# Why...



## Ian Kinder (Feb 22, 2007)

*Below is an updated version of a thread that I posted on another forum.  I thought it might be interesting to post it here:* 

Combat training is a life and death issue. The more an individual is exposed to violence the more sensitive they are to this fact. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between training and reality that endangers practitioners and cost innocent lives, a problem that is prevalent in both the military, law enforcement and the public. So the question is, &#8220;What standards should guide training?&#8221; 

Here are some examples:

*Combat Stress:* The way we perceive and process information, and the way we perform physical skills, is dramatically altered when we perceive a threat to our safety or the safety of someone we care about. Skills that fail to account for these changes are very unlikely to succeed, even with large amounts of training. 

*Natural, Common Motor Skills:* Skills that are based on natural common motions are much more reflexive, and much less likely to degrade under stress, than skills that are not. They are also much easer to learn. Straight palm strikes as an example are based on the common movements of extending and retracting our hands, motions which are used when grabbing, pushing, pulling and pointing. Consequently, palm strikes are easer to learn and far more common under stress than Chin Jabs (http://www.vrazvedka.ru/main/learning/ruk-b/fairbairn-01_02.shtml), even though a Chin Jab is a gross motor movement. Chin Jabs can and should be learned and are very effective, but they require more repetition because the pattern of movement is less common. Toe kicks to the shin, which mimic walking, require much less training than a Thai Kick for the same reason. 

*Relevance:* Short-term programs must focus on statistical norms to be relevant. Long-term programs can broaden their focus a bit but they still need to be grounded in reality and they still need to focus on those circumstances which are most common. 

*Versatility:* In order for a skill to be effective and relevant, it must be versatile. Not to pick on the Chin Jab, which is a very effective skill, but it is far less versatile than say a straight palm strike, which is almost always applicable. A Chin Jab is an excellent preemptive strike but is does not line up as often as straight palm strikes, elbow or knee strikes during the rapid movement of an altercation. 

*Focus:* Threat focus is an instinctive response, as is the tendency to fixate on a single task or objective. If a skill or tactic requires a broader focus, or more than one objective, it probably won&#8217;t work. A hierarchy of progressive goals, like &#8220;stop threat&#8221; &#8220;get to safety&#8221;, is very realistic but trying to fight and flee at the same time is not. 

*Combat Proven:* When selecting skills and training methods, the question should not be &#8220;what would work&#8221; but &#8220;what does work&#8221;. Not anecdotes, but broad patterns of success in combat and during realistic training like scenarios and sparring. Often times, people use sterile training conditions to validate skills but if the skill isn't prevalent under stress, realistic time constraints and spontaneous conditions, it should be viewed as suspect. 

*Statistical Norms:* Most assaults are spontaneous, high stress, low light, close range, quick, and involve a lot of movement. The statistical norm is to be attacked by one to three assailants, multiple assailants being the rule not the exception. Skills need to account for these conditions. 

*Effectiveness:* Skills need to be capable of causing enough trauma to stop a determent threat. 

*Feedback:* Sparring, sparring drills, scenarios, bag work and pad work are all exercises that provide honest feedback about an individual&#8217;s ability and the effectiveness of individual skills. 

*Learning Progression:* Skills should be prioritized in the order that they can be effectively learned and applied under realistic conditions. More people will respond with palm strikes to the face when grabbed by the shirt than trapping the aggressor&#8217;s arms with one hand and hitting with the other. Both skills are technically sound but the second is less natural because it requires the defender to divide their focus between two actions. That doesn&#8217;t invalidate the second skill but it does move it further down the learning progression. 

*Movement Time and Perceptibility:* There is an unavoidable gap between action and reaction. If you can cause significant trauma faster than the aggressor can perceive and respond, then you can substantially increase your chance of success. Straight palm strikes as an example are much faster to execute and harder to perceive than say a Thai Kick. That does not invalidate Thai Kicks by any means but they may be more applicable after you shift the assailant's focus from offense to defense, and when you are out of the assailant&#8217;s line of attack and field of view. 

*Defensive and Active Resistance:* Many skills are defeated by natural, common reactions like pulling away and covering up and are unrealistic when someone is fighting back. Skills need to function under these conditions. 

The list above is not intended to be complete but it does outline principles that we view as critical. From our perspective, all skills and training methods are guilty until proven innocent. Any skill that fails to meet the criteria above is eliminated from our personal training and our curriculum, unless of course it has some other redeeming value. 

The right standards can increase our chance of success while eliminating waste. They can also help &#8220;predict&#8221; the likely success of a given program or skill while developing a hierarchy of learning. We get a lot of feedback from simulated combat as to what the majority of students can accomplish with minimal training; feedback that we can then compare to patterns found in real combat to identify similarities. This allows us to make predictions as to which skills will have the greatest potential for success for the majority of students within the limitations of any given program. It also helps to sort out which training methods are most effective for most people and to identify and correct the most common problems people have when using force, most of which are psychological. And of course, we compare our personal and professional experiences, research and student feedback with other instructors that we work with, many of whom receive fairly large amounts of feedback from their departments or military units. 

This common sense approach is nothing new. Unfortunately, combat training has the tendency to become recreational overtime. This by itself is not bad but the more combat training is removed from combat, the more speculative it becomes, which inevitably leads to inefficient and even dangerous methods and beliefs. By developing an effective list of standards, people can filter the information they receive to discern which skills and training methods are most likely to be effective for their circumstances, which of course, can help to save innocent lives. 

So what standards do you rely on for your training or the training of others?


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 22, 2007)

Ian Kinder said:


> Combat training is a life and death issue. The more an individual is exposed to violence the more sensitive they are to this fact. Unfortunately, there is a disconnect between training and reality that endangers practitioners and cost innocent lives, a problem that is prevalent in both the military, law enforcement and the public. So the question is, What standards should guide training?



Well, to be perfectly honest I have no intention of sending my students into combat, and if they decide to go into combat they will recieve training for that through the Canadian Forces.  I've been through basic training, but have never been in combat and don't feel at all qualified to try and teach people to be ready for that.

In my opinion martial arts has very little to do with combat, outside of sport combat.  Are there some transferable skills?  Probably, but being a martial arts instructor does not in any way shape or form qualify a person to train people for combat.  

So my standards are simple, train hard, have fun, come home smiling sore and sometimes bruised.

And in most cases civillians training with combat as a goal creep me out.  If you want to go through some combat training, join the infantry and go through basic training.


----------



## Ceicei (Feb 22, 2007)

If a person works in a high risk area or with an occupation that deals with confrontation, then keeping a self-defense orientation with martial arts is not a bad idea.  The ideas outlined are really good and does keep in mind the adrenaline dump that people will feel when in defensive combat.  If the person is aware of that and doesn't worry about whether "technique a" goes to completion, but rather allow the body to respond reflexively (which typically has an emphasis with gross motor response), then the chance of success will be much higher.  

That said, I do believe there is value in practicing martial arts (TMA) than just with a self-defense perspective.  Years of training will be of service hopefully because of "muscle memory."   If self defense is the sole goal, then perhaps a RBSD style may be more fitting.

Just my thoughts,

- Ceicei


----------



## Ian Kinder (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Well, to be perfectly honest I have no intention of sending my students into combat, and if they decide to go into combat they will recieve training for that through the Canadian Forces. I've been through basic training, but have never been in combat and don't feel at all qualified to try and teach people to be ready for that.
> 
> In my opinion martial arts has very little to do with combat, outside of sport combat. Are there some transferable skills? Probably, but being a martial arts instructor does not in any way shape or form qualify a person to train people for combat.
> 
> ...


 
Hello Andrew Green, thank you for your reply.  I did not mean to offend you with my terminology.  The technical meaning of &#8220;combat&#8221; is &#8220;to fight or struggle against; oppose, resist, or seek to get rid of&#8221; and refers to &#8220;any struggle or conflict&#8221;.  The words combat and self-defense are largely synonymous and we use them interchangeably.  We have a ten person staff that consists of law enforcement officers, attorneys, military personnel, registered nurses, and professional educators and trainers. We work with a broad spectrum of clients that include law enforcement, corrections, military personal, medical facilities, school systems, private businesses and the public, so we have to use non-martial arts terms that are applicable to a broad spectrum of circumstances and which are easy to understand.  Please also remember that the &#8220;martial&#8221; in &#8220;martial arts&#8221; refers to &#8220;of or suitable for war&#8221;, &#8220;showing a readiness or eagerness to fight; warlike&#8221; and &#8220;of the army, the navy, or military life; military&#8221;, so the bottom line is we are all talking about the use of force.  

Please understand my post in the context of using force in lawful acts of self-defense and accept my apology for any confusion.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2007)

I, of course, agree with the post. Ian and I are training partners, friends, and I am one of the staff members that he mentioned. So this should be of no surprise that we would have similar views.

That said, it is important to remember that these views are not from a "martial arts" or "martial sports" perspective. These are from the perspective of someone who would want to teach pragmatic self-defense.

From a martial arts perspective, the idea is to build up a set of basics and attributes first. Coordination, 'proper' body mechanics within the context of that style, and so forth. The idea is that the student will be training for a long time, as in months or years. Traditions are preserved if it is a traditional style, but the main goal of a martial arts program is to build better martial artists, which could take some time. As you martial artists know, this journey really is a lifetime of knowledge. Practical self-defense skills are taught throughout this process, but this is generally not the main goal.

From a martial sports perspective, the idea is to prepare someone for the competitive arena. This could mean getting in the ring and boxing or kickboxing, or grappling competitions, or MMA. Many people take martial sports, like BJJ or Thai Boxing, who do not intend to compete. But they are improving their athletic skills, and usually sparring or rolling in class all the same. People take combat sports to be competitors, or to improve themselves as athletes. It is a very healthy atmosphere, one that I truly enjoy. Yet, like other martial arts, this process can also take some time. Good skills that would work in a self-defense situation are contained in martial sports, but the goal in training usually is not to prepare for a life or death encounter.

*Now, think about a self-defense program; one where you have to teach someone, right now rather then 6 months from now, skills that will determine the difference between life or death.* Think about your clientele. You might have a classroom of mom's who are training with you for 4 hours, and you will likely never see them again after the class. Or, you could have 15 Law Enforcement officers that are spending their weekend with you for a total of 16 hours, and they will likely not train again until the next year. What would YOU do? 

These examples are of the client who is not coming to you to learn a martial art, or a sport. These individuals need self-defense skills, and they need them in a short period of time. They need to be able to use these skills to save their own or someone elses life if it comes down to it. This is pretty serious. That said, one doesn't have time to mold them from white to black belt within a given martial arts system. One doesn't have the time to give them the rudimentary of ground fighting over a period of 6 months or so.

One has to give them pragmatic combat skills that will save their lives, and one has to present these skills to people in an efficient manner so that they can utilize them with minimal time training. Teaching such a program take a great amount of skill and planning from the instructor. One has to effectively separate from all that is out there, what will be useful in combat, and what won't. Furthermore, outside of usefulness, the instructor has to weed out from the handful of things that are effective, what these clients will actually be able to perform if taught those skills for a given amount of time.

So how does one do this? One must use a disciplined, logical approach that fall in line with core principles that have been proven to rear effective self-defense skills among it's users. When lives hang in the balance, one cannot afford to throw a hodgepodge of techniques together, or use pure speculation and subjective reasoning to determine what should be taught.

This planning and teaching ability is a talent in and of itself. One even has to analyze how one words talking points to ensure maximum efficiency.

Coming from this perspective, hopefully now you can see how useful Ian's comments really are.

Because teaching for pragmatic self-defense really is it's own animal.


----------



## Ian Kinder (Feb 23, 2007)

I should also probably mention that we specialize in the training of first aid, assault and crime prevention, unarmed force methods and the use of chemical defense sprays, sharp and impact weapons, and firearms, so we are not a conventional martial arts school.  All of our training is provided in short workshops that usually range from one to sixteen hours.  

The goal of my post is to stimulate conversation that can help enhance individual safety, not to criticize other methods of training.  Everything I write is offered in good faith.

EDIT: That&#8217;s funny Paul; I posted this follow-up before I saw your reply and noticed that you beat me to the punch.


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2007)

Ian Kinder said:


> EDIT: Thats funny Paul; I posted this follow-up before I saw your reply and noticed that you beat me to the punch.


 
As always... that is what all that fierce Tae Kwon Do training has been preparing me for! :matrix:


----------



## Cruentus (Feb 23, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> As always... that is what all that fierce Tae Kwon Do training has been preparing me for! :matrix:


 
And although I may be quick, you accomplished the same explaination in about 4 sentences that took me, like, 10 paragraphs.

Dammit, your too good!  :tantrum:


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 24, 2007)

Ian and Paul, great thread...

This sounds a lot like most of the stuff I teach in my self-defense classes (as opposed to the martial-arts classes).  

AFAIC, if you're not training for "combat" and training with the proper mindset, you're fooling yourself if you think your material will be effective when the fecal matter hits the rotating ventilation device.

...but I'm still a big fan of the chin-jab


----------



## Ian Kinder (Feb 24, 2007)

kenpotex said:


> ...but I'm still a big fan of the chin-jab


 
Me to.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## still learning (Feb 25, 2007)

Hello, Great stuffs guys!  I always believe learning self-defense should NOT be years to learn.

There are easier and quicker ways to many things we do and learn. (reflex comes from repeated training..we all know that too).

Rape training seminars are one of the many type of self-defense training for the short term learning. (note:many are very short classes, couple days to a few short months.)

Many people want to learn? ..What they can do NOW to protect themselves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Is it possible to teach a short Class?  or does it always take YEARS to learn how to defend one self?

The answers will be more in the future...when science and martial arts learn how the brains works and what skills can be easily taught and learn.

My daughter does not want to learn the martial arts....so many times I tell her what she can do to protect herself (over and over) a few things she can do. ( such as going for the eyes, stomping on the ankles,breaking fingers,groin hits,nose strikes and a few more.) PLus : always FIGHT BACK...attack when being attack.   ...cause you do not know it they will kill you later? 

Does it need to take years?  NO....and yes?   Fighting is a natural instinct...expert training will make you better. (coaching).

A  person (man,lady or kids)...make them MAD...most will fight back!

A few lessons...most people can learn golfing,archy,bowling, and many others with a few lessons.  (off course it take's longer to get better).

But a good Coach...can make your improve faster than others...with the right training.

THAT IS WHY I BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE...LEARNING THE MARTIAL ART'S WILL BE DIFFERENT AND QUICKER!

NO two fights will be the same..no two situtions will be the same...but the outcome can be the same for you (to be able to survive from someone attacking you).  ........Still Learning and Aloha


----------



## still learning (Feb 25, 2007)

Hello, More additions to the above.

Just my thoughts here:  In the future it will be more focus on learning about tarket hitting.

When and where to hit, and with simple techniques too, that anyone can learn and be able to apply quickly.

Today most of the learning is the mechanic's of fighting.  We all learn about striking tarkets too, but not in as seriously like it will be in the future.

Most of us taught about getting into the right stance. ...when we could have strike the eyes or other tarkets of the other person before we do anything else?

The reason why you learn how to use a drill?   is so you can make holes.
Yet the lesson is using the drill?  ...........Aloha


----------



## Marvin (Feb 25, 2007)

I think it is very difficult to do a 1 to 2 hour class. The instructor has to be very careful not to let the student believe, because of the time frame and lack of time to drill,  that they are getting some magic technique that will work every time. 
When I am asked to do short classes like those, they generally consist of awareness and ego training,what I mean by this is to explain the difference between awareness and paranoia and also explaining just because you have some training or a weapon it doesn't make you a cop or a superhero. I show very little technique. I may show a "simulated assault" and then talk about it.
A 4 hour class should give you enough time to do some actual physical techniques.
I believe giving your student false expectations of their ability is one of the most dangerous things an instructor can do.


----------



## still learning (Feb 25, 2007)

Hello, How long does it take a person to learn?  How to run away..one the first things most Teachers let you know.  1,2 hours? ...Nope less than a minute and you will remember it forever.  (You do not need to teach the mechanics of how to run).

Same for attacking the eyes,foot stomping,breaking fingers,biting....most of us can do this naturally.  (How long will it take to learn this? ..minutes..

Remember the tarkets....the body will natually move to strike it. (yes the mechanic of proper hand strikes will make you better).

How many of you could kick or punch someone before you started training in the martial arts?  (maybe with not the proper force or mechanic's) but you could do it!

How many NON-martial artist can fight well enough?  Lots of them....

Should learning takes years?  or is there a way to learn things faster,quicker and stays with you in time of need? ....I believe there is a way.....Aloha

PS: Taking swimmng lessons...is not years long...yet once learn, many of us will never forget how.


----------



## Ian Kinder (Feb 25, 2007)

Hello still learning and Marvin, thank you for your replies. I agree that instructors have to be very careful about giving students false expectations, but this is true of any program regardless of the duration of training. The purpose of combat training is to increase the chance of success when force is necessary, but no amount of training, experience or weaponry can make students immune to injury or death. Prevention is the only guarantee of safety and always the first, best means of defense. 

That said, the success of short-term training programs have been long proven in the military, law enforcement and the public. The world is a violent place and most of the people who engage in violence have little or no training. I once used an eye gouge to stop a much larger aggressor, a skill which I learned in only a few minutes from reading a magazine. The first time I used a palm strike was also against a larger aggressor. I learned that skill from a friend in around five minutes. Both of these encounters took place before I had any formal training. 

The technical aspects of close combat are relatively straight forward. The primary obstacles to performance in real and simulated confrontations are usually mindset and threat recognition. With the right approach, most life saving skills can be developed in a relatively short period of time.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 25, 2007)

Ian, I agree with you for the most part. The only parts I don't agree are 



Ian Kinder said:


> That said, the success of short-term training programs have been long proven in the military, law enforcement and the public.


 most all of the training I got in the military was not worth much, lost of the dt stuff I've seen for L.E. is the same way, most of those guys resort to what ever thay brought with them to the job on day one. Do you remember the old school womens sd courses? "carry a whistle, if some one attacks you, yell fire then kick them in the nuts and elbow them in the face" Not the best thing in my opinion. 
That being said, I teach at least one 4-6 hour sd course a month, for people who want to carry a pistol. ( I imagine you do the same) 





Ian Kinder said:


> most of the people who engage in violence have little or no training.


 most aggressors may not have been trained in a dojo but they have witnessed and/ or been party to more violent acts, starting at a very young age, that most.

Other than that I am in agreement with you, mindset and mentality are number 1. Be aware of your surrounding an get the hell out of there if you can. If not, never give up until you can get out of there.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 25, 2007)

Personally my opinion on teaching over a short time is that the student/practitioner gets what the put into it.  For a very few people this works okay and yet for many other's a short condensed one day seminar does not really help them out that much. (physically)  Now that does not mean it may not open their eyes and make them more aware and that in and of itself may well be worth the 1 to 4 hours of training.  This in return may keep them out of trouble because of the awareness.

Yet I have come across more than a few people who trained once a year in Defensive Tactics that clearly did not have adequate skills to protect themselves and usually that is one reason why they ended up seeking more training because they also eventually realized this.  Simply put someone can process simple skills pretty quickly but in a real situation with all kinds of variables coming into play they quite often cannot implement those simple skills if all they practiced was a once a year seminar.  This is an observation that I have formulated working in and around the Law Enforcement, Security, DNR, Loss Prevention field over the last twenty one years.

The more you practice the better you will be.  Ian I am sure that your courses are great and that the individuals who practice quite a bit after their course will be able to use these tools. (I have heard nothing but really good things about Live Safe Academy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)  Yet if they do not practice afterwards.....well it might not be that useful.  Practice, practice, practice and more practice is required whether they be simple skills or more complex.  Just my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Marvin (Feb 25, 2007)

Hi Still Learning, you brought up some good points. I hope you don't mind if I split up you post to address how I teach them. 





still learning said:


> Hello, How long does it take a person to learn? How to run away..one the first things most Teachers let you know. 1,2 hours? ...Nope less than a minute and you will remember it forever. (You do not need to teach the mechanics of how to run).


 My point exactly, but  too many teacher just give lip service to this idea, they gloss over it so they can get to the "meat" of the teaching, why because most student don't want to hear it.



still learning said:


> Same for attacking the eyes,foot stomping,breaking fingers,biting....most of us can do this naturally. (How long will it take to learn this? ..minutes..


 Yup again, so why bother training it, would the time be better served talking about awareness and mindset?



still learning said:


> Remember the tarkets....the body will natually move to strike it. (yes the mechanic of proper hand strikes will make you better).


 See above



still learning said:


> How many of you could kick or punch someone before you started training in the martial arts? (maybe with not the proper force or mechanic's) but you could do it!


 Same idea as above.



still learning said:


> How many NON-martial artist can fight well enough? Lots of them....


 I am assuming you mean non-dojo trained? see my post above. In my experience all assaults come when the predator has the upper hand. ie a weapon, superior size or superior numbers



still learning said:


> Should learning takes years? or is there a way to learn things faster,quicker and stays with you in time of need? ....I believe there is a way.....Aloha


 Nah, I think six months of good training should be able to suffice for most folks.



still learning said:


> PS: Taking swimmng lessons...is not years long...yet once learn, many of us will never forget how.


 Swimming lessons, not really the same thing now is it??


----------



## Marvin (Feb 25, 2007)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> The more you practice the better you will be. Ian I am sure that your courses are great and that the individuals who practice quite a bit after their course will be able to use these tools. (I have heard nothing but really good things about Live Safe Academy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well said Brian, I couldn't agree more.

P.S. My comments are not meant as a jibe on anyones training courses, just observations of my own experances.


----------



## Ian Kinder (Feb 25, 2007)

Hey guys, thank you all for your input.  

Marvin, I agree with you that much of what is taught in the military, law enforcement and the public is problematic.  That was actually my opening point in my first post.  But there are a lot of documented examples of short term programs that work.  The Shanghai Municipal Police under the leadership of Fairbairn and Sykes during the first part of the last century, the work of Fairbairn, Sykes and Applegate during WWII and the more recent work of Lou Chiodo with the California Highway Patrol are just a few of the countless examples available.  There are also countless examples of long-term programs that fail.  Time can be an asset of course, but only when it is coupled with quality.  Training is neither essential nor does it guarantee success.  

I also appreciate your point that criminals are often raised in a culture of violence but this still does not apply to everyone.  Again there are countless documented cases of victims protecting themselves without the benefit of training or experience (or who are successful with very little training or experience).  The goal of training is to enhance the chance of success, and that can be accomplished relatively quickly with the right approach.  

Brian R. VanCise, thank you for your kind words.  As I stated above, training is neither essential nor does it guarantee success.  The term we use is The more effective you train, the more effective you become.  Time and repetition are only as good as the methods practiced.  In other words, more bad isnt better.  I do agree with you that more good is better, but the overwhelming majority of people will never receive training, much less train to the degree that you call for.  All of the skill sets that we teach have to meet three criteria:

1.) They have to be time-tested and relevant, which means they need to have a clear, document pattern of success in confrontations relevant to the students circumstances.
2.) Students have to be able to successfully apply the skills taught spontaneously while under stress in simulated combat within the timeframes of the given program. 
3.) Students have to be able to effectively retain the skills taught to the standards above with little or no maintenance training. 

In my opinion, short term programs should focus on teaching the fewest number of skills possible to prevail against the broadest spectrum of probable threats with the goal of developing the highest level of functional skill in the shortest period of time for the greatest number of people.    

Can this be done?  Yes, it has been done by us and by many, many others.  Ive seen it, Ive experienced it and this issue has been clearly documented through a number of credible sources.  The question of whether or not a short term program can be effective is no more speculative then the question of whether or not a long term program can fail.  

Just a quick note so we dont get too far of topic, the goal of my post is not to debate the value of long or short term programs, its to discuss the why of combat training.  Not why we train but why we train the way we train and why we choose the skills we choose.  The bottom line is, everything done in training can either increase or decrease survival potential and all options are not equal.  

So what standards do you rely on for your training or the training of others?


----------



## flashlock (Feb 25, 2007)

Hi,

I think you have a very strong criteria/ standards - I agree with what you've laid out.

As to the question, what standards do I rely on?

1. Reality - if it takes more than 5 minutes to demonstrate, and understand (not master, mind you), I throw it out--you'll never be able to pull it off in a real life life/death situation.

2. See 1.

For some, combat is not the main point.  Maybe they're into cultural preservation and tradition--maybe they are just fascinated by exotica, fair and fine.  For me, however, training should be intense, and focused vs realistic attacks in all ranges including knife and gun.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 19, 2008)

*bump*  Good stuff


----------

