Force Disparity

Spoiler alert – Real talk to follow...those who are ‘woke’ or otherwise delusional are very likely to be offended by what follows – and, quite honestly, considering the downright dishonesty surrounding the topic being covered, they deserve to be.

The intended subject-matter seems to be the proverbial 800lb gorilla in the room that many try to ignore...thinking that if enough people pretend that it doesn’t exist, it will go away...

?FORCE DISPARITY

Can we explore physical force disparity ?

The word disparity is usually synonymous with the word difference…most dictionaries define it as a condition of having a noticeable difference between things or persons that are being compared with each other. This difference can apply to many things...but how about we look at a comparison of who is at an advantage, and who is at a disadvantage, with regards to physical force – being on both the giving and receiving end.

Can we look at this from just the perspective of an individual being in a violent altercation...and being able to offer effective physical protection to a third party? Actual tangible protection though, not just promises, assurances, and assumptive rhetoric.

After all this is part of the remit of someone employed in a close protection role – not cyber, not surveillance, not pen-testing, not even as the advance element…but the actual close protection role...providing up-close safety and security for an individual, in person.

Disclaimer...nothing that follows is intended to undermine the absolute, vital, importance of what are termed ‘soft skills’ encompassing all the crucial ‘interpersonal’ necessities, plus situational awareness, observation, etc...no...to all intents and purposes the lens here is focused solely upon the issue of physicality, concentrating upon a fairly narrow ‘combative ability’ context. A rare occurrence, absolutely…but so is me crashing my car – however rare this will hopefully be, I still want to know that the seat-belts and airbags will work just in case…

Close PROTECTION Operative...CPO... How much ‘lip service’ is given to this ‘P’ word these days? Is everyone who proudly uses this title ACTUALLY capable of protecting a principal...I mean...really?

I know a great many who most certainly are capable...and if I were conducting hostile surveillance targeting their principal, I wouldn’t like what I saw and would have to bolster my nefarious plans accordingly...which might even deter my entire target selection entirely...

The flip side to this...and the reason for this piece...is that I also come across those who, if I were the ‘bad guy’ in an attack/abduction/assassination scenario, I would be VERY happy to encounter them as the only element standing in my way.

To be less dramatic, this also holds true if I were going to simply snatch a smartphone, or bag…weighing up my risk vs. reward, certain individuals would make me reassess my victim selection…others…wouldn’t. Not one bit.

I’ve been quite scathing of such individuals in the past...and will continue to be in the present and the future, not actually because they might lack certain physical capabilities, not really...but because they tend to boldly claim that they CAN handle business just as well as anyone...when it’s painfully obvious this isn’t true.

This isn’t an observation and opinion held by me alone...no...far from it...but it doesn’t get aired much, does it? I wonder why that is? An 800lb gorilla in the room...

Companion...sure...chaperone, maybe assistant...fine...but protector? Let’s be serious...no. Can we be honest about this?

Can we stop pretending that everyone, regardless of stature, condition, attributes, ability...or lack thereof...who calls themselves a CPO/PPO/IBG/whatever...with all the accompanying talk of “looking after” a principal, is actually capable of effectively reacting to a physical assault...unless it was perpetrated by a small child or similar?

I’d confidently go so far as to say that in some instances, this lack of capability is akin to having a non-swimmer working as a lifeguard...

Nobody is saying that being an extra pair of eyes on the ground isn’t useful, and having enough situational awareness to read certain indicators early enough to execute ‘non-kinetic’ contingencies is of vital importance...but...what happens when the wheels actually do fall off, and all the attempts at avoidance mean nothing...because the threat is making sure they don’t avoid you? What then?

At that unfortunate moment, just acting the part isn’t enough...because now the role has gone from ‘ornamental’ to ‘functional’ and saying all the right things on a CV, being a LinkedIn superstar, and being a networking savant, count for pretty-much nothing...

REALITY CHECK

To be blunt - I would confidently state that there are a fair few individuals who quite simply would not be able to physically protect their principal, especially in the solo capacity they are often in, from any real threat.

I mentioned ‘acting the part’ above because quite simply, jumping in and out of cars, standing in the right spot, being ‘ready’ and scanning arcs for threats…etc…all good…but ultimately this is the easy-bit isn’t it? Not hard to pull off the broad strokes of this at all…but what if there IS actually a manifested threat?

This threat doesn’t have to be a full-scale abduction or the like...what about ‘just’ a couple of hoodie-scumbags snatching a watch on Sloane St? Is this such an unlikely event? As the person employed to protect an individual from just this very occurrence...could you?

I believe there is a huge amount of lip-service paid to this issue across the board, be it driven by naivety, or simply ego, and I would assert that denying this is simply dishonest - and would be dangerous...if ever put to the test - but let's face it, this issue exists as it does because it is so rarely put to any real test...if it were, it'd clear up some silly-thinking pretty damn quick...

The physical-capability issue certainly isn't everything, it isn't the be all and end all of a close protection operation by any stretch - until there's an incident that makes it so, but that's something to discuss later - and for the most part it thankfully, hopefully, will never feature at all – let’s face it, the vast majority of jobs out there have no active threat likely to expose exactly who is 'combat effective' and who is lacking.

PHYSICS & BIOLOGY

So…uncomfortable truth - smaller, lighter, weaker individuals are at a significant disadvantage to larger, heavier, stronger individuals in activities involving the application of physical force - violent interpersonal altercations being a prime example. Don’t forget…this is what I’m talking about here, nothing more.

Does anyone really disagree with this?

In combat sports for example, does anyone believe that weight-categories exist to protect the bigger fighters from the smaller ones?

Now...some might say “but those are just sports, with rules...in ‘da streetz’ everything is different...” and in saying so shout loudly about how little they actually know about fighting – this issue could be a whole seperate article...or debate...and I’m happy to oblige...

Outliers aside...it is also a simple fact that females overwhelmingly fall into the former 'smaller-etc' camp...this isn't misogyny by any stretch, it's biology.

Differences in muscle mass...bone density...contractile force production...etc...etc...do any of these ring any bells? Even if a man and a woman are of the same height and weight, there is going to be a marked difference in strength and associated force-production, and you could also throw in injury resilience additionally...again, there’s a reason contact sports don’t tend to be Co-Ed...and it isn’t because of sexism.

Obviously in these strange times many would purport that there is no such thing as 'objective truth' at all, but reality proves otherwise...perhaps we should start using the term ‘actuality’ instead, since ‘reality’ has been co-opted by those that insist it can be anything they want it to be...

?All this might not be what some people want to be case, but no amount of wishful thinking or outraged indignation is going to change it - the laws of physics apply, EQUALLY, to everyone, whether they like them or not.

As an example, I don't get all bent out of shape because I'd make a lousy jockey...nor do I stamp my feet over being unsuitable to pursue a career as a chimneysweep...I accept that in both instances, and many more, I am physically not suited for those activities...where others would excel.

It's time people simply accepted these very real, very tangible limitations and rather than just wishing them away, or ignoring them completely, sought realistic workarounds instead. It is, after all, our limitations that reveal what our true capabilities actually are...once they are accepted, not ignored.

There are many roles that do not potentially require a similar degree of physicality - this is the workaround for those less-physically equipped, or else if someone has to be placed in such a 'threat-facing' a role due to cultural factors, for instance, then there should be additional personnel in direct support...just in case there is indeed any 'heavy lifting' to be done. If not...well...the principal has a companion...not a protector.

Looking at the ‘ad-copy’ for most companies, isn’t one of the big promises made to prospective clients that only the most suitable personnel are placed according to specific requirements? Well…shouldn’t this very sensible notion be applied to particular roles too? As stated above there are functions that suit various levels of expertise and personal attributes…but seeing as a PPO/IBG role is potentially going to be more ‘hands-on’ physically…shouldn’t we place those more suited for this eventuality in such a position?

The desperate need to push 'equality of outcome' has created a lack of honesty concerning the issue of physical capability, not just in this tiny instance, but across the board...military, law enforcement, etc - in fact just having physical tests that are separately scaled for male and female applicants, for instance, is hardly 'equality' is it? Or is the threat they could potentially face also going to be 'scaled' accordingly perhaps? It is ironic that 'equality' and having separate standards can even be mentioned in the same breath...obviously these words mean different things to different people.

I believe wholeheartedly in equality of opportunity, and rigorously support?meritocracy in all aspects as the default...I prefer having a single ‘standard’ based upon the task to be faced, and in this context it is concerned with physical violence that won’t go ‘easy’ just because someone isn’t ready or capable.

The only discrimination that should exist should be that of capability and suitability - any kind of positive discrimination to meet political agendas and quotas is...in my opinion...hardly a 'positive' state of affairs at all.

To deny equality of opportunity is heinous, but to insist upon equality of outcome, regardless of actual ability and performance, is delusional, and does nothing to raise standards in this industry…quite the opposite.

Notwithstanding any mention of gender above, that undoubtedly some will seize upon as my sole narrative and try and vilify me for, I strongly believe that every individual, male and female, must possess effective capability regarding violent physical altercations...and, whilst on the subject of physical capability, they should be able to evacuate a casualty, and be able to see and be seen in a crowded marketplace...not to mention, no matter how 'discreetly' they are operating, those who ARE looking will know exactly who is who, and why they are there, and that hostile surveillance element, or opportunist, should observe something...someone...that gives them cause for concern - no?

PROFILING

It is a mistake to think that your biased personal opinion of how effective you are is as important as the opinion of your adversary - a positive presence that sends a certain message to certain types, cannot be underestimated.

We all know how profiling works…right? Lions staking out a watering hole aren’t looking for the fastest-running dinner option, are they?

Yes...I know...apparently someone can actually be of a smaller stature and yet be so highly trained that they can pose as a nanny or PA, and still be supremely effective in a physical attack scenario...more effectively than a much bigger counterpart even...of course – I’ve read no end of fantastic articles asserting this very thing, so it must be true...obviously.

Outside of a movie...show me this for real – let’s see someone put into a 100% weight, and 300% strength disparity scenario, and handle it with the aplomb these woke-fantasy articles claim...

With regards to the above from the ‘profiling’ angle...despite the notion of properly ‘covert protection’ being somewhat contentious itself...let’s say that this scenario is as suggested, that ‘somewhere’ in a principal’s entourage, or close by, there is actually an uber-effective ‘protector’ who is capable of dealing with a direct physical attack...that can’t be spotted by people looking for this very person... Where’s the deterrent? Risk vs. Reward again...and if there seems to be no risk...that’s a green light...

Recently I read a ridiculous premise that asserted that female CPOs actually have an advantage over their male counterparts due to…apparently…other males being less likely to use physical violence on them…

That’s rather…bold? I think male vs. female violent crime statistics could conflict with this suggestion somewhat…and to be honest, if there were any merit to the idea, this would revolve around ‘decent’ people who are unlikely to use violence against anyone…

The disgusting fact that frail old ladies are beaten senseless during robberies kind of trounces this idea…and, anyway – in a close protection context…really?

That hostile surveillance phase…the profiling discussed above…is there really a suggestion that Bad Guy #1 is going to turn to Bad Guy #2 and say “FFS…they’ve only gone and put a woman on the team…no chance of us kidnapping the target now…can’t be mean to her can we?”

Where does this silly idea go? Does every member of the CP team start carrying a puppy?

TRAINING

Shall we talk about training now?

Training changes everything...doesn't it?

No...training changes some things...to a point, as far as this subject is concerned at least.

Ultimately, often unfortunately, you have to play the hand you have been dealt - sure you can get a couple of better cards via hard, regular, relevant training, but you can't just get dealt a completely new hand altogether, or pretend a weak one is better than it really is - mostly you have to work with what you've got...laws of physics again...and some physical characteristics are mostly immutable.

Overall 'size' can only be increased in terms of mass - not height obviously - and even this is largely depends upon someone's frame - it might not be what some want to hear, but being taller is definitely a plus - another 800lb gorilla in the room topic I know - but there it is.

Strength can be increased...and absolutely should be...because no matter what 'software' you might be running, you still need the 'hardware" to support it – perfect technique alone still needs force to make it work…strikes have to transfer significant kinetic energy, via velocity AND mass, into their intended targets, not just land – street fights are not won on points – and any grappling option is highly strength-dependent when real resistance is added.

This leads to skill - which again, should absolutely be increased, and maintained, and above all...tested – even if you have plenty…get more - but skill will only get you so far, you still need an effective physical platform to support it...and just adding basic 'mass' to an adversary can have a surprisingly detrimental effect on the other person’s skill, if the weight disparity becomes significant, and if the accompany strength difference is also pronounced...this can get downright bleak.

There are far too many binary ‘either-or’ arguments surrounding all this – it is never just ‘strength vs. technique’ or ‘will vs. skill’ or any of the other ‘vs.’ silliness…replace this with ‘and’ to get an actually realistic and useful perspective…and if any attribute is lacking, work to improve it – if this isn’t possible, accept the limitation and work around it…but do not either ignore it, or worse, invent ridiculous scenarios that spin the deficit into a positive.

Real talk - a highly skilled 55kg female is absolutely going to struggle against a moderately skilled 100kg male...especially when the force disparity is also taken into account - I know this doesn't suit the image many have, but anyone who is really in the fight game will concur – just ask pro-fighters for starters…female ones…

When training stops resembling movie fight scene rehearsal, where choreographed preset-sequences against compliant opponents are the norm, and starts incorporating fully-resisting opponents that have freedom of action and the intent to actually beat you as the default...nobody is left in any doubt as to how important size and strength really are.

A simple three-part question can reveal just how useful your chosen practice is likely to really be outside of a carefully-controlled training environment…

Is what you are practising likely to work against someone who doesn’t like you…who doesn’t know you…and who isn’t letting you win?

You can add a few ‘awkward’ additional criteria to this - what if the level of force and resistance is turned way up…what if people don’t punch and leave their arm out…what if they don’t let go on cue…what if you don’t know what they are going to do next…what if they can actually withstand little pokes and taps that don’t transfer real kinetic energy…and a big one…what if they actually fight back…using their own training?

This aforementioned training environment can set the ‘reality-bar’ wherever someone needs it to be…you can slow things down…give more space to react…stipulate weaker grips…less resistance…simulate hopeful effects of blows…etc…and this is often a big problem indeed, because it’s very appealing to some to set it at the level they would like it to be…to validate what they are doing… This is called feel-good training.

In ‘actuality’ this reality bar is a constant…you can’t scale it down to match your capabilities, you have to scale your capabilities UP to match it. This is called get-good training…

I've been having this 'argument' for 30 plus years...and it hasn't changed one-bit because underneath it all, the physics haven't changed - far too many are drawn into the notion of some smaller statured 'ordinary-looking' individual who possesses such amazing skill as to be virtually undefeatable by adversaries significantly larger and stronger, armed, and in multiples even...

This works in the movies due to something called "The Suspension of Disbelief" but it becomes a problem, to put it mildly, when it's transferred into a real life setting, or more accurately, when people ATTEMPT to transfer it into real life.

I've trained a great number of people, of all shapes and sizes, from all walks of life, male and female, in a variety of disciplines, from amateur hobbyists to veteran professionals...across the globe...and I've trained with, and worked alongside, some prodigiously talented and capable individuals in this field...and guess what?

I never met one person who said "I really wish I was smaller and weaker so I'd be better at fighting..." Not one.

Nope...instead they train their asses off, and not one of them ever said "I'm strong and fit enough now...that’ll do...I'm just going to work on technique from now on..."

Possibly one of the best parallels to illustrate 'accepting limitations’ in a significant force disparity scenario would be to consider crossing the street, and what it should, and shouldn't, entail.

Now I'm a realist, and all ego aside I don't rate my chances of surviving vehicular impact at any normal driving speed – I’m fully aware that I’ll be coming off worst in a big way.

So with this in mind, knowing and accepting my physical limitations, my entire focus is firmly placed upon the awareness and assessment required to make sure I avoid getting in a flesh-and-bone meets steel-and-glass scenario.

However, this isn't very exciting, maybe I feel some burning indignation at the notion of not being?equal to an automobile in a collision…and perhaps I live in a world without cars - Venice perhaps - so I'm never going to be put to the test for real.

So what does my deluded-self do? I practise all manner of techniques to dodge and roll with the impact of a car, all kinds of cars, multiple cars…

I can design training drills to 'test' all this cool stuff out, but it has to work right? Of course it does, so I make sure the cars are moving really slow, and that they are nicely padded, and so is the road too…to validate myself with a massive dose of unhealthy but ‘feel good’ confirmation bias.

Check me out - I can survive being hit by a car, thanks to my 'training' and fancy moves…and I’m never going to find out otherwise, since there aren't any cars where I live…

Hopefully nobody is going to jump on this analogy with a “Ha!...you just admitted that awareness and assessment, and avoidance, are more important…” because I have never, and will never, suggest that they are not – not the purpose of the ‘crossing the road’ parallel at all…

Any kind of 'fight' scenario, in whatever context, is fundamentally a physical affair...and, unsurprisingly, this means physicality plays a big deal in the outcome. Seems like I’m repeating this ad nauseum…but, to be fair, given the cognitive blindspot so many have…I’m probably not repeating it enough.

Anybody who is involved in this business...for real...knows this, so whenever I come across anyone suggesting otherwise, that's a big red flag, right there, that some like to wave VERY rigorously indeed. "Size isn't important...strength isn't important...it's all about technique...it's all about attitude..." this clichéd rhetoric tells a tale indeed.

CONCLUSION

I’m more than certain that this piece will be thoroughly dismissed by some…who will no doubt claim it’s all bigoted misogyny…or elitist ‘big-ism’ etc…because none of it could be…you know…TRUE, could it?

I’ll definitely be expecting the predictable ‘strawman’ statements to debunk everything I’m actually suggesting, by substituting an alternative-reality version they have an irrelevant answer for…probably along the lines of how I’m apparently suggesting that smaller people, and women in particular, have nothing to offer the close protection industry, because that’s EXACTLY what I’ve said…right? Even though I haven’t…have I?

Not forgetting the sage wisdom that there’s a lot more to close protection than just ‘reaction to attack’ obviously…because I haven’t mentioned this anywhere…have I?

In closing…I know…uncomfortable stuff. You might not like what I had to say…and probably didn’t like the way I have said it…but tell me I’m wrong?

In fact…no…don’t TELL me – show me. I’m game…let’s set something up to PROVE how wrong I am about everything.