As a follow up to a recent post about how video can expose the RBSD/combatives crowd’s typical “streetfights are always this way” narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9MzaziJrnQ

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-MN1suFFKg

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohn6smpukkI

I wrote this about a year and a half ago, but since there are a lot more new readers of this blog, I wanted to bring it back because I think it is an extremely important topic.

There was a recent forum discussion that brought this to mind. During the discussion, a proponent of a particular technique made the huge mistake of making an appeal to authority argument, and said that his authority figure stated that this technique was good because “it worked as often as not” (that is pretty much a direct quote, and in context). Now, I don’t think he really thought about what he was writing, because even if that statement was true, it still only meant the technique worked 50% of the time, at best (the quantifiable translation of “as often as not”). That is not what I would consider a good percentage. Especially when there are demonstrably better techniques out there, that are as easily learned as what he espoused.

And even more so, his arguments showed that still too many people make the foolish argument of just because a move works somewhere and sometime, that puts it on equal footing with a technique that works most of the time in almost all situations for almost all people. Those are two completely separate things. So I re-post this older article with apologies to those who have read it before and are lookign for totally new content. I will get something new up in the next day or, but I feel this is important.

Older article:

In the medical field, there is a concept known as the placebo effect. Essentially, if a doctor prescribes a treatment such as a drug for an illness and the drug is not actually a real medicine (but rather something like a sugar pill) but the treatment acts as a cure or as relief anyway, that cure or relief has to be attributed to something other than the actual treatment. It can be chalked up to the person’s own mind accomplishing the goal, or it was a freak act. This phenomenon is well known and accepted. It does occur, more frequently than you might think. So why don’t doctors attempt to ever use this a normal course of treatment? Because there is never anyway to judge if it is actually working, and how often, and to what extent! Sure, the placebo effect can work on occasion, but more often, it utterly fails. So therefore it can never be taken seriously as a factor when trying to cure a patient. If you can’t plan on when it works, or to what level, it is useless as a treatment.

So how does this relate to self-defense? Bear with me for a moment and I will tie it in. This past week, I was participating in an online discussion forum (yes, I know how problematic that can be at times, but sometimes, you can get good information from doing so) related to self-defense and firearms/shooting, and there was a thread in which one of the posters made one of the classic blunders in the SD field. Now this particular poster has a huge chip on his shoulder and has a tendency to bolster his debates by referring to his own experience (he has some field work in this area). However, he continually will try to end the debate over a particular technique/tactic/method by saying “x worked for me”. Now, to him, this is his trump card, his “gotcha” moment. In truth, it is the fighting world’s equivalent of the placebo effect. What he fails to realize that IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WORKED IN THE STREET.

What the heck did I just say? Have I taken leave of my senses? Have I stepped into the realm of mystical approaches to combat? Am I suddenly going to start wearing a ponytail and wearing giant muumuus and talking about all the chi in my belly? Not at all. What I am saying is this: if the entirety of your justification of whether a technique is good or not happens to be if it worked, you are missing the larger point.

Just pointing out that something worked is not good enough. Let’s examine this for a moment. A couple of years ago, there was an MMA fight where one of the participants ran up the side of the cage to where he was almost horizontal, jumped off of it, turned in mid-air and threw a kick that not only landed, but almost knocked the other fighter out. Does anyone out there think that would be a good technique to add to their toolbox? It worked didn’t it? So why don’t we all start practicing that move?

There are also documented instances where a person has been shot in the face with a firearm and the bullet did not penetrate the skull, but rather skipped along the bone and came out the skin on the back side of the head. Absolute documented fact. Anyone want to base their gun defense on that? Why not? It “worked”, didn’t it?

I have a video clip I got off of YouTube. It is from Eastern Europe or Russia and shows a person robbing a store at knifepoint. The clerk did a crescent kick and knocked the knife out of the bad guy’s hand. So how many people are going to practice and advocate that move as a good knife defense move? Anyone?…… Bueller?…… Bueller? Again, why not? I have video proof a crescent kick can knock a knife from a hand. So let’s all jump in and start working on being Chuck Norris.

Hopefully, the gist of my point is starting to come across. Using what works as justification is as irrelevant to optimal training as the placebo effect is to medical treatment.

For anyone who has studied fighting for any length of time, one conclusion can quickly be drawn – sometimes the goofiest stuff will actually work. Combat is so chaotic that almost anything can happen at any given time. However, just because anything can happen, does not mean it will happen at a given moment, and therefore “anything” cannot be relied on, just as a doctor cannot rely on the placebo effect to cure his patient.

What we need to focus on is what are the things that work in the most situations, against the widest variety of opponents, and that can be trained with the least outlay of training time, and with the highest chance of predicting the effect of the move on the other person. In other words, what are the most efficient methods/techniques/systems that still have a high amount of efficacy, especially if we are speaking of the everyday person and his limited time to train.

A few years ago, I was involved in another online debate in which the other person was trying to say that the superman punch was a valid SD move because it worked in MMA. So I went and took a look at the prior two years of EVERY UFC match and looked at every instance of the superman punch. What I found was that, yes, the punch worked in MMA – 30% of the time! The other 70% it failed! And that was when executed by professional fighters whose job it was to do nothing but train, and even then, with all of that on their side, they could only land it a third of the time. Is that really a good use of training time if we only have a very limited time to train, or should we focus on techniques that we can make use of a lot more often? Certainly the move “works”, but does that even matter?

So, did the technique work because it was a good technique? Or did it work because the other guy did something really stupid? Or was it blind luck? Or was it because you are a 300 pound powerlifter and you are fighting a 140 pound tweaking methhead? I have a terrific escape when someone has the knee on belly position on you. It is a high percentage move IF you are bigger and stronger than the person on top. If not, and he is bigger and stronger, there is no way the escape works. Should that be a technique that everyone should practice as part of their fundamentals? No? Why not? It “works” – albeit under a narrow contextual range.

In summary, we most certainly need to take into account if a technique works in the real world. But, far more importantly, we need to look at a number of other factors as well before we judge said move as something that should be put into the personal arsenal.

So I finally got the new t-shirts in. If you are interested, you can click here to order:

http://www.freewebstore.org/Immediate-Action-Jiu-jitsu/IAC_T-shirt/p1832886_14206000.aspx

One of the best benefits of the information age is that we no longer have to settle for “old wives’ tales” or “war stories” as the only proof of the validity of a given martial art or self-defense method/tactic. Up until even 10 years ago, it was not easy to counter unverifiable anecdotes with documented facts. I remember around 1999 getting into an online debate with a minor martial artist about whether grappling joint locks actually broke bones. I ran rings around his arguments and he looked really bad (which I think contributed to his leaving of the martial art world and his move to finding other ways of making a fast buck), but it took awhile because the internet was not as omnipresent or as vast as it is today. If that argument took place today it would be about five minutes of Google search to have tons of documented evidence.

So we get to see things easily that we had to take on faith for decades. For example, watch the following video clip and think about what is there and, more importantly, is NOT there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4S_lMg7loc

What do we see?

First, it is certainly a “streetfight”. It is obviously not two guys in a schoolyard pushing match. The one person is extremely aggressive and clearly wants to inflict pain and/or damage to the other person. Even as the other person tries to de-escalate and escape from the situation, the larger man continues to pursue in an attempt to hurt the other.

Second, there is an imbalance in the physical comparison. The aggressor is much larger than the person trying to move away. This is the classic mean and bigger bully picking on the small guy – right out of the old Charles Atlas ads.

Third, they are not in a gym on nice padded mats. Nor are they in an MMA cage or ring. The setting is similar to almost any urban area on the planet.

Fourth, there is no referee present. There is no third party to stop the use of foul tactics, nor is there anyone there to enforce a rule set or to keep outside influences to come into play.

Fifth, the defender uses a pure combat sport methodolgy to defend himself. It is incredibly clear that the he is a boxer, and uses the exact same tactics in the street that he would use in the ring.

So what do we NOT see?

One, we do not see multiple attackers. This is man versus man. This, according to many self-defense people, never happens. And yet it does. Why is this significant? Well, because if there are times when a fight/assault is one against one, then ignoring methods/tactics/techniques that are optimized for that in the hope that other, lesser methods work better against multiple opponents ( a very dubious and unproven hope, at best), only to never encounter an assault from multiple opponents is not a particularly useful idea. I have been conducting a research project over the past year or so, using huge databases with literally thousands of incidents, to try to quantify exactly the likelihood of that. While I am still working on it, the preliminary results are showing that, at best, the percentage of multiple attackers is 40%. So why should we ignore proven methods that work best in 60% or incidents, and still work, with only slight modifications in the other percent? It makes no sense. We should want best case answers as much as possible across the board.

Second, we don’t see weapons involved. Again, something that many experts claim will always be involved. And again using the same databases for my research project is showing somewhere in the area or the high 30s as a percentage of incidents where weapons are used. And many times those weapons are more opportunistic than purpose carried. Items such as tire irons/crow bars, steak knives, baseball bats, etc. This is absolutely not an argument to ignore the possibility. In point of fact, I think it is critical that we specifically train for that eventuality in part of our defensive preparations. However, that again does not mean we ignore high percentage answers for the vast majority of real world situations.

Third, we see no injury to the defender’s hands. He clearly hits the aggressor with a closed fist, and hits the bad guy on the head, including hard bony parts of the head. And yet, it causes him no problems at all, contrary to what many Self-defense instructors say (“never hit with the closed fist to the head”). Is the potential for injury there? Of course, just as it is if the defender had hit the bad guy with a chin jab and takes the risk of a devastating wrist or finger injury.

To sum up, this is not a call to ignore the dangers of multiple opponents or weapons. Those things must be trained for. In my own training, as well as when I teach, I always make it a point to include those principles. But, we need to be realistic about the odds, and stop making dogmatic pronouncements that a street assault will always go a certain way. The world is a big place, with lots of different people doing different things, all in a very chaotic manner. Let us deal with the variables and the chaos, and not try to impose our own wants and beliefs on the chaos.

The previous article was me talking about how great Shadowboxing is and how useful it can be. This one will be a bit more specific.

The beauty of shadowboxing is that there literally are no limits to what you can work. Unlike methods that rely on particular equipment, or the need for a number of training partners, with shadowboxing, whatever you can imagine, then you can do it.

However, that is also where it can become useless as well. If we don’t treat whatever scenario/situation in our head as real as possible, then it can be nothing more than a poor and mindless dance, and an utter waste of time. It is extremely important to use your imagination the way we used to as kids when we played cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers. That is, we have to live in it in the moment. For example, if my scenario is two attackers coming at me from different angles, then all my actions must stay true to that vision. I can’t “drop out of it” until I am done for that round, whether it is 30 seconds or 5 minutes. If I do that, then the better I visualize and the more I commit, the closer I come to actually experiencing it, and getting the full benefit of doing so.

A key component is to ALWAYS, ALWAYS use the best body mechanics as possible. There can be no slacking here. Each movement, whether footwork, offensive attacks, or defensive actions, needs to be conducted with absolute fidelity to the idea that every motion should be perfect. Remember the cliché: Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice does.

Another critical detail is moving through space. A huge flaw I see too often is that people shadowboxing tend to stay in a very small area. If the space I have to work in is small (like a hotel room), then so be it. But if I am in my empty three car garage, why should I stay in tiny area? I should at various times move everywhere, because in a fight there is now way to know where you should or could go, and you better have the ability to move when needed. So, MOVE! Have the idea that if you start in a certain spot, you should end up as far away as possible.

Fourth, you need to vary the speed. There is a time and place to go slow and relaxed, but there is also a time to go with the energy and intensity of a real fight. Feel free to mix them, but the better you get at full power and speed, the more likely it will translate directly to an actual fight.

Next time I will talk about how to make shadowboxing even more productive. Meanwhile, here is an excellent video showing everything we just covered:

Anyone in the self-defense/fighting/tactical community with even the slightest sense of critical thinking will know that you have to practice. Regardless of how simple or efficient a fighting movement is, you cannot learn it, perform a few repetitions, and assume you have the ability to functionally apply it against a resisting opponent while in an initiative deficit. That just makes no sense (of course, that does not prevent unscrupulous instructors from selling their material as exactly that – “5 easy moves to defeat any attacker” type garbage. But I will save that rant for another post).

There is a vast amount of equipment and methods out there to help us practice. For now, I will focus on those things that are applicable to H2H, since are a metric-ton of places to get advice on how to shoot better.

I like and have used almost all the pieces of typical equipment that is out there: heavy bags, double-end bags, focus mitts, grappling dummies, speed bags, Thai pads, etc. They are all valid and at times incredibly useful. However, the single best thing you can do is also free – Shadowboxing.
Not only is shadowboxing fee, it does not require a partner, or much of anything except perhaps a bit of space. That is it! So what can we do with it, and how can it help us?

What we can do with it is literally almost anything. The only real limitation is your own imagination, and how much effort you put into it. How it can help us is in whatever way we choose to work through any possible physical situation that can arise – from a sudden ambush, to multiple opponents, to opponents with weapons, etc.

In the next article, I will go into more detail and advice on how to use this great tool. In the meantime, watch the video carefully of Tyson at this peak shadowboxing, and see if there are any lessons that jump out at you in how he performs.

There is an interesting hypothesis that a number of people in the self-defense community likes to refer to quite often. While it generally comes from those who are focused on firearms, it also pops up in those who advocate knife carry, or even the carry of “disguised” or improvised weapons (such as the Comtech Stinger). That hypothesis is essentially how it is foolish to not carry a large tool like a full size pistol or a bigger bladed knife because with proper clothing almost anything can be hidden on a regular basis. And for proof, these lecturers will pull out the “I carried X weapon at (some crowded event or location) and no one made me”. I am not sure they are accurate.

Everyone who trots out that line needs to understand the scientific concept of “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. What does this mean exactly? It means that just because there is no apparent evidence in front of you, it does not mean that you see everything. The classic way of illustrating this is with this:

If Alice bakes a pie, then she places the pie on her window-sill.
She did not place a pie on her window-sill.
Therefore, Alice did not bake a pie

Just because the pie is not on the window sill is not evidence. Perhaps she has just removed the pie from the sill to cut a piece, or that it is still in the oven, or that she is just putting the ingredients together as she bakes.

And just as the pie not being on the window-sill means little, so does not hearing someone say “Oh, you have a gun” mean that you carrying is a beautifully concealed secret.

Here is a personal experience that demonstrates exactly what I mean. A few months ago, I was at a local Mexican restaurant on my lunch hour. As I walked to my table after ordering, I noticed an older gentleman at a corner table. What made him stand out was the fact that he wore an IDPA style vest. Now, Arizona is as pro-gun a state as exists, and I can count on one hand the number of times outside of a gun-oriented event that I have seen that style of vest. So he already stood out. I took a longer look and after about a minute I noticed the tell tale outline of a full size pistol over his right hip. Did I jump up and point at him and scream “gun!”? No. Did I call the police and report a man with a gun? No. Did I go to the person behind the counter and demand they remove Mr. Gun? Of course not. I chuckled to myself, and waited for my food.

I have absolutely no doubt that guy went home that day satisfied that he walked around all day with a concealed pistol and no one knew. And he was completely wrong. I can assure you that was not an isolated incident. People carrying concealed are “made” everyday. Most likely, they are made by another gun guy, and no harm. But it does not mean they were not made. And people should be absolutely sure that they are not before making sure a bold statement.

I recently became a contributor to Gun Nuts Media and will regularly write online articles for them. The first one in up and you can read it here:

Hand to hand with Cecil Burch

I have lots of weird thoughts go through my head at times. Sometimes, a certain thought justifies an in depth look. And in many of those instances, it gives me a good blog post. Other times, the thought is only worthwhile as a passing fancy. So, when I have a number of those built up, I will just get them out there as sort of a catch-all anthology post!

Thought #1 – Why do people care so much about what other people do? I was reading a recent article on the concept of “press checks” (where you check the status of your weapon by making sure it is loaded) and the vitriol on either side is crazy. Why does someone care so much that they have to say ugly things about another person who press checks? It makes no sense. It does not affect the first person at all, so just go your own way.

Thought #2 – I have absolutely no problem with a blue belt teaching jiu-jitsu. That may be the best level of instruction available. If you are in an isolated area like a smaller town, or have a weird schedule (for instance, you work night shifts and cannot get to the standard class and your only option is a class run by a blue belt), then it is certainly better than nothing. HOWEVER, if you live in an area where there are legitimate higher belts actively teaching, and you instead opt to get online training so you can stroke your own ego and be the big man, than you are a toolbag. If you run a BJJ “school” as such an instructor, and there is within 10 miles a black belt teaching and you refuse to train at that place, you are being deceitful to yourself and to your paying students. Stop letting your own ego guide you and be willing to be humbled through real pressure. Stop fooling yourself that you have anything more than the tiniest bit of a superficial understanding of the material. If you can’t even teach a fundamental technique like a straight armbar, then you have absolutely no business teaching jiu-jitsu.

Thought #3 – As an adjunct to the previous thought, if you are that kind of blue belt who thinks online video training puts you on the same level as those who train in a legit gym on a continuing basis with high level of partners and instructors, than you are the absolute worst kind of martial artist. Your ego is out of control, and you really need to stop fooling yourself that you are on some enlightened journey. The Hero’s Journey is always based on the Hero overcoming authentic obstacles and challenges. Training in your own garage with a handful of people, none of whom have even your level of experience, is not an authentic obstacle. You are entitled to your opinions, but that does not mean your opinions are valid and have to be accepted as valid. You can have the opinion that the world is flat. That is your right. However, it is my right then to publicly point out that you are wrong, especially when I can empirically prove you are wrong. And don’t get butthurt when that happens.

Thought #4 – It may seem on a first glance, superficial level that thought #1 conflicts with thoughts #2 & #3. It actually does not, at all. If something someone does, does not affect you, then there is no reason to get upset about it. However, in the case of the situation of 2 & 3, those things affect me deeply, because it is a deep wound to the art that I love and have devoted over 21 years of my life to. When lunatics, egomaniacs, liars, and narcissists jump in and try to steal something that does not belong to them, I get angry, and I will speak out. If only so others don’t fall into their web of deceit and waste time and energy.

What the heck do racecars and eye gouges have to do with one another? Stay with me for a minute and I will explain.

One of my pet peeves when it comes to self-defense is whenever an “expert” will denigrate combat sports such as Brazilian Jiu-jitsu or boxing, or any kind of competition like Practical Pistol shooting by saying if you engage in any of those things, you are building reactions that will cause you pain, suffering, and death on the street in a real life altercation.

They insist that doing even one competition or practicing with any idea of a sport context with rules will instill training scars that are impossible to overcome. Any hint or suggestion that there is anything that limits what reactions you can have will be apocalyptic in results.

Here is the problem with that idea – they do the same thing in their own training courses! Whether it is a firearms course or a combatives/H2H class, there are rules and procedures that are just as limiting as any competitive rule set. Don’t believe me? Well, answer me this. When was the last time a one-dimensional flat piece of paper attacked anyone? So if we practice shooting against that target, and never against a real 3-D person, why won’t we go into shutdown mode when confronted with the real thing?

Another example – When was the last time a self-defense situation was initiated by someone shouting “Up”, or “Bust ‘em”, or “Threat!”? Of course the answer is never, but those are all typical firing commands in street oriented/tactical/non-competition shooting classes. And yet the exact same people, who will say that going off a buzzer in an IDPA match will get you killed, will then have the equivalent stimulus! It is just so hypocritical.

If competition/sport oriented rules ingrain habits that will dominate your subconscious and cannot be overcome in high stress situations, then why do we not see literally thousands of automobile accidents take place every year where professional race car drivers are driving in normal traffic? After all, professional drivers (NASCAR, Indy racing, sprint cars, etc) spend hours a day, practically every day, on a track with no oncoming traffic, no traffic signals, and they are only turning left. If competition ruins you, then every self-defense oriented shooter should be vocally and loudly demanding that all professional racecar drivers should be banned from normal driving.

And yet, they don’t, because it would be ludicrous and stupid! Too bad that does not stop them from applying the same poor logic to self-defense and their magical fight stoppers like eye gouging (See? I told you I would tie it all together!) that somehow will be accessible even if you never actually apply them in real time against a resisting opponent. If driving on a circular track for far more hours than any person ever spends shooting does not warp your real world reactions, then shooting IDPA/USPSA or competing in a judo tournament won’t either. Period.