Doc
Senior Master
From: Williams, John D. [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training?
Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training?
Background
Martial artists have through various methods engineered a reputation as self-defense or unarmed combat experts. They use this reputation to attract students who seek to gain the ability to defend themselves in violent confrontations. In reality many martial artists are not self-defense or unarmed combat experts and many common martial arts combative methodologies are questionable at best and often very dangerous.
When students seek training from martial artists they are usually what we call consciously incompetent, that is they cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation and they realize this fact. Often after training with martial arts instructors students develop what we call unconscious incompetence, that is they still cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation, but think that they can.
The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result. A person in Australia by the name of Max, trained for several years in a very popular martial art and was awarded a black belt. He was also in the Australian military and had recently completed a one month intensive full-time unarmed combat course. That course was taught by the instructors who at that time trained the Australian S.A.S. One night Max discovered a person with a knife, vandalizing someone else's car. Without his training Max would have avoided the person and remained unharmed. Instead, Max thought, "Beauty, this is my chance to lay this guy out and be a hero".
The vandal came at Max with the knife pointing downwards. A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous, because they do not know what they are doing (See quote by Bill Wallace, Section 3 (r)) and Max had successfully defended against knife attacks thousands of times in training. Max found out the hard way how ineffective and misleading his training had been. He is lucky to have lived through the education process.
How Martial Artists Have Engineered a Reputation as Self-Defense or Unarmed Combat Experts
Martial artists often appear in television programs and movies. In choreographed fight scenes, martial arts skills appear to be very effective.
Martial artists perform spectacular attacking and defensive techniques against cooperative opponents.
The culture surrounding martial arts training is engineered to create "guru" status for the instructors. Such cultural aspects include the wearing of special belts and uniforms, requiring students to bow to instructors, having students address instructors using titles such as "Master" and "Sensei", having the instructors at the front of the dojo (training site) while the lower ranked participants are at the rear, having the instructors perform seemingly incredible feats against cooperative partners, forms of showmanship such as breaking boards and having the instructors pass judgment in the form of passing or failing grades.
Martial artists seek positions as instructors or engineer other forms of association with law enforcement or military agencies. Alternatively martial artists have their arts methodology adopted as a training standard within such agencies. These marketing strategies help them to sell training and commercial merchandise to the martial artists' primary source of revenue - the general public.
Martial artists engineer status in sporting competitions which students interpret to be relevant to situations outside the sporting and training environments.
Martial artists claim that their methodology has been handed down over many generations or has some other traditional or cultural significance.
Martial artists use business names, advertising or other promotional material that implies expertise.
Martial artists fail to provide specific information or disclaimers that convey that their martial art is designed for sport, fitness, cultural study, entertainment, discipline or whatever, rather than being suitable preparation for violent encounters outside the training environment.
Martial artists certify the ability of students or cause students to believe that because of training they (the students) are proficient. These endorsements include the awarding of belts, certificates and the like, passing an examination, or implying proficiency by allowing students to participate in dangerous activities or occupations.
The Tactical Inadequacies of Martial Arts Training
Basing the preparation for real life violence on sporting methodology: It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence. In all sporting events there are rules and fixed boundaries of acceptable conduct. Combatants usually know they will be fighting only one opponent and there will be no other obstacles or threats.
In sports such as Judo and kickboxing, combatants know that they will only be fighting one opponent. As a result people training for such events learn to focus their vision only on that opponent. The result is a form of learned habitual tunnel vision. This is completely counter to one's needs in real violence, where one needs enhanced peripheral vision to detect other attackers, obstacles and escape routes.
Participation in sparring and fighting competitions usually develops timing and reflexes that are detrimental in real violence. As an example, most sparring is either light contact or non-contact. For maximum effect, strikes should be performed so the weapon (e.g., fist or foot) aims to pass through its target. In sparring, the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes. In real violence one performs as one practices.
Even in so called full contact training and competition, one is usually competing against one's friends or people one respects, so opponents rarely give maximum intent to seriously crippling one another.
A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practice similarly, consistently executing attacks and defenses from a favored stance.
This method of preparation is very dangerous for real violence, where conditions such as the angle of attack are not controlled. As an example, consider the situation that would occur if the right-handed boxer above was attacked from his right. Most likely one of the following scenarios would result:
ß the boxer would be forced to throw an unpracticed (hence ineffective) right jab or left cross,
ß the boxer would attempt to turn right into his favored stance, causing a delay in his defensive reaction, or
ß being subject to an angle of attack not practiced against, the boxer's brain may momentarily "freeze".
In each scenario, the boxer would be at a severe disadvantage, from which he may never recover.
Ignoring the response sequence
There are three steps that must occur when responding to an attack:
ß First, the opponent's attack must be sensed (e.g., it must be seen, felt, heard, etc),
ß Second, the specifics of the attack must be cognitively processed (i.e., the attack must be recognized and its parameters determined), and
ß Third, the defender must respond.
When responding to most attacks the defender is always two steps behind. Anyone who is not a gifted athlete or highly trained professional will not be able to employ a defensive skill quickly enough to counter an opponent's attack once it is underway.
Many self-defense techniques taught by martial artists ignore this fact. A typical martial arts self-defense technique will involve the blocking of an attack followed by the employment of an often spectacular counterattack. It is assumed that the block will be successful. Blocks usually are successful in a training environment because 1) the defender knows what sort of attack is coming and when it will occur; 2) the attacker is usually cooperative; and 3) the attack is rarely performed in a decisive manner.
The same technique applied in real violence usually fails. As an example, knife and club attacks are usually defended successfully in martial arts training sessions, but it has been proven with the use of felt tip markers and soft clubs that even highly trained athletes, such as SWAT Team or Special Forces members, can rarely prevent being stabbed, cut or struck by a committed attacker.
The use of highly skilled techniques
When one of the FBI's top unarmed combat instructors was faced with a thief holding a pistol, the FBI agent used a very basic clubbing action to strike the hand holding the gun. This example demonstrates that in a life or death situation even a highly trained professional reverts to simple technique. The reason for this is because simple techniques are the most reliable. Higher skilled techniques are more difficult to perform and have a smaller margin for error. This is especially important when fear or other factors restrict or inhibit physical and mental performance.
Despite this fact, too many martial arts instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled and more complicated techniques. Possible reasons for this are: 1) showmanship, 2) to engineer guru status, 3) to justify further training and grading fees and 4) an arrogant refusal to acknowledge the realities of fear.
If a top professional uses basic technique in real violent situations, it is extremely dangerous to teach lesser practitioners high skilled techniques.
The emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques
Grappling techniques have become popular because of the success of competitors using grappling techniques in so called "no holds barred" sporting competitions. While grappling techniques are unquestionably useful in one-on-one competition, and there is some merit in the Jujitsu teaching that -most real fights- end up with combatants on the ground, the use of grappling techniques when one is outnumbered is suicidal.
In training for real violence, the possibility of being outnumbered cannot be ignored. Very simply, when applying a grappling hold, one's body becomes immobile and defenseless. A third person can easily cave in the grappler's head with a pool cue, garbage can lid, a rock, or other weapon.
Failure to develop the attributes necessary to survive a violent confrontation
Even if techniques are performed thousands of times with robot-like confidence and technical accuracy in the training environment, it is not sufficient preparation for dealing with the dynamics of real violence. To employ techniques outside of training requires attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win.
If training does not go beyond the teaching of technique to have a deliberate goal of improving those attributes and qualities, the training will be more detrimental than productive.
Patterning subconscious minds with incorrect response sequences
In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example, an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.
Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers rarely attack in the same specific manner.
Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. This patterning is very dangerous in real violence.
Irresponsible and misleading allocation of training time
If martial arts training is to be effective training for real violence, the allocation of training time should reflect field needs. Most real violence involves the use of punches, elbows, knees, low kicks and grappling. Real violence is usually initiated with opponents standing almost chest to chest, or alternatively with an opponent rushing his victim from the front, side, or rear.
Real violence very rarely involves combatants standing apart in so called "fighting stances". Spending considerable time defending against elaborate kicks, or against attackers standing apart in "fighting stances" is irresponsible as it takes time away from relevant training. These practices also give students a dangerously misleading idea of what real violence involves.
Similar irresponsible and dangerous time allocation occurs when practicing offensive skills. At a martial arts training session attended by a Director of Global Security Training, a large portion of time was devoted to practicing running jump front kicks against a target nine feet off the ground. The need to head-kick a nine foot tall attacker is very rare.
Failure to prepare for the detrimental effects of fear
Fear restricts body movement and inhibits mental and physical coordination. Even the act of placing a key in a keyhole can be difficult if one is scared. This needs to be considered when selecting techniques that are taught. In addition, students need to be provided with methods of fear control and an honest appreciation of the realities of violence. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in students not being able to perform well in real violence.
Failure to select field-proven techniques
The best reason to select a technique is because it has been proven to be useful in real violence. We strongly believe that very few martial arts techniques, when scrutinized, would be supported by significant field testing.
The practice of instructing when one has little or no practical understanding of the situations students are likely to face.
Too many martial artists have little understanding of their art's field application. While it would be wrong to encourage martial artists to be involved in real fights, one must seriously question the merit of having students prepared for possible life or death situations learning from instructors with no practical understanding of their (the student's) requirements.
Failure to ensure that training is ongoing
Neuromuscular skills such as self-defense ability rapidly diminish without regular practice. This reduction is difficult to quantify, however it could be reasonably argued that self-defense ability would be significantly reduced after three months of not training and markedly reduced after six months. As such, it would be dangerous to imply competency when training is not ongoing. As a result the following are questionable and possibly dangerous practices: 1)the awarding of certificates or belts, or passing examinations, without the requirement of regular, frequent and continuous practice and 2) allowing people to work in occupations exposing them to potential violence without regular, frequent and ongoing training.
Confusing loyalty and friendship with field effectiveness
The nature of martial arts and combative training attracts personalities with a natural respect for characteristics such as honor, valor and loyalty. Instructors who demonstrate such admirable characteristics often attract large followings of faithful disciples and loyal friends. When the field effectiveness of methods taught by an instructor such as this is questioned, the disciples and loyal friends will readily ignore objectivity, instead responding emotionally and subjectively.
Attempting to achieve "correct" body mechanics by making repeated fine adjustments
If a student properly understands the principles and objectives of a technique, and uses this understanding to guide repeated training, over time he or she will develop good body mechanics. Rather than focus on this understanding and its application, too many instructors attempt to mold "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments, as a golf professional would do to correct a golf swing. Examples of such adjustments include telling a student to rotate a wrist more, raise a knee more, and to point toes more.
From an unknowledgeable instructor's perspective this practice helps engineer guru status for him or herself and fosters dependency in students. From a student's perspective this practice is extremely detrimental.
Students' bodies vary. To fully understand how these variations effect the execution of techniques would require the instructor to have:
a depth of field experience in the use of the techniques in actual violent situations and
a depth of knowledge in the science known as Biomechanics. Too many instructors instead base the principles of correction on advice handed down through a chain of other instructors or martial arts gurus. Ironically, most probably none of these instructors or martial arts gurus would have both field experience and qualifications in Biomechanics either.
The so-called "correct" body mechanics as determined by such instructors would most likely be inferior to the body mechanics that would have developed using the methods described at the opening of this section.
The practice of molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments tends to result in a student performing techniques in a robot-like manner. This may be acceptable for a golfer, but such practice tends to reduce the qualities of fluidity, spontaneity and adaptability. The possession of these qualities is vitally important for one to survive real violence.
Students who have become reliant upon having an instructor providing critique of fine body mechanics will find it difficult to train independently. This may not concern members of the general public who attend training dojos on a regular basis, but is a concern for members of government law enforcement and security agencies. These members, who need to train regularly to maintain competency in handling real violence, paradoxically often have less exposure to instructors than many members of the general public do.
Sadly, but too frequently, law enforcement or security officers are trained by instructors who focus on molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments. The result is officers who 1) do not understand the principles and objectives of the techniques they have learned, 2) perform in a robot-like manner and lose qualities that would help survive real violence and 3) only train when they are given instruction, which in many cases is only a few times per year (or worse - only during basic training).
Reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation
The understanding of where the most vulnerable areas of an opponent's body are is very useful. Such an understanding should include the knowledge that:
ß areas such as the groin and the solar plexus are excellent targets for strikes,
ß knees may be damaged by forceful strikes to their side, and joints such as elbows and fingers may be damaged when bent backwards, and
ß certain areas such as the side of the neck, areas of the ribs and the front of the shoulders are extremely painful when pressed upon.
ß The understanding of vulnerable areas can be taken to the extreme of learning as many so called pressure points as an acupuncturist does. Some martial artists base their fighting methodology on the so called ability to manipulate these points. There are three main concerns with this practice.
ß Firstly, in situations of real violence it is extremely unlikely that a technique will be able to be employed with sufficient accuracy to achieve the desired result.
ß Secondly, in order to practice such techniques both the attacker and the defender usually train in a profoundly unrealistic robot-like manner.
ß Thirdly, such practice tends to encourage a proliferation of very questionable techniques. Examples found in this author's collection of martial arts training videos include an instructor demonstrating a light tap above the temple, with which he was alleged to have been knocked out by his eight year old son, and another instructor who advises to rub a certain "rub pressure point" on a grasping attacker's wrist.
The learning of multiple responses to a visual or physical cue
There is a valid argument for the value of learning alternative responses to a given situation in order to increase one's versatility. However, the value of increasing one's versatility must be weighed against the sometimes dramatic increase in one's reaction time that occurs in real situations of real violence, when an individual has learned more than one response to the visual or physical cue that presents.
If only one response to a cue is learned and practiced effectively it should become a reflex action. If presented with the appropriate cue, the response will occur quickly and automatically, without the need for conscious mental processing. If more than one response for a cue is learned, and that cue presents itself, a student would have to choose between responses, requiring mental processing rather than a much faster reflex response. In situations of lesser danger, especially where one has significantly greater ability than one's opponent, this may not be a critical factor. It must be stressed that in situations of real violence fear restricts mental processes, increasing this reaction time further. The more dangerous the situation the more one needs fast reactions, but ironically more fear is usually involved, and this slowing down of reactions is dangerously heightened.
An extreme example of learning too many responses to a cue is found in one of this author's martial arts training tapes where an instructor in the style developed by Bruce Lee demonstrates an almost unbelievable multitude of variations for responding to a basic right cross punch.
The learning of too many techniques
For similar reasons that instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled techniques, too many instructors tend to teach too many techniques. One requires a certain amount of practice to learn and to retain each technique. Simply, when a large number of techniques are learned, time does not permit competency to be retained. Too many techniques are probably being learned in the following situations:
ß more than one response is learned for a given cue,
ß one learns a skill, then once that skill is evaluated or graded new skills are learned, and the original skill is neglected,
ß one learns different strikes that are essentially used in the same situation (a possible example is an "uppercut" fist strike and an upward elbow strike, which are both used as an upwards blow against similar targets on an opponent at close range),
ß one learns many specific responses rather than adaptable techniques that can be used in many situations (for example, learning possibly hundreds of different responses to handle the many different possible grip positions that can occur when grabbed by the arm)
The practice of having students perform large set numbers of technique repetitions
To practice a technique effectively, one should focus on that technique's objectives. The practice of instructing a student to perform a large set number of techniques removes this focus and tends to produce very ineffective robot-like training. As an example, consider the situation that would arise if a student was asked to perform a technique one hundred times. Initially the student may focus on the objectives of the technique, but as the series progressed focus would transfer to such things as the count, whether the instructor was watching or even what the student was going to do after training.
The communication of questionable statements
In Australia, a person can be held liable for damages caused as a result of another party following his or her advice. The main criteria is whether the person giving the information should realize that the recipient will rely upon it in circumstances in which it is reasonable to do so. Presumably similar law exists in other countries.
The following two quotes are some of many statements deserving of scrutiny that this author has found in his collection of martial arts training videos. They are both made by highly respected and influential martial artists. They are presented without judgment by this author. The reader is encouraged to draw his or her own conclusions regarding their merit and the consequences of people following the advice.
"The flow of energy is what makes it so easy to handle four or five [attackers] at one time. It gets to be very exciting" Aikido Master Ken Ota (Video: Mastering Aikido Level 6, Panther Productions).
"If my opponent holds a knife in this position [blade pointing downwards] I have my confidence because he's telling me that he doesn't really know how to use a knife. If he holds it like this (like a sword) he has an understanding of the knife and wants to use it to scare you" (Bill "Superfoot" Wallace., Undefeated world karate champion, Member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame (Video: Bill Wallace Self-Defence System, Panther Productions)
Suggestions for Organizations Using This Brief to Scrutinize Their Own Training
An effective way to use the enclosed brief is to have experienced officers and legal counsel assess the validity and strength of each argument raised. Using those arguments found to be valid and significant, current training should be closely examined.
It should be kept in mind that officers who are injured as a result of violence may also closely examine the training, with the help of lawyers. Any inadequacy found may form a basis for legal liability. Such officers and lawyers will be able to see behind any facades developed by martial arts oriented instructors attempting to protect their interests.
To assist in the process of examination, and provide a legal safeguard, this author and his company are able to provide advice, assistance and audits of training.
The Removal of Tactically Inadequate Martial Arts Methodologies
Unless approached in a systematic and decisive manner the removal of martial arts tactical inadequacies is very difficult because of three main factors.
Firstly, most instructors and external martial arts gurus have used methods previously described to engineer respect and close personal ties within their organization.
Secondly, most of the tactical inadequacies discussed benefit instructors and martial arts gurus in one or more of the following ways:
o help engineer guru status,
o help foster dependency in students, and
o help justify further fees for instruction, grades and merchandise (many government instructors train members of the general public also). Instructors are most unlikely to readily concede these benefits.
Thirdly, many officers have been indoctrinated by martial arts movies, martial arts gurus and sporting practitioners to believe that these methodologies are effective.
Law enforcement and security officers are human, so even in the most professional government law enforcement and security organizations, members are not immune to these factors. As an example, according to an article in The Tactical Edge, the journal of the National Tactical Officers Association, because many officers want to be taught exotic techniques to impress family and friends in non-life threatening situations, tactical teams are taught by a myriad of instructors with absolutely no understanding of the agent's needs, equipment or mission requirements.
Beginning with units such as the Special Task Force, SWAT Teams and Nelson Mandela's personal protection unit, this author and his company are removing tactically inadequate martial arts training methodology and are replacing it with a highly effective form of training called Kontact. From experience, pockets of resistance to changes are usually encountered, the most common being from complacent bureaucrats who have little understanding of the needs of field officers, instructors trying to protect their interests and senior officers who have been indoctrinated to believe that their guru and their course are "the best".
This author has much empathy with another group of officers who resist change. These are the experienced field officers and former field officers who have understood that all the previous defensive tactics and close quarter combat training they have been exposed to has been ineffective. They perceive such training as window dressing at best and an irresponsible waste of departmental resources at worst. They have seen many martial arts gurus and so called self-defense experts who claim that their system is "the best", that they understandably believe any one who claims to be an expert in that field, or to have a new system that is "the best", is beneath contempt.
The main requirement to overcome resistance is a commitment and directive from senior command.
Appendix One: About the Author
Robert Redenbach is a Senior Instructor for the South African Police Service and C.E.O. of Global Security Training P/L, a consultancy firm that provides specialist training to many of the world's leading agencies. Formerly with the Australian military, Mr. Redenbach spent three years in Korea, Japan and China studying martial arts methods. Seeking to address the inadequacies of such training, Mr. Redenbach used a period as the manager of the largest security company in Papua New Guinea to develop an innovative training system called Kontact. He is author of the book KONTACT: Training to Improve, Not to Impress.
A post graduate Masters by Research candidate, Dr Graeme Blennerhassett assists in the scientific evaluation and selection of instructional, training and combative methodologies.
Appendix Two: Where to Address Inquiries
The Director of Operations
P.O. Box 674 Bairnsdale 3875
Australia
(Email) [email protected]
Appendix Three: Checklist to assist in determining whether martial artists have corrupted law enforcement or security training.
Do the instructors make statements that seem unrealistic or exaggerated?
Are any of the training or combative methodologies based on sporting practices, or are claimed to have cultural or traditional significance?
Do the instructors demonstrate self-defence techniques where the attacker's strikes are easily blocked?
Do the techniques taught appear highly skilled, complicated, or even ridiculous?
Is there a heavy emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques?
Does the training ignore the specific need to improve attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and will to win?
Are students required to memorise complicated series of techniques?
Is a large proportion of training time dedicated to activities of minimal relevance?
Does the training ignore the need to provide an appreciation of the realities of real violence and a field-proven method of fear reduction?
Is training or combative methodology used that has not been field-proven as efficient and effective for its intended purpose?
Do the instructors have little or no practical appreciation of the situations students may face?
Does any aspect of the training appear to be irrelevant to the objective of preparing officers for real violence?
Are officers allowed to work in the field without the requirement of continuous, frequent,
ongoing training?
Do instructors attempt to produce good body mechanics by making continuous adjustments to body movements (as a golf professional would do to produce a good golf swing)?
Is training for techniques, defenses or attacks carried out using both sides of the body equally?
Is there a reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation?
Are multiple responses learned to a visual or physical cue?
Are too many techniques learned?
Are students required to perform large set numbers of technique repetitions?
John D. Williams
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
LEADERSHIP & TRAINING DIVISION
[email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training?
Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training?
Background
Martial artists have through various methods engineered a reputation as self-defense or unarmed combat experts. They use this reputation to attract students who seek to gain the ability to defend themselves in violent confrontations. In reality many martial artists are not self-defense or unarmed combat experts and many common martial arts combative methodologies are questionable at best and often very dangerous.
When students seek training from martial artists they are usually what we call consciously incompetent, that is they cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation and they realize this fact. Often after training with martial arts instructors students develop what we call unconscious incompetence, that is they still cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation, but think that they can.
The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result. A person in Australia by the name of Max, trained for several years in a very popular martial art and was awarded a black belt. He was also in the Australian military and had recently completed a one month intensive full-time unarmed combat course. That course was taught by the instructors who at that time trained the Australian S.A.S. One night Max discovered a person with a knife, vandalizing someone else's car. Without his training Max would have avoided the person and remained unharmed. Instead, Max thought, "Beauty, this is my chance to lay this guy out and be a hero".
The vandal came at Max with the knife pointing downwards. A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous, because they do not know what they are doing (See quote by Bill Wallace, Section 3 (r)) and Max had successfully defended against knife attacks thousands of times in training. Max found out the hard way how ineffective and misleading his training had been. He is lucky to have lived through the education process.
How Martial Artists Have Engineered a Reputation as Self-Defense or Unarmed Combat Experts
Martial artists often appear in television programs and movies. In choreographed fight scenes, martial arts skills appear to be very effective.
Martial artists perform spectacular attacking and defensive techniques against cooperative opponents.
The culture surrounding martial arts training is engineered to create "guru" status for the instructors. Such cultural aspects include the wearing of special belts and uniforms, requiring students to bow to instructors, having students address instructors using titles such as "Master" and "Sensei", having the instructors at the front of the dojo (training site) while the lower ranked participants are at the rear, having the instructors perform seemingly incredible feats against cooperative partners, forms of showmanship such as breaking boards and having the instructors pass judgment in the form of passing or failing grades.
Martial artists seek positions as instructors or engineer other forms of association with law enforcement or military agencies. Alternatively martial artists have their arts methodology adopted as a training standard within such agencies. These marketing strategies help them to sell training and commercial merchandise to the martial artists' primary source of revenue - the general public.
Martial artists engineer status in sporting competitions which students interpret to be relevant to situations outside the sporting and training environments.
Martial artists claim that their methodology has been handed down over many generations or has some other traditional or cultural significance.
Martial artists use business names, advertising or other promotional material that implies expertise.
Martial artists fail to provide specific information or disclaimers that convey that their martial art is designed for sport, fitness, cultural study, entertainment, discipline or whatever, rather than being suitable preparation for violent encounters outside the training environment.
Martial artists certify the ability of students or cause students to believe that because of training they (the students) are proficient. These endorsements include the awarding of belts, certificates and the like, passing an examination, or implying proficiency by allowing students to participate in dangerous activities or occupations.
The Tactical Inadequacies of Martial Arts Training
Basing the preparation for real life violence on sporting methodology: It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence. In all sporting events there are rules and fixed boundaries of acceptable conduct. Combatants usually know they will be fighting only one opponent and there will be no other obstacles or threats.
In sports such as Judo and kickboxing, combatants know that they will only be fighting one opponent. As a result people training for such events learn to focus their vision only on that opponent. The result is a form of learned habitual tunnel vision. This is completely counter to one's needs in real violence, where one needs enhanced peripheral vision to detect other attackers, obstacles and escape routes.
Participation in sparring and fighting competitions usually develops timing and reflexes that are detrimental in real violence. As an example, most sparring is either light contact or non-contact. For maximum effect, strikes should be performed so the weapon (e.g., fist or foot) aims to pass through its target. In sparring, the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes. In real violence one performs as one practices.
Even in so called full contact training and competition, one is usually competing against one's friends or people one respects, so opponents rarely give maximum intent to seriously crippling one another.
A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practice similarly, consistently executing attacks and defenses from a favored stance.
This method of preparation is very dangerous for real violence, where conditions such as the angle of attack are not controlled. As an example, consider the situation that would occur if the right-handed boxer above was attacked from his right. Most likely one of the following scenarios would result:
ß the boxer would be forced to throw an unpracticed (hence ineffective) right jab or left cross,
ß the boxer would attempt to turn right into his favored stance, causing a delay in his defensive reaction, or
ß being subject to an angle of attack not practiced against, the boxer's brain may momentarily "freeze".
In each scenario, the boxer would be at a severe disadvantage, from which he may never recover.
Ignoring the response sequence
There are three steps that must occur when responding to an attack:
ß First, the opponent's attack must be sensed (e.g., it must be seen, felt, heard, etc),
ß Second, the specifics of the attack must be cognitively processed (i.e., the attack must be recognized and its parameters determined), and
ß Third, the defender must respond.
When responding to most attacks the defender is always two steps behind. Anyone who is not a gifted athlete or highly trained professional will not be able to employ a defensive skill quickly enough to counter an opponent's attack once it is underway.
Many self-defense techniques taught by martial artists ignore this fact. A typical martial arts self-defense technique will involve the blocking of an attack followed by the employment of an often spectacular counterattack. It is assumed that the block will be successful. Blocks usually are successful in a training environment because 1) the defender knows what sort of attack is coming and when it will occur; 2) the attacker is usually cooperative; and 3) the attack is rarely performed in a decisive manner.
The same technique applied in real violence usually fails. As an example, knife and club attacks are usually defended successfully in martial arts training sessions, but it has been proven with the use of felt tip markers and soft clubs that even highly trained athletes, such as SWAT Team or Special Forces members, can rarely prevent being stabbed, cut or struck by a committed attacker.
The use of highly skilled techniques
When one of the FBI's top unarmed combat instructors was faced with a thief holding a pistol, the FBI agent used a very basic clubbing action to strike the hand holding the gun. This example demonstrates that in a life or death situation even a highly trained professional reverts to simple technique. The reason for this is because simple techniques are the most reliable. Higher skilled techniques are more difficult to perform and have a smaller margin for error. This is especially important when fear or other factors restrict or inhibit physical and mental performance.
Despite this fact, too many martial arts instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled and more complicated techniques. Possible reasons for this are: 1) showmanship, 2) to engineer guru status, 3) to justify further training and grading fees and 4) an arrogant refusal to acknowledge the realities of fear.
If a top professional uses basic technique in real violent situations, it is extremely dangerous to teach lesser practitioners high skilled techniques.
The emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques
Grappling techniques have become popular because of the success of competitors using grappling techniques in so called "no holds barred" sporting competitions. While grappling techniques are unquestionably useful in one-on-one competition, and there is some merit in the Jujitsu teaching that -most real fights- end up with combatants on the ground, the use of grappling techniques when one is outnumbered is suicidal.
In training for real violence, the possibility of being outnumbered cannot be ignored. Very simply, when applying a grappling hold, one's body becomes immobile and defenseless. A third person can easily cave in the grappler's head with a pool cue, garbage can lid, a rock, or other weapon.
Failure to develop the attributes necessary to survive a violent confrontation
Even if techniques are performed thousands of times with robot-like confidence and technical accuracy in the training environment, it is not sufficient preparation for dealing with the dynamics of real violence. To employ techniques outside of training requires attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win.
If training does not go beyond the teaching of technique to have a deliberate goal of improving those attributes and qualities, the training will be more detrimental than productive.
Patterning subconscious minds with incorrect response sequences
In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example, an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.
Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers rarely attack in the same specific manner.
Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. This patterning is very dangerous in real violence.
Irresponsible and misleading allocation of training time
If martial arts training is to be effective training for real violence, the allocation of training time should reflect field needs. Most real violence involves the use of punches, elbows, knees, low kicks and grappling. Real violence is usually initiated with opponents standing almost chest to chest, or alternatively with an opponent rushing his victim from the front, side, or rear.
Real violence very rarely involves combatants standing apart in so called "fighting stances". Spending considerable time defending against elaborate kicks, or against attackers standing apart in "fighting stances" is irresponsible as it takes time away from relevant training. These practices also give students a dangerously misleading idea of what real violence involves.
Similar irresponsible and dangerous time allocation occurs when practicing offensive skills. At a martial arts training session attended by a Director of Global Security Training, a large portion of time was devoted to practicing running jump front kicks against a target nine feet off the ground. The need to head-kick a nine foot tall attacker is very rare.
Failure to prepare for the detrimental effects of fear
Fear restricts body movement and inhibits mental and physical coordination. Even the act of placing a key in a keyhole can be difficult if one is scared. This needs to be considered when selecting techniques that are taught. In addition, students need to be provided with methods of fear control and an honest appreciation of the realities of violence. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in students not being able to perform well in real violence.
Failure to select field-proven techniques
The best reason to select a technique is because it has been proven to be useful in real violence. We strongly believe that very few martial arts techniques, when scrutinized, would be supported by significant field testing.
The practice of instructing when one has little or no practical understanding of the situations students are likely to face.
Too many martial artists have little understanding of their art's field application. While it would be wrong to encourage martial artists to be involved in real fights, one must seriously question the merit of having students prepared for possible life or death situations learning from instructors with no practical understanding of their (the student's) requirements.
Failure to ensure that training is ongoing
Neuromuscular skills such as self-defense ability rapidly diminish without regular practice. This reduction is difficult to quantify, however it could be reasonably argued that self-defense ability would be significantly reduced after three months of not training and markedly reduced after six months. As such, it would be dangerous to imply competency when training is not ongoing. As a result the following are questionable and possibly dangerous practices: 1)the awarding of certificates or belts, or passing examinations, without the requirement of regular, frequent and continuous practice and 2) allowing people to work in occupations exposing them to potential violence without regular, frequent and ongoing training.
Confusing loyalty and friendship with field effectiveness
The nature of martial arts and combative training attracts personalities with a natural respect for characteristics such as honor, valor and loyalty. Instructors who demonstrate such admirable characteristics often attract large followings of faithful disciples and loyal friends. When the field effectiveness of methods taught by an instructor such as this is questioned, the disciples and loyal friends will readily ignore objectivity, instead responding emotionally and subjectively.
Attempting to achieve "correct" body mechanics by making repeated fine adjustments
If a student properly understands the principles and objectives of a technique, and uses this understanding to guide repeated training, over time he or she will develop good body mechanics. Rather than focus on this understanding and its application, too many instructors attempt to mold "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments, as a golf professional would do to correct a golf swing. Examples of such adjustments include telling a student to rotate a wrist more, raise a knee more, and to point toes more.
From an unknowledgeable instructor's perspective this practice helps engineer guru status for him or herself and fosters dependency in students. From a student's perspective this practice is extremely detrimental.
Students' bodies vary. To fully understand how these variations effect the execution of techniques would require the instructor to have:
a depth of field experience in the use of the techniques in actual violent situations and
a depth of knowledge in the science known as Biomechanics. Too many instructors instead base the principles of correction on advice handed down through a chain of other instructors or martial arts gurus. Ironically, most probably none of these instructors or martial arts gurus would have both field experience and qualifications in Biomechanics either.
The so-called "correct" body mechanics as determined by such instructors would most likely be inferior to the body mechanics that would have developed using the methods described at the opening of this section.
The practice of molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments tends to result in a student performing techniques in a robot-like manner. This may be acceptable for a golfer, but such practice tends to reduce the qualities of fluidity, spontaneity and adaptability. The possession of these qualities is vitally important for one to survive real violence.
Students who have become reliant upon having an instructor providing critique of fine body mechanics will find it difficult to train independently. This may not concern members of the general public who attend training dojos on a regular basis, but is a concern for members of government law enforcement and security agencies. These members, who need to train regularly to maintain competency in handling real violence, paradoxically often have less exposure to instructors than many members of the general public do.
Sadly, but too frequently, law enforcement or security officers are trained by instructors who focus on molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments. The result is officers who 1) do not understand the principles and objectives of the techniques they have learned, 2) perform in a robot-like manner and lose qualities that would help survive real violence and 3) only train when they are given instruction, which in many cases is only a few times per year (or worse - only during basic training).
Reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation
The understanding of where the most vulnerable areas of an opponent's body are is very useful. Such an understanding should include the knowledge that:
ß areas such as the groin and the solar plexus are excellent targets for strikes,
ß knees may be damaged by forceful strikes to their side, and joints such as elbows and fingers may be damaged when bent backwards, and
ß certain areas such as the side of the neck, areas of the ribs and the front of the shoulders are extremely painful when pressed upon.
ß The understanding of vulnerable areas can be taken to the extreme of learning as many so called pressure points as an acupuncturist does. Some martial artists base their fighting methodology on the so called ability to manipulate these points. There are three main concerns with this practice.
ß Firstly, in situations of real violence it is extremely unlikely that a technique will be able to be employed with sufficient accuracy to achieve the desired result.
ß Secondly, in order to practice such techniques both the attacker and the defender usually train in a profoundly unrealistic robot-like manner.
ß Thirdly, such practice tends to encourage a proliferation of very questionable techniques. Examples found in this author's collection of martial arts training videos include an instructor demonstrating a light tap above the temple, with which he was alleged to have been knocked out by his eight year old son, and another instructor who advises to rub a certain "rub pressure point" on a grasping attacker's wrist.
The learning of multiple responses to a visual or physical cue
There is a valid argument for the value of learning alternative responses to a given situation in order to increase one's versatility. However, the value of increasing one's versatility must be weighed against the sometimes dramatic increase in one's reaction time that occurs in real situations of real violence, when an individual has learned more than one response to the visual or physical cue that presents.
If only one response to a cue is learned and practiced effectively it should become a reflex action. If presented with the appropriate cue, the response will occur quickly and automatically, without the need for conscious mental processing. If more than one response for a cue is learned, and that cue presents itself, a student would have to choose between responses, requiring mental processing rather than a much faster reflex response. In situations of lesser danger, especially where one has significantly greater ability than one's opponent, this may not be a critical factor. It must be stressed that in situations of real violence fear restricts mental processes, increasing this reaction time further. The more dangerous the situation the more one needs fast reactions, but ironically more fear is usually involved, and this slowing down of reactions is dangerously heightened.
An extreme example of learning too many responses to a cue is found in one of this author's martial arts training tapes where an instructor in the style developed by Bruce Lee demonstrates an almost unbelievable multitude of variations for responding to a basic right cross punch.
The learning of too many techniques
For similar reasons that instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled techniques, too many instructors tend to teach too many techniques. One requires a certain amount of practice to learn and to retain each technique. Simply, when a large number of techniques are learned, time does not permit competency to be retained. Too many techniques are probably being learned in the following situations:
ß more than one response is learned for a given cue,
ß one learns a skill, then once that skill is evaluated or graded new skills are learned, and the original skill is neglected,
ß one learns different strikes that are essentially used in the same situation (a possible example is an "uppercut" fist strike and an upward elbow strike, which are both used as an upwards blow against similar targets on an opponent at close range),
ß one learns many specific responses rather than adaptable techniques that can be used in many situations (for example, learning possibly hundreds of different responses to handle the many different possible grip positions that can occur when grabbed by the arm)
The practice of having students perform large set numbers of technique repetitions
To practice a technique effectively, one should focus on that technique's objectives. The practice of instructing a student to perform a large set number of techniques removes this focus and tends to produce very ineffective robot-like training. As an example, consider the situation that would arise if a student was asked to perform a technique one hundred times. Initially the student may focus on the objectives of the technique, but as the series progressed focus would transfer to such things as the count, whether the instructor was watching or even what the student was going to do after training.
The communication of questionable statements
In Australia, a person can be held liable for damages caused as a result of another party following his or her advice. The main criteria is whether the person giving the information should realize that the recipient will rely upon it in circumstances in which it is reasonable to do so. Presumably similar law exists in other countries.
The following two quotes are some of many statements deserving of scrutiny that this author has found in his collection of martial arts training videos. They are both made by highly respected and influential martial artists. They are presented without judgment by this author. The reader is encouraged to draw his or her own conclusions regarding their merit and the consequences of people following the advice.
"The flow of energy is what makes it so easy to handle four or five [attackers] at one time. It gets to be very exciting" Aikido Master Ken Ota (Video: Mastering Aikido Level 6, Panther Productions).
"If my opponent holds a knife in this position [blade pointing downwards] I have my confidence because he's telling me that he doesn't really know how to use a knife. If he holds it like this (like a sword) he has an understanding of the knife and wants to use it to scare you" (Bill "Superfoot" Wallace., Undefeated world karate champion, Member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame (Video: Bill Wallace Self-Defence System, Panther Productions)
Suggestions for Organizations Using This Brief to Scrutinize Their Own Training
An effective way to use the enclosed brief is to have experienced officers and legal counsel assess the validity and strength of each argument raised. Using those arguments found to be valid and significant, current training should be closely examined.
It should be kept in mind that officers who are injured as a result of violence may also closely examine the training, with the help of lawyers. Any inadequacy found may form a basis for legal liability. Such officers and lawyers will be able to see behind any facades developed by martial arts oriented instructors attempting to protect their interests.
To assist in the process of examination, and provide a legal safeguard, this author and his company are able to provide advice, assistance and audits of training.
The Removal of Tactically Inadequate Martial Arts Methodologies
Unless approached in a systematic and decisive manner the removal of martial arts tactical inadequacies is very difficult because of three main factors.
Firstly, most instructors and external martial arts gurus have used methods previously described to engineer respect and close personal ties within their organization.
Secondly, most of the tactical inadequacies discussed benefit instructors and martial arts gurus in one or more of the following ways:
o help engineer guru status,
o help foster dependency in students, and
o help justify further fees for instruction, grades and merchandise (many government instructors train members of the general public also). Instructors are most unlikely to readily concede these benefits.
Thirdly, many officers have been indoctrinated by martial arts movies, martial arts gurus and sporting practitioners to believe that these methodologies are effective.
Law enforcement and security officers are human, so even in the most professional government law enforcement and security organizations, members are not immune to these factors. As an example, according to an article in The Tactical Edge, the journal of the National Tactical Officers Association, because many officers want to be taught exotic techniques to impress family and friends in non-life threatening situations, tactical teams are taught by a myriad of instructors with absolutely no understanding of the agent's needs, equipment or mission requirements.
Beginning with units such as the Special Task Force, SWAT Teams and Nelson Mandela's personal protection unit, this author and his company are removing tactically inadequate martial arts training methodology and are replacing it with a highly effective form of training called Kontact. From experience, pockets of resistance to changes are usually encountered, the most common being from complacent bureaucrats who have little understanding of the needs of field officers, instructors trying to protect their interests and senior officers who have been indoctrinated to believe that their guru and their course are "the best".
This author has much empathy with another group of officers who resist change. These are the experienced field officers and former field officers who have understood that all the previous defensive tactics and close quarter combat training they have been exposed to has been ineffective. They perceive such training as window dressing at best and an irresponsible waste of departmental resources at worst. They have seen many martial arts gurus and so called self-defense experts who claim that their system is "the best", that they understandably believe any one who claims to be an expert in that field, or to have a new system that is "the best", is beneath contempt.
The main requirement to overcome resistance is a commitment and directive from senior command.
Appendix One: About the Author
Robert Redenbach is a Senior Instructor for the South African Police Service and C.E.O. of Global Security Training P/L, a consultancy firm that provides specialist training to many of the world's leading agencies. Formerly with the Australian military, Mr. Redenbach spent three years in Korea, Japan and China studying martial arts methods. Seeking to address the inadequacies of such training, Mr. Redenbach used a period as the manager of the largest security company in Papua New Guinea to develop an innovative training system called Kontact. He is author of the book KONTACT: Training to Improve, Not to Impress.
A post graduate Masters by Research candidate, Dr Graeme Blennerhassett assists in the scientific evaluation and selection of instructional, training and combative methodologies.
Appendix Two: Where to Address Inquiries
The Director of Operations
P.O. Box 674 Bairnsdale 3875
Australia
(Email) [email protected]
Appendix Three: Checklist to assist in determining whether martial artists have corrupted law enforcement or security training.
Do the instructors make statements that seem unrealistic or exaggerated?
Are any of the training or combative methodologies based on sporting practices, or are claimed to have cultural or traditional significance?
Do the instructors demonstrate self-defence techniques where the attacker's strikes are easily blocked?
Do the techniques taught appear highly skilled, complicated, or even ridiculous?
Is there a heavy emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques?
Does the training ignore the specific need to improve attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and will to win?
Are students required to memorise complicated series of techniques?
Is a large proportion of training time dedicated to activities of minimal relevance?
Does the training ignore the need to provide an appreciation of the realities of real violence and a field-proven method of fear reduction?
Is training or combative methodology used that has not been field-proven as efficient and effective for its intended purpose?
Do the instructors have little or no practical appreciation of the situations students may face?
Does any aspect of the training appear to be irrelevant to the objective of preparing officers for real violence?
Are officers allowed to work in the field without the requirement of continuous, frequent,
ongoing training?
Do instructors attempt to produce good body mechanics by making continuous adjustments to body movements (as a golf professional would do to produce a good golf swing)?
Is training for techniques, defenses or attacks carried out using both sides of the body equally?
Is there a reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation?
Are multiple responses learned to a visual or physical cue?
Are too many techniques learned?
Are students required to perform large set numbers of technique repetitions?
John D. Williams
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
LEADERSHIP & TRAINING DIVISION
[email protected]
