The WILL versus the SKILL

I'll start off with a bold statement which I believe to be true.

"All the martial arts training in the world ain't worth a lick if you're not prepared to fight" - me

I'm referring to mental preparation, of course.  I've made reference to this in past posts but it keeps coming up the longer I 'dabble' in the arts.

Why has this pushed it's way into the forefront of my mind again?  Two reasons.

1.  I've been tasked with developing and delivering a course in defensive tactics to police recruits.  I have a very limited amount to time to prepare newbies to deal with the violence in our society.

2.  I am developing a course for survival training/self defense for non- police/military/security.  I have a very limited amount of time to prepare the 'average' or 'normal' law abiding person to deal with the violence in our society.

While developing the training for two such disparate groups, the following became apparent early on: 

For group one:

The focus is on mental preparation with several (relatively) simple techniques thrown in.  It is essential to instill a 'never give up', and an 'always keep fighting' mindset.  These officers have to win.  Every...single...  time.  It's about survival.

For group two:

The focus had to be on mental preparation with several simple techniques thrown in.  It is essential to instill a 'never give up' and an 'always keep fighting' mindset. These people have to prevail and get to safety.  Every...single...time.  It's about survival.

The only real distinction was that the first group didn't get the luxury of running away.  I shouldn't say run away as it may have a negative connotation to some. It's the luxury of exiting a situation to get to a place of safety.  The end result for group one is a position of control and/or handcuffing.  The end result for group two is escaping injury, getting to safety and calling, well, group number one.  There were a few other differences, but by far the similarities outweighed the differences.

I also watched several, somewhat disturbing, videos of the average Joe getting attacked.  Often, the experience was so out of the sphere of normal experience for them, that they did nothing more than covering up, if that, or cringing from the attack as it continued.  It was so far out of the realm of normal experience that they simply couldn't formulate a response.  They just took it.

It was the combination of this and my work that caused me to come to the conclusion of the above mentioned statement.  

If you can't bring yourself, mentally and emotionally, to doing harm to another person, to fight back, you will likely never triumph in a real life violent attack. You may be successful without causing serious injury, but you must be prepared to, if necessary. 

In fact, if there was a surefire way just to teach someone to fight back and never give up, you'd probably do far, far better than trying to teach someone to do any actual self defense techniques.  I'd go so far as to say if you could teach awareness, avoidance and a survivor mindset, the majority of people would never need to learn a single technique or step on a mat to be successful.

I've said it before but it bears mentioning again.  I would always rather go up against a 5th degree black-belt than an untrained parent who felt they needed to protect their child.  The will to fight and prevail will always cancel out the skill of drilling punches, kicks, throws and kata.  

Visualization, mental rehearsal and a serious mindset are all essential components of learning real survival skills.  

The key elements of true self defense and survival skills are:

1.  Awareness
2.  Mental readiness
3.  Physical skills

Number one and number two far outweigh number three.

Having said that, any person who has number one and number two covered becomes truly impressive once they've added number three.

The point is, that if your goal is true survival and self defense, the lion's share of work has to be done in your head, not the dojo.  A good teacher can certainly help and guide you with this, but if you're not prepared to use the skills you're taught, they're pretty much useless.

Are you prepared to put your knowledge to use if you had to?  

That's a question we all should all ask ourselves.

Are you ready?

Jedi mind tricks, ninja mind control and the mysterious lumbering ox...

Perception is an interesting thing.  We are constantly monitoring the world around us, both consciously and unconsciously/subconciously.  We perceive threats, make assumptions and choose our behaviours as a result of that which we perceive to be true.

Can you alter the perceptions of those around you in a potentially volatile situation?  Can you increase your chances of being successful if you are forced to fight by mentally ‘un-preparing’ your opponent?

I believe that you can.

We each carry ourselves in a certain way.  A big part of avoiding a violent encounter is how you act and move.  Walking with confidence, looking around, and simply paying attention to the world around you is one of the most important and effective methods to avoiding being targeted for violence.

Have you ever met someone and they seemed quite intimidating, either by their size or by the way they carried themselves?  You thought “Yikes, I wouldn’t want to tangle with them!”  Now, have you ever gotten to know that person only to discover that they are a teddy bear, not intimidating at all?  Your perception of them has changed by getting to know them.  They haven’t changed, it’s your view of them that has been altered.

In many situations, you can manipulate other people’s perceptions of you.  Not quite ninja mind control, but it can be done.  I’ve seen small people seem much larger because they carried themselves with a high degree of confidence.  I’ve seen big people that seemed small and meek by the way they acted and moved.

You will actually appear to be more of an impressive force simply by believing that you are.  Similar to chest-puffing and strutting in the animal world, you can look like a potential victim or an in-charge individual not to be trifled with.  This takes a bit of work, but it’s actually pretty easy.

So, what’s with the ox reference?

Well, it’s not the secret sixth animal of kung fu, if that’s what you’re wondering.

Other than awareness and confidence, you can manipulate the perceptions of others in a more subtle way. 

He is not the threat you think he is...

One of the important lessons that I learned early on in my career was that it is pretty easy to ‘jack’ someone up, making a bad situation worse.  I also learned that while it was possible to calm people down through the use of words, it’s also possible to affect the outcome of a charged situation through the strategic use of body language.  I discovered I could alter other people’s perception of what level of threat I might present to them.  Not just a physical threat, but as a threat to their goals (whatever they might be).  I’m referring mainly to dealing with people that did not want the police to be dealing with them, but this can just as easily be translated to anyone that is in a position where they are dealing with conflict or crisis and cannot simply walk away.  Police, military, security, ambulance personnel, and health care providers all fit the bill, to name a few.

I learned that I had the ability to control time.  I could slow things down by the way I walked and talked and acted.  How did I do it?  By becoming the ‘lumbering ox’. 

I’m a fairly big guy, so any strategy I used had to take into account that fact that I was physically bigger than a lot of people I dealt with.  Sometimes sheer size is an advantage, but sometimes it can illicit hostility or what I sometimes call the “little man” syndrome.  Some people simply wanted to ‘test’ the big guy.  Add that to an already emotionally charged situation, and sometimes it resulted in a situation escalating rapidly, which is what I did not want.

So I learned to slow down.  I moved a bit slower, made my movements more deliberate and talked a little bit slower.  Not so much that it appeared I was being obtuse or insulting towards an individual, but everything I did was just that little bit less rushed.  The key was making it imperceptible to others. 

The more I worked on it, the more I could see that my demeanour caused the people I was dealing with to calm down.  I appeared less threatening to those often ‘full of testosterone’ individuals. 

It must be understood that this style or strategy cannot be applied to all situations.  In fact, there are many instances where you have to ramp up and take immediate and decisive action to avoid a situation from getting much, much worse.  This strategy is for those times when a situation is emotionally charged but has not hit a tipping point.  Those times when a situation can go either way, depending on what is said and done.

The key to being the lumbering ox, as I call it, is to remain ready to react even if it didn’t look like I was.  So even though I might lean against a car, giving the impression that physical conflict was the last thing on my radar (no pun intended), I was actually primed to respond instantly if needed. 

Another advantage of my deliberately slow actions, speech and relaxed movement was that I was perceived as being slower than I was.  This is an important part of the process.  When my words and body language were unsuccessful in resolving a situation and the other person forced a violent encounter, they tended to underestimate my level or awareness.  They did not anticipate any readiness on my part.  They were so confident that their attack would be successful, and that the lumbering ox would be too slow to react, that without realizing it, they telegraphed their intentions and their attack.

This allowed me to react so quickly that the attacker was often confused as to what had happened, unclear how I had turned the tide on them when they were so certain of a quick victory.  I had, to a certain degree, slowed and then sped up time, to my advantage of course.  If enough time had passed during the lead up, I had actually started to make the other person mirror my actions and deportment, slowing them down, without them realizing it.

This lumbering ox method only works in certain situations and it doesn’t always work.  The point of this article is to illustrate that it is possible to alter other people’s perceptions of you by how you act and the image you project. 

In communication, only a very small part of a message is actually communicated through the use of words.  The vast majority of what you are communicating comes from your body language.  So if the way you carry yourself is responsible for the majority of your message, what is it that you want to be saying?

By being aware of your own self, and projecting your thoughts and will, you can control how you appear to the rest of the world.  Knowing this can make you less likely to be labelled or perceived as a victim. 

Food for thought.

You fight as you train. And what's with the tap?

In my last post on the dangers of point sparring,  I referenced the fact that we will fight how we train.  I’ve said this before in previous posts, but it bears repeating.

The discussion I had in the comments section inspired this post. 

First, why do we tap?

Tapping out is fairly common in the martial arts, but what are the reasons we use it?

There are two main reasons that we use the tap.

1. It’s universal.  No language barrier exists.  Train anywhere in the world in most arts, and the tap is understood.  It’s also audible and tactile (I recommend tapping your opponent whenever possible, just in case they don't hear you tapping madly on your own body).
2. We fight as we train. 

When you train long enough, you get certain moves or techniques burned into your head.  In fact, this is one of the purposes of continued repetitive training movements.  It’s so they become ingrained in your body and mind.  This is usually a good thing.

Since we fight as we train, we tap instead of saying Stop! or Ouch!, or yelling out.  If we trained using the word stop whenever a technique was applied, we would be subconsciously teaching ourselves to let go when someone said stop or yelled out.  In a real fight where you are forced to defend yourself, this is the last thing you’d want to do.  

This brings me to another important point.

When your opponent taps, never just let go.  It is extremely important to only ease up on whatever technique you are applying.  You need to keep the technique on.  In a real violent encounter, you need to stay in control.  If you practice by letting go when someone taps, you are conditioning yourself to do so whenever you hear or feel a tap.

You never know, someone on the street might tap in a real situation.  I might, only because I am so conditioned to tap when a technique is about to injure me. 

In the discussion over my last post, I told the story of a police officer who practiced a specific gun disarming technique repeatedly.  After each successful disarm, he handed the gun back to his training partner and repeated the drill.

This officer later had an encounter on the road where a suspect pointed a gun at him.  The officer, from his extensive practice, was successful in using the gun disarming technique that he had drilled over and over.  The only problem was that he started to hand the gun back to the bad guy. 

He caught himself in time, but it was a valuable lesson.  He fought as he had trained. 

As a result, the training program was re-vamped.  This disarming technique remained but officers were trained to take control of the person after they had disarmed them or to create time and distance or obtain cover etc.  It never ended with handing the weapon back.

We will fight as we train, so we need to think about how we are training.  The tap, while a great tool, does not mean let go, it just means ease off but stay in control.  Your mind under stress we revert to your training.

Training can, and should, be an enjoyable experience.  While practicing, however, you need to keep a serious mindset and understand what bad habits you may be burning into your psyche.

Train well. 

Fight or Flight Survival Response

To oversimplify, the 'fight or flight' response occurs when people undergo extreme stress, normally in the context of facing danger.  It's an evolutionary response, which, amongst other things, causes a massive adrenaline dump, which temporarily makes you stronger, and more able to fight or to run away. It also desensitizes your pain centers, making you more apt to make it through whatever you are facing.  There's a bunch of other physiological things that occur, but that's the substance of the concept.

John Coles wrote an interesting post on his blog on the fight or flight response.  Read it here.

In previous posts, I've touched on the fight or flight response, the survival mechanism and the adrenaline dump that occurs during combat or extreme stress.  It's important to incorporate some form of stress induced training to your regimen, and to understand what may or may not happen to you.

Equally important, and often overlooked, is understanding that your attacker may be experiencing all these same things, making them temporarily stronger and more resistant to pain.

So what happens when the fight or flight response doesn't kick in?  And why wouldn't it?

First off, it's a complex issue.  So many things are happening 'behind the scenes' in you brain, that it's pretty tricky to figure out all the whys and hows.

Next, it's important to note that the same person may react differently to the same stimuli on any given day.  So one day, the response might kick in at the slightest whiff of danger, and another it might wait until an attack is underway, or maybe after.  Or even not at all.

There are very real advantages and disadvantages to experiencing the adrenaline dump brought about by the 'fight or flight' response.  Following are just a few of both:


Advantages:

Increased strength
Increased speed
Increased tolerance to pain
Increased endurance
 

Disadvantages:


Loss of fine motor skills
Auditory exclusion
Tunnel vision
Distortion of time


Without the response,  you are more likely to intelligently respond and recognize threats and plan and identify options,   The irony is that, by experiencing the response, you could arguable be better equipped to carry out that plan or escape.

Brains or brawn, too bad you can't always have both.


Can you overcome or prevent the 'fight or flight' response?

Yes and no.

Training can reduce or eliminate the response.  Repeated exposure to simulated situations de-sensitizes you from the effects of the response.  This is only true of serious training.  If your mind isn't in the game, it's just playing around.

For military, law enforcement and security, training is developed to over-ride the stress response, or at least mitigate its effects.  This is where stress induced training methodologies can be useful.

More traditional martial arts training can do the same thing.  This can be a double edged sword though, especially for people who have never been exposed to real violence.  It can backfire.

Take a martial artist who has never seen or experienced any real or disturbing violence.  This person trains for a while, and feels pretty good about their skill level.

Now, this person gets attacked.  Since their minds have experience hundreds or thousands of attacks in the dojo, they don't get the immediate adrenaline 'fight or flight' dump.  Their attacker may be jacked up, but they are as cool as a cucumber. Until their response/defense doesn't work.  Wait a sec!  This has always worked in class, and it's not working now!  Oh Sh_ _!  And I'm hurt, I'm bleeding!

Now the panic sets in, the response kicks in, but it may be too late.  If it had kicked in a bit sooner, they may have been able to get away or fight back enough to gain the advantage.

Some will posit that we should never try to overcome this natural response. There's some strength to this argument for the majority of folks, but this is not always realistic or advisable, especially referring those tasked with making legal use of force response decisions.

The other reason to train for both scenarios is the variable nature of your own response.  What if you don't recognize someone as a threat, but they turn out to be?  You might not get the benefits, or the associated physiological responses until after the encounter has ended.

So you need to train for both scenarios:

1.  Instant 'fight or flight' response
2.  Delayed - begins during an encounter

It is for this very reason that I stress the importance of learning effective self defense techniques that take into account both scenarios.  In my Mind the Gap series, I discuss this in greater detail.  For true, survival self defense for the vast majority of people, the techniques must work in both cases.  There is no adjusting for adrenaline.  You can never know, with absolute surety, when or even if, the 'fight or flight' response will activate.

For military, law enforcement and security, you need to train differently for both scenarios.  Adrenaline can help or hinder.  Just think about the effect an adrenaline dump would have on trigger pull and aiming and how tunnel vision and auditory exclusion effects threat identification and communication.

This is a much broader topic, but this is where mindset training is so important.  The will to win and the never-give-up mindset needs to be in place when everything else goes down the toilet.  The 'fight or flight' response can sneak up on this group and catch them more off guard than most folks, if only for the reason that it's unexpected after all the training.  When you've survived multiple violent encounters and have remained calm and fully in control, when you do experience the dump, it can be a very unwelcome surprise.  But I'm getting off topic.

It's very important to gain an understanding of what you may experience in a violent confrontation.  Research, find instructors who've experienced violence, keep a serious mind and make sure your training offers you the highest likelihood of success no matter how your body and mind respond.

Nature has given us a survival gift in the 'fight or flight', but we need to realize that some situations in the modern world do not allow us to maximize this evolutionary advantage.  Food for thought.

Train safely.

When does it stop being self defense? - 5th and Washington Street Fight

It's fairly rare that I comment on law enforcement related issues, and perhaps I should more often.  One question that I get asked quite a bit is how much force you can use to defend yourself.  Where is the line between self defense and assault?

The simplest answer I can give that basically applies to most laws in North America, and I assume overseas as well, is that you can use as much force as is necessary to stop the threat.  When the threat is over, or you are out of danger, or you can get out of danger, you must stop.  It's really that simple.

Take the following video that's been circulating the Internet:



Wim Demeere has an interesting break down of the video.  Here's the link.

I won't go into it too deeply, but the, I'll call him the winner, clearly steps over the line from self defense to down right assault.  There is no excuse for the kick that you see near the end.  That was purely to punish the initial aggressor for getting in his face.  The guy was down, he wasn't even trying to get up.  He was essentially helpless and the other guy kicked him in the side, probably breaking a bunch of ribs.

The threat was over when the guy went down.  The first punch put him down. I might even be convinced that the second punch when the guy was on the ground might have been justified.  After all, who knows what the initial aggressor was capable of.  He might have popped back up and the fight could have been on.  So I won't discuss the first hit when the guy was down.

I take issue with the kick.  There is no way that anyone could say there was still a threat.  I have a big problem with anyone who kicks someone when they're down.

You have a right to defend yourself, but when the threat is over and you don't walk away, it's you that's breaking the law.

Stress Response Training and the Flinch

John Coles from Kojutsukan blog made a comment on my post on Part VII of my knife survival series discussing the flinch response.

He said,

"A lot of these concepts are used these days to lend credibility to a way of doing things or to develop a way of doing things."

I felt this comment was worthy of a bit more discussion on my part.  I have to agree with the comment that these concepts are used to lend credibility to a way of doing things.

For the most part, I think this is born of ignorance or inexperience, not out of malice.  (John didn't suggest it was malicious, by the way).

The problem is that some of the concepts or techniques are being taught because they make sense to the person who is teaching them.  It seems logical and rational to them, so it must be true.  In reality, it's more of a 'best guess' approach from people who have rarely been in any form or combat or violent encounters.

Even for those who have actually experienced real violence once or twice, it is often a result of the natural mental process of having to make a volatile, confusing situation and/or reaction make sense.

After periods of high stress and traumatic circumstances, it is a natural part of the healing process (mentally) to break down a volatile, unpredictable, confusing situation into manageable, somewhat orderly 'chunks'.  The situation will replay over and over again and the mind needs to find solutions to the parts that did not go well, or could have gone better.  That way, eventually fear and emotion can fade away, often with the help of similar situation scenario training.

The potential shortcoming with any such training is that in extreme situations, it is often impossible to recall exactly what happened, and in what order.  The brain, as a defensive mechanism, fills in the blanks.  This has the potential for people to draw inaccurate conclusions about what they did, what they should have done, or what would have worked better.  It is here that (often well meaning) teachers authoritatively teach students about how they will respond when taken by surprise.  They teach a comprehensive course of study on potentially flawed data.  The students, many of who have not experienced true violence, can't weigh the material against real world experience, so they believe it to be accurate.  After all, it makes sense rationally.

To illustrate the mental gaps that occur under extreme stress, you just have to look at the example of police involved shootings.  Over and over again, it has been shown that the officer discharging their firearm rarely remembers how many rounds they fired.  You would think this would be an easy enough thing to do, but it's not.  And shooting a gun is a practiced skill that's drilled over and over again throughout an entire career.  If this can occur for something like this, how can you accurately judge how you reacted or would react to a surprise attack?  There are other factors such as time distortion, auditory exclusion, or selective hearing, tunnel vision, feelings of detachment and time slowing down, or speeding up.  I've barely scratched the surface on these issues but plan on writing about them in the future.

Some systems out there are researched fairly well, but as with everything, buyer beware.  To truly paint a picture of what goes on when attacked, you need to find someone who has experienced it, has viewed footage, has read studies and most importantly, in my opinion, has had the opportunity to speak to people who have experienced it (if they trust you enough to give a honest recount of upsetting events).

There's no easy way to collect enough data to make concrete conclusions.  In addition to my personal experiences, I'm lucky in the sense that I'm privy to a variety of sources or research, and a lot of people.  Another point to take away is that while there are things that are common to us all, there are also differences.  People react differently to a variety of stimuli.  This makes it important for any form of training to be fluid and flexible.

Many of the systems out there teaching flinch response training are pretty good.  Just make sure you have a critical eye when any definitive statements are made about how you are guaranteed to react in any situation.

I think I've rambled enough for now.  I encourage everyone to research the flinch response and stress response.  It's fascinating and applicable to serious martial arts training.

Another sad day for law enforcement.

On Thursday January 20th, two Miami police officers were shot and killed while executing a first degree murder warrant for the arrest of a 22 year old male.

Roger Castillo and Amanda Haworth both lost their lives doing their duty.  
Another sad day.

Pain compliance techniques. Worthwhile?

I've read several on-line discussions about the value of pain compliance techniques.  Some people say you should do away with them altogether stating that they are ineffective during any real encounter.  Critics will state that a motivated attacker will likely not respond to pain compliance techniques.  Add adrenaline, alcohol, and illicit drugs to the mix and they are even less likely to work.

These are valid points.  Pain compliance techniques don't work on everyone.  We've all worked with a partner who drops at the slightest application of a technique, and with those you really have to apply it to get them to budge.

Should a reality based system throw out pain compliance techniques in favor of ones that rely solely on body movement, joint manipulation and bone breaking?

I say no.  I have personally used many pain compliance techniques with great success.  In the right situation, they can diffuse, de-escalate and end potentially violent encounters.  Which brings me to my next couple of points.

It is essential to know what techniques are meant to do what.  The following are definitions I have come up with to describe how I look at certain techniques:

Pain compliance only - meaning less likely to cause actual damage or real and lasting injury. Intended to cause maximum discomfort. Meant to override the desire for you opponent to continue.

Damage/Immobility techniques -  causes very little discomfort until damage has been done/technique completed.  Example; arm break - causes little pain until break (lots after).  Meant to remove your opponent's ability to continue.

Hybrid techniques - causes lots of pain and discomfort, and if continued or increased, causes damage and injury.  Typically progressive.  Removes both desire and ability to continue.

Each category has it's merits.  The most important thing to know is the difference between them.  The technique that caused everyone to tap and yelp in pain in class may do nothing on the street.  Then it becomes dangerous.

If that's the case, why bother learning pain compliance only techniques it in the first place?  Well, these techniques can often be used in a proactive and preemptive way.  If a situation has yet to escalate, they can send the message that you want the person to back off and that you aren't a victim.  It can also provide a hint to a potential trouble maker that you may be capable of defending yourself.  An easy example might be the guy who, on the dance floor, has wandering hands.  The application of a quick pain compliance technique can be enough to end the situation from getting any worse without causing any injury.  Or a bouncer might escort someone out using the same ideas.

It's also important to note that it's not always appropriate to go straight to a damaging/immobilizing techniques.  In the above example, a broken arm or leg would likely be seen as excessive and against the law.

Which brings me to my favorites.  The hybrid techniques.  These are techniques that are progressive.  They start by causing the maximum amount of pain but easily lead to causing damage, injury and immobility.  Joint, arm and shoulder locks are good examples.  They hurt like hell and if given more pressure causes breaking and dislocation, resulting in more pain and immobility of that area, rendering it unusable.

In my style of Jiu Jitsu, most techniques are hybrids, meant to increase more pain and damage as the situation goes on or requires. We have a spectrum which most techniques follow.  First of all is to avoid the situation all together.  Next is to control, then to break, then to maim and so on.  Each technique follows this path and you use whatever the minimum standard is that keeps you safe given all the circumstances.

As long as you know what you are learning and why you are learning it and when you can use it, you're in good shape.  It's those people who don't understand the difference that can get in trouble.

I've personally used an escort technique that caused lots of pain but no real damage with great success.  I've also been in a situation struggling with a guy on crystal meth.  He felt no pain at all.  I could have punched him till the cows came home and it wouldn't have done much.  In the end, I got him in a shoulder lock, with him face down on the couch.  All I could do was hold him there till backup arrived.  I had immobilized him but very little else.  He felt no pain from it.  If necessary, I could have dislocated his shoulder.  He would still have kept going but he would have lost the ability to use that arm effectively.  Luckily, this wasn't needed at the time.  These are just a couple of examples of the use of different types of techniques.

I often discuss the example of finger lock techniques.  They are great techniques, painful and can easily lead to a break.  In a real fight, however, I'd take a broken finger to win the fight.  The point?  Know what techniques can be used effectively in different situations. Examine the goal and consider external factors into all your training.

I should mention, we spend far less time practicing purely pain compliance techniques than others.  And most can transition into something else, even if it's disengaging.

Some reality based martial artists will argue you shouldn't practice these techniques at all, and perhaps if you were taking a week long course, they'd be right.  However, in reality, a whole spectrum of situations present themselves, and having a few lesser techniques available may be all you need.

Food for thought.  Be safe.

Practice make perfect, so practice perfectly

In previous posts, I've discussed the importance of being 'in the moment'. Never just go through the motions of a technique.

Well, recently, I had to say those words to myself. Being in my line of work, I often find myself in the position of handcuffing someone who is on the ground. I have repeatedly practiced a technique for turning someone over from being on their back to their front. It involves controlling the hand, stepping around the head and ending up in a position where you can either handcuff, apply a shoulder lock (I call it the gas pedal) or any other number of techniques with you opponent on his/her stomach.

The technique itself doesn't really matter. The point is that, as I actually applied it to a uncooperative person, it didn't work quite as well as I'd hoped. I set myself up for it but didn't really apply it with proper focus. I ended up using strength instead of skill and struggled in its execution. It still worked, which is a good thing, but I still had to 'power it' to make it work.

Examining what happened, I realized that for that particular technique, I had started to go through the motions without even realizing it.

In class, we often work on ground techniques, often starting from your opponent on their back, from a throw or takedown. I realized that in my zeal for the next technique, I didn't really pay attention to the technique that got my opponent over on their stomach. I went through the motions, and so did my training partner. Then I applied the requested technique. This is a dangerous trap to fall in. It would have been better to skip the first part of the technique altogether than to just go through the motions.

No matter how many advanced techniques you learn, none of them are any good if you can't get your opponent into a position to apply it.

Always practice your set up technique or your distraction technique with the same seriousness that you practice your main technique. You can't get to number two if you don't do number one correctly.

There are no techniques that should be skipped over to get to the next one. In the real world, if you miss the first part, you'll never get to part two.

It's easy to get lazy in your set up techniques. They are your foundations. Without them, it's impossible to move on to something more advanced. Once again, 'Advanced techniques are the basics done better.'

Seattle Police video - Positive fall out and the challenges of law enforcement

I have been following the spirited debate over the Seattle Police confrontation video. While at first I believed it might turn several blog authors against each other, it appears that there is a good amount of respect out there for different opinions.

I have followed Dojo Rat and Martial development and Sensei Strange's comments with great interest. In the end, I think they have each at least considered varying perspectives on the matter. I also really enjoyed J.C.'s post at Bujutsu: the path

About the video and the debate:

No one seems to dispute that the pedestrians should not have resisted.

No one seems to dispute that police officers should be able to defend themselves.

For most, it seems the issue is the type and the amount of force used by the officer.

It is important to note that no one except the officer knew what he was thinking and feeling at the time. It is always easier to be a Monday morning quarterback.

One of the bigger challenges in law enforcement is the effective and appropriate use of force. Equally important is how that use of force is viewed by the public.

I am the first to admit that a punch is not always the ideal choice, and often it doesn't look very good to onlookers. Sometimes a joint lock or restraint might be viewed as more acceptable even if it caused the same amount or more injury to a person. To some the punch appears to be a technique used when one loses control.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of the punch. It often looks bad and it has a high rate of injury for the puncher. One of the many reasons that I chose Jiu Jitsu (or it chose me) is that it provides options.

Police officers, in general, are well trained in areas of true combat. Most are quite proficient in a gun battle or any fight for survival. The area that is often lacking is in-between a peaceful encounter and a truly violent one.

For me, Jiu Jitsu has provided the area to explore these areas. The techniques contained are progressive and adaptable. I am provided the opportunity to explore situational simulations to test out various options. I will often work with my Sensei and J.C. to figure out options for dealing with various amounts of resistance.

Nothing tests control techniques better than trying them on a resisting opponent. Actually, nothing tests any techniques better. I thing we can all learn from this type of work.

When we train consistently, we strive to achieve that state of Mushin, or empty mind. In this state, we can react instinctively to situations, without thought or hesitation.

I know many may feel I may be siding with the Seattle officer, but perhaps the only technique available to him was the punch. Or perhaps not. I don't know him.

The point? I train to have instinctive options available to me. I practice realistic situations to prepare myself for various types of situations. If I had been in the same situation, would I have thrown a punch? I'd like to think I would have had other options at hand, but who knows? Maybe I would have. Maybe I wouldn't. Then again, that's one of the many reasons I continue to train.

To all those out there, let's continue to share opinions and feel free to debate issues with an open and respectful mind.

Respectfully,

Journeyman.

Seattle Police Confrontation - A matter of perspective?

See the video here

I hesitated to comment on this video for a while. It is stirring up so much emotion and debate that I wasn't sure I wanted to discuss it on this blog. Then again, spirited debate can often be a valuable source for some self reflection. It also provides an opportunity to consider other perspectives.

Perspective is an interesting thing. It drastically affects the way you see events and the world around you. It is shaped by your life experiences and is formed in no small way by your pre-conceived ideas about a variety of topics.

I've read comments and opinions ranging from people applauding the officer's actions and commending his self control to those that have demonized him, saying he is all that is bad in the world and law enforcement.

I read one comment that basically said that the officer was nothing but a power hungry bully who liked to beat people up, especially women, and likely only took the job to do so. I also read some comments that under no circumstances whatsoever was any officer justified of these actions in a situation such as this.

I have difficulty with absolutes.

For those that feel this way, I ask you to consider the following:

If that officer had recently been attacked by two women and disarmed, would your perspective and opinion change?

If the jaywalker or the woman who was struck was male, would your perspective or opinion change?

If both the jaywalker and the second party were male, would your perspective or opinion change?

What if any or all of the above was true but the officer was female. Would your perspective or opinion change?

I bet they would, at least somewhat.

I don't ask these questions to try to convince people one way or the other. You should hold dear the things you believe passionately about. What I do ask is that people try to look at things from different perspectives before making those beliefs.

I once had an interesting lesson in perspective. A colleague took a piece of paper and folded it so that when you turned it on it's edge, it had 3 sides of a square, one side showing forward, and one to each side, left and right. 3 people sat at a table, one directly across from it, one directly to the left and one to the right. Each side of the paper was then labelled A,B and C. When the people at the table were asked what they saw, each said a different letter. They were each looking at the same item, but they all saw something different.

We must always strive to look at all angles or perspectives, whether it be a video on YouTube, a technique we're trying or another martial art or artist. Once we have a complete picture, we can form our opinions with a greater degree of conviction.

I encourage everyone to arrive at their own conclusions on the video. I also encourage them to put themselves in the officer's shoes. What would you have done? I will mention that I respected the fact that Chris at Martial Development challenged various people to demonstrate what they would have done with multiple attackers to deal with the situations.

No matter what your position on the officer or the video, this challenge encourages people to really look at the situation. What could the officer have done better? What are the challenges with more than one person? What would you have done? Have you ever tried techniques on someone that was truly resisting?

Right or wrong, we should all strive to learn from this type of event.

This video and the issues it raises will likely result in some future posts discussing more law enforcement related topics, and some of the reasons I study the martial arts.

Always challenge yourself and keep an open mind.

Be safe.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu vs. Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

JJJ vs. BJJ

Type in a search on google for Jiu Jitsu and the majority of hits will come back for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. Much of this is due to the popularity of the UFC and the Gracie family of Jiu Jitsu. The Gracies were intimately involved in the birth and evolution of mixed martial arts as a mainstream sporting event.

Brazilian Jiu Jitsu burst into the scene in the early nineties. Royce Gracie beat everyone he came up against, forcing martial artists to re-examine their training and the martial arts they studied. This was a good thing. Now ground fighting is at least a component of most martial arts styles.

For some time, BJJ was touted as being the ultimate martial art, essentially unbeatable. We now know that it has its flaws, or perhaps more accurately, its strengths and weaknesses.

In combat, deliberately going to the ground can be extremely dangerous. Without rules, rings, time limits and referees, choosing to fight on the ground is foolhardy.

I have read that 80, 85, 90 or 95% of fights end up on the ground. Those are pretty alarming statistics. You know what they say about stats? There are lies, dirty lies and statistics. You can pretty much find statistics to support any position you take, positive or negative.

Where are these numbers taken from? What is classified as a fight? You need to know this information to make any sort of conclusion.

The majority of these stats are taken from security, law enforcement and the military. After all, what other groups actually record altercations? Knowing this, does a fight going to the ground mean both combatants go to the ground? In policing, when there is a struggle or fight, officers are trained to take the person to the ground in order to control them and handcuff them safely. The officer isn't fighting on the ground, but the bad guy (or girl) ends up there. In this case, would this be one of the stats saying that the fight went to the ground? That could be quite misleading. If you perform a throwing technique, is this now classified as a fight that went to the ground? A wrist throw, a trip, a choke? As with so many things, it's important to source information. If 95% of fights happened on the ground, there wouldn't be the need for other martial arts.

I train not to go to the ground. If I'm taken down, I train to get back up as quickly as possible. If I can't get up quickly, then I fight on the ground. I never choose to fight on the ground but I realize the necessity to learning how to if I find myself there. It is because of this that I believe we all owe a debt to Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. It has made martial artists more complete.

Many people outside of or new to the martial arts don't realize that there is a far older form of Jiu Jitsu out there, one that stemmed from feudal Japan.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu goes back generations. While BJJ is essentially a new style, JJJ has lived and evolved for hundreds of years.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu is what I consider to be a complete martial art. It has weapons training, long range fighting, close quarter combat and ground fighting. Always has. It focuses on all ranges of combat. It takes longer to learn than some other styles, but in the end, it churns out more complete fighters, comfortable in all ranges.

Now I'm the first to admit that someone who trains exclusively in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu would have the edge in ground fighting. After all, it's their speciality. I'll also admit I wouldn't want to trade punches with an experienced boxer. What I do have is options. This is a strength of Japanese Jiu Jitsu. It teaches you to adapt to your opponents.

JJJ continues to evolve. It changes with the times. It's rooted in time tested techniques that kept people alive in the battlefield and when confronted with armed opponents. It's flexible and adapts to changing circumstances and environments.

All martial arts are good. As mentioned in a previous post, the best martial art is the one you like to study. I have the utmost respect for different martial arts and martial artists. I have seen fierce and dangerous warriors in dozens of different styles.

It's important to note that no martial is limited to only one area of study. BJJ players don't only train on the ground. Tae Kwon Do practitioners don't only kick. Judo folks don't just throw etc.

Japanese Jiu Jitsu is sometimes referred to as traditional Jiu Jitsu, stand up Jiu Jitsu, small circle Jiu Jitsu, or just Jiu Jitsu. While JJJ and BJJ share many techniques, there are significant differences between the styles. It is important to know this when considering studying either one.

I study JJJ as a reality based martial art. If reality is what you're training for, make sure the style you take focuses on real combat. If you're training for the ring, you may find yourself in a rough spot if you find yourself on the street.

Ask questions, research and learn. Above all, enjoy your training.

Awareness - The greatest technique of all...

The other day I was approached by a woman and her young daughter. This mom wanted to know if the area that she was in was safe, as she had an appointment for her daughter nearby.

Given the time of day and the local businesses, I answered yes, but told her to still pay attention to what was going on around her.

This encounter reminded me of what is often taught in women's self defense courses. The single most important way to increase your safety is to be aware of your surroundings. Of course, it's silly to only teach this to women, as it applies equally to anyone interested in self protection, man or woman.

From personal experience, the majority of incidents involving violence and victimization could have been avoided if the victim was more aware of their surroundings.

Most criminals who prey on others are lazy. If they weren't, they'd probably go get jobs. The easy score is what's on their minds.

When a criminal is selecting a victim, they are looking for people who aren't confident and who aren't paying attention to what's going on around them. They will wait for someone that is shuffling along, eyes cast downwards or someone that is oblivious, talking on a cell phone or texting and walking. Most criminals try to surprise their victims.

So, if a criminal sees someone, man or woman, walking along confidently and with purpose, looking around and paying attention, they take a pass. It's far easier to wait for the easy score. This is also why you should locate your car keys in advance of arriving at your vehicle. I've seen it too many times where someone has been attacked or robbed when they're standing at the door of their car searching for their keys.

The single greatest thing anyone can do is to be aware. A criminal that knows you're aware of them is far far less likely to try to make you a victim.

One caveat. There are times when rotten things happen to good people no matter what they do. You can do everything right and still find yourself in a nasty situation, but 9 times out of 10, you can avoid or minimize it by being aware.

Future posts will discuss more strategies for avoiding becoming a victim, but if there was only one lesson or one thing I could teach anyone, it would be to pay attention.

Be aware. Stay safe.