The Combatives Take On The Flinch by Carl Cestari

THE FLINCH
by Carl Cestari

The NY/NJ crew uses the term "flinch" reaction as it is defined generally in the dictionary.
It is a reaction against a TOTALLY unexpected surprise assault. NO warning, NO prior "set-up".
This is what happens when an assailant just steps right out of the shadows and ATTACKS.
Since we are concerned here with an attack that has NO "indicators" or "pre-assault cues" it is
based on several factors.

First is to take advantage of the body's most natural reaction to SUDDEN, UNEXPECTED, and
UNANTICIPATED attack. That is for most people a "flinching" or drawing away from the
threat. I imagine almost everyone has experienced this. Something JUST APPEARS! Your body
reviles AWAY from the unidentified threat. Ever walk into a spiders web face first in the dark?
Ever had some wise-ass just throw something at you while your NOT paying attention? Ever
forget to remove a tool from the ladder shelf, and then just move the ladder?

This is how we would define the "flinch" reaction.

The body flinches AWAY from the UNKNOWN threat.

So the second aspect here is how do we capitalize on this reaction. Since there has been NO prior
contact, even for a MOMENT, and we have NO forewarning as to what the attack IS (it might be
a fist, it might be a broken bottle, a knife, a lead pipe, WHO KNOWS) since our ONLY "cue" is
UNEXPECTED MOVEMENT, we need to "train" as universal a "defense" as possible. The
assault can be from any direction and with virtually any weapon. Our goal here is to SIMPLY SURVIVE whatever is "thrown" at us. AND in the MOST natural and instinctive manner.

What we have done is too STRENGTHEN what naturally occurs. The head and body "flinch"
away and the arms/hands(BOTH) just "throw up"(NOT out) a startle reaction shield. We simply
take that reaction and drill it to be as STRONG and all protecting as possible. Then we must train
the "rebound" into a REALLY SUDDEN and AGGRESSIVE FORWARD DRIVING ATTACK.
The "flinch" reaction has three possible lines of attack. From the front(someone JUST steps out
from concealment and BAM), from the flank, and from the rear(in ANY case you are TAKEN
totally UNAWARE-Yes, Virginia, it does happen). There are slight differences, but ALL are
fundamentally the same.

That's how "we" define the "flinch", others have different definitions. But the above is our
scenario.

Any type of "jamming" technique is trained for the "fronting and assault". The difference is that
the assailant has approached or "fronted" you and you have TIME, even a split second, to
PREPARE (whether you realize it or not). A stranger walks right into your space and you
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY prepare for sudden aggressive action. There are several excellent
methods of doing this, the MAIN POINT however still remains the MOMENTARY forewarning
that allows for the "trigger" to be pulled.

Proper training should address the ABILITY to size up a potential adversary at a GLANCE! Size,
build, clothing, position of hands, right or left handed (even if his actions DO NOT give this
away) and more, ALL the things that you NEED TO SEE.
This is a DIFFERENT scenario than the sudden and UNEXPECTED attack with NO
forewarning. Two different things.

Again, this is how WE break it down.

As regards the O'Neill "double forearm", it was NOT intended as a "flinch" reaction and O'Neill
NEVER recommends it for use against anything BUT a FRONTAL GRAPPLING or BODY
SEIZURE attack during the course of a MELEE. One forearm smashes upward and forward at the throat/under the chin and the other forearm hits lower at floating rib/solar plexus height. This is done while CHARGING FORWARD.

DO NOT confuse this with Thomas Inch's (and others) explanation and use of the "double safety
guard".

The use of the elbow as a sharp hard and pointy "defense" is common in use against fist attacks.
One early Japanese manual on using Judo against western pugilism relies HEAVILY on this one
horizontal guard (and it HAS been used against even PROFESSIONAL boxers with great
efficacy) as well as western boxing experts such as "Elbows" MacFadden.

One MORE very important point should be made here. NO MATTER what you DO, what you
train, what you THINK will work, IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A FIGHT! ALWAYS!
Expect and ACCEPT that YOU WILL be HIT, you will be HURT, you will BLEED! BUT......if
you are NOT KILLED OUTRIGHT or KNOCKED COMPLETELY OUT COLD, YOU MUST
IMMEDIATELY SEIZE THE INITIATIVE AND ATTACK RELENTLESSLY!

Battles are won by OFFENSE, NOT DEFENSE! If a guy in the street gets the better of you and
you recoil into a DEFENSIVE mode, HE WILL KEEP ON BEATING THE SHIT OUT OF
YOU WITH LITTLE IF ANY DIFFICULTY or hindrance! If he is a BETTER and STRONGER
fighter (and we ALWAYS PRESUME THAT IS THE CASE) then you are playing right INTO
his "game plan". If you have ANY chance of survival then YOU MUST ATTACK, keep on
ATTACKING and do so RELENTLESSLY with all the fury, aggression, rage and ferocity YOU
CAN!

And REMEMBER THIS GEM OF REAL WORLD WISDOM:

You DON'T HAVE TO "WIN" - You JUST CAN'T LOSE! Survival is all about NOT LOSING!

There is a lot to ponder in those words. To be "PC" about all of this, I'll say again that this is just "our" way of doing things.

That is exactly the definition that we apply to one of only two possible assault scenarios. An attack can happen either by "ambush" where there is absolutely NO forewarning.

Or................

The "stalk" where there is at least SOME cognition of a potential threat. The "autonomic reflexive startle" is cued by visual, auditory and sensory reaction to a sudden, totally unexpected stimulus. For most people this involves an involuntary survival reaction that moves away from the sudden threat and/or pain.

Scenarios that develop allowing for ANY cognitive cues as to the impending potential for attack
offer SOME ability to "prepare". The difference between the two is simple. In the first case the reaction of moving away from the stimulus mandates a "defensive" maneuver that must then be immediately converted to an "offensive" maneuver.

In the second case we can respond to the stimulus in a much more aggressive manner by virtue of
the "triggering" of our assault cues. ANY of the gross motor responses that use the triangular
wedge principal are EXEMPLARY in this context. That is NOT the issue. A wedging
response(in any form) coupled with forward drive and committed momentum INTO the attack is
an EXCELLENT survival mechanism.

From our perspective and experience this is an important distinction.

If we have not been able to implement a strategy that takes advantage of the "set-up" for
initiating a pre-emptive first strike we then have to deal with the dis-advantage of giving the
assailant the great benefit of making the first move. Any survival strategy whether in the context
of either of our TWO scenarios MANDATES that we do everything possible to insure that the
assailants FIRST MOVE is the LAST "OFFENSIVE" maneuver he makes.

This is accomplished by FORCING the counter-offense and making the 'attacker' become the
'attackee'. Seizing the initiative by NO longer dealing with the assailants attack in a defensive
manner BUT by FORCING HIM to deal with our attack in a defensive manner. This is done by
moving forcefully and aggressively INTO the assailant while using every weapon (natural and
otherwise) available with speed, power and aggression.

To my mind this is the most basic and fundamental break down and analysis of violent assault.
So I'm at a loss to understand what the problem is. No one has made any derogatory remarks
about any of the methods advocated by members here. In fact I would whole heartedly agree that
the methods advocated within the context shown are among the BEST and most reliable
responses available.

If there is a problem with the length, content or nature of my posts here, by all means let me
know. It is certainly not my intention to cause disharmony and acrimony in this forum, I am
simply sharing our point of view. The value of that is left up to each individual to decide. As in
all things in life, I realize fully that opinions will vary.

Carl