On Christmas Day this year, we decided to do something entirely different. We took our small family, went into the mountains and had a very low-key Christmas. We decided to connect with nature and went on a long hike up the side of a mountain in Monteverde. The oxygen was fresh and pure, the exercise was hard and pleasurable, the time a memorable one that will be ingrained in permanent memories.

That being said, I wanted to do some light informal testing on motor skill and aerobic/anaerobic capacity while there, for a number of reasons. I haven’t trained seriously in over a year, solely upkeep. I’m 46 now and haven’t “taken the car out for a spin” to see what works and what doesn’t – translation: what I’ve lost, if anything. I wanted to do some testing with some asterisks. Here’s what I uncovered along the path:

-My state was a little jittery and off. 2 cups of coffee in the morning, not eating a lot left me shaky and a little dizzy. (could also have been the elevation/altitude – 5,900 feet/1800 meters, double to what I’ve become accustomed to)

-I forgot my running/hiking shoes at home, had only loafers and casual dress-jacket, 2 long-sleeved shirts, and khakis on – I know, tactical fail but, in all fairness, we didn’t know leading-up there’d be such a wonderful nature trail to tackle.

-There were colder temps as it was in the mountains, 10-12 degrees Celsius, cold wind, inevitably it felt like a Manitoba fall day.

-I went on a particularly-difficult stretch of the 3 km trail after doing pretty well exploding on a shorter, less-steep stretch. This one was straight up the mountain with steep ascents and only one short levelling-off stretch.

-I started counting steps about a-third-to-half of the way down and got to 503, so we’ll say there were roughly 750 steps, 1500 if including both directions, up and down.

-I “walked” at maximum pace, as fast as I was capable of exerting and maintaining pace, not pulling back in any way or saving gas for the way down. I stopped briefly for 5 seconds at one point when the path became extremely steep in angle. Think speed-walking but without the uncool little hyper-steps.

-I got “rubber-leg” about a-third of the way back down and had to be a little more attentive about not tripping (long fall down with short/steep steps and minimal bracing points, no railings) or losing my balance. Near the end, I did push harder to see how my coordination and balance were holding up.

-My cardio-system and mental-determination were far superior to my muscle-fatigue/stamina. As the pain started setting in noticeably, and I had to strain somewhat to keep full motion and maintain speed, I noticed my breathing, heartrate, and mental-state were predominantly unchanged. There were the little nagging doubts about current shape, capability, injuries present but they were pushed aside pretty quickly as I remembered prior experience(s) and capability and confidence took over. (The familiar is always less daunting and more conquerable)

-The breathing system I’ve used for years was highly-functional. A solid breathing method may not replace a poor cardiovascular system or conditioned stamina…but it can sure hold it off or mask it for a while. My wife even noted it helped her immensely, to the point she was surprised at how much – how quickly she recovered, how much longer she could go before recuperating, how strong her lungs felt. So that’s some positive reinforcement from someone who doesn’t drink my Kool-Aid. Quick recovery, always in-control of breathing rhythm, measured it with steps-taken, alterations between deep-breathing, slight pauses, panic-breathing depending on exertion, climb-difficulty, and recovery period.

-After finishing the hell climb, I continued at maximum pace and thought I’d test my fine-motor skills, as they seemed to be pseudo-altered from the exertion. While not maximized, I a) practiced deployment (one of the knives I had was a small folder, perfect for fine- and complex-motor-testing) while moving, in-advance of coming up on distracted birdwatchers (and subtly closing it with one hand as well when passing), b) getting off my backpack and unzipping the front pouch to access another blade subtly, and c) getting off my backpack and deploying the folder simultaneously. All while moving and exerting. Some (minimal) fine-motor problems but, all-in-all, achievable. (and noting openly that pressured-stress from exertion from strenuous exercise is NOT the same as pressured-stress from another human being trying to take your head off)

-I found even with the loafers, I seemed to have better weight distribution, balance, and feel for quick changes as needed in foot placement when something gave way or felt collapsible. (I dunno, qi gong/tai chi, FMA, really, not sure, but I do know I’ve many of those same sensations in past TMA training so I’d hazard a guess it did help more than a little)

-In the recovery stage, I’d say it took upwards of an hour to get fully rid of the rubber-leg I felt. Normal fine-motor skill accessibility far sooner, likely 15 minutes after I stopped. My calves were moderately sore a while after the workout, more so the next day but all else was pretty good, noting I used (sometimes exaggerated full-body motions during so that all my muscles were working in-unison) My breathing was never greatly-strained – no panting, no gasping, no hyper-ventilating and I’d say bluntly that that was no small coincidence in performance confidence.

-I think the one major lesson to learn from this is confidence in capability and knowledge of your own maximum limits. As my condition was a little unknown after the last year of relative inactivity, I admit to being a little unsure and self-doubting at the beginning. As the day wore on, the old feelings returned, memory of past limits set in, and I started to test those limits actively more and more. By the end, I became completely familiar with my own maximum exertion capability and relaxed comfort and mental fortitude started taking over. I’d say there’s no small comparison to things combative and martial to be taken from this.

-Physical condition alone, coherence of limits and extent of how far one can push oneself, mental determinaton, and confidence in one’s ability to test further than those limits… are no small things in physical fight capability, formal training or not.

-As a final point, breathing may not increase or improve stamina itself, but it sure does aid in maximizing the stamina you have already built up.

I’m no expert on flow, though I have experienced it on various occasions and in various arenas. To me, it has always been the seamless transition of heightened focus/rhythm/intent/performance to an activity/situation/circumstance. I don’t think I’ve ever hit a point of flow (self-defense, athletic endeavor, training, challenging activity) while exhibiting conscious thought – only ever in circumstances or scenarios where I have prior and deep knowledge and experience. I believe that those 2 being true is no small coincidence, though I do believe high-level thinking and decision-making, unconsciously, are a byproduct of the state. We do make unconscious or rapidly-processed decisions within the state itself. Ironically, some of the times I’ve “lost” the flow-state was due to over-thinking or prolonged decision-making. Once conscious thought and self-doubt creep in, the state tends to be broken shortly thereafter, at least in my experience.

There’s always a combination of high(er)-stakes, high(er)-stress, and/or high(er)-consciousness scenarios with the knowledge/experience/comfort on managing them present and accounted for. There are already clearly-established methods that contribute to gaining that knowledge/experience/comfort, of course, like activity-specific scenario-training, visualization/hypnosis/self-hypnosis/mantras, meditation, prior experience, breathing/body relaxation methods, even neuro-linguistics, not forgetting current state – and these can all definitely enhance its chances of manifesting itself. (maybe the more in-line, the higher or greater chance of flow?) Can it be called up at will? I think that’s the golden goose everyone is searching for…and some of the elements above can certainly give greater chance of it happening. They seem to have tapped into it in the sports and high-performance arenas already, (motorsports/communication/sports/gaming, for instance) but it’s not quite as prevalent in the SD/MA worlds as of yet, for whatever reason, though I believe that’s changing.

It’s also clearly an internal element driven by external stimuli …it comes from what’s innate/well-conditioned, not by chance. (Some examples above: driving, games, sports, communication….all things that are intrinsically a part of our daily lives and that we’re experienced/comfortable in, yet we still don’t have “flow” every time we do them). If your state/momentary capability doesn’t align with your ability, it ain’t happenin’ as to have “flow” insinuates that the activity is ongoing, has some continuity, and is not a single one-time act (that experience/knowledge thing) – that’s not “being in the zone”.

I’d also be wiling to say that there’s the perception of time distortion that goes along with the state when people discuss this, (“it’s as if time stood still”, “I lost total track of time”, “everything seemed to slow down”) showing that there is extreme focus that causes perceived slow(er)-motion of incoming stimuli. (As an aside, time distortion can also be played with in training through various means. Triggering pressure or tension also needs to be present for it to happen as there has to be a threat/danger/loss element but a talk for another time)

Regarding conflict or combat, flow could be present into the areas of the force continuum as well. Flow with communication (saying the right things at-will, de-escalating efficiently, calm & controlled demeanor maintained), environmental/situational awareness (noticing all surrounding stimuli pre-conflict, highly-tuned OODA Loop processing, seamless adaptability to changing situations), flow with noticing pre-incident indicators/PINs (great peripheral vision, attention to details, on top of everything). It could also be physically-controlling your opponent smoothly and with minimal or only sufficiently-needed damage. (if trained or conditioned efficiently and in-line with human physiological capability and evolution, these things should have minimal consciousness as well…or we fight on instinct, fully unconsciously, with what evolution gave us as survival instinct) 

Developing it (or at least increasing its odds) is based on replicating the stimulus as close as is possible to the actuality of the thing…and “replicating” it only applies to the elements that can be prepared for. (It is extremely-difficult to replicate exact physiological response to high-stakes and real momentary stimuli…in training) Visualization/scenario-training/state-replication/past experience all can attempt to fit that bill, as mentioned. Whatever the case, flow states have something in-common: they are all in arenas that utilize both unconscious action (“system 1”, driving a car daily and in regular traffic), and active decision-making from prior effective conditioning (“system 2”, making a sudden decision on avoiding a potential accident) so have a far greater chance of hitting that particular state. Bringing it out at will, pertaining to real violent need? I’m not sure. Yet.

I’ll share an example of a necessary deviation from mission statement. There are times where one must involve oneself in situations usually one would not choose to. There are exceptions to the rule. Getting home safely, protecting one’s loved ones, focusing on your intended vision of personal protection…all have forks in the road where decisions must be made where to momentarily deviate from mission statement based on need or necessity.

We had a guest at our business who arrived around American Independence Day. He immediately stood out – flamboyant clothing, strong southern-US accent, exacerbated body movements….I called him Elvis to my wife. He registered, snapped his fingers for his wife to come in and start bringing luggage in. They were here for 2 nights. At breakfast the couple were very animated, arguing at the table before finally leaving with plates barely touched. It was a trend we heard transitioning to the 2nd night they were here.

As guests’ personal dynamic is usually their own and we simply don’t know it, we don’t much choose to get involved, as long as it doesn’t disturb other guests. I’m there to run a successful business, feed & protect my family, and try to make guests have as enjoyable stay as we’re able. That’s my mission statement, and I haven’t had to deviate more than a few times from that mission statement, and only for the sake of the continuity of those 3 previous points. I also wait for proper or sufficient information before making a concrete assessment on a person or their filters, but I’m (as is my wife) pretty keenly-oberservant. Even minimal perception of partner “mistreatment” can sometimes be explainable prior to involving oneself in others’ business unnecessarily. Role-playing. Professional escort. Recent events fully the fault of one of the pair out of our scope of knowledge. These are usually a stretch but worth considering before ending up in an explosive situation not your own.

Last night the arguing hit a peak. Yelling, swearing, condescending and ad hominem remarks, aggressive tone, escalating sound. We had 3 guests here and 2 more arriving shortly. Still, I waited. What finally did it was that she wasn’t an active participant in the conflict, very submissive and transparently trying to calm him down, keep the conflict within the room, and offering up feigned apologies just to cool the atmosphere.

After the last “Mother fucker, I no longer need you in my life!” I intervened.  We run a family place where some tranquility is expected and offered. As they were inside the room, I control the time, space, and tone of the coming conflict. It’s not like the street. I positioned myself to the left of the door a few steps back. It blocks off any chance for a  right sucker-punch (angle from doorjamb, most people are right-handed and they weren’t out enough for me to see which hand he was), gives anticipatory space for attack (needs to close the gap to strike), and allows me to see if he has any weapon coming out of the door.  (Though this sounds romantic and elite, it’s not…all of it happens in an instant and unconsciously after 25 years in the industry) I knocked and heard a “god-fucking-dammit!” *There are times I’ve had a nervous energy, knowing there’s an inevitable conflict coming. Not this time, I could feel some adrenaline, but generally I was pretty calm and fully-controlled. I chalk it up to being in the right, no inhibitors leading up so full capability to manage violence effectively if needed and escalated by the other party.

He answered the door super-submissive and trying to establish the “bro” connection, which I’ve never fallen for with a guy who’s so aggressive towards his wife or partner. I’m pretty clear on my position and I’m rarely swayed when it’s conflict-driven.  I also talk with my hands, they’re constantly moving in-between myself and other people, a shield to gauge reaction and space from encroachers. I told him I got that sometimes “shit happens” but we have a business to run. My body language was strong and comfortable, immediately a put-off to him. Once I saw his hands I took a step in and said we could hear them from the house, other guests were next door shortly, and asked if they could keep it down. There were glasses of rye and the bottle on the bed table. He started nervously stuttering and mumbling. I cut him off and said “Anyways, I really don’t want to come back again, neither of us needs the bother.” I squinted my eyes so he’d see what I meant out of his wife’s line of sight. He agreed and apologized, saying he’d give a great review and thanked me for being so “understanding.”

Within 5 minutes, the lights were off, the tv off, and there was complete silence from the room. We didn’t see them until the next morning where they skipped breakfast and tried quickly leaving. I called him, caught up with him, and shook his hand ‘very’ firmly with unwavering eye contact and a sly smile, wishing him safe travels. He caught my glance for just a second and then looked down, reaffirming he’d give us a great review online for our top service. (He didn’t, zero surprise, it was a bargaining chip and misdirection attempt) They were gone. No violence. No guest disturbance. No grand display of aggression or machismo. As clearly it seemed he was an abuser, I cannot control the rest of their relationship and her choice as to whether she stays or not. Just a one-night reprieve with subtle message. Now I return to my regular mission statement. But we had other guests present and listening, a child within unavoidable earshot, no ability to leave, a business in operation, and the potential for great escalating violence right in front of our house. Or maybe, if I stretch enough of my perception, it’s not involving myself in other’s potentially dangerous (to me) scenarios as it would be on the street (how many 3rd-party good Samaritans….), but protecting my family, income-avenue, and clients…not to mention alleviating a potentially-violent act on our property before it happened. Mission-statement in-tact. Remember, sometimes the reach of your mission statement is environmentally-dependent and context-driven. It’s up to you to decide the parameters that that pre-analyzed mission statement extends to and what circumstances will dictate a shift in those parameters.

How often do we hear one of these spouted in self-defense classes?

“There are monsters among us.” “Evil is a real thing and innately-evil people exist.” “”He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster.” “How can someone do that? It’s subhuman.”  (demonizing)

“They” (the criminals, gang members, bad guys, etc.) are simply different from us. They grew up differently. On the wrong side of the tracks. A different class. Different demographic. Different color. Different nationality. Look different. (trashy, low-class) Act different. (uncouthe, uneducated, lacking manners, swearing) They were born bad. (nature, poor nurture) They had a bad childhood….abuse, violence, crime.  Since they’re different, clearly they’re the enemy. (dehumanizing)

“They” are exactly the same as we are….human. If they’re human, they can bleed, feel pain, be hurt, shut down bio-mechanically, die. (familiarizing)

So which one is best? Or are any beneficial? Is it circumstantial? Can they be non-beneficial? Is having an “us vs. them” mentality psychologically-strengthening? Ever hear anyone actually go further in-depth than simply selecting their biased view of which one is best for them…and, therefore, you?

THE PHYSICAL – ACTUAL INCOMING OR ANTICIPATED AGGRESSION

Demonizing and dehumanizing are a form of separation, or creating emotional distance between you and another individual or group. If we’re talking purely about the physical, demonizing runs the risk of making your threat seem impenetrable, unbeatable, and something more than what a human is capable of overcoming. It can also, potentially, motivate one to resist and counter that much harder, knowing the threat is of immense challenge.

Dehumanizing runs the risk of you under-estimating your threat, seeing them as a lower form of life than you, lesser of a worthy being, not having your particular blessings…not a match. It can create a disconnect and faulty-perception on the type of threat and your method(s) of managing it. Physically, it can create emotional disconnect and distance from a survival-threat, allowing one to access faculties of aggression and damage one might not otherwise have accessibility to.

Familiarizing, in opposition of dehumanizing, can give one the impression that you and the threat are the same, when nature/nurture, experience(s), environment, religion, social-engineering, state, mental outlook, and exposure to a thing can drastically alter perception, capability, and achievability. However, as mentioned above, in a physical scenario, it allows one to see that the threat can bleed, hurt, fail, or lose.

All have their benefits…and their drawbacks and, as always, depend greatly on context. However, as with most industry catchphrases, few people actually delve into what they actually mean, how they fit in modern society, and what their limitations are. Violence and conflict dynamics are complex, scenarios/circumstances are dramatically-different, with scaling threats needing to be handled in greatly altered manners for best result. How does low- or mid-level physicality, general conflict, or low-level scenarios alter this? What if the idea is regarding coping mechanisms towards violence, the aftermath or processing of incidents not pertaining directly to us?

CONFLICT AND COPING

Generally, an ongoing study of human behavior, case studies on like types of threat, an ongoing-assessment on context, and case-by-case assessment with as little bias as is possible…are always most prudent and beneficial and offers the best pre-conflict method of accessing situations of their own volition. Couple this study with a grounded, rational, common-sense approach on your own current realistic circumstances while trying to keep your own emotions under-control. (Paying more attention to self and how you deal with stress, tension, anxiety, and fear is more effective than perpetually concerning oneself about the power and danger of others – it goes to our own sanity, capability, and peace)

That doesn’t change the fact that the ideas above can be helpful in our own mindset development to best suit our situation. It also depends greatly on the type and seriousness of threat. Often, on low-level conflict, familiarization has a far greater chance on resolving the issue non-violently and peacefully.

a) Demonization is most often something done from safe emotional distance when something awful happens away from us and we superimpose our own circumstances on top of the misfortune of others. (brutal murders, awful violent crimes, offences sexual in nature to vulnerable victims) It helps remind us of our own humanity and morality and keep distance from our own internal demons.

b) Dehumanization is usually prevalent regarding war/grand-scale conflict/large-scale demographics, but can certainly be seen in regular society as well. To separate and divide based on race, sex, nationality, age. It often runs the risk of worsening situations through elitism, entitlement, and disconnect socially. It, whether “wrong” or “right”, gives the one using it uniqueness, superiority, and comfort in our own personal situation(s).

c) Familiarity is used  when we want to relate to a person or persons. To walk a mile in their shoes, understand their plight, and relate to their circumstances. It gives us empathy and connection, often putting us direct touch with our own humanity. Demonization and dehumanization serve little purpose on the lower-end of things…and let’s be frank, that is the majority of situations most average people will find themselves in over the course of a lifetime. They’re not soldiers or violence professionals.

For inevitable violence or high-risk threat, however, all 3 can be very beneficial given specific circumstances. Remember, belief is the most powerful of all tools, so if utilizing one of the 3 methods helps facilitate a powerful mentality for dealing with a powerful threat….it can be a great tool to shift perceptions and build resolve. Translation? As long as the adopted perception falls in-line with the reality of the threat, works within the sphere of your arena’s law, and puts perspective to a psychologically-beneficial way towards solving the problem….it’s worth exploration. These perspectives alone, though, are far less valuable than a grounded assessment of each situation of its own volition and a self-study of triggers, inhibitors, states, and mind-frames. Remember, not nearly all situations are grave-enough to justify the emotional disconnect that 2 of these imply, and the 3rd isn’t always achievable or even desirable.  The goal, as with most industry catchphrases and metaphors, is to stop just taking any of the 3 at face-value and creating an all-encompassing persona or method around one in-particular, context-free. Evaluate exactly what they infer given your particular scenario and turn that valuable attention inward. The demons, emotional connectedness, and familiarization might be better addressed internally long-before they are externally.

People who’ve sparred a lot in combat sports or in their weapons training become good at things I call “micro-movements”, which are rarely taught and legitimately hard-to-teach. Why they’re not taught, predominantly, is because they’re different for every person and experience-driven. (Other contributing factors: the club doesn’t spar or spar often, and the instructor doesn’t know how to impart that particular info due to the previous sentence) Whatever the reason, they are instinctive and good fighters do them innately/experientially. They’re things you figure out on your own (learned, not “taught”) that are subtle and minute but can change the outcome – instinctive and innate. They’re NOT skills like “evading”, “trapping”, or “countering” but the minutiae that facilitate those skillsets. For example – foot placement/replacement, subtle weight shifts, fades, angling, feinting/feigned body commitment or vulnerability, pulls/pushes, pivots, small barely-seen body movements, the nuance used to make a thing go, all the way to feinting and baiting.

Can they be taught? Maybe, but what they´ll be doing is sharing their micro-movements to another that will then regurgitate them and perpetuate that round-hole-in-square-peg training methodology. We can show students and peers what we do so that they become aware and conscious of their own movements that make a thing work for them. Inevitably, one has to find them out for oneself as nobody can teach you what you´ll do under duress, what McGyver-like adaptations you´ll need, how you´ll react to a given stimulus, what 3-dimensional solutions you´ll come up with to 3-dimensional problems. That is up to the individual and solely the individual. No growth can occur by showing others exactly what works for you and expecting them to replicate, copy, or mirror those actions successfully on-the-fly. Some things are simply left up to the student. If taught, they´re no longer micro-movements but a taught thing that YOU´VE experienced and that they will focus on forcing into a random context.

Micro-movements, natural body-adaptations, innate evolutionary survival-skill are all examples of this and such an integral part of cultivating a student to stand on their own 2 feet and making a given system their own instead of a cookie-cutter replicant of said system and the instructor representing it. Micro-movements we described above – conscious and repetitive after success with them is ingrained (akin to heuristics and that experiential internal “rolodex”), natural body-alignment is how your body moves to a given stimulus or context instinctively – conscious but rapidly-implemented in the moment, and innate survival-skill mechanisms those things we do evolutionarily to react to an unknown input – non-conscious, like a reflex. Just a quick overview as none of these are the norm in the martial arts world, they are the exception to the rule. Most often those that do a lot of sparring, resistance, stress-training, and play are most aware and have learned on their own what works in a vast diversity of situations. Pity, as it´s hard to experience personal-growth while trying to be a clone of someone else´s by-proxy life experience.

There’s been a lot of discussion, both on the page and off, in-private, on scripts recently…which is positive, as it’s an area often neglected. This is not to counter or disprove anyone else’s ideas but to give a different perspective and outlook. While I get the general use of starting-scripts to get students thinking on potential scenarios, I personally don’t think they’re necessity and, long-term, I think they can potentially stifle the adaptive mind, critical thinking under duress, and problem-solving ability. (should they be stuck to and conditioned as is) Many in the SD world use adrenal-stress response (ASR) monosyllabic (or close to it) scripts for various interview stages. Now, we have an overabundance of people using the same tired clichés and passing them on to their students as viable. “Bro, I don’t want any trouble.” “Dude, can I buy you another beer.” “Buddy, talk to me, how can I help.” So even many instructors are seemingly “stuck” in script-format and rarely vary from these tired responses. These are dynamic, complex, and unique situations so I’m just (personally) not sure that scripting does the thing many claim. When I do drilling on this, I am constantly changing behaviors, giving off confusing signals, escalating/de-escalating in tone and body language, changing dynamic for exactly that reason….to destroy their scripts and show them that that means is often ineffective against live-action humans in complex environments. As a developmental base for future cultivation, sure, if that’s not all that’s perpetuated, I can see some value.

That being said, I see numerous videos or commentaries on “the interview” where the same sad clichés and mechanical interactions take place, often from long-serving name instructors. Lots. That tells me exactly that, that the scenarios they’re giving to their students involve scripts from both sides. “I’m gonna kick your ass.” “Whatchu’ lookin’ at, mother fucker.” “You gotta’ problem, asshole.” Tired, and this is way I most often see scripting implemented into modern SD training. It makes criminals seem one-dimensional and lacking in creativity, as well as the “defender.” If that’s how you incorporate interview-stuff, it seems more like the idea of being able to state that you have that element in your training rather than actually understand the complexities of the skillset. These are multi-faceted and multi-dynamic scenarios, why not train for them the same way? It’s not an emotional roller-coaster ride for students as there’s a sliding scale of order – low, medium, high – and gradual manner of incorporating it. The sooner you get your students to start interacting dynamically and seeing the rapidity of change that can occur in stranger-interviews, the more prepped they’ll be for adaptive thinking. With more experienced students, yes, it can become emotional but that’s kinda’ the point, isn’t it? To show the physiological, adrenal, emotional reactions you can have under even low-level conflicts and how it can potentially affect performance, whatever that performance may be in relation to – conflict communication, spatial distancing, body language/stress physiology, to actual aggression response. To see in what small head-space you’re in need of working in. That monosyllabic response is sometimes all we’re capable of…yet sometimes we’re capable of far more. (as is aligned with much science coming out on stress-response capability) That it’s not so easy to just open a script-file and pull out the exact one needed for that time, or ad lib with no prior training that advocates for that. Something else worth thinking about, and from my experience, is that “pros” often take advantage of, even manipulate, scripts. They expect many targets to script, whether out of panic, freezing, fear, submission. It’s part of the ambush mentality and if we think it’s of importance, assuredly they know that we think it’s of importance.

I am, personally, not a script guy, some people are, so I’m not knocking the methods of others, just pointing out that there are options and it’s not imperative. Come to your own conclusions, either way the discussions that we’ve been having on this should be quite valuable and thought-provoking. It’s an important topic. Indexing and recalling scripts for a situation that has (often-great) physiological changes to you, is often rapidly-changing, and can be dictated by huge variations in dynamic….is sometimes not feasible. Sometimes scripts can provide and assist with this, sometimes we’re better off with “conditioned” adaptive and critical thinking.

I’ll leave this:

1. People survive violence daily, the world over, that have zero training. Far moreso than are trained, regardless of your reasoning why.

2. The highest kill-count, by far, in the world  is from completely untrained civilians. Jails are full of them. Many walk free among us. Some are waiting to happen. But the fact remains…

3. The ability to inflict violence has minimal to do with physical systemic or stylistic training…it has to do with will. (which supersedes any training)

4. Yet, through all this, we live in the generally the safest time in recorded history.

All 4 of these are usually denied vehemently by the majority of martial arts instructors, as they don’t go along with the rhetoric needed to create a business usually based on fear, anxiety, and paranoia.

The theory forever perpetuated that we ‘need’ all these systems and subsystems and styles and arts and methods and belts and titles and certificates and self-defense classes and fight records to protect ourselves…is just that, pure theory. Evolution and experience have given us a ton of tools with which to do so and they’ve been pretty damn effective to get us this far on the timeline, long before any organized syllabi ever existed.

Remember:

a. Most modern systems are ‘very’ new in the grand scheme of things, if we’re really researching their origins, and were created for an abundance of reasons specific to their culture, location, time, creator, need – much of which likely has absolutely nothing to do with your current existence.  Others of old have been lost forever, often for the same reasons.

b. Instructors constantly bring their rather subjective opinion on violence based on their personal experience/s, which may (or may not, as is far more often the case) have anything at all to do with yours.

c. Methods are predominantly gimmick-driven by nature…some new inventing-of-the-proverbial-wheel idea that no human since the dawn of time has ever thought of with regards to physical conflict.

Head up, eyes open, logic and common sense activated.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1906791856018647&id=769958606368650

Some elements worth noting:

1.   The fight is linear and symmetrical, not circular or asymmetrical.  (“agreed-upon” violence) Footwork is all forward and back, not lateral or circular. (possibly as circular wasn’t needed due to the vast expanse of space and they intuitively knew this – they had a fencing strip in length)

2.   The shuffle step, not the vaunted v-stepping everyone preaches, is instinctively used.

3.   For dueling, the weapon hand predominantly leads…again instinctively…to have weapon protect body, not other way around. (In fact, it was the backhand cut attempt that got him caught, as it presents both a telegraphing/timing ratio problem from the elbow, and a target-proximity one)

4.   Due to the ergonomics of the machete (not a pure cutting/slicing tool but an inevitably impact one with cutting power – hacking, not cutting), notice the elastic recoil on the striking: like a whip, the motions maximize the impact of the tip/head. The misnomer is that one telegraphs strikes this way but, due to the dramatic mid-strike increase in speed, simply not true and irrelevant. (as with the low-line sucker punch that so many martial artists make fun of, but lands with regularity in the really-real world)

5.  Here is a good example of the FMA defanging-the-snake theory and bio-mechanical cutting….rarities, if we’re being honest….but present. The cut to the arm’s extensor tendons on the outside of the forearm  inevitably terminated the confrontation. (Noting that, again, this is an agreed-upon duel, not an ambush, which presents another set of problems to solve entirely)

6. Regardless of what the majority of instructors will tell you about what these 2 did wrong, this WAS a real machete fight, not a theoretical one. No grand movements were made, no dojo-successful techniques, no catch-all universal conceptual ideas…just subtle body evasions under heavy (the heaviest) duress. All else is moot. Reality dictates and provides valuable case study, not bullshit to pick apart for stylistic/systematic theory.

Credit to Michael & Real Violence for Knowledge for the video