Today we have another article from regular contributor Steve Forester. It leads off with a portion of an email he received offering "Self Defense" advice that yo "need" to survive a violent altercation.
Needless to say, Steve has a different take on the contents of this advertisement.
Basic Truths
by Steve Forester
This is from an email ad I received today:
**************************
"Ever wonder how you’d fare against a predator who’s not just tough… but “prison-tough”?
These aren’t your everyday bullies; these are hardened predators who view the world — and fighting — through a lens most can’t even fathom.
It’s not about brute force… it’s about a mindset honed in the most unforgiving environments imaginable.
Having grown up in these same “kill-or-be-killed” environments – from the “hood” to prison – I want to give you some “insider secrets” on exactly how those of us locked-up in the ultimate “proving ground” think, so you’ll be better prepared to spot danger before it strikes… and take fast, decisive action when you have no other option but to defend yourself.
This isn’t just about learning to fight—it’s about transforming your very essence to think, act, and react like those who treat survival as the only option".
The ad goes on to say:
"If it’s one thing the most hardened criminals have that most civilians don’t… is a complete abandonment of the “rules” of the “civilized” world most of us live in".
**************************
I believe this to be true. Predatory criminals grew up in a world almost opposite of how civilians grew up. The core truth I see in this type of society is in the last statement: "a complete abandonment of the “rules” of the “civilized” world most of us live in".
Hard for most of us to even grasp what this means. Suffice it to say it isn't about competition, but about stacking the deck in their favor so they can't lose. And a complete lack of hesitancy or compassion in using force.
Yet, it somewhat amazes me how prevalent combat sport is even among those dedicated to fighting crime and dealing with these hardened felons.
It struck me that the average middle class American is completely unable to grasp, much less employ this level of violence. So even when they supposedly are training for 'self-defense", they still practicing a method which by it's very definition is based on rules and fair play. The object is to determine the best fighter, not survival.
Now, before anyone thinks this is an anti-combat sport article, it is not. It's just that I realized the other day there are three distinctly different approaches to "self-defense". Each are different and each are valid as long as one understands the essence of each.
1. Combat Sport is for competition and for "middle class violence". The Monkey Dance, if you will, where the goal is domination rather than hurting someone. Picture a road rage incident or the classic 'bar fight'. Basically a one-on-one, mutually agreed to fight conducted under certain unwritten rules. This is the middle class understanding of violence.
2. Traditional Martial Arts (TMA). While TMA have all but died out today, I think there is a place for them and I respect them. They take work and discipline and the practice is good for achieving both. The local corner BJJ studio has replaced TMA dojo's today, but those old time karate guys were no joke. Some were hard men and could fight.
3. Reality Based Self Defense. This would include close combat. Carl and Steiner pioneered this. Other's we discuss here are similar in philosophy such as a David James, Lee Morrison, and I now include Tim Larkin in this group after looking closely at his latest stuff.
Those I put in this group are not based necessarily on effectiveness. No, what I think membership is based on is the understanding of true asocial violence. All those people who I have just mentioned understand true criminal predatory asocial violence, and orient their training 100% to countering that level of violence.
As the ad said: "This isn’t just about learning to fight—it’s about transforming your very essence to think, act, and react like those who treat survival as the only option".
That is a pretty good way of summing things up. Let that sink in a moment.
"This isn’t just about learning to fight—it’s about transforming your very essence to think, act, and react like those who treat survival as the only option".
Fighting and survival are two different things. MMA is about learning to fight. Being a thug is only about survival. There is a difference.
We do not indulge in the petty ego "fights" the middle class envision as violence. We practice avoidance, deterrence, deescalation, and, evasion & escape as primary tactics.
But we are also aware of what predatory criminal violence involves and train for that also.
Now, does that mean combat sport and TMA are worthless in this regard. No. They are not.
But, to my mind, why not specifically train for the threat you face?
People are free to train as they like, but, to quote Carl Cestari: "A Student Of Close Combat Trains Just That - Close Combat".
I think it boils down to understanding one's mission, which comes from Varg Freeborn, author of the book "Violence of Mind", and not me. Without understanding one's mission, one does not understand what one is trying to accomplish.
I think all three: Combat Sport, TMA, and Close Combat, are valid studies in their own regard. It is just all three have slightly different goals, but overlapping results.
All the internet flame wars over the past 20 years have been pointless.
This is really what it comes down to.
Hard for most of us to even grasp what this means. Suffice it to say it isn't about competition, but about stacking the deck in their favor so they can't lose. And a complete lack of hesitancy or compassion in using force.
Yet, it somewhat amazes me how prevalent combat sport is even among those dedicated to fighting crime and dealing with these hardened felons.
It struck me that the average middle class American is completely unable to grasp, much less employ this level of violence. So even when they supposedly are training for 'self-defense", they still practicing a method which by it's very definition is based on rules and fair play. The object is to determine the best fighter, not survival.
Now, before anyone thinks this is an anti-combat sport article, it is not. It's just that I realized the other day there are three distinctly different approaches to "self-defense". Each are different and each are valid as long as one understands the essence of each.
1. Combat Sport is for competition and for "middle class violence". The Monkey Dance, if you will, where the goal is domination rather than hurting someone. Picture a road rage incident or the classic 'bar fight'. Basically a one-on-one, mutually agreed to fight conducted under certain unwritten rules. This is the middle class understanding of violence.
2. Traditional Martial Arts (TMA). While TMA have all but died out today, I think there is a place for them and I respect them. They take work and discipline and the practice is good for achieving both. The local corner BJJ studio has replaced TMA dojo's today, but those old time karate guys were no joke. Some were hard men and could fight.
3. Reality Based Self Defense. This would include close combat. Carl and Steiner pioneered this. Other's we discuss here are similar in philosophy such as a David James, Lee Morrison, and I now include Tim Larkin in this group after looking closely at his latest stuff.
Those I put in this group are not based necessarily on effectiveness. No, what I think membership is based on is the understanding of true asocial violence. All those people who I have just mentioned understand true criminal predatory asocial violence, and orient their training 100% to countering that level of violence.
As the ad said: "This isn’t just about learning to fight—it’s about transforming your very essence to think, act, and react like those who treat survival as the only option".
That is a pretty good way of summing things up. Let that sink in a moment.
"This isn’t just about learning to fight—it’s about transforming your very essence to think, act, and react like those who treat survival as the only option".
Fighting and survival are two different things. MMA is about learning to fight. Being a thug is only about survival. There is a difference.
We do not indulge in the petty ego "fights" the middle class envision as violence. We practice avoidance, deterrence, deescalation, and, evasion & escape as primary tactics.
But we are also aware of what predatory criminal violence involves and train for that also.
Now, does that mean combat sport and TMA are worthless in this regard. No. They are not.
But, to my mind, why not specifically train for the threat you face?
People are free to train as they like, but, to quote Carl Cestari: "A Student Of Close Combat Trains Just That - Close Combat".
I think it boils down to understanding one's mission, which comes from Varg Freeborn, author of the book "Violence of Mind", and not me. Without understanding one's mission, one does not understand what one is trying to accomplish.
I think all three: Combat Sport, TMA, and Close Combat, are valid studies in their own regard. It is just all three have slightly different goals, but overlapping results.
All the internet flame wars over the past 20 years have been pointless.
This is really what it comes down to.
No comments:
Post a Comment