Many experienced individuals have become complacent and underestimated the potency of ‘low-tech’ methods. Have you ever heard that old saying, “Professionals are predictable, unfortunately the world is full of amateurs.” How true, how many ‘experts’ have been hurt and humiliated by untrained, unpredictable, fighters? I certainly have, I admit it. Not often, but I’ve been taken by surprise, I’ve displayed bad judgement, and I’ve been plain careless in the past. For these mistakes and lapses, I’ve paid a bloody price indeed. Costly, most definitely, but isn’t good experience always expensive? Sadly, we can often learn the most from those who have paid the highest price; but we must never allow ourselves to follow their path through our own ignorance.
Under the acute pressure of combat, the effects of the fear / adrenal reaction are well researched and documented, and progressive exposure to stress during actual encounters and very realistic training can certainly help to prepare you for some of the massively detrimental effects on your performance. The necessity of hard realistic training is without question, but remember realistic is not real. Sorry to sound so negative, but it actually enhances combative training to recognise and remember all its limitations. However close to the bone you can make your training and sparring drills, they’re still blank-firing exercises (if you pardon the expression) and safety is always paramount. Just because you are prohibited from applying certain extremely effective practices during training, they must still be forefront in your mind, so if you are required to ‘do the business’ you don’t keep using blanks out of habit, when you really need the live ammunition!
I sometimes get the disturbing impression that some of the ‘real combat systems’ on offer these days are far too academic to be of use in real combat situations. By this, I mean that it appears that almost every so-called ‘simple effective system of self-protection’ is evolving into some kind of martial algebra, when all that is actually required is something more akin to simple addition (done on the fingers at that!). Some systems just do not seem to have the feel for the dynamics of real fighting. They do have a wealth of techniques for supposedly tearing attackers limb from limb, and counters to every possible form of assault from weapon wielding gangs, and more. Maybe I’m not seeing enough, but it seems that I’m seeing too much. One technique that will work in a thousand situations is worth a thousand that might work in only one, a bit of a golden rule in my book. A good right hand, quick headbutt and occasional low kick are about the limit of most real streetfighters, but combined with high doses of surprise, aggression and unpredictability they become truly effective.
Contemplate these following quotations, old favourites of mine that I swear by:
“The Essence of War is Violence.”
“No Plan Survives First Contact with the Enemy.”
These gems are to be found at the front of Pamphlet 45 – Infantry Tactics. This is the manual used by British Armed Forces Infantry Section Commanders when training and preparing for combat. The first is superbly succinct; it simply underlines that no matter how it is dressed up with technology and the like, conflict is no more than the application of extreme force. The second quote reminds us not to obsess too much with fine details, as introducing the human factor usually negates any too-careful preparation!
Consider taking a leaf out of the military’s book concerning combative tactics, after all, they’re the market leaders! Whether it is on a personal or strategic scale; combat is combat, the theories behind such tactics are the same regardless. Being ambushed is the same wherever it happens, regardless of who is involved. In a pub wearing jeans or in a jungle clothed in camouflage, it’s the same thing. All the basic tactical principles hold true – avoiding potential ambush sites, reacting quickly to the initial onslaught, escaping the killing zone and fighting through the ambush, etc. Whatever the specifics, the basics still apply.
Combat tactics in the military are always fundamental and generic, not specific to each encounter with the enemy. They are basic enough to be easily learned and easily taught – an important consideration. Everything can rapidly become second nature and it’s all highly adaptable. What’s more, it’s all been proven to work consistently. Unit commanders and individual soldiers are trained exhaustively in general principles of closing with, and destroying, the enemy; these basic concepts can be applied to an unlimited number of situations. The key to this process is simplicity and flexibility, not micro-managed specifics that are doomed to fail.
Proven and dependable core skills are the essentials in real combat, they must be capable of instinctive application – if you are thinking, you’re not doing. When the stakes are high, if you’re not doing, you may be dying. Seriously consider reducing your personal arsenal of techniques and tactics to a solid core of generic tools that can be applied against generic attacks, whatever the situation or environment. Just think; soldiers do not learn a hundred ways of holding and firing a rifle, just one is sufficient – so long as it’s backed by rock-solid principles of marksmanship that can be applied whether standing, kneeling or lying prone, whatever the circumstances, situation or environment
Personally, I’m a little jaded hearing from ‘experts’ who look and act like they wouldn’t know a real fight if it punched them in the face. Not to say that such exponents are not indeed experts of their chosen arts, I’m only addressing some rather questionable methods of applying various techniques for real. This appears quite evident when observing some brands of ‘no-nonsense street fighting,’ ‘ultimate self-defence’ and ‘real combat’ training (self-protection does appear to be more fashionable than ever before). It seems to me that the dynamics, the brutality and the chaos of actual conflict are often appallingly absent, overlooked or glossed over. This is a frighteningly dangerous practice when purporting to train, and teach, for combat, as ultimately it is the basic raw violence of conflict that poses the greatest threat to individual survival, not the so specific attack formats that seem so technically researched and rehearsed. Self-protection luminaries such as Peter Consterdine and Geoff Thompson, and so many others, are most certainly not included in any of the above criticisms; they have the hard experience, the inside knowledge, and the honesty, to tell it just as it really is.
The telling factor in combat is often experience, not expertise; a hundred training sessions are ultimately still a hundred training sessions, not real fights. Many individuals choose to work ‘On the Door’ as a means of acquiring first hand knowledge of violent encounters – very effective if done in a professional manner; the threats, the hostility and the confrontations are certainly real, plus you get an excellent, whilst disturbing, overview of the current culture of violence. Not for the faint hearted though, and doing such a responsible and dangerous job just to research conflict is rather questionable in itself.
Recently I read an article in a fitness magazine about a practical system currently doing the international rounds, it was boasting about its instructor training course, where a group of system examiners would pounce upon a prospective instructor at an unspecified time and place. If the would-be instructor successfully resisted and defended, he or she passed muster. Quite innovative I agree, but it still isn’t a real fight! Eyes won’t be gouged, throats won’t be struck, there will be no biting, and no one is going to get their head stamped on. It’s just another role-playing drill dressed up to look like it is the last word in street survival. I cite this as an example to highlight how the point is being missed – in this case, for example, if you can be surprised in such a fashion, surely your awareness is dubious and you have failed.
The emphasis of true self-protection has always got to be the early prediction and assessment of potential violence, and the necessary means of avoiding it. If you are teaching someone to cross the road, you do not focus on practicing being hit by a car! Personally, given the choice, I will always choose to find a spot where the cars are few and far between, as I am well aware of my inability to withstand vehicular impact. It seems to me that there is far too much emphasis on dynamic last-resort techniques, and far too little consideration is given to boring first-resort techniques. Good security of any description is usually pleasantly tedious – bad security can often be unpleasantly exciting!
