Fighting Talk - Part Two

In the last article I sought to introduce and address combative subject-matter from a fairly generic training-modality perspective – it seemed like a good place to start…at the beginning perhaps…but perhaps before I do any kind of deep dive into the how’s and the what’s of such training, there’s something even more fundamental – the ‘question’ that must always be considered prior to any attempt at a solution.

There is little point in trying to forward-engineer any answer to any question – try taking your favourite number to a maths test, for example, and see how you get on - the problem must be properly studied and understood first and foremost.

?

In this case, this question is violence – and before specific ‘answers’ to the various components of this are examined - the solutions we intend to arrive at via training - let’s have a better look…many think they know what violence is all about, but on examination it would appear that barring some schoolyard tussles, most people’s real frame of reference comes from movies and television – thankfully the vast majority of people have never been punched fully in the face…nor have done the punching, and to be honest there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this state of affairs whatsoever…unless you are supposed to be teaching the subject.

?

To be truly effective regarding properly addressing the issue, it is essential that we reverse-engineer training to match such violence directly – we cannot simply train the preferred ‘stuff’ that we like…and ‘hope’ it will fit into the circumstances at the time.

?

For the purposes of this piece, such ‘circumstances’ will focus upon the higher-force scenarios – not only is it good practice to install ‘worst-case’ options first, as an emergency-default ‘safety-net’ of sorts, but it seems to be what is most lacking in many cases…with some even arguing, ridiculously, against it being valid at all.

?

Use of force options must address the full-spectrum of eventualities – up to and including applying maximum force in the most severe of occasions, that would actually warrant the use of a firearm, that is either not available/accessible, or would place third parties at risk, so cannot be employed.

Shying away from the higher end of force options is…stupid, to be blunt. Saying otherwise just ‘red flags’ someone as being inexperienced and uninformed concerning genuine interpersonal violence. Yes…obviously this ‘full spectrum’ involves lower force options, and definitely ‘no-force’ options – conflict management, verbal de-escalation, not to mention bucketloads of awareness and avoidance…and if anything is to be utilised at all, it is far more likely to be of this ‘lower force’ variety than any kind of all-out life or death struggle. But…the high-force options should not, cannot, be ignored or diminished just because they require substantial training…and a degree of immutable physicality that many do not possess, or are not prepared to develop.

?

I’ll boldly, and confidently, submit that many really have not fully studied what this genuine violence really is, not in the context of what it will entail outside of a training or sporting environment at least. People…experts, instructors, authorities, gurus… seem to spend a long time, decades perhaps, focusing on every possible answer…with quite a few impossible ones too…but often it’s quite obvious that they haven’t even spent five minutes actually looking at what the real question is.

?

In a following article I will cover various ‘forward-engineering’ mistakes and misunderstandings that do not take into account various inconvenient real-violence factors, such as having a dramatically-reduced timeframe to operate within, plus a massive reduction in effect that sudden and spontaneous events produce, due to the lack of preparation involved, and not taking into account the actual ultra-explosive dynamic of a real-life engagement that can be over before someone even realises it has begun.

For now, there’s something VERY fundamental that must be realistically addressed first –? the essential ‘software’ needed to make any ‘hardware’ actually work.

?

The fighting mindset, combative attitude, or even ‘killer instinct’ as it might be called is vital – crucial – since all the skill in the world is useless without the appropriate and corresponding ‘will’ to use it…and this remains one of the hardest things to teach anyone, or indeed to learn.

Some will disagree I’m sure – judging by the material commonly presented, featuring all manner of violent-excess as standard – and might insist that individuals can be thoroughly ‘weaponised’ without much trouble apparently, so effective is their training.

?

Also…let’s not forget the pseudoscience-stuff - if we are to believe everything we read on the internet, it is a relatively simple affair to reconfigure normal civilised thought patterns using all manner of cool neural-based drills - so gruesome acts of violence can be committed at the drop of a hat. Nope…let’s stop this fallacy, this utter nonsense, right out of the gate.

?

Everybody IS 'hardwired' with an almost perfect survival instinct, one that enables them to prevail in the most hostile circumstances.

This is a fact - the very existence of our species, virtually unchanged, since the evolution into homosapien proves this - we are by no means a 'combat-ready' animal, like…where are the teeth, the claws, the protective structures? Do we have massive strength or speed? Not really, certainly not compared to other animals anyway. We have only survived against much more apparently dangerous species through our adaptability, fostered through being endowed with superior thinking ability.

?

The fighting/survival mindset is there, no matter who you are. The problem lies with all the layers of 'civilisation' that cover and suppress it, restricting proper utilisation. As a species, most especially in the more developed nations, we have done an amazing job of ruining hundreds of thousands of years of evolution…smothering the human survival instinct admirably via morals, laws, ethics, rules of behaviour, police to do the protecting, armies to do the fighting – basically, in modern society…what use is such an ‘ugly’ mindset anymore for the average person?

If you are a nice person, and I hope you are, it should be a tough call to punch someone hard in the face with all your might, and you should flinch and feel scared when someone tries to do the same to you - this is all natural, and personally I don't want to live in an environment where it isn't normal, although I’ve certainly worked in a few over the years.

?

Personally, I am sick and tired of reading sage advice from those who are essentially ‘violence-virgins’ regarding accessing combative states of mind, developing the killer instinct etc, making it all sound so easy, like it's all been figured out and made neat, tidy and simple to achieve.

Fighting is horrible when it really IS fighting and not just an interactive pseudo-martial dance. There is little ‘easy’ about it, either physically or mentally - remember this no matter which 'expert' tries to tell you otherwise, keep this as your perspective. Remember this when listening to the next fight-guru using language such as “all you have to do is…” or “just do this…”

?

Depending on who I happen to be teaching, I like to hammer this home to bring some fantasists down to earth and back to reality - particularly the ‘urban street combat’ murder-death-kill types that seem to obsess over 'maximum force', 'deadly blows' and 'offensive knife skills' etc.

Let’s be clear about this – many of the popular offerings go well beyond presenting relevant and suitable material…especially considering the vast majority of the intended audience…with all manner of ultra-violent scenarios such as ‘sentry neutralisation’ for example – yes, you read that right, creeping up on unsuspecting guards and silently killing them… Sounds…extreme? Sure…but even for the ‘common’ self-defence scenarios, there’s invariably eye-gouging, biting, throat-ripping – how I laugh at the utter implausibility of this one every time I see it – with extended ‘finishing blows’ to every downed adversary…legal implications be damned…

Lots of big talk about becoming ‘weaponised’ and the bravado is palpable…and delusional…from individuals who, best case, do a couple of hours of what is often little more than Cosplay, essentially, once or twice a week, backed-up by the occasional seminar – most certainly they’re not putting in the same hard-yards as a pro-fighter…the people who ARE actually dangerous…

I simply ask these ‘tourist’ types "So…could you kill a man?" and in the vast majority of instances I am assured, without hesitation, that they definitely could, no doubt whatsoever, sometimes with an excited glint in their eye, often with some solemn faux-gravitas to show just how SERIOUS they are.

I'll ask them again, but this time will add "If the next words out of your mouth are anything other than 'I don't know' I will immediately dismiss you, because you don't live in the real world and are not worth training...."

Actually ‘tourist’ is the perfect term, isn’t it? Someone who visits to see the cool stuff, maybe acts like a ‘local’ but only for a short period, just enough to have something to boast about – no need to stick around for the full experience though…since a great deal of it isn’t so thrilling after all.

Truth is, I train people, on a regular basis, that have to use extreme force, people who have used it and will have to use it again for certain - and these guys, the ‘locals’ so to speak, don't make anywhere near the noise that the internet and dojo experts, the tourists, make. Needless to say, I don’t ask them the above question – not only would it be an insult, but it would also be totally unnecessary…because there’s a reason why I ask who I ask…

?

So, to ask the above question again - in modern society…what use is such an ‘ugly’ mindset anymore for the average person?

?

Real violence IS a big deal, it does impact upon your life unless there is something fundamentally different about your thought processes than those of a normal civilised adult human being.

Unfortunately, the criminal scumbags out there have a much thinner covering of civilisation than the nice guys - it's a pity that more people don't train to fight these scumbags...but instead ?to master the art of fighting nice guys instead.

This thinner coating of morals, and rules, and laws and all the other factors that make the world a nicer place to live, gives the scumbag a distinct advantage when it's time not to be nice. They are far less impeded and are able to 'access state' almost instantly, no fancy psychobabble courses required here, they are 'good to go' straight off and this is a huge problem for the nice guys out there - in combat, nice guys truly finish last, in fact, simply, there is no place whatsoever for a nice guy in a fight. Period.

?

Most of the 'cutting edge' aggression management and ‘state-access’ drills that I see are little more than 'lose your temper' exercises, or else attempt to delve into the realms of advanced behavioural therapy that doesn't really transfer over into combative usage outside of the classroom or off the psychiatrist's couch. However fun and exhilarating the former, and however interesting and fascinating the latter - I personally see little mileage in either practice for the actual intended task.

?

Certainly, the confidence afforded by real competence goes a long way in terms of dealing with pre-conflict stress, and along the way this garners many mental attributes - tenacity being the most important in my opinion by far – the absolute refusal to give up – and hard, uncomfortable, physical training develops tenacity in abundance, so long as there is one crucial condition in play…there must be an option to quit – just being beasted and forced to continue isn’t the same deal at all. You develop real tenacity when you want to stop, you are allowed to stop…but you choose to continue…

Most of the world's specialised operational forces use endurance-related testing to select suitable candidates at the initial stages of their application - why is that? Do plain clothes intelligence operators really have to be able to cover many miles carrying heavy loads against the clock for example? How far do SWAT have to run prior to breaching? Is physical fitness THAT big a deal in their particular role?

Of course not, but what is established is that the individual will have the necessary tenacity to not only survive his or her future working environment, but also survive the extensive training process and not waste the limited time and money of the training establishment.

Generally, tenacity is what is sought, over and above mere aggression - and bear in mind that not everyone who applies for such units comes as a battle-hardened veteran, and yet installing the 'killer instinct' isn't the priority that some would think it should be. As an aside…I’ll wager that anyone who has faced ‘violence’ on multiple occasions will attest that those individuals who pose the biggest threat are not the loudest, angriest, most aggressive types…but those who display that altogether quieter, colder, more ruthless determination – these are the individuals who worry me…so this is the state I advocate, because there’s a good reason for this concern.

?

Virtually everything about violence is distinctly unhealthy - possibly the only thing that is not is the time you spend doing physical training to build the required attributes. Even basic impact training is bad for you, physically, and certainly getting hit doesn't do your body any favours whatsoever…and let’s not even mention how grappling training can wreck you over time…

More unhealthy however is having violence in your life, namely in your thought processes, on an everyday basis, as some would insist - if you are constantly thinking about what you would do if attacked, start seeding weapons around the house, dramatically alter and restrict your lifestyle 'just in case' and slowly shift into an ever increasingly cautious – paranoid - existence....this is far from healthy and can be quite insidious in its escalation.

?

One of the reasons I don't use the 'rage' type aggression drills is that I don't want to 'add' an artificial emotional component to an individual that may well be back-slappingly good in training, but I don't trust it to manifest in a live situation - hence the 'switch off' and 'detach' approach I prefer.

The mildest-mannered and most meek individual, for instance, can be made to scream and shout, foam at the mouth, launch themselves into frenzied attacks etc during ‘pretend’ training, just as action-hero actors are not exactly renowned as being off-screen tough-guys…but again I don't really trust this method to hold up under real pressure outside of a strictly-controlled environment - instead I prefer to tap into that ‘cold’ ruthless attribute, hard-wired seemingly at the DNA-level, which would kill you stone dead if you threatened someone’s child....

?

There is no easy answer to this subject - violence is a disease, and the only way to become immune to it truly is to catch it and learn to live with the symptoms - even inoculating yourself with small doses to build up resistance doesn't guarantee a safeguard from infection from those already infected who you may or may not come into contact with.

?

More about the aforementioned ‘will’ then – the fuel that powers everything.

Without doubt, skill only counts for something if backed by will - this is so essential, crucial in actual fact, that it is often the downfall of highly-skilled individuals faced by highly-willed counterparts, the aim must be to have both most certainly - but given a choice, and there is a sound argument for choosing the latter. It would, or should, never be an either/or deal - but this way of thinking can surely help us decide on our priorities early on.

From the first moment, before any real skill is developed, you must take steps to ensure your will is up to the job at hand - and this is the unpleasant task of hurting and probably injuring another human being.

There is no other way to present this subject, fighting is about violence - pure and simple, and all your training, be it physical or psychological in format, must accept and reflect this. I have never seen a non-violent real fight - and any incident without violence and the potential of serious personal harm should not be considered a real fight in my reckoning.

?

Unfortunately I have seen a great deal of non-violent training that is supposed to prepare an individual for real fighting, and it simply misses the mark at the most fundamental level possible.

So how do we train for this violence? How can you develop that degree of ruthless intent that gives you the ability to 'pull the trigger' when you need to - and in a fight of any description, you really do need to I assure you.

Don't underestimate the level of violence you can expect to be directed at you - in the same fashion that firemen train and equip themselves to tackle the biggest fire, even if they only ever get called out to smaller blazes. Just one full-blown punch from a strong and capable man to the head can have devastating results, never mind an extended beating when you are down and incapable of defending yourself due to being rendered unconscious.

?

So back to that question, how do you develop the ability to be ruthless? I'm sure most will agree that turning someone into a manufactured sociopath isn't the best course of action, but you must be able to function, for a brief period, at such a level to be truly effective.

We get good at the things we do a lot - as long as we learn to succeed with these things that is. To learn to be ruthless then, we need to practice being ruthless, and to develop the necessary violent intent we need to practice this also. I use various methods for this throughout my training of others - simple but profound elements I add to the overall training experience and some very direct applications in addition.

?

Generally, I try making the training reflect the event – it simply has to - and the event is a harsh one without exception, so therefore I make the training harsh. Simple really, it’s hardly quantum physics is it? Harsh does not mean brutal however - I will never condone brutalising students or training partners, and if I come across this, I will stamp it out immediately, as literally as is required.

By harsh I mean that the whole affair isn't a peaceful and tranquil experience, I don't dress it up as some kind of spiritual awakening or self-help group. I encourage everyone to be ruthless by first being ruthless with them - to show that this behaviour is not only acceptable but necessary to prevail in the short-term high-pressure circumstance of a real fight.

I don't wrap people in cotton-wool verbally or physically, there will be rough and coarse language directed at people and there should be the same in return - if this upsets and disturbs them…and on occasion it does…then think of what a punch in the face would do…

Before anyone thinks that all my teaching and training efforts are simply abusive, think again - they are not by any degree, but they are honest and direct when it comes to the nature of the subject matter. Through various obvious and more subtle methods, there is inoculation and a degree of desensitisation regarding violence.

?

People are never helped up from the floor for instance - far from it - they soon learn to get up cautiously or else once again it conditions the complete opposite of what we are trying to achieve with such training. Training weapons are never politely handed to upcoming attackers…and nobody says sorry when they accidentally hit someone because this programmes that reluctance to hurt another person at the deepest level and is counter-productive for the actual event – hard realistic training is…realistically hard after all. Safety is paramount however, and I will confidently rate my protocols as being vigorous as an understatement, but there’s going to be a few knocks here and there inevitably.

?

Practicing 'violent intent' can be achieved by actually trying to hurt your training partner - wait before you are outraged, and just read on a little further…

As a simple example to reinforce the point – when training various striking techniques, in any discipline, the hitting of impact pads is generally conducted in far too sterile a fashion in my experience, and because they are inanimate, they feel no effect so they give no feedback that can be utilised to develop this 'intent' that actually makes a punch or a kick more than just a body movement. In short…there’s no VIOLENCE.

When you perform even the most basic strike on a target such as a hand-held focus-pad - do you try to hit the thing as hard as possible, or do you try to break the hand of the holder?

This subtle, but utterly profound, shift of intent means everything when applied properly - it creates and develops the crucial 'violent' intent that transforms your training and makes it worthwhile. Incidentally you will never achieve the 'broken hand' scenario, so long as you use the right equipment - it's designed to protect the hand after all - but you should try your best, or else what exactly are your punches for?

?

This is an abstract exercise - obviously you don't punch people in the hands - but it goes a long way to overcoming the conditioned 'don't hurt people' attitude most people have, that will get them hurt when the situation requires that they need to instead. Transfer this more directly to your shots against body and leg held pads, actively try and make the experience as unpleasant as possible for the holder, and do it in a cold and calculating way - not a red-mist frenzy where you lose control, as this won't get you as far as you think in a real fight. Obviously, similar attitude shifts should be applied to grappling practices too – for instance, many a novice grappler has been surprised by the force and aggression they have faced in their early competitions…because they had gotten into the habit of NOT being ruthless with their training partners…

?

I’ll save expanding upon this for a future article, but for good reason I coined “it really sucks to find out that your long game isn’t as good as the other person’s short game…”

?

I strongly oppose training that is simply ‘feel good’ in nature – as it generally misses the ‘get good’ purpose of what should be the aim…far too much training places a firm focus on validation…drills are created to support and prove preferred material – pure confirmation bias – rather than test and highlight actual requirements, exposing weaknesses that can be addressed.

We build on our limitations...and that of our environment, plus the various limitations of the immutable laws of existence - in actual fact these limitations are precisely what determine and guide our development - not only with what we seek to accomplish physically, but mentally too.

Underestimation of something's difficulty is a problem we understand...but this goes hand in hand with the overestimation of our capabilities...which is a problem many ignore - the former can be perhaps attributed to inexperience...the latter...ego...

?

Too little experience, plus too much ego...where's the harm in that...I wonder...