THE MBC TRAINING BLOG

"Flow" Drills and their Value in Combative Training

2011-11-29T08:25:00.003-07:00

One of the things that attracted me to the Filipino martial arts (FMA) many years ago was their use of reflex training or “flow” drills. Although I was already coming from a somewhat non-traditional martial arts background, most of the training I had done still followed a classical format: dedicated technique-based practice, sparring, and tool development on striking pads and bags. The most dynamic thing we did was “technical sparring,” which was basically technique-based training in a multiple-attacker context--in simple terms "combative monkey-in-the-middle." The addition of multiple attackers and a higher degree of spontaneity allowed this form of training to better simulate the adrenal stress of a real attack; however, it was very dependent upon the skills and intensity of your training partners. When done right, it was magic. When done wrong, it looked like a bad kung fu movie.

When I finally got involved in the FMA, I was amazed at the wide variety of flow drills and the way that they accelerated both skill and reflex development. At a basic level they get you to repeat key sequences of movement with a partner in a way that has scalable speed and intensity. As you get better and start moving faster, you can incorporate more aggressive energy, footwork, and other elements to increase the performance anxiety. As the saying goes, “Repetition is the mother of all skill.” To take that a step further, “Repetition under stress is the mother of higher, more reliable skill.”

As my skills and understanding of flow drills developed, I realized that it was possible to use the drills as a foundation of a very dynamic training method I now call “the chess game.” Since many drills include similar angles and movements, it is very easy to “substitute” the response of one drill for that of another. That substitution may be a simple variation within the flow of the original drill, or it may prompt your partner to transition to the new drill. Once you understand this concept and the basic mechanics of substituting and transitioning, you have a very dynamic, spontaneous set of choices to play with. Better yet, so does your partner. Since there are no verbal cues in this process to prompt each other, picking up on and flowing with the transitions becomes extremely spontaneous and develops amazing reflexes. In fact, in many cases students do everything right and respond with perfect reflex and technique, yet are unable to mentally “keep up” with their actions to register them cognitively. As we say in MBC is that “Drills give you repetition; transitions give you reflex.”

Once I discovered the “chess game” method, I began analyzing the drills I had learned to see how well they supported actual combative application. I also began modifying the drills to make them more knife-oriented and to more closely replicate plausible attacks. Through this analytical process—and the concurrent development of MBC’s stopping-power-based targeting system—I realized that some FMA drills, like Sumbrada, provided an outstanding template for very effective combative technique. I also realized that many of traditional FMA enthusiasts who practice Sumbrada regularly have no idea of its true purpose. Since MBC is, by design, a results-oriented system, I was determined to include only those drills that support worthwhile skill development. Over time, I have added, deleted, and modified drills to “fill holes” in MBC’s reflexive response patterns and avoid unnecessary “martial masturbation.” That process still continues as MBC--and my understanding of combative training--continue to evolve.

Earlier this year, I taught a seminar in Switzerland for a group that included instructors of several Filipino systems. During that seminar, they asked about my approach to flow drills. Since there are many different names for the same drill and many different variations of specific drills, I picked Sumbrada (aka 10-count, Large-Box Drill, etc.) as a good place to start. I first demonstrated the MBC version of the drill to provide a frame of reference. I then demonstrated a traditional FMA version of it and contrasted it to the MBC version, explaining in great detail why I did specific things differently. Finally, I invited my hosts to show me their version of the drill. When they did, I noticed that they did some things very differently than any other version of the drill that I had seen. Always eager to learn, I asked them why they did things that specific way and how those differences supported the combative applications of the drill's movements. Their response, which shocked me, was that they didn't know the drill was supposed to have combative applications. It was just a drill. My response, which applies to ALL training methods, is "if you don't know WHY you are doing something, don't spend your training time doing it."

MBC's approach to reflex training drills is all about ingraining patterns of motion that have direct combative application. If we don't understand why we're doing something, we question its usefulness and typically stop doing it to focus on things that make more sense. This approach has evolved significantly since I first began teaching MBC publicly in 1997. Although it will continue to evolve, its current state of the art is documented in my most recent training DVD "Martial Blade Concepts: Volume 3."

MBC Volume 3 guides you step by step through the drills of the MBC system and, very importantly, explains why the drills are included in the system and what skills they isolate. When appropriate, I compare them to traditional versions of FMA drills and explain why I have chosen to alter specific elements to be consistent with MBC’s tactics and methods. Finally, I explain and clearly demonstrate the combative applications of the drills—how the practiced movements and sequences of angles can be reflexively applied in a high-speed, spontaneous defensive situation.

Once the foundation of drills is established, I teach you the basics of the “chess game” and how to use it to create a dynamic, unpredictable, yet safe training methodology that provides a format for scalable progression. I also explain how this training method fosters a higher degree of “fighting spirit” by allowing you to work through your mistakes without ever breaking stride.

Flow drills are the secret to developing real, dependable combative skills in the MBC system and are an incredibly dynamic training method. For those of you who don;t have training partners, they also form the foundation of a solo training program that is much more meaningful and applicable than traditional "kata" because there is no mystery to the application of the movements.

Drills provide the repetition you need to develop skills and, ultimately, the reflexes necessary to use those skills in a real defensive situation. Although they may look intimidating at first, I have successfully taught them to thousands of students. If they can do it, so can you. And if you're not doing it, your training isn't reaching its full potential.

Go with the flow!

Stay safe,

Mike

A TRUE STORY OF SURVIVAL

2011-02-18T07:50:00.003-07:00

The 2011 SHOT Show was a great success on many fronts. And although most SHOT Show debriefs focus on cool new products, the highlight of my show was meeting a very resilient, articulate young lady who shared a very personal story with me.

It was close to the end of the day when this lady and her significant other came to visit me at the Spyderco law enforcement booth. Her boyfriend shook my hand first and thanked me for the instructional DVDs I’ve produced. I thanked him for his kind words, but quickly realized that his appreciation was much more than a casual comment. Showing genuine emotion, he explained that the information I presented on my DVDs saved his girlfriend’s life.

Needless to say, I was very humbled and very curious to know the details of the story. After meeting the young lady, I asked them to come back to the booth the next morning to share the story. They politely agreed.

The next morning, they returned and I invited the lady into the booth to sit and talk. After we sat, she took a deep breath and told me her story:

She explained that about 10 years ago, she was attacked and sexually assaulted. Although she knew the identity of the attacker and reported the incident to the police, due to the mishandling of evidence and a number of other factors, her attacker was not prosecuted.

In the years following the incident, her attacker began to stalk her. Once again, the police were of little help, so she chose to relocate and hopefully avoid further problems. To her credit, she chose to establish her new home in a state that permitted the concealed carry of firearms. She dutifully completed the necessary paperwork and sought out responsible training in defensive shooting skills.

Unfortunately, before she could complete her personal-defense preparations, her stalker tracked her down and attacked her a second time. During this attack, he threw her against a wall and shattered her shoulder, inflicting injuries that still plague her to this day. Yet again, law enforcement efforts were inadequate and her stalker remained on the street.

During this time, this lady met her boyfriend, who trained actively in all aspects of self-defense. In addition to formal hands-on courses, he supplemented his training with instructional DVDs—including the Personal Firearm Defense series produced by my friend Rob Pincus and marketed to the NRA membership. Among the videos included in this series was my DVD Practical Blade Defense.

Acknowledging that carry of a firearm isn’t always possible, the couple watched my DVD intently, invested in proper training equipment, and diligently practiced the skills presented in the video. They also invested in high-quality carry knives as back-up/alternate weapons to their handguns.

In 2010, the lady’s stalker decided to attacker her again. He had tracked her to her new home, in a new state. One evening, after she was returning home from the gym, which had a strict no-firearms policy, she was not carrying her firearm. However she did have her knife. When she turned the corner of her building, her stalker was waiting, having just left dead roses and a note on her doorstep. He confronted her and insisted that the two of them were destined to “be together.” She ordered him to stay back while she reflexively bladed her body to him to protect her injured shoulder and deploy her knife. Undeterred, the stalker lunged forward to attack. Remembering that the ultimate goal of self-defense is safe escape and that the best way to achieve that with a knife is through a “mobility kill,” this lady crouched low and attacked the stalker’s right thigh, just above the knee. Using all her strength, she cut deeply, severing the stalker’s quadriceps muscle and dropping him instantly to the ground.

After escaping safely and calling 911, she returned to the scene with the police. There was a significant pool of blood and it appeared that her attacker had lain there for some time before he was able to hobble away. Sadly, he is still at large.

It should be noted that the knife used in her defense was an assisted-opening folding knife with a 3.5-inch blade. She did not recall the exact model, and the knife was later lost during travel. It should also be noted that the attacker was approximately 6’ 4” tall, nearly 300 pounds, and very physically powerful.

In an e-mail she sent to me after the show, this brave lady offered the following words:

“I wanted to again take a moment to thank you for the training video you produced and how it played a significant role in me still being here (alive) today. The techniques you demonstrated and the manner in which you presented the knowledge were easy to retain and remember in a stressful situation. [My boyfriend] (whom you met as well) took the time to teach and practice your techniques with me before we sat together and watched the video. Those skills are what kept me from being a victim again in a very bad situation that is on-going in my life.

I appreciate you taking the time and wanting to hear my story and get my feedback on your materials. I am a true testament to being a survivor and not a victim. If there is anything I can do to assist you or attest to the viability and necessity of your training please let me know. I would be happy to help.”

Those words—and the fact that my instruction helped this lady survive a potentially deadly situation—mean more to me than anything else I’ve accomplished in the martial arts. I am incredibly proud of her and extremely grateful for her confidence in the MBC system and our teaching methodology. I sincerely hope that her skills, determination, and amazing will to survive continue to keep her safe always.

Black Belt Magazine's Hall of Fame

2010-11-02T13:43:00.002-06:00

Black Belt magazine recently released its December 2010 issue announcing the inductees into its prestigious Hall of Fame. I was selected as the Black Belt Hall of Fame Weapons Instructor of the Year. I am truly honored by this award and would like to express my sincere thanks to Black Belt magazine and all the readers who voted.

I read my first issue of Black Belt back in 1975, shortly after I began formally studying the martial arts. Through the years, it has continued to impress me as one of the few martial arts magazines that have maintained a high level of integrity and a consistent commitment to providing quality content. It is also the only martial arts magazine currently available that I feel is worth reading on a regular basis, so their recognition means a lot to me.

The martial arts world is full of awards, ranks, titles, and other honorific labels. In many cases, these titles are well deserved and appropriately honor worthy practitioners and instructors. Unfortunately, in other cases they are misused by self-aggrandizing martial artists more interested in cultivating an image than perfecting their skills or their ability to teach effectively. Sadly, the latter phenomenon has made becoming a “grandmaster” slightly less challenging than earning a GED, so MBC purposely doesn’t use them.

Because of the hyperbole that permeates the martial arts world, there are very few “honors” that get me excited. I take more pride in the fact that Kelly McCann lists Martial Blade Concepts on the links page of his combatives web site than I ever could by touting myself as a “master,” “grandmaster,” sifu, guro, or any other term you might think of. Kelly is, in my opinion, the best instructor in the business, bar none. As such, his recognition means something. Similarly, the Black Belt Hall of Fame means something because it represents satisfied readers who have read my articles, seen my approach, and found them relevant to their personal defense needs.

The greatest honor is knowing that you made a difference and that your efforts helped someone keep himself and his family safer. With that in mind, I am very proud to be a member of the Black Belt Hall of Fame.

Stay safe,

Mike

Martial Blade Camp 2010: A Turning Point in MBC Training Methodology

2010-09-13T09:14:00.003-06:00

The weekend of 27-30 August 2010 marked the eighth annual Martial Blade Camp. In addition to being the largest and best-attended event in the camp’s history (48 attendees), it also marked a distinct change in the way that I teach the MBC system.

When I first began teaching publicly in 1997, my teaching method was more traditional and much more drill-focused. After learning the basic mechanics of the system, students were taught the various reflex-training or “flow” drills of the system. This got them moving and introduced the four Defensive Responses (pass, follow, meet, and crossada) of the system in a structured format. That structured format also taught students the sequences of angles that they would ultimately use to execute actual defensive technique.

Once everyone was doing the drills well enough (an accomplishment that varied considerably from group to group), I showed them how to “dissect” the drills and draw combative application from the sequences of angles they had learned. This “wax-on, wax-off” (or as we now call it, “wax-on, whack-off”) followed the traditional learning methodology in which the student is required to do something that he doesn’t really understand until he has earned the right to learn what it really is.

While the traditional method did help weed out folks who were not motivated to train or were training for the wrong reasons, after teaching that way for a number of years, I realized that it was not the most effective way to instill combative skill. When I would watch students at the end of a seminar, invariably the things they remembered best (and the ones they worked hardest to remember) were the practical, concrete applications of techniques. If they were paying attention, they also understood—at least to a degree—the concepts that made those techniques work.

After reflecting on this for a while, I began to experiment with changing my teaching methodology to emphasize realistic technique and the compelling logic behind that technique. I also put the technique into context with regard to the real purpose of MBC—modern personal defense—and the realities of knife carry, blade length, the true performance potential of typical carry knives, and the goal of achieving stopping power. As I refined the presentation, I also moves away from the traditional method of teaching the defenses against various angles in numerical order and focused on commonality of body mechanics and the underlying concepts of the tactics.

At this year’s camp, I focused heavily on the logic of MBC right up front to get everyone to “wrap their brains around the concepts.” I punctuated that with cutting demonstrations that immediately validated the performance of small, legal knives to get everyone to understand the real destructive potential they had on their side. From there, we spent just enough solo time to learn the basic angles and movement patterns of the system before we immediately put them to use in practical applications.

From the “master technique” of the system, we reinforced our understanding of target priorities and developed the total-body mechanics necessary to be effective with a knife. We then learned how to “deconstruct” that technique do discover other Defensive Responses contained within its structure and to understand how to “lower our standards” when the dynamics of an encounter require it.

By the end of Saturday’s training, a number of first-time students, veteran students, and MBC instructors approached me to comment on the methodology. To put it simply, they had never seen so many novice students progress so quickly in such a short period of time. Just as importantly, the veterans and instructors all felt that they had increased their own personal understanding of the system, even though they were technically “reviewing” material they already knew.

My presentation of Counter-Blade Concepts (CBC) followed the same evolutionary format. After teaching the CBC curriculum to a large number of law enforcement officers over the past few years, I have streamlined it to present the most useful skills first. Using them as a template to present the underlying concepts and physical structures of the techniques, we then branch to other techniques that share the same structures and basic mechanics. The order of presentation of technique is not numerical, but is based on the commonality of the attacks. As such, we spend most of our training time preparing for the attacks that are most likely to occur.

Again, the response to the methodology was overwhelmingly positive—especially from the law enforcement and correctional officers who attended the camp. They not only felt that the tactics themselves were much more practical and functional than the ones they had learned, they were also confident that they could retain and apply them more readily due to the common concepts and mechanics they shared.

Does that mean the training drills that used to be the focus of the system have been abandoned? Definitely not. Those drills are still a critical part of the training method in that they provide the scalable, adrenal-stress-inducing method of refining specific skills and developing spontaneous reflex (through transitions). The height of this skill was demonstrated at camp during the instructor testing process and is still a critical part of what we do. However, we now introduce it later--along with the refined logic that supports it as a training method.

MBC is all about giving good people the knowledge and skill they need to keep themselves and their families safe. When it comes to achieving that with a minimum of training time, I’m confident that our current methods are among the best available today. Ask any of the Martial Blade Camp 2010 participants and I’m sure they’ll agree.

Stay safe,

Mike

P.S. If you're interested in the methodology described above, your best reference is the DVD Martial Blade Concepts: The Enhanced Course from Stay Safe Media. It presents the logic of the MBC system in a concise, compelling way and builds a strong foundation of knowledge and skill in a very tight format. While not perfect, compared to the presentation in my aging Fighting Folders video, it is a much more effective learning resource.

Martial Analysis: Learning at All Costs

2010-08-05T11:32:00.002-06:00

One of the unfortunate phenomena that have plagued the traditional martial arts has been the obsession with secrecy. I understand and appreciate the need to present sensitive, potentially deadly information to students in a responsible manner. If a student is not mature enough to be trusted with certain information because he might use it without proper restraint, that makes perfect sense.
I also understand that historically many techniques were kept secret to preserve the tactical advantage (real or perceived) of one art over a rival system. That also makes sense.

However, passing on a system—or a purposeful subset of a system—and leading a student to believe that he has received the entire package when he really hasn’t doesn’t make sense. And when that “tradition” is formalized, you’ve got a recipe for misunderstanding and misinformation.

The process of withholding information has, over time, seriously diluted some martial arts. In simple terms, the arts were passed down without the “secrets,” so the knowledge base of the senior practitioners and legacy holders of the systems has become institutionally incomplete. Even though they might be performing the physical techniques of the system properly, the deeper meaning, underlying structure, and core concepts that power those techniques has been lost. In many cases, instructors will “parrot” key phrases that they heard during their training without having the ability to explain the meaning of those phrases. These phrases hint at the deeper understanding that should be part of the system, but when the students press for an explanation, there is no substance to deliver.

One excellent example of this is the triangular footwork of Indonesian pencak silat. When I first saw really good silat in action, I was blown away by the dynamic use of angles and leverages. Skilled practitioners—even those of smaller stature—used their power and the drive of their entire bodies, as well as a highly tuned sense of angles, to quickly off-balance their opponents in ways that seemed magical.

As I looked deeper into silat and had the opportunity to befriend a number of senior practitioners, I asked them about the angles and leverages of the systems and the concepts behind them. I also began compiling a library of instructional videos on the silat family of arts to try to quantify the principles that made them so effective. Despite my efforts to understand what made silat’s angles “tick,” I could not find a clear, logical explanation.

I had noticed a phenomenon in the silat community that, in many cases, its best instructors were not the senior lineage holders from the art’s motherland, but the second-generation Americans who had invested years of study to codify the non-linear teachings of their instructors. I had the good fortune of working with people like Stevan Plinck, Bob Orlando, and, most closely, Joseph Simonet, and seeing how they had absorbed, distilled, and organized the material they had learned. Over time, I also had the ability to compare their teaching methodology with that of their traditional instructors—mostly through Joseph Simonet’s extensive video library of “closed door” silat training sessions. Although it was clear that these highly skilled second-generation practitioners had achieved a quantum leap in the organization of their teaching, the real details of the silat triangle, or tiga, still were not clear.

During my military career, I worked in the signals intelligence field as a linguist and transcriber. I also earned a secondary MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) as an intelligence analyst and worked in that capacity for several years at the National Security Agency (NSA). That experience taught me a lot about the analytical process—how to take seemingly disjointed and unrelated bits of information and correlate them. Over time, that process allows you to identify patterns and relationships. And ultimately, it enables you to identify organizational structures, understand how and why things really work, and project that understanding into something useful.

Since my ability to learn what I wanted from the teaching of others had hit a wall, I decided it was time to learn by analysis of what they were doing. I began with my best resource, Joseph Simonet, with whom I worked closely when I served as Paladin Press’ Video Production Manager. In Joseph’s expression of silat, he used a footwork platform called a pantjar that consisted of a series of geometric patterns characterized by 45 and 90-degree angles. The pantjar also had an equilateral triangle with bisecting lines (tiga) attached to one end and a square (sliwa) at the other end. Joseph explained that the pantjar was the foundation of all silat footwork and angles and the secret of its effectiveness. However, he also faithfully repeated a key phrase taught by his instructor: that “everything learned on the pantjar ultimately ended up on the tiga. The triangle was the secret of silat footwork.”

Joseph is incredibly talented and physically very strong. When he demonstrated techniques using the angles of the pantjar for reference, he had no problem making them “work.” However, when his partner Addy Hernandez, who is also extremely skilled but had less physical strength, tried the same techniques with the same angles, they were much less effective.

When I compared the angles of the pantjar to the angles of movement of other skilled silat practitioners—particularly Paul deThouars and the legendary Dan Inosanto—I noticed a subtle but very significant difference. Rather than 45 and 90-degree angles, their movements seemed to follow more acute angles—like 30s and 60’s. Their techniques were extremely polished and appeared almost effortless. Although much of that was certainly due to the masterful levels of skill they developed over a lifetime of practice, I was convinced that a significant part of their ability was also based on the fact that their methods—based on their angles—were structurally superior. They were fighting smarter because they were applying the “secrets” and, in the process, lending credence to the phrase that the tiga was the key to silat.

I shared some of my insights with Joseph and he was surprised that I was able to draw so much from my observations and analysis. Intrigued by my analytical process, Joseph gave me access to his entire silat video collection, which included dozens of tapes containing rare archival footage and obscure video of noted silat players. Ultimately, I made copies of all the videos for myself and numbered the titles for reference. Every week for nearly a year, Joseph and I would each watch one of the videos, analyze it, and take notes (actually, I did all the note taking; Joseph mostly offered his comments). Every Sunday morning, I called him and we “debriefed” the video. He shared his comments and I offered my analysis. After about a year, we had worked our way through his entire library and the other silat videos I had purchased. Through that process, I formulated my personal analysis of silat’s triangular footwork and the principles that powered it.

Based on my analysis, I debunked the commonly taught concept of off-balancing a person by simply drawing a line between his feet and applying pressure on a vector that is perpendicular to that line. Although he will lose his balance, he will not fall down. Instead, he steps to compensate and “catch” his balance. I refer to this as “putting your opponent on the triangle.” There are several other ways of doing this, including weighting him, spreading his base, and applying foot traps.

Understanding where your opponent’s feet will end up once he’s “on the triangle,” learning how to put him there effectively, and having technique that immediately takes advantage of that weakness collectively constitute half the secret of the secret of the silat triangle.

The other half of the equation is “using the triangle,” which is a logical, quantifiable process of using angles, vectors, and footwork to off-balance and throw an opponent with great force, while ensuring the opportunity for an immediate and fight-ending follow-up on the ground. This process also reveals the principles of using the tiga on a vertical plane as a template for applying pressure in three dimensions to decisively control and throw an opponent.

Whether my analytical process “rediscovered” any secrets of traditional silat or not is a matter of opinion. Traditional silat stylists will claim that it’s been there all along (I agree) and that they’ve been teaching it that way forever (not so much). Others will simply dismiss my approach as uninformed conjecture. That’s fine too. Now that I’ve had the opportunity to apply the concepts identified in my analysis over several years of training, I know that when I do it properly, people fall down. When I teach it logically, my students understand it and they make people fall down. If someone doesn’t believe our approach is valid, ask the guys on the ground.

The best way to learn is obviously with the guidance of a skilled instructor who has thorough knowledge and understanding of the topic and the ability to present that information in a logical, progressive manner. Sadly, the structure of the traditional martial arts and the egos of some instructors do not always support that process. When that happens, the power to learn lies in your desire to learn and your willingness to analyze and make sense of what you see.

For those curious about learning more about the silat triangle and my “take” on it, I have quantified the information gained through my analysis and documented it in my instructional DVD Practical Unarmed Combatives: Volume 3 from Stay Safe Media. That DVD has already found an audience with silat practitioners around the world and the feedback I have received on it has been overwhelmingly positive. Does that DVD teach “secrets?” That’s a matter of opinion. What it does do is teach and demonstrate extremely effectively, sharing information openly and allowing the viewer to learn and understand the material very readily—just the way a good instructor should.

Stay safe,

Mike

When and Why to Change

2010-06-25T12:19:00.002-06:00

Since my last blog entry, I’ve had the opportunity to train some very motivated students, including a group of law enforcement officers in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (thanks to my good friend and MBC proponent Sean Carter) and the training officer for the UN peacekeeping forces in the Ivory Coast. In both instances, the students had taken the time to study my instructional DVDs prior to the training to develop an intellectual understanding of the material and its logic before tackling the physical training. Some of the Canadian officers had also trained with me previously and already had a strong foundation in the MBC/CBC method.
The second-most-interesting feedback I received from these students, who were focusing primarily on the CBC curriculum, was their recognition that some of the techniques I was now teaching were different than those shown in the videos and even different than what I taught last year. Although the concepts and fundamental principles of the system remained unchanged, the way they were expressed and the recommended “go-to” tactics had changed.
Logically, the first question asked was “Have you changed the way you do ____?” And, to their credit as MBC/CBC students, the next question posed was “Why?” In all cases, the answers to these two questions were exactly the same: “Yes” and “Because it’s easier for a beginner to learn and apply with a lower level of skill.”
In previous blog posts, I’ve addressed the fact that MBC/CBC are, by design, living, evolving systems that should change with time. The reason they should change is that my students and I continue to learn and expand our understanding of the skills we have now. We also strive to adapt those skills to new situations and emerging threats, a process that often serves as a catalyst for evolution and change.
The best reason for changing something, however, is when that new, improved version empowers students to become more capable sooner and with less training. When I teach, I actively look for student responses to my instruction. When the light bulbs go off and people “get it” quickly and reliably, I know that the material and my presentation are on target. When I get the puzzled, “mouth-breather” looks, I go back to the drawing board until I get it right—or at least “righter.”
For advanced students and folks who have already invested training time in the previous versions of the technique, the important thing to understand is that the new version doesn’t negate the old version; it just makes more sense as the first line of defense. If you can do a technique well, at speed, and under stress and make it work consistently, it works. It makes no sense to take that away from you when it is a reliable asset.
As a practitioner, adding the newer, simplified technique to your arsenal could still be a very good thing. Sure, it keeps your training fresh and gives you new material, but more importantly forces you to evaluate what works best for you. As always, it’s your ass on the line, so you must have confidence in the “go-to” techniques that you trust to defend your life.
Instructors have it a bit tougher. We have to know it all, have the capability to do it all, and have the ability to explain the “what” and “why” to the different students and audiences we serve. At that level, institutional knowledge of the entire system is a requirement. However, the ultimate goal for the students we serve is still to give them skills that fit their needs, their body types, and their physical attributes while maximizing their chances of surviving a critical incident. Again, if it works for you and you can make it work consistently under pressure, it works.
When should you change? When the “why” makes sense to you and fits your personal needs and physical attributes. When something is more logical than what you’re doing now, provides greater flexibility and efficiency, and allows you to do more with less, it’s time to evolve. If what you’re doing works for you and you don't have any gaping holes in your skill set, that’s fine. As we say in MBC, “It’s not wrong; it’s different.”
How liberating is that?

Stay safe,

Mike

P.S. If you were reading carefully, you may have noticed that I mentioned the “second-most-interesting” feedback. So what was the most interesting? According to my Canadian host, two of his students—one law enforcement officer and one civilian—had successfully applied CBC tactics since my visit last year. In both cases, he credited their survival to the sound principles and concepts of CBC training. As founder and lead instructor of the system, I couldn’t be more honored or grateful to hear that news.

"Technical Sparring" Defined

2010-06-01T12:36:00.003-06:00

In a previous blog entry, I discussed the advantages and disadvantages of sparring as it applies to self-defense. Based on that post, I received the following question:

"Could you expand on the explanation,definition and how to perform what you referred to as 'Technical Sparring.'

"Technical sparring" is a term used by the first martial art I studied, American Self-Protection or ASP. ASP was a modern martial art that drew from the principles of the arts studied by its founder, Evan S. Baltazzi. Those arts included aikido, judo, Savate, and boxing. The art was highly structured and followed a progression of belt ranks. Each rank progression involved learning a series of self-defense techniques and demonstrating higher levels of proficiency in other skill sets.

In addition to practicing the techniques with an individual partner, ASP also incorporated a more dynamic method of training called "technical sparring." At its basic level, this consisted of a "monkey in the middle" style of technique practice. One person would get in the middle of the mat, surrounded by the rest of the class. Based on that person's level of knowledge and experience, the other class members would attack one by one to allow the "monkey" to practice his/her techniques in a random manner.

Initially, this process was very controlled to allow the monkey time to recognize and react to the attacks, which were thrown from predictable angles. As a student got more experienced, the intensity of the attacks increased, the interval between each attack decreased, and the angles of attack got more dynamic. Since the techniques for higher level belts included defenses against various weapons, the introduction of training knives, sticks, and guns also increased the stress. While beginners might spend three minutes in the middle, advanced students were required to go for 5-10 minutes per session.

As the tempo and dynamics of the method increased, we also began to "free form" a bit, incorporating attacks outside the rote technique of the system, having 2-3 attackers close simultaneously, and attacking with weapons other than those typically included in the standard techniques of the art. We also took cheap shots. If the monkey fell down, we'd close in and kick or try to mount. Ultimately, it became a pretty realistic, very intense training method that was very challenging and, by nature, incorporated many elements of defending against multiple attackers.

Why was/is technical sparring good? First of all, it evokes an adrenalized state more readily than training with a single partner. Performance anxiety is high, as is the level of physical exertion. That makes for good training.

Secondly, it provides a random, reasonably unpredictable series of stimuli that force you to respond reflexively. Since you don't know that you're practicing a defense against a right punch until the punch is coming, you have to react, not just "do" a technique that you know your partner will throw.

Most importantly, the technical sparring format forces you to finish every clash like an individual fight and then immediately prepare for another attack. Unlike the interminable game of tag of competitive sparring, you get out of the habit of "hit and assess" and focus on "hit and finish." That doesn't mean you can't get "proactive" and preempt an attack--you certainly can. However, everything you do is focused on taking your attacker(s) out of the fight decisively, not scoring points.

Technical sparring is a very cool training method. It takes discipline and control on both sides of the equation to make it work, but it's certainly worth adding to your training regimen.

Stay safe,

Mike

Sparring and Self-Defense Training

2010-04-06T13:14:00.002-06:00

I recently received a question from an aspiring MBC student regarding the lack of traditional sparring in the MBC training methodology. I thought that question would make good fodder for a blog post, so I’ve taken my personal response to him and expanded it a bit to address the topic in greater detail.

First of all, I feel that sparring does have value and I come from a martial arts background that included a lot of it. For many years, I did the traditional “touch-gloves-then-beat-the-snot-out-of-each-other” approach. Depending upon the mood, my level of trust in my sparring partner, and our training goals, contact would range from medium to hard. Like most such training, we sparred in open areas with plenty of room to move. If we were on mats (and sometimes even when not), clinches, throws, and follow-up grappling we fair game.

Although it was fun and helped a lot with timing and footwork, as my training focus shifted from “martial arts” to self-defense, I found sparring less and less relevant. On the positive side, there is no substitute for the experience of hitting a moving opponent and getting hit and fighting through it. However, the negatives I saw were significant:

1) It encouraged the idea of “mutual combat” that was far removed from the reality of self-defense.
2) It encouraged the use of techniques that work well in a sparring environment, but are impractical on the street—like kicking above the waist.
3) It promoted the habit of backing off and using footwork and mobility to avoid clashes—something that is often not possible in the context and real-world environments of self-defense situations.
4) Unless you were throwing very hard, it really fostered the “game of tag” approach.
5) Even with an open-minded approach, there were still too many rules to make it realistic. As such, you rarely practiced your most practical, effective techniques because you can’t actually do them on a partner.
6) Again, unless you’re throwing full power and going for a knockout, you never practice finishing a fight.

The real turning point for me was attending a class taught by my friend Bill Kipp (FAST Defense) that included "Bullet Man" training. The students in the class included a variety of skill levels, from novice all the way up to long-time martial artists. Bill is exceptionally good at "woofing" and screwing with you verbally and mentally to get your adrenaline going before the physical stuff happens. The Bullet Man suit also removes the facial recognition, so even though you "know" him, it's still a very realistic experience. Basically, he gets inside your head until your adrenaline is up, then he attacks. Your job is to defend yourself and land a few fight-stopping hits. Bill's job is not to stop until he feels hits that would be likely to stop a real attacker.

The novices in the class did great. They only knew a few basic techniques and went balls-out to make the most of them. Interestingly, most of the seasoned martial artists reverted to a sparring mentality—at least initially. Rather than engaging and staying there until the fight was done, they fell back on what they knew best: hit-and-run sparring. After a few scenarios, most of them broke the habit and finished the fight (with the help of the rest of us penning them in and making it impossible for them to back away). However, a few of them could not break the sparring habit. When faced with a committed attack, they'd hit a couple times and immediately back off into sparring mode. They never landed any telling blows or got past the game of tag.

Although I've sparred since then, I do it with a very different mindset. Whenever possible, my students and I focus on clear roles of attacker and defender, rather than mutual competition. That way it stays relevant to actual self-defense and you focus on doing what’s appropriate in that situation. We also regard every "clash" as a fight and try not to dance too much to avoid clashing.

Our favorite form of "sparring" is what ASP (American Self Protection--the first system I ever studied) called "technical sparring." It's basically "monkey-in-the-middle" technique sparring that gets more and more fluid as people get more experienced. It reinforces the idea of "finishing" every clash and is a great primer for multiple-attacker situations.

The biggest problem with sparring, in my opinion, is that most people--and instructors--don't approach it with a clear purpose. Activity is not progress and getting on the mat to blindly throw leather as a rite of passage is at best a means of developing cardio and pain tolerance. It doesn’t necessarily teach any skill.

Boxers and MMA fighters will spar to develop and refine specific skills. For example, a good boxer may only jab for an entire round to hone that skill--regardless of what the other guy throws. This is very different from the folks who use unstructured sparring as an ego trip and an excuse for having no real functional technique or tactics.

Does this aversion to traditional sparring mean that MBC (and our related skill sets) doesn't have offensive technique? Absolutely not. We also have and practice offensive and preemptive skills. However, we still put them into a personal-protection context, not arbitrary mutual combat.

Stay safe,

Mike

Evolution--A Good Thing

2010-02-09T13:31:00.002-07:00

One of the quotes that I came up with several years ago that has since become a favorite is: "The greatest qualification that many martial arts 'founders' have is that they're dead and don't have to answer questions anymore." As irreverent as that may sound, there's a lot of truth to it.

First of all, let me make it clear that I have great respect for traditional martial arts and those who practice them. After all, a person can train in the martial arts for many reasons: fitness, flexibility, social activity, sport, cross-cultural experience, and self-defense. A good traditional martial art taught by an insightful instructor can typically satisfy most, if not all, of those goals. However, when it comes to pure self-defense and fighting skill, traditional martial arts are usually not the most efficient path to the goal.

Let's think about it logically. First of all, ALL martial arts were developed by someone. In many cases, that "someone" had trained in some other art and then decided to change or combine the elements that he had learned to make his method better (or at least different). If we accept that truth, the concept of "mixed martial arts" actually becomes old hat. More importantly, we begin to understand that exploring, understanding, and redefining the most efficient and effective ways to fight is a never ending process--just as it should be.

However, if we put this into the context of the traditional martial arts, there is a serious disconnect. Let's say that some guy develops a martial art, gives it a name, and attracts a bunch of students. While he's alive, he continues to practice, train, think, and innovate and keeps the art and its evolution alive. His students love it and grow with the art and its instructor. Then, he dies. At that point, the students decide to "honor" him by documenting his teachings and his system. They focus on codifying everything he said and institutionalizing it. If they disagree (as they usually will), some students break off and start their own schools with their own interpretation of their teacher's system.

If you study the martial arts to experience or preserve a culture, all that is fine. If in the process, you learn some usable self-defense technique, even better. However, you must realize that what is lost by this process is the teacher's original spirit of and commitment to growth, learning, and evolution.

Let's face it, people have been kicking each other's asses for a long time. It's highly unlikely that you will develop a proprietary, never-before-seen method of ass kicking that someone else hasn't done before. That's fine. What you can develop and refine, however, is the method of teaching that technique, training that technique, or applying that technique to situations beyond its original scope. That's the kind of growth and evolution that all arts--and all practitioners--need.

As I write this, my good friend Mike Rigg has just completed the editing of Martial Blade Concepts--The Enhanced Version. This DVD is a revamped version of the original title, featuring about 50% more material. Why? Because since I shot and edited the original version, I have continued to learn and evolve. I have also had the benefit of feedback from hundreds of students who have trained with me and viewed the original version of that video. I am very happy to say that the vast majority of that feedback was positive. What they felt was missing, however, was an explanation of how that material related to my other DVDs (like the Fighting Folders series) and instruction on methods that they could use to train without a partner. The core information and material was still good. The overall scope needed to be more complete. So we made it evolve to meet the needs.

If the "art" (or my ego) were more important than serving the needs of my students, I could have left it the way it was. If I was lazy, complacent, and self-important, I also could have settled for the old version. Either way, I lose and my students lose.

Believe me, it's tough teaching an experienced student and telling him"I don't do it that way anymore." However, as long as you follow that statement with "I do it this way now because ____ works better," you're good. In fact, you're better than good--you've evolved.

Another famous MBC saying is: "The more you learn, the less you know." Strive for understanding. Relate the things you know and find the common ground between them. Then apply those skills to as many different situational problems as you can and adapt your training to be functional in those situations. That's the kind of martial arts legacy I'd like to leave when my time is up.

Stay safe,

Mike

P.S. As you can tell from the lapse between posts, I am not a "bloggy" kinda guy. The idea of pontificating just to be saying/typing something doesn't make sense. However, based on feedback from people who've read this blog, I realize that it is providing a service and folks seem to like what I'm sharing. As such, I'll try to be more regular in my posts.

P.P.S. Martial Blade Concepts--The Enhanced Version is on the shelf now and available exclusively from Stay Safe Media at www.staysafemedia.com.

Putting the Pieces Together

2009-11-17T11:53:00.002-07:00

Last week I taught a two-day course in Germany. It was a law-enforcement-only course and consisted of one day of handgun tactics and one day of basic MBC skills.

For those of you who have not seen my approach to handgun tactics, it is based on a foundation of understanding and accepting the concepts of point shooting as taught by the late Col. Rex Applegate, one of my mentors. Based on those fundamental concepts and additional skills and principles I learned from other close-combat greats like the late Jim Cirillo, I then analyze the advantages and disadvantages of Col. Applegate's traditional approach and create a system that retains the core understanding of point shooting while putting it into perspective with modern methods.

One element that the Germans were very surprised to see was my emphasis on a close-quarter guard position as a default during the draw. I cited the FBI statistics as far as the distances involved in typical gunfights, took a poll of the right-handed folks in the room (100% of a group of about 16), and explained that guarding the most likely target of a right-handed attacker (your zone 1) made a lot of sense. After giving them a live-fire taste of the traditional Fairbairn and Applegate methods, we worked through a series of drills that started with two-handed shooting from the Isosceles (to establish a comfort level), progressed through the shortened Isosceles (Jim Cirillo's "Geometric Point"), and finally to contact-distance shooting from the Guard/Retention Position. All shooting was done with the sights taped over. Although from a practical standpoint the progression should have gone the other way, since most German shooters do not spend much time shooting one handed and few of them ever shot from a retention position, I worked the other way for safety reasons.

After everyone understood my preferred flow of guard-draw-retention position-shortened iosceles-extended isosceles, we pulled out the blue guns and worked on both proactive and reactive weapon retention, emphasizing the function of the left arm as a guard and lever and the importance of turning the body as a unit to maintain muzzle discipline and maximize power. This was a first for most of them and they enjoyed it a lot. I also taught them some basic Counter-Blade Concepts (CBC) knife defenses and showed them how an initial empty-hand response should create an opportunity for drawing and shooting the handgun.

With all the building blocks in place, we then went back up to the line and put the pieces together. Since all the targets were mounted on the wall, there was no opportunity to use free-standing target stands for dynamic shooting at different distances. We also did not have the equipment for force-on-force drills. As such, we focused on combining the concepts of the blue-gun work with live-fire shooting. For example, a shooter would start at 90 degrees to the target, right shoulder facing it. On the "knife" command, he would simulate low-line hubud against a low angle 5 thrust, pivot to face the target, guard, draw,and shoot. Similarly, we practiced proactive defenses against attempted gun grabs, withdrawing from an extended-arms position to a weapon-retention position, turning to simulate a deflection or lever, and then turning back square to the target to fire. We combined this with simultaneous backward movement and extension of the arms to a full isosceles.

The primary form of feedback that I received on that day of training was that, for many of them, it was the first time they had done any contact-distance work. Those that had worked from contact distance before had never put together the solo practice of empty-hand movements with live-fire training. They were amazed with how much they got out of that process.

As I've mentioned in previous blogs, I get a lot of questions about solo training. Many people claim that they cannot train effectively because they don't have a partner. Many shooters also spend hours at the range and hundreds of dollars in ammo punching holes in paper without any realistic training benefit. ALL training starts with solo training. Identify your skill sets--from verbal commands through empty-hand tactics through less-lethal weapons and up to the use of firearms. Then create plausible scenarios in your head and figure out how to replicate them with the resources you have available.

Another great example of this concept that I included in a recent video shoot for "The Best Defense Season 2" was transition from a cane to a handgun. If you walk with/carry a cane, it is very likely to be your "go to" weapon. It may, however, not be enough to finish the fight. The next time you go to the range, set up a sturdy free-standing target and go through your cane technique, finishing with the knee/shin strike as taught in Martial Cane Concepts. Then, transition to drawing and shooting your pistol to incorporate the live-fire portion of your training. Transitioning from an improvised weapon (i.e. pen, kubotan, OC, or even a knife) can be done the same way.

If you're not at the range, focus on the hitting part of your initial response and then practice drawing a blue gun, airsoft, or even your gun equipped with a training barrel or snap caps.

In short, put the pieces together. Most organized training focuses on developing specific skill sets in isolation. Real situations aren't that clinical, so it's up to you to build strong bridges between your skills. Done properly, it also breathes new life into your training and enables you to make some quantum leaps in your skills by challenging yourself to perform dynamically.

Final word: When you make a mistake (not if; when), don't stop or start over to get it "right." Finish it. Even if the result is an ugly, half-assed goat-fuck of a technique, finish it. That will train you to finish it when you need to on the street.

Stay safe,

Mike

How Much is Too Much?

2009-10-21T12:11:00.001-06:00

Since I taught my first public seminar in 1997, Martial Blade Concepts (MBC) and all the other parallel curricula I practice (empty-hand tactics, counter-weapon, stick, handgun, etc.) have evolved significantly—as they should. As I continue to learn and get exposed to new things, my approach to tactics changes. As my body changes with age, my tactics change as well. And, most importantly, as my understanding of what works, why it works, and how to make it work best grows and deepens, my tactics change.

Generally speaking, the changes that have occurred have been toward a more simplified, outcome-based approach that provides usable skills in the shortest possible time. The ability to trust and have confidence in a more finite skill set is fueled by a deeper understanding, as well as the communication skills to convey the logic of the system efficiently to allow others to share in that deeper understanding. Following the theme and explaining that in simpler terms, the message has gotten clearer and I’ve gotten better at conveying it.

So, with all that in mind, what should you focus on in your training? How much is too much? And when do I know when my “tool box” is full enough? To be honest, the only one who can answer those questions is you; however, the means for answering them is pretty straightforward: challenge yourself and be honest with your answers.

Let’s say you’ve done some training in the MBC curriculum—especially the curriculum as it is reflected in the most up-to-date expression of the system: the Martial Blade Concepts DVD. You know that the basic logic of the system is based on the concept of four Defensive Responses for four Zones of Defense, or 16 basic techniques. However, as explained in the video, the “go-to” tactics are more finite than that. They focus on passes or crossadas for angles 1 and 3 (assuming a right-handed attacker) and meets for 2 and 4. As such, that’s the way you practice and that’s where you choose to stop. When your training partner swings an angle 1 cut with a training knife, your crossada and your follow-up responses are swift, accurate, and reflect diligent training. That’s good.

To determine whether it’s good enough, put your training into context. Instead of a training knife, have your partner swing a padded stick about two feet long. Instead of the middle of the floor, put your back against the wall and then have him swing. Suddenly the world changes and your preferred response is no longer appropriate to the situation at hand. Quite literally, you don’t have enough tools in your toolbox.

This is a healthy and necessary process and one that we should all do regularly. It is more sensible and relevant than just amassing more tools.

Since the toolbox analogy is well known and widely understood, let’s expand upon that and look at another MBC concept: “Have a plan, and work your plan.” What that means is that, as much as possible, you want to have simple, multi-functional sequences of motion that—powered by an exceptional understanding of their physiological potential—can do many different things. Through training, you take a single sequence or a single technique and explore all the different things it can do in the broadest possible range of circumstances. You learn to use it defensively, offensively, against left handers, against right handers, on your feet, on your back, etc. Following the tool theme, you make your technique a Crescent wrench instead of a socket set. That way, no matter what sized “nut” you’re up against, you’ve got an appropriate tool for the job.

With all that said, there are some “one-off” techniques that are so good they belong in your toolbox—even if they disrupt the elegant logic of Four Defensive Responses/Four Zones of Defense. A perfect example is the Split-X defense against a low angle 5 thrust. It is an incredibly functional technique against a very common and exceedingly dangerous attack. Few tactics can equal its structure or function, so it remains an important skill in the MBC/CBC system. However, it is a skill that I chose to focus on only after having determined that the rest of the core skill set didn’t provide as good an answer.

More is not always better. As the saying goes, “You will fight the way you train.” As such, focus your training on the skills that will best serve you in a fight. Then validate those skills in realistic contexts. If they come up short, fill in the blanks with carefully chosen tools that provide as many additional functions as possible.

Train hard, stay safe.

Mike

I'm Back--Solo Training

2009-10-02T13:22:00.000-06:00

First of all, I’d like to apologize for not posting in a while. Life has taken some interesting turns in the past few months and my priorities changed pretty radically. Although it’s a long story best told over many drinks (which stories aren’t?), in short, I pursued a business opportunity in the knife industry. In the process, I was betrayed and ended up losing two jobs within 2-1/2 weeks.

What does all that have to do with training? Well, while scrambling to adapt to the changes, there wasn’t much time for training—especially with my normal group of private students. To keep my head in the game, I played the game in my head. In other words, I used visualization and solo training as my primary form of practice.

In its basic form, solo training means doing the same things you’d do with a partner, but without a partner. I know that sounds pretty obvious, but it’s really that simple. If you’ve done any partner training, you have a base of experience to draw from. You know what an attack looks like coming in and you have a first-person reference as to what you did to react to it. Using that knowledge, your job is to create a vivid, realistic stimulus through visualization that replicates that experience with a partner.

The key to making this process work is developing a true understanding of the mechanics of your technique and relating them to your partner/attacker’s position. For example, let’s consider the first basic defense I teach in MBC: a pass against angle 1 attack. When your partner attacks with an angle 1 (let’s assume it’s right handed, so a high, right-handed forehand attack), your first response is to move back out of range by sliding your left foot back, then your right (again, assuming you’re right handed and in a right lead). As you do that, you should also counter by cutting with your own angle 1 to the inside of his wrist/forearm. His arm will continue past and your knife hand will also cross your centerline.

You are now looking at the back of his arm with your knife chambered for a backhand cut—either an angle 2 or 4. Slide your right foot forward to close the distance again and turn your hips and shoulders to your right. This will power a backhand cut to his triceps and, as you continue to rotate to your right, a check to the back of his arm with the back of your left forearm. Since your arm is short when it’s bent, you’ll need to close the distance further to make that check work, so as you extend it, step forward with your left foot, putting your whole body behind the check.

You are now chambered for a forehand angle 3. Step to your left with your left foot as you thrust low into the inside of his thigh. Drop your right elbow to your ribs to turn your hand palm up—the comma cut—and then rotate your hips to your left as you walk forward with your right foot.

If you were able to read and follow all that, you can also replicate the movements in solo training. First, isolate the footwork and practice it. Slide your left foot back, then your right to evade. Slide your right foot forward to close the distance, and then step forward with your left to close even further. Step out (to about 10 o’clock) with your left and then walk forward on that line with your right.

Work the footwork flow until it feels comfortable, and then add the cuts into it. Cut with a forehand angle 1 as you slide back, a backhand 2 as you slide forward, check with the left forearm as you step with your left foot, then step out with your left foot and thrust with the angle 3 to the thigh.

Once you have the basic mechanics integrated with the footwork, really visualize the targets you’re cutting and try to feel the cuts as part of your motion. Then, when everything is moving well together, visualize a faster, more intense attack and respond appropriately, upping the intensity of your movement to match.

Practice your solo responses to a specific angle until they become fluid. Then work on a different angle and build your skills the same way. Once you’ve worked through all the angles, imagine random attacks coming in at you and practice expressing your skills in a non-linear format. Anticipate likely follow-up attacks and chain your responses into combinations. Finally, imagine attacks from the flanks and learn to pivot and apply your skills in three dimensions.

Good solo practice keeps you training—even when you don’t have a partner—and it keeps your head in the game. It can also be both a therapeutic and empowering means of dealing with life’s stresses. When I was sitting across the table in negotiations with would-be employers who were actively breaking promises that affected me and my family, it was incredibly difficult NOT to jump out of the chair and do some “wall-to-wall counseling” on them. However, when I let my mind wander and considered the skills and the capability my training provides, I couldn’t help but smile. And the attitude behind that smile—that my hosts’ well-being was clearly contingent upon my restraint—enabled me to play the game better and ultimately win that battle.

So how did it all end up? Well, I am now very happy to be the Special Projects Coordinator for the Spyderco knife company of Golden, CO. I have carried and trusted Spyderco products for years and I am both proud and grateful to be a formal member of the Spyderco family. I am also relieved to know that I’m investing my personal integrity in a company that deserves it and shares the same commitment.

Train hard. Stay safe.

Mike

Combatives is Something You Do TO Someone

2009-05-26T12:15:00.002-06:00

Kelly McCann is one of the best instructors on the planet and I am extremely honored to have him as a friend. One of his most popular sayings is: "Martial arts is something you do WITH someone; combatives is something you do TO someone or ON someone." I've always liked that quote, but I never appreciated the brilliance of it until a recent seminar I taught up in Canada.

I was teaching a Counter-Blade Concepts (CBC--empty-hand vs. knife) seminar for a group that consisted exclusively of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, and security personnel. All of them were seasoned folks and many of them were defensive tactics instructors. A significant number of them were also experienced martial artists.

Everyone in the group was extremely motivated and trained very hard; however, I noticed that a number of them were having difficulty executing some of the techniques. In general, they commented that the techniques "weren't working" or that they couldn't get their partner into the right position to finish the technique. When I took a close look at what they were doing, I found that the vast majority of them were "working around" their partners. For example, if they were doing an armbar that would drive their partner into the prone position, they wer reaching up over the arm (leaving it in position) and trying to press down. Instead, they should have been pulling the arm down to a level where they were mechanically efficient and the "attacker" was off-balance. In simple terms, they were being too nice.

Once I realized what was happening, I explained the problem and took corrective action. First, I had everyone "walk through" the techniques, using a normal walking stride (our preferred footwork) to put full body weight and commitment into every technique. I also emphasized specific reference points for the completion of each technique or each phase of a technique. For example, an armbar is not an armbar until the attacker's wrist is anchored to your hip and your upper arm is vertical, applying pressure downward with your elbow.

Finally, I gave them specific "objectives" to achieve. Rather than taking someone to the ground with an armbar--a "generic" task--I told them to "touch the front of his shoulder to the mat." By picking specific points on the mat, I tuned their angles and soon they were dumping each other with ease--and great effect.

We are the good guys and will always be held to a higher standard. However, when someone has "defined the terms of our relationship" (one of my favorite quotes), you must play according to those terms--and play to win. Do what you need to do TO your attacker or ON your attacker and forget about the folks judging from behind a desk--and the ones who refuse to get off the couch.

Stay safe,

Mike

Big-Knife Training

2009-05-11T06:53:00.003-06:00

I recently did some private training for a couple of students interested in big-knife tactics. During that process, I revisited the thought process that helped make MBC what it is today--a system that focuses on practical carry knives and their real capabilities. However, I was also reminded of the benefits of playing with large blades and the training advantages they offer.

Since you will fight with what you carry, I still firmly believe that your training blades MUST replicate your actual carry blades as much as possible. I've seen some practitioners train with special rigs containing multiple foot-long aluminum trainers. As a martial art, that's fine if that's your thing. As a means of developing usable self-defense skill that translates to your actual carry knives, it's way off base.

By training with tools that replicate your carry knives, you can integrate all phases of your tactics into the training process--including initial empty-hand responses, draws, openings, and application of the blade with realistic tactics that are appropriate to the true capabilities of that knife (i.e. the "beheading" stroke with the Spyderco Delica won't work, no matter how cool it may seem). In my opinion, that's where the focus of your training should be.

However, that doesn't mean that big-knife stuff is all bad. Working with large knives does offer some significant benefits.

First of all, larger weapons force you to refine your angles of movement. With a small knife, you can be sloppy or imprecise and it's difficult to see. Big knives--especially barongs and machetes around 20-24 inches in length--really force you to focus on precise angles and the body mechanics necessary to support them. If the plane of motion of your arm and the plane of the blade do not coincide, you'll know it. To do that, and to swing a large knife effectively, you'll need to have good body mechanics and hip and shoulder rotation. Big blades bring that out and motivate you to tune those elements up, rather than just being lazy and swinging your arm.

Big blades also teach real edge awareness and wrist articulation. Anyone who really understands blade-to-blade contact (regardless of the flavor or origin) knows that you never want to hit edge to edge. Blocks should always be done with the flat or the back of the blade. To do that, you need to position your blade perfectly to make contact with the proper surface area. That skill takes the edge orientation you learn by cutting and refines it much further.

This skill set also transfers over to stick work. Many systems claim that their stick work "represents" edged-weapon work. They talk about the alignment of the knuckles and the fact that strikes with the stick represent cuts with a sword or similar weapon. That's great, until you start doing things like abaniko (fanning) strikes, which would focus exclusively on the sides of an edged weapon--unless you adjust your grip. Understanding the potential of the flats and back of a big knife is a tremendous advantage of large blade training and a skill set that separates real blade players from hobbyists. Once you can incorporate the use of the other blade surfaces as purposeful blocks, beats, and strikes, your skills and understanding will take a quantum leap. If you can't do that, you're stick fighting with a blade and your tactics will not effectively translate to an edged weapon.

If you really want to tune up your stick work, do all the same motions with a barong or similar style of training blade. Really try to maintain edge orientation for all your strikes. You'll find the wrist articulation and body mechanics necessary to do this will really tune up your stick work and make it much cleaner and more precise. This is another tremendous advantage of big-knife work in that it forces you to exercise extreme control in your motions--especially when working with a partner. Swinging an aluminum barong trainer around and making precise, light contact with a partner requires excellent skill and control. Without it, every touch is a ding or bruise (remember, your partner will eventually return the favor!). Go slowly, refine your skills and your control, and really feel what you're doing.

Once you've spent some time playing big knife, bring it back to reality and work with your carry knife again. Invariably you'll find that you'll be faster, smoother, and have better body mechanics. Like a baseball player swinging a weighted bat to warm up, the extra weight of the big knife serves as a form of resistance. Even if you never plan to carry or fight with a big knife, use it as a training method to make your small-knife skills even better.

Stay safe,

Mike

Welcome to the MBC Training Blog

2009-05-01T10:34:00.002-06:00

Welcome to the MBC training blog!

The purpose of this blog is to provide a resource through which I can share tips, insights, and suggestions regarding all training related to MBC, CBC, and the related disciplines I teach and practice. In particular, I will focus on sharing experiences that I have when training with my private students and seminar training partners with the goal of helping readers enhance their own training efforts.

I'm confident that you don't care what kind of breakfast cereal I ate this morning or whether I mowed my lawn or not, so I'm not going to make this a personal blog. When I have something to share that is relevant to training, I'll post it here. When I don't, I won't waste anyone's time.

My goal is to offer new information and insights every week; however, my travel schedule and other commitments will undoubtedly affect that. Be patient, however. Good things come to those who wait...

Stay safe,

Michael Janich