ARTICLE - REAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE

REAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE (The Nature of the Beast)

2001

Part 1

I know I’m going to offend someone, somewhere, with this article, so I’ll say sorry now! I realise that a lot of people train in ‘real combat’ systems, but (and here’s the thing) what is real combat and what do most people know about it?

Everyone knows about real combat training, yes? Maybe not, if we’re telling the truth. Real combat is a desperate, brutal and terrifying experience, mercifully unknown to most people. It cannot be accurately simulated unless the stakes are raised to unacceptable levels. It is not just about learning and drilling technique after technique, most truly effective fighters – the kind found in dark alleys, not training halls – have extremely limited technical repertoires. What is lacked in ‘expertise,’ is compensated for with numbers, surprise and viciousness. What can really prepare you for these factors? Experience certainly can, but are you ready for this kind of experience?

If you’ve never been there, don’t kid yourself, or others, that your ultra-system is going to do the business. Sorry, but until the risk is ‘real’ you’ll never know if your capabilities are. Fact. Nothing that hasn’t been stated before, but still it seems to me that plenty of people take too much for granted as far as real fighting is concerned. High stakes really put a new slant on personal performance, there is no room for failure – it’s not a rehearsal, second chances are never guaranteed.

Surely I don’t have to remind anyone what real failure is all about, but I’m going to do so anyway. Minor physical injuries, sustained during a real attack, can create deep and severe psychological wounds, these sometimes take the longest time to heal, if they ever do. While we’re on the subject, let’s not fool ourselves with the ‘minor injuries’ concept – real attackers don’t hold with it. They are going to do whatever they can to take you out, and then some for good measure, and then some more purely out of spite. Minor injuries? Not likely. Too many people underestimate the sustained ferocity of real attacks, the lengths that attackers are more than willing to go to, and the lack of assistance likely to be available to them at the time. Very rarely will anyone these days put his or her neck on the line for a stranger, when things really get messy.

I’m not trying to say that people won’t come to watch, but don’t count on them getting involved, at least not on your side anyway. Keep this unpleasant reality in mind, it is essential to train and mentally prepare for third-party attackers. Also, try to make sure that any witnesses are your witnesses, because should you prevail against the odds there may be an abundance of spectators keen to condemn your actions - you may have actually had to hurt someone! Such is the public’s ignorance regarding effective self-protection (minimum force tends to be interpreted as minimal force, and is still expected to work regardless!). Personally, I still prefer ‘judged by strangers’ over ‘carried by friends,’ however un-PC it may be. I must state in my defence that I’ve never actually been attacked or assaulted in a politically correct manner or in any way sanctioned by the European Court of Human Rights, to this date anyhow!

I really wish that I could deal with gangs and multiple attackers like in the manuals and movies; de-escalate, evade, block, restrain and the like. Unfortunately, I live and work in the real world and when it ‘goes off’, I try to get stuck in and level all concerned, then exit stage left. Not each and every time I assure you, but I’ve seen the result, and been on the receiving end, of group attacks too many times to have any misconceptions regarding how much force really is ‘minimum’ during such incidents, and hanging around post-incident is too much like asking for an encore as far as I’m concerned.

It is always preferable to attempt avoidance or de-escalation of a potential situation, as prevention is always better than cure. Sometimes, no matter how hard you may try, a situation won’t avoid you. Likewise, you can only talk to those who are willing to listen to reason. Wasting time with rhetoric, however ‘Win - Win’ it may be, can get you hurt when the other ‘party’ just doesn’t care what you have to say. Strong words I know, but I’m sure plenty of you out there know the score. When the chips are down and your neck really is on the line, you quite simply cannot afford to f**k about!

What I recommend, most emphatically, is that if you want to learn about real fighting ask those who really have been in life-threatening situations; real uncontrolled, unprepared and unlimited encounters – no safety net, the kind that nightmares are made of. Find someone who has been there, and who is honest enough to put his or her ego to one side just long enough to recount the real deal. Watch their face, especially their eyes, when they tell you what you possibly don’t really want to know. Either as predator or prey, their experiences of real violence are certain to make you step back and take stock of your real training.

However hard the training is, nothing is comparable to a sudden confrontation with some desperate addict who doesn’t care whether you give him your money or he takes it from your body, anything rather than endure an imminent heroin withdrawal. On the other hand, a group of young wannabe ‘faces’ who have nothing to lose but their reputations, their most important asset, will not hesitate to smash you up just for sport. You see for some people violence is a way of life, either as a sport or as a business, and to them you’re just a ball to kick or a walking ATM. Don’t believe me? Please give me the names of some estate agents in your area, or maybe consider getting some stronger prescription glasses!

Part 2

Many experienced individuals have become complacent and underestimated the potency of ‘low-tech’ methods. Have you ever heard that old saying, “Professionals are predictable, unfortunately the world is full of amateurs.” How true, how many ‘experts’ have been hurt and humiliated by untrained, unpredictable, fighters? I certainly have, I admit it. Not often, but I’ve been taken by surprise, I’ve displayed bad judgement, and I’ve been plain careless in the past. For these mistakes and lapses, I’ve paid a bloody price indeed. Costly, most definitely, but isn’t good experience always expensive? Sadly, we can often learn the most from those who have paid the highest price; but we must never allow ourselves to follow their path through our own ignorance.

Under the acute pressure of combat, the effects of the fear / adrenal reaction are well researched and documented, and progressive exposure to stress during actual encounters and very realistic training can certainly help to prepare you for some of the massively detrimental effects on your performance. The necessity of hard realistic training is without question, but remember realistic is not real. Sorry to sound so negative, but it actually enhances combative training to recognise and remember all its limitations. However close to the bone you can make your training and sparring drills, they’re still blank-firing exercises (if you pardon the expression) and safety is always paramount. Just because you are prohibited from applying certain extremely effective practices during training, they must still be forefront in your mind, so if you are required to ‘do the business’ you don’t keep using blanks out of habit, when you really need the live ammunition!

I sometimes get the disturbing impression that some of the ‘real combat systems’ on offer these days are far too academic to be of use in real combat situations. By this, I mean that it appears that almost every so-called ‘simple effective system of self-protection’ is evolving into some kind of martial algebra, when all that is actually required is something more akin to simple addition (done on the fingers at that!). Some systems just do not seem to have the feel for the dynamics of real fighting. They do have a wealth of techniques for supposedly tearing attackers limb from limb, and counters to every possible form of assault from weapon wielding gangs, and more. Maybe I’m not seeing enough, but it seems that I’m seeing too much. One technique that will work in a thousand situations is worth a thousand that might work in only one, a bit of a golden rule in my book. A good right hand, quick headbutt and occasional low kick are about the limit of most real streetfighters, but combined with high doses of surprise, aggression and unpredictability they become truly effective.

Contemplate these following quotations, old favourites of mine that I swear by:
“The Essence of War is Violence.”
“No Plan Survives First Contact with the Enemy.”
These gems are to be found at the front of Pamphlet 45 – Infantry Tactics. This is the manual used by British Armed Forces Infantry Section Commanders when training and preparing for combat. The first is superbly succinct; it simply underlines that no matter how it is dressed up with technology and the like, conflict is no more than the application of extreme force. The second quote reminds us not to obsess too much with fine details, as introducing the human factor usually negates any too-careful preparation!

Consider taking a leaf out of the military’s book concerning combative tactics, after all, they’re the market leaders! Whether it is on a personal or strategic scale; combat is combat, the theories behind such tactics are the same regardless. Being ambushed is the same wherever it happens, regardless of who is involved. In a pub wearing jeans or in a jungle clothed in camouflage, it’s the same thing. All the basic tactical principles hold true - avoiding potential ambush sites, reacting quickly to the initial onslaught, escaping the killing zone and fighting through the ambush, etc. Whatever the specifics, the basics still apply.

Combat tactics in the military are always fundamental and generic, not specific to each encounter with the enemy. They are basic enough to be easily learned and easily taught – an important consideration. Everything can rapidly become second nature and it’s all highly adaptable. What’s more, it’s all been proven to work consistently. Unit commanders and individual soldiers are trained exhaustively in general principles of closing with, and destroying, the enemy; these basic concepts can be applied to an unlimited number of situations. The key to this process is simplicity and flexibility, not micro-managed specifics that are doomed to fail.

Proven and dependable core skills are the essentials in real combat, they must be capable of instinctive application - if you are thinking, you’re not doing. When the stakes are high, if you’re not doing, you may be dying. Seriously consider reducing your personal arsenal of techniques and tactics to a solid core of generic tools that can be applied against generic attacks, whatever the situation or environment. Just think; soldiers do not learn a hundred ways of holding and firing a rifle, just one is sufficient - so long as it’s backed by rock-solid principles of marksmanship that can be applied whether standing, kneeling or lying prone, whatever the circumstances, situation or environment.

Personally, I’m a little jaded hearing from ‘experts’ who look and act like they wouldn’t know a real fight if it punched them in the face. Not to say that such exponents are not indeed experts of their chosen arts, I’m only addressing some rather questionable methods of applying various techniques for real. This appears quite evident when observing some brands of ‘no-nonsense street fighting,’ ‘ultimate self-defence’ and ‘real combat’ training (self-protection does appear to be more fashionable than ever before). It seems to me that the dynamics, the brutality and the chaos of actual conflict are often appallingly absent, overlooked or glossed over. This is a frighteningly dangerous practice when purporting to train, and teach, for combat, as ultimately it is the basic raw violence of conflict that poses the greatest threat to individual survival, not the so specific attack formats that seem so technically researched and rehearsed.

The telling factor in combat is often experience, not expertise; a hundred training sessions are ultimately still a hundred training sessions, not real fights. Many individuals choose to work ‘On the Door’ as a means of acquiring first hand knowledge of violent encounters – very effective if done in a professional manner; the threats, the hostility and the confrontations are certainly real, plus you get an excellent, whilst disturbing, overview of the current culture of violence. Not for the faint hearted though, and doing such a responsible and dangerous job just to research conflict is rather questionable in itself.

Recently I read an article in a fitness magazine about a practical system currently doing the international rounds, it was boasting about its instructor training course, where a group of system examiners would pounce upon a prospective instructor at an unspecified time and place. If the would-be instructor successfully resisted and defended, he or she passed muster. Quite innovative I agree, but it still isn’t a real fight! Eyes won’t be gouged, throats won’t be struck, there will be no biting, and no one is going to get their head stamped on. It’s just another role-playing drill dressed up to look like it is the last word in street survival. I cite this as an example to highlight how the point is being missed – in this case, for example, if you can be surprised in such a fashion, surely your awareness is dubious and you have failed.

The emphasis of true self-protection has always got to be the early prediction and assessment of potential violence, and the necessary means of avoiding it. If you are teaching someone to cross the road, you do not focus on practicing being hit by a car! Personally, given the choice, I will always choose to find a spot where the cars are few and far between, as I am well aware of my inability to withstand vehicular impact. It seems to me that there is far too much emphasis on dynamic last-resort techniques, and far too little consideration is given to boring first-resort techniques. Good security of any description is usually pleasantly tedious – bad security can often be unpleasantly exciting!

Part 3

Ever heard the term know your enemy? Does any effective law enforcement team ever raid a suspect’s location without information concerning any occupants who might present threats to their safety? No, because casualties teach hard lessons. How much do you know about the modus operandi of your personal potential threats? I class a real threat as being one that has three key elements present, namely capability, opportunity and intent. To constitute a threat all three elements must be evident. Effective threat management revolves around greatly reducing or removing one or more of these elements, usually opportunity (as this is the element that the threatened party usually has the most control over). Of the three, the element that scares me every time is intent. Where real intent to harm is present, capability and opportunity can usually be found nearby. Actually facing a man, or woman, who has a fully determined and highly committed intention to harm you, is unlike anything that can be accurately expressed in words. Some of you know what I’m referring to and I salute you, for you too have been in the wrong place at the wrong time!

Do you study and compare relevant incidents of violence? No? Why not? How do you know what to train for? It’s important to do your homework; never just assume to know the real deal about the nature of this particularly ugly beast. Compare the sterile conditions demonstrated by countless book / magazine / video sequences, to available footage showing incidents of football thug violence and CCTV scenes of petrol station robberies and so on. Ask yourself, and others, if your system, style or method would stand up to be counted upon in these circumstances. More importantly ask yourself the most damning question, regardless of your expertise, would you stand up personally under these same conditions? This is the crux of many a real fight. When the heat is on full, do you melt, or do you set? Incidentally if you really are serious about training in self-protection it is well worth setting your VCR to record as many Crimewatch / Cops type programmes as possible, even better if you can edit the relevant footage onto one tape for easier analysis. Such material is invaluable to get a feel for what you might have to face worst case. Know your enemies and their capabilities, before they get to know you and yours.

Never overestimate your chances of survival in someone else’s world, especially if they happen to be further up the food chain than you! Sounds bleak? It is. Real fighting is not a game, there’s no winners or losers, that’s for sports. In real combat you have only those that live to tell the tale and those that do not. Know your limitations and work with them, they in turn will highlight and guide your strengths. Certain factors will always assist survival in combat; surprise, aggression and commitment are to name but a few. Again, combat is combat, it is a simple horrible affair in essence. Look for training that has its roots in combat, not art or sport. Real contemporary combat that is; not ancient warfare, competition, or creative expres​sion(no matter how martial it may be).

I can sense the scorn pouring forth from the outraged martial artists, but art is art and war is war – martial arts are no longer the military skills they used to be or the term wouldn’t have changed would it? Bear with me on this point; I am only referring to combative methods, not martial arts. I have absolutely no criticism of any classical system in its pure form; my only concern is with those that advertise ‘street self defence’ or the like, in an attempt to hop on the ‘realistic’ bandwagon. All classical and sporting styles can be made to work for real, but this is often down to the individual, not the style.

During my time in the military, I was heavily involved in the teaching of restraint and arrest techniques, and various close combat tactics. These I taught to select personnel within the UK and US armed forces, and a variety of non-military individuals and groups, ranging from nursing staff to police officers. Too many times, I observed guest instructors attempting to ‘teach’ experienced operational personnel seemingly amazing methods of unarmed and armed deadliness. Such lunacy was often jokingly referred to as ‘Nocandu’ as a direct derogatory reference to its impracticality! More often than not, the ‘students’ had forgotten far more about the subject of combat than the guest instructor would ever know. Generally they were actively involved in regular live encounters, whereas the ‘expert’ probably never left the safety of his or her own students and syllabus. True military close combat training isn’t simply khaki karate. It’s another base military skill, like shooting, map reading or first-aid, and this is how it should be developed and taught. The same can be said about the blue kung fu that used to be promoted by some ‘self-appointed’ police instructors, though thankfully this practice has ceased with the implementation of modern defensive tactics training. It is worth mentioning, however, that close combat training is still not widely conducted within the military, contrary to common perceptions.

Arguably, the busiest ‘users of force’ these days are the various personnel involved in law enforcement, true front-line troops. The current defensive techniques and tactics taught to, and utilised by, such individuals and specialist teams really are excellent. Why? Simply, because the stakes are so high, they have to be. If a technique or tactic doesn’t work for real - guess what? Nobody uses it and nobody teaches it. This is true reality-based training, nothing is presumed, and everything is either proven operationally or discarded. Can you say the same about the methods that you train in?

My closing advice? Keep training realistically, keep cross training in all the essentials of close combat, and constantly drill your techniques to become razor-sharp conditioned responses. Learn to fight from the ground and the driving seat, and more than one aggressor. Apply everything using weapons and against weapons, hone your instincts, heighten your awareness - do everything possible to train as completely as possible. Nevertheless, during all of this intense and complex training, you must never lose sight of the real issue. The true nature of combat is the brutal simplicity of thought and action. If you really are training for the protection of self, or others, you cannot afford to overlook this, or the training becomes worthless, without real purpose, and worse still, likely to fail when most needed. And that really wouldn’t do, would it?

Very good article.

I've been on the receiving end of gang violence and one irate psychopath who put me in hospital overnight with a variety of fractures over a pool game he lost. I've also come out of the other side of an encounter or two as well.

If I have a fault with the training I've seen it's this. Technique is taught, sometimes relevant other times not but conditioning, tenacity and aggression are not taught or more accurately 'fostered'. There seems to be a myth that one can 'relax' and apply techniques to win. In a sports tournament that may be the case but the idea of 'relaxing' while someone is trying to kick the crap out of me, while I'm terrified (as most normal people are during violent encounters) or perhaps much worse, is completely alien. People who talk like that need a reality check. There are far more victims than heroes in this world and no-one is going to attack you if the odds are balanced or in your favor. Actually that kind of training might work if you desire is to pick fights you know you can win and then call yourself a fighter. A pretty dubious desire but there's plenty of those kinds out there too.

Even running away requires a level of conditioning and determination. Of effective fighters I've personally seen I can testify to what you said in your article. One club doorman in particular comes to mind. Technically he had little more than decent right cross but he fought like a damn animal.

The other kind of training which I ignore these days is the kind that is sold as military arts for public consumption. "We train the Army, Navy Seals, Special forces" etc.. Whether or not true it's a joke anyway. Those armed forces are made up of well conditioned, fit determined and disciplined individuals trained to act as a group. Simply overlaying the same techniques on a civilian simply ain't going to work. Anyway, the emphasis is somewhat different. Personally I take more interest in what would work for bouncer or a street cop than what would work for a guy in a special forces unit since in the former cases the enemy is at least a common one to me; you're average thug.

Finally I have this to say. I don't train with the delusion of winning in mind. I train, hopefully to give myself a 'fighting chance', that is to try to build myself psychologically and physically to fight in spite of the odds when mine or my friends or my families well being depends on it. There's nothing wrong with training in a martial art because you enjoy it but too many people in my opinion end up training in a recreational activity when what they were looking and paying for was fighting skills albeit, often with unrealistic expectations to begin with.

Great article Mick. It struck a lot of chords. I particularly liked the part about professionals being predictable but the world being full of amateurs. How many experts have been caught out by someone milling, or leading with their rear hand? Loads I reckon.

Every good instructor I've spoken with has professed that they far prefer sparring with highly trained fighters than novices... the reason being that the novices tend to go gung-ho on them and stand a fair chance of landing a lucky shot.

There's a world of difference between fighting and scrapping. Scrapping, the preserve of football hooligans, gangs of chavs etc is a much more 50/50 affair. If the initial preemptive strike or counter strike response fails then by default you're in a scrap... and the hard part is turning that scrap into a fight

Flash wrote:
There's a world of difference between fighting and scrapping. Scrapping, the preserve of football hooligans, gangs of chavs etc is a much more 50/50 affair. If the initial preemptive strike or counter strike response fails then by default you're in a scrap... and the hard part is turning that scrap into a fight

Flash, I'm not sure i agree with this, or perhaps i'm not sure of the difference between 'scrap' and 'fight', perhaps fighting looks more like sparring; Queensbury rules and a sense of exchange?

Given that 'Scrapping' is likley to be the default activity in most street encounters why bother learning 'fighting'. Just study the scrapping and get good at it.

I would say that this approach is reflected in Micks 'mayhem' style drills. There are usually mistakes, falling down, fully missed shots and the rapid onset of exhastion. Yet, despite the chaos and your inability to control your opponent, some solid shots get landed, maybe only ten good ones in a one minute drill.
Afterwards, if i've made the proper effort, i feel like i've just had a scrap.

Simon.

simontwosheds wrote:

Flash wrote:
There's a world of difference between fighting and scrapping. Scrapping, the preserve of football hooligans, gangs of chavs etc is a much more 50/50 affair. If the initial preemptive strike or counter strike response fails then by default you're in a scrap... and the hard part is turning that scrap into a fight

Flash, I'm not sure i agree with this, or perhaps i'm not sure of the difference between 'scrap' and 'fight', perhaps fighting looks more like sparring; Queensbury rules and a sense of exchange?

Given that 'Scrapping' is likley to be the default activity in most street encounters why bother learning 'fighting'. Just study the scrapping and get good at it.

I would say that this approach is reflected in Micks 'mayhem' style drills. There are usually mistakes, falling down, fully missed shots and the rapid onset of exhastion. Yet, despite the chaos and your inability to control your opponent, some solid shots get landed, maybe only ten good ones in a one minute drill.
Afterwards, if i've made the proper effort, i feel like i've just had a scrap.

Simon.

Simon,

I see where you're coming from. My apologies - I've used those terms fighting and scrapping in the context of my personal definitions but neglected to provide those definitions, and as a result anyone reading that paragraph is bound to misinterpret it! Unless of course they are telepathic

OK so here goes...

I reckon we're both on the same page regards the definition of sparring, you pretty much summed it up when you typed "sense of exchange". Likewise I'm going to exclude 'sport fighting' as that has rules, opponent selection, timed rounds, referees, doctors on standby, a ring etc... It also usually involves two fighters desiring to establish and impose a tempo (in place of the give and take exchanges in sparring).

So that leaves my definitions of scrapping and fighting, which are essentially two means of achieving a similar strategic outcome - beating the opponent. I don't see this as a digital scenario where someone is exclusively a fighter or exclusively a scrapper. I see it more like a line with pure scrapping at one extreme and pure fighting at the other extreme. People can conceivably fall anywhere along that line, but in my opinion the vast majority would land much closer to the scrapping end, including most people trained in traditional martial arts by virtue of their tactical ignorance. Sorry if that statement is objectionable to anyone.

By my definition pure scrapping is an entirely offensive approach with the aforementioned strategic objective of beating the opponent (this could mean anything from frightening them to killing them depending on the circumstances). The pure scrappers means of achieving this outcome are to launch an all out attack on the opponent. Variables that influence the outcome of a scrap are: aggression, size, reach, fitness, strength, experience, intent, and training. That list is not intended to be definitive, and the order and importance of each variable depends on their relative values and the specific circumstances.

It's almost tempting to think of a scrap in terms of Top Trumphs. However this isn't actually the case; chance plays a huge uncontrolled and unpredictable part in the proceedings. The 'lucky punch' and such like are a distinct possibility.

In addition to defining what scrapping is, it's worth defining what it lacks: tactical awareness and a base understanding of what is actually taking place.

At the other end of the spectrum is pure fighting. This is a different kettle of fish altogether. By my definition fighting aims to minimise the element of chance as much as possible. In order to accomplish this the person has developed specific attacking skills that incorporate elements of masking and covering in order to reduce the levels of risk and exposure that are inherent in launching an attack. Unlike scrapping an extremely tight defensive capability has also been developed, and personal safety takes priority over inflicting damage on the opponent. I'm not referring to an Aikido-esque defensive approach, far from it. A fighter is simply seeking to mitigate against the 'lucky punch' and such like. The fighters #1 priority is to survive the encounter - being incapacitated could have serious consequences. A fighter is not gung-ho in their approach.

The fighter will also have a high level of tactical awareness. For example, knowing that it is advantageous to be applying pressure and disadvantageous to be in retreat. There will also be a base understanding that, when slowed down, CQC is essentially a turn based endeavor. I'm not referring to 'give and take', rather that every action produces a reaction and that this creates an action/reaction tempo that can be exploited and even orchestrated to a fighters advantage. Tactically it is desirable for the fighters turns to be used to maximum proactive effect whilst causing the opponents turns to be ineffective, reactive, and costly. I realise this is a controversial viewpoint... By way of example the fighter will be aware that landing a blow on their opponent will cause the opponent to miss a beat by absorbing that blow, this then creates space for a followup strike. If the fighter can keep up this pressure then they shall prevail. In other words this is about dishing it out in preference to taking it. It's about knowing how to maintain dishing it out.

Here's a tactical breakdown of how a fighter seeks to control any encounter (in my world). For sake of clarity I have mostly assumed a single opponent. I realise that this is in fact far less likely, but it's a lot easier to describe, so please grant me that leeway

1) Observation. This limits the likelihood of ambush.

2) Avoidance of threatening situations.

3) Taking up a discretely defensive posture or stance when confronted.

4) Attempt to discourage or defuse the situation by careful application of psychology. This could either be by initiating friendly banter, or being so overtly confident/threatening as to discourage an attack.

5a) Assessment of whether escape is possible, and if necessary flee to avoid the confrontation.

5b) Knowing to avoid going onto the ground at all costs. Should the opponent pull a knife, or receive reinforcements then being on the ground is likely to prove fatal. In the event that the fighter does end up on the ground then the priority must be keeping the opponent at distance and/or escaping the opponents clutches and regaining the vertical. Experience of how to avoid takedowns, break clinches, and escape from the ground is necessary in this context.

6a) Anticipation of attack and launching a devastating combination of preemptive strikes that are low risk and likely to prove conclusive. This is dependent on conducive circumstances such as lack of witnesses, lack of CCTV, and clear escape routes. For example, sensing it's about to kick off and launching a non-telegraphic lead front side kick at the attackers knee, limiting or destroying their mobility, then following through with powerful knockout blows, for example rear heel palm hook to jaw then front heel palm hook to jaw, then anything else if required. Obviously this part may differ if dealing with multiple opponents.

6b) Should the circumstances not be conducive to preemptive striking, then it may still be possible to counter with a devastating combination of strikes in response to the opponent. For example the opponent initiates with a rear swing, this could conceivably be neutralised with the same sequence of strikes as highlighted in 6a) whilst also doing enough damage to terminate the encounter.

6c) If either 6a) or 6b) succeed then the fighter should immediately vacate the area.

7) Should the preemptive or reactive combination of strikes fail (this is unlikely but a distinct possibility), then the fighter should cover up, tighten their defense, and momentarily revisit the possibility of escape.

8 ) If escape is not an option then we reach the POINT IN MY PREVIOUS POST THAT KICKED OFF THIS DISCUSSION. By default we are in a scrap and the opponent is now in a position to mount an all out counter offensive. If the fighter attempts to continue their offensive then it all gets very scrappy and the outcome is unpredictable. It's the fighters immediate objective to avoid that potential worst case scenario.

Rather than persisting with their own failed offensive, the fighters priority should now shift to terminating the opponents offensive and DESTROYING their offensive capability as QUICKLY as possible. As the opponent attacks, the fighter will seek to destroy their weapons, and/or take their balance. For example, catching blows on the point of the elbow to destroy the fist(s), stopping kicks with feet to destroy the legs (and therefore limiting mobility), responding to milling with a high guard battering ram, or a shoulder shield shunt to off balance and get inside the scrapper. That's just a selection, and the specifics will depend entirely on the nature of the offensive. Some key points are:

i) Not to go backwards or be taken off balance.

ii) Not to absorb blows but rather to destroy the weapons delivering them. Position bent elbows in the way of incoming strikes. Place feet in the trajectory of kicks, so that the opponents shin strikes the bottom of the fighters shoe.

iii) Respond to a milling charge by covering up and ramming to take their balance and get inside their strikes.

That list is not meant to be exhaustive, just a few likely examples.

Because we're dealing with a scrapper on an all out offensive, then this brief phase should end with the attack neutralised and the opponent damaged, unable to strike, experiencing mobility problems, or at the very least off balance. Obviously there is a risk that the opponent would prevail, but everything has been done to mitigate against that outcome.

9) At this point it should be possible to take the opponent into a cycle of destruction by alternating between high level and low level combinations of attack. The only decision is when enough damage has been wrought.

10 ) Get the hell out of there!

***

In summary the fighter is tactically aware. In the event that the opponent is somehow able to launch an offensive then the fighter will mitigate against any risk/chance by terminating their own failed offensive and countering the opponents offensive in a quick and very destructive fashion. This is not give and take, it's a fast neutralisation of the opponents offensive capability. This was what I meant by turning a scrap into a fight. I would not usually envisage multiple iterations of this phase, rather the fighter would follow on from this by cycling through high and low level attacks to bring about the final destruction of the opponent.

The only scope for multiple iterations of this phase would be where two fighters found themselves inevitably drawn into conflict, a somewhat unlikely scenario given the mind set of a fighter... and the relative rarity of fighters.

In contrast two scrappers in engaged in a conflict would both attempt to maintain and press their own offensives, and the outcome would be decided by a blend of physical variables, mental variables, and a significant amount of chance.

Those are my definitions explained the best I can. Hope that provided some clarity regards my previous post

Oops doh... thinking about this I could have made that much shorter and sweeter:

A scrapper is wholly offensive, undisciplined, hot headed, and tactically unaware. The outcome of a scrap is dependent on a blend of the physical, and mental attributes of the protagonists and a large measure of chance.

A fighter is disciplined, rigorous, tactically aware, efficient, clinical, and seeks to control any encounter. A fighter is a technician. The fighters #1 priority is to survive the encounter.

Someone only trained in the execution of techniques, but without the tactical awareness does not qualify as a fighter.

Where a fighter meets a scrapper in conflict, succeeds in retaining discipline, and dictating control of the encounter then it's a fight. If the fighter loses his discipline then the encounter defaults into a scrap.

In the remote instance that all else was equal (physical condition etc) then in my opinion the fighter would be superior to the equivalent scrapper, therefore I personally believe that it is advantageous to train as a fighter.

Some people might argue that its more worthwhile to simply practice scrapping. However taken to it's logical conclusion, any attempt to improves one's scrapping ability is effectively learning to fight. The outcome being that the person gradually moves away from the pure scrapping and off in the direction of pure fighting.

Those are my definitions in a nutshell. I've left my first attempt up as it's more detailed.

Flashy,

That's a...comprehensive reponse Quiet sunday?
And a couple of good posts at that.

I'd certainly go along with the development of the tactical element, that you describe.

Flash wrote: any attempt to improves one's scrapping ability is effectively learning to fight. The outcome being that the person gradually moves away from the pure scrapping and off in the direction of pure fighting.

Another good point.

Simon

Flash,

Even though you say a highly trained “Fighter” may be superior; in my opinion, the untrained/less-trained “Scrapper” is more in touch with the realities of violence, and would be more likely the one alive in the end of an encounter with a trained individual. By my interpretation of a “Scrapper,” the key traits giving them the edge, are a humble respect for what violence is, street-ingenuity, and survival attitude. They deeply understand the simple cold reality that violence, as Mick says, “Is nothing more than a pig’s ear” nor will it ever be. It has just become a part of their life, a way of living for them. This outlook coupled with the hard-learned street smarts that have kept them alive thus far, and a piss-load of attitude, is what gives them the edge over the average trained individual or “Fighter.”

The “Scrapper” doesn’t expect to perform superbly in a violent encounter; they merely want to end it, and be alive afterwards—and they usually have the will to pull it off. Training, in my opinion, has very little to do with success, but rather it is one’s mindset that truly promotes sustained success. Thoughts of adopting a “scrappers-mindset” perhaps?

In terms of discipline and live-application: I believe discipline can be “retained” to an extent under pressure. However, in any situation where you legitimately believe this could be “it” (a do-or-die “scrap” or “fight” or whatever you wanna call it), then no matter what your experience/level of training may be, things have a tendency to get a little “fuzzy” to say the least.

I believe that no matter what your training/experiential background may be, any violent encounter is toss up in the end.

Even if one trains their hardest to be that “clinical technician”—to maintain that sense of [illusory] “control” over violence; when it happens for real it’s a whole different ball game than training—no matter how “real” you made it, or how “disciplined” you may be.

Also, “Discipline” becomes less of something that you consciously maintain, but rather something that you have [hopefully] unconsciously ingrained as reflex through rigorous conditioning. And this conditioned-discipline can be attributed to anyone who has been through the races enough times and survived, whether they’re a “fighter” or a “scrapper.”


As a side note, something I have learned though my training, research, and experiences: As “real” as you make your training, it is still just that, only training. And it’s not ever going to be real until you’re caught in it. Training is structured, and sterile, and safe. Violence is a realm wholly the opposite; full of random circumstantial-based intricacies, where outcomes are largely dependent on chance over anything else, and with the potential for life-changing consequences. Whoever you are, whatever you are—training or no training. None of it really matters much in the end. It may just increase your chances slightly. Weird stuff happens that is nothing like training, and sometimes it just bites you in the ass. And people die. This is how trained doormen get jumped by wannabe hardasses on their way to their cars, veteran corrections officers get mauled by street thugs in riots, and how top level operators get killed by teenagers with guns. Chaos is an amazing equalizer, surviving it is the ultimate test of being alive.


I’m realizing now how pessimistic that all sounded. Get your rabbit’s feet I guess…


Jon

Get your rabbit’s feet I guess…

Ah yes, the lucky rabbit's foot...not very lucky for the rabbit...and he had four of them.

Nick