 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
©Copyright 2010 by Bradley J. Steiner  “ . . . no holds or locks on the ground are demonstrated. The reason for this is: (a) THIS IS WAR: your object is to kill or dispose of your opponent as quickly as possible ... (b) Once on the ground, you are more vulnerable to attack ... ... It is, therefor, obvious that you should concentrate on remaining on your feet.” --William Ewart Fairbairn ( from GET TOUGH!/ALL-IN FIGHTING)  WILLIAM E, Fairbairn (AKA “Dangerous Dan”, “The Shanghai Buster”, and “The Deacon”) should need no introduction to readers of this Monograph. Suffice it to say that Fairbairn was likely the single greatest authority on hand-to- hand close combat and personal defense skills with and without hand-held weapons of the 20th century. He was the most influential mentor of Rex Applegate (himself a legend), and was the most prestigious, sought-after, and influential close combat trainer throughout the Allied Forces of world war two. The Commandos, the secret agents of England’s wartime Special Operations Executive and of America’s Office of Strategic Services, and special agents of the FBI all learned Fairbairn’s special system of mayhem. Originally named “Defendu” when Fairbairn was Assistant Commissioner of the Shanghai Municipal Police, and as “Officer in Charge of Musketry” he developed an all- practical, ju-jutsu-based unarmed fighting method, Fairbairn drastically modified his art for wartime application. Simply referred to as “The Fairbairn System” during WWII, the wartime approach — like Defendu — rejected all groundgrappling and competition type moves. Fairbairn was aggressively fanatical about never using groundgrappling in actual hand-to-hand combat.  REX APPLEGATE (LEFT) WROTE: “Avoid, if at all possible, going to the ground with your adversary.” (from Kill Or Get Killed) Rex Applegate, in the opinion of some (this writer is one of them) actually came to eventually surpass Fairbairn, who was Applegate’s mentor. The Classic Kill Or Get Killed — which has been a hands-down authoritative manual since its first 1943 edition — details some of the finest doctrine in close combat ever discovered or described. Today, in 2008, the book continues to be a best-seller among knowledgeable combat and defense training experts. The writer was a close friend and personal associate of Applegate’s for more than 25 years, and was also a student of this incredible giant in the close combat field. In a personal memo to this writer, Applegate wrote, regarding ground fighting and the view of it that the WWII trainers had when preparing men for the real thing: “We just told them not to do it.”. In personal discussions with Col. Applegate, he expressed amazement at the fact that anyone would even consider groundgrappling and/or competition “fighting” to constitute any kind of preparation for real combat.   ANTHONY J. DREXEL BIDDLE. Colonel Biddle (trainer of U.S. Marines during the second world war) made his view of groundfighting evident by his conspicuous lack of concern over — or even mention of — the phenomenon. Biddle’s protégé, John Styers (famous author of the USMC “bible” of close combat, Cold Steel) similarly disdained any use of groundwork (save kicking or stomping a downed enemy). Charlie Nelson, one of the writer’s own beloved teachers, was Styers’ bunkmate in WWII, and was also a student of Biddle. Charlie thought groundfighting was anathema to effective and reliable real combat efficiency. “Stay on your feet,” he’d snap.  Begala at the right) were top trainers for U.S. Naval Aviators in WWII. They developed a three tiered program in hand-to-hand combat that was outstanding and brutally effective. Their program taught students to defend from the ground if thrown or if the fell, and then get the hell up! And kick the enemy’s brains out, if they got the enemy on the ground. Never, ever ground grapple! Originals of HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT (below) are collector’s items   Kawaishi was an 8th degree black belt in Kodokan judo. He not only brought the Japanese art as developed by Jigoro Kano to France, and founded the French Judo Federation; he also developed and taught a terrific and extremely deadly form of modernized ju-jutsu — close combat/self- defense. It was unlike the classical-traditional or esthetic ju-jutsu which is largely what is taught in the United States, Canada, and Europe today. Kawaishi’s system — which he describes and outlines in his classic, My Method Of Self-Defence (long out of print) — contains truly excellent material. From what this writer can tell from analyzing Kawaishi’s material he borrowed heavily from the knifework Wes Brown and Joe Begala described and illustrated in the U.S. Naval Institute’s classic Hand-To-Hand Combat (a 1943 wartime text for our military). Kawaishi discarded all groundgrappling completely, since his sole concern — insofar as self-defense was involved — was practicality and realism. Finally . . . while we have no photograph of him, there is “Pat” Dermot O’Neill, fabled hand-to-hand combat teacher for the Canadian/American First Special Service Force (the “Devil’s Brigade”). O’Neill had been a detective with the Shanghai Municipal Police Department, and had learned Defendu directly under Fairbairn. Fairbairn, a 2nd degree black belt, was of junior rank to O’Neill (who held a 5th degree black belt) — but that only pertained to the judo/ju-jutsu, not to real world unarmed and hand-to-hand combat! In that, Fairbairn was the senior master. O’Neill was the highest ranking Caucasian judo black belt in the world in the 1940’s. He had garnered his incredible grading by beating Japanese champions. He lived in Japan prior to WWII. O’Neill’s forte — his most powerful ability! — was in groundgrappling. When tasked with the formulation of a battlefield combat system for the commandos of the 1stSSF O’Neill chucked the groundfighting and focused exclusively on basic Chinese foot fighting (cheena-adi) which he had picked up elements of — along with kempo — while in Shanghai. This he blended with some basic Defendu/ju- jutsu, to create the “O’Neill System”. The “Forcemen” whom he trained were among the most formidable warriors of WWII. NOW here are some interesting and fascinating points to observe: Fairbairn was a judo/ju-jutsu trained man, highly experienced in throwing, holding, and grappling groundwork. Biddle was a ju-jutsu man — thoroughly versed in grappling an mat fighting. Brown and Begala were both catch-as-catch-can wrestlers, with the obvious heavy orientation in mat fighting and ground-grappling that this suggests. Kawaishi was a judo/ju-jutsu man — as thoroughly oriented in groundgrappling and matwork as anyone on earth. O’Neill was a premier judo man whose specialty, groundfighting, saw him defeating Japanese champions and literally beating “all comers” who wished to have a go at him on the mat. Every single one of those incomparable masters of practical, all-in fighting and close combat was PRIMARILY A GRAPPLER/GROUNDFIGHTER in his own fundamental and experiential orientation; yet, when pressed to develop methods for actual combat, EACH ONE DISCARDED GROUNDGRAPPLING and taught a repertoire of vicious, direct skills BASED UPON BLOWS of the hands feet, elbows, head, knees, and fingers! Every single one. More interesting: Rex Applegate, whose system of close combat does, according to the views of many (including this writer) surpass all of the other close combat and hand-to- hand methods, is the result of NO grappling/groundfighting background at all! He learned the British commando methods, the Fairbairn system, and had been a brawler. He also disdained groundfighting as sport, and knew that such was nonsense when preparing for serious hand-to-hand battle. Without the background in grappling/groundwork to “overcome” when considering how to handle actual hand-to-hand engagements, Applegate absorbed the cream of what Fairbairn taught, and threw in some of his own rough-and-tumble fighting savvy to produce a most formidable method for no-nonsense combat. ____________________________ We thought that readers might find that preliminary exposure to the thinking and teaching of real world close combat experts — warfighting experts — on the subject of groundfighting interesting. Now let us proceed to make our case in our words. Muddled Thinking . . . And A False Premise THE primary reason why the groundgrappling myth took root in the United States is because the venue in which groundgrappling tends to predominate — ie competition — is both extraordinarily popular and commonly misunderstood by its devotees to be virtually synonymous with combat. Thus, when groundgrapplers appear to win almost every single time they enter into “open competition” (vis a vis the UFC, and/or similar events) with those using other methods of fighting, the assumption is among the ignorant that therefore groundgrappling is the sine qua non of hand-to-hand combat. But it’s a serious myth and misconception. First of all, all fights do not “inevitably end up on the ground” as the proponents of groundgrappling-as-hand- to-hand-combat insist. What is frequently true is that many contests between grapplers and hitters end up on the ground, because sporting contests favor grappling and groundwork finishing actions. It is possible to use a much greater quantity of techniques that the grappling arts teach, in a sporting context, than it is possible to use percussionary techniques outside predicaments of lethal battle. Remember: Despite the claim that UFC and similar events have “no rules”, the truth is that not only are there numerous rules, but those rules forbid precisely those striking and related techniques that close combat and self-defense demand be reflexively employed in actual battle. The reader can verify this easily by simply checking and finding out for himself what the rules of these so- called “no rules” events compel their entrants to abide by. Just to mention a few examples: • No eye gouging • No ear-ripping • No biting • No seizing or kicking the testicles • No hair pulling • No thumb tearing at the mouth or nostril There is more, but that should be sufficient to prove to any honest person that contests — in which there are (and must be) rules — bear no relation to combat, where rules simply do not apply. “But look at how tough and well-conditioned and aggressive those UFC fighters are!” one might say. “Surely those physical specimens, even using only the aggressive sporting moves that they compete with, could make quick work of a real opponent in a fight.” Why, yes, that’s true. But it is no less true of pro-wrestlers (who are entertainers, primarily), boxers, catch-as-catch can wrestlers, judo men, kick boxers, classical- traditional karate exponents, and many football players. That does not per se prove that what the sportsmen use is the “best technique” for real combat. It simply proves that young, strong, aggressive combative sportsmen can generally handle punks and troublemakers who attack them. What else is new? The great wrestler and judo master Gene LeBell always made the point, when teaching and writing about sport judo in the 1960’s, that such skills could be adapted to emergencies, if necessary. One validates combat skills by reference to their performance and record in combat. Real combat, not controlled, restricted, sporting “combat”. Do not fall for the myth that “all fights go to the ground”. They do not. And, be careful that you avoid falling for its corollary: “therefore you must emphasize groundgrappling in order to prepare for actual physical violence, and you should build your repertoire around the strategy of taking your man to the ground and pinning him or grappling with him, there”. Utter, complete nonsense. Now let us examine the Specific And Obvious Differences Between Combat And Contest That Invalidate The Groundgrappling Theory WE shall take the points one by one:— 1. VIOLENT OFFENDERS AND MILITARY OPPONENTS DO NOT WANT TO “GO TO THE GROUND WITH THEIR ADVERSARIES”. WHERE AND WHEN A COMBATIVE ENGAGEMENT DOES END UP ON THE GROUND IT IS UNINTENDED (EXCEPT IN THE POPULAR CONTESTS AND “CHALLENGE” EVENTS, WHERE ENTRANTS UTILIZE PARTICULAR METHODS AND SYSTEMS IN WHICH GROUNDFIGHTING IS THEIR FORTE. What is a mugger or street assailant or troublemaker aiming to do? Obviously, he is looking to injure, possibly kill (or rob, rape, beat, torment, etc.) his intended victim, and then get away. Violent offenders may frequently wish to drop their victims to the ground, but they themselves most certainly do not want to spend time wrestling around with them. What violent criminals will do is either hope that their victims will be out and unconscious when they hit the ground, or they (ie the criminals) will stomp and kick their victims, after they have caused those victims to fall to the ground as a result of being knocked down (via punches, kicks, blows with a club, knife wound, or bullet wound, etc. and so on). Pinning or going for submission holds is for the sporting arena. Violent criminals are not interested in “winning a match”. They want to strike fast, achieve their objective, and then get away. Even in cases where and when violent criminals seize or grab hold of their victims (often when assaulting females), their objective is hardly to grapple and pin their victim. Nor is it sane to imagine that a fragile female could — in heels and a skirt, carrying a handbag — “slam dunk” some abductor or would-be rapist via groundgrappling skills in response to her attacker’s grabbing her. She needs other kinds of skills! And it appears rather foolish to pretend that such isn’t the case. Soldiers and marines may be instructed today (Heaven help them!) in the popular groundgrappling methods, but that which they will need to confront on the field of battle will not be best dealt with by resorting to such skills, should they ever need to face the moment of truth. Remember that we already know (it is not a matter of “opinion” or of “conjecture”) that which happens in military hand-to- hand combat engagements. The entire matter has been documented, studied, analyzed, wrung out thoroughly, and appropriate methods THAT ULTIMATELY PROVED THEMSELVES TO BE CORRECT IN ACTUAL WARFARE when put to the test, have been developed. They are most emphatically not the methods we observe winning in the various challenge events today. 2. BLOWS ARE SUPERIOR TO GRAPPLING ACTIONS IN REAL COMBAT. First of all, blows are simpler than holds and throws. They therefore may be applied more speedily. Whenever endeavoring to apply any form of hold or throw, one leaves oneself open to attack. This is not true when applying good combat blows. In fact, when one correctly employs the blows of unarmed combat, the process of applying them offers a built-in degree of tactical “defense” for the applicant. The argument that expert karate practitioners are often defeated when confronting grapplers in the challenge events is irrelevant. First, because the karate expert is generally “expert” in sporting-competitive moves. He uses punches (much like a boxer), and he uses the utterly useless and completely impractical high and fancy kicks of contest karate or kick boxing. Second, because those blows which are appropriate to and effective in hand-to-hand combat are forbidden in the “all out contests”. No finger attacks to the eyes. No biting. No kicking the testicles or stomping the knees. No blows to the carotid artery or throat area. Etcetera. No chinjabs. No gouges. Very limited elbow usage. And so on. Grapplers tend to prevail in contests because contests barely limit the grapplers at all in regard to what in their repertoires they may utilize against their opponents. On the other hand, the “hitters” are completely hamstrung. Second, blows are superior in combat because — upon impact — they at least distract the recipient. Holding or seizing, on the other hand, alerts the individual and often triggers a vicious retaliatory response (forbidden in the contests). When a person is struck hard with virtually any of the proven blows of unarmed combat his conscious focus is, for at least a second or two, often longer, disoriented. The blows of unarmed combat are whipped into an adversary without warning — not from a “fighting” stance, or after an agreed upon preparatory “setting oneself to fight”, by squaring off. When unarmed combat blows land well to the right targets, there is usually little problem thereafter with dispatching the enemy at one’s leisure. (As an interesting and somewhat amusing aside, we recall observing one of the top Brazilian groundgrapplers in a filmed contest, years ago. Oddly enough, this fellow opened the action every single time with a quick, distracting low kick to his adversary’s shin. Then he closed in and the grappling match was “on”. Why not just break the knee to begin with; or at least follow up by breaking the knee, after the initial kick lands? Yes, of course, their thing is SPORT, and no vicious, deliberate leg breaking kicks and maiming followups are allowed. But that is our point!) Third, blows are crucial against: multiple attackers, and weapon attacks. And that brings us to the next two points. 3. THERE IS NO MULTIPLE ATTACKER THREAT IN ANY MATCH EVENT. AND IT MUST BE OBVIOUS AND CLEAR THAT WRESTLING AROUND ON THE GROUND WITH TWO OR MORE ATTACKERS IS IMPOSSIBLE. We once read an opinion authored by one of the more famous of the groundgrappling advocates in a column he wrote for a well known martial arts magazine. In response to a reader inquiry about multiple attackers, this “expert” said that defense against more than one attacker is impossible. The hell it is. Now defense against more than one attacker certainly is impossible, we readily concede (even proclaim!), if one attempts match fighting and groundgrappling techniques against them. However, if and when one draws upon sound unarmed combat skills, defending against two or more men is possible, indeed. We have had students do it. Mark Bryans has had students do it. And there are lots of instances when it has been done in the past! Sergeant M.G. Harvey of the British Army wrote a description in a book he wrote on judo many years ago, of how a commando — unarmed! — overcame two enemy soldiers, armed with submachineguns, when he found himself confronting them in the desert! Theodore Shozo Kuwashima, one of the Kodokan’s top black belts back in the early 1900’s, and one of the great transmitters of judo doctrine to the West, made quick work of two punks when, in Chicago, they accosted him when he was walking down the street. The late combat karate master John Kuhl dispatched three street scum who attacked him on his way home in NYC, once. Defense against more than one attacker is possible. And, what is very important, learning how to do it is vital, since most real world attacks involve more than a single assailant! 4. GRAPPLING WITH A WEAPON BEARING ASSAILANT IS TOO DANGEROUS. BLOWS MUST BE EMPLOYED AGAINST ANY ARMED ENEMY. WHAT’S MORE: ARMED ATTACK IS COMMON, NOT UNUSUAL, AND IT BEHOOVES ANYONE TRAINING FOR SELF- DEFENSE TO BEAR THAT ALWAYS IN MIND. ONE NEED NEVER FEAR AN OPPONENT PULLING A KNIFE OR A GUN IN ANY MATCH EVENT. IT IS ALMOST A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT MOST VIOLENT OFFENDERS WILL BE ARMED, IN THE REAL WORLD. Forgetting for a moment entirely about the groundgrapplers, we wish to point out that even much of the more practical ju-jutsu doctrine that is widely taught is little more than suicidal insofar as weapon countering is concerned. All too often so-called “disarming” is taught with the absurd assumption that one will not encounter immediate and fierce resistance from the armed adversary’s other hand, or/and from his feet and legs, from his elbows, and from possible head butting! It is instead assumed that the defender need only evade or block the attacker’s initial action, and then apply some form of wrist or armlock, perhaps coupled with a throw. No thought is given to the attacker being a MURDERER — a person who is after the defender’s life! He will not stand still and wait while the defender deftly maneuvers him into a pain compliance hold, or some elaborate throw. First, grappling with an armed enemy is a mistake. Second, going to the ground with him while grappling for a submission hold amounts to sheer lunacy. Anyone who believes that this sort of thing can realistically be done in an actual situation of armed attack, has rocks in his head. Competition of any kind does not address what to do in an armed attack (ie and that is — avoid the initial danger posed by the weapon, and then KILL the weapon-bearing enemy). Grappling is to be avoided. Smashing into the armed aggressor’s throat, testicles, eyes, knees, or bridge of nose, and then pounding him relentlessly and savagely until he is unconscious and incapable of movement MIGHT enable you to defend yourself successfully against him. Going for a pin or a submission hold will only get you killed. 5. NEITHER COMPETITIVE MATCH EVENTS NOR GROUNDGRAPPLING MAKES THE SLIGHTEST SENSE AS A MEANS OF PREPARATION FOR SELF-DEFENSE FOR ELDERLY OR FEMALE OR HANDICAPPED, OR OTHERWISE CHALLENGED ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL VICTIMS OF ASSAULT. We read some years ago that the patriarch of the Gracie family is retired from competition. Of course he is! At the Kodokan Judo Institute groundfighting is reserved solely for the younger, stronger judoka, as is shiai. We absolutely LOVED the brilliant response that the great judo master Gene LeBell sent to the Gracies, upon receiving one of their “challenges”. LeBell, a contemporary of the senior Gracie, accepted the Gracie challenge — quite properly on the condition that he (Le Bell) fight the senior Gracie! Hardly surprising (at least to us) the Gracies never responded to Mr. Le Bell’s letter of acceptance. For whatever it may be worth, by the way, it is our personal opinion that Le Bell would have not had much trouble defeating the Gracie patriarch. We even suspect that Gene Le Bell, despite his age, might well have been able to defeat one of the younger Gracies. We are certain, however, that in any actual anything-goes hand-to-hand engagement, Gene Le Bell would defeat any one of the Gracies . . . from their patriarch on down. This is of course our personal opinion, and in fact we do not think that Gene Le Bell’s dignity, professionalism, and level of solid self- confidence would permit him to ever stoop to accepting any sort of “challenge” from anyone, ever. What the hell does Le Bell have to prove? He is for REAL! (FYI: One senior whom everyone professionally involved in the martial arts knows, Jon Bluming [“The Beast of Amsterdam”], has trained a gentleman by the name of Chris Dolman. Virtually every attempt by Dolman [or Bluming] to arrange for Mr. Dolman to fight the Gracies has, to our knowledge, received no reply. Mr. Dolman is willing to fight anyone. Thus far he has never been defeated. We thought readers might like to know.) Age has plenty to do with what one’s body can and cannot be realistically prepared to do in hand-to-hand combat. Seniors, who are often targeted for attack, need real world self-defense training. Slam-banging around in the “octagon” won’t give them what they require; nor will it work for females, or for the handicapped or otherwise physically challenged. 6. ATTACKS FROM BEHIND MUST BE ANALYZED, AND COUNTERACTIONS TO THEM MUST BE DEVELOPED IN EVERY SELF-DEFENSE STUDENT AND HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT PUPIL. BUT ATTACKS FROM BEHIND DO NOT OCCUR IN SPORTING CONTESTS, AND NO AMOUNT OF MATCH FIGHTING PREPARES YOU FOR THEM. This is one of the many shortcomings that exists in the “competition as combat” camp. The need to develop fast, furious, and destructive reactions to a sudden attack from behind should be obvious to anyone concerned about personal protection. It does not take a great deal of experience or training to appreciate that, whenever possible, a dangerous assailant will try to make his onslaught from behind his victim. Attacks from behind constitute one of the three categories of physical attack that must always be regarded as deadly — regardless of the level of skill possessed by the intended victim. (Weapon attacks, and multiple assailant attacks are the other two categories, for your information). The assumption that physical violence will — ipso facto — take place with a face- off and the assumption of a “fighting stance” is ridiculous. Mutual combat is illegal! (Except in a sporting venue). Besides, any trained combatives expert will do everything possible to avoid violence. The last thing that any sane person does is agree to get into a fight with someone. Yet, it is this particular strategy that the competition-as-combat crowd advocates by implication, when they suggest that the way they do things is the way to ready oneself for hand-to-hand combat. 7. CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTS IN WHICH ACTUAL HAND-TO- HAND BATTLES AND EMERGENCY SELF-DEFENSE SITUATIONS ERUPT. IN OFFICES, IN HALLWAYS, PARKING LOTS, STREETS, STORES, RESTAURANTS, PARKS, AND SO ON. THESE ENVIRONMENTS PROHIBIT GROUNDGRAPPLING STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES — OFTEN MAKING THE ACT OF GOING TO THE GROUND AS HAZARDOUS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL GROUNDGRAPPLER AS FOR HIS ADVERSARY. Groundgrappling requires a MAT, and a CLEARED AREA, or it becomes suicidally hazardous to attempt to undertake such action. Consider how you would employ groundgrappling if you were ambushed on a stairway! Clearly — in the real world, and in real combat — competitive “fighting skills” and most especially groundgrappling is absurd. 8. SIZE AND STRENGTH MATTER ENORMOUSLY IN ANY SITUATION WHERE TWO COMBATANTS END UP IN A FLOOR FIGHTING BATTLE. THIS IS NOT GENERALLY APPRECIATED, AND WHILE SIZE AND STRENGTH ALWAYS CONSTITUTE AN ADVANTAGE IN ANY KIND OF PHYSICAL BATTLE, WHEN ON THE GROUND AND WRESTLING, THE STRONGER, HEAVIER MAN HAS AN ENORMOUS EDGE, FAR BEYOND WHATEVER ADVANTAGE HIS SIZE AND STRENGTH MIGHT HAVE GIVEN HIM IN STANDING COMBAT. Man’s natural state is standing on both his feet, not rolling around on the ground. The “brute strength and size” advantage that an adversary has in any physical conflict is greatly enhanced when the normal environment, in which natural skills may be employed to greatest effect, is gone. When combatants clash in a venue where they are able to call upon acquired techniques suitable to their physiology (ie blows), then the one who is more skilled in those techniques can even (or even better) the odds against himself that a larger, stronger adversary would normally possess. But on the ground, underwater, or in any other conceivable environment where the human body’s propensities to function are given an extraordinary challenge that — in addition to the task of fighting — must be met via unusual and abnormal orientation and abilities, the larger, stronger individual has a great advantage — even if he is not aware that he has one. Blows come most naturally to the human being who is enraged and who is aggressively committed to damaging and dispatching another person. Note that many of the grappling techniques of ju-jutsu clearly derive from compensatory actions developed for use following a blow, or when an attempted blow fails. Uchi-mata (the inner thigh throw) is an excellent example. This throw came about as a result of either failing to employ some form of hip or leg throw (o-goshi, or tai-otoshi, perhaps), or after a heel kick to the testicles failed. The right course in the evolution of hand-to-hand combat was the percussionary course. Note that karate, without question, is the much more destructive and efficient of the two most general “types” of fighting arts (judo types,and karate types). We are not now speaking of the sporting or of the competitive venue, but rather of the combative one. It is certainly true that, while hitting and pounding appears to be instinctive in humans (notice how a baby in a crib or carriage clenches its fists and strikes out when angry), hitting correctly and effectively is a skill and an art that needs to be developed and learned. This is why the many arts of karate have come about, and how and why the WWII systems espoused almost exclusively the BLOWS that are effectively delivered by the numerous natural weapons of the body for wartime, serious, man-to-man fighting. Seize a much larger and stronger man’s clothing or limb and attempt a throw, and you had better be lightning fast, perfectly skilled, and lucky. If that man smashes you in the face, knees you, or rams his fingers into your eyes, you have had it! Suddenly lash out with a stomp kick to that same man’s knee and, even if you fail to break it, you’ll have set him up for effective followup, and will stand a chance of defeating his size and strength advantage. Go to the ground with a larger stronger man deliberately, and you are a fool. If you unintentionally end up of the ground with a larger and stronger man and then resort to proper combat actions, instead of groundgrappling, you stand a chance of winning the battle. And that brings us to the next point ............ 9. THE ACTUAL AND WORKABLE UNARMED COMBAT TECHNIQUES THAT SHOULD BE MASTERED FOR GROUNDWORK IF THE COMBATANT SHOULD UNAVOIDABLY GO TO THE GROUND, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT WHICH IS EMPLOYED IN ANY OF THE “CONTESTS”. Realistically, what should you do if you are ever taken to the ground or otherwise find yourself for whatever reason in a groundfighting predicament? Here, in a nutshell, is unarmed combat for that type of predicament:— • Bite — powerfully and deeply into any exposed and expedient open target at the moment. Sink your teeth in and try mightily to bite a chunk out of the body of the enemy, • And while biting reach for the testicles, the eyes, or the throat — simultaneously crushing/gouging/clawing as you continue to bite! Then, • Arise and kick your enemy’s head in, stomp on his throat, face, knees, ribs, spine, kidneys, etc. then (if a life or death battle) apply the bronco kick (per Fairbairn), which involves leaping into the air above the disabled attacker and driving both heels into him. In addition always, • Grab any stick, piece of glass, rock, or object at hand and rip or jab the attacker in whatever exposed boy part offers. You’d like to get the eyes or throat. If in any ground situation you can do so, use an expedient weapon at hand immediately. Why bite? Biting is always a “first action” in this predicament because it immediately forces an opponent to notice and to focus upon the pain. It momentarily blocks off his ability to concentrate on applying a hold, and makes his entire focus shift to the point of pain. This gives you a moment to attack, and it clears the way for the attack. Obviously no one can or should use such foul methods in anything but a dangerous self-defense or military combat emergency. However, in such an emergency, one should be programmed to use these techniques instinctively. If one becomes conditioned to “wrestle” when on the ground with an adversary, and if one attempts to do so in an actual combat engagement, one just might not get the opportunity to “adjust” in time to save his life. Always bear in mind: In combat, the object is always to regain one’s standing position as soon as possible; not to remain on the ground with an enemy and struggle to finish the encounter with any kind of immobilization or submission hold. If there is more than one opponent to contend with and you do not get to your feet, expect the second adversary to kick your brains out while you grapple with the first. Postscript: There may be occasions — rarely — when strangle or chokeholds may be employed to good effect on the ground. The drawback to the use of these (like any) holds, is that they take a relatively high degree of skill and time to apply, compared to the techniques described above. However, having one or two effective strangulation methods under your belt is not an altogether bad idea. 10. THE COMPETITIVE AND MATCH-ORIENTED GROUNDGRAPPLING MANEUVERS ASSUME THAT ONE WILL FIND ONESELF ON THE MAT — OR SEND ONE’S ADVERSARY TO THE MAT — IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THERE WILL BE A POSSIBILITY OF AGGRESSIVE FIGHTING THEREAFTER. HOWEVER, WHEN ACTUAL STREET THUGS SUCCEED IN KNOCKING SOMEONE TO THE GROUND, THAT PERSON IS OFTEN DISABLED OR RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS PRIOR TO OR DURING THE FALL. ALSO — THOSE THROWS AND TAKE DOWNS THAT WE USE IN REAL UNARMED COMBAT DO NOT GIVE THE RECIPIENT ANY OPPORTUNITY TO RETAIN HIS WHEREWITHAL AND FIGHT BACK, AFTER HE HITS THE DECK. HE IS KAPUT, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. Combat throws (like the chinjab and leg trip, the reverse hip throw, the head-twist takedown, the flying mare, etc.) can easily knock out or kill, in and of themselves. They are neither taught nor utilized as “preparatory actions” or setups for floor grappling. Such throws and takedowns that do not inflict immediate injury have no place in hand-to-hand combat. The properly trained defender who “goes to the ground” will either find that such has occurred inadvertently, or he will likely be taken off guard and smashed with a punch or a club that knocks him down and out — with little retaliatory capability possible to him, thereafter. Otherwise, it is unlikely that an attacker will be able to take him to the ground, and he will certainly not (if he has been properly trained for combat) decide or choose to go to the ground. The possibility of the defender ending up on the ground and needing to contend with a standing assailant exists, and we have movements for use in such circumstances, in unarmed combat. But these are not sporting or competitive moves. The ground is where the loser ends up in an actual hand-to-hand battle, most of the time. 11. THE DEMEANOR EVIDENT IN MANY OF THE COMPETITION- ORIENTED GROUNDGRAPPLING, “ANYTHING GOES MATCH CHAMPIONS” IS OFTEN QUITE OFFENSIVE AND DOWNRIGHT DESPICABLE; ANATHEMA TO THE ATTITUDE OF THE GENUINE WARRIOR. ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE THAT THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, WE HAVE NOT MET ANY; AND REPORTS WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM OTHERS CONFIRMS THAT THEY HAVE ENCOUNTERED — AND OBSERVED — A SIMILAR PHENOMENON. Combat veterans tend to avoid, rather than encourage or provoke, violence. The recent crop of challenge event fighters embarrass themselves with their scowling, grunting, belligerent, in-your-face, muscle-flexing demeanors. This is not the sign of the warrior . . . it is the sign of the adolescent-minded brawling “toughguy”; it is the sign of the outlaw biker, the gang banger, etc. In other words, the entire atmosphere of this “challenge event” nonsense virtually reeks of infantilism, diminished intellects, rowdiness, boisterous contemptibility, chip-on-the- shoulderism, and just about every other UNDESIRABLE personal character trait that warriors eschew. While this particular point may not per se demonstrate that the techniques of competitive challenge fighting and groundgrappling fail to prepare a man for real world self-defense, they certainly do go to suggest that such a training and application venue certainly might be regarded as counterproductive in every conceivable way . . . to include preparing trainees for life in civilized society. This last, by the way, is something that, once again, genuine warrior training does a fine job of accomplishing, when properly undertaken and followed. We recall watching a videotape that was sent to us some years ago in which one of the top groundgrapplers deliberately approached and started a fight with another individual on a beach (presumably, somewhere in Latin America, where this sort of adolescent, uncivilized conduct is regarded as acceptable). Why? Because the individual had made disparaging remarks about this noted ju-jutsu grappler’s art. Now how the hell is that for you!? A well known competitor (not in one of the legitimate judo, boxing, karate, kickboxing, or wrestling arts, but in this wonderful “system” that has been brought to us by the great masters from South America; land of machismo) starts a fight with someone! We used to see incidents like this — though not pertaining to martial arts — among eight, nine, and ten year old boys in the schoolyard, when we were a child. One of the first lessons we recall learning — universally, from every single martial arts expert we ever knew, read the words of, or listened to — is that you never look for trouble, start fights, fight over words, or get into any sort of physical conflict unless it comes to you, and is unavoidable. Draw your own conclusions about the “character training” and “discipline” that is provided in schools where individuals who relish fighting and who enjoy acting like asses “teach” the particular version of “ju-jutsu” (actually, more judo-like, when you analyze what they do) that “developed” them! Is this the kind of antisocial, backward, uncivilized conduct that we wish to have instilled through martial arts training? If so, then expect psychopaths, low-IQ punks, outlaws, and the usual dregs of society to be the practitioners and purveyors. Again: We have nothing but respect and admiration for good sportsmen who love to enter and participate in judo, karate, boxing, wrestling, kickboxing, and kung fu matches, and who garner awards for their victories, therein. However, an activity that promotes violence and the arrogant, chip-on-the-shoulderism one would expect to find in sleazy bars, has no place in American (or any civilized or semi- civilized) society. We do not teach or practice competitive arts; we teach combat and self-defense. However, even though ferociously brutal violence is certainly a a part of that which we teach, we MOST EMPHATICALLY DO NOT TEACH, ADVOCATE, OR PRACTICE ANYTHING RESEMBLING SUCH ACTIONS AS “COMPETITION” OR AS “SPORT”. Nor do we advocate brutality and violence, save when unavoidable in legitimate self-defense or in war. We submit that the recent attempt to introduce “brutal contests” in which sufficient “rules” have been established to eliminate the activity’s combat relevance is mandated, while permitting the activity to be pointlessly hazardous and reckless to cause serious injuries and to risk needless accidents, is STUPID. This is, admittedly, our opinion, and we do not wish to see laws forbidding UFC, MMA, or other “challenge” events. We simply wish to be able to voice our opinion, and hopefully educate those who wish to train in real close combat and self-defense skills, before they undertake useless training that might get them injured more severely than they would likely be injured in a street attack! Or — in some instances — we might encourage those who need and want close combat and defense training to seek it out rather than abandon their search for a school after observing such activities, and hearing their proponents espouse them as “combat” or “defense” arts. 12. THE MINDSET, ATTITUDE, AND RELEVANT PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS IN SPORT AND IN COMBAT ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT “MENTAL CONDITIONING” AND TACTICAL TRAINING FOR SPORT AND FOR COMBAT ARE SIMILAR. There is such a thing as the “COMBAT MINDSET”. There is also such a thing as the “WINNING MINDSET”. The combat mindset is necessary and appropriate in dangerous self-defense emergencies, and in war. The winning mindset is necessary and appropriate in a competitive sporting venue. Neither form of mindset is interchangeable with the other; nor is it possible to work on the inculcation of both at the same time. Only violent psychopaths and other insane people enjoy unleashing violence and causing harm to others who have done nothing to warrant being devastated. In fact, it constitutes a major undertaking to mentally “set” a statistically average, decent human being who is a predominantly reasonable, nonviolent, responsible, and respectfully mature adult, so that he possesses the requisite combat mindset that he needs, so that he can — in any emergency that requires it — go after a dangerous, determined enemy, and unhesitantly unleash whatever degree of force and violence is required to stop that enemy, decisively. A combat mindset prepares a man to knockout, maim, or kill an enemy when it is morally and legally justifiable and necessary to do so. The proper attitude of the competitor, on the other hand, is 180-degrees at variance with that which constitutes the proper attitude of the combatant. Sportsmen enjoy the innocent ego boost of defeating others in a controlled, “sanitized” environment. Sportsmen also generally get along quite well with those with whom they “fight” the hardest. (Read up on the history of Joe Louis and Max Schmeling for one of many genuinely touching examples of this phenomenon in history). Sportsmen enjoy the thrill of competition — the “high” — and good for them! The competitive arena is (or certainly ought to be) a place where hard fought contests can take place in relative safety, and with fellowship — rather than with rage or hatred — permeating the entrants’ individual spirit, and the arena’s entire atmosphere. In short, everything about the attitude attendant sport and competition is — ideally, and with the admitted and unfortunate exceptions — healthy, friendly, interesting, and enjoyable. The proper attitude of the combatant is completely opposite that of the competitor. A combatant fights when he MUST. A competitor fights whenever he CAN. A combatant may meet his foe under any and all conditions, anywhere, and at any time. A combatant may need to protect one or more loved ones during the engagement, he may be sick, injured, out of shape, or deeply immersed in any number of activities that have him for all practical purposes theoretically unready to handle violence at that moment. If a competitor is sick or injured he can always cancel his participation in the event and reschedule. A competitor also knows ahead of time who, where, and when he will be “fighting”. He can train specifically for a particular event, and even often tailor his training to meet the particular opponent whom he anticipates facing in the contest. Relevant psychological factors that will weigh heavily in each venue are completely different in the case of competitors and combatants, too. A combatant may indeed (and quite appropriately) hate his adversary. This is often the case in serious defense emergencies or in war. The U.S. Marines certainly not only hated, but were encouraged in training to hate, the Japanese who they fought in the Pacific during WWII. Hatred is not unusual in situations where human beings prey upon other human beings, or in instances when humans must stop would-be human predators. People often like to pretend that this isn’t so, that one may be “impersonal” in physical conflict . . . but frequently this is just not going to happen. Rage and hatred are in fact totally justifiable, and even provide a key to channeling and utilizing what we call “fear energy” in self- defense situations. Why shouldn’t a person be hateful toward anyone directing unjustifiable violence against him? Why shouldn’t a combatant fighting against an enemy in war, whose intended purpose and objective is the subjugation of that combatant’s nation, hate that enemy? Hatred has no place in sport. People who engage in friendly contests should never feel the desire to injure their fellow contestants. People training for serious combat must acquire the readiness and the willingness to destroy the enemy — without mercy. Mindset, attitude, and psychological factors in sport are simply unrelated to those consistent with combat. Period. 13. THE PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF COMPETITIVE SPORT AND COMBAT ARE DIFFERENT. CONDITIONING FOR EITHER ONE DOES NOT EQUIP A MAN FOR THE OTHER. Hand-to-hand combat is a frenetic, frantic, desperate, all-out, 100% drive to the wall. The individual encounter lasts three to 30 seconds — not the three or four minutes normally allotted to a “round”. And, as we have been saying for 30 years now, there is no round two in a combative engagement! There is no “second chance”. The sports competitor needs considerable endurance. He must have the ability to keep on exerting himself — often, to pace himself — and to hold out and keep on exerting himself in a fighting mode for as long as the contest lasts. Obviously, the better all round shape a man is in — whether competitor or combatant — the better. However, in the same way that the activity of swimming demands a somewhat different balance of attributes than does the activity of autoracing (but good general physical fitness will prove valuable to both types of performers), so this applies to the two different types of martial arts people about whom we are speaking. The combatant needs all round fitness — with strength heading the list of the specific attributes demanded in hand-to-hand combat. The combatant is cheating himself if he does not train seriously with weights. Weight training builds strength. And raw, plain strength is the basic physical attribute of the hand-to-hand fighter. He needs ruggedness, general fitness, a degree of endurance and stamina, speed of coordinated movement, and a high threshold of pain — all of which is assured when a good weight training schedule is employed; with nothing equaling the strength-building possibilities of weight training. The sportsman will benefit from weight training, to be sure. But the combatant needs weight training. Additional training that might be regarded as optional for the competitor, but that we would insist is mandatory for the combatant, is hardening the natural weapons and practicing hard impact blows against posts, dummies, bags, etc. Competitors need, at most, impact training for their high kicks and their punches. Combatants must harden their hand-edges, palmheels, elbows, and ridgehands and knuckles. In real combat those blows that are forbidden to sportsmen are the blows that will be resorted to automatically and without hesitation. Much of the physical training for such arts as taekwondo and muay th’ai is definitely harmful to the body. The extreme stretching of korean karate is not beneficial to the joints and connective tissue, and has resulted in permanent injuries for many participants. Pounding your shins on banana trees will give you tough shinbones — for a few years. However, the active fighting life of Thai boxers is very short, and the shins are vital points, so injury (even crippling) is not unlikely in later years if one adheres to this art’s customary conditioning procedures. It is not relevant to point out that “some” people are not harmed by this type of exercise, any more than it is relevant to point out that “some” people who smoke cigarettes do not get lung cancer. So? All physical conditioning for real combat must contribute to the permanent good health, fitness, hardihood, and readiness of the participant. Thus, its methods are as suitable for the 80 year old man as they are for the 20 year old man. There may be (needs to be!) a lessening of the intensity and of the workloads that the conditioning program imposes when the trainee is elderly, of course. But there is no need for the combat trainee to workout in any fundamentally different manner than he always trained if he followed the prescribed and proper approach. This is not true of the sporting-competitive arts (even the “sane” ones, like judo, karate, boxing, and wrestling). Drastic alterations need to be made in these arts because competition fighting matches are not appropriate after about age 40, even for “natural” athletes. And 40 is usually stretching it! Most (but, admittedly, not all) people who are serious competition fighters stop their match fighting when they hit around 30 years of age — or sooner. Certainly the statistically average participant in a martial arts program tends to fall away from competition by the time he reaches around 30, or sooner. 14. WEAPONS — VERY NORMAL, NATURAL, COMMONPLACE IN HAND-TO-HAND COMBAT — ARE NOT A PART OF COMPETITIVE MATCH EVENTS. Weapons in the hands of defenders and of attackers are common in real world engagements. Only a lunatic would advocate grappling on the ground (or closing and trying for a throw) with a determined adversary who is armed with a knife! And a knife is a handy weapon to pull when attacked. Remember: No rules whatever in real world combat. Training for close-in grappling and matwork via groundgrappling amount to training to die, when and if advocated for use against knife or pistol wielding enemies. Close combat training demands that the individual train to expect and to anticipate that his adversary will be armed; and what is more, it demands that the individual learn how to use modern weapons, himself. And when we say “weapons” we do mean modern weapons — not nunchucks, sai, tonfa, nine foot poles, or samurai swords. These antiquated weapons are fine for classical-traditional devotees whose practice is not for the purpose of close combat in a modern venue. However, they are simply inappropriate implements of combat for the private citizen today, or for the law enforcement, intelligence, or military professional. Familiarization with one or more of these weapons might, in some specific instance, be appropriate (if, for example, some known nut was employing one of them in street attacks, and patrol officers were required to understand the nuances of how the implement might be employed against them). However, violent criminals are generally a hell of a lot brighter and more realistic when it comes to combatives than are the preponderance of those who teach martial arts. They carry firearms and knives. While just about every type of competitive strategy and technique that is employed in match events is unsuitable when dealing with a weapon bearing adversary, nothing is as suicidal as the “close in/grab ‘em/take ‘em to the mat/pin ‘em” approach of the challenge event types. 15. IRONICALLY, THERE ARE A FEW GRAPPLING TYPE ACTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE IN THE BALANCED TRAINING PROGRAM OF A COMBATANT — BUT THESE ARE (PROPERLY) BANNED IN COMPETITIVE MATCH EVENTS, AND THEIR VALUE LIES EXCLUSIVELY IN THEIR BEING — A) LEARNED ONLY AFTER AN INDIVIDUAL HAS MASTERED THE CORE FUNDAMENTALS OF CLOSE COMBAT, AND B) UTILIZED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CORE FUNDAMENTALS OF CLOSE COMBAT. THEY MUST NOT BECOME THE “FRONTLINE ACTIONS” UPON WHICH ANY COMBATANT RELIES, EXCLUSIVELY. Examples of some excellent grappling type combatives are: • The “cross buttock” (or “reverse hip throw” — done facing the adversary). This is readily applicable in conjunction with virtually all of the basic hand, arm, finger, head, and elbow blows (although a front kick or a side kick would almost certainly — upon connecting — displace the recipient, perhaps even knock him down, and make closing and throwing with him impossible, or more likely quite superfluous. Object is to throw your man on his head. • The “chin jab smash and leg trip”. We teach this action (derived from combining ju-jutsu with the technique illustrated by Applegate in Kill Or Get Killed) to our white belts, and — providing you employ it after injuring and off-balancing your man — it is a helluva throw! Best done so that the skull is smashed powerfully into the ground. • The “head-twist takedown”. Straight from the O’Neill System, this excellent technique is applicable once an adversary has been disoriented (by a punch to the solar plexus, kick to the shin, eye gouge, ear box, etc.) and, pretty much like any throw, should never be attempted “cold”. One cannot, in serious combat, rely upon closing with an enemy, maneuvering him into an off-balance position, and then throwing him. This works fine in a judo match — but that’s because the other guy is restricting himself to judo, too! Don’t count on such luck in a real engagement. A solid punch in the face as you try to move in, or a hard kick to your testicles, (or perhaps being stabbed to death), is more likely to be the result of your attempting “finesse” in an actual hand-to-hand battle! The head-twist takedown has as its purpose breaking the neck. A life-or-death action for the battlefield, to thwart a rapist, home invader, or similarly lethal attacker. • Strangulations, chokes, and neck breaks. The chokes are excellent techniques, but must never be applied as they are in contests — ie with an immediate cessation of relatively cautious pressure that is calculated ONLY to cut off the blood supply to the brain momentarily. Again, that’s judo; and with seasoned, well conditioned rock-solid black belt judoka in their hard training 20’s or 30’s naked choking done this way is safe. But we don’t want “safe” in combat! Jerk that choke (or stranglehold) in place, and crank it on with murderous, unrelenting all-out pressure for a slow count of 30 if you are in a life or death battle with a deadly enemy. The drawback to this action is, of course, that it ties you up with your enemy, and can be suicide if there are multiple opponents. Neck breaks are another story. These have NO PLACE WHATEVER IN ANY FORM OR VERSION OF SPORTING CONTEST, AND MUST BE RELEGATED STRICTLY TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN YOUR LIFE OR ANOTHER’S IS LITERALLY AND DEFINITELY AT STAKE. Strangulation techniques that crush the windpipe are in the same category. Good strangulations, chokes, and of course neckbreaks KILL. They are for circumstances when lethal force is justifiable and necessary in order to save a life. There are some other good grappling actions that may profitably be learned, and that might be effectively employed, by advanced individuals in hand-to-hand combatives. Note, however, that these types of skills have no place in short-term, limited courses, or until a student has mastered the core fundamentals — which are the most essential skills. NOTE:— Astute readers might ask at this point: “What’s the point of learning those grappling actions if you’ve got to strike the enemy first, and if you can’t ever just grapple without depending primarily upon striking? Why not just keep on striking?” The answer is: That is precisely the point that Rex Applegate (the WWII expert who was the only one of that era’s close combat “notables” who did not have a background in ju-jutsu, judo, or wrestling) made! In fact he points out, in KILL OR GET KILLED, that it is often simplest and best to simply strike and keep on striking, since whenever you are in a position to employ a hold or a throw, etc., you can much more easily just HIT! And that, in one sense, is our point, too. In the official outline of the famous Silent Kill Course (of which we have the copy that was given by Fairbairn to Applegate) great emphasis is placed upon omitting (or at the very least downplaying and indicating the flaws inherent in) even the best of the well-know grappling actions of ju-jutsu. This was due to the emergency circumstances under which individuals — who frequently possessed no background whatever in unarmed fighting of any kind — needed to be taught to kill enemies in wartime, when immersed in a hand-to-hand engagement. Six sessions of instruction were provided, and many trainees would not even be taking the entire six sessions. Fairbairn’s purpose was to quickly familiarize novices with the bare bones essentials of what was absolutely reliable in close combat, and that which they could learn and utilize right away. (In cases where more time was allotted to particular individuals — such as the commandos, and other elite troops or special operatives in SOE or OSS — more skills were taught). Like Applegate, we still feel that the rounded combatant should understand and be able to employ the fundamentals and basic actions of throwing — combat style. And chokes, strangles, and neckbreaks do have their place in the professional’s repertoire, too. SUMMING UP IT has not been our purpose in this Monograph to denigrate or to antagonize anyone, or any particular approach to martial arts. It has only been our purpose, which we have pursued in good faith, and honestly, to correct what we believe could prove to be a dangerous misconception that is today held by a lot of people who are either current participants in, or considering becoming students of, a self- defense system. Years ago we categorized martial arts into four main groups: Classical/Traditional Sporting/Competitive Theatrical — and — Combat/defensive Each category of martial art is legitimate and worthy, with no one being “better” than or “superior to” the other — unless a specific purpose is established. Thus, the aspiring competition champion will find that only martial arts of the sporting/competitive variety will meet his needs. He will have to determine if he will train and participate in wrestling, judo, boxing, kickboxing, or karate, etc., since all of those arts — subcategorized under the sporting/competitive heading — are in their own turn, equally worthwhile. But this individual will not gravitate toward one of the other categories, since they are irrelevant and would constitute poor choices for his purpose. If a person is looking for close combat and personal defense training, then it follows that arts in which tradition, sport, or theatrics are the primary objective, simply will not do. In his case it may be said that a “combat/defensive” system is the “best” choice. Grappling and groundfighting, although not 100% irrelevant to hand-to-hand combat, are nearly so. And in the few instances where and when these skills are relevant, the techniques are completely different in the case of combat than they are in the case of sport. So, the combatant trainee, whose express objective and purpose is real world self-defense and hand-to-hand combat is taking the wrong road every time if he immerses himself in a competitive activity. We sincerely hope that this Monograph has been helpful and informative, and that it assists readers in understanding more about the subject of close combat vs. sport than the mainstream venues and the commercial interests have, of late, been conveying to them. Our interest here is not commercial. Our interest is in clarifying matters so that those who love and who participate in the martial arts will be better educated and will be better able to make informed decisions and choices regarding what they should pursue for their personal objectives, and best long range self-interest. It is in sincere hopes that we have achieved this purpose with YOU, that we conclude this treatment. — e n d — ©COPYRIGHT 2010 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to quote other than brief excerpts of this work in a review or a commentary, written permission from the copyright owner must be obtained. Contact: Bradley J. Steiner P.O. Box 15929 Seattle, Washington 98115 U.S.A.
|
 Custom Search© 2000 Attackproof Inc., Mad Squirrel Inc. |
