Sweatnbullets
New member
First things first, I am not anti Modern Techniques. I have spent years and years studying and practicing them. I feel that they have prepared me very well for a “proactive” gunfight. My focus has now moved on to the “reactive” gunfights. This is not an insult to Col. Coopers work….it is a continuation of his work…..it is complimentary to his work. Now with that said, let’s get to the meat of the issue.
I am constantly questioned by the die hard Modern Techniques (MT) advocates about the wisdom of teaching as many things as I do. They often see it as “way too much” material and “way too complicated.” I could not disagree more!
As I was learning the MT I kept seeing “gaps” in the training. These gaps concerned me from day one and I figured that the gaps would be filled in, in the more advanced courses. This never came to pass. It was obvious to me that the MT were very limited, especially in the context of “the fight.”
As I began to look around in order to fill in these gaps, I discovered what the problem was with the MT. The problem was that it was a limited batch of disjointed techniques. These limited techniques were forced to fit into situations that simply did not make any sense. I knew right away that there had to be a better way, because this went against every prior experience that I had ever had in my life. To me the MT was comparable to learning to box from a slow, plodding, heavy handed, heavy weight. As an athletic, lightning fast welterweight, learning from a slow, plodding, heavy handed, heavy weight made absolutely no sense at all. The techniques were just too limited and did not fit into my strengths at all. I was told that “this is all that you will ever need.” I did not believe that for even a minute.
A fight is a fight, it does not matter what kind of a fight it is. Fist fight, knife fight, gun fight…..the bottom line is that it is a fight. If as an individual, you were blessed with God given talents and strengths, why would you ever abandon those attributes? The answer to that is that you would not and do not abandon them, no matter who tells you “this is all that you will ever need.” The idea that all I could handle was a few, limited, disjointed skills is absolute lunacy to me. There is not one event in my life that has ever told me that I could not handle transitioning through a fluid situational response when the chips were down. The idea of dumbing something down so that I could perform it under stress is as foreign to me as a traditional Lithuanian dance.
The reality of the fight is that “situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, and tactics dictate techniques.” Any fighting system that has the techniques dictating anything should raise a huge red flag. The statement above means that we must be as well rounded and versatile as we possibly can be. The question is, how do you incorporate all of this well roundedness and versatility into a simple fighting concept? The answer is that we train in “concepts” that work within the correct context of the fight.
What is the context of the fight?
This is a question that blows the Hicks law right out of the water. One of the most common things that you will ever read on a gun forum is “It is situational.” The exact context of the fight opens up a very limited choice of responses. This is a simple concept that can be seen in any basic boxing match. No one in there right mind throws a hook or uppercut from way outside and nobody in their right mind throws a looping overhand power shot from a clinch. The situation dictates the logical punching combination. This is no different from any real fight. No one in their right mind point shoots at thirty yards and no one in their right mind uses the sights at three feet. The specific context of the fight opens up the logical concepts that you have trained in. The illogical responses are never even considered. They are never a part of the decision making process. This conceptual approach allows for a vast integration of a variety of skill sets. This well rounded integration allows for the best response for each and every situation. But each skill set has its logical place inside of the context of the fight. Once again, illogical skill sets are never even on the table.
Due to my MT experience, I have always had a problem with the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) concept. I feel that this concept has been bastardized into “only do as my guru does” catch phrase. This closed minded negativity has done an awful lot of damage due to the retardation of the advancement of the art. A much more appropriate concept would be more like this, “Keep it as simple as it needs to be within the correct context of the fight.” Now this makes sense and can not be confused with dogma or guru worship. But of course we would not have that cute little acronym to desperately cling to when the heretics begin discussing “integration, matrix, or continuum.”
As we look to train in our “concepts” I feel that it is best to look at things as a continuum. A continuum is defined as “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts.”
Since the situation dictates everything, we need to understand that “the situation” (the context of the fight) is the defining element. We have to understand that there is a “fight continuum” and inside of this fight continuum there are lesser continuums that help establish the concepts inside of the correct context of the fight.
The Reaction Continuum
One of the first continuums that we need to accept is the reaction continuum. This is the concept of our initial reaction which is usually based on who has the initiative. You can either be in a dominant position, of equal initiative, or behind in the reactionary curve. Your reaction must be dictated by who has the initiative and to what extent that they have it. The MT did a fine job of teaching us what to do when you were in a dominant position….but is severely lacking in regards to the other positions in the reactionary curve.
The second biggest factor in the reaction continuum is the proximity of the threat. This will dictate whether you can “go to guns,” whether you have to “go hands on,” or whether you have the ability to get to cover or use “positioning” to mitigate the threat.
The reaction continuum also dictates the initial direction that you move, the level of explosiveness of which you move, the clearing of the cover garment, and the accessing of the firing grip on the handgun.
The Movement Continuum
The reaction continuum leads us into two other continuums that happen simultaneously, the movement continuum and the draw stroke continuum. The direction, the explosiveness, the speed, or even the need for movement is dictated by the context of the fight. The MT did fine with teaching us how to make hits with “stand and deliver” and “controlled movement,” but did nothing for us in regards to truly dynamic movement. Our movement needs to be dictated by urgency caused by your placement inside of the reactionary curve and the proximity of the threat. The amount of initiative that the adversary has will dictate where you need to be inside of the balance “to hit and not be hit.” There are times where making the hit out weights making the adversary miss and vice versa. This will all be very apparent as the situation comes down.
I feel that it is best to prioritize your movement for “your” most likely encounters. Civilian defenders and typical Street Cops priorities can be very different from that of someone in the military or in a special unit. As an instructor who specializes in the training of civilian defenders and Street Cops, I tend to do most of my training inside of ten yards. I also but a high priority on movement to the forward oblique’s but, I also feel that every direction should be covered……every direction, with varying speed, with the use of “see what you need to see” skills, while integrating directional changes, weapon transfers and movement pivoting. The goal is to be well rounded, versatile, and comfortable with whatever movement is needed in the specific situation.
I am constantly questioned by the die hard Modern Techniques (MT) advocates about the wisdom of teaching as many things as I do. They often see it as “way too much” material and “way too complicated.” I could not disagree more!
As I was learning the MT I kept seeing “gaps” in the training. These gaps concerned me from day one and I figured that the gaps would be filled in, in the more advanced courses. This never came to pass. It was obvious to me that the MT were very limited, especially in the context of “the fight.”
As I began to look around in order to fill in these gaps, I discovered what the problem was with the MT. The problem was that it was a limited batch of disjointed techniques. These limited techniques were forced to fit into situations that simply did not make any sense. I knew right away that there had to be a better way, because this went against every prior experience that I had ever had in my life. To me the MT was comparable to learning to box from a slow, plodding, heavy handed, heavy weight. As an athletic, lightning fast welterweight, learning from a slow, plodding, heavy handed, heavy weight made absolutely no sense at all. The techniques were just too limited and did not fit into my strengths at all. I was told that “this is all that you will ever need.” I did not believe that for even a minute.
A fight is a fight, it does not matter what kind of a fight it is. Fist fight, knife fight, gun fight…..the bottom line is that it is a fight. If as an individual, you were blessed with God given talents and strengths, why would you ever abandon those attributes? The answer to that is that you would not and do not abandon them, no matter who tells you “this is all that you will ever need.” The idea that all I could handle was a few, limited, disjointed skills is absolute lunacy to me. There is not one event in my life that has ever told me that I could not handle transitioning through a fluid situational response when the chips were down. The idea of dumbing something down so that I could perform it under stress is as foreign to me as a traditional Lithuanian dance.
The reality of the fight is that “situations dictate strategy, strategy dictates tactics, and tactics dictate techniques.” Any fighting system that has the techniques dictating anything should raise a huge red flag. The statement above means that we must be as well rounded and versatile as we possibly can be. The question is, how do you incorporate all of this well roundedness and versatility into a simple fighting concept? The answer is that we train in “concepts” that work within the correct context of the fight.
What is the context of the fight?
This is a question that blows the Hicks law right out of the water. One of the most common things that you will ever read on a gun forum is “It is situational.” The exact context of the fight opens up a very limited choice of responses. This is a simple concept that can be seen in any basic boxing match. No one in there right mind throws a hook or uppercut from way outside and nobody in their right mind throws a looping overhand power shot from a clinch. The situation dictates the logical punching combination. This is no different from any real fight. No one in their right mind point shoots at thirty yards and no one in their right mind uses the sights at three feet. The specific context of the fight opens up the logical concepts that you have trained in. The illogical responses are never even considered. They are never a part of the decision making process. This conceptual approach allows for a vast integration of a variety of skill sets. This well rounded integration allows for the best response for each and every situation. But each skill set has its logical place inside of the context of the fight. Once again, illogical skill sets are never even on the table.
Due to my MT experience, I have always had a problem with the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) concept. I feel that this concept has been bastardized into “only do as my guru does” catch phrase. This closed minded negativity has done an awful lot of damage due to the retardation of the advancement of the art. A much more appropriate concept would be more like this, “Keep it as simple as it needs to be within the correct context of the fight.” Now this makes sense and can not be confused with dogma or guru worship. But of course we would not have that cute little acronym to desperately cling to when the heretics begin discussing “integration, matrix, or continuum.”
As we look to train in our “concepts” I feel that it is best to look at things as a continuum. A continuum is defined as “a continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts.”
Since the situation dictates everything, we need to understand that “the situation” (the context of the fight) is the defining element. We have to understand that there is a “fight continuum” and inside of this fight continuum there are lesser continuums that help establish the concepts inside of the correct context of the fight.
The Reaction Continuum
One of the first continuums that we need to accept is the reaction continuum. This is the concept of our initial reaction which is usually based on who has the initiative. You can either be in a dominant position, of equal initiative, or behind in the reactionary curve. Your reaction must be dictated by who has the initiative and to what extent that they have it. The MT did a fine job of teaching us what to do when you were in a dominant position….but is severely lacking in regards to the other positions in the reactionary curve.
The second biggest factor in the reaction continuum is the proximity of the threat. This will dictate whether you can “go to guns,” whether you have to “go hands on,” or whether you have the ability to get to cover or use “positioning” to mitigate the threat.
The reaction continuum also dictates the initial direction that you move, the level of explosiveness of which you move, the clearing of the cover garment, and the accessing of the firing grip on the handgun.
The Movement Continuum
The reaction continuum leads us into two other continuums that happen simultaneously, the movement continuum and the draw stroke continuum. The direction, the explosiveness, the speed, or even the need for movement is dictated by the context of the fight. The MT did fine with teaching us how to make hits with “stand and deliver” and “controlled movement,” but did nothing for us in regards to truly dynamic movement. Our movement needs to be dictated by urgency caused by your placement inside of the reactionary curve and the proximity of the threat. The amount of initiative that the adversary has will dictate where you need to be inside of the balance “to hit and not be hit.” There are times where making the hit out weights making the adversary miss and vice versa. This will all be very apparent as the situation comes down.
I feel that it is best to prioritize your movement for “your” most likely encounters. Civilian defenders and typical Street Cops priorities can be very different from that of someone in the military or in a special unit. As an instructor who specializes in the training of civilian defenders and Street Cops, I tend to do most of my training inside of ten yards. I also but a high priority on movement to the forward oblique’s but, I also feel that every direction should be covered……every direction, with varying speed, with the use of “see what you need to see” skills, while integrating directional changes, weapon transfers and movement pivoting. The goal is to be well rounded, versatile, and comfortable with whatever movement is needed in the specific situation.