# L.A. Sheriff Memo Circulating



## Doc (Jun 14, 2006)

From: Williams, John D. [mailto:JDWillia@lasd.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: *Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training?*

Have Martial Artists Corrupted Defensive Tactics and Close Quarter Combat Training? 
Background 
Martial artists have through various methods engineered a reputation as self-defense or unarmed combat experts. They use this reputation to attract students who seek to gain the ability to defend themselves in violent confrontations. In reality many martial artists are not self-defense or unarmed combat experts and many common martial arts combative methodologies are questionable at best and often very dangerous.
When students seek training from martial artists they are usually what we call consciously incompetent, that is they cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation and they realize this fact. Often after training with martial arts instructors students develop what we call unconscious incompetence, that is they still cannot handle themselves in a violent confrontation, but think that they can.
The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result. A person in Australia by the name of Max, trained for several years in a very popular martial art and was awarded a black belt. He was also in the Australian military and had recently completed a one month intensive full-time unarmed combat course. That course was taught by the instructors who at that time trained the Australian S.A.S. One night Max discovered a person with a knife, vandalizing someone else's car. Without his training Max would have avoided the person and remained unharmed. Instead, Max thought, "Beauty, this is my chance to lay this guy out and be a hero".
The vandal came at Max with the knife pointing downwards. A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous, because they do not know what they are doing (See quote by Bill Wallace, Section 3 (r)) and Max had successfully defended against knife attacks thousands of times in training. Max found out the hard way how ineffective and misleading his training had been. He is lucky to have lived through the education process.
How Martial Artists Have Engineered a Reputation as Self-Defense or Unarmed Combat Experts 
Martial artists often appear in television programs and movies. In choreographed fight scenes, martial arts skills appear to be very effective. 
Martial artists perform spectacular attacking and defensive techniques against cooperative opponents. 
The culture surrounding martial arts training is engineered to create "guru" status for the instructors. Such cultural aspects include the wearing of special belts and uniforms, requiring students to bow to instructors, having students address instructors using titles such as "Master" and "Sensei", having the instructors at the front of the dojo (training site) while the lower ranked participants are at the rear, having the instructors perform seemingly incredible feats against cooperative partners, forms of showmanship such as breaking boards and having the instructors pass judgment in the form of passing or failing grades. 
Martial artists seek positions as instructors or engineer other forms of association with law enforcement or military agencies. Alternatively martial artists have their arts methodology adopted as a training standard within such agencies. These marketing strategies help them to sell training and commercial merchandise to the martial artists' primary source of revenue - the general public. 
Martial artists engineer status in sporting competitions which students interpret to be relevant to situations outside the sporting and training environments. 
Martial artists claim that their methodology has been handed down over many generations or has some other traditional or cultural significance. 
Martial artists use business names, advertising or other promotional material that implies expertise. 
Martial artists fail to provide specific information or disclaimers that convey that their martial art is designed for sport, fitness, cultural study, entertainment, discipline or whatever, rather than being suitable preparation for violent encounters outside the training environment. 
Martial artists certify the ability of students or cause students to believe that because of training they (the students) are proficient. These endorsements include the awarding of belts, certificates and the like, passing an examination, or implying proficiency by allowing students to participate in dangerous activities or occupations. 
The Tactical Inadequacies of Martial Arts Training 
Basing the preparation for real life violence on sporting methodology: It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence. In all sporting events there are rules and fixed boundaries of acceptable conduct. Combatants usually know they will be fighting only one opponent and there will be no other obstacles or threats.

In sports such as Judo and kickboxing, combatants know that they will only be fighting one opponent. As a result people training for such events learn to focus their vision only on that opponent. The result is a form of learned habitual tunnel vision. This is completely counter to one's needs in real violence, where one needs enhanced peripheral vision to detect other attackers, obstacles and escape routes.

Participation in sparring and fighting competitions usually develops timing and reflexes that are detrimental in real violence. As an example, most sparring is either light contact or non-contact. For maximum effect, strikes should be performed so the weapon (e.g., fist or foot) aims to pass through its target. In sparring, the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes. In real violence one performs as one practices.

Even in so called full contact training and competition, one is usually competing against one's friends or people one respects, so opponents rarely give maximum intent to seriously crippling one another.

A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practice similarly, consistently executing attacks and defenses from a favored stance.

This method of preparation is very dangerous for real violence, where conditions such as the angle of attack are not controlled. As an example, consider the situation that would occur if the right-handed boxer above was attacked from his right. Most likely one of the following scenarios would result:
ß the boxer would be forced to throw an unpracticed (hence ineffective) right jab or left cross, 
ß the boxer would attempt to turn right into his favored stance, causing a delay in his defensive reaction, or 
ß being subject to an angle of attack not practiced against, the boxer's brain may momentarily "freeze". 
In each scenario, the boxer would be at a severe disadvantage, from which he may never recover. 
Ignoring the response sequence

There are three steps that must occur when responding to an attack: 
ß First, the opponent's attack must be sensed (e.g., it must be seen, felt, heard, etc), 
ß Second, the specifics of the attack must be cognitively processed (i.e., the attack must be recognized and its parameters determined), and 
ß Third, the defender must respond. 
When responding to most attacks the defender is always two steps behind. Anyone who is not a gifted athlete or highly trained professional will not be able to employ a defensive skill quickly enough to counter an opponent's attack once it is underway.

Many self-defense techniques taught by martial artists ignore this fact. A typical martial arts self-defense technique will involve the blocking of an attack followed by the employment of an often spectacular counterattack. It is assumed that the block will be successful. Blocks usually are successful in a training environment because 1) the defender knows what sort of attack is coming and when it will occur; 2) the attacker is usually cooperative; and 3) the attack is rarely performed in a decisive manner.

The same technique applied in real violence usually fails. As an example, knife and club attacks are usually defended successfully in martial arts training sessions, but it has been proven with the use of felt tip markers and soft clubs that even highly trained athletes, such as SWAT Team or Special Forces members, can rarely prevent being stabbed, cut or struck by a committed attacker. 
The use of highly skilled techniques

When one of the FBI's top unarmed combat instructors was faced with a thief holding a pistol, the FBI agent used a very basic clubbing action to strike the hand holding the gun. This example demonstrates that in a life or death situation even a highly trained professional reverts to simple technique. The reason for this is because simple techniques are the most reliable. Higher skilled techniques are more difficult to perform and have a smaller margin for error. This is especially important when fear or other factors restrict or inhibit physical and mental performance.

Despite this fact, too many martial arts instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled and more complicated techniques. Possible reasons for this are: 1) showmanship, 2) to engineer guru status, 3) to justify further training and grading fees and 4) an arrogant refusal to acknowledge the realities of fear.

If a top professional uses basic technique in real violent situations, it is extremely dangerous to teach lesser practitioners high skilled techniques. 
The emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques

Grappling techniques have become popular because of the success of competitors using grappling techniques in so called "no holds barred" sporting competitions. While grappling techniques are unquestionably useful in one-on-one competition, and there is some merit in the Jujitsu teaching that -most real fights- end up with combatants on the ground, the use of grappling techniques when one is outnumbered is suicidal.

In training for real violence, the possibility of being outnumbered cannot be ignored. Very simply, when applying a grappling hold, one's body becomes immobile and defenseless. A third person can easily cave in the grappler's head with a pool cue, garbage can lid, a rock, or other weapon. 
Failure to develop the attributes necessary to survive a violent confrontation

Even if techniques are performed thousands of times with robot-like confidence and technical accuracy in the training environment, it is not sufficient preparation for dealing with the dynamics of real violence. To employ techniques outside of training requires attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and desire to win.

If training does not go beyond the teaching of technique to have a deliberate goal of improving those attributes and qualities, the training will be more detrimental than productive. 
Patterning subconscious minds with incorrect response sequences

In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example, an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.

Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers rarely attack in the same specific manner.

Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. This patterning is very dangerous in real violence. 
Irresponsible and misleading allocation of training time

If martial arts training is to be effective training for real violence, the allocation of training time should reflect field needs. Most real violence involves the use of punches, elbows, knees, low kicks and grappling. Real violence is usually initiated with opponents standing almost chest to chest, or alternatively with an opponent rushing his victim from the front, side, or rear.

Real violence very rarely involves combatants standing apart in so called "fighting stances". Spending considerable time defending against elaborate kicks, or against attackers standing apart in "fighting stances" is irresponsible as it takes time away from relevant training. These practices also give students a dangerously misleading idea of what real violence involves.

Similar irresponsible and dangerous time allocation occurs when practicing offensive skills. At a martial arts training session attended by a Director of Global Security Training, a large portion of time was devoted to practicing running jump front kicks against a target nine feet off the ground. The need to head-kick a nine foot tall attacker is very rare. 
Failure to prepare for the detrimental effects of fear

Fear restricts body movement and inhibits mental and physical coordination. Even the act of placing a key in a keyhole can be difficult if one is scared. This needs to be considered when selecting techniques that are taught. In addition, students need to be provided with methods of fear control and an honest appreciation of the realities of violence. Failure to do so will almost certainly result in students not being able to perform well in real violence. 
Failure to select field-proven techniques

The best reason to select a technique is because it has been proven to be useful in real violence. We strongly believe that very few martial arts techniques, when scrutinized, would be supported by significant field testing. 
The practice of instructing when one has little or no practical understanding of the situations students are likely to face.

Too many martial artists have little understanding of their art's field application. While it would be wrong to encourage martial artists to be involved in real fights, one must seriously question the merit of having students prepared for possible life or death situations learning from instructors with no practical understanding of their (the student's) requirements. 
Failure to ensure that training is ongoing

Neuromuscular skills such as self-defense ability rapidly diminish without regular practice. This reduction is difficult to quantify, however it could be reasonably argued that self-defense ability would be significantly reduced after three months of not training and markedly reduced after six months. As such, it would be dangerous to imply competency when training is not ongoing. As a result the following are questionable and possibly dangerous practices: 1)the awarding of certificates or belts, or passing examinations, without the requirement of regular, frequent and continuous practice and 2) allowing people to work in occupations exposing them to potential violence without regular, frequent and ongoing training. 
Confusing loyalty and friendship with field effectiveness

The nature of martial arts and combative training attracts personalities with a natural respect for characteristics such as honor, valor and loyalty. Instructors who demonstrate such admirable characteristics often attract large followings of faithful disciples and loyal friends. When the field effectiveness of methods taught by an instructor such as this is questioned, the disciples and loyal friends will readily ignore objectivity, instead responding emotionally and subjectively. 
Attempting to achieve "correct" body mechanics by making repeated fine adjustments

If a student properly understands the principles and objectives of a technique, and uses this understanding to guide repeated training, over time he or she will develop good body mechanics. Rather than focus on this understanding and its application, too many instructors attempt to mold "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments, as a golf professional would do to correct a golf swing. Examples of such adjustments include telling a student to rotate a wrist more, raise a knee more, and to point toes more.

From an unknowledgeable instructor's perspective this practice helps engineer guru status for him or herself and fosters dependency in students. From a student's perspective this practice is extremely detrimental.

Students' bodies vary. To fully understand how these variations effect the execution of techniques would require the instructor to have: 
a depth of field experience in the use of the techniques in actual violent situations and 
a depth of knowledge in the science known as Biomechanics. Too many instructors instead base the principles of correction on advice handed down through a chain of other instructors or martial arts gurus. Ironically, most probably none of these instructors or martial arts gurus would have both field experience and qualifications in Biomechanics either. 
The so-called "correct" body mechanics as determined by such instructors would most likely be inferior to the body mechanics that would have developed using the methods described at the opening of this section.

The practice of molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments tends to result in a student performing techniques in a robot-like manner. This may be acceptable for a golfer, but such practice tends to reduce the qualities of fluidity, spontaneity and adaptability. The possession of these qualities is vitally important for one to survive real violence.

Students who have become reliant upon having an instructor providing critique of fine body mechanics will find it difficult to train independently. This may not concern members of the general public who attend training dojos on a regular basis, but is a concern for members of government law enforcement and security agencies. These members, who need to train regularly to maintain competency in handling real violence, paradoxically often have less exposure to instructors than many members of the general public do.

Sadly, but too frequently, law enforcement or security officers are trained by instructors who focus on molding "correct" body mechanics for a technique by making repeated adjustments. The result is officers who 1) do not understand the principles and objectives of the techniques they have learned, 2) perform in a robot-like manner and lose qualities that would help survive real violence and 3) only train when they are given instruction, which in many cases is only a few times per year (or worse - only during basic training). 
Reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation

The understanding of where the most vulnerable areas of an opponent's body are is very useful. Such an understanding should include the knowledge that: 
ß areas such as the groin and the solar plexus are excellent targets for strikes, 
ß knees may be damaged by forceful strikes to their side, and joints such as elbows and fingers may be damaged when bent backwards, and 
ß certain areas such as the side of the neck, areas of the ribs and the front of the shoulders are extremely painful when pressed upon. 
ß The understanding of vulnerable areas can be taken to the extreme of learning as many so called pressure points as an acupuncturist does. Some martial artists base their fighting methodology on the so called ability to manipulate these points. There are three main concerns with this practice. 
ß Firstly, in situations of real violence it is extremely unlikely that a technique will be able to be employed with sufficient accuracy to achieve the desired result. 
ß Secondly, in order to practice such techniques both the attacker and the defender usually train in a profoundly unrealistic robot-like manner. 
ß Thirdly, such practice tends to encourage a proliferation of very questionable techniques. Examples found in this author's collection of martial arts training videos include an instructor demonstrating a light tap above the temple, with which he was alleged to have been knocked out by his eight year old son, and another instructor who advises to rub a certain "rub pressure point" on a grasping attacker's wrist. 
The learning of multiple responses to a visual or physical cue

There is a valid argument for the value of learning alternative responses to a given situation in order to increase one's versatility. However, the value of increasing one's versatility must be weighed against the sometimes dramatic increase in one's reaction time that occurs in real situations of real violence, when an individual has learned more than one response to the visual or physical cue that presents.

If only one response to a cue is learned and practiced effectively it should become a reflex action. If presented with the appropriate cue, the response will occur quickly and automatically, without the need for conscious mental processing. If more than one response for a cue is learned, and that cue presents itself, a student would have to choose between responses, requiring mental processing rather than a much faster reflex response. In situations of lesser danger, especially where one has significantly greater ability than one's opponent, this may not be a critical factor. It must be stressed that in situations of real violence fear restricts mental processes, increasing this reaction time further. The more dangerous the situation the more one needs fast reactions, but ironically more fear is usually involved, and this slowing down of reactions is dangerously heightened.

An extreme example of learning too many responses to a cue is found in one of this author's martial arts training tapes where an instructor in the style developed by Bruce Lee demonstrates an almost unbelievable multitude of variations for responding to a basic right cross punch. 
The learning of too many techniques

For similar reasons that instructors tend to emphasize higher skilled techniques, too many instructors tend to teach too many techniques. One requires a certain amount of practice to learn and to retain each technique. Simply, when a large number of techniques are learned, time does not permit competency to be retained. Too many techniques are probably being learned in the following situations: 
ß more than one response is learned for a given cue, 
ß one learns a skill, then once that skill is evaluated or graded new skills are learned, and the original skill is neglected, 
ß one learns different strikes that are essentially used in the same situation (a possible example is an "uppercut" fist strike and an upward elbow strike, which are both used as an upwards blow against similar targets on an opponent at close range), 
ß one learns many specific responses rather than adaptable techniques that can be used in many situations (for example, learning possibly hundreds of different responses to handle the many different possible grip positions that can occur when grabbed by the arm) 
The practice of having students perform large set numbers of technique repetitions

To practice a technique effectively, one should focus on that technique's objectives. The practice of instructing a student to perform a large set number of techniques removes this focus and tends to produce very ineffective robot-like training. As an example, consider the situation that would arise if a student was asked to perform a technique one hundred times. Initially the student may focus on the objectives of the technique, but as the series progressed focus would transfer to such things as the count, whether the instructor was watching or even what the student was going to do after training. 
The communication of questionable statements

In Australia, a person can be held liable for damages caused as a result of another party following his or her advice. The main criteria is whether the person giving the information should realize that the recipient will rely upon it in circumstances in which it is reasonable to do so. Presumably similar law exists in other countries.

The following two quotes are some of many statements deserving of scrutiny that this author has found in his collection of martial arts training videos. They are both made by highly respected and influential martial artists. They are presented without judgment by this author. The reader is encouraged to draw his or her own conclusions regarding their merit and the consequences of people following the advice.

"The flow of energy is what makes it so easy to handle four or five [attackers] at one time. It gets to be very exciting" Aikido Master Ken Ota (Video: Mastering Aikido Level 6, Panther Productions).

"If my opponent holds a knife in this position [blade pointing downwards] I have my confidence because he's telling me that he doesn't really know how to use a knife. If he holds it like this (like a sword) he has an understanding of the knife and wants to use it to scare you" (Bill "Superfoot" Wallace., Undefeated world karate champion, Member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame (Video: Bill Wallace Self-Defence System, Panther Productions) 
Suggestions for Organizations Using This Brief to Scrutinize Their Own Training 
An effective way to use the enclosed brief is to have experienced officers and legal counsel assess the validity and strength of each argument raised. Using those arguments found to be valid and significant, current training should be closely examined.
It should be kept in mind that officers who are injured as a result of violence may also closely examine the training, with the help of lawyers. Any inadequacy found may form a basis for legal liability. Such officers and lawyers will be able to see behind any facades developed by martial arts oriented instructors attempting to protect their interests.
To assist in the process of examination, and provide a legal safeguard, this author and his company are able to provide advice, assistance and audits of training.
The Removal of Tactically Inadequate Martial Arts Methodologies 
Unless approached in a systematic and decisive manner the removal of martial arts tactical inadequacies is very difficult because of three main factors.
Firstly, most instructors and external martial arts gurus have used methods previously described to engineer respect and close personal ties within their organization. 
Secondly, most of the tactical inadequacies discussed benefit instructors and martial arts gurus in one or more of the following ways:
o help engineer guru status, 
o help foster dependency in students, and 
o help justify further fees for instruction, grades and merchandise (many government instructors train members of the general public also). Instructors are most unlikely to readily concede these benefits. 
Thirdly, many officers have been indoctrinated by martial arts movies, martial arts gurus and sporting practitioners to believe that these methodologies are effective.
Law enforcement and security officers are human, so even in the most professional government law enforcement and security organizations, members are not immune to these factors. As an example, according to an article in The Tactical Edge, the journal of the National Tactical Officers Association, because many officers want to be taught exotic techniques to impress family and friends in non-life threatening situations, tactical teams are taught by a myriad of instructors with absolutely no understanding of the agent's needs, equipment or mission requirements.
Beginning with units such as the Special Task Force, SWAT Teams and Nelson Mandela's personal protection unit, this author and his company are removing tactically inadequate martial arts training methodology and are replacing it with a highly effective form of training called Kontact. From experience, pockets of resistance to changes are usually encountered, the most common being from complacent bureaucrats who have little understanding of the needs of field officers, instructors trying to protect their interests and senior officers who have been indoctrinated to believe that their guru and their course are "the best".
This author has much empathy with another group of officers who resist change. These are the experienced field officers and former field officers who have understood that all the previous defensive tactics and close quarter combat training they have been exposed to has been ineffective. They perceive such training as window dressing at best and an irresponsible waste of departmental resources at worst. They have seen many martial arts gurus and so called self-defense experts who claim that their system is "the best", that they understandably believe any one who claims to be an expert in that field, or to have a new system that is "the best", is beneath contempt.
The main requirement to overcome resistance is a commitment and directive from senior command. 
Appendix One: About the Author 
Robert Redenbach is a Senior Instructor for the South African Police Service and C.E.O. of Global Security Training P/L, a consultancy firm that provides specialist training to many of the world's leading agencies. Formerly with the Australian military, Mr. Redenbach spent three years in Korea, Japan and China studying martial arts methods. Seeking to address the inadequacies of such training, Mr. Redenbach used a period as the manager of the largest security company in Papua New Guinea to develop an innovative training system called Kontact. He is author of the book KONTACT: Training to Improve, Not to Impress.
A post graduate Masters by Research candidate, Dr Graeme Blennerhassett assists in the scientific evaluation and selection of instructional, training and combative methodologies.
Appendix Two: Where to Address Inquiries 
The Director of Operations
P.O. Box 674 Bairnsdale 3875
Australia
(Email) global@b150.aone.net.au 

Appendix Three: Checklist to assist in determining whether martial artists have corrupted law enforcement or security training.
Do the instructors make statements that seem unrealistic or exaggerated? 
Are any of the training or combative methodologies based on sporting practices, or are claimed to have cultural or traditional significance? 
Do the instructors demonstrate self-defence techniques where the attacker's strikes are easily blocked? 
Do the techniques taught appear highly skilled, complicated, or even ridiculous? 
Is there a heavy emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques? 
Does the training ignore the specific need to improve attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and will to win? 
Are students required to memorise complicated series of techniques? 
Is a large proportion of training time dedicated to activities of minimal relevance? 
Does the training ignore the need to provide an appreciation of the realities of real violence and a field-proven method of fear reduction? 
Is training or combative methodology used that has not been field-proven as efficient and effective for its intended purpose? 
Do the instructors have little or no practical appreciation of the situations students may face? 
Does any aspect of the training appear to be irrelevant to the objective of preparing officers for real violence? 
Are officers allowed to work in the field without the requirement of continuous, frequent, 
ongoing training? 
Do instructors attempt to produce good body mechanics by making continuous adjustments to body movements (as a golf professional would do to produce a good golf swing)? 
Is training for techniques, defenses or attacks carried out using both sides of the body equally? 
Is there a reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation? 
Are multiple responses learned to a visual or physical cue? 
Are too many techniques learned? 
Are students required to perform large set numbers of technique repetitions? 

John D. Williams 
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT 
LEADERSHIP & TRAINING DIVISION 
jdwillia@lasd.org


----------



## Ping898 (Jun 14, 2006)

Wow Doc, pretty in depth and raises some good points.  
I have to wonder if some of what was discussed in it like the tunnel vision - focusing on one target is in some way mitigated by schools that practise say mass attacks or techniques by multiple attackers.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 14, 2006)

THAT'S A MEMO???? Reads like a short novel to me... geez... doesn't that sheriff have criminals to catch ?


----------



## kenposikh (Jun 14, 2006)

Excellent Post Doc,

What can I say but that it is so true of many schools but not all


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 14, 2006)

While I agree with a number of things contained in this brief, and am in complete agreement that there is a lot of poor quality instruction going on, many people teaching who should not be teaching, much material taught as useable material that is pure fantasy, and many people developing a false sense of security because of this, I don't feel convinced that Robert Redenbach and Graeme Blennerhassett have the solution.

Many people claim to have the solution, with their "new" system of scientific self defense.  Why should anybody believe these guys are any better than the others?  Looks to me like they want to be the next pair of gurus,  which ironically is one of the very things they claim to oppose in martial arts. 

I really don't understand their call to having a bunch of attorneys review training procedures for any given program.  That seems utterly rediculous to me.  Unless these attorneys are also highly trained and experienced martial artists, they are in no position to pass judgement on anybody's training methods.  And by their own standards, I suppose these attorneys would have to be advocates of Redenbach's and Blennerhassett's system in order for their training to be considered legit.  Looks like they would like to get some kind of government sactioning for their program, which of course translates into marketing and dollars.  Once again, among the very things they claim to oppose.

Interesting article, some very very good points made, but I question the ultimate motive of these authors.


----------



## fnorfurfoot (Jun 14, 2006)

This reads like one of those infomercials for specially designed ab machines. He spewed alot of intelligent sounding information, but for the most part it was all crap. I can't speak for other martial arts schools, but most of what he said does not apply to our training. 



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> The following example demonstrates what is often the tragic result. A person in Australia by the name of Max, trained for several years in a very popular martial art and was awarded a black belt. He was also in the Australian military and had recently completed a one month intensive full-time unarmed combat course. That course was taught by the instructors who at that time trained the Australian S.A.S. One night Max discovered a person with a knife, vandalizing someone else's car. Without his training Max would have avoided the person and remained unharmed. Instead, Max thought, "Beauty, this is my chance to lay this guy out and be a hero".


 
If the knife was visible before the fight began, a martial artist would know enough about the dangers of a knife to keep his distance and alot the authorities to handle the situation.



			
				Doc said:
			
		

> The vandal came at Max with the knife pointing downwards. A popular martial arts theory states that attackers who hold the knife downwards are not dangerous, because they do not know what they are doing


 
I don't know where he got this information. Ever since I started training, I was taught that a knife held upside down was a sign that the guy DID know what he was doing.



			
				doc said:
			
		

> The Tactical Inadequacies of Martial Arts Training
> Basing the preparation for real life violence on sporting methodology: It is dangerous to believe that methodology designed for sporting contests is effective preparation for real violence.


 
This is the only thing that I though was close to being true. It made me think of that new commercial with Jessica Alba beating the crap out of the photographers. Then is states that she knows Tae Bo. That sends a dangerous message to women who will think that by exercising with a Billy Blanks DVD, they will become prepared to fight off an attacker.



			
				doc said:
			
		

> Participation in sparring and fighting competitions usually develops timing and reflexes that are detrimental in real violence. As an example, most sparring is either light contact or non-contact. For maximum effect, strikes should be performed so the weapon (e.g., fist or foot) aims to pass through its target. In sparring, the weapon is thrown to avoid or just touch the target. As a result, sparring strikes can be initiated from approximately eight inches (20 cm) further away than effective strikes. In real violence one performs as one practices.


 
Here is that infomercial crap. He is saying something that uses just enough facts to sound like the truth. Yes, one performs as one practices. And yes, strikes should be performed so the weapon passes through the target. But no, sparring should not be performed so there is eight inches of safety to spare. I can't speak for everyone, but when I spar my students, I stay in close and hit them with control. And by control I mean that my arm or foot is still slightly bent when I make contact. I teach them to do the same. Strikes should never be made in sparring so that the weapon is at full extension. I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself with sophisticated sounding English. He's just wrong.



			
				doc said:
			
		

> A sporting orientation develops a tendency to use each side of the body in a different manner. For example, a right-handed boxer will stand facing an opponent with his left foot slightly forward. He will learn to throw jab and hook punches with the left arm and cross punches with the right. Too many martial artists practice similarly, consistently executing attacks and defenses from a favored stance.
> 
> This method of preparation is very dangerous for real violence, where conditions such as the angle of attack are not controlled. As an example, consider the situation that would occur if the right-handed boxer above was attacked from his right. Most likely one of the following scenarios would result:
> ß the boxer would be forced to throw an unpracticed (hence ineffective) right jab or left cross,
> ...


 
Whenever we spar, we constantly switch guards so that each side of the body is trained. In fact, the same is done when teaching techniques. Once the technique is learned the "written" way, I have my students practice from the other side. Again, that's just me.

The rest of this is just too long. I'm thirsty from sitting here and correcting this idiot.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 14, 2006)

interesting article

I see many good points in it and some i do not even come close to agreeing with.
 And as Flying Crane has said  why push the attorney aspect, it sounds more like he wants officers to sue anyone they train with if they get hurt. I wonder if this includes the police academy of what they learned there got them hurt

Would this officer prefer to have his police have no defence training and just have them shoot everyone they incounter?


----------



## green meanie (Jun 14, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> THAT'S A MEMO???? Reads like a short novel to me... geez... doesn't that sheriff have criminals to catch ?


 
:rofl: Agreed.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 14, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> While I agree with a number of things contained in this brief, and am in complete agreement that there is a lot of poor quality instruction going on, many people teaching who should not be teaching, much material taught as useable material that is pure fantasy, and many people developing a false sense of security because of this, I don't feel convinced that Robert Redenbach and Graeme Blennerhassett have the solution.
> 
> Many people claim to have the solution, with their "new" system of scientific self defense. Why should anybody believe these guys are any better than the others? Looks to me like they want to be the next pair of gurus, which ironically is one of the very things they claim to oppose in martial arts.
> 
> ...


 
This is definately a *we know* how to do it article and everybody should train with us.  They have a few good ideas but this is a simple marketing ploy that I personally have seen played out way to many times.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 14, 2006)

Oh and yes I am in agreement with Flying Crane!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Carol (Jun 14, 2006)

green meanie said:
			
		

> :rofl: Agreed.


 
Me too.

An article of the curiously same name:  "Have martial artists corrupted defensive tactics and close quarter combat training?''  appeared in 1998 in _The Law Enforcement Trainer_, Vol. 13, pp. 20-25.  The author is one R. Redenbach.  

Redenbach's article was quoted in "An analysis of police satisfaction with defense control tactics." by Mr. Robert Kaminski of the National Institudte of Justice and Mr. Jeffrey Martin of the San Jose Police Department in 1998.  Their work is available here:

http://www.emerald-library.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=872300

I mention this because Mr. Kaminski and Mr. Martin gave Redenbach credit for his work in  "Have martial artists corrupted defensive tactics and close quarter combat training?''  

I cannot say for sure that the memo is from the LASD, nor can I say for sure that said memo is plagiarized.

But it sure quacks like a duck to me.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Me too.
> 
> An article of the curiously same name:  "Have martial artists corrupted defensive tactics and close quarter combat training?''  appeared in 1998 in _The Law Enforcement Trainer_, Vol. 13, pp. 20-25.  The author is one R. Redenbach.
> 
> ...


The memo is a re-circulation of the original article to draw constructive criticism from training staff, and on line personnel.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 15, 2006)

fnorfurfoot said:
			
		

> > This reads like one of those infomercials for specially designed ab machines. He spewed alot of intelligent sounding information, but for the most part it was all crap. I can't speak for other martial arts schools, but most of what he said does not apply to our training.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 15, 2006)

I didn't want to read the whole thing but got the gist of it. In some respects there are a few good points raised. I only wonder how long it will be before martial arts schools have to be registered with the state in some fashion other than tax reasons.

I walked into a few schools in my area this past weekend and noticed that many seem to just cater to kids. The "soccer mom's" come in, drop off the kiddo's and a couple of teeenagers run the class. The child/adult ratio is very, very one-sided towards the kids.

"Martial Arts" has become more of a monicker for a new type of playtime. Sadly this is what most people's impressions are becoming, not only due to the McDojo, but also TV and music coreographed demonstrations.

I think every school I dropped in on had their own 10th degree. So not only has the rank been watered down (or should I say pumped up), but so hasn't the material.


----------



## Carol (Jun 15, 2006)

Monadnock said:
			
		

> I didn't want to read the whole thing but got the gist of it. In some respects there are a few good points raised. I only wonder how long it will be before martial arts schools have to be registered with the state in some fashion other than tax reasons.
> 
> I walked into a few schools in my area this past weekend and noticed that many seem to just cater to kids. The "soccer mom's" come in, drop off the kiddo's and a couple of teeenagers run the class. The child/adult ratio is very, very one-sided towards the kids.
> 
> ...


 
Monadnock, care to share what schools you visited?   I've been weighing of changing schools to a place that's closer to my job in NH.   I've had the good fortune of visiting one already that was quite good.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2006)

> In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example, an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ.
> 
> Martial arts training often ignores this fact. Students are typically taught complicated series of moves such as arm lock flows, katas and patterns. These series of moves are supposed to be practiced against an opponent or opponents acting in a very specific manner. Unfortunately real attackers rarely attack in the same specific manner.
> 
> Rather than learning that "technique A" is the appropriate response to an opponent's "attack A", students subconscious minds are programmed that "technique A" is followed by "technique B, which is followed by "technique C" etc. *This patterning is very dangerous in real violence*.


 
Oh really?

Delayed Sword

If you agree with this person, how is this justified?


----------



## Monadnock (Jun 15, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> Monadnock, care to share what schools you visited? I've been weighing of changing schools to a place that's closer to my job in NH. I've had the good fortune of visiting one already that was quite good.


 
They were Chinese systems. Depending on what you are looking for, maybe I could help you out, just send me a PM.


----------



## Bode (Jun 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh really?
> 
> Delayed Sword
> 
> If you agree with this person, how is this justified?



Funny how I don't see you post at all in the Kenpo forum, but given the opportunity to stir things up, you post... makes me wonder.
I'll bite anyway...

First, I don't believe Doc said he agreed 100% with the article.

Second, you can't base your understanding of what SL4 teaches on one technique. We don't, as the article say's, teach patterning with complicated moves in the way described. The response to the lapel grab in ANY form is the same.

"In real violence one's opponent dictates one's actions. For example, an opponent's strike dictates the appropriate counter. The opponent's body position in relation to one's own body position dictates the most appropriate strike or technique to employ"

Which is exactly what we strive for in SL4. Through various drills and techniques you learn to recognize the attackers (why he used "opponent" I don't know) posture which dictates the counter. However, like anything, this takes a long time to develop.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> Funny how I don't see you post at all in the Kenpo forum, but given the opportunity to stir things up, you post... makes me wonder.
> I'll bite anyway...
> 
> First, I don't believe Doc said he agreed 100% with the article.
> ...


 
Bode

I'm not trying to stir things up...It just seemed like a contradiction.  I don't agree with everything in the article either.  I don't know anything about SL4 and this is all I could find where I could actually see some of it.  

BTW - I think the drill has merit, but I know it has to go beyond that.  The "how" is all I'm trying to find out...

With Respect...:asian: 

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

Funny how people can be so polarized and style/philosophy critical based on a memo, (in some cases not even fully read) to stir discussion about law enforcement applications. Some even steered this toward SL-4 for reasons unknown. Anyone may feel free to post an example video or description of how they might address a particular law enforcement training issue.

The article is about training from the public law enforcement perspective, which is very specific in its application and approved perameters. Although this article/memo touches on points that SubLevel Four Kenpo does indeed attempt to address due to my background as a law enforcement trainer and working officer/agent, the discussions should be centered around how others might approach some of the various points made. It is posted under the Kenpo Section because that is a significant part of my background, and most purport to be "self-defense based."  Specific questions about SL-4 should be left for another thread to avoid clouding what, to me, appears like a wealth of fodder for great discussions on this memo.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Wow Doc, pretty in depth and raises some good points.
> I have to wonder if some of what was discussed in it like the tunnel vision - focusing on one target is in some way mitigated by schools that practise say mass attacks or techniques by multiple attackers.


Not really. Although 'mass attack' drills are relevant, they would be out of place relative to adapting and learning decent direct one-on-one self defense skills. Many that choose these situations are ignoring the reality of attaining competency on the more likely to occur scenarios, which in themselves are rare.

Law enforcement has mutilple and possible confrontations everyday, whereas the majority of civilians have no significant confrontations in their adult life time.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 15, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> The article is about training from the public law enforcement perspective, which is very specific in its application and approved perameters.


 
Maybe part of the problem is that it wasn't entirely clear (at least to me) that this was really aimed specifically at the training of law enforcement personnel.  I did get that as part of what was written, but I wasn't clear that it was really the primary focus.  

Certainly martial training for law enforcment would have an approach designed for very specific results that might be different from what a civilian would want.  Some comments and statements made by the authors seemed to be aimed at the martial arts community at large, and not stictly at law enforcement programs.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Bode
> 
> I'm not trying to stir things up...It just seemed like a contradiction.  I don't agree with everything in the article either.  I don't know anything about SL4 and this is all I could find where I could actually see some of it.
> 
> ...


I understand you curiosoty, but I'm trying to see how if you actually read the post, that it became an SL-4 issue. If anything I would think the disussion, if it had to center on a style, would move toward the one mentioned in the post.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> fnorfurfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> I understand you curiosoty, but I'm trying to see how if you actually read the post, that it became an SL-4 issue. If anything I would think the disussion, if it had to center on a style, would move toward the one mentioned in the post.


 
I read the peice and IMO, it is describing how we "practice" our martial arts.  It isn't an issue of style, per se, more like "how one trains" with the style.  I posted the video of SL4 because its all I've ever seen of the style, it seems to contradict some of the points in the article, and it is the style of the poster who started this thread...Doc.  There are alot of styles that do those sorts of drills however, mine included.  

The point is that the article says that that type of training is not only worthless, but it is dangerous.  What do people think about this?  

IMO, I think its a very narrow view of things.  These patterns are only one aspect of training.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

Flying Crane said:
			
		

> Maybe part of the problem is that it wasn't entirely clear (at least to me) that this was really aimed specifically at the training of law enforcement personnel.  I did get that as part of what was written, but I wasn't clear that it was really the primary focus.
> 
> Certainly martial training for law enforcment would have an approach designed for very specific results that might be different from what a civilian would want.  Some comments and statements made by the authors seemed to be aimed at the martial arts community at large, and not stictly at law enforcement programs.


No you're right. The original article was aimed at both, but re-circulated to the department.


----------



## Doc (Jun 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I read the peice and IMO, it is describing how we "practice" our martial arts.  It isn't an issue of style, per se, more like "how one trains" with the style.  I posted the video of SL4 because its all I've ever seen of the style, it seems to contradict some of the points in the article, and it is the style of the poster who started this thread...Doc.  There are alot of styles that do those sorts of drills however, mine included.
> 
> The point is that the article says that that type of training is not only worthless, but it is dangerous.  What do people think about this?
> 
> IMO, I think its a very narrow view of things.  These patterns are only one aspect of training.



Once again sir, this article and discussion are not about SL-4. Perhaps you should disuss how YOU approach these points in Tang Soo Do.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I posted the video of SL4 because its all I've ever seen of the style, it seems to contradict some of the points in the article, and it is the style of the poster who started this thread...Doc.


 
John,

Doc started the thread, but he is not the author of the article.  He was simply passing it along to stimulate discussion.  The article itself has nothing specifically to do with SL4, nor Doc's views on things, unless by coincidence.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 15, 2006)

Doc said:
			
		

> Once again sir, this article and discussion are not about SL-4. Perhaps you should disuss how YOU approach these points in Tang Soo Do.



If you didn't want discussion centered on kenpo then I wonder why it is in this subforum at all, since, y'know, it's a kenpo subforum.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 15, 2006)

What I like about the article/memo is that it puts a spotlight on some glaring training errors that pepper the MA community at large. True, not all train this way, but enough do for it to be an issue.

The article, however, does seem to have an agenda embedded just below the read. Immediately, I'm more suspicious/curious about thier source-work for references.

It does make some good points around adrenal dump training. As well as challenging some of the sillier assertions of "combat" grappling applications of sportive techniques.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 15, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you didn't want discussion centered on kenpo then I wonder why it is in this subforum at all, since, y'know, it's a kenpo subforum.


 
Speak of the devil...I really only see you post in anything related to Doc when you have some fun to poke or bone to pick. You do it here, as far as the limits can be stretched with MT moderation, then shoot over to Bullshido to do it more nastily where such "friendly" modration standards do not apply. If you only pop on here to give crap to people you've never met, why pop on at all? Your consistent provocation does not add anyting to the conversation at hand; in fact, it sucks the joy out of what was hitherto a perfectly fine day, and fully functional, non-combative thread in which at least some were interested in keeping the subject on topic, and not degrade the thread into finger-pointing and name calling. Did he/we (meaning we silly SL4-happy folk) accidentally piss in your cheerio's in a past life, or something?

BTW...you do kenpo? (as I've noticed you're posting here in this sub-forum, too).

Regards,

Dave

PS -- get lost, you fight-seeking troll. Your pissy, baiting antics are neither appropriate nor welcome here. Go back to bullshido, and stay there. They actually like your crap.


----------



## Bode (Jun 15, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> If you didn't want discussion centered on kenpo then I wonder why it is in this subforum at all, since, y'know, it's a kenpo subforum.



Here we go again... any way you can find a way to argue with Doc you will. I used to be the nice guy and say, "We're just not communicating propertly." Nope. Not true. You just like to start arguments. 
Regardless, Doc already answered your question, that is of course, if you read the replies. Oh hell, here is the quote:

"It is posted under the Kenpo Section because that is a significant part of my background, and most purport to be "self-defense based."

In addition, people are trying to make it about SL4, not what THEY understand/train. If the discussion revolves around SL4 then the thread will be effectively an SL4 thread... and dead.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 15, 2006)

Bode said:
			
		

> Here we go again... any way you can find a way to argue with Doc you will. I used to be the nice guy and say, "We're just not communicating propertly."



No, you're the guy who accused me of a racism over on Bullshido for daring to question Doc. You have no intention of being the "nice guy." EPAKer, please.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 15, 2006)

* Moderator Note. *
* Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

Lisa Deneka
MT Senior Moderator*


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 15, 2006)

IMO, full of straw man arguments and self-aggrandizing bluster - mixed in with some hard truths that MOST long term martial artists that I know are already aware of.

BTW, even when I was a kid and trained at what I now consider a McDojang Black Belt factory, the instructor told us to RUN from a knife if at all possible because armed beats unarmed almost all the time.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 15, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Speak of the devil...I really only see you post in anything related to Doc when you have some fun to poke or bone to pick. You do it here, as far as the limits can be stretched with MT moderation, then shoot over to Bullshido to do it more nastily where such "friendly" modration standards do not apply. If you only pop on here to give crap to people you've never met, why pop on at all? Your consistent provocation does not add anyting to the conversation at hand; in fact, it sucks the joy out of what was hitherto a perfectly fine day, and fully functional, non-combative thread in which at least some were interested in keeping the subject on topic, and not degrade the thread into finger-pointing and name calling. Did he/we (meaning we silly SL4-happy folk) accidentally piss in your cheerio's in a past life, or something?


 
You guys are so bloody sensitive, aren't you? Hell, I didn't say a damn thing about SL-4 here, nor have I in quite some time. I figure you know how I feel about that.

The fact that you people find a simple statement that a thread in a kenpo forum *should actually be about kenpo *offensive has nothing to do with me.



> BTW...you do kenpo? (as I've noticed you're posting here in this sub-forum, too).



I do.



> PS -- get lost, you fight-seeking troll. Your pissy, baiting antics are neither appropriate nor welcome here. Go back to bullshido, and stay there. They actually like your crap.



On bullshido. this thread would be filled with profanity. It would also discuss actual techniques. What is notable about this thread is a specific appeal *not* to discuss a particular kenpo technique in regard to the matter at hand.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 15, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> What is notable about this thread is a specific appeal *not* to discuss a particular kenpo technique in regard to the matter at hand.


OK. I'll bite. The Delayed Sword video being circulated is an adjunct tool -- a "class note", if you will, for use by SL4 practitioners and teachers for the specific purpose of annotating -- via exaggeration -- specifics embedded within the technique that aid with learning integration. A "video mnemonic", if you will. "Never let monkeys eat bananas" means absolutely nothing out of context of the study group trying to memorize white blood cell types (NLMEB = neutrophils, lymphocytes, etc.).  It is a nunya...as in business, and was made by SL4 study group members, for SL4 study goup members, to e.x.a.g.g.e.r.a.t.e. and e.m.p.h.a.s.i.z.e. points covered in live training (i.e., lecture).  It's a review note; not a demo. And the viewing public, seeing it out of context, without the foggiest about what they are seeing, are dense enough to draw uninformed conclusions, as if they ARE informed. If anyone is silly enough to firmly believe that it represents SL4 kenpoists, how they move, what they do as a kenpo technology, they are invited to do one of two things:

1. Live with their stupidity, or

2. Come on by and train with us. You can step onto the mat and see for yourself if we are full of ****, or perhaps onto something.

No, it's not a veiled threat, in the vein of "come by and get yer butt kicked", though some have opted to show up with more attitude than curiosity or spirit of friendship. It is an invitation to come by and learn a bit about that which you know not of, but yack on about anyways.  Until, the criticisms are words without meaning...like monkeys with bananas.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 15, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> OK. I'll bite. The Delayed Sword video being circulated is an adjunct tool -- a "class note", if you will, for use by SL4 practitioners and teachers for the specific purpose of annotating -- via exaggeration -- specifics embedded within the technique that aid with learning integration.



I'd actually be more interested in discussing whether it's appropriate or wise for a cop to whack a dude like that. I have little interest in what that video may or may not mean within the labyrinthine contexts of American Kenpo's technical corpus, as I don't study it and have no horse in the race among its innumerable substyles.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 15, 2006)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> 1. Live with their stupidity, or
> 
> 2. Come on by and train with us. You can step onto the mat and see for yourself if we are full of $hyt, or perhaps onto something.


 
There may be a third option for those of us who are not complete nimrods and just want to learn a little more about a style, but do not have the opportunity to train with you.  Just throw a bone and explain how SL4 deals with these issues.

Anyway, I'll start by following Doc's invitation to explain how Tang Soo Do deals with this stuff.  First of all, Tang Soo Do is a genaric term.  There are lots of different styles and lots of different approaches.  My particular lineage is through Hwang Kee and the Soo Bahk Do Moo Duk Kwan federation.  Basically, all of the legitimate criticisms leveled in the article applied.  There were some good points to the training, but the actual "rubber meets the pavement" was little to be desired.  What I have done in response is detailed in the Superior Tangsoodo forum.  This is the hosted forum for my school.

Basically, it has entailed revamping our entire curriculum.  My teacher began the process by pulling out of the federation and throwing out all of the dangerous and ultimately futile patterns that were practiced.  He also started trimming some of the sillier techniques like the double jumping inside out kicks and the kicks that would have kicked over Shaq's head.  My teacher has had years of practical experience in law enforcement and he is actively involved in local throwdowns so it was pretty easy for him to find out what didn't work and what did.  Heck, we were having a weekly throwdown with lots of other people for years!

Our ultimate solution is that we cross trained and pressure tested the material...and we sparred with contact and with intent.  We kept three questions in mind whenever we approached something.

1.  Is the attack realistic?
2.  Is the attacker's response realistic?
3.  Will this work against someone who resists 100%?

The bottom line is that we are a work in progess.  We started as a martial art with alot of good nuggets and whole lotta blind spots and now we are trying to fill in the gaps.  Check out our forum if you want to learn more.  We certainly don't have everything figured out and your input is appreciated.  

Which is why I'm very interested in what ya'll are doing to address some of these issues...


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jun 15, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that we are a work in progess. We started as a martial art with alot of good nuggets and whole lotta blind spots and now we are trying to fill in the gaps. Check out our forum if you want to learn more. We certainly don't have everything figured out and your input is appreciated.
> 
> Which is why I'm very interested in what ya'll are doing to address some of these issues...


 
Good for you! The TSD I studied, while technically brilliant, lacked most elements that we now know are essential for a complete fighter.

First of all; some of the issues raised by the article CAN'T be addressed by unarmed fighting techniques, IMO. There are inherent human limitations, that we ALL face, that cannot be completely overcome. However; what you're doing is a main part of the answer, IMO.


----------



## Ants (Jun 15, 2006)

I'm sorry,

I'm a cop in New Zealand and at no point would any instructor of the Police recommend any form of unarmed engagement of an attacker with a knife, bat, paper clip or just nutting off other than to talk to the person in a calming manner while calling for any available unit to back them up.

At the very least in New Zealand the sequence is likely to follow: Voice appeal (just talking to them to find out their motivation/intention, Telling them that if the do not comply with instructions they will be sprayed (O/C spray and probably baton until the individual is restrained by cuffs and another officer has them secured),  if that does not work I imagine most cops over here would back off while keeping the individual in sight until a dog handler and armed unit were able to arrive.  If it was not able to be resolved using a Tactical options Model then any cop over here would hopefully be spraying the individual with a knife and then using their baton.

But the origianl post does raise one good point that I have always taken to 'real life violence' and that is 'If you play by rules in a fight (i.e. waitingfor their correct attack so that you can apply the counter while standing in a good fighting stance.) you are going to get your backside kicked.


----------



## Carol (Jun 15, 2006)

The article referrs to martial artists as deluded fools in their own reality.

The article also make cops look like plagiarizing crybabies boo hooing over (gasp) keeping their skills current.

Shame, because there are a lot of martial artists that are a lot better than that.   There are a lot of police officers that are better than that.

This does no justice to either.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 16, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There may be a third option for those of us who are not complete nimrods and just want to learn a little more about a style, but do not have the opportunity to train with you. Just throw a bone and explain how SL4 deals with these issues.


 
I'm gonna have ta do this in chapters, due to the extent of the memo, and the numerous points covered within. I agree whole-heartedly with some of the points as being pandemic in the arts, but not with all of them. I can speak to them from my own experience as a "mixer", changing kenpo with an eye towards progressive development. I can also speak to the SL4 solutions, as I understand them; I am a fan of SL4, specifically because it deals with many of these concerns rather abruptly and honestly, as compared to kenpo versions taught out of store-front studios with rent to pay. I am not, however, an SL4 certified teacher, so I hope to be helped in this endeavor a bit by Bode and Doc as such items arise that I cannot address correctly.

In my own opinion, many of the criticisms leveled towards martial artists in this diatribe are spot on; not to the whole, mind you, because there will always be dedicated individuals who seek to look beyond the initial database they are handed. But a large number of kenpoists are, in my own humble opinion, deluding themselves as to their abilities. Most are untested, and can be seen over time to avoid placing themselves in circumstances that would test them. It is...unprofessional/unethical/unwise to suggest to students that they go out and get in frequent fights with a variety of opponents in order to expand their horizons combatively. However, what CAN be done is to survey people who DO frequent altercations, and make some determinations as to what worked, what didn't, and what may have had it been applied.

I gotta split now, but I'll get back to this with specifics tomorrow. Both from my own experiences, and from my understanding of SL4.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## Bode (Jun 16, 2006)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, you're the guy who accused me of a racism over on Bullshido for daring to question Doc. You have no intention of being the "nice guy." EPAKer, please.



I post only to let people judge how you communicate for themselves. If anyone feels necessary, the thread referred to in the above statement is here. After reading I'm sure most will see who the nice guy is. 

BTW, I am not an EPAKer as you refer to me. I do SL4 Kenpo.  What type of Kenpo do you practice Eyebeams? 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Our ultimate solution is that we cross trained and pressure tested the material...and we sparred with contact and with intent. We kept three questions in mind whenever we approached something.
> 
> 1.  Is the attack realistic?
> 2.  Is the attacker's response realistic?
> 3.  Will this work against someone who resists 100%?



Sounds like you have a good teacher. Someone who strives to make the material work in real situations. Teachers like that are rare. 

With the intent to share I will do my best to help Dr. Dave explain how we deal with the comments in the article. Not right now though, tired...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 16, 2006)

At the very bottom of the article there is a checklist of questions that one can use to evaluate an art.  I will attempt to answer them in relation to how we practice Tang Soo Do up here in Superior Wisconsin.  



> Do the instructors make statements that seem unrealistic or exaggerated?


 
Maybe.  I think we do the best to keep our training pragmatic.  My teacher is a law enforcement trainer and he has lots of practical experience with violence, so I trust that experience.



> Are any of the training or combative methodologies based on sporting practices, or are claimed to have cultural or traditional significance?


 
Yes.  This isn't always a bad thing though.  I think the sportive aspects of training create a friendly environment where one can test things and find what really works.  As far as the cultural or traditional aspect goes, I can see how it could be negative and how it could be positive.  



> Do the instructors demonstrate self-defence techniques where the attacker's strikes are easily blocked?


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32622
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32514



> Do the techniques taught appear highly skilled, complicated, or even ridiculous?


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34158

As I said before, we've parred down many of the most rediculous techniques.  Particularly, the kicks.  



> Is there a heavy emphasis or reliance upon grappling techniques?


 
We practice tuite, randori and newaza, but it is not the FOCUS of our training.  Just another aspect.



> Does the training ignore the specific need to improve attributes such as timing, reflexes, coordination, spontaneity, speed and power plus the intangible qualities such as purpose, confidence, spirit and will to win?


 
I don't think so, but I'm in my own fishbowl on this.  I think that I drive my students to develop these things and I believe that I see improvement in them.



> Are students required to memorise complicated series of techniques?


 
Yes and no.  The patterns are not complicated.  They are starting points where variations on themes can be easily made.

Here is some more information on this subject...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33409
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31800



> Is a large proportion of training time dedicated to activities of minimal relevance?


 
I'm not sure what this means.  I believe that he is talking about some of the more esoteric aspects of the art.  Then, the answer is NO.  When we enter the dojang, we come to bust our butts.  The training is very physical.



> Does the training ignore the need to provide an appreciation of the realities of real violence and a field-proven method of fear reduction?


 
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31869



> Is training or combative methodology used that has not been field-proven as efficient and effective for its intended purpose?


 
We do our best to pressure test our material and offer as much realistic resistence as is safely possible.  

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31764



> Do the instructors have little or no practical appreciation of the situations students may face?


 
My teacher is a law enforcement trainer and has decades of experience in the field.  I'm not involved in a profession that deals with alot of violence (we get some being that I teach at-risk youth), however, I have been a bouncer, a security guard, and a treatment counselor.  I wouldn't consider myself to be an expert, however, and I rely on my teacher's experience.



> Do instructors attempt to produce good body mechanics by making continuous adjustments to body movements (as a golf professional would do to produce a good golf swing)?


 
I do some of this.  Mostly, so the student can perform the technique fluidly.  I try to let the student's body be the one that dictates the adjustments.



> Is training for techniques, defenses or attacks carried out using both sides of the body equally?


 
Absolutely.



> Is there a reliance or heavy emphasis on pressure point or joint manipulation?


 
We use them as tools, but they are not the focus.  Here is how we look at pressure points in TSD.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32751



> Are multiple responses learned to a visual or physical cue?


 
Yes and no.  I teach multiple responses and the students pick and choose which ones best fit their bodies and those are the ones they train.



> Are too many techniques learned?


 
Hard to say.  I try to tell my students that less is more, but we certainly do have an extensive curriculum.  



> Are students required to perform large set numbers of technique repetitions?


 
Sometimes.  I don't know why this is a bad thing.

Well, I tried to answer the questions as best as I could.  For more information on what we do, here is our forum URL.  If you have any questions for me or want more info, let me know.  Don't be shy.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 16, 2006)

One core problem related to protecting oneself from a knife is the dichotomy between flight and confrontation. Ryukai kenpo (my art) recognizes that the blade down position is not "unskilled" at all, since similar movements are used for the knife and kama. The knife down position creates severe defensive wounds even if it doesn't hit the core of the body. Nevertheless, if confronted by a knife, you must either get away or enter and seize control of the weapon.

In live drills where the knife is both concealed and out, one aspect that has greatly contributed to avoiding and surviving is to keep from being completely square to the attacker. If you present on an angle this gives your arms more play and adds distance to the opponent's attempts to stab you in the torso.

Assuming you can't run, you will generally be unable to secure a grip right away and it will be difficult to get to the outside of the attacker. We often use a staggered "scissors" movement with the arms. If the attacker is coming in with his right, the left jams and *your* right comes down to control. This is often seen in FMA as well and is the true effective application of the normally mis-taught "cross block." This is one of several possible techniques but it's conceptually illuminating.

Again, this is assuming that you cannot retreat to a safe distance.

As for police, the Tueller Drill (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm) comes to mind, but as I am not a police officer and have heard that this is being rethought, some discussion on this would be relevant.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 16, 2006)

The basic movement I'm talking about is here:
http://www.psdtc.com/Kali/kali.4.jpg
http://www.psdtc.com/Kali/kali.5.jpg

In case any of you thought I was talking about the karate "X-block." The idea works on multiple angles and has worked when I've done it at full speed. The only caveats is that it does not work all the time (what does?) and the people in the photos leave more distance open than I have found to be effective.

More food for thought can be found in Karl Tanswell's STAB program, discussed here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33967


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 17, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> The article referrs to martial artists as deluded fools in their own reality.
> 
> The article also make cops look like plagiarizing crybabies boo hooing over (gasp) keeping their skills current.
> 
> ...




From my perspective of being involved in approximately 6 different martial arts in my lifetime, only my current one teaches techniques appropriate to a real-life attacks.  All of the others were more appropriate for a sporting environment.  That is not to say that with the proper understanding that something couldn't be gleaned from it that will be beneficial in a real attack.  But generally, that is not what I have seen from most schools.

Now, in regards to police officers, most of them can't stand training.  You don't know how many times I hear my fellow officer complain about having to train in general, use-of-force in particular.  Very few cops take the time to go to outside training to improve their unarmed combat skills.  We tend to win because there are more of us in a given engagement then there are bad guys.


----------



## Danjo (Jun 17, 2006)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> From my perspective of being involved in approximately 6 different martial arts in my lifetime, only my current one teaches techniques appropriate to a real-life attacks. All of the others were more appropriate for a sporting environment. That is not to say that with the proper understanding that something couldn't be gleaned from it that will be beneficial in a real attack. But generally, that is not what I have seen from most schools.
> 
> Now, in regards to police officers, most of them can't stand training. You don't know how many times I hear my fellow officer complain about having to train in general, use-of-force in particular. Very few cops take the time to go to outside training to improve their unarmed combat skills. We tend to win because there are more of us in a given engagement then there are bad guys.


 
Look at those episodes of COPS sometime. You often see two or three of them struggling with some skinny criminal that's resisting arrest (not always, but often enough). Half of the time on those shows it looks like the criminals would get banged around less, if the officers had more skill.

However, in your experience, do the officers you work with hate to train that stuff because they think they don't need it, or because they think it's not realistic to their needs?


----------



## Doc (Jun 17, 2006)

Danjo said:
			
		

> Look at those episodes of COPS sometime. You often see two or three of them struggling with some skinny criminal that's resisting arrest (not always, but often enough). Half of the time on those shows it looks like the criminals would get banged around less, if the officers had more skill.


The general public has been indoctrinated through the media to believe that cops have some extraordinary skills in the martial arts, (including shooting). In truth cops learn how to survive on the job, and that 'fancy martial arts stuff that don't work' isn't even a consideration for most.


> However, in your experience, do the officers you work with hate to train that stuff because they think they don't need it, or because they think it's not realistic to their needs?


I've beeen a defensive tactics trainer for professional law enforcement since the mid-seventies, and in my experience police are jaded for a variety of reasons. They either recognize or discover the hand-to-hand techniques they have been taught are inadequate on the street. And the amount of time allotted on the job for officers who want to train is inadequate, and personnel shortages restrict the officers free time to explore additional training on their own. Also ever changing departmental policies are becoming more and more restrictive with unrealistic goals.  influenced by 'fad martial arts' and civilian legal policy makers.


----------



## BallistikMike (Jun 17, 2006)

Eye gouges, throat strikes, repeated blows to vital targets/organs, cycling hammer fist strikes to the jaw hinge, temple, jaw hinge, bridge of nose, etc...

ALL get good LEO's out of a bad situation, they also get them sued, fired, disciplined, fined, suspended. Its one advantage a citizen capable of doing those things has over a police officer. They can quietly walk away or claim self-defense. The LEO needs to do more with fewer tools. 

May be one of multiple reasons Mr. Chapel went on his journey in Kenpo. 

Could also be why others have taken the journey of a different path. 

Their environment of daily living was less or more dangerous. Citizens that live in the areas where LEOs only patrol...well live it 24/7 not 9 to 5 (Believe me I know there is more then 9 to 5 in a LEO's job). 

That job/environment/daily living has a HUGE bearing on what you think MA's should be. Its why things are so diversified and why people are always right about their chosen art. Because it fits them in their environment. Its also why people think so many are wrong about what they study.

Its also why the memo was right and wrong in various ways to myself. Ive never been a cop, Ive never had to rescue or bust people. Who am I to judge the LEO who wrote it or what he thinks of self-defense/martial arts/hand to hand combat training?

I know I am capable of knocking people out with a good 1 -2 . I know I am capable of breaking bear hugs and headlocks and keeping my footing in a scuffle. I know because I have done it in my environment (Bar/Restaurant Owner) on a weekly basis for nearly 17 years now.

I have know idea how I would react being part of a team taking down bad guys in a drug raid or kicking in the door of a domestic disturbance or seeing my partner lying bleeding as a scum bag runs away. I have no clue. I like to think I would react right, but hell thats not my environment I have no idea...Ive never done it.

That memo is based off of what they do, not what we/I do. 

LOL...again was I even on topic....ranting I cant help it.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 17, 2006)

My experience in the Law Enforcement Field, Security, Loss Prevention and DNR has been that hand to hand training is given a very low priority and administrators are generally concerned more about lawsuits and less about providing their officers with good training.  Certainly training is available but generally it is given on a yearly basis or at best on a quarterly basis.

The LEO's that seek me out are interested in improving their skill sets to complement their current training.  Many feel that their current training is just not enough.  

Having said that, many officers will simply not go to any sort of training unless it is mandated and their department pays for it.  One officer that I know said to me last time we talked that he would not go to any training because it was for younger guys and that he would not ever allow someone to take him down or get that close again. (This was an older road officer by the way)

Consequently when we watch cops or see any video of LEO's in a struggle we generally see some that have little training and certainly they could improve what they are doing with more training.  However, few are willing to go out and get the extra training on their own.

Some programs would work great for LEO's and other ones might not address their specifc needs! 

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Danjo (Jun 18, 2006)

Thanks for the replies which I enjoyed reading. I can relate to what was said about the problems of having an arsenal of techniques to use, but not being able to use it. As a teacher of High School behavior conduct disorder kids, I have to break up on average of 8-12 fights per year and have to otherwise physically control students several other times during the course of the year. But I have to be very careful about not actually hurting these people which is not always easy to do depending on their size and how aggressive they're being. No one would appreciate it if Johnny came home with a broken jaw regardless of the fact that he was in the process of beating the hell out of a student 40 pounds lighter and was refusing to stop. I was once dragged along the floor by a 6'3" 300 lb. Samoan kid who was hell bent on eliminating another student. Thank God I slowed down the Kid I was hanging onto long enough for the other one to get away and that the student I was hanging onto didn't decide to turn his aggression onto me.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 18, 2006)

Just finished reading.

Again, not being a Law enforcement officer i may be looking through a different lens, but just the same I'm having an attack of some serious " S.C.A.R.S." flashbacks( anyone remember them?)


----------



## Danjo (Jun 18, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:
			
		

> Just finished reading.
> 
> Again, not being a Law enforcement officer i may be looking through a different lens, but just the same I'm having an attack of some serious " S.C.A.R.S." flashbacks( anyone remember them?)


 
Good God! I bought those videos back in 92' I think the dude's name was Jerry Robinson. What a total joke. that was the LAST thing I ever bought from those clowns at TRS.


----------



## Carol (Jun 19, 2006)

Ants, 5-0 Kenpo, Dr. Chapél, Danjo, Ballistik Mike...

Thanks so much for your input and perspective.   I can see your points of view a lot better now.  :asian:


----------

