Categories of the Attack Interface

The Six Categories of Attack Interface

If you have not read the blog on the The Attack Interface, Sept. 2, 2010, it might be a good idea to do so which, will aid in understanding the classifications which follow.  I will simply list the classifications first then discuss them in order.

1) Preemptive Interface - conversational set up, i.e. ruse asking for small change 

2) Argumentative Interface – while arguing i.e.Sucker Punch, Tackle

3) True Ambush Static - i.e. knife held to throat, gun to head

4) True Ambush Dynamic active attacked and ongoing i.e. shoved into ATM face first, stabbed or injured

5) True Ambush Hesitant - first attack failed now squared off, i.e. brandishing the knife

6) Consequential/Conditional – Flight 93

Preemptive Interface - conversational set up, i.e. ruse, asking for small change

     In this category the use of the terms preëmptive means a First Strike strategically to intervene in an attack which  is believed imminent or under way. 

Sun Tzu, Art of War -”to start after the enemy to be sure but, arrive before him to be safe.” 

Preemptive striking is a decision to attack to gain advantage.  Attacking first, fast, using shock and awe to overwhelm his victim is the primary tactic of the criminal.  A preëmptive strategy might be used yourself to get advantage when coming to the aid of another.  For example if a mother comes into a room to find a man raping her daughter, it does not behoove her to announce her presence, leading to risking both lives but instead, to strike without warning injuring the assailant sufficiently to allow the daughter’s escape and allowing both of them to flee to safety. In an instance of ambush in which escape is not possible when outnumbered, fighting superior strength, weapons, or one is at severe risk,  the preëmptive attack may be the only choice acceptable.

The argument interface is typical of challenges of ego, rage, verbal argument about to go wrong.  It is also the situation where persuasion has a chance to talk the challenger out of the fight or for you to simply leave.  This range and situation is also the environment of the sucker punch.

In the case of the sucker punch which may come somewhat unexpectedly there is some thought that a fight might begin.  In the case of what I call the true ambush there is no sign that one is about to be attacked and one is simply blind sided with the first strike, grab, push, or stabbing. In the case of true ambush static one is being held at knife point, gun point or held by muscle power.

The category named true ambush has two other categories besides true ambush static, they are; true ambush dynamic and true ambush hesitant.  True ambush dynamic is a case where one has been struck, stabbed and consequently injured.  The immediate injury is not debilitating and one is still in the fight for life at the moment.

When we use the term true ambush hesitant we are referring to a case when the ambush failed, the punch missed, the stabbing was ineffective.  As a result the assailant hesitated stood back or was thrown off and there the both of you are; squared off as it were. This is an example of true ambush hesitant or any situation were two persons are squared off.

And, lastly is the category of consequential/conditional where as an example, I used Flight 93 on 9/11.  Conditional/consequential is a wrong place wrong time scenario whereby you specifically are not the target but, an innocent bystander caught up in something bigger than you where, the outcome will nevertheless affect you.  This is the most difficult of situations in  which the decision to ride the storm or become an active participant will result in life and death for you or others.

A Paradigm Shift

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein

 Every time I examine the design of a newly proposed method of teaching self-defense skills to the public, I realize that most developers are stuck in a particular paradigm.  Since these developers come from a military, law enforcement and martial art background they utilize some form of existing martial discipline they studied or are familiar as a foundation for their “new way”.   Being so trained their perspectives are stuck in that foundational paradigm.  In order to think outside the box, outside the paradigm, it becomes imperative to divorce oneself from the old ways.  This is a difficult task since, like myself, these developers have trained in the “old ways” for many years  before coming to their individual epiphanies.  The problem and limited success of development from prior knowledge or “present martial position”  is that it is like being inside a maze in which, no matter how many times the maze is run, the path always leads to the same exit.  It becomes difficult at best to envision a system, method, way of anything combative without preexisting skills from a earlier art developed over the millennium. 

 

A quote from Bruce Lee,  November 27th, 1940 –  July 20, 1973 -  “I personally do not believe in the word style. Why? Because, unless there are human beings with three arms and four legs, unless we have another group of human beings that are structurally different from us, there can be no different style of fighting.” 

 

As a result of prior conditioning and prejudices, the defense methods these developers use will have a minimum bases in boxing, kick boxing,  jujitsu, wrestling, and various kicks and strikes from thousands of martial arts styles. The developmental improvements in martial arts are analogous to the development of the wheel.  Since people first discovered the physics and practical use of the wheel, it has been put to use ever since the wheel’s discovery.  The wheel was not so much invented, as it was discovered much like fighting skills.  A wheel is a wheel, is a wheel.  But, while the concept of the wheel has not been improved upon for thousands of years, the steel belted radial is a far superior wheel for its purpose than a round log.  Improvement upon a theme is always possible.  Of course, as long as we are caught up in the paradigm of trying to improve the wheel it might not occur to one to float a vehicle on a bed of air – the purpose remains but, the paradigm has shifted.  What catches my mind is both the improvements to be gained and the method used to improve the thing.  Sometimes the thing to be improved is improved through the manufacturing process.

 With the above in mind, let one suppose and ask the following questions. What if you were required to develop a self-defense method which can not use any “known formal skills” – skills with names already described and detailed to date?  Let  the skills be as they come, unorthodox by the trained observer.  Suppose the new skills were lifted from this experiment and however unorthodox allowed because of there effectiveness rather than accepted form.  What would the result be from this methodology, chaos or functional chaos?  Might one learn rather, not a new way of self-defense but, a much better way of teaching self-defense?  Would not improving upon the manufacturing process improve the thing itself? Suppose we were to reverse engineer the development process?  Suppose instead of seeing what is accepted as correct we threw out everything and began with the problem of how to survive a violent criminal assault when at disadvantage?  In this research, one would use one’s primordial reaction to the problem extracting what one did most effectively with adjustments so learned.  Suppose then, we were to train according to the method used to solve the problems of violent criminal assault?  What are your thoughts?

Pan-Technicon used this reverse engineering and primordial methodology since 1971.  This method of experimentation succeeded in achieving better strategies, improved tactics and superior ways of teaching and training.

This material copyrighted, Haslam 2010

Ground Fighting To Stand Up

Why I Am I Fighting On the Ground?

In many blogs on the Internet two phrases reappear. The first phrase states; ”ninety percent of fights end up on the ground”.  The second phrase states, ”one-hundred percent of the fights start standing up”.  These two statements are examples of an ongoing debate about learning grappling skills and the role grappling should play in self-preservation.  As a complete and balanced martial artist learning a wide spectrum of techniques that can serve one in many circumstances has an advantage.  The extent that one devotes to the study of grappling are also based upon personal preference, prior injuries, age, body type, strength and willingness to engage someone in a grappling tactically or strategically.  The debate has to do with a martialist seeking specific goals. Some martialists argue that from their point of view either stand up or grappling is more necessary than the other in self-preservation.  Still other martialists insist that a “true”  martialist must have skills in all ranges.

As I see it , from the perspective of violent criminal assault survival, the goal is to stay standing if one can, fight on the ground if one must but, stand up as soon as possible.  My reasoning is as follows.  In violent crime, very few persons walk up to you in a robbery and say, “give me your money or I will tackle you and put you in an arm bar”.  On the other hand, it might be that in trying to disarm the assailant who has a knife or a gun, both persons fall to the ground.  Despite one’s preference to stand up, one must now deal with this reality of being on the ground.  Some strategic points to consider when fighting on the ground are:  the ground is not user-friendly and can contribute to injuries and tear at one’s will to fight.  The attack may involve more than one adversary and the ground gives the assailants immediate advantage.  The ground also gives the assailant advantage if he is larger, weighs more, is taller (leverage) and is stronger.  In the case that you and your assailant are on the ground, your solution consists of  injuring your opponent while extracting yourself from the grapple, to stand up, finish the fight or escape.  Preventing your self from going to the ground is part of an essential skill set as, the ground in a criminal assault is dangerous at best and is to be avoided if possible.  Do we need ground fighting skills?  Absolutely but, only enough grappling to understand our  enemy (“know thy self and know thy enemy, Sun Tzu Art of War)  and a full knowledge of escaping the grappling situation, causing injury and terminating the fight.  “You do not try to out box a boxer, you do not try to out kick a kicker, you do not try to out grapple a grappler.”  One must learn the ways of defeating the enemy with your skills, applying advantage to his disadvantage, and your strength to his weakness. 

If you frequent places where a trained martial artist with grappling skills hang out and by getting in an argument, a grappler may use his skills to assault you then you might need to be ready for that event.  On the other hand if the only conditions that you see in your future are non consensual assaults of violence by a criminal with criminal intent, than learning to grapple a grappler is not the best strategy. You must learn to defeat the grappler using your fighting skills not compete with him at his forte’.

If grappling is your thing, I think that is wonderful all the power to you.  But, I would not rely on grappling alone, to save my life in all situations of violent criminal assault.  If survival in violent criminal assault is your focus then it will take more than a grappling knowledge to survive and grappling will fit in this way: one’s preference will be to stay standing if one can, fight on the ground if one must but, and stand up as soon as possible.  What are your thoughts?

The Proteus Trigon: A Universal Element

Proteus Trigon is the Foundation of the Defensive/Offensive of the Martial Science of Pan-Technicon

Proteus Trigon is a Greek Phrase combining the name of the Greek sea-god Proteus and the term Trigon, meaning triangle. From this feature of Proteus comes the adjective protean, with the general meaning of “versatile”, “mutable”, “capable of assuming many forms”. “Protean” has positive connotations of flexibility, versatility and adaptability.  Therefore, the defensive/offensive and offensive/defensive aspects of the Proteus Trigon are flexibility, versatility and adaptability.  The Trigon or triangle is the shape of the hands and arms to form various triangular shapes both closed and open apex.  The various forms of the triangle or Trigon function as a Blockade (sacrifice something of lesser value for, something of greater value), a block ( to stop by striking someone else’s strike or motion, a parry (deflecting, riding, traveling and re directive), evasion, and a destruction (injury to limbs, disturbance of balance, or displacement of balance) and combinations of all the above.  The goal in formulating such a universal element was to aid in simplicity while providing the greatest functionality in a variety of uses.  It is my belief that the more you can do with less the greater chance of success in a fight for life.  What are your thoughts?

The Startle Flinch Response as a Trigger

The Startle Flinch Response: Its Value in Self Preservation

The picture in our header is an example of the startle/flinch response.  At the crack of the bat spectators react instinctively.  Some spectators see the bat others react to the sound alone.  Instinctively, everyone responds in some way to protect themselves.  This response is not the same for every person but, varies as each person perceives the danger; some people turn away, some people duck, some people put up their hands.  In actuality there is an entire museum of Startle/Flinch responses not all of which are effectively protective.  In our brain we have an almond-shaped gland just under the hypothalamus called the amygdala.  This gland is responsible for our instantaneous response or startle to loud sounds and unidentified fast motion.  In general the startle/flinch is our response to instantaneous surprise and unknown form of threat.  This mechanism is hard-wired into our nervous system but, these responses are not all effective in defense.  I believe nature provided the startle/flinch as a trigger alone.  Not knowing exactly what reaction should occur to help one to be safe, nature left the trigger open. Depending upon the threats of one’s environment be it a tiger, a falling rock or enemy warriors, the startle must link to an effective response.  In the case of the stimulus being the tiger the response might be to freeze and remain absolutely quite.  In the case of a falling boulder, just standing their and holding up your hands would not work at all.  Therefore, the startle flinch response is the fastest known genetic trigger to aid instantaneous reaction but, the reaction develops from training.  Through training the right reaction is associated with the right response.  The trigger is genetically built-in, the response is acquired.  The startle flinch will not necessarily aid us in all surprise attacks but, training to associate certain types of responses to this amazing trigger is an essential part of self-defense and self-preservation training.  What are your thoughts?

Advantage and Disadvantage

All Fighting is About Advantage and Disadvantage

When two highly skilled fighters engage in a competition they are usually matched by skill based upon their triumphs and defeats in their weight division.  The purpose of a match is to decide who has trained the hardest (endurance and strength) and who has the greatest will to win. Competition also measures, given equal opportunity, who can get the advantage over the other using skill.  Therefore, training includes not only skills but athletic ability and athletic attributes in which one tries to gain advantage in every possible way given equality of weight, competitive record and rules of the game. 

A predator, and not a competitor, selects his prey based upon the belief that he has superior strength, size, or other advantage such as a weapon. Additionally, a predator has surprise and  induces fear upon his prey. A larger adversary of superior strength, can injure another person more easily, as well as being less vulnerable himself.  Experience and skills are also a reason in having and holding advantage.  Being a criminal, his assault will most likely be just one in a series of similar assaults.  Eighty percent of the time a recidivist is the one committing the crime.  A recidivist is a criminal who has served time and who upon release from prison commits the very same crime again.  

Since the criminal perceives himself to have advantage and acts to bias the advantage in his favor, the intended victim without a strategy and tactical training succumbs to the criminal.  In all cases, fighting is about advantage and disadvantage, getting advantage, maintaining advantage and capitalizing upon one’s  advantage is the formula for survival. You must come to understand the following concepts; “You do not need more strength than your adversary but you must have enough strength to get the job done”, and  “It is possible to defeat the stronger and the larger but, one must know the ways and one must know that one can not always.”  Unless you are physically superior to your assailant, you will need to find your advantage in other ways.  Some advantages can only be achieved in certain circumstances or in one moment.  Once an opportunity to take  advantage is lost  or an advantage itself lost, the opportunity or advantage may never be regained.  Understanding advantage and disadvantage is what fighting is all about in a fight for survival.

In training to capture the advantage from a criminal in a violent criminal assault and survive, we must understand what are the conditions in which the criminal relies for his success.  Street fight strategy and tactics in favor of  the criminal’s success include: first action advantage with surprise, hard, and fast (shock and awe) and the attack is generally continuous and does not stop until he has dominance and cooperation.  Further analysis reveals some of the important factors which make this method of assault work.  When caught off guard one will have a reactionary response that must have built into the response some semblance of stalling his attack and preventing paralytic injury.  Simultaneously, we must take into account his mass (weight), strength, and momentum.  Trying to react to an attack with a technique which does not consider these three factors of mass, strength and momentum is to sacrifice advantage from the start.  In addition, to avoiding an initial paralytic injury we must counter mass, strength and momentum and we must take the advantage using our own mass, momentum and strength to gain and  keep the advantage.  By ignoring such factors as: mass, momentum and strength most fighting techniques fail.  Advantage and Disadvantage begin by learning how to control these three basic factors mass, momentum and strength.  What are your thoughts?

Killer Instinct Vs. Survival Instinct

NOT “KILLER INSTINCT” BUT, “SURVIVAL INSTINCT” -

This distinction between the terms “killer instinct” and “survival instinct” are significant in helping to understand, motivate, support and prompt action when fighting is the only choice in preventing disfigurement, disablement and death.   Legally and morally it is to ones advantage emotionally to behave with actions one can live with after the defense in assault, despite the severity of the outcome.  Some instructors teach a concept called “KILLER INSTINCT”.  I believe this ”psychological tool” is not as strong or valuable as understanding “survival instinct” and also, not as strong as the selfless act of ”Protective Instinct”. In the case of “Survival Instinct” and “Protective Instinct”, one may think of them as interchangeable terms for this excerpt. I believe that the efforts devoted to teaching  ”killer instinct”  is against one’s natural tendencies, is weak and misguided. I believe what humans have is “SURVIVAL INSTINCT’” given to us in birth and genetically wired for problem free operation.  Women do not give birth to a child with expectations that their child is a  killer, and killing must be untaught.  No one expects anyone to kill or murder as a matter of course.  Society and families do their best to protect our children from emotional damage in which killing can be learned or imprinted as a viable action or solution. People murder in crime and kill in war with pathology in the former and  a belief that stems from the idea that it has become necessary to kill to survive in the later.  This act of murdering  in crime is a heart and mind gone wrong. Killing in a war does not means we are born killers with killer instinct, it means we have chosen to survive.  What we have is “SURVIVAL INSTINCT”.  If we were to hold a person’s head under water and try to drown them, they would fight with every cell of their being to avoid death, no training would be necessary to illicit the fight for life response.  Nature provided us this powerful drive to live, “survival instinct” and it is genetically fused with our souls.  What one has to learn is that, it is OK to allow our “survival instinct”.  We must learn that it is justifiable to fight with every cell of our being.  We must know when a situation calls for “survival instinct” and how to use the tools necessary to prevent our own demise or that of a loved one.  It is when  these moral, legal, social lines are obscure and physical ability is separated from instinct, that civilians are injured, disfigured, maimed and killed everyday by criminals.  Confused by the fact that we do not have killer instinct, we may not sense that our heads have been placed, figuratively, underwater and therefore, the survival instinct is not triggered.  While it is not OK to murder, it is OK to survive. What are your thoughts?

The Attack Interface

The Attack Interface is the Most Critical Moment

When I say Interface I am referring to that moment in time when the attack begins or as some have called it, the  ”big bang”.  The talking and screaming are over, the fight begins or the blindsided assault explodes and theory will be proven by outcome. The study of the Attack Interface is the least developed skill in all martial art training and yet the most significant relative to violent crime survival. Bridging the gap in sparring is studied in great detail but, seldom equates with the way a criminal attacks his victim and sustains a continuous assault. When it is time to connect a type of attack to a type of defense the connection is called by me, the Attack  Interface.  If I have a six prong plug and a five whole socket I have the wrong Interface for compatibility.  So to, with violent criminal assault survival, a tournament oriented plug will not Interface with a violent criminal attack socket.  The Attack Interface concept  is a s simple as the plug and socket analogy.  Additionally, emphasis in many martial art schools is upon sharpening one’s sword or basic tools, weapons of offense and defense.  The emphasis is focused on how hard can I punch or kick.  But, if you never get to use your “sword”, your punch or your kick, a sharp sword or powerful punch and kick has no value.  Interface skills that  I am discussing answer the question, “how do I get to use my sharpened sword, my punch and my kick effectively?” In sport when opponents are matched in all physical attributes, a sort of cooperative interface or joining of the fighters takes place as each man charges in to take a grasp of the other. This occurs almost as an agreed acceptance that we will begin to fight as we come together.  As both contestants and the audience want to get to what they perceive the fight to be, which is what takes place in the struggle to win after the fighters come together. This silent consensual joining just happens without a second concern. How the two contestants come together to fight is somehow accepted and is not noteworthy unless one of  the contestants does not wish to engage the ground game. Some fighters choose a strategy of trying to maintain the stand up game and are hunting for that knock out punch while maintaining distance, range and staying on their feet.   Winning a fight at the initial engagement has not been a focus of prominence of the MMA fight arena.  Disappointment in the audience occurs when a fight ends abruptly, albeit by skill.  I wonder how many fights could be ended immediately, the equivalent of a tennis Ace if training were devoted to that skill. Although consideration must be given to safety.  While it is difficult to knock out an opponent with a signal blow at the initial attack, or for that matter throughout the entire fight.  However, in violent crime assault survival the intended victim is rarely as big, as strong, differing in gender and relative ages as their assailant. Failure to take advantage in the preemptive moment or at the first contact results in catastrophic defeat  in violent criminal assault survival.  The Attack Interface is the most important moment in the violent criminal assault survival sequence, as second opportunities are rarely an option.  In sport the fight itself is emphasized.  In the street, the quick end to a fight is the goal.  For the former the fight itself is the glory, in the later case fighting physically superior assailants leads to death.

False Assumption Vs. Positive Assumption

Tactics Must Be Based Upon Positive Assumption

False Assumptions of violent attack and consequent protection are many and can be fatal.  On  first note, I would like to comment on five False Assumptions. One, is that when a criminal throws a sucker punch that  punch will be the only punch coming; two, that your first best effort will prevent him from continuing the assault; three, the position you are in is the best for the now changed situation; fourth, the timing between punches will allow one to insert all kinds of counters and fifth, hurting someone is enough to stop him.  First, in order of presentation, while I have witnessed single punch attacks, the majority of sucker punch setups have been attacks with a flurry of hand combinations. These attacks included but, were not limited to; a grab with continuous punching, continuous windmill like hammering, alternating hook punches and combinations of all the above.  I have also witnessed, the boxer’s one, two-three combination with no hesitation between the jab, cross and hook punches. Second, because of the assumption that one would be dealing with a singular loaded power hook, a quick, from the hip hook (gunslinger hook), a straight right, a lifting straight right or fake followed by one of the series just mentioned, the first repositioning has often placed one at disadvantage. The position one had moved, once the first defense failed had placed one at more disadvantage, no thought having been given to what’s his next move and where do I have to be to deal with his next best effort. This disadvantage occurs if a the particular strike was not the one anticipated,  one was slightly off on intercepting the attack or as we have stated, there was much more to the onslaught than a singular effort.  Third, in training, sometimes the emphasis is not placed upon the importance of striking to injure (injure not hurt) the attacker at the beginning.    In preparing for things that can help offset the above False Assumptions, one can train with Positive Assumptions.  In my opinion, the  first attack must have at least the following Positive Assumptions; attacks will have more to them than one punch, so Positive Assumption one, be ready for continuous attack, that he will come with a second effort, Positive Preparation two, counters to next effort are built into your first effort, that if there is a mistake you need a next move from a position of advantage, Positive Assumption three, where you move is important, allow for mass, momentum and his next best move.  because, strikes are not spaced (no time between strikes) but, blitz like, the defense must allow Positive Assumption four, to include responses to  this type of powerful onslaught and Positive Assumption five, one must injure him to stop him not just try to hurt him to stop him. What are your thoughts?

Science of Behavioral and Tactical Self Defense

We Need Solutions to the Right Problem

Many of the self-defense tactics used in martial arts address the fighting skills of one martialist of a particular method of fighting Vs. the skills of another martialist of the same or similar method.  The problems of defense and offense of which these fighters are highly skilled are not the problems of a violent criminal crime or assault.  It is no wonder how the incidents of  failures in self-defense using martial arts are well documented.  This high statistic of failure has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the offensive damage that can be inflicted by a well conditioned martial artist.  Rather, failure has to do with being highly skilled at solutions to the wrong problem.  The problem of surviving a violent criminal assault are specific to the nature of a particular crime and must be trained accordingly. What are your thoughts?

A study of criminology; criminal behavior, crimes, crime statistics, and crime case studies is an essential component of problem based learning and preparing anyone for dealing with self defense and self preservation in highly chaotic and full throttle violence.