|
I had bought a series of DVDs recently on a variety of subjects of interest. They were sport-combat or MMA-oriented but some had throw-away lines on the front cover and in the commentary that the techniques could readily be adapted to the street. As expected, the material on the DVDs was a string of techniques, many of the ‘he does this, you do that’ variety. Some of the DVDs were specifically street-oriented and produced by reasonably well-known individuals in that field.
The technical content in all the DVDs was good, but it just underscored my disappointment with a lot of the material out there that is supposedly for street application. Maybe it’s just me, but a lot of it came across as sport-combat techniques ‘in jeans’. The field of self-defence/defensive tactics is, to me, unfortunately far too contaminated by the thinking of martial artists and sport-combat practitioners.
In the field of self-defence — or, if you like, ‘real combat’ — there is one absolute rule that differentiates the practice of self-defence from the martial arts or combat sports. I’d even go so far as to say it is an absolute in a world of few absolutes. And that’s simply that out in the real world, any confrontation is not over until your opponent or opponents decide it is — period. This goes for any confrontation, whether between individuals, groups or even nations.
Any self-defence action that hopes to be effective must take this into account. In other words, confrontations are ultimately a battle of the minds, not bodies. You may get at the mind indirectly through the body but it is the indirect path, and physical domination of the other carries no guarantees.
Let me express the principle another way that might make my point clearer. To end any confrontation you must undertake actions that not only deal with the present situation, but do so in such a fashion that the cycle of violence ends there and then. To not have that foremost in your mind as your prime goal — in terms of whatever actions you take — means you are driven by other motivations and are at risk of failing to end the confrontation.
I can sense the doubters, so let me digress and deal with the common objections. And let me start the digression by relating a short but true story that illustrates my argument.
An individual who was a workmate of one of my instructors was working security at a nightclub. There was an altercation that became physical between the security guy and a patron. The security guy ‘won’ the encounter in the classic sense by physically dominating the patron and evicting him from the premises.
About six months later, the security guy was at the markets with his partner buying fruit and vegetables. The ‘patron’ by chance happened to be there also and recognised who he was. The ex-patron moved up behind the guard as he was making his purchase and king-hit him. The security guard may have won the first encounter with the sort of technique we see in the DVDs I bought, but he lost the second and now quite possibly carries a psychological trauma — the price he now pays for having won the first encounter in the way he did. In this instance, the cycle of violence continued over a six-month period.
You don’t end a fight by knocking someone down, choking them out or even breaking their leg. They may not be able to continue the fight that day but when they recover, they can and may. You may even, for argument’s sake, kill them, but if the deceased’s family and friends decide to take revenge, the fight is not over. Blood feuds in other parts of the world can go on for decades. You just win round one and potentially set yourself up for having to fight on, and having to continuously watch your back. Is that really winning?
Technique, of course, has its place, but it is simply a means to an end and much that I see disappoints because it is presented as a means of physically dominating the other. That gets you the tap-out or the points in a competition, but on the street if you ignore the absolute truth that the fight is over when your opponent decides it is, you may be heading for big trouble.
Graham Kuerschner is a 45-year veteran of the martial arts. He can be contacted via his website www.sdtactics.com.au
|
Have your say (0)