Between Judo and Wrestling for police..
- Thread starter BJJCop
- Start date
-
- Tags
- judo law enforcement
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Yeah. I looked for any good stuff as well and couldn't find.
If ppct was taught as a system for semi compliant people then 90 percent of its issues would go away. There are still some mechanical processes don't like. But it would at least be moving on the right track.
Here it is taught as the method to restrain people. So if I ever do pop someone then I have gone off reservation and are then liable for criminal charges.
Because instructors never need to validate their methods by any standard there is this propagation of bad instructors applying ineffective techniques.
Ok. Back to what I find actually works.
Numbers are king. No getting around that.
Otherwise more focus on controlling position and less focus on the submission. (Or pain compliance) you should assume nobody will just let you lock on a goose neck. You need an entrance strategy and an exit one. Which ppct in my experience has never covered. Other than somehow sneaking up behind a person and doing a slap and trap or something silly.
punisher73
Senior Master
We are more in agreement than it seems. I very much agree with your last paragraph, and can only say that we do train our people that way. But, our area was also the "stomping grounds" of one of the founders/original instructors and standards were very high. Very old school of "show me that you can get it to work".
I'm curious to know how they taught you the "gooseneck". The way it should be taught, is you having a semi-compliant (not that the system doesn't work it they become aggressive, just that if they are highly aggressive and non-compliant before this, you should be using other tactics) person that you are escorting and their resistance is trying to curl their arm inward. You hit them with a knee strike to the middle of the thigh as a distraction technique, which also buys you a little time to apply the lock. But, outside of the context of being in the escort position already it is not taught for the reasons you mentioned. You are highly unlikely to sneak up into that position and just apply it out of thin air.
punisher73
Senior Master
Sorry, just thought of one more thing in regards to your post about semi-compliant people. PPCT will tell you that they looked at use of force reports from agencies across the nation and looking at the FBI crime stats. They found that there were 4 main types/times of resistance.
1) Defensive resistance (just going limp, or not standing up to move etc)
2) Escort position (officer trying to walk somebody)
3) After the first handcuff is put on
4) Punching/Kicking (8-10% of the total uses of force)
It is based on these statistics that they designed their program for what officers are MOST likely to face. About 90% of the time they aren't dealing with an all out brawl or someone trying to hurt them. As such, the most tools and time in training is for that 90%. Again, what gets officers in trouble is applying that 90% stuff to the 10% when someone is trying to really hurt them.
1) Defensive resistance (just going limp, or not standing up to move etc)
2) Escort position (officer trying to walk somebody)
3) After the first handcuff is put on
4) Punching/Kicking (8-10% of the total uses of force)
It is based on these statistics that they designed their program for what officers are MOST likely to face. About 90% of the time they aren't dealing with an all out brawl or someone trying to hurt them. As such, the most tools and time in training is for that 90%. Again, what gets officers in trouble is applying that 90% stuff to the 10% when someone is trying to really hurt them.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Ok the gooseneck. Basically you walk up to a guy just standing there. He lets you apply the lock and then you rack the lock on hard to show that the technique worls.
You can do the slap and trap where you somehow get behind the guy. Do the same compliant move. But this time it is done with a series of judo chops and palm strikes.
If you are working in teams you might even get taught to signal them before you do it. As if going for a wristlock isn an indication you are going for a wrist lock.
MAfreak
Purple Belt
? okay, forget about the swing, but you can even punch normally while holding the tonfa, to hit the opponent with the short end. and when opponent uses a bat or something, you just hold in your arm (with the tonfa, of course). i think, its one of the best weapons because it adjusts perfect to the body so one can move like when fighting without weapons. but i know, law enforcement normally isn't about beating the crap out of others, so this would be just for serious self defense situations.
what i don't like is using sticks or staffs for grappling such as joint locking. i personally think, it interferes and is much easier to make with bare hands (maybe a matter of habituation).
do you use stick-grappling as police officers?
Juany118
Senior Master
First I would like to say I agree with just about everything @punisher73 has said, as such some of the stuff below may seem repetitive. My context, over 18 years on the job in a small city of 25000 people and a per capita crime rate on par with Cities like Philadelphia, Chicago etc. I also used to be on a Street Crimes/Narcotics Enforcement Unit that served high risk search warrants and the like.
1. In a Law Enforcement class I don't think you can focus on a single martial art. Most traditional Martial Arts, especially grappling arts, don't take into account all of the tools on the duty belt, whether it be in terms of retention or accessibility during an encounter. Note I said traditional. There are Combative Systems (PPCT, LOCKUP etc that do account for it to my knowledge)
2. Personally I don't think simply teaching techniques is enough. I believe a Law Enforcement combative system needs to also address the fundamental principles of an encounter. LE combatives, just like all training based on the UoF continuum, is about stopping resistance and aggression before we have to escalate to a higher level of force. The first step in achieving this goal is to not teach physical techniques but to instruct the LEO in pre-attack indicators. An officer well trained in this regard will be able to use the techniques taught later to end a fight before it starts. This section should also cover proper articulation for the purposes of reports, court proceedings etc.
3. After that you need to have a system that A. Explains to the Officer the physiological reactions of a real violent encounter and B. that the actual techniques involved should be based on these as well. The problem with most such training is that after the training is over Officers don't end to practice a lot on their own. As such the techniques should rely primarily on gross motor function as those skills aren't as perishable as fine motor function.
I personally study Wing Chun and Filipino Martial Arts, specifically Inosanto Kali. Many of the techniques in both these arts though are fine motor skills. I practice almost every day though so it works.
4. After the techniques you need to teach realistic scenarios. This may require taking the mats somewhere where you can not only control lighting but also maybe get a patrol car in there. Why? Well there may well be times where the conflict happens when your only real source of illumination is the light bar, maybe take down lights etc. You might want to blare loud music or have the sirens going as well. You may even want to forgo the mats entirely. I have seen officers quite skilled in wrestling give themselves concussions because they did take downs that work fine on mats, because the impact to their own head is cushioned, due to muscle memory, forgetting that tarmac is far less forgiving. Also there is NOTHING that sucks more than doing a take down and having your radio or gun jammed into your hip.
5. Also keep in mind what punisher said. Joint locks and the like should not be the first techniques attempted against actively aggressive/resisting subject. Often the bosses, if they did not go through combatives training on the "way up", will default to something like Judo or wrestling because they are simply concerned with the minimal use of force, but striking may well be required, even if a suspect is already on the ground, in order to properly and safely apply restraint maneuvers.
6. You may also want to integrate baton training into the curriculum.
With all the above in mind it may actually behoove you going to the bosses and saying "hey, Judo and Wrestling clearly work but there are "holes" in their application for LE use. Here is an upcoming train the trainer school on LE Combatives coming up and I would like to go to it.
@MAfreak I at least have used the expandable baton for escorts and I think that is appropriate for most officers. Personally I have also used it for quick disarms when people have had sticks and occasionally locks. The thing is, all of the above are, to an extent, fine motor skills. I train in Kali as I said and practice regularly so it works for me. I would only suggest the escort use, and perhaps as a lever, when you get one of those knuckleheads who lies on their stomach and interlocks their hands for your typical officer though. They will, more than likely, not be training the way I do and so not do things appropriately and even risk losing their baton to the suspect.
1. In a Law Enforcement class I don't think you can focus on a single martial art. Most traditional Martial Arts, especially grappling arts, don't take into account all of the tools on the duty belt, whether it be in terms of retention or accessibility during an encounter. Note I said traditional. There are Combative Systems (PPCT, LOCKUP etc that do account for it to my knowledge)
2. Personally I don't think simply teaching techniques is enough. I believe a Law Enforcement combative system needs to also address the fundamental principles of an encounter. LE combatives, just like all training based on the UoF continuum, is about stopping resistance and aggression before we have to escalate to a higher level of force. The first step in achieving this goal is to not teach physical techniques but to instruct the LEO in pre-attack indicators. An officer well trained in this regard will be able to use the techniques taught later to end a fight before it starts. This section should also cover proper articulation for the purposes of reports, court proceedings etc.
3. After that you need to have a system that A. Explains to the Officer the physiological reactions of a real violent encounter and B. that the actual techniques involved should be based on these as well. The problem with most such training is that after the training is over Officers don't end to practice a lot on their own. As such the techniques should rely primarily on gross motor function as those skills aren't as perishable as fine motor function.
I personally study Wing Chun and Filipino Martial Arts, specifically Inosanto Kali. Many of the techniques in both these arts though are fine motor skills. I practice almost every day though so it works.
4. After the techniques you need to teach realistic scenarios. This may require taking the mats somewhere where you can not only control lighting but also maybe get a patrol car in there. Why? Well there may well be times where the conflict happens when your only real source of illumination is the light bar, maybe take down lights etc. You might want to blare loud music or have the sirens going as well. You may even want to forgo the mats entirely. I have seen officers quite skilled in wrestling give themselves concussions because they did take downs that work fine on mats, because the impact to their own head is cushioned, due to muscle memory, forgetting that tarmac is far less forgiving. Also there is NOTHING that sucks more than doing a take down and having your radio or gun jammed into your hip.
5. Also keep in mind what punisher said. Joint locks and the like should not be the first techniques attempted against actively aggressive/resisting subject. Often the bosses, if they did not go through combatives training on the "way up", will default to something like Judo or wrestling because they are simply concerned with the minimal use of force, but striking may well be required, even if a suspect is already on the ground, in order to properly and safely apply restraint maneuvers.
6. You may also want to integrate baton training into the curriculum.
With all the above in mind it may actually behoove you going to the bosses and saying "hey, Judo and Wrestling clearly work but there are "holes" in their application for LE use. Here is an upcoming train the trainer school on LE Combatives coming up and I would like to go to it.
@MAfreak I at least have used the expandable baton for escorts and I think that is appropriate for most officers. Personally I have also used it for quick disarms when people have had sticks and occasionally locks. The thing is, all of the above are, to an extent, fine motor skills. I train in Kali as I said and practice regularly so it works for me. I would only suggest the escort use, and perhaps as a lever, when you get one of those knuckleheads who lies on their stomach and interlocks their hands for your typical officer though. They will, more than likely, not be training the way I do and so not do things appropriately and even risk losing their baton to the suspect.
Juany118
Senior Master
Oh agreed on that. The problems I have seen often comes down to the following.
1. Way to many departments do what it appeared the OPs did. Don't worry about sending someone to a school to learn a comprehensive method, which includes consistent training methods as well, find somebody with martial arts knowledge and ask them to slam something together. This leads to consistency, and imo liability issues.
2. Trainers get sent to "train the trainer" courses but they themselves don't actually practice afterwards so they end up clinging to the handful of the easiest to maintain techniques.
I think the reason for this was that people kept saying "give the police more tools" and this focus on tools made combatives take a back seat. However with the focus of LE use of force I believe I see a push for taking combatives more seriously. That said if a proper program is going to be taught this is what I think the trainer needs to have learned and being capable of teaching not simply skills but to do so in a manner that has been designed specifically with liability in mind. Whether it's PPCT, LOCKUP etc, if you teach a course that includes liability training from a certified training organization for these systems, usually, you can have someone appear as an "expert" witness in court to testify to the training. NTOAA does the same thing regarding SWAT Operations, so long as the Team involved adheres to specific training standards.
Juany118
Senior Master
Let me clarify one thing though. Consistency in techniques aren't imo strictly necessary between each and every department. What matters is that the techniques A) work and B) are consistent with the Use of Force Continuum, State Law and Department policy.
What should be consistent is that the training also includes topics involving the impact of stress of the body during a fight, pre-aggression indicators and protecting yourself and your agency from liability. It terms of liability the training should address; how to properly articulate the way you recognized the onset of aggression/resistance, the level of said resistance and the justification for your response in accordance with the use of force continuing, law and policy.
I agree, I don't think there should, or could be, an across the board DT program.
Some of the problems with DT - it's considered a necessary liability to start with. And very little training time is allocated to DT programs, especially in service programs. And, as you mentioned above, there's so many departments that just send a guy (with no background even remotely related to controlling people or things) off to a week long course (if that) have him certified and let him teach.
Massachusetts, where I am from, had been notorious for this. Getting better now, though.
Some of the problems with DT - it's considered a necessary liability to start with. And very little training time is allocated to DT programs, especially in service programs. And, as you mentioned above, there's so many departments that just send a guy (with no background even remotely related to controlling people or things) off to a week long course (if that) have him certified and let him teach.
Massachusetts, where I am from, had been notorious for this. Getting better now, though.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
We sort of have that but there is only a few industry instructor mills. So the training is pretty consistent. It is just consistently bad.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
It is important when you are trying to achieve 1 thing. That the other guy helping you isn't working against you.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
An important question is what do you want your potential students to be able to do? What holes in their training are you being asked to fill?
Charlemagne
Black Belt
The two best police DT programs that I am aware of are from Gracie Academy and from Texas Kali Association (contact Erwin Ballarta who is a DT instructor in Texas, and has been for years).
Gracie Survival Tactics
http://tacticalkali.com/bios.htm
As a disclaimer, though I train these arts, I have no affiliation with either of these organizations or instructors.
Gracie Survival Tactics
http://tacticalkali.com/bios.htm
As a disclaimer, though I train these arts, I have no affiliation with either of these organizations or instructors.
Juany118
Senior Master
Tbh, it terms of unarmed combatives, if a Police Department is asking for such a program they have to ask for pretty much every hole to be filled because the training has to be uniformed from the rookie grab out of the academy to the over weight 35 year veteran who sits behind a desk. Welcome to the world of liability in law enforcement
Juany118
Senior Master
There is also PPCT, LOCKUP etc. All of them are reputable but, and I assumed the OP knew this, if you are going to go with these kinda things, call your State Police, State Municipal Training Authority etc. because some States actually will say "Combatives system X and only X meets the State Standard" and if you go into court with something else, you can have issues.
Langenschwert
Master Black Belt
If that's the case, then something like this might be a better idea. I'm a big fan of Kelly McCann's stuff:
Home - Kembativz
Juany118
Senior Master
The thing is, from researching that, it appear they dont do what most LE agencies want. They do not only want the training for their officers they often want the following as well.
1. A course where they can have selected personnel trained as instructors. In this way you are not locked in to waiting for someone else to have a course or have to potentially pay a fee up front to have the company in question show up. They also often like this because different States and LE Agencies may have different Laws or policies regarding UoF. Having your own instructor allows you to tailor the training to these requirements.
2. They also often look for legal expert testimony, from the Company for the purposes of Law Suits. This is rarely supplied by companies that simply train their personnel in combatives BUT it is not uncommon in terms of those who have provided "train the trainer" seminars, so long as the in house instructor has proper documentation for the training itself and the reports etc reflect that the combative system itself was used properly.
It's all about liability.
Last edited:
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
Mostly for me it is making them realise what does what. So if I am hanging off an arm the can grab the other arm and hang off that. It dosent matter which lock at that point.
Or. I have a guy wrapped up. He needs to know how to take a guy down from there.
Or if I am on the ground then the other guy needs to protect me from interference.
They need to know that if I go in they go in and not stand around like an idiot waiting to see what happens.
Rugby does this the best tactically where both guys are doing the one job. Because they both have an idea what the other is trying to do. And because they have planned for it and drilled it.
Ever seen a tazer fail video. It is almost always an example of crap wrestling.
The Gracie module has the better tactical approach. Earlier in the thread we could not find any decent PPCT. At least there is an example of decent Gracie stuff.
Last edited:
