From a thread on MartialTalk.com -
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=560012#post560012
L.A. Sheriff Memo Circulating
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-defense 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
