Currently, I am reading a book about modern Combatives written by a fairly well known instructor. There are some good ideas and some solid information contained in it, but I have a hard time endorsing the book because there is an underlying concept that the author espouses that is fantastically wrong. Since he uses this wrong concept as one of the bedrocks of his method, and he brings it up numerous times, it is difficult to overlook.

 
Now before I get in depth about this, let me address a point that I know some people are already thinking. I am not attacking the majority of instructors who teach “combatives”. If you notice, the title of my company has that term in it. No, what I am attacking is an instance of intellectual laziness that started off of someone’s complete misunderstanding of something. And rather than someone standing up and saying “That does not seem right”, too many people joined in and repeated this idea without the slightest bit of critical thinking. So before someone gets huffy, understand the point, and engage me on the substance of my critique.

 
The supposition he makes that is so egregious is the following:
“The idea is not a reciprocal type exchange, like in a Thai Boxing bout. You know where he has his turn and you have your turn. In the worst case scenario…..it’s going to be me, me, me and more of me finished. It’s a one sided directed event and that begins and ends in your head.”

 

I cannot believe any knowledgeable person would ever try to pass that off. No one with any brain capacity could think this, but apparently, some do. Let’s talk the truth.

 
There is not one single combat sports athlete on the planet that “lets” his opponent do anything! There is no accepted reciprocal back and forth attacking in any combat sport ever. I can only surmise that the first person to pass off this idea got his entire understanding of boxing type sports from watching Rocky. Or perhaps, at the very least, he thinks that is all his audience knows, so he feels he can say it with impunity.

 
Just think logically about this for a moment. Is there any other sport on the planet where this is the case? Take a basketball game as an example. After your team has scored, do you let the other team walk up the court and take their shot? Or, instead, does the defending team try to snatch the ball away as soon as possible? And do they press hard to keep the second team from passing or dribbling the ball up the court? And does the first team do everything in their power to block any shots? OF COURSE! Anything else would be so ludicrous. Why would anyone believe that combat sports are any different?
Do you honestly believe then that a Muay Thai practitioner goes into a match, throws a strike or a combination and then waits patiently while the opponent returns fire? No, what he does is try to hit as hard and as fast and as often as possible, and continues to move in a way to make it as difficult as possible for the opponent to hit him back. If possible, he would prefer the fight to be over within seconds. Do these “Combative Instructors” truly believe that a combat athlete goes into a fight willing to take trauma because “it is the other guys turn”? Not……a……..freaking………chance. Only someone who only looks at it from outside and does not bother to understand or experience it firsthand, or someone who has an agenda could ever suggest something so silly.

 
The fact is that every single combat sport athlete, from the boxer to the Brazilian Jiu-jitsu competitor, would love for it to be a one sided affair that they can finish quickly. Every single one would love to go home as early as possible and walk away with as little physical damage as they can manage. Let me assure you, as someone who boxed under the tutelage of Paavo Ketonenn at Top Level Gym in Phoenix where pros such as Cassius Clay Horne trained, as someone who has been doing doing Muay Thai under top coaches since 1985, as someone who has been awarded the highest technical rank in Savate (silver glove), as someone who has been doing BJJ for over 22 years, there is not one decent practitioner of any of those arts who will get into a reciprocal fight willingly.

 
Do you know why though that the one-sided fight in a combat sports match rarely happens? Because they are fighting another living, breathing, thinking opponent! One who does not collapse to the ground after being hit with a hammerfist. Nor is that opponent going to stand there at let you do all your cool guy moves without doing something to stop you, and inflict his own damage at that. That is why combat sports look the way they do. They are based on real resisting pressure from an opponent who has freedom of action.
When you actually fight in those conditions, you have to develop things like defense because few people will crumble at the slightest bit of pressure. Instead, they fight as hard as possible. And a system that never trains for that possibility, nor trains its practitioners to be prepared if the cool moves fail, is the exact opposite of a functional system, period.

 
There is a reason that all Tier 1 military’s base their training on the idea that the opponent(s) can and will fight back to the maximum of their capabilities. It is the entire genesis of programs like the US Navy’s Top Gun. Any military training or operations plan is based on the idea that the enemy will do something back, and that the good guy forces have to be ready to adjust to that. Not one successful military unit will make the assumptions about their opponents that the above mentioned Combatives instructor makes. They know people would die if they did. Just as making that kind of assumption for personal self-defense could very lead to death or injury for the good guy.

 
Good, thoughtful, and prepared combatives instructors like Mick Coup, Paul Sharp, Chris Fry, or Craig Douglas (Southnarc) also base their coursework around this basic concept. They don’t need to pretend that combat sports are something different, but rather see them as a methodology that can help their own work, rather than as some kind of competition to what they do.
In short, it is a waste of time to try to dismiss combat sport training as something it is not, and rather focus on what you can take from there to make you safer.

The week before last, I did a live webcast hosted by the Personal Defense Network and Rob Pincus. We covered a lot of good stuff and I enjoyed it immensely. Check it out if you want to:

 

One of the problems affecting the Tactical Gun community is an obsession with gear as a reaction to failed or poor performance. There is a tendency to focus on a new gun, new ammo, new holster, trigger job, new sights, etc. as the answer rather than more practice or training. There is a similar problem in the Martial Art/Self-defense world where being gear-centric is replaced with technique. The answer to a failure tends towards “give me another technique”. I found myself doing this for the first 20+ years of my martial experience. I remember going to seminars with big name instructors and feeling cheated if I did not walk out of the there with a Yellow Pages sized notebook, of which I would then be unable to even remember a fraction of the techniques. And just completely forget about being able to pull off any of them against the slightest bit of resistance. So was my solution to train harder and more diligently? Of course not! It was go to another seminar, or buy another book, or watch another video/DVD. More technique!!! To bring this idea back to the shooting world, you see it happen in course after action reports ( AARs) where the main point is how many rounds are fired, regardless of the quality of information being passed on.

The problem is that approach (whether technique or gear) does not address the real problem. What does work, in both areas (H2H and shooting), is a studied focus on fundamentals and a commitment to train those fundamentals.

It took me a long time to “see the light”. About twenty years in fact. When I did, and stopped thinking the answer to every failure was more technique, and instead was focus on high percentage responses and work them under realistic conditions and pressures until they are as subconscious as possible, I began to actually succeed on a regular basis. When I was studying an eclectic modern martial art in the mid 80’s through early 90’s, we would work some grappling. However, the instructor actually knew very little about groundwork, and rather than working on good fundamentals, we had “tricks” to beat a grappler. Can’t get out from under a grappler? Bite him! Can’t pass his guard? Leg lock! This approach really hampered my development by years. Instead of using the high percentage moves proven to work, we wasted time taking the easy route that led to failure.

It is one of my current and most irritating pet peeves in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu. I see too many newer trainees and lower belts become obsessed with the latest move that is sweeping the competition world. People who cannot even pass the guard of a peer on demand spends all their time working lapel guard or mantis guard or berimbolo attacks. And then when that cool guy attack is stymied (which is inevitable because they have no clue about what is happening), they are stuck because they have nothing else. Contrast that with the higher belt, who has solid fundamentals, honed by years of dedicated practice, and can consistently succeed at moves against his peers, adding the more spectacular or complicated move to his game. He is not nailing the berimbolo because of the inherent awesome-ness of the move, but rather because he is technically proficient and knows how to use it in the right way at the right time. This comes from a solid grounding in the fundamentals, the essentials.

I am telling you that all the fighters who win all the time in competition at higher belts, have rock solid fundamental game, BEFORE they attempt one fancy move. Rafa Mendes can beat lesser fighters playing a pure 1970’s style BJJ game. The only time he pulls out the fancy stuff is if he wants to play, or if the opponent is good enough to stop him and he is forced to expand his attack. But that is a very specific set of circumstances. Ryan Hall, one of the best and most successful of the American sport black belts is well known for his competition style game. A few years ago, he found himself in a street confrontation. What did he do? Did he flop onto his back, go to 50/50 guard, wait there for minutes, and then settle for a sweep (which might be typical of him in a match)? No, he shot in with a double leg takedown, mounted, and controlled the guy. When the guy got froggy and would not stop, Ryan let him turn face down and choked him. All straight out of the Gracie Jiu-jitsu in Action videotape, circa 1989. His base was the same as all good players – the same foundational moves that you learn in the first 6 months.

One of the reasons I pay little attention to the debate between competition oriented BJJ and self-defense oriented BJJ is because it is truly irrelevant. To get good and consistent at using so called “sport” moves, you must have the foundation to launch and apply them. And that foundation is the same regardless of context. All good and legit BJJ schools will teach in general the same essential skill sets, moves, and principles. The contextual application and additions can be layered over that, but the base – the foundation of the house is the same. That is the main reason when someone asks me to help find them a good self-defense focused BJJ school, I just find them the most legitimate and best school available in their area, and then I tell them to train there for 2-3 years, and THEN think about whether it is a sport or street school.

In summary, when in doubt, work harder, longer, and more diligently on the fundamentals. That is the key to success.

Here is a video purporting to show a functional ground grappling technique:

No, no, no, and really no.

This is a great example of someone who does not know what they do not know teaching something that is utterly, devastatingly, wrong. This is the kind of thing that comes from people whose knowledge of grappling derives from a weekend certification course, or watching a lot of DVDS and online vids, or who grabs a couple of buddies (none of whom have any grappling experience) and rolling in their garage. And then based on that foundation (or lack of to be more accurate), they come up with “answers” that people with 20+ years of training don’t come up with.

Quick tip – that technique is not against BJJ rules. It can be done at any time, even in competition. So why don’t good BJJ players use it? Why was that technique never taught in the fundamental Gracie self-defense curriculum? Why is it never suggested by a seasoned grappler to be a good solution? That deafening silence is what can be called a “clue”.

I won’t go into detail on all the bad things with this technique, and why it won’t work consistently or reliably against a committed resisting attacker. I will give a hint though – what are the other guy’s limbs doing while the good guy is doing the head twist?

Edited to add: And as a BJJ black belt pointed out when I posted this on Facebook, if you cannot even get the terminology correct, why in the world would you assume you have an effective move? There is no such thing as a “guard escape”. There are sweeps, reversals, and attacks. The guard is NOT something you “escape” from. Creating verbiage out of the blue, and that makes no sense, is just as wrong as the physical technique itself.

There are tons of proven, easily learned solutions to that exact situation. This is absolutely not one of them.

It is no secret that I pay more attention these days to old school boxing much more intently than I do the contemporary sport. And this article is one of the reasons why:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/casey/MC_OldSchool.htm

 

 

 

This is a clip of one of my favorite attacks, my modified version of the classic Pendulum sweep from closed guard. One of the reasons I like it so much (besides how high a percentage of success it has) is that it works across the board in all fighting contexts – sport grappling, MMA, or street oriented self-defense in a Weapons Based Environment.

 

And now a few details to watch for to help the move work consistently.

1) I only need to control the elbow at the beginning just enough to keep him from moving. I want the elbow in place long enough to do the hip escape and turn, which will then keep his elbow blocked.

2) As soon as the hip is around the elbow, I need to eliminate all space between his torso and mine. I prefer to grab across his back to his far waist, but if I have to go to the armpit or shoulder, I will.

3) Obviously, the direction you move your hips will partially be determined by his actions/energy, but if I have a choice I like going to my left. That helps to keep my weapon access points fairly free, and it has a good percentage chance that I am blocking his strong arm and his strong side access. Unless he is a lefty, and then forget what I just said

4) I prefer to grab slightly under his far leg to facilitate the sweep, but I will take what I can get.

5) I want to drive into him hard, not just to keep his elbow blocked, but also to set up the pendulum momentum for the sweep. i don’t just fall back, I rotate a bit towards his far knee, and then use my outside leg to kick outwards to start the movement. To finish the positional change, I bring that leg back down towards his hips – hence the “pendulum” action

6) I make sure that as I go on top, my base is stable and I keep my chest low. I want to continue to disrupt any action he can take with his arms.

 

 

Just awesome to watch. Quite simply, one of the best BJJ performances I have ever seen. I was so lucky to see it live and up close. Just essential BJJ done at the highest level. Nothing fancy. Someone with less than two years of training will know every technique here. But this is how it is done with ultimate timing, position, and control.

This is how it is done, whether the context is sport grappling, MMA, or self-defense.

From Dan John, who is one the most intelligent and thoughtful, as well as experienced, strength coaches around. While his thoughts were directed at those in the strength and conditioning realm, they apply equally well to all fields of study. A succinct and direct description of the fallacy of being your own coach, or thinking your little garage group is producing all the answers.

If you’re training yourself, you’ll tend to know everything you decide to do. You’ll always push yourself exactly as hard as you feel like pushing yourself. You won’t have any gaps in your training because you have no idea what you’re lacking. Finally, you’ll be able to progress and regress easily in your system since your single follower— you— will know what you want, even if it isn’t something you need to do. I hope I painted a picture of mediocrity here.

The great Col. Jeff Cooper for all practical purposes founded the modern defensive firearms training community. He was intimately involved in teaching people how to shoot for most of his 86 years. As such, he had many insights into what went into the making of a good instructor. While he was speaking to the ability to teach shooting, his guidelines have as much direct connection to the instruction of H2H fighting as well. Here is an excerpt from some of his writings:

“….a good instructor, above all, must seek his student’s excellence. He must place more value on his ability to teach a man to shoot than on his own ability to shoot. His work gratifies his ego when his student becomes a good shot, and improvement is more satisfying to the ego than excellence. It is fine to raise a B shooter to the A category, but it is far better to raise a D to a B……… (a good instructor) must realize that matters which are quite obvious to him may be complete mysteries to a novice. This sort of knowledge is not inherent and must be acquired through experience.”

So much good stuff there.