Never too Young

This post is prompted by a comment I read online by someone who'd attended a seminar with one of my colleagues on the IKMF Global Instructor Team.

The person expressed surprise that my colleague taught his young children anti-abduction strategies. And then went on to express thanks that we don't live in Israel, where such things might be necessary.

This is a sentiment I hear quite a lot. We should protect our children from such knowledge about abduction and the like. They are too young to understand. We will just scare them.

I don't think this could be further from the truth. If you're not teaching your children simple skills and strategies for possible emergency situations, then you should be!

I can't recall the exact figures, but it's a no brainer; virtually all families who have a plan in the case of fire in the home survive. Virtually none of those who don't, do. Just a simple plan. Where to go if the alarm rings. How to get there in the dark. How to bring other children or siblings along. How to escape.

This plan doesn't have to be scary or paranoia-inducing. We don't need to make our kids tremble in their beds at night through fear of burning to death. From a young age these can be practiced as games. Sound the smoke detector and practice walking or crawling to the special room. Do it blindfolded.

The same with other areas of personal protection such as anti-abduction. Put the music up loud, close the windows and doors and get the kids to shout "you're not my mum, leave me alone." talk about running from cars that stop. There's lots of ways to get simple messages across without being frightening. Do it occasionally, not all at once too.

Is this paranoia? Well, perhaps we don't have the levels of kidnapping that other parts of the world have, but we do have sexual predators. They're always moving amongst us. The recent uproar about evil-personified - Ian Brady - is a sad and tragic reminder of this, if we really needed one.

D

Musashi #1

 ‘To study the sword you must study war, weapons, and men.’

Miyomoto Musashi, Book of Five Rings.

Something a little more esoteric. Like many long-term martial artists I enjoy reading the Book of Five Rings penned by sixteenth century Japanese swordmaster Musashi. It’s enjoyable in-and-of-itself for its literary style and as a cultural icon. But it’s also valuable for what it tells us about violent combat. Stripped of all its trappings and adornments violent struggle is pretty-much founded upon timeless truths. What Musashi writes about – what he uncovers – is as true today as it was then.

There are lots of choice insights in Musashi’s little book – about mindset, tactics, technique and so forth – but for me the most profound and enlightening insight is the above quote regarding what is necessary for studying the sword, which, for us, is our self-protection system of choice.

At its very basic level Musashi’s statement tells us that a martial art or self-defence system cannot be studied in isolation; it is not something that stands alone or apart from the world. Just waving a sword around – however beautiful the action or perfect the technique – is no more than a set of body movements if it is dislocated from the enterprise of using a sword for its intended purpose – as an instrument for killing an opponent. Similarly, punching a set of pads, or practising strikes in thin air is no more than aesthetically pleasing movements if disconnected from its intended purpose of striking another human being; it is just a dance-like enterprise.

Musashi’s context for the study of the sword is war, weapons, and men. Little has changed in today’s environment. Musashi’s terms are specific examples of more general notions of context, tools, and actors. If we undertake the study of self-protection then we must study the context in which the need for self-protection arises, i.e., violent situations; the tools by which such situations are perpetrated and successfully resisted, and the systems of their use; and the actors who take their various parts in the situation, including their motivations and methods.

Context, tools, and actors are necessary components for the full study of self-protection and, collectively, they are sufficient. They may even form an exhaustive set, for I can think of nothing else that falls outside this set which would be relevant.

I'll look at context, tools, and actors in relation to modern day combatives in forthcoming posts.

D

 

White Belt Mentality

Last night I had the pleasure of attending a Krav Maga class as a student. It was the first time in a while. Ordinarily I'm either teaching Krav Maga or I'm training with one or two other people in Krav Maga or various other combatives systems. Ocassionally though, I get the opportunity just to attend a public group class. It was the class of one of my instructors here at Krav Maga Nottingham, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Not only do I feel very lucky to have two other extremely talented instructors working with me, but I just enjoyed being a student again. I didn't know many of the people in the group so it was like stepping through the front door of a club for the first time again and having to adapt to what I saw before me.

From an instructor's perspective it's good to be reminded how difficult that step is for students. Often the most difficult thing to do is to walk through the door. Many people get defeated before they even turn up. Nerves get the better of them, and they rationalise it post hoc as not being for them, not what they wanted or what they're about.

From a personal perspective however I got to train as a beginner again, to do what the beginners do. T be a white belt. This is so important. Many people see being an instructor as the holy grail. Once you're there, you've "made it." That couldn't be further from the truth. Often being an instructor is a distraction from what brings us to training - the training itself. Most instructors don't train as much as when they were students themselves. Many also see it as the end in terms of learning. It's not. You have to grow. As an instructor or long-term student, you can't sit back on your acquired knowledge; you have to push on. It's why I've studied so mant martial arts. The need to go back to the beginning. Not only to learn what others are doing - which is vital as an instructor (we need to study what is useful and what we might face in an adversary) - but to challenge ourselves to be better, and to remind ourselves that we don't know everything and that there's always someone who either knows more or knows different.

D

I'm Still Standing...

There’s a lot written about it already, but I keep coming back to Musashi’s Book of Five Rings. It’s a masterpiece that benefits from re-reading time and time again; the insights of someone who’d survived hundreds of real fights where death was the only other outcome. The insights are timeless, because, although weapons change a little (though not that much), men and strategy remain the same. From time to time I'll set down my various thoughts and reflections on this greatest of works.

One of Musashi’s insights is that there should be no difference between practice and performance, and our whole lives – every bit of them – should be practice. There’s no difference between walking or running in battle, and walking and running in our daily lives. Train how you intend to fight, and make every bit of everything you do a part of that training.

This insight helped me out in my own life several years ago. I was talking to my boss at work. Not my immediate boss, but THE boss. A powerful, perceptive, very forceful character. Everyone was wary of him. I’d given a presentation and we spoke a few words as we were leaving. He asked me a few questions and probed me a bit. And then he said: ‘Stand still man! You’re hopping around like a damned chicken!’ or some such thing. In retrospect I’ve never felt comfortable just standing and talking – a bit self-conscious – and, admittedly, I would always be shifting position whilst doing so. He’d picked up on this and had obviously found it annoying.

If the person I’d been talking to was an attacker the feeling he’d be getting is not one of annoyance but a clear signal of my discomfort. Uncomfortable equals not confident; a clear sign of weakness, which adds up to the perception of being an easy victim. Even if everything else had been perfect – my eye contact, hand positioning, voice, intonation, all the rest of it, my shifting about would have been totally incongruent and betrayed the lie that I wasn’t really confident. I had, what we call in the FAST system, "happy feet."

This really bugged me. After all, I’d worked for a long time in an area where doing this was required, and I’d done it. I’d reflected on it, practiced it, honed it in the mirror, and used it successfully night after night. What was the difference? The answer is, there really is no difference. I’d made a separation between life and work; between the different spheres of work. I’d not taken Musashi’s insight to heart and made the way I stand in battle the way I stand in daily life, and vice versa. Standing is just standing.

So, I brought the two into equilibrium. I use every single conversation I have with others as the opportunity to practice my situational control position. Standing firm, feet bladed, hands in front (talking Italian), making eye contact (another thing I find really difficult), intoning in a certain way. My colleagues and others don’t realise it but I’m training when they talk to me. Now, I don’t even realise it; it’s second nature. It’s just standing.

D

And another...

While we're on the subject of self-protection suggestions that are irrational, here's one I got from my friend and instructor Lee Morrison. It's concerning the advice for women to put the strap of their handbag over their head and shoulder rather than just their shoulder to, supposedly, make it more difficult for bag snatchers to grab it and make off with it.

As Lee says, do you really want to be tied to your assailant like that? Is he really going to give up when the bag doesn't come away easily? Or is he going to punch you a couple times in the head till you slump to the floor and then it'll come away just as easily. Like the last one, the suggestion of making it more difficult for the goblin has to be balanced against the risk to your own safety.

D

Car Keys

Here's another one I don't like. A common piece of advice is to take your car keys upstairs with you at night. There's been an increase in recent years of cars being stolen to order, and with the increasingly sophisticated alarm and immobiliser systems on cars, stealing the keys is much easier. So the goblins break into your house for them before stealing your car. If you take your keys upstairs at night, then when they break in looking for them it'll frustrate them.

Yep, it may REALLY frustrate them! To the point of waking you up to get them. I don't know about you, but I don't want to invite any burglars upstairs to where my family sleep. I'll happily give up my car for their safety, so I'll be leaving my keys in an obvious place - inside the front door. If they're serious enough to break in, then they're welcome to the keys. I don't want to find out if they're serious enough to come get me to help them retrieve them!

D

Dummy Wallet?

One of the tips I've heard regularly amongst the self-defence fraternity is to carry a dummy wallet containing a small denomination note or two, some coins, and some fake or expired credit/debit cards. This can then be handed over to a mugger instead of your real wallet.

It's a great tip, but if you're like me, my pockets are always weighted down with too much stuff anyway (and I just couldn't bring myself to carry one of these "man bags" I see the younger generation using). I soon get fed up carrying a dummy wallet, and I'm not sure I'd have the presence of mind under the high-stress circumstances of a violent, armed mugging to remember which one to hand over. I've carried one when abroad, largely because the probability of being scammed or robbed is higher due to a lack of local knowledge.

My preference, therefore, is to carry just one wallet, but not to carry anything in it that I couldn't afford to lose. Never carry large amounts of cash. It's not necessary. If you need lots of cash (which is unusual in our cash-less society), then you can use a card (preferably at a supermarket using cash-back) to get it. Don't carry too many credit cards. Just one debit and one credit card. Consider putting one somewhere else on your body - in a zip pocket perhaps. Make sure you have the cancellation telephone number close to hand. It's a hassle cancelling them, but not the end of the world in terms of disruption. Do NOT, under any circumstances, carry anything in your wallet that links you to your address. This means, if you are in the UK, do NOT carry your Driving Licence (even the hard card) with you. It's not illegal to not have it with you if driving - you can produce it at a later date if requested to do so by the Police. Your driving license has your home address on it. Lose you wallet to a mugger (or just lose your wallet) and not only do they have access to your credit cards, but they also now know where you live. That can bring a whole world of hassle and hurt down on you.

D

More on Active Shooters

Just a brief adenda to the last post. Someone sent me a link to this thoughtful and highly personal reaction to the Colorado spree shooting. It's most definitely worth a read. Very honest, particularly the point that under such extreme and off-the-wall circumstances none of us - regardless of training - know how we would react.

http://rick-rickrandolph.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/thoughts-on-colorado.html

D

Active Shooter Training

Like most people these days who work for others (I’m a university lecturer), I have to attend various staff-development events and staff “away days.” Usually the latter consist of activities such as building egg-box towers or other such delights in the name of team building.

Back in 2007, and faced with another yawn-inspiring away day, I suggested to my boss that we do something a little more interesting, something more useful. What did I suggest, he asked. How about I teach a two-hour session on surviving spree shootings? Being a particularly forward-looking and astute chap, he exclaimed: ‘are you mad? We can’t do that! What do you think this is? This is a university, that sort of thing doesn’t go on in Universities! Even in America that doesn’t happen!’ I pointed out that many academics travel, and that it was a darn-site more useful than building and flying paper aeroplanes (as he had planned). But he wouldn’t have any of it.

Sadly, just a few months later Seung-Hi Cho rampaged through the halls and corridors of Virginia Tech University, killing 32 and wounding 25 more. Of course it happens at Universities! Even in a gun-bearing country such as the US, the gun-toting spree killer targets places where the authorities prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying arms. It stands to reason, if in your twisted mind you plan to kill as many people as possible, then you’re going to pick easy targets – schools, universities, public buildings – where the intended victims will pose no opposition.

Just a few weeks ago I taught an Active Shooter class at my Krav Maga club. Sadly, the very next day Colorado bore witness to a gunman opening fire in a packed movie theatre, and just a couple of weeks after that, another shooter entered a Sikh temple killing six innocent members.

The point of this is not a told-you-so one. Often in combatives we train for the high-probability eventualities – the mugging, knifing, gang attack – but it’s also possible and important to prepare for the less common. The basics of Active Shooter training can be learned in a couple of hours, and practiced once in a while. I do my class on it once or twice a year max. The second time people do it, they behave astonishingly more tactically than the first time.

The headline principles are simple – and I thank my good friend Pete Lee for the foundations for thinking about this (I believe he took them from the Jim Wagner system), but also from Krav Maga, research, and a bunch of professional training – and easily learned and practiced. They can be summed up in the good old fight, flight or freeze terminology.

Flight

If, when the brown stuff hits the fan, you can get out of the building or away to safety, then do so immediately. Don’t stay around to watch or look, but don’t take risks running if the shooter is nearby and the exit isn’t. As a guide, if the shooter is present, then only make a break for it if you adjudge the exit to be achievable in a couple of seconds. It’ll take him no more than that to track your movement. If he’s in another part of the building, proceed carefully.

Freeze

Well, almost. If you can’t run, then either hide if you have time (barricade yourself in a room or the like), or if he’s in the room, hit the floor double quick and play possum. Do not move. Try to regulate your breathing, and try to appear dead. The shooter is going to be amped up – he’s running on adrenaline too – and looking to shoot as many people as possible. He won’t be tracking each bullet from an automatic weapon, so lots of people will be going down from direct hits and ricochets. Another body hitting the floor won’t likely be noticed. He’ll be reacting to movement, so don’t move. Don’t move, that is, until the conditions under Flight (above) hold.

Fight

If you can’t get away safely and other options seem minimal then fight back. If it’s a choice between being shot passively and going out fighting, it might as well be the latter. You may succeed. You may, at the very least, allow others to succeed or escape. Opportunities do exist – he’ll likely have to reload. Weapons jam with alarming frequency. If there’s no other choice, what choice have you got? If you have chance, arm yourself in advance with improvised weapons. If not, fight tooth and claw.

D

One from Nottingham

 Here's an item from Nottinghamshire Constabulary. The sexual assault took place only a few yards from one of our training venues, in a very nice area of Nottingham. Once again, an illustration of the fact that violent, predatory assault can occur anywhere; even in the nicest areas. Don't go into dark, isolated areas at night. Not to walk the dog, not because it's been safe the last one-hundred nights you've done it, not because it's the short route home. This goblin was waiting for just that kind of reasoning. Well done to the lady for fighting back. Most would freeze.

 

Do you recognise man in E-fit?

Updated on 1st August 2012

Police have released an image of the man they believe sexually assaulted a woman in West Bridgford.
The incident happened at about 9.30pm on Wednesday 25 July 2012 when a 43-year-old woman was walking along the Grantham Canal footpath behind the Morrisons store at the Gamston District Centre.
A man is reported to have punched her in the face and knocked her to the floor, before subjecting her to a sexual assault.
She was able to scream and fight back, which caused him to run off towards Morrisons.
She was left bruised and extremely shaken by the ordeal.
An electronically-generated likeness, known as an e-fit, as been produced of the suspect.
He is described as white, aged 28 to 35, of a medium build and about 6ft tall. He was wearing stonewash blue jeans and a blue t-shirt.
His hair was brown in a grown-out crew cut style and he had stubble on his face. He may also have suffered scratch and bite marks to his hands and face.
Police patrols have been increased in the vicinity to provide community reassurance and act as a deterrent to potential offenders. There have been no further incidents of this nature reported in the area.
If you recognise the man, or have any information about the attack, contact Nottinghamshire Police on 101, quoting incident 904 of 25 July 2012, or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Why "Combatives"?

Why the term "Combatives"? Why not "martial art" or "self-defence" or "Defensive tactics system"? Why do I persist in using the term "combatives"? In part, the search for a label is driven by the private language that those of us who train in certain systems or approaches use together; it seperates "us" from the rest - from the other. Everyone likes to be part of a group that has clearly defined boundaries of membership and acceptance. It is also a distinction that - whether because of this or simply a sympton - that tries to identify exactly what it is we do.

For years I tried never to talk about my love of the martial arts to outsiders. First, as Dave Lowry says, it's better not to draw your katana in public - that is, it's prudent not to let others know what you can do. Largely, this is because it can provoke confrontation or challenge (people often feel threatened by someone who they perceive as having had some training for physical conflict), but it can also detract from any surprise it may generate when deployed against an aggressor if he is already clued up that we can hold our own. Moreover, it's just awkward talking with the uninitiated about what we do. The general public have a very specific comprehension of what "martial arts" means - a kind of one-size-fits-all understanding - often drawn from Holywood and three weeks of karate at the local youth club as a kid. So, on those occasions when I've mentioned to others that I train in Krav Maga, the usual response is, naturally enough, 'what's that?' 'Oh, it's a defensive tactics system...' They look back blankly.. 'We train to deal with violent and potentially violent situations that we might face...'. 'Oh, you mean martial arts?' as they form their hands into karate-chop type shapes, move them back and forth and make some pseudo-oriental "waaa" sound. All a bit silly really.

No, that's not what I do. I don't do martial arts. Martial arts on that understanding are activities based on tradition, formality, the learning of a system or set of motions that we do with other people, often in a back-and-forward manner. A bit of a generalisation for sure, but you get the picture. Martial arts on this view are largely based on getting techniques to look right - to be aesthetically pleasing - and to preserve a particular athletic tradition. They are (now at least) largely divorced from the ugliness of modern violence, from the realities of rape, robbery, abduction, and being shanked by two goblins in a car park for the price of a cup of tea. (If your martial art does deal with these things, then I submit what you actually do is combatives not martial arts).

Neither can what we do be accurately described as self-defence. This comes with lots of preconceived baggage. It implies lots of twisty-wristy solutions and an approach of reacting to some attack that has alreayd been perpetrated against us. It also tends to indicate a reliance on individual techniques, and techniques that are physical in nature. I have two problems with this understanding. First, what we do is so much more than just physical. If a situation escalates to the point at which it is violent and requires a violent response, then we've seriously messed up. I'm interested in the prior story - the fuller spectrum of personal protection - the awareness, escape, verbal de-escalation, that would prevent me having to be physical. If I'm not training for these, then I'm doing the equivalent of learning to repair a car after in crashes instead of learning to drive the car as well. Second, although our aim, broadly speaking, is to defend ourselves, the term self-defence suggests we should be "defensive" to do this effectively. This couldn't be further from the truth. When the time comes to defend ourselves we should be pro-active. Safety resides in switching on and beating the aggressor at his own game.

So, combatives it is for me. The term is a new one; coined by modern instructors (and legends) like Kelly McCann and Lee Morrison. To be combative is to be ready to argue or fight; to be forthright and persistant. Combatives is what we can do in order to counter those who are physically combative. It is a system of things (principles, tactics, tools) that work for the greatest set of circumstances the greatest number of times. In other words, it's reliable in dealing with violence and the threat of violence. Combatives is something we do to someone, not with someone (a la martial arts). It is asymmetrical. It is pro-active and overwhelming; giving the aggressor no space to respond or harm us. Combatives is principle-driven - it doesn't focus upon the learning of myriad physical techniques or fine-motored skills - but upon ascertaining and driving towards certain outcomes. Combatives also deals with the pre-conflict stage of confrontation, and the psychological aspect of preparing ourselves for violent conflict. It is not a combat sport. It has no place in a sporting arena where things are symmetrical, reciprocal, and bounded by rules and regulations.

Unfortunately, these things are often confused. Those teaching and practicing traditional martial arts, or martial sports, also claim that what they teach can be transferred to real self-defence. This is usually untrue. I train simply for real violence; not for sporting contest, or for the sake of art or tradition, and hope that I'm picking up real-world skills at the same time.

Now that I teach it's even more important for me to be clear about what it is I offer. What is Krav Maga? What is Urban Combatives, or FAST Defence? They're systems of combatives - systems of counter-violence. If you want to learn to deal with modern violent problems that scare the bejeezers out of all normal people, then come train. if you want to compete or learn how to use tonfa or butterfly knives, go somewhere else. This affects the way I approach what I teach too; it gives it a certain inflection. Even within Krav Maga there's a lot of influence from other systems which are not primarily combatives - combat sports and traditional martial arts. We have to sift these things carefully. Krav Maga is born from combat - it is and should be one of the purest forms of combatives for the modern world.

D

Welcome Back!

A five year gap between my first blog post and my second... Impressive even by my own standards. In fact, I even forgot I had started a blog until the other day. I was chatting to a friend and student about some of the projects I'm involved in and he said 'you should start a blog.' My response to that was, why? The usual reservations - who'd really be interested in what I have to say, but it got me thinking; and I remembered I'd already started one several years back. I even remembered the username and password for the account. So what the heck! Let's give it a try...

A LOT has changed in those five years - both in terms of the field of martial arts/combatives/personal protection, and in my personal position. Things have really moved on in the field; a new generation of instructors, with newer, better, more refined ideas have forced their way to the fore. The mini explosion in reality-based self defence has brought something of a consensus on what principles work (and what don't). Combat sports such as MMA and BJJ have taken athleticism of combat to a whole new level and have reached out into other areas that have hitherto been largely ignored in recent decades (functional strength training, kettlebells, primal movement). These are exciting times. Onwards and upwards...

D