

many people I know who train in mma have turned their backs to traditional martial arts claim that many traditional martial arts looks good cause of choreography

but take away the choreography and give unpredictable situations and most people see that most these techniques in traditional martial arts don't work in real life

most traditional martial arts look great in Hollywood movies when you have Jackie chan taking on an army but that's Hollywood

when it comes to real life those same techniques tend to not work when someone is up against someone who knows how to street fight

when it comes to boxing and mma most gyms that I have seen have students who go their to learn self defence and use the sport as a way to improve their skill sets

that's what competition does it helps people become better

same time ppl learn how to kick in the groin or punch someone in the throat or strike their spine

for example the head movement techniques you learn in boxing are very effective in street fights

if you youtube how to win a street fight with head movement you'll see how effective it is

training in boxing and learning head movement and striking for 2 to 5 years of hard work shows how effective these techniques are in street fights

youtube fightsmarttrav to see how mma is used in street fights and what is tought in mma gyms when it comes to self defence

also their is www.howtofightnow.com

also youtube nick drosses

youtube three atackers vs couple nick

you get to see how all these claims made by traditional martial arts instructors about mma just being a sport not used in street fights is all lies

as well united states military has brought in mma fully and have soldiers training in mma and encourage soldiers to train in mma and have mma events to help soldiers build hand to hand combat skills

mma is the number one skill set used by the us military when it comes to preparing their soldiers for hand to hand combat

even navy seals green berets use mostly combat ji jitsu and mma techniques for training in hand to hand combat

martial arts evolve and thanks to mma we seen more evolution in martial arts in last 20 years then we did in the previous 1000 years cause competition creates innovation

modern martial arts used in mma take techniques from different traditional martial arts that work and improve those techniques while leaving out techniques that don't work

many will say comparing traditional martial arts to modern martial arts is like comparing a car from the 1970's to cars made today

as time goes on innovation takes place when competition is involved

reason TV's and computers and cell phones keep getting better is cause free market competition

reason mma now is so popular and so many are signing up for mma is same reason cause competition creates innovation and a better product