Ian Kinder
Orange Belt
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, “What standards should guide training?”
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’t work. A hierarchy of progressive goals, like “stop threat” “get to safety”, 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 “what would work” but “what does work”. 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’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’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’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’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 “predict” 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?
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?”
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’t work. A hierarchy of progressive goals, like “stop threat” “get to safety”, 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 “what would work” but “what does work”. 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’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’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’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’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 “predict” 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?
:tantrum: 
