For many years, a few upstarts have been screaming from the rafters, "It's a fight! Not a gunfight. Not a knifefight. Not a fistfight. It's a fight."
Thankfully, more and more students and trainers have come to this same point and the face of training has changed because of it.
Nowadays, you will see more instructors than not teaching some form of Retention Position and, at least giving lip service to the idea of integrated skills training.
When I first began the journey towards integrating unarmed and tool-based skills, it seemed like the mere suggestion that you should 'corrupt' the teachings of the guru by attempting to do something other than what you had been shown was heresy.
The need for integrated training is recognized by most and is fairly easy to get across to anyone willing to listen, but I still see a lot of suboptimal stuff being touted as the 'latest, greatest, bestest".
When I look at integrated material, I ask the following questions. If the answers are affirmative, then I'm happy. If they are less than affirmative, I ask more questions.
One: Does the technique shown answer a legitimate problem?
--It's all great to be able to perform the 'tactical backflip of death', but if it is being taught as a close range firing technique there are issues to be addressed.
Two: Is the technique shown the most efficient manner to accomplish the goal?
--Efficiency is important. If the technique requires learning a completely foreign manner of gun manipulation, is the benefit worth it? Can I accomplish it without deviating from my normal scheme of movement?
Three: Does it take into account the "oh crap" moment?
--Anything works on cardboard. We can all preach about staying in Condition Yellow, but reality rules. That means that, at times, you will be surprised. You will be startled. Does your training take that into account?
Rigorous force-on-force testing of techniques against a committed aggressor is the only way to validate integrated training. This requires a lot of commitment on the part of your training partners and the appropriate safety gear. It is scary, uncomfortable and exilarating. And you come away with a much better appreciation of how quickly problems can develop and escalate.
Remember, it is a fight and you will be in that fight until it's over. Whether you are alive or dead, hurt or scared, does not matter. You will be in the fight until it is over.
Thankfully, more and more students and trainers have come to this same point and the face of training has changed because of it.
Nowadays, you will see more instructors than not teaching some form of Retention Position and, at least giving lip service to the idea of integrated skills training.
When I first began the journey towards integrating unarmed and tool-based skills, it seemed like the mere suggestion that you should 'corrupt' the teachings of the guru by attempting to do something other than what you had been shown was heresy.
The need for integrated training is recognized by most and is fairly easy to get across to anyone willing to listen, but I still see a lot of suboptimal stuff being touted as the 'latest, greatest, bestest".
When I look at integrated material, I ask the following questions. If the answers are affirmative, then I'm happy. If they are less than affirmative, I ask more questions.
One: Does the technique shown answer a legitimate problem?
--It's all great to be able to perform the 'tactical backflip of death', but if it is being taught as a close range firing technique there are issues to be addressed.
Two: Is the technique shown the most efficient manner to accomplish the goal?
--Efficiency is important. If the technique requires learning a completely foreign manner of gun manipulation, is the benefit worth it? Can I accomplish it without deviating from my normal scheme of movement?
Three: Does it take into account the "oh crap" moment?
--Anything works on cardboard. We can all preach about staying in Condition Yellow, but reality rules. That means that, at times, you will be surprised. You will be startled. Does your training take that into account?
Rigorous force-on-force testing of techniques against a committed aggressor is the only way to validate integrated training. This requires a lot of commitment on the part of your training partners and the appropriate safety gear. It is scary, uncomfortable and exilarating. And you come away with a much better appreciation of how quickly problems can develop and escalate.
Remember, it is a fight and you will be in that fight until it's over. Whether you are alive or dead, hurt or scared, does not matter. You will be in the fight until it is over.