Tag: combatives

Training Realism

Posted by Mostly Genius – September 9, 2009

I just read this post The Calm in the Storm over at Low Tech Combat, and I have few criticisms.

Full force training. Certainly if we need to perform a skill under stress we should have some practice in that skill under stress. Ideally we would be training in as close as we can to “actual combat conditions,” but there are limits to how well we can simulate this environment, and more importantly the student needs some ability to perform the skills required before applying stress.

If you can’t do it under perfect conditions what chance do you have under combat conditions?

Relaxed Training. Is where you learn new skills. Ideally drilling parts of the skill in isolation and building to a complete technique. I can take a new shooter and scream “speed reload” at him until I am blue in the face and eventually the fumbling will accomplish getting the gun reloaded, but not in a timely or efficient fashion. This also holds true with combatives techniques. Until a technique has been rehearsed without resistance and time pressure it has very little hope of becoming consistent. If you can’t do it under perfect conditions what chance do you have under combat conditions?

Stressed in training, calm in reality. This an excellent goal, and from what I have observed: confident, successful, application of technique comes from first training the skill in a low stress environments and after achieving proficiency, then ratcheting up the realism. I completely agree that you ultimately have to progress to executing techniques in realistic scenarios under realistic stress if you want the best chance at executing successful techniques in the real world.

Running away and related concepts

Posted by Mostly Genius – August 31, 2009

After the comments in this post, I felt I should explain a few concepts again that some people seem to be confused about.

Disengagement. This is a complicated way of saying “running away” (or used preemptively, “don’t be there.”) Obviously this perfectly sound advice and I am in complete agreement that this a very good idea for staying out of both danger and legal trouble. It is not the ultimate trump card that some make it out to be simply because there are situations where you cannot run away from, either for practical reasons (no available path of escape) or moral reasons (running would mean you leaving your child or spouse to face the danger alone.) In terms of self defense as a private citizen we are always working towards disengagement, but we must recognize that there might need to be intervening steps between the beginning of the confrontation and our finally being able to disengage.

Deescalation. Deescalation is the process of being (or at least appearing to be) reasonable and or conciliatory, in the hopes of diffusing a potentially dangerous situation. This is what is known as “talking your way out” of fighting. Most people have some basic idea of how this works, and the better and more practiced at it you are the more applicable it becomes. I consider deescalation to be a core self defense skill and should get at least as much thought and attention as learning to shoot or fight. Unfortunately many situations cannot be deescalated through reason, compromise, or dialogue. This is where pacifism fails: some people are ideologically bent upon causing you harm and they are not going to be dissuaded by discussion.

Use of Force Spectrum

Verbal Commands. A verbal command is a stated demand for compliance. This generally implies that there will be consequences for non-compliance and those consequences include the application of a higher level of force than verbal commands. I think this is where a lot of generic self defense curriculum goes awry, because if there isn’t a credible ability to use force after issuing verbal commands it simply amounts to a bluff. Should a subject comply with the commands then that might create an opportunity for using deescalation and/or disengagement.

Application of Violence. Hopefully, there was an opportunity in a developing situation to apply the previously mentioned steps and something (or some combination) was effective. Other times a situation can require the immediate application of violence because of the nature of the threat and the circumstances. Ideally the amount of violence will be the minimum that is sufficient to stop the attack. In the wider self defense community the martial arts purists seem to think that they can fight their way out of every situation (except for those that believe an armed assailant is instant death) and the firearms purists who believe that any physical altercation is justification for gunfire. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. As a general guideline, you will have an easier time (legally speaking) if you can stop an attack using something less than lethal force – even if you are not required by law to do so.

Size disparity, being armed, and gun control

Posted by Mostly Genius – August 25, 2009

Marko has a well meaning but misinformed post in favor people carrying guns. The early UFC matches didn’t have weight classes and the big guys didn’t always win. Smaller trained fighters routinely prevail against larger untrained fighters. Regardless, professional criminals are armed criminals and gun control isn’t going to change that. I am all for armed citizens, but it has nothing to do with disparities in size or training.

Modern Military Combatives Programs

Posted by Mostly Genius – May 7, 2009

Hell-in-a-handbasket has a post up about some of the modern military combatives programs, but there are a few mistakes that need some clarification.

Previously military combatives systems had the primary goal of killing the enemy in close combat. The purpose for this was for things like POW Escape, sentry removal, or the rare “out of ammo” scenario. Contrast this with FM 3-25.150 (FM 21-150):

1-2. PURPOSES OF COMBATIVES TRAINING
Soldiers must be prepared to use different levels of force in an environment where conflict may change from low intensity to high intensity over a matter of hours. Many military operations, such as peacekeeping missions or noncombatant evacuation, may restrict the use of deadly weapons. Hand-to-hand combatives training will save lives when an unexpected confrontation occurs.

More importantly, combatives training helps to instill courage and self-confidence. With competence comes the understanding of controlled aggression and the ability to remain focused while under duress. Training in combatives includes hard and arduous physical training that is, at the same time, mentally demanding and carries over to other military pursuits. The overall effect of combatives training is—
• The culmination of a successful physical fitness program, enhancing individual and unit strength, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness.
• Building personal courage, self confidence, self-discipline, and esprit de corps.

So this is not some sort of “quick kill” system that has removed all of the martial arts “nonsense.” Far from it, some of these programs are complete martial arts in and of themselves, seeded with an amount of what I can only call “spiritual development” like you would find in any traditional martial art. I am sure that it has been “streamlined” but remember what the design goals are, it is not just the inefficient things that have been paired down. Most of the implementations of military combatives that I have seen have been a cross between a physical training event and morale event. There are competitions at all echelons, and these competitions need to be safe enough to not injure the participants.

The 260 hour black belt is certainly on par with many martial arts studios: working out 5 hours a week for a year and getting a black belt isn’t all that unusual. I do not believe that the military has lost its zeal for physical fitness and I am sure that these sessions are certainly physically taxing, but that can also be true of any physical training for a contact sport. More to the point that a belt rank really only has relevance within it’s own art. Ranks are awarded within the art in question for demonstrated knowledge of the material. Additionally, I would say that in most martial arts a black belt isn’t anything close to being a “master” but rather the place where you have enough of a foundation in the mechanics to actually start learning. It’s more of a high school diploma than a PhD.

The military has a lot of other things that it’s personnel need to do. Combatives are only the primary job of a very few combatives instructors. The average infantryman needs to maintain his physical fitness, equipment, marksmanship, career training, and a lot of mandatory administration. Fighting unarmed is not a top military priority.

Finally the “buddy with a gun” philosophy I consider to be an edge case justification for the curriculum. Should the corner stone of the system be the idea that you are alone, unarmed, and facing a single unarmed opponent? Should the strategy for winning that scenario be to fight to a stalemate and hope your friend shows up first?

I am actually a fan of the modern military combatives systems that I have been exposed to, but not for reasons of combat effectiveness or military necessity.