To The Point

A comparison of bayonet training with unarmed combat training

This is the bayonet for the SA80 rifle. He is made of cold, hard steel. When I ask you what he is made of, you will reply "COLD, HARD STEEL!!!" His sole purpose is to kill. He has no friends. No family. He likes nothing more than to spill the blood of his enemies so that it may pour out onto the ground and nourish the earth. When I ask you “What makes the grass grow?” you will reply "BLOOD, BLOOD, BLOOD!!!" When I ask you what the bayonet is used for, you will reply "KILL, KILL, KILL!!!"

Standing there on the field in the drizzle – faces covered in cam-cream, excited and nervous about what was to come - this was our introduction to the bayonet during basic training.

The entire training session left a lasting impression on me. One reason is that in personifying the bayonet, we were given an example of the correct mindset for being effective in combat. Also, during the physical training, I couldn’t help but notice that training and fighting with the weapon shared many of the same dynamics as the unarmed combat system I teach – in both the delivery and desired training effect.

Thinking more about the bayonet itself, I came to realize that many of the characteristics of the weapon are directly transferable to – what I consider to be – an effective unarmed combat system.

One purpose

Just as the scary corporal stated, the bayonet’s sole purpose is to kill. Not to maim, injure or dissuade an enemy but to neutralize him. While the former may well occur, the weapon was designed with the latter in mind.

In the same way, the unarmed combat system I teach for emergency combat situations revolves around finding the most direct way of achieving one goal; to disable an attacker. The system provides only one option for any given position you may find yourself in during a fight. In this way, we adhere to Hick’s Law – reducing the time it takes to decide on an action and carry out that action by reducing the amount of potential options to choose from and thus avoiding the ‘analysis paralysis’ effect. 

The ‘one purpose’ concept is also representative of the tenacious goal-orientation required for fighting. Nobody can deny that an enemy who has become completely single-minded in his desire to cause his victim harm is a dangerous person indeed and therefore the ability to exercise this same single-mindedness will greatly increase our chances of surviving a violent assault.

‘To-the-point’

Despite having a cutting edge, training with the bayonet does not involve practicing to chop bits off of an enemy or slice him to ribbons. The most important part of the bayonet is the pointy bit – because utilizing this part is the easiest to do and yields the highest results. Using the bayonet isn't an art or a science; you aim the pointy bit at the enemy, stick it in him and repeat as necessary.

The same concept should be applied to designing an unarmed combat system. The key principles here are ‘easy to use’ and ‘yields best results’. Much to the disappointment of many self defence instructors, this doesn’t necessarily equate to ‘looks coolest’ or ‘sells most instructional DVD’s’… quite the opposite in fact.

While a parrying type motion and basic use of the butt-stock of the rifle are taught in bayonet lessons, there truly is nothing fancy about fighting with this weapon. The military has no interest in carrying on fighting ‘traditions’ – they simply want to prepare soldiers to be as effective as possible with as little time spent training as possible. This doesn’t mean training them to the bare minimum standard but instead finding how to get the most out of the time spent training. And so in self defence training, a good syllabus would be designed with the goal of preparing students for the possibility of violence as much as possible, as soon as possible.

Although long-winded belt progression based grading systems are good for retaining students (i.e good for business), these syllabuses are generally designed with the goal of providing a steady flow of overly complex and low-percentage techniques that must be remembered in order to progress to the next belt. Many martial artists take pride in how long it takes to reach the coveted black belt in their art. But if this same training model was used by the military, there’d be hardly any ‘boots on the ground’ as the majority of its members would still be in training (learning techniques and tactics that will largely never be used in actual combat).

Simple to use

Just like a good computer software package, the bayonet/rifle combination weapon is incredibly ‘user friendly’ and ‘intuitive’ to use. Even in the hands of somebody who has never held a rifle before, realizing that the weapon is used in a thrusting type motion would require no training at all in most people.

In the same way, an unarmed combat system should rely on natural movements that are based on instinctive human actions when under acute stress. If a technique feels awkward and unnatural in training there’s a good chance your body will default to a more ergonomic movement when under stress. Likewise, if a particular fighting system requires years of study before the student can become proficient in its use, this should be a clue as to how effective it is as a system overall.

Highly effective

As far as weapons go, you get a lot of ‘bang for your buck’ from the bayonet. Aside from the psychological effect of inducing immense fear in the enemy, the act of simply inserting such a blade into the torso will almost certainly create an instant life-threatening situation for him.

While we aren’t necessarily aiming to kill our attacker in defending ourselves, we are aiming to achieve the same ‘cost-to-benefit’ ratio for our actions. For example, there are plenty of points on the body that if struck, pressed or pinched will induce instant pain for the person on the receiving end. Pain, however, is highly overrated as a means of neutralizing an attacker’s offensive capability.

Seeking to prevail in a physical confrontation by use of inducing pain is essentially a gamble. When fighting in this way, there is an assumption (or a hope) that the opponent’s emotional response to pain will result in a diminished capability to fight or a complete cessation of the desire to continue fighting. And this is without even knowing what his physical interpretation of pain is like in the first place. What is painful one person may not hurt the next person at all. It’s true that everyone has a ‘breaking point’ at which they will succumb to pain, but trying to deliver this level of hurt to somebody when they are actively trying to hurt you is wishful thinking, in my opinion. Consider the single-minded tenacious resolve that we are seeking to use in our effort to defend ourselves, and realize that there is a good chance that homeboy is doing exactly the same thing.

And so instead of trying to create surface-level damage to the body of an attacker – that may or may not have an effect on him - in our system we aim cause a type of damage that has a direct effect on the their ability to physically function and doesn’t rely on causing psychological/emotional repulsion.

Causes internal damage

Being roughly six inches in length, the blade of the SA80 bayonet is more than capable of reaching all internal organs of a human target through penetration, and this is its purpose. While movies depicting the use of bladed weapons in war like to have limbs and heads flying off all over the place, the reality is that the most dangerous injury is an internal one that can often be almost undetectable from observing the victim from the outside.

The bayonet kills by causing catastrophic blood loss, and this is achieved by lacerating internal organs and major blood vessels found in the torso… not by ‘cutting’ the external parts of the body.

In the same way, our unarmed combat system aims to deliver overwhelming shock to an attacker’s central nervous system (CNS) - which is comprised of the brain, brainstem and spinal cord – as a means of directly affecting their state of consciousness. Just as the bayonet can not reach internal organs without first penetrating the outer structures of the body, we aim to target the CNS by delivering blunt trauma to the skull or cervical vertebrae. Contrary to what Hollywood and various self defence instructors may have us believe, making a ‘mess’ of an attacker is not entirely necessary in seeking to incapacitate them. Causing pain through the peripheral nervous system (i.e, the outer-most areas of the body) or ‘breaking’ the joints of the appendicular skeleton may well sound like effective ways to defeat an attacker (and possibly look ‘cool’ on screen, if you’re into that sort of thing), but in real violence outside of sport-fighting are a far lower percentage means of incapacitating somebody than simply delivering concussive blows to their head and/or neck area

No friends

What stood out to me the most of the corporal’s introduction to Mr Stabby, is that it was described as being ‘cold’ and having ‘no friends’; a thing that is incapable of love, compassion and other such fluffy feelings. This is a far cry from the ‘fired up’ feeling that some people feel is necessary for combat. The bayonet, being used as a metaphor for the desired combat mindset, was not described as being crazy, hot tempered and nor were we trained to go berserk when using the weapon. Instead, the personification of the bayonet was more akin to a cold blooded sociopath.

Anybody watching us could be forgiven for thinking we were being taught to lose our temper as we screamed at the targets, stabbed them repeatedly and got ‘beasted’ between phases of the lesson. These ‘beastings’ were essentially repetitive and torturous (for want of a less dramatic word) physical exercises designed to take us to the point of exhaustion each time. The purpose for the high intensity of the training and beastings were, I believe, not to fire us up, but wear us out – to the point that the stabbing of the target came not from emotional effort but eventually from a place of coldness.

One thing is for sure, every single one of us had thousand-yard stares at the end of this session and were given some time (a rare thing in basic training) to come back to earth. Initially, being full of energy, the attacks on the target are fuelled entirely by a conscious effort to give as much as you can. After several rounds of beastings however, while the shouts are louder and the stabbing more furious (and even more accurate), the feeling is more like a form of autopilot – effortless almost. Something I would certainly describe more as being ‘cold’ than ‘fired up’.

Without wanting to go too far into the subject of the combat mindset, this same coldness then, is the desired attitude for emergency combat in self defence. Consider the ways in which this same emotional and physical exhaustion can be achieved (safely) in unarmed combat training. You will find that once a certain state has been reached, the person performing the drill will get into a ‘zone’ in which they are able to perform to their maximum potential by way of switching off and getting on with the task in an almost autonomous fashion rather than ‘pushing’ themselves to make an effort. The ultimate goal of course is for this mindset to be accessible at will, and not only after having been beasted.

Consider also being on the receiving end of such an attack. From the perspective of a criminal who has attempted to assault somebody in order to rob or rape them, imagine being met by a ruthless and cold – but extremely determined – ‘victim’ who has made it their mission to put you down…

Notes

Here I would like to add a few disclaimers…

Firstly, at no point in this article do I advocate the use of blades in self defence or stabbing people in general. This will be pretty obvious to most, but in these days of litigation and with the current 'knife crime culture' we have here in the UK, I feel it wise to make it extra clear!

Also, not wanting to be mistaken for those instructors who base their entire ‘instructor persona’ on their military service (that is often exaggerated beyond belief or completely made up all together!) allow me to be honest in saying that this experience of basic training was quite a recent event (at the time of writing this). I’m certainly no veteran and do not claim to have been taught unarmed combat through my military experience. Having signed up quite ‘late in the game’, I was teaching before I joined. So sorry, but you’ll be getting no ‘Special Forces Secret Fighting Methods’ from me! Especially as I'm not infantry. 

I also acknowledge that use of the bayonet in modern combat is extremely rare. But it does happen (google it!). As a training method, it is extremely effective. As a tool, I’d rather have one and not need it than the other way around.

Lastly, only after writing this was it pointed out to me that the what-makes-the-grass-grow-thing is a famous scene from the film ‘Full Metal Jacket’. I actually have no idea which came first – the movie scene or the training method used by the Armed Forces.

Sharif Haque

Tactical Protection Systems

Self Defence and the Law

Self Defence and the Law 

- use-of-force considerations and the ‘rules of engagement’ -  

There is much to be considered with regards to the legalities of using violent action to defend oneself. The first thing being to acknowledge that self defence is violence. A popular phrase in the martial arts world is “It’s not violence if you are acting in self defence”. Funny, but last time I checked, slamming your fist or elbow into somebody’s face is a pretty violent sort of thing. The context may well be justifiable self defence, but it is still violence and is therefore a serious issue. With the gravity of this seriousness understood, one can then go on to look realistically at the laws surrounding self-protection.
As stated, there is much to be considered – hundreds of ‘what if’ scenarios with a seemingly infinite amount of variables that sway the legal scales towards either ‘justifiable’ or ‘unjustifiable’ with regards to a defender’s actions. It makes sense then, to boil down these what-if’s to find some underlying concepts and principles that the student can understand.



Principle 1 (Pre-fight):


If you chose to engage in violence when you didn't have to, it’s not self defence

You are in a club/bar/pub, somebody accuses you of flirting with his girlfriend and asks you to ‘step outside’.
Your driving has upset a fellow driver on the road, who gets out of his car when you stop at a red light and approaches the driver-side window of your car, hurling abuse at you.
A drunk person on the street has decided he doesn’t like you and starts to get in your face.
In which of the above scenarios are you legally justified in engaging in combat with your aggressor? Answer: none. While you can ‘add’ factors to the above scenarios to alter them in such a way that pre-emptive action could be justified, as they are written, there is no justification. The reason is simply that if you are not in immediate danger, or believe you are about to be put in serious danger, and you have the option of not engaging in combat, then any violence that occurs will be considered mutual or even initiated by YOU.
If you can avoid, escape or de-escalate the situation, then you should do so. Quite simply, fighting must be reserved for ‘emergency’ (remember this word) usage for it to be considered self defence.
For the previous examples to be altered in a way that would justify the use of force, consider the following variations.
You are in a club/bar/pub, somebody accuses you of flirting with their girlfriend, and grabs you to drag you outside.
Your driving has upset a fellow driver, who gets out of his car when you stop at a red light, opens the driver-side door of your car and starts to kick and punch at you while you are essentially tied to the seat by your seatbelt.
A drunk person in the street has decided he doesn’t like you, and starts to punch you in the face.



Principle 2 (Post-fight):


If you continue to inflict violence upon your assailant after they have stopped being an 
immediate threat to you, it’s not self defence

If your hand has been forced, and you have had to inflict violence upon somebody in order to ensure your own safety (or the safety of somebody else), it is important to realize that you are only justified is so doing until the threat has subsided.
When delivering concussive blows to an attacker’s head for example, there is a ladder of force-effect that offers levels of force that may cause an attacker to stop being a threat to you.


1 Attacker chooses to stop their assault as a result of being deterred by being repeatedly hit in the head
2 Attacker becomes disorientated and loses sense of equilibrium as a result of concussion to the brain
3 Attacker starts to lose consciousness as a result of concussion to the brain
4 Attacker loses consciousness completely as a result of concussion to the brain
5 Attacker dies (usually indirectly) due to concussive force on the brain. (To clarify, this usually only happens when a blunt weapon is used or if the person falls to the ground, hitting their head on a surface such as the pavement – hence the notion of indirectly causing death. There are also pre-existing medical conditions to be considered)


I train students to aim for causing full unconsciousness in an attacker, for the reason that in a real violent encounter, your strikes will rarely have the same effect they have in training (for several reasons) and therefore to aim high up on that ladder of force. However, it is also made clear that if the attacker stops being an attacker at any point leading up to this, then you are legally obliged to stop! For example, if the attacker’s offensive capability is suddenly neutralized as they become more concerned with staying on their feet due to them being so overwhelmed by the feeling of disorientation and dizziness imparted by your strikes, then the opportunity for you to escape may have been made available to you. In which case, it would behoove you both legally and tactically to make good your escape. Likewise, if your aggressor turns out to be less of a threat than they originally presented themselves as being, and they choose to cease their offensive actions and make it clear they have done so; you must stop your own violent actions. To clarify, this would be somebody who initiated the fight suddenly asking you to stop hitting them as they try to get away from you! A rare occurrence I’m sure, but one in which you have been made the attacker if you do not stop as soon as you realize that they no longer pose a threat.
With regard to knowing when to ‘stop’ there is of course the panic-factor to be considered. In a life and death situation, the defender will likely be highly emotionally charged and be suffering from diminished brain function due to the effects of adrenaline and other factors. The point being, that after having had to access this emergency survival instinct that has allowed to you fight off an attacker, it will likely be very difficult to stop at the appropriate point. And therefore, this should be addressed in training by using the appropriate drills. But even then, this will always be a factor and one that may simply rely upon the understanding of a jury…

Mid-fight misconceptions


Once, when teaching an eye compression technique where the thumb is pressed against the attacker’s eye, I was asked by one student “Is it illegal to poke people’s eyes?”
The idea that an individual ‘move’ can be considered illegal unto itself in self defence is demonstrative of not only the effect sport fighting has on the general public’s understanding of self defence, but also a desire to micro-manage fighting.
In reality, when you’re life is in danger you will do whatever you can/have to in order to survive. And so attacking people’s eyes, for example, is highly illegal if the person you’re doing it to happens to be sitting at a bus stop minding their own business. But if they happen to be trying to kill you at the time…
Like in any good self defence system, I provide my students with a use-of-force continuum that states quite clearly what level of force is appropriate for any given form of attack. I keep it as broad and general as possible, not wanting to micro-manage. However, if you remove the verbal and body language tactics it can actually be simplified further as we look only at the physical force responses. Essentially I teach two forms of self defence; the high-level force system for surviving serious violence, and a smaller collection of low-force options.
The high-level force system primarily revolves around delivering impact to an attacker’s head region as a means of stopping them from seriously harming or killing you or a third party. Hitting people in the head is serious business (as is pressing your thumb against their eye in order move their head into a better position to facilitate such striking). It is in fact, potentially lethal – much more so than karate chopping people in the throat like some instructors would have you believe - but it is also the most efficient means of stopping an attacker. One may ask then, when is it right to use such force? Well, providing that you’ve followed principles one and two, then the other person should be making it perfectly clear if you should be delivering blunt trauma to his brain. If you’re in doubt as to whether you should be hitting this person, then you probably shouldn’t be. However, if his fists are bouncing off your head or he is reaching for a knife for example, this would be a good time to start hitting him! Quite simply, this is an emergency combat response. ‘Emergency’ being a word that is not used hardly enough in the self defence world, in my opinion. People often forget that what they are training for, what they are preparing for, is what will be the worst day of their life. In a scenario in which your life depends on your ability to inflict violence upon another person, there really is no unarmed technique that in itself can be considered illegal. Any illegality would come about when said technique is used when it did not need to be (see principles 1 & 2!).
The low-force options I offer are for the much more trickier scenario of being presented with somebody who is not yet a serious threat but perhaps has the potential to become one, or is perhaps offering a low level of violence and can not be avoided or stopped by reasoning with the subject. Fortunately, you are more likely to be confronted with such a scenario as opposed to being stabbed or beaten to death. Unfortunately, these situations can be a lot more difficult to deal with – morally and legally speaking. To give an example of when low-force options may be required, imagine somebody (maybe even a friend or family member) who has had too much to drink and has become a danger to themselves and others. Perhaps they have turned their attention to you and have started to get a bit ‘grabby’. You try to gently get them off of you, but they persist further. Can/would you knock this person out? What if you can’t reason with them? What if the environment/situation won’t allow you or others to avoid them? Difficult isn’t it.
It’s for this reason that the low-force options revolve around grappling where as the high-level force system is impact-based. With basic anti- and counter- grappling concepts you can escape the clutches of those who might grab you and even restrain/contain/relocate them in a way that doesn’t cause them serious injury. Try this on somebody who is hell-bent on hurting/killing you, however, and you’ll soon see why this is reserved only for low-level threats and for use against individuals who do not possess a considerable size/strength advantage.
To summarize; don’t be overly concerned with what techniques are appropriate or not with regards to unarmed combat. Consider the bigger picture of whether you are in immediate serious danger or not.

Incident management


Apart from the two basic principles, I offer my students a small collection of tips for compounding their legal high-ground that fall under ‘pre-contact’, ‘mid-fight’, and ‘post-incident’. Consider some things that you should be doing before, during and after having to defend yourself that would make it abundantly clear to any third parties that it is indeed YOU who is the victim – even if it is the other person who may end up in hospital. Think; CCTV, eyewitnesses, police officers who arrive on the scene and possibly a jury who is having the series of events described to them.

Conclusion: take the legalities of what you are training for seriously. Understand and accept that you are training to become proficient at violence – i.e. hurting people. Know that a serious violent encounter will require a high level of force from you. If you are unsuccessful at delivering this, you could be seriously hurt or killed. If you succeed then you have likely seriously hurt somebody else – whether they forced you to do it or not, this is a serious thing and you must be prepared to have your actions questioned. 

Further information and learning


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-defence


Also highly recommended is to analyze footage of real incidents on websites such as YouTube or LiveLeak. Based on the two basic principles, see if you can clearly define who the defender is and if any of their actions were justified or not.

Sharif Haque
Tactical Protection Systems

Disclaimer: I haven’t been to any sort of law school and therefore am not qualified to give legal advice in any formal capacity. What I am, is an instructor in the use of force, which involves teaching people of the legalities surrounding the subject – based on my own (humble) research and understanding. 

Military Tactics for Self Defence 

 Technically different, but tactically identical

While looking different in their final, technical application, the TACTICS used by the military to defend against attack from the enemy provide a perfect blueprint for building a tactical model for personal self protection.

The tactics used by special forces apply particularly well. Often operating in very small groups behind enemy lines, far from the main force and with only as much firepower as they can carry, SF patrols can be compared to the unarmed civilian who is attacked by a larger attacker or group of attackers.

If we use counter-ambush tactics as an example, it is easy to see that they are very transferable to civilian self protection. Considering that the ambush, as a method of attack, is designed to create a ‘shock and awe’ effect in the target, it is vital for both military units and self defence practitioners to rehearse an active response so as to overcome the momentary ‘freezing’ that occurs when taken by surprise. Whether the ambush happens to an SF patrol in the jungle (see video above), or to YOU in an alleyway or while sitting in a bar, the dynamics are identical.

When ambushed in the jungle, the SF patrol will crouch down and lay down as many rounds as possible in the direction of the enemy. Literally holding their fingers down on the trigger until the magazine is empty, the idea is to create an appearance of superior firepower, forcing the enemy to get their heads down. It’s fair to say, that while trying to take cover from the onslaught, the enemy will have great difficulty in continuing their ambush.

For the unarmed civilian, who is set upon when walking past a hidden position (a doorway, an alleyway, bushes, or simply attacked from behind), the instinctive response will almost always be to protect the head with the hands/arms, just as it is natural for the soldier to crouch down when being shot at. Considering that no amount of ‘covering’ will protect you forever, this response is fine, so long as it is momentary and is immediately followed up by as many strikes as possible in rapid succession towards the attacker’s head. Focusing on speed and aggression so as to ‘create an appearance of superior firepower’, this will force the attacker to hold back on - or even stop – their initial attack. Having fists, palms or elbows thrown towards his face will have a noticeable effect on his ability to attack, whether due to their flinch response or because of having their brain shaken about inside their skull (blunt force trauma).

When the SF patrol has successfully caused the enemy to take cover and have preferably moved in to a better position themselves, they can then use a slower rate of fire; taking better-aimed and therefore more effective shots. No longer aiming in the general direction of the enemy, they are now selecting targets with more care so as to diminish their capability to attack (or in other words, kill them).

For the unarmed civilian this means that once he has created a pause in his attacker’s ambush attempt, he can throw his strikes at a slower rate. Instead of utilising speed alone, and preferably having gained a stable footing, he can then utilize more powerful, well-aimed strike. The goal is to deliver effective concussive blows to the attacker’s head, with the aim of causing enough damage to render the attacker unable to continue their ambush attempt.

For both the SF patrol and the unarmed civilian, the priority is now to escape the ambush site. In the case of overwhelming odds (too many enemy with greater firepower, or an attacker who is simply too powerful to take-on), this may have to happen immediately after the initial blitz, skipping the better-aimed shots/strikes. Simply put, if there are too many baddies, the opportunity to deliver well-aimed shots/strikes my not present itself, in which case the idea is to ‘shoot and scoot’ or ‘hit and run’.

The ambush is only one example of how military tactics relate to self defence. The fact is; combat is combat. And while their may be different forms of combat, the military and civilian tactical options for how to manage them are the same. Further examples being that the military model for carrying out an ambush has within it the blueprint for pre-emptive self defence and that the military tactics of how to prepare for battle and what to do post-battle can be translated quite easily into how the civilian can be prepared for self defence and what to do after an incident.

To learn how the British army approached self defence directly, I recommend that you look into the activities of a little-known unit called 14 Intelligence Company (‘14 int’ for short). This was a plain-clothed intelligence gathering unit that operated in Northern Ireland throughout the 80’s. While trying to remain covert when operating in the toughest areas of NI, they had to utilize unarmed combat methods that paralleled the tactics they used for firearms usage… fascinating stuff that directly applies to effective civilian self protection.

 (Interesting (or boring) fact about this pic... a couple of months after originally posting this blog and finding a funny picture to go with it, I discovered that this photo was take during the attempted coup that took place in the Philippines just weeks after I left the country. And this photo was taken outside the shopping mall I frequented whilst staying there)

Sharif Haque

NorthLondonSelfDefence.co.uk

Mick Coup C2 Seminar

C2: Core Combatives Seminar Oct 2010

With Mick Coup

The venue couldn’t have been more fitting. The New Spartan Gym was located in a gritty-looking industrial estate and had the atmosphere of an old-school boxing gym. Except that apart from punch bags held together with duct tape it also had all the equipment a powerlifter could dream off.

The seminar started with Mick giving us an introduction to his C2 Core Combatives system. Rather than repeat what he said, I’ll point you to Mick’s website: www.corecombatives.com, and his Youtube channel: www.youtube.com/user/MickCoup, where you can spend as many well-spent hours as I have learning about his approach to self protection.

The aim of the seminar was to give us training methods to develop the basic skills and attributes needed for incapacitating an attacker in the most efficient and effective way. In this case, with repeated palm strikes to the bad guy’s brain box!

We got into pairs for the first drill which doubled as a warm-up. My partner was a bloke called Gary who is a retired firearms officer for the Met and also a Spear System instructor. Despite being in his early 50’s, he’s very much into his strength and fitness training, which I could feel the first time he hit the pad I was holding for him.

We started by going relatively slowly with individual palm strikes to the pads held at head-height, to ingrain the proper body mechanics before aiming for power. This is where Mick explained that the people who are always chasing power in their strikes will always be chasing. Whereas for those who always aim to perfect the body mechanics needed for striking, the power will chase them. Even when they try to go soft, there will still be some power there simply because they use their whole body. This is also where he demonstrated a no-inch punch! Luckily not on me, although I was (un)fortunate enough to receive some light whacks on the chest after when he demonstrated how impossible it is to ‘block’ strikes at close quarters.

We then built on this by doing repeated strikes at full force, and then further drills such as checking behind us for secondary targets (attackers) after the initial target has been dealt with, removing obstructions that may be in the way of the target (i.e his arms as he protects his head, or a 3^rd party), indexing the target with the off-hand (click here for more info on indexing: http://selfprotection.lightbb.com/q-a-with-mick-coup-f5/black-belt-article-indexing-t5747.htm ), chasing a retreating opponent, and striking an attacker who charges at you.

Before starting the charging drill, Mick explained that if anybody was to fall to the ground, nobody was to help them up. Instead, we were to all rush in and give the grounded person a few kicks up the arse whilst shouting at him to get back up. Nothing too heavy (physically), no more than light kicks aimed to the bum or legs. This is of course to ingrain in the person the tenacity needed for getting back to their feet if ever going to the ground in a real violent situation. It goes without saying that on the street, the ground is the absolute last place you want to be.

After a short break, we did what Mick calls the Stress Drill (I was pleasantly surprised to find this was almost identical to a drill we already do in our class).

We did some slower drills to build up to it, but ultimately it came down to the following structure: there were two pad holders and one ‘operator’. The operator stands in the middle with their eyes closed, feet together and hands down by their side (a very vulnerable and tactically-disadvantageous position). The two pad holders or ‘trainers’ circle round the operator and without warning, one trainer will shove the operator hard and explosively. The shove (which feels more like a strike that follows through) can come from any direction and so could send the operator backwards, forwards or sideways. The operator is then to open his eyes (after trying not to fall over!) and land as many full-force strikes as possible on the pad that is held up in front of him. After a few seconds trainer2 then whacks the operator from behind, which is the signal for him to turn and destroy the pad that trainer2 his now holding up. Then after a few seconds trainer1 does the same and so on for what feels like a long time but what is in fact less than a minute. It’s very dynamic as the pad holders move around forcing the operator to chase as well as strike.

An interesting point is that the whacks you receive during the drill feel more like taps. One guy didn’t even know he had been hit at one point and had to be hit again to make him turn round. However, the first whack/shove you receive when your eyes are closed feels like you’ve been hit by a train.

I was crash test dummy again when Mick was demonstrating before we started the drills building up to the Stress Drill. He had me close my eyes and stand with my feet together and although I knew what was coming and what I had to do after being hit (strike the pad he would be holding in front of me when I opened my eyes), the shove to my chest felt like an electric shock. My breath left my lungs and I let out an involuntary gasp, my skin suddenly became very sensitive all over my body and my senses seemed to open up. I opened my eyes, saw the pad and discovered that Mick had sent me back a good few feet (well, he weighs twice as much as me and almost a foot taller!), and then travelled forward to strike it as hard as I could.

The gap between being shoved, opening my eyes and hitting the pad felt like milliseconds, but apparently I was stood motionless for quite a while before acting. Never underestimate the power of surprise! Military forces the world over have used the element of surprise to defeat their enemies throughout history. And apart from being a reminder how advantageous it can be to us when used for self defence, the drill is designed to inoculate the student to being taken by surprise and to rewire the nervous system to respond with ‘fight’ rather than the more instinctive (but tactically flawed) ‘flight’ or ‘freeze’ responses. As Mick reminded us, nobody is going to attack us when we are fully alert and aware. They will wait until we are at our most vulnerable.

One memorable moment during the drill was when one person stumbled and fell at the end of his turn being operator. This was the first and only falling person of the day and I had forgotten the rule of not helping them up. As the man fell at mine and Gary’s feet, we both instinctively bent down to help him up, only to be taken by surprise as Jon Fell (Mick’s assistant instructor for the day) came rushing in and hoofed matey up the backside! After about a second I picked my jaw up off the floor as I remembered why this man was being kicked and found myself barking at him “UP! UP! UP!” as we all ‘encouraged’ him back to his feet.

Afterwards, Mick said to him “Now, if you ever fall down in a fight, you’ll remember that arse-kicking and get back up ASAP!”  

After another short break, we were invited to partake in the final test of the day; the ‘Live Drill’, which sounds less scary than the Stress Drill but is in fact one of the most hardcore drills I’ve come across in training. As we laid down the mats in preparation there was a palpable atmosphere of apprehension; an opportunity to practice some ‘tactical breathing’ to reduce the effects of adrenaline and slow the heart rate. This drill was totally voluntary and 6 out of the 10 of us had a go. It’s also worth mentioning that safety was the biggest priority; not all the safety measures are mentioned here.

The format is this: one referee (Mick) two fighters and two safety guys (each fighter has his own safety guy). The fighters - wearing head gear, neck brace and groin guard - lay face down and facing away from each other, about 3 meters apart. At Mick’s signal, the safety guys put pressure down on their fighters who have to fight their way to their feet, turn and destroy their opponent. It’s all-out, anything goes, maximum force and aggression but the fight is only allowed to go on for about 5 seconds before Mick blows the whistle. This is the signal for the safety guys to grab their fighter in a specific way, pull him off his opponent and get him back on the ground. This time, the fighter does press-ups until the whistle goes again, at which point they are held down again, fight their way up, try to kill each other and the process repeats (with the press ups) one more time.

By default, the two guys used for the slow demonstration stayed on for the first full-on three rounds. The room became very quiet as everybody watched the controlled mayhem. When it was over, Mick asked for volunteers. One part of my mind was coming up with all kinds of excuses not to (the biggest one being that I was the lightest guy and that I would have that disadvantage), but another part was happy to have the opportunity to test myself in a controlled environment. I stepped forward and was waiting to see which giant I was going to face (there was some big boys there). After a few seconds, Gary stepped forward. On the one hand I didn’t feel good about it; we had got on so well having been partners for the past 4 hours, I didn’t think I would be able to go full force on him (and later, he said he felt exactly the same!) but on the other hand, despite being stronger and broader than me, he was an inch or so shorter. So I was slightly relieved not to be fighting one of the big guys.

So, safety gear on, face down. With the gumshield in plus the effects of the adrenaline, my breathing made me sound like Darth Vader inside the helmet. The whistle went, and all I can remember of it after struggling to my feet, is getting a good knock to the head and landing a couple of headbutts that felt totally useless with the helmet on. Then I was thrown down and it was press ups time. I felt better doing something rather than just waiting motionless.

All I can remember of the second round is landing one or two shots but receiving one big one to the face which made my nose throb and eyes water. As I got thrown face down I was very much expecting to see blood pool in the face-shield, but it never came even though I was sure I could smell blood (later when I got home I wasn’t surprised to see a load of clotted blood when I blew my nose!)

In the final round I got to my feet and turned to find that Gary was still struggling to get up, not really wanting to hoof him in the head, I was secretly hoping he would get up and stand with me. My wish came true as the next thing I knew he was in my face landing some good ones! I remember switching hands as he covered against my right, and then switching again and landing a good one with the right.

When the headgear came off, I double checked my nose and it was fine. But when I grabbed the bottom of my t-shirt to wipe the sweat off with, I noticed some blood on it. Then I saw more on my left hand. Turned out my thumb nail had come away from the thumb a bit and was dripping. Gary couldn’t find any scratches on him so it must have caught on one of the gaps in his face shield.

The way we fought was obviously very influenced by what we had been doing for the previous four hours, in the sense that all we did was straight-palm eachother in the head. Nothing wrong with that though; it’s a very effective technique when coupled with intent. Which is something we both attested to as we gave each other feedback on our performances.

The last fight was interesting. One fighter was a big guy with previous martial arts experience who works as a bouncer. The other was a bit smaller with no previous fight training at all if I remember correctly. In the first round he took a hit as they closed the gap, and seemed very stunned at the force of it, but soon came-to and fought back. In the second round he took a massive hooking palm to the side of the head which had us all collectively going “Ooohh!” and that was it for him. He didn’t do the third round. Don’t blame him either; his opponent was the person I feared going up against the most! I’m sure that hit would have had me on the floor if I’m honest.

All in all, it was a great day. I took a lot away from it. There were some points Mick made which have caused me to rethink some of the drills that I teach, and certainly new ones I want to incorporate. Also, it was very reassuring to see how much of what Mick teaches resonates with what we are already doing in the class.

I’ll definitely be doing more C2 training in the future! 

Sharif Haque

www.northlondonselfdefence.co.uk

The Basics

As I see it, there are three aspects to our training that underpin the physical ability to ‘fight’. These are the ability to:

1) Efficiently deliver precise, effective, impactive strikes to the head

2) Protect the your own head from strikes (and familiarization with the sensation of receiving impacts that interfere with equilibrium)

3) Efficiently/athletically move one’s body in a way that maintains balance and stability

In other words; punching/palm striking, covering up against strikes, and footwork

Without going into vast detail about each subject, these three qualities combined give the individual the foundations of attack and defence.

Striking The Head

It has been proven time and again, that impact to the head is the most effective unarmed means of neutralizing an attacker. Indeed, punching to the head is the most common form physical violence used by street thugs, and with good reason.

When martial arts legend Geoff Thompson said many years ago “If you want to learn to defend yourself, learn to hit f*cking hard”, I admittedly thought this was a little over simplified. However, the more I’ve come to learn about - and experience first hand - the effects of being hit in the head (as both the receiver and deliverer), the more I’ve come to appreciate the truth to his words.

Here’s some interesting facts for you…

“In the United States traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death for persons under age 45… The force of a professional boxer's fist is equivalent to being hit with a 13 pound bowling ball travelling 20 miles per hour, about 52 g's. Plopping down into an easy chair can generate up to 10 g's” (www.braininjury.com/injured)

And according to David Kushner’s article for the American Medical Association (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury 1998), “The most common causes of TBI include violence, transportation accidents, construction, and sports”

I quote these not because I want to train my students to become killers but to underline the effectiveness of striking (often repeatedly) the head of an attacker. And these deaths aren’t just statistics on paper either; a guy I went to school with died as a result of being hit in the head in a fight (although this was with a metal pipe and not a fist) and only a couple of months ago did I attend the funeral of my friend’s mum who died as a result of hitting her head after falling in the street.

For a video detailing the bio-mechanics impact to the head visit: http://www.northlondonselfdefence.co.uk/blog-the-basics

Covering-up Against Strikes

Needless to say that even if you do become proficient at punching and can make a pad-holder fly across the room or put dents into a heavy punch bag, human beings aren’t inanimate objects and (for some reason) don’t like being hit in the head. In other words, they’ll try to stop you and most likely by doing the very same thing to you. Indeed, the reason you are defending your self is very likely to be because they attempted or intended to hit you in the head in the first place!

And so for this very basic reason, defending against impacts to the head plays a huge role in our training. This doesn’t mean ‘blocking’ or evading punches like in the traditional or sport-based martial arts, but instead covering and protecting the head so as to be able to ‘take’ a hit. Without getting into the ‘why blocking doesn’t work’ lecture, if blocking punches worked against real punches mid-fight, boxers would do it, wouldn’t they?

Footwork

Fighting for your survival is never going to be an easy thing. It will be dynamic and dramatic… you will likely be pushed, pulled, and knocked about. No wonder that so many fights end up on the ground.

The remedy then, is to train in such a way so as to hone the instinctive ability to keep your feet underneath your centre of balance within the chaotic movement of combat.

Footwork can be considered the foundation of the previous two subjects too. Effective striking to an attacker’s head takes lots and lots of commitment (among other things) which essentially means throwing yourself bodily towards them while at the same time maintaining stability. And while covering the head against strikes protects from surface-level tissue damage (broken noses, cut lips etc) it in no way is an absolute defence against the shaking of the brain that results from heavy impact to the head (like a motorcycle helmet will protect from skull fracture but can only slightly reduce the concussive effects of hitting the tarmac). The point is, even if you cover up against a strike, you are likely to get a little rattled from the impact. And so, the ability to stay on your feet and not trip over yourself like a drunk is important here also.

These three qualities are like the basic components of a building; floors, walls and a ceiling. Without these there generally is no building. You’ll have no foundations to lay your wooden floorboards onto, nothing to put your double glazing into, and no need for guttering or roof tiles.

In a similar way, we want to create a default defensive response that consists of basic, generic techniques and tactics. Only if we have such a foundation should we then explore secondary, back-up techniques. And even then, those techniques must still be basic in their own right. Self protection expert Mick Coup, when describing his Core Combatives system (which shares many similarities to what we do) says “There’s basics, basics and some more f*cking basics”.

Also (borrowing some more terminology from Mick) we even want our secondary techniques to not just be ‘possible’ in their effectiveness, but PROBABLE. Bear in mind that it’s possible that a gentle Tai Chi movement could work in self defence. But it’s certainly not probable. What we’re interested in are techniques that have a high likelihood of working (based on an understanding of human physiology, physics and on what we know has worked time and again throughout the history of human unarmed combat)

That being said, I don’t believe that creativity and individuality should be completely ruled out of our training. Our class certainly doesn’t feel like a scientific experiment. The fact is human beings are not rational, logical beings, but emotional beings. And we are all different physically and emotionally.

This is why what I teach is not a system; ‘it’ has no name. It can be described as self protection, self defence, martial arts, unarmed combatives etc, etc (and I don’t really care what you call it). The point is, I wouldn’t want to try to make everybody do exactly the same thing in terms of how they perform a technique. The only thing I stress is that whatever you do, make sure it is likely to work and is tactically sound.

And bearing in mind that no matter how much of an individual somebody is, human beings are all generally comprised of a head, two arms and two legs. Therefore, although there is a tiny bit of room for creativity and individuality in what we do (unlike the traditional arts where it’s all art and there is very little ‘martialness’ to be found), any creativity must also be heavily coated in probability!

Sharif Haque

No Master

One of my students who comes to the class also trains in kick-boxing 3 times a week. It’s how she found the class actually; the kick-boxing takes place in the same dojo. After a few sessions, she asked if she should refer to me as ‘sensei’. This is a Japanese term which basically means ‘teacher’ and is the title they use to address the instructor of her kick-boxing class. Sensei is also a word often translated in the martial arts world as ‘master’.

After shuddering at the thought of having the guys all bow to me and call me sensei or Master Sharif, I explained my thoughts on the subject…

To refer to somebody in such a way basically implies that this person is the best at what the group are doing as a whole. And so within a sports or tradition-based martial art, this is actually quite plausible. The idea is that the person teaching could beat any of his students within the context of what they do; kick-boxing, tournament karate, muay thai, judo or whatever. This is usually provable by their background in tournament fighting which is supported by belts and trophies and the like.

This does not and can not apply to what we do, however. When you lift constricting rules and regulations that govern how one should win at a particular ‘art’ or sport, you are left with an almost unlimited amount of factors that will determine ‘who would win’. And by winning, what we are basically talking about is some form of physical domination of another person (an attacker in our case).

The only physical way to end a physically violent assault is by using a greater level of violence. And bearing in mind that there are no rules for the type of ‘fight’ that we are training for, this greater amount of violence could come in any form.

We have a guy in our class who is 6’4” and naturally as strong as an ox. I often use him as an example of how the size, weight and strength of an attacker can make the job of defending that much more difficult. I will often point out while demonstrating a particular technique that its effects may be diminished or even rendered useless by this man’s physicality alone. Simply put, I make no bones about the fact that if this student of mine one day decided he didn’t like me, there’s a good chance he could physically dominate me quite easily.

I’ve also got students who have experienced various forms of violence that I have not. After all, it’s not like I’m the ex street fighting champion of North London. And so, how could I ever seriously look these people in the eye while they bow to me or call me sensei?

The day I think of myself as a master (of anything) is the day I stop learning. And if I stop learning, I stop growing. And in nature when something is not in a state of growth, it is in fact dying.

At this point I’m a just normal person who has seen and experienced a certain amount of violence, human aggression and threat and have invested a hell of a lot of time and effort into researching and training defensive techniques, tactics and strategies based on those experiences (and the experiences of others too – instructors who have trodden this path long before I stepped onto it)

I feel this puts me in a position to teach, so long as I am always completely honest in the way that I teach and the way that I continue to learn/train myself… I’m certainly no master!

Sharif Haque

NorthLondonSelfDefence.co.uk

Tactical-protection.com

Is BJJ (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu) good for street self defence?

Firstly, for those who don’t know what BJJ is, please do have a quick read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu

While this article as largely aimed at Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, it’s content is equally applicable to any fighting system that advocates submission grappling on the ground as a means of self defence. My reason for making reference to BJJ is simply because it is the most popular of such fighting systems.

Inevitably I will upset some people with the following article, although this is not my intention. If you read it thoroughly, you will find that I have much respect for BJJ for its various qualities and give it credit where it’s due.

I don’t claim to be a complete expert on BJJ but I feel I’ve had enough experience with it to make the claims that I do and am confident that I have simply followed commonsensical thinking to reach my conclusions.

Ultimately, the main reason for writing this is because my students ask me my opinion on the grappling arts so often. Having this all written up is just more convenient than repeating myself every week!

Gracie/Brazilian Jiu Jitsu was born on the streets of Brazil

This argument essentially states that because the late Helio Gracie tested his submission fighting skills (which were amazing by the way) on the streets, beaches and gyms of Brazil, BJJ is inherently street-oriented. What must be noted here though, is that while the environment of these fights was indeed ‘street’, the tactical dynamics of the fights themselves were still sport-based and ‘dueling’ in nature – ‘vale tudo’. That is to say; generally pre-arranged and against one opponent.

Whether it takes place in a ring, on a mat, on the street, on a beach or even the school playground… a match-fight is a match-fight. And match-fighting isn’t self defence. When two people square up to each other and battle it out, it generally means both have chosen to engage in the fight. This is far removed from being ambushed and therefore forced to fight back. Simply put, it’s not true self defence if the fight didn’t have to happen.

Most fights end up on the ground

There is a very popular quote that is often used by martial arts and self protection instructors/practitioners to justify training in ground submission fighting that goes “xx% of street fights end up on the ground”. The ‘xx’ is used in place of actual numbers because this figure changes depending on who you talk to. Apparently, it’s a ‘fact’ because some police study somewhere concluded so. Personally, I’ve never come across this often-talked-about study and certainly don’t know what the true percentage is. Either way, I will agree that MANY fights end up in clinching/grappling and often on the floor.

But what does this mean? What does one do with this information when putting together a self defence system? Consider that to become tied up with one person, whether standing or grounded leaves you incredibly vulnerable to being attacked from one of your ‘flanks’ by a second attacker. And with this in mind, the fact that most people will want to grapple with me in some way tells me that I should be training in ways to prevent this from happening, and methods of disengaging if it does happen.

Just because somebody grabs and grapples you, doesn’t mean you have to do the same back to them. When defending yourself, you are allowed to HIT people who are grappling you. I emphasize striking because it allows you to be more mobile and therefore in a better position to escape the chaos of a multiple attacker situation, whereas grappling one person (because you really can only grapple ONE person at any given moment in a fight) literally anchors you to the situation.

Submission fighting is a support system to fall back on… just in case striking fails

Having a failsafe is always a good idea, in any context. However, what you use as the failsafe has to be considered carefully.

Many public buildings have an emergency power system in the event of a power cut. Generally what happens is that as the power goes out, smaller lights (powered by a cellular power source) will automatically come on so that the building isn’t plunged into darkness. Or in some cases, the cellular power source will re-power the same lights that ‘blacked out’.

Armed operators (SWAT, special forces, close protection units etc) will often have a primary and secondary weapon. The primary will often be a rifle, carbine or submachine gun – accurate, high rate of fire, large magazine capacity and often a large caliber of ammunition. In the event that this primary weapon malfunctions or runs out of ammunition mid-fight (while still facing a threat), the operator is trained to respond by abandoning the primary weapon (rather than waste time clearing the stoppage or putting in a fresh mag) and instantly drawing their secondary weapon. This weapon will generally be a semi-auto pistol - less accurate, slower rate of fire, smaller magazine capacity and small-caliber, but… still a firearm. Similarly, the emergency lighting in buildings… are still lights! 

I could of course give more examples, but the point is, if a particular strike is proving ineffective, it makes sense to simply use a different one (!) or manage the position to facilitate that strike better (note that this could mean ‘grappling’ to get a better position – but only to continue striking and NOT to ‘submit’ the attacker).

And as for the idea that striking as a tactic can completely fail and be replaced by joint-lock submissions mid-fight; I’d be very interested in being shown a human being who can receive multiple concussive blows to the head unharmed but can be incapacitated by having his extremities twisted into awkward positions.

You need to know how to grapple on the ground so you can escape the ground fight and/or prevent being taken there

Of all the arguments for BJJ being street-effective, this is the one that comes closest to something I agree with. To elaborate, ‘grappling’ can simply mean fighting for a position using pushing or pulling motions against the opponent. And within my own system, this is all grappling means. And so with this in mind I have no problem with certain drills that isolate particular positional skills. Consider the simple exercise of having two students start off from a grounded position, with one having the task of keeping the other on the floor while the student being trained tries to grapple their way to their feet or an ‘on top’ position. At a glance this looks very jiu jitsu-esque. But its sole purpose is simply to isolate the ability to gain a position from which to fire off effective strikes.

‘Submissions’ on the other hand, do not feature on my list of high-force self protection techniques. To clarify, by submissions I mean techniques that cause an opponent to give up the fight by causing pain or discomfort in a position from which they cannot escape. Followed through, the submission will result in the breaking or hyperextension of a skeletal joint or unconsciousness due to cerebral hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain).

Considering that submissions can only be applied by the extensive grabbing and holding-onto of an opponent, this method of fighting is instantly tactically flawed for high-risk self defence training. Putting yourself into a position from which you cannot defend against assault from secondary attackers is not something I recommend. While it is true that a highly skilled practitioner of submission fighting can apply a hold/break very quickly against an unskilled (in grappling) attacker, and can therefore in theory disengage when the need arises, this is ultimately based on a gamble. You COULD chance your hand at submitting opponent #1 on the hope that you can disengage before opponent #2 starts to seriously hurt you (good luck with that by the way) but if opponent #1 manages to resist your attempt at breaking his arm/leg etc and keeps you tied up while his buddies come to help him out… the consequences could be fatal. Striking on the other hand, doesn’t have this problem.

Bear in mind that just because an attacker appears to be by himself, doesn’t mean that he is. And besides, it’s really not uncommon to see complete strangers try to get some kicks in when two people are fighting on the ground. Crazy, I know, but it happens quite a lot (especially when all parties involved are drunk).

If a BJJ guy gets you in a triangle choke / kimura / arm-bar… you’re finished.

A strange thing often happens when you ask some grapplers if their art is indeed good for self defence training; they may respond with an answer to a completely different question. By this I mean that some people often get confused between an individual’s ability and a martial art system’s applicability to realistic self defence.

The difference between having no skill/familiarity with fighting on the ground and having only a few months of high quality training in BJJ is immense. This cannot be argued. Therefore a good BJJ white belt will have little trouble submitting an untrained person on the ground; even a slightly bigger/stronger opponent (providing he doesn’t have his friends with him). However, this should not be used to answer the question “Is BJJ training good for street self defence?” – the answer to which is ultimately ‘no’. Why not? Consider the following aspects of classic BJJ training:

Soft mats covering the floor

Barefoot training

Uniforms that provide grabbing points that are not always present on modern clothing

No incentive to get back to your feet when sparring on the ground

A guarantee of only having one opponent to fight

Rounds that last for several minutes

I feel these points generally speak for themselves and so will not elaborate on each of them. The general conclusion is however, that the training environment and training model do not lend themselves well to real life-and-death violence.

One point, however….

While it could be argued that the BJJ guy will of course get back to his feet ASAP when in a ‘live’ situation, it must be understood that he will generally do in spite of his training and not because of it. BJJ and related arts certainly do have techniques for getting back to one’s feet – but they aren’t stressed when sparring/under pressure (when it counts). And so it is in fact the situation that FORCES the practitioner to get back up; because a second attacker is running at him for example.

The attraction

Undeniably, BJJ is hugely popular in the martial arts and self defence world. And there is no smoke without fire, so to speak, so it must have qualities that people like. At this point, haters of BJJ will often attempt to degrade it by arguing that if any art received the amount of publicity BJJ has had, it too would be equally as popular. Personally I disagree and attribute BJJ’s success in this ‘business’ to very real qualities that the art itself possesses. These qualities however, do not make it self defence!

The student’s progress in skill is very measurable – they can tell by how often they are able to submit an opponent vs. how often they are ‘tapped out’ and the grading system is based on real ability and is unforgiving towards those who cannot meet the challenge. For competitive people, BJJ is a dream come true. There is no theory in how good somebody is – everything can be verified by rolling with a challenger.

It sort of looks and feels like real fighting – except that the risk of serious injury or death is very, very small. Compare this to the training we do in my own class – there is no way to TRULY test your skills in a true reality-based fighting system (unless all parties agree that they may get seriously banged up). For many people, knowing that they are increasing their survivability of a serious assault is far less satisfying than knowing they can tap out Jonny the purple-belt. It’s simply not as tangible.

It’s a great workout! Simple as that. Without going into the specifics of what athletic attributes BJJ produces, it certainly ticks quite a few boxes with regards to all round fitness. But not all boxes, it should be noted, especially with regards to getting fit for unarmed combat. And the Gracie family, specifically, certainly seems to be very clued up about healthy living and regularly share this info with their students. I personally used a baby yoga method on my daughter that I picked up from a video of Rorion Gracie.

It’s fun. If the instructor is good and has his ego in check, the type of students he will attract will generally be the same, making for a very fun and friendly atmosphere to train in.

It makes for an effective – if over-elaborate – low force system. Think of those scenarios where a physical response may be required but not one that causes serious injury. If Uncle Jim has had too much to drink at the family reunion and starts getting out of hand, having a means of subduing him without hurting him is a good thing. I should state however that this is more of a byproduct of BJJ training, and I don’t feel that you need an extensive range of submission techniques for this purpose.

So to conclude, while I certainly see merit in training in BJJ for several reasons, becoming combat-ready for real violence on the street is not one of them. And I think it’s about time this myth was dispelled. And to clarify my main points:

 - Submissions are not necessary for - and indeed dilute the effectiveness of - self defence training

 - Match fighting / dueling is not self defence

Lastly, I’d like to point out that I’ve been an informal student/dabbler in BJJ for several years and will be for the foreseeable future – if only for the exercise and for fun. I’m the proud owner of a gi and I’m perfectly happy with the white belt that came with it staying that colour! I have trouble submitting anybody but the complete beginners, but that’s fine.

Sharif Haque

NorthLondonSelfDefence.co.uk

Tactical-protection.com

_________________________________________________________________________

You’ll notice that I’ve made several references to ‘good’ BJJ throughout this article. If you’re interested in training (for the right reasons) in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu in the North London area, then I can recommend nobody as highly as Eddie Kone at the ultimate fitness centre in Tottenham.

Ten points if you can spot me in the background