Thursday, December 31, 2009
Re-Cap. Ho Hum
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Process
Had a long talk with Kris Wilder the other day. It made me introspective, as talks with Kris are wont to do. He comes off as the classic bluff and hearty good ol’ boy… sometimes it takes a few minutes to realize that he was talking about some very deep stuff.
He’s also incredibly analytical, which you will see in a lot of his writing, and he lives truer to his beliefs than most are willing. All good stuff.
But enough about him. This post is all about me and, in a way, all about the blog and my writing and how I see teaching-
He gave a good analysis of what happens on most martial arts blogs- uplifting stories, analysis, descriptions of classes or techniques. Which grows readership? What speaks to who?
Chiron isn’t about growing readership and I’m not writing for you. We all know that. What readership there is appears to be from word of mouth and google searches- but there is readership and it is growing. Despite the fact that there are very few technique posts, not much uplifting, and even if I do skewer sacred cows I don’t do it with the entertaining glee of the dedicated iconoclasts.
(I also use big words, sometimes, which is a no-no on many martial arts sites.)
It’s a matter of how versus what, I think. Because the writing is for me, it isn’t about what I think. I already know that. It’s about how I think. The deeper it gets, the more it is exploring a process. There are a lot of epiphanies here, and questions and doubt and mysteries. Those are what I think about, those are the things that writing helps to explore, the way others talk to themselves.
I think, maybe, the difference with Chiron is that you can go to thousands of martial arts sites and read what ‘masters’ and experts think… here you can read how a working professional thinks.
The blog, writing, and teaching as well. It’s not about what you know but how you learn, less about what you do than how you decide what to do. Not about what the student thinks, but how the student thinks. My interest isn’t in the end product (except as a measure of effect) so much as in streamlining the process.
The language gets weird, here. A fighter is not something you are, but something you be. Grr- there’s no really active verb for existence. You can be a painter or be a painter. You can be a painter with efficiency and intensity, or you can be a painter lackadaisically, wastefully. The painting part doesn’t interest me as much as the being part.
Thanks, Kris.
------------------------------------------------------
Kris also asked me to do a guest blog on his "Striking Post" should be coming up soon. It's an idea I've been working on for a while...
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Rules
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Get Out of Your Way!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
So Close...
Monday, December 14, 2009
Frame of Reference
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Universal Wristlock Escape
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Caveat Lector
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Done... Mostly
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Putting it in Words
Friday, December 04, 2009
Chapter List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
CHAPTER 1: Legal and Ethical
1.1 Legal (Criminal)
1.1.1 Affirmative Defense
1.1.2 Elements of Force Justification
1.1.2.1 The Threat
1.1.3 Scaling Force
1.1.4 Civil Law
1.2 Ethics
1.2.1 Conscious Stuff: Capacity
1.2.1.1 Beliefs, Values, Morals and Ethics
1.2.2 The Unconscious Stuff: Finding Your Glitches
1.2.3 Through the Looking Glass
CHAPTER 2: Violence Dynamics
2.1: Social Violence
2.1.1 The Monkey Dance
2.1.2 The Group Monkey Dance
2.1.3 The Educational Beat-Down
2.1.4 The Status Seeking Show
2.1.5 Territory Defense
2.2 Asocial Violence
2.2.1 Predator Basics
2.2.2 Two Types
2.2.3 Two Strategies
CHAPTER 3: Avoidance
3.1 Absence
3.2 Escape and Evasion (E&E)
3.3 De-Escalation
3.3.1 Know Thyself
3.3.2 Know the World You Are In
3.3.3 Know the Threat
3.3.4 The Interview
3.3.4.1 De-Escalating the Monkey Dance
3.3.4.2 De-Escalating the Group Monkey Dance
3.3.4.3 De-escalating the Resource/Blitz Predator
3.4 Altered Mental states
3.4.1 Rapport Building
3.4.2 The Psychotic Break
3.4.3 Excited Delirium
3.4.4 Fakes
3.5 Hostage Situations
CHAPTER 4: Counter Assault
4.1 Foundation
4.1.1 Elements of Speed
4.1.2 The Perfect Move
4.2 Examples
4.2.1 Attack From the Front
4.2.2 Attack From Behind
CHAPTER 5: Breaking the Freeze
5.1 Biological Background
5.2 What Freezing Is
5.3 Types of Freezes
5.3.1 Tactical Freezes
5.3.2 Physiological Freezes
5.3.3 Non-Cognitive Mental Freezes
5.3.4 Cognitive Freezes
5.3.5 Social Cognitive Freezes
5.3.6 The Pure Social Freeze
5.4 Breaking the Freeze
5.5 One other Habit
CHAPTER 6: The Fight
6.1 You
6.1.1 This is Your Brain on Fear
6.1.2 And This is Your Body
6.1.3 Training and You
6.1.4 Mitigating the Effects
6.2 The Threat(s)
6.3 The Environment
6.4 Luck
6.4.1 Gifts
6.4.2 Managing Chaos
6.4.3 Discretionary Time
6.5 The Fight
CHAPTER 7: After
7.1 Medical
7.1.1 As Soon as You are Safe
7.1.2 Hours to Months
7.1.3 Long Term
7.2 Legal Aftermath
7.2.1 Criminal
7.2.2 Civil
7.2.2.1 The Threatening Letter
7.2.2.2 Difference
7.3 Psychological Aftermath
7.3.1 Story Telling
7.3.2 Change
7.3.3 Feelings
7.3.4 Questions
7.3.5 Victim Power
7.3.6 Friends, Society and Alienation
Afterword
Further Reading
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Busy Bak Son
Monday, November 30, 2009
Digging
Monday, November 23, 2009
Doing Scary Things
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Is That a Problem?
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Stuff
Monday, November 02, 2009
News
Friday, October 30, 2009
Conscience and the Rules
Monday, October 26, 2009
Admin Notice
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Teaching for Chaos
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Communication Styles and Teaching
Saturday, October 17, 2009
People
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Older
Sunday, October 11, 2009
All In
Another metaphor, or maybe a string of metaphors. A wise man, Mac, once said to me during a short conversation about the finer points of professional intimidation: “I want him to look into my eyes and see the price of admission.”
I love that line.
If you crunch the numbers, it is impossible for a small woman to resist a committed attacker. He will be stronger, bigger, have surprise and a plan on his side. (Trust me, in general, a threat will rarely pick a larger, stonger, more alert victim. That’s not the way the game is played.) Purely crunching the numbers, the victim doesn’t have a chance.
But victims have won. Many, many times they have fought their way to safety or scared off or incapacitated the threat. Statistics are statistics, but I have heard or read that fighting back increases a women’s chance of escaping unharmed by 50-80%. Full disclosure, (this is from memory, so don’t quote me) one of the studies in the eighties reckoned that fighting back increased the chances of getting away unharmed by about 80% but also increased the chances of being killed by 13%. Tell me if we need a short post on reading statistics.
So what’s going on? The math (size + strength + predator surprise) of what should happen in an assault doesn’t match observations from the field.
So here’s the metaphor- in any conflict each party is willing to risk a certain amount of chips. If the other party raises beyond what the other is willing to risk, they have the advantage. It’s a clumsy metaphor and I already hate it. It implies bluffing, but this is very real. It implies that only the chips on the table count, but the cards matter too.
Still, bear with it a little bit. When a rabbit turns on a fox and drives it off, it isn’t because the fox couldn't beat the rabbit; the fox leaves because he doesn’t want to pay the price to stay in the game. The fox, the predator, the threat makes a mental note of the risk they are going to take, what they are willing to do to take down this rabbit or that co-ed. They have estimated the price of admission. When the price goes up, they often leave (and this gets messy, too, because sometimes it can trigger a rage reaction as their manhood is put into question. If I can pretend the statistics are all about my little metaphor, raising the stakes works about 80% of the time and backfires about 13%). If the threat is surprised enough to freeze, the rabbit-turned-feral can not only escape, but destroy the threat.
Just a thought. I like the image of raising the stakes. When you are accustomed to a penny-ante, nickel limit game it just makes sense to walk away from the guys playing for rent money and paychecks.
But another reason to hate the metaphor- it sounds too much like Marc MacYoung’s ‘escalado’. Not the same thing at all, and the metaphor works better for escalado then for this…
But do you see it? There is size, strength, skill, speed and ruthlessness… but there is also an ability to take this conflict to a level that the other party isn’t prepared for. You want to chip your teeth and try to intimidate and I’m willing to put you face down in the concrete… who is going to win? Still want to play? You want to push and shove and I want to break bones and joints? You want a good old-fashioned fistfight and the knife appears in my hand?
Achilles and Hector- Hector was a good, noble man, possibly the best human being in the Iliad, and he was willing to kill, to risk his life and fight to the death. Achilles wanted to humiliate Hector’s dead body and drag it around the walls of Troy. Who won?
There are higher levels you can take conflict to, and as long as you leave a face-saving out, once you raise it too high the threat may walk away. But god help you if he was willing to call and you were only bluffing.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Old Man...
Friday, October 02, 2009
Early Love
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Pages of Notes
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Trained but not Taught
Saturday, September 19, 2009
I Usually Don't Respond to Tags...
Friday, September 18, 2009
Catch Up
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Myth of the Fully Resisting Opponent
This is something I wrote some time ago, in response to a specific statement. It came up again on the last post, so I thought some clarification was in order. There has been some slight editing fromn the original version.
Van's forum is all about facing up to the flaws in our beliefs, the things that we think are true that may have a cost when things go bad. We are popping the myths that we create about ourselves and our training.
I submit that if you have never had anyone try to gouge your eyes out to escape from a rear naked strangle, you've never tried the technique against a "fully resisting opponent". The first time, I let go of the strangle to protect my eyes. The second time, I knew better. (Edit- but one eye is still blurry almost twenty years later. From that eye gouge or the one four years later? Not sure.)
If you've never cranked on the technique so hard and fast that you heard a "crack" from his throat, you were playing a gentleman's game, politely.
In the time it takes to put someone in a juji gatame and start to yell "Back off or I'll break his arm!" You can easily be kicked in the head three times. Maybe more. I remember the first three pretty well.
If you've feel you've hit a real opponent as hard as you can hit, take the gloves off and try again. I've known people with shattered hands to keep punching, and people with broken skulls to keep fighting.
A fully resisting opponent isn't resisting. He is acting. A pure attack with no thought of defense. He's not resisting your technique, he's trying to beat you so badly, so quickly, that you can't USE a technique. (Edit- I was thinking of the predator ambush when I wrote this.)
I avoid the threads on "Uechi pointy things" (Edit, and what really brought this subject up- someone was claiming that eye gouges and throat spears weren't allowed in his particular brand of ultimate, anything goes, cage fighting because they either didn't work or were too hard to execute.) because I don't know enough about Uechi to contribute. But I have once used a spear hand to the throat. It was easy. It didn't require me to practice magic or have faith in untested complex precision techniques. It left a man who outweighed me by over a hundred pounds on his knees trying to scream and making no sound. That image still bothers me.
Train hard. Hard rolling is fun and good for you and good training. But don't pretend that either you or the other person is going all-out. You want to use the same partner tomorrow and so does he. And don't pretend that dangerous techniques are difficult or complex. You don't avoid them because they're difficult to make work, you avoid them because you need to recycle training partners.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Glitches and Denial
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Four-Way Breakdown
The first is physical, and this is the essence of combat: applying force from your body or tool to the threat or threats. Avoiding similar damage coming at you. There is a lot here, enough to make thousands of techniques and to justify the hours and years of training. Sometimes I seem dismissive on this aspect. Partially it's because once you have been doing it for a long time, it seems pretty simple. Power generation, targeting, power conservation and the infinite quest for the most efficient motion. Take some comfort in that if you want, but that's not the real reason I don't spend a lot of time writing or thinking about this. The real reason is that I have rarely seen anyone with any training who was crushed in an assault because of a lack of physical skills. Almost all simply choked. They knew what to do, they couldn't make themselves do it. So the physical side of it, in my opinion, is a critical skill to success, but does nothing to prevent catastrophic failure. That comes from elsewhere.