Effectiveness of Empty Hand Arnis

[loki09789]

OOps venn didn't come out right

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiTechnical

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiioverlapping area
iiiTacticaliiiiiiiiiiiiiiConceptual

There! Have fun with that one

Paul M

 

[loki09789]

Yes, it's Sunday and I am bored, and there is a lot of snow that I am trying to avoid shovelling...

Paul J. mentioned how the definitions for tactics/tactical in by combatives 'experts' and combatives arts are varied and generally talk in terms of outside/over... martial arts/systems.

Some of them do talk in this way, but they aren't talking purely for the sake of tactical theory. I think they are trying to make themselves distinquishable (sp?) as martial artists, so that they can be recognized as a self defense art.

Like Krav Maga, they use the tactical art mentallity and define the physical art as separate from the tactical. That really is an in house/internal separation that they use to organize topics of instruction as well as good marketing to stand out in a world of 'martial arts', they - and other - tactical art schools - can be recognized for their primary goal of self defense.

I think that this is Tom's point about FMA's as the best source to give them a run in the market if someone can package it the right way. The concepts that make FMA's distinct can be understood through the practice of physical techniques, but once the idea or pattern is recognized it can be applied on any level, strategic/tactical/technical) and still be within the framework of FMA training.

Paul M.

 

[Makalakumu]

In my experience with FMA, tactics and technique feel like they are one unified concept. For instance, we never just swung a stick or stabbed something. We ALWAYS had a target and goal in mind. And with defense, we never just blocked something. The footwork associated with the block was suppose to put us in a good place to counter. I think we end up training tactical techniques in the end.

 

[Tgace]

Here is Jim Wagner’s definition of reality-based martial arts;

http://www.jimwagnertraining.com

"Training and survival skills based on modern conflict situations that the practitioner is likely to encounter in their environment (their reality).

It was Jim Wagner who first coined the term “reality-based” in connection to the civilian martial arts, and it is his definition that is the baseline (accepted standard) for this new movement.

The term “reality-based” is a powerful, image producing description, for those whose primary purpose for investing in the martial arts is self-defense or the defense of others.

In modern times the ancient martial arts systems (most notably the Asian systems) are predominantly embraced and popularized by civilian instructors who have no direct connection to actual paramilitary conflict training, and who are unaware of the three-prong split of the martial arts. All three branches of the martial arts legitimate, and meet different needs for different people. The problem arises when examining the subject of self-defense. Although the traditional martial arts have training methods and techniques that can be applied to self-defense situations, it is not a true system for self-defense. Although fightsport (contact sport fighting) also has training methods and techniques that can be applied to self-defense situations, it also is not a true system for self defense.

When keeping within the context of self-defense, fightsport and the traditional-based arts are to be comparable to Civil War military tactics. Although such ancient tactics are still reenacted for tourists and movies, and are quite appealing, they are not applicable to today’s modern warfare. Today’s military rejects those practices. That is not to say that there is not any benefit to being familiar with Civil War tactics. In the U.S. Army’s War College, Civil War battles are studied, lessons drawn from them, and applied to possible modern future scenarios. Likewise, there will be some Civil War training methods and techniques that have change little over time – like running a bayonet through an enemy soldier. The rifles may have changed dramatically, but the blade is relatively the same in nature. Yet, so many other techniques have been changed or modified since 1865 that it would be counterproductive for a modern soldier to study Civil War tactics if the main goal is to prepare for a modern enemy. For example: why waste time practicing how to shoot from skirmish lines when we shoot from available cover today. Likewise, what may have worked in ancient Asia, when the Oriental martial arts were developed (the era of the Samurai, Shoalin monks, and Korean warriors, etc.), cannot be passed off today as a viable self-defense system for the modern “warrior” anymore than Civil War tactics could be for today’s military.

For years (since the end of World War II in 1945) the ancient Asian martial arts have influenced the way people think about self-defense. Not only have these ancient training methods and techniques been propagated, but some schools go so as far as to adapting foreign traditions, rituals, customs, and in some cases - religion. Again, such knowledge is very rich and colorful, but for those seeking only genuine self-defense, traditional-based martial arts would be in the same category as Civil War enthusiasts.

So, how is it that many people today still are entrenched with the idea that the traditional-based martial arts are real self-defense? The answer is – mass communications. The ancient Asian martial arts systems were popularized by the movie industry beginning in the 1960s. Films portrayed bigger-than-life individuals, who with their Asian fighting skills were able to single handedly, defeat those using “inferior” skills or those who lacked any formal training. The subliminal message to audiences was that these screen techniques would actually work in real situations.

The first superstar actor/martial artist Bruce Lee (1949 – 1973) openly acknowledged that this gender of films were strictly entertainment. However, as his popularity steadily grew, Lee managed to slip in his own version of “reality-based” (Jeet Kune Do) methods into his later films. He broke the East-West barrier by including boxing techniques, wrestling, French Savate, and other systems right along side his own Asian styles. Movie audiences loved it, but he was at odds with traditionalists. In his private life Bruce Lee was always seeking the “truth of combat.” In a 1971 interview to Black Belt magazine Bruce Lee stated, “I have in no way set Jeet Kune Do within a distinct form governed by laws that distinguish it from ‘this’ style or ‘that’ method. On the contrary, I hope to free my comrades from bondage to styles, patterns and doctrines.”

As the public became more aware of the crime culture and modern warfare in the 1980s the movie industry was quick to adapt to the new market by placing their martial arts/action heroes into roles where they could use their traditional-based skills in contemporary settings. Not only could these actors kick and punch in beautifully choreographed scenes, but they could also manipulate a variety of weapon systems – assault rifles, explosives, and military equipment. Of course, images on “the big screen” have a big impact on people, and many martial arts practitioners tried to imitate this new martial arts role model. Even in our own decade the theme has not changed much.

Although martial artist-turned actor types (such as Chuck Norris, Steven Segal, Brandon Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, etc.) seemed to have lent a sense of credibility to the combination of traditional-based martial arts with modern conflict, they themselves did not change the way people trained and fought. One reason is that these actors’ styles are civilian-based, but with a hint of realism given to them by technical advisors. They were still forcing, and some still are, a square peg into a round hole.

When focusing primarily on realistic techniques for modern self-defense situations, it was the creation of hybrid systems that ultimately paved the way for reality-based martial arts. The most notable example of hybridization of the martial arts is instructor Dan Inosanto, the protogé of the late Bruce Lee. Influenced by the Jeet Kune Do concept (which went from concept to system), Dan followed Bruce Lee’s example and mixed fighting systems. In the Filipino Kali Academy (Dan’s original school in Torrance, California) students would find themselves doing Filipino kali, Wing Chun, Chinese kickboxing, and grappling all in a night’s session. Although the teaching was not seamless, Dan would always tell his students, “Take what is useful, and throw out what is not.” Of course, Jim Wagner had been taken under Dan Inosanto’s wing at the impressionable age of 16 and would train with him off and on until his mid 20s. Jim would take many of Dan’s concepts, and Richard Bustillos’, and add to them.

Today we take hybridization for granted now, but in the late 70s and early 80s, there were only a handful of schools worldwide doing teaching this way. It was indeed the JKD crowd that was breaking away from the traditional-based systems, yet they themselves would not bring the martial arts into the next era."

Note the Filipino connection. While Mr. Wagner is predominantly concerned with military/LEO issues, a lot of what he has to say illustrates my conception of what FMA could contribute. While this article states that FMA was a component of Mr. Wagners program, I believe that FMA as a whole due to its conceptual teachings could form a solid combatives system of its own with the proper "tactical framework".

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
In my experience with FMA, tactics and technique feel like they are one unified concept. For instance, we never just swung a stick or stabbed something. We ALWAYS had a target and goal in mind. And with defense, we never just blocked something. The footwork associated with the block was suppose to put us in a good place to counter. I think we end up training tactical techniques in the end.

Footwork, punches, kicks, strikes (w/weapons), blocks, checks, passes etc... those are all "techniques". They are tools that are used to defeat an opponent. Even if an enemy is imagined in training you are not dealing with a person that is actively attempting to $@#%&-up all your plans. Even conventional sparring is "canned"... its only the "fight stage". Most trainers dont consider or train their students in the pre-fight or post-fight stages. And if you believe that you will "do as you are trained" in a confrontation then you should train the whole shebang. Thats why scenario training has become so dominant in military/LEO training.

"Tactics" depend on direct competition with an opponent who is trying to thwart your every move. An actual hand-to-hand fight can employ tactics on a small scale (feints, diversions, etc) but also involves the sum total of a confrontation. The terrain, the time of day, nubmer of opponents, weapons and their capabilities (yours and your opponents), your knowledge of law (you gotta know when to stop, run, or call in the cavalry so you dont wind up in the clink), cover and concealment and a whole spectrum of other issues. Of course this all depends on your and/or your instructors goals. Martial Arts can also be about everything from exercise, spiritual/personal development, a social gathering, traditional preservation, sport etc. And those are all very valid reasons too. I suppose it depends on how important the "self-defense" issue is.

 

[Cruentus]

Dude...awesome webpage!!

That's a great resource you have there. Some of the military stuff I have read before in my personal research, but I find it hard to dig up again as I don't have it as nicely put together and referenced as you.

Very Nice!

In regards to the military definitions, I am finding that they coincide well with the civilian dictionary definitions. On this page (http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-90/ch1.htm) I found these couple of definitions:

For Tactics:
"Mastery of the science of tactics is necessary for the tactician to understand the physical and procedural constraints under which he must work. These constraints include the effects of terrain, time, space, and weather on friendly and enemy forces"

"The art of tactics consists of three interrelated aspects: the creative and flexible array of means to accomplish assigned missions, decision making under conditions of uncertainty when faced with an intelligent enemy, and understanding the human dimension—the effects of combat on soldiers."

"Tactics is the employment of units in combat.

Techniques are the general and detailed methods used by troops and commanders to perform assigned missions and functions, specifically the methods of using equipment and personnel."

It seems that what is generally accepted by the military is the idea that the technical details HOW to employ the method, while the tactical details how to choose which method to employ, and employing that method in combat.

In a nutshell, these definitions and explainations seem to support my approach. My approach is that "technique and concept" is your art. Tactical is how you employ your art, and will vary per situation. Strategy regards more of a long term plan."Doctrine" as you introduced to me here would be the mentality or mindset behind the action and planning. I still choose my earlier described diagram over a vinn diagram.

Now, my way of interpretation definatily isn't the only way, but it seems to be working rather well so far.

Again, I appreciate your link ups, and I hope you don't mind me using your webpage as a good reference in the future!

 

[Cruentus]

I like this quote:

"War is, above all things, an art, employing science in all its branches as its servant, but depending first and chiefly upon the skill of the artisan. It has its own rules, but not one of them is rigid and invariable."

- Captian Francis V. Greene

In other words, you may indeed choose to interpret your Modern Arnis, and your arts relationship to "tactics" differently then I. As long as it works, no one is "wrong" per say.

I do think my method of presentation does fit with the military explainations and definitions. Yet, that doesn't mean that alternative methods of presentation won't fit.

You choose to present your tactics as a part of your art, with the Venn Diagram as your chosen idea for how it fits together. This is fine if it works for you and your students. I choose my method a bit differently.

I think it has been a good discussion because when we talk about the arts, or tactics, or what have you, we will have better understanding of where each other is coming from.

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

It seems that what is generally accepted by the military is the idea that the technical details HOW to employ the method, while the tactical details how to choose which method to employ, and employing that method in combat.

Ha ha...I like quoting myself! (as the meglomania sets in)

Given my interpretation of what the military texts are saying regarding definitions of tactics and technique, I can see where we differ in our interpretations of what defines technique.

I don't define "technique" in this case as ONLY the gross body movement. I also think that angling, timing, positioning, etc. is also a part of that "technique;" because without it yout technique is nothing.

You seem to define technique as only the gross body movement. Other factors such as timing, you would define as a tactic.

To me, timing and other factors are part of "how" the move works, so the "technical" to me goes beyond just "the move". For you, your definition of technique does not seem to go beyond "the move," so your definition of "tactics" then overlaps to encompass aspects such as timing, angling, etc.

This is fine if that is the way you want to interpret it. I don't see any compelling reason why I should change my interpretation here, but at least we can see where we differ so that at least when have discussions we won't argue over semantics.

PAUL

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
In a nutshell, these definitions and explainations seem to support my approach. My approach is that "technique and concept" is your art. Tactical is how you employ your art, and will vary per situation. Strategy regards more of a long term plan."Doctrine" as you introduced to me here would be the mentality or mindset behind the action and planning. I still choose my earlier described diagram over a vinn diagram.

Cant find anything to debate ya there. Yes techniques and tactics are separate elements (otherwise they wouldnt have different names). My point is that many martial "arts" become too wrapped up in the "technique and concept" that they loose touch with the "martial" side of the house. a la that article of Wagners refering to many arts becoming analgous to Civil War re-enactors. Tactics also mean many other things other than "fighting" concepts (timing, distance, footwork etc.). Tactics also involve issues of surroundings, environment, terrain, vehicle issues, weapon issues and anything else that can be leveraged to your advantage in a confrontation (or avoiding on altogether). How do you train that? Or do you leave that up to the student to do their own research/training from other sources?

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Tgace
Cant find anything to debate ya there. Yes techniques and tactics are separate elements (otherwise they wouldnt have different names). My point is that many martial "arts" become too wrapped up in the "technique and concept" that they loose touch with the "martial" side of the house. a la that article of Wagners refering to many arts becoming analgous to Civil War re-enactors. Tactics also mean many other things other than "fighting" concepts (timing, distance, footwork etc.).

I totally agree with modern martial arts not being "martial" enough. Tactics definatily makes your art more martial.

Tactics also involve issues of surroundings, environment, terrain, vehicle issues, weapon issues and anything else that can be leveraged to your advantage in a confrontation (or avoiding on altogether). How do you train that? Or do you leave that up to the student to do their own research/training from other sources?

Darn good questions with no short and definate answers.

So first, I'll start with the bottom line: Tactics have to be trained in some way, shape, or form.

Now having said that, Tactics are going to vary from person to person and from situation to situation. Furthermore, many tactical circumstances need to be drilled over and over again, while others only need to be addressed once.

Now, my main job as an instructor is 3-fold. First, to impart my technical knowledge. Second, the conceptual knowledge comes to play when the technical is addressed. With that technical/conceptual knowledge, I verbalize, demonstrate, and even let them drill sometimes the tactical circumstances that their technique can be used, so they can put their technical/conceptual knowledge into some sort of context.

The 3rd part of the "fold" is I need to be able to impart to them the ability to "translate" what they have learned. In other words, apply what they have learned to different circumstances. This is a basic Modern Arnis Concept that I think applies universally to whatever Martial Art you are doing. The ability to translate is vital because I cannot teach, nor can a student practice every single combative situation that could happend to them. Furthermore, there is no "training" substitution for the real thing. So, in my opinion, if you can't translate what you learn in the dojo in different situations that you might come accross in a combative circumstance, then your training becomes useless.

Now other instructors may disagree with me on this point, but because I teach my students how to translate, I don't think it is nessicary to attempt to train EVERY tactical circumstance. Not only will this be an impossability, but it will be almost useless because no training simulation completely mirrors the real thing. Furthermore, it would take away from what they should really be learning from me, which is the technical/conceptual, and how to translate.

A simple example of putting technique into a "tactical" circumstance, as well as teaching my students how to "translate" what they know:

"I have a stick and so does he. He attacks me #2 angle, I block, strike, armbar, takedown, then disarm."

[demonstrates, then I have students work on that technique]

"O.K...everybody back. Now, what if I don't have a stick and he does? I can still do the technique...[demonstrates technique w/o a stick]. Now, chances are, your attacker won't have a rattan stick.... people just don't carry those around. But what if this is a pipe, crowbar, tire iron, etc.? It's all the same...the technique still works. What if it is a blade? We all know that there are blade concepts that could drastically change the dynamics of the situation, but as you can see [put blade in Uke's hand, and demonstrate] the technique works the same in this case. Now...if he had a broken bottle, could you do the same technique? [they all nod yes]. Good. You see, we may only work on a few techniques in class due to the time we have available, but as you can see ALL your techniques can apply to different situations. You just need to be able to translate what you learn in here to your situation out there."


So, there is a simple, classic Modern Arnis example on how we learn the technique to learn the concept, and then, they are put into reference of a tactical circumstance. This is the majority of the way class goes. Keep in mind, that I use the same idea for drills and sparring as well as singular techniques as described above. Also, please consider that by my definition, technique and concepts are being worked first and formost when sparring in a controlled environment, with very little tactics involved. If I had people spar outside on the concrete in their street clothes, then this becomes a bit more tactical in nature, by my definition anyways.

Now, even though I don't believe that I should try to cover every tactical circumstance: do I teach and have my students train tactics on a deeper level? The answer is yes. How deep and what kind of tactics always depends on my students in the class. Training grappling on concrete is good for everyone. Having a larger male student grab and simulate a scenario for a smaller female student is an example of tactical training that is more important for my smaller female students. Discussing awareness, conflict avoidence, and pre and post conflict behavior, as well as training these things is a component as well. Discussing and training in different clothing, terrain, and other environmental conditions is a consideration. These are all tactics, but this is not the bulk of our training or what I teach. Remember, my job first and formost is to teach technique, concept, and then the ability to translate among different real life circumstances. If I do that, then my job is mostly fullfilled. The other stuff is important, but not as much.

Now, in terms of what I cover...tactics for my civilian students is usually fairly easy to cover. Most of the civilian tactics only take some forethought, with very little training. Tactics for my Military and LEO students is much more difficult because they are job specific, and I don't do their job myself (I am a civilian). So, I leave it to the U.S. Government who has the best military in the world to teach my military students their tactical training, and the Municipalities to train LEO their tactical training. My focus for them is almost competely technical/conceptual, and I let them translate what I teach to their circumstance. So, I don't cover much situational training with the cops or military because it is so much more specialized, but I do cover it on a base level to give them context in which to use what I am teaching. Also, for situational training for LEO or Cops, I like to act as more of a technical advisor, while they dictate the scenario training and I advise what to do on a technical level, rather then me trying to create the scanario as a civilian.

Also, one last component, is I always encourage my students to do their own research, and to do their own thinking in terms of tactics. Ultimately, they are the ones who have to use what they know, so they are the ones who need to put what they know into whatever tactical circumstance they might be in. I give them reference materials that they can read. I give them homework assignments (like: this weekend, go outside and practice your movements in the snow and see how it feels). And I encourage them to do their own research as well, and tell me what they find. Ultimatily, from a tactical perspective even moreso then an art perspective, the student needs to take ownership for their own learning.

So, in a nutshell, my primary job is to teach the technical and conceptual aspects, which is the martial art, while teaching them how to translate what they know into whatever tactical circumstance they may find themselves in. The tactical training is there, but as a martial arts/combatives instructor rather then a tactics instructor, my main focus is the martial system and how to translate.

I don't know if I answered your question, but hopefully this explains it.

PAUL

 

[Tgace]

Well I think I finally see where our paths diverge a little regarding "tactics" and self-defense. If you take a "combat" situation from the moment you enter the area it occurs, to what you do when the whole thing is over, you have been talking about dealing with the tactics of the "battle" or "engagement", in the sense of the martial arts techniques being applied in a fight (the tactics of grappling, feints, "fight" stuff).

My idea of application of tactis are across the whole spectrum. i.e. you present fighting in a context. Where are you when it occurs and what are the cirmcustances? Instead of presenting a problem as, a guy draws a knife, what response do you give? I would say... "you are in a restaurant when a knife wielding man attempts to rob the cashier, what do you do?" The response could be "Let him take the money" which I would reccomend. Now you say "he starts stabbing bystanders" at which point the student could say "I run out to get help". This brings up the point of tactical positioning, has the student placed himself in a position where he knows where the exits are and can he get to them? If he does get out and calls police does he know his location? Ive lost count of people who ive asked "where are you right now?" who couldnt give a street name or address. If the student decides to fight the offender does he use an environmental weapon? (chair, eating utensil, weapon on his person) NOW you are entering the point you have been talking about, the "fight". Here issues of law may apply. If hes using deadly force against you (which a knife is) you may use deadly force in return. If he drops the knife and runs the situation changes. Now you get into the post confrontation....issues of first aid, calling 911, getting a subject description, vehicle description, and issues of reporting the incident to the authorities arise. There are "tactical" issues across the whole spectrum.

 

[Cruentus]

Right. I see and agree that these are all tactical issues that you described. In a situation, you are making many strategic and tactical decisions before anything technical comes into play. If you know how to relax, and think clearly under stress, you will be able to make good tactical decisions even if you haven't thought of the circumstance before hand. Then, when the time comes, your technique that you have been training will come to play without thought because the movements and your ability to translate your movements will be second nature.

That is why the technical/conceptual is so important, and takes so much practice. It's much more difficult to learn how to do something without thought then with thought. For your technique to come without thought, you need to practice this correctly and repetitively. You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory.

 

[loki09789]

"I do think my method of presentation does fit with the military explainations and definitions. Yet, that doesn't mean that alternative methods of presentation won't fit."

Paul J.

As I said before, the environment is definitely part of the tactical theory, but is still only one element that has to be considered, and the scale has to be taken into account when it is considered.
One method of considering all the tactical elements for mission success and survivability at the individual/small unit leadership level that I was taught as, both a Marine Infantryman and as an Army MP. I never made it to the upper NCO or officer ranks, but I am pretty sure that they learn to apply it on their level of scale too.

METT-T

Mission – What is your/enemies goal or purpose?
Equipment – What do you have to work with/what doe the enemy have to work with?
Troops – How many and how fit, skilled, experienced…are you/enemy (if possible to know)?
Time – How much prep time, time on task/mission, before the next task/mission?
Terrain – the ground that you will be accomplishing the mission on?

When a tactician answers the ‘you’ part of these questions, he/she is recognizing the imbedded/internal tactical skill within his art and his ability to be ingenious and creative with it, as well as his personal make up that he can bring to the fight.

When a tactician answers the ‘enemy’ part of these questions it is definitely the environmental elements that he has to consider.

Translating the military source definitions for unit commanders/officers in charge of units of soldiers/Marines/sailors/Airmen… needs some tweaking to translate to individual martial artist development. It can get confusing to make accurate translations from military tactical training to civilian/self defensive/combative training because specificity of the definitions and training of tactics in the military use is for leadership, so training was always preparing you for fight-ability as the head of a unit of fighting elements – whether that meant a team/squad/platoon/company… the definitions, procedures (tactics) were all to be applied by a leader of a ‘body’ that has different specifications and capabilities than a single person.

As a system/head instructor, it is very helpful to understand these theories from the perspective of leadership so that you can apply them to understanding your instruction and system and fighting/self defense better. But, since, as civilians, we generally train others and ourselves for individual applications and not as a member/leader of a team/unit it is more accurate to look at how the military defines technical and tactical skill for the individual.

Now, as far as definitions, the military definitions and applications of technical and tactical are based on the same ideas, and partial sources for me, when I say that I am using the scientific definitions. Looking at how the military applies those definitions to organize training into phases for the individual and not a unit – though the same pattern is there - will put it into the proportionate scale to relate it to individual martial arts training.

Those who served remember this phase as painfully boring, but military technical training phase is the boring classroom stuff where they introduced you to the equipment, tell you it’s specs/capabilities and then train you on how to use that piece of equipment. Marksmanship is a technical skill, according to military training definitions for individual techical skill.

They introduced you to the rifle (M16A2, in my active time), explained the specs (construction, weight, length…) and capabilities of the weapon (rate of fire, ranges of accuracy…). After all of that, you demonstrate technical proficiency when you shoot/maintain and maintain your rifle on the training and qualification ranges. Tactical proficiency is the employment of your marksmanship skill (technical) as a tool of force deliver during an ambush (offensive) or immediate action drill (defensive). Marksmanship is the technical skill that can be used in combination with other technical skills in tactical procedures to accomplish a goal, but the technical skill alone will not get it done.

Based on this definition, used by the military to delineate the phases of individual training progression, a punch is a technical skill. The equipment used for the technique is introduced, in this case the arm (duh!). The specs and capabilities in this case would be the joints and muscles that you will be using, the range/reach based on your arm length and other factors that make up a good technical punch. Then you execute the punch to demonstrate/develop good form in the air during shadow boxing or striking focus mitts, bags, bodies… Tactical proficiency is the employment of your punching technique, in combination with other technical skills to connect and cause damage to hit first (offensive) or to stop an attack with something like trapping hands (defensive).

Shadow boxing, solo repetitions of technique in the air, forms, are chances to develop technical skill. I would even say that hitting a focus mitt that isn’t being moved or ‘flashed’ is technical development. When you combine a technique and start using them to defend or attack someone, you are training tactics. Application is the fight itself. Of course, tactics would expand out to running, throwing up; acting really crazy to win a positional/psychological advantage, but that is what you are considering ‘outside of the art’ tactics.

What you are calling technique and concept might be 'fighting skill development' in a Krav or other Combatives system. While what you are using the term tactics for is only the situational responses.

Paul Martin

 

[loki09789]

Paul J wrote:

"You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory."


Amen! That's why I like the tactic/tactical definition that refers to creativity/ingenuity. A solid technical foundation is essential to tactical and strategic mastery because it frees up the mind.

I see/saw this when I watched RP/Taboada/Bolden/Inocalla... seemingly moving like lightning in a bottle. Their technique is so good that their tactical skill - artistically referred to as concept within FMA's - that they seem to anticipate and control the entire exchange.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
Right. I see and agree that these are all tactical issues that you described. In a situation, you are making many strategic and tactical decisions before anything technical comes into play. If you know how to relax, and think clearly under stress, you will be able to make good tactical decisions even if you haven't thought of the circumstance before hand. Then, when the time comes, your technique that you have been training will come to play without thought because the movements and your ability to translate your movements will be second nature.

That is why the technical/conceptual is so important, and takes so much practice. It's much more difficult to learn how to do something without thought then with thought. For your technique to come without thought, you need to practice this correctly and repetitively. You want your technique to come without thought so that you can focus on thinking through your tactics (even if you are thinking on your toes), because proper tactics require quick thinking rather then the use of muscle memory.

Hmmm...I dont know if I agree or disagree with this statement. On one hand I absolutely agree with the point about technique being trained to the point of reflex. On the other hand I get the impression that you are saying that all those other tactical considerations can then be made "on the fly" and dont need any formal instruction. If you are not making conscious decisions about positioning (with your car, sitting in a theater, etc.) , weapons(what you have on you, whats in the environment that you can use/or be used against you), and various other issues (law, medical training, etc.), than you are not using "tactics" properly. I believe they should be trained, predominantly through scenario type training as I described before. Leaving all those other issues up to the student to figure out is shortchanging their self-defense training.

IMHO, I think that yes...technical training is a must untill the student has a solid foundation. However once a workable level of technique is reached, those "other" issues become very important because they can make all the difference. No matter how technically proficient you are.

 

[Cruentus]

What you are calling technique and concept might be 'fighting skill development' in a Krav or other Combatives system. While what you are using the term tactics for is only the situational responses.

Exactly.

Now, in your post you seem to distinguish "inside the art tactics" from "outside the art tactics." Where you consider execution of the punch "inside the art tactics," I would still consider this as part of the technical training. How you make adjustments to make your punch work in the field would be a tactical consideration for me, and an "outside of the art tactic" for you.

You make a distinction between "inside" and "outside" of the art tactics. I don't; by my definition tactics are outside of the art, and the stuff inside of the art iare your concepts and techniques.

My definitions still seem to fit the military definition. Just like a marksman working on stationary and moving targets is working on the technical and conceptual: in other words "the art of combative shooting." Now, when you are practicing the art of tactics, these are considerations outside the art of shooting that cause you to apply what you know from the art of shooting to realistic scenarios.

I see how you make your distinction with inside and outside the art tactics. I just choose to consider tactics as only outside the art, and technical and conceptual as inside instead of making the distinction. Where you may find my outlook limiting, I find my outlook less confusing when distingishing "combatives" from "tactics".

PAUL

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

On the other hand I get the impression that you are saying that all those other tactical considerations can then be made "on the fly" and dont need any formal instruction.

Where we would disagree (if we do disagree) is on how much emphasis we would place on scenario training in a martial arts class. As I said before, I think some scenario training should be done, but it depends on the student when considering what amount and what kind of scenarios to train.

As for a Civilian, tactics are not brain surgury. Most of it is pretty simple stupid, and only needs to be thought about before-hand. Stuff like, "Don't get too close to a stranger when there are not a lot of people around" or "Don't walk down the poorly lit, desolate areas to your car if you can take an alternate route" are examples of civilian tactics that usually take some forethought, yet some of it can be done on the fly. Its just not that hard make smart tactical decisions as a civilian, even without training. Much of this can be covered with research and forethought. Now, there are some things that should be trained, but again, that is dependent on the student, and much of this can be covered by the student on their own. Example, the if the student wears winter gloves often, then they can practice deploying their tactical folder with gloves and a coat on to get the feel....they don't need me to conduct a class where everyone is doing knife work with winter gloves on, per say (even if I decide to conduct a knife session outside in the winter where everyone wears their gear, this is still something they can become familiar with on their own).

So, I believe that much of this can and should be done on their own. The reason is because tactical circumstances will vary per student. I have had a cop, a Army Ranger, an Airforce guy, a woman civilian, and a handful of other civilians all in the same class before. I could not possibly cover the tactical needs of everyone in that class through scenario type training. Yet, if I could show how the technical/conceptual translates to tactical circumstances, then they will apply what they know to their specific circumstance. The LEO might be concerned about gun retention with an armbar, while the civilian won't be, for instance. But, the LEO can still translate how to apply the technique while retaining his gun.

Now, I encourage my students to ask questions, and if appropriate I will coach them on the tactical side. I have had a cop student who has asked before how to apply certian moves to his tactical circumstance. He informed me of the specifics, and I ended up giving him private coaching on the tactical side because he was the only cop I had in my class, and it wouldn't have applied to everyone else.

So, no, I don't believe "all" tactics should be made on the fly. Yet, I don't believe that "all" tactics need to be trained either. It would be impossible to cover every single possible tactical scenario in any class. I do believe that most tactics(at least for a civilian) can be learned with a little forethought. Some instruction (mostly verbal) should be there to lead the student in the right direction, but I feel that getting overly involved in scenario training is unnessicary at best.

So yes, we might differ on oour opinions regarding how much emphasis should be put on scenario training in a martial art class.

PAUL

 

[loki09789]

If you were to teach shooting by itself it would be the 'art' and then you would cross train other 'arts' and then you would be combat effective. MA and other FMA's have stick techniques, empty hand, grappling, that are all encompassed under the heading of MA or what ever the system name. They are not separate arts, they are categorization of skills for training purposes only. Conceptual understanding is an academic/training goal. Tactical skill/tactics are about application and must be part of the art for it to be self defense/combat effective.

Shooting, within the military context of individual skills is not a separate art, it is a basic skill that is developed for tactical proficiency. For range rats/doggies (firearms enthusiasts- it is an affectionate term, not intended to be derogatory), the shooting is the art, for serviceman it is one part of the whole list of technical skills that he/she needs to be well rounded.

The biggest difference is that as a student of civilian trained/traditional view martial arts, at least from what I am getting from your posts, the goal of training is firstly technical mastery which leads to conceptual understanding, but concepts are realizations and 'aha!' discoverys about the art and are instructional goals accomplished by having students drill combinations of movements like sinawali, flow, sombrada....

The combat effectiveness, which was the original point of all this digression and discourse, is a secondary goal, or residual affect of artistic perfection.

There isn't an inside/outside distinction for me because tactics are tactics, my use of 'fight tactics' and other terms as 'stuff tactics' is to emphasis the repetition of tactics to illustrate the goal of martial arts is application, not training. Whether the application is combat, self discovery, personal fitness or some combination of these, the purpose and goals that the student/system/instructor's are trying to accomplish have to be clearly understood and prioritized or you could be fooling yourself about what you are prepared for.

Paul Martin

 

[Tgace]

Originally posted by PAUL
So, no, I don't believe "all" tactics should be made on the fly. Yet, I don't believe that "all" tactics need to be trained either. It would be impossible to cover every single possible tactical scenario in any class. I do believe that most tactics(at least for a civilian) can be learned with a little forethought. Some instruction (mostly verbal) should be there to lead the student in the right direction, but I feel that getting overly involved in scenario training is unnessicary at best.

So yes, we might differ on oour opinions regarding how much emphasis should be put on scenario training in a martial art class.

PAUL

Just to keep the discussion going (cause I find this interesting ) let me give a little example of the tactical/technical relationship in training from the LEO side of the house....In the late 60's to the late 70's police officers were being killed on duty at a staggering rate compared to todays stats. In my dept alone, 2 officers were killed at separate robbery calls within 2 months of each other in 76'. The 80's ushered in a more modern "tactical" approach to police training. While firearms and defensive tactics were revamped, it was the "other" issues that made the difference; how to approach a car stop, proper distance/blading to the subject, how to respond to alarms/robberies, etc. If you look at firearms skills as "techniques", yes better "technical" skill may give us an edge in a gunfight, but its wasted if we stand still in a doorway or stick our heads in car windows and the BG blasts us from the other side. Some modern gunfighting gurus place firearms survival components in this order; Tactics 40%, Accuracy (shot placement) 30%, Power (caliber/ballistics) 20%, Speed 10%. While these may sound like, "rules of thumb", they have to be experienced in application to experience the benefit they provide and to ingrain them as habit. My SWAT team training almost always follows the same matrix; weapon/range training, team employment (dynamic entry, officer rescue, stealth clearing, etc.), and a scenario to bring it all together.

The danger of depending on your technical prowess is that you may take risks that you shouldnt. In the 70's many cops believed the way to handle a robbery was to walk in and due to their "technical" mastery of gunfighting shoot it out and win....didnt work....even if i made myself into a Ferrari of a gunfighter (which I do strive for), I wouldnt just solve a hostage situation by kicking in the front door and beating the BG to the shot, although that may be a last resort option.

No, you cant train EVERY tactical possibility, what scenarios attempt to do is reinforce basic tactical principles that can be applied across most situations. And dont think for a minute that LEO/Military personel couldnt benefit from "civillian" tactics either. We also are "citizens" and frequent all the same locations/situations any "civi" would. Ive met quite a few that could use such reinforcement. What is key is a thought out, purposefull application of scenario training that attempts to evaluate and improve the students tactics, not just scenario training for its own sake.

 

[loki09789]

My son has 'challenge' units in gym class where they make the kids do things like 'cross the dangerous Alligator River' or 'get the treasure out without tripping the booby traps'. There are many things being accomplished with this type of scenario training. Cooperation, teamwork, listening, ... but one of the things that is part of the benefit is tactical thinking. They have be creative and work with a specific list of materials to accomplish a task/goal.

For civilian training and especially kids, they call it problem solving or team challenges, but it is the same thing with a different name.
Tactical proficiency is really being creative under pressure at its purist sense, whether it is a fight, first aid situation or house fire... How well can you assess your METT-T issues and then formulate a plan, and then execute the plan.

When someone is swinging a strike at you, your METT-T is dealing with a very small environment

M -
mine - survive the strike/enemy - take my head off

E -
mine - any weapon/mobilitytool I percieve right now/
enemy - the strike that is he/she has committed to.

Time -
mine - the time it takes for the strike to connect/enemy - same

Troops -
mine - at this level it means about the same as equiptment, but here it takes into consideration technical skill, trained responses/procedures, health, fitness, strength, speed...
enemy - Hand strike,kick, lead pipe... being employed. If there is enough time even how many, how big, how agressive, ....

Terrain - what do you have to move over/around/through when you take action, to avoid the strike.

For me, based on the tactical responses to this moment that I have practiced, I would think (but can't say absolutely) that I would use a triangular pattern of movement combined with a trapping hands pattern as a deflecting/countering maneuver all in one motion.

Now, apply the METT-T process to the restaurant with the knife wielder and the data you would plug in would be different, especially time - much more of that in comparison.

Application of METT-T as part of a tactical process takes practice to be more creative and effective in responding to what ever the situation. The specificity of the scenarios is less important than the application of what ever tactical process you want to use. Just like, within MA the flow drill is less important than the concept of flow because it can be recognized in other parts of the art once you have made the realization.

I also think that adds more effective techincal training because it is already within a context and doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Paul Martin