The Training Problem : Part Two
RELEVANCE AND PRIORITY IN TRAINING
To understand where training has failed historically let’s go back and examine our constants in criminal assault.
Attack initiated by surprise
Most training is conducted under circumstances where the trainee is allowed to have equal initiative with his training partner. You know there’s going to be an attack. Consequently you can “prep” yourself and think about what you’re going to do. This can drastically affect the core content of the training.
Range closed by a ruse if surprise cannot be gained
How much training begins with the given technique applied while the student is in the Threat Management stage of a potential confrontation? How much uncertainty is there in a student’s mind when he’s required to apply a technique in training?
Looking at these first two criminal assault “norms” is a student ever doing anything other than rehearsing a technique or waiting to rehearse a technique? Is there any mundane task that the student is required to be engaged in, a split second before he’s required to demonstrate his proficiency?
The presence of a weapon
This is particularly absent in empty hand training. How much of the student’s time is spent working empty hand against weapons versus empty hand to empty hand?
The presence of another criminal
As noted above this is also noticeably absent in most self defense/protection training.
Why? Because multiple opponents and weapons are difficult problems to deal with. Most people who train are enthusiasts. They enjoy it. No one, after a hard day on the job, maybe working for someone they dislike, wants to go participate in something that leaves them feeling dejected and frustrated. So we DO the things we’re GOOD at. And our training devolves into an enjoyable, athletic endeavor that is about as relevant as any other enjoyable, athletic endeavor such as skateboarding or ballroom dancing.
With that said what’s the relevance of holding ourselves to the standard of two rounds in the A-zone at 7 yards in 1.5 seconds from concealment when the criminal is not going to give you a reason to shoot him until he’s right on top of you?
What’s the relevance of standing off at mid-range and swatting at one another with training knives?
What’s the relevance of an extreme close quarter pistol technique that cannot withstand any forward drive by an opponent that is that close?
What’s the relevance of a knife grip that sacrifices strength in favor of maneuverability?
What’s the relevance of seeking an arm bar instead of getting to your feet?
Somebody explain to me how given a limited period of training time, any of these things reflect the context of criminal assault except in the most esoteric way?
So now that we’ve figured out what’s wrong what should the concerned citizen look for in a good trainer or school?
Comments are closed.