Target Focus Training

Social/Asocial -- Why Bother?

2008-11-25T10:41:00.000-08:00

It's a great question, and one that I get asked frequently. We spend a good chunk of our non-mat time trying to educate people in how to tell the difference between appropriate and inappropriate uses of the tool of violence. After more than 20 years of doing this work I figured it was as obvious to everyone else as it was to me -- but we all know what happens when you make assumptions.

Instead, I found an interesting dichotomy -- everyone walked in the door ready to 'kick ass' but then suddenly balked when I showed them how to crush a throat or kick a downed man in the head as hard as humanly possible. Suddenly, there was a disconnect between the tool they wanted and the tool I was teaching. And that difference is the (anti)social - asocial divide. Everyone wants to kick ass and essentially get their 'man card' punched, but they realize that maiming, crippling and killing are hideously inappropriate to the bar fight or dust-up between inebriated compatriots. And it is.

I would rather not have to explain the difference. It takes away from time we could be working on the mechanics of injury -- jaw flapping is near useless when compared to mat time. In the end it's an important take-away for our clients; it simultaneously focuses them on the reality and seriousness of the situations we're training for -- life-or-death -- and hopefully saves them the wear and tear, emotional trauma, and life-changing legal troubles surrounding violence used stupidly and inappropriately.

I would love for such problems to be abstract, but they aren't. They turn up all too frequently in the media, and if you're paying attention, you can connect the dots every couple of months or so. Like this case here in my hometown, the third such one this year:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081119-9999-1n19cravens.html

Why bother, indeed? You be the judge.

"I was preoccupied with what I was going to do to him."

2008-11-04T10:59:00.000-08:00

My wife came back from grocery shopping this weekend with a chilling story: a man stalked her in the remote parking lot behind the store. Now, the story obviously had a good outcome -- nothing happened -- but it was the way she talked about it, what was important to her and how she processed the event, that stuck with me enough to write about it here.

(Some facts about my wife: she's 5'2", had a couple months of training more than 16 years ago (and hasn't been on the mats since). She also took out a guy who came after her in a parking garage around that same time.)

Her story:

"There was a guy across the street who was obviously unbalanced, homeless or nearly so. As soon as he saw me, he looked around, saw that we were pretty much alone behind the store, and then began to cross the street toward me.

"It was clear that I had triggered something in him, maybe I reminded him of a girlfriend, ex-wife, or his mother, I don't know. But it was obvious to me that he was agitated by my presence.

"My first thought was what I would do to him if he came near me. I figured I'd smash him in the neck and sit on his hip to drop him, and then kick him in the head when he was down on the ground. It's worked for me every time I've done it in training."

(When I asked her to clarify, she said that she found she could dump larger, heavier men reliably into the ground this way.)

"Then I figured I'd give him the benefit of the doubt -- up to a certain point -- and loudly warn him off if he actually stepped into the parking lot, about 50 feet away. If he didn't stop then I'd take him out.

"As he got to my side of the street he seemed to reconsider and paused at the sidewalk. I continued calmly putting groceries in the car, and making sure he could see I was keeping an eye on him. He seemed to come to a decision and slinked off down the street. So I got in the car and came home."

Several things struck me about her narrative. The first one was a total lack of fear-language or a sense of victimhood. I even asked her, "Were you worried about what he might do to you?" She shook her head. "It didn't even occur to me. I was preoccupied with what I was going to do to him."

Note that is not bravado or empty posturing. She was resolved to hurt him, put him down and make sure he couldn't get back up. Her body language transmitted that grim determination and probably played a role in getting him to wave off. His prey was suddenly giving off predator signals, and he had to make the choice between a hard fight or easy pickings elsewhere.

Of course, it might all have been a terrible mistake; maybe he just wanted some change or a bag of chips. But that wasn't her read on the situation, and I trust her judgment.

The second thing that struck me was her confidence in her ability to get it done -- even without having trained in a very long time -- because she took ownership of the tool of violence way back then, and, unlike a specific technique or a spinning back-kick, you never forget how to hurt people.

It's been a long, long time since she had to think about it... but when she realized it was a potentially bad situation, it was there for her. She knew what to do and she was resolved to do it.

She was, regardless of what most people might be led to believe, in her element. That kept her from behaving like a victim. It probably helped to change a would-be predator's mind.

As much as this is a real-world, close-to-home reminder of why I do this work...

I'm just glad she's back home safe.

As Nike Says "Just Do It"

2008-10-28T15:47:00.000-07:00

"Book learning doesn't mean anything if you can't actually get out on the mats and do it."

That's the bowdlerized version of a quote from my brother--the original is profanity-laced and, perhaps, clearer in its rejection of the intellectual in favor of the actual. The key phrase there is 'get out on the mats and do it.' A handy imperative, and one that you should seek to fulfill at least twice a week. Because in the end, it won't be about what you've read or watched or listened to, it won't be what you've thought or talked about, it won't be dynamics or fitness work--your life will depend solely on what you have physically done on the mats.

You already know that getting a reaction partner and hitting the mats is important, but did you know it's so important as to be the only thing that matters? This singular importance hit me today as I was thinking about teaching, about what I knew--and I realized that the bulk of what I know came as a side effect of my mat time. No one taught me the things in the Source Book or the Striking Manual. What I learned were the base principles, the gist of which can be summed up in less than a page. The rest of my knowledge comes from computing as many iterations of those base principles on another human body in real-time. Everything I know is just memories of mat time.

Videos and manuals inform the physical training spectrum; the training spectrum (dynamics & coordination sets) is there only to inform your mat time. From the very beginning, everything is a pointer for your time on the mats.

Another way to look at it: there's getting ready to work and then there's doing the work. Hitting the mats is doing the work. Everything else is just getting ready. When done in equal measure--getting ready & then doing--you have a complete training system that will allow you to experience the highest grade violence possible, with your fist firmly on the grippy end of the stick (as opposed to the wet end). Doing the work without getting ready is fine, though a little on the rough side. Doing nothing but getting ready all the time means you're not doing any work.

And when your life is on the line all you will have is what you've physically done.

Your performance won't be about how much you got ready--it'll be about how much you did.

All I'm doing whenever I teach is reporting on what I've experienced on the mats. Anything I tell you is a distillation of subjective, physical experience. As such, most of what I know is of very little use to you; most of what I know applies only to me & how I have to move to get stuff done. What little I know that is useful to other people I share freely in the hopes that it will improve your performance on the mats and give you the keys to unlocking your potential so you can end up knowing what I know--but for you, and you alone.

"Get your ass on the mats and make it all mean something"

For that to happen, you have to do the work. You have to hit the mats with another human body.

Everything we say and do is to improve the quality of your mat time. So read, listen, watch, think, talk, do your dynamics & fitness work--but then get your ass on the mats and make it all mean something.

Why Self Defense Is Never A Joke...

2008-10-21T11:47:00.000-07:00

Slap a clown... everyone has a good laugh. But slap a killer... and you're likely dead. Let me explain.

The grainy black and white security cam footage is stark to the point of nausea. Like all murder, it's a kick in the guts how awfully stupid-simple killing really is. And, like the worst ones, it comes out of nowhere, sudden, final, and totally unexpected.

They don't even bump shoulders in front of the convenience store, just a casual brush of forearms, but enough to piss somebody off. The guy in the black sleeveless t-shirt turns and says something to the guy in the football jersey as he walks away. It probably wasn't nice. Football Jersey turns, probably answering the invective with a challenge. Black T saunters up, almost casual, and punches Football Jersey in the face. The blow does nothing more than rock his head back. Jersey takes a couple of steps away, though not from the punch. Because he wants to. There's an eerie calm about him. Black T swaggers toward him, slow, arms akimbo, body language questioning, "what now, coward?" In no particular hurry, Jersey pulls a nine-mil auto and empties it into Black T's head and chest.

The crowd breaks and runs, their backs strobe-lit by muzzle flashes.

What started as a usual Saturday night ends in death for the guy who, by all accounts, was on top of it. He was badass enough to insult people in public. He was confident enough in his fighting skills to throw the first punch. He was brave enough to push it and close distance to finish the job.

In the end, he lost his life not because the other guy had a gun, but because he slapped a killer. A mistake you usually only ever get to make once. He waded in, confident and in charge because every other time he did it he was slapping clowns. Every other time it ended in amusement for his friends as the clown laid down or ran away. This was obviously the first time he’d ever slapped a killer. And as it usually works out, the last.

This video is an ugly, awful reminder of how screwing around in violence can be lethal. Lethal for the confident, the skilled, the scrapper who's come out on top of dozens of altercations. Lethal for the competitor, the martial artist, the trained black belt. Lethal just that one, last time, the time you slap a killer.

Be Like Gandhi With A Nuclear Weapon...

2008-10-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

If a killer kills someone... no one is much surprised. Likewise, if the killer is killed by his intended victim, that's understandable irony.

But if no one meant to kill anyone, and someone ends up dead, well, then it's cartoon exclamation points all around. Everyone, including the newly-minted killer, is surprised. Cries of "How could this happen?" and "But I didn't want to kill him!" ring out. In the end it gets labeled as an unfortunate accident.

But these 'accidents' happen often enough that when a new one pops up I can still recall the last one I read about. Primates have a territorial dispute, and begin vocalizing at each other to communicate their displeasure, then aggression in a sideways request that the other capitulate. When neither one backs down, it goes to blows, again to run the interloper off. Usually, this works out fine, as nature intended. But when it's bodyweight + brain + concrete, one can end up running their rival not just off their territory, but off this mortal coil entire.

These things happen often enough that I would suspect you're more likely, on balance, to be involved in this sort of situation than purely asocial violence. In other words, you're much more likely to get slapped at than outright murdered. Misery comes from confusing the two.

If you train to kill and think that means you're physically trained to handle the antisocial, it's the same as carrying a gun in case you get into an argument.

If you train to kill and think that means you get to ignore the antisocial, you're setting yourself up to be ready for the most unlikely event while ignoring the most likely. Chances are, you're going to get caught wanting.

Because we train to use our bodies to cause injury, it's easy for people to get the wrong idea -- on the surface, martial arts and combat sports look similar to what we do. And since martial arts and combat sports do a great job of preparing folks to navigate that antisocial fog-zone, then they tend to think we're training for the same thing, only in a 'super effective' way. That's like pulling a gun in a bar fight and 'shooting to subdue.' There's no such thing.

Still, people get all eager to lock horns. It's funny to me (funny strange, not funny ha-ha) seeing as how we can still end up with unintended fatalities. If you ask a gun owner, "How many gunfights do you want to be in?" the sane ones will all tell you, "None." The sane ones understand what goes on in a gunfight, and would never choose to be there if they didn't have to. If they should find themselves there, they will shoot to kill. But they don't walk around looking for gunfights.

This is painfully obvious when we talk about guns. But for some reason it's less obvious with the empty hands. Why? It comes down to expectations. We expect someone to die if a gun is involved -- that's what the modern handgun is for, killing people at close range. We don't expect someone to die from a standard, everyday session of monkey politics. And yet death is one of the possible outcomes.

Me, I expect someone to die every time violence is used, and then breathe a sigh of relief when everyone survives. I have absolutely no interest in going physical with monkey politics. I don't leave the house looking for opportunities to use my skills.

My aversion to violence runs so strong that it makes me something of a walking contradiction to my friends -- I will do whatever I can to avoid physical, antisocial confrontation and yet won't hesitate to stomp someone into the morgue in the asocial realm. I'm like Gandhi with a nuclear weapon.

For those of you feeling eager, or emboldened by your training, some advice:

You're all set for the asocial. If someone wants to murder you, you're well prepared -- knowledgeable, practiced, resolute. But don't forget to make sure you're prepared for the antisocial -- sharpen those social skills, actively think about how you want to be in those situations. Will you join in and play along? Throw fuel on the fire? Push until he either backs down or goes for you? Or will you go completely sideways on him, defusing the situation, seeking to reduce his fear and channel his anger elsewhere?

Know where your triggers are and puts lots of padding between them and the outside world. Work to recognize when you're being pushed into a corner. And remember that simply walking away could save your life -- or keep you out of prison.

As with the asocial, so with the antisocial: be prepared.

Chances are you'll go your entire life without anyone trying to kill you. I wouldn't make the same bet about some jerk calling you out.

TFT Group Releases Long Awaited Throwing DVDs

2008-10-09T13:04:00.000-07:00

The new TFT Throwing DVD series is finally out!

And as the title explains ("The Art of Head Trauma: Dumps, Drops and Throws") these videos go way beyond merely tossing someone to the ground. Instead they break down every aspect of putting someone on the ground -- permanently -- into simple step-by-step movements you can execute the first time you see them.

Listen. During the past 2-3 years the hands-down #1 request for a new DVD product has been throwing.

And while we've wanted to get it out, the fact it involved people flying head-over-heels and landing in some pretty precarious positions required particular care.

But after a frustratingly long gestation, it's finally ready. And it's gonna knock your socks off.

Now, so you can get an idea of the unique nature of these DVDs below is a short video clip taken directly from the series.

What you'll notice is pretty well described on the back of the box the set comes in:

"While throwing (with its smooth motion and flowing arts) has long been regarded as the premier technical skill in the realm of fighting, the inherent fallacy with this is the almost complete focus on 'technique.'

"What you'll notice here is how this series dramatically re-focuses this powerful tool squarely on the one thing that truly matters most: results."

In this short video clip from the new DVD series, watch as Tim Larkin describes how 2 of his TFT instructors demonstrate the huge takeaway you'll get from watching this series ...a total focus on RESULTS!

Click Here For More Info

"But I Don't Want to Kill Anyone!"

2008-09-30T14:10:00.000-07:00

I was recently reading an article on self-defense in which the author was speaking of violence as if you could pick and choose the level of seriousness of the interaction, i.e., if he just wants to 'kick your ass' you kick his ass back, not *really* hurting him, but teaching him a lesson.

If he's a little more serious, then so are you -- and if he wants to kill you, well, that's the only time you're going to use certain techniques and targets like eyes, throat and so on.

"It's the idea that you can choose to hit someone with, say, 60% of what you've got -- and that you'll only ever hit someone with 100% when your life depends on it."

This idea illustrates a fantasy disconnect between 'fighting' and violence, one that deserves a fantasy name: I often refer to this idea as 'dialing in your Spidey-power.' (With many apologies to Stan Lee.)

It's the idea that you can choose to hit someone with, say, 60% of what you've got -- and that you'll only ever hit someone with 100% when your life depends on it. It's being able to look at an impending 'fight' and say 'well, he's not really serious, so I'll dial my Spidey-power down to 50%' and then sock him hard, but not TOO hard, because, after all, you don't want to kill him, right?

Here's the problem: holding back can get YOU killed. There are many ways to hold back:

You can wait and see to try and suss out what his intentions are,
You can make certain targets 'off limits' because wrecking them is awful (you'll never hear me say otherwise) -- like the eyes or breaking a knee, both permanent, crippling disabilities, and/or
You can 'go easy' on him by not striking as hard as you can.

Any one of these leads directly to reduced effectiveness, poor results, and in the worst case, can get you killed.

The idea that you can suss out his intentions is a fantastical delusion. If you don't have psychic powers (and my guess is... wait for it... you don't) or can know the evil that lurks in the hearts of men like the Shadow does, then you're screwed. You'll know he wants to kill you because, well, he's doing it. That is not the time to find out. In fact, it's never a good time to find out, right?

Making targets off limits ahead of time ("I'll never take the eyes") will give you a hesitating hiccup if your next -- and only -- opportunity is that target. You will stop. And try to get restarted. If you're lucky, it means nothing. If you're unlucky, the opportunity is gone and you just got shot/stabbed/whatever (perhaps again) and you just better hope he got it wrong.

You always want to strike the man as hard as you can.

Always -- as hard as you can. 'Holding back' reduces the chance of injury. Now we're into the realm of slapping each other around, pissing people off, and delivering non-specific 'light' trauma that is neither a persistent injury nor spinal reflex inducing. It's wasted motion that let's him know it's on.

The author did believe, however, that in a real worst-case scenario a magical transformation would occur -- that even though you'd been neutering and watering-down your training by waiting, making targets off-limits and slapping at them you could suddenly rise to the occasion of your impending murder by crushing the throat or tearing out an eye with full force and effort.

That's a neat idea, but it flies in the face of 'you do what you train.'

So, to that point, how does the way we train serve you? It would seem, on the surface, that we ONLY train for the worst-case scenario, that to use what you know in any other situation would be like using dynamite as a can opener.

Let's put it this way: the 'worst-case scenario' encompasses and includes all other possible scenarios; going in purely to cause serious injury, put the man down and then pile it on (i.e., start kicking a 'helpless' man on the ground) covers, handles and takes care of anything and everything he may have or have wanted to do to you.

But the real beauty is that you can stop at any time.

You'll typically do this the moment you recognize that he's non-functional.

Let's say you start out by breaking his jaw at the TMJ. You get the minimum expected reaction -- he turns slightly, somehow keeps his feet. You come back with a shot to the groin and get a HUGE reaction, he goes down face-first and tries to curl up in a fetal position. You break his ribs and then strike to the side of his neck, knocking him unconscious. At this point you recognize that he is non-functional (to your satisfaction) and stop.

(Notice that I didn't mention any techniques or tools -- that's because they don't matter. Injuries matter.)

This sequence could have been different at each node of injury -- you break his jaw and he spins around three times and lays down, out cold; you stop when he goes fetal after the groin strike; you stop after breaking the ribs because as far as you're concerned, your read on him is 'done.'

You also know how to carry it to a more final conclusion with a stomp to the neck, a neck break, a stomp to the throat, etc. But always as an informed choice -- not out of desperation, and not after having been trained that it is 'wrong' or morally less-than.

You also know how to start right off with throat-eyes-neck break, but again, as a conscious choice. If killing is what will see you through, you will kill him. If killing is not appropriate, you can still operate because you know where the line is.

All violence is the same

This is because you are trained in the totality of violence, understanding it for what it is -- a single-use tool that does not have an intensity dial on it. You can't make guns shoot 'nice.' And what a bullet does is the purest expression of everything we're ever talking about. All violence is the same.

So what does this mean for you?

First and foremost it means you understand that violence is not a plaything -- you won't goof off with it any more than you would with a loaded firearm. This is healthy. It means you won't get sucked into stupid shenanigans (antisocial) thinking you can use what you know without any negative repercussions. It means you're going to be smarter about when to pull it out and use it. This is going to save you tons of wear and tear, not to mention legal troubles.

It means that when you do use it, you're going to use it the only way you can be sure it works -- with no artificial social governors restricting what you can and can't do. You'll strike him as hard as you can to cause injury. And you'll take full advantage of that injury, replicating it into non-functionality.

If we view this through a social lens it is savage, brutal, dirty, unfair and very probably illegal somewhere. This was the essential thesis of the self-defense author.

But the question you have to ask yourself is are you going to bet your life the other guy is playing by the rules?

If he is, well, then you're a jerk, aren't you?

If he isn't, you're dead.

The moral of the story is: screw around with violence the same way you'd screw around with a firearm -- don't.

Owning Violence: How to Look More Like You

2008-09-23T16:04:00.000-07:00

A common question we get from clients is, "How can I learn to move like you?"

The answer is, "You can't."

Now, this isn't a haughty, ego-driven response. It's the truth -- the only person you're truly going to move like is you.

And that's the key to owning violence -- figuring out how you, with your idiosyncrasies, can best get the job done.

I realize that's all very nice to say, but what can you do to get there?

Hew to base principles.
Every act of violence is unique -- that is, no two start the same, progress the same, or finish the same. This fact makes violence look like a big knot of chaos. But inside that knot are the common threads that make up every possible snarl. Intent, penetration, rotation, injury, cause and effect. Know what these are -- study them in order to turn them from abstract concepts into concrete choices and physical action. When you look behind the curtain, this is really all we are ever doing. Make sure you got them down cold and can give a physical, 'real-world' example of each one.

Look at what has to be done, not how it's done.
This is the main reason techniques blow. When people see a technique, they immediately concentrate on the method, losing the results somewhere along the way. But a technique, really, is just a single solution to a single problem posited by a single person. It's not universal -- only the principles that underlie it are.

What you want is to 'use your mind to unlock a problem in violence with the key of your body.' This is terribly subjective, and gets us back to the idea that violent acts are like snowflakes (while no two are alike they're all made from the same stuff). If no two violent acts are alike, then you're on your own. You're going to have to rely on yourself to solve every violent act you're ever going to be involved in -- because not only will I not be there to help you, but by definition I've never experienced exactly what you're about to go through.

If it's all up to you and all on you, then none of my personal favorite solutions will make any difference for you at all.

Keep an eye firmly on the results you want and then plow a path from where you are now to where you want to be. This makes it yours. Our results are universal -- injury -- and so the finish line looks the same every time. But how you get there will be all about you. You'll start in a unique place, and you'll get across that line of final injury in your own inimitable way. You'll derive the perfect solution on the fly.

Make it work for you.
This is about how you train. When you're getting floor time with a reaction partner, look at what you want and then make it happen. If you think 'I want to throw him down on the ground from here,' then figure out a way to make it so. Perhaps you can stomp on his knee. Or step in and strike him to the side of the neck and then hip throw him. Or strike the neck while you buckle his leg to drop him. The idea is not to get stuck on doing a specific, huge hip throw, but rather to injure by way of throwing.

This makes your training generic and takes the focus off of 'doing techniques' and puts it rightly and squarely on problem solving.

This is really the gist of this entire rant:

In order to look more like you, practice solving problems, not 'doing techniques.'

In other words, this is a really long-winded way of saying 'as you practice so shall you perform.'

Being good at the skill of violence doesn't mean emulating anyone; when you're good at violence it means your mind is good at applying the tool of your body against the problem of violence. In a generic and far-reaching sense.

The Beating, the Breaking, or the Fall from a Great Height?

2008-09-16T18:16:00.000-07:00

The intelligent use of violence involves every means available -- all bets are off and no holds barred. You literally do whatever you want to the man (this is, after all, what we mean by 'free' in 'free fighting'). We have the ages-old rock to the head; we can break his joints by putting the torque in Torquemada; we can use the happy constancy of gravity and other assorted physical laws to line up the ultimate rock to the head, by throwing him into the regolithic embrace of Mother Earth.

But which one is better? Which one is a more intelligent use? Is there veracity to the implied hierarchy of striking, joint breaking and throwing?

The answer to all of those questions lies in the definition of injury in violence: body weight in motion applied through a target. We all know that injury is the only thing that means anything in violence, it is where violence begins and simultaneously ends, it is the ultimate goal. We also know that striking, joint breaking and throwing all result in injury when done correctly. What most people don't realize is that these three seemingly disparate 'techniques' for causing injury are really all one in the same -- they are three different expressions of the same idea.

Striking is easy enough for people to grok; body weight in motion through a target, the rock to the head. Or, to 'fancify' it, the fist through the ribs, the stomp to the throat. Every human being has an innate understanding of this, whether they know it or not. Add a stick or a knife to the outer end of this and we have what looks like choreography for the six o'clock news. Everybody, everywhere, is doing it!

Joint breaking is where almost everyone gets left behind. It puts the 'fancy' in 'fancy pants.' Now you must possess the wileyness of the monkey, the speed of the cheetah and the suppleness of the cockroach, right? Probably not, given that an excellent joint break can occur 'accidentally' in an American football game from nothing more advanced than one guy falling on another.

Throwing is even more 'advanced' than joint breaking, right? I mean, it's last on the list, and who really has the inhuman strength to pick up and hurl a 300 pound screaming man to the deck? Well, very few people, if you put it in those terms. If we change those terms, say to defining a throw as an uncontrolled fall into the ground (uncontrolled for him, not you), then literally anyone can do it. If a two-year-old can trip a grown man such that he ends up with a broken wrist, then so can you.

All three of these are still body weight in motion applied through a target. Striking is obvious because the body weight is yours and the target is something obvious, like a knee or a groin. Joint breaking is still body weight in motion through a target, only now the target is a joint that is stressed at its pathological limit, i.e., 'ready to blow.' Throwing is the only truly deceptive one -- you will typically use your body weight in motion to get him off balance and falling, using his body weight in motion applied through a target (him falling on his head) with the striking surface being the planet rather than one of your body parts.

Let's take a look at a truly simple application of all of these ideas simultaneously: you've injured him, he's down on one knee, his back to you, slightly off to your right. You have his left wrist held fast in both of your hands, his arm straight out from his body (parallel to the ground). What happens if you lunge through his arm, striking the back of his extended elbow with your hip, and then rotate 180˚ to your left (a lunge with a full pivot into the other forward stance). Well, let's see: his elbow will break and he'll be hurled to the ground by the drive and full rotation.

Is it a strike, a joint break, or a throw?

Rhetorical, I know, because you already have the answer -- it's all three at once. Body weight in motion applied through a target results, in this case, a strike that breaks the elbow and powers a throw.

So which one is superior? Does this mean that striking 'comes first?'

Hardly. What it means is that joint breaking and throwing are just special cases of striking -- striking can't come before either because they are themselves strikes.

There is no hierarchy. There is only ever body weight in motion applied through a target. It's how you mix up those two elements that decides whether it ends up being a vanilla strike, or a broken joint, or a hard fall.

And injury being injury, they are all equal in the eyes of the ER radiologist -- and so they should be to you.

Techniques: What Are They Good For?

2008-09-09T14:43:00.000-07:00

People talk of techniques as if they are the base unit of fighting--they are the typical way in which we are taught, a specific joint break or throw wrapped up all neat and snug inside an outer layer of strikes. And while they may be the base unit of fighting, injury is the base unit of violence.

Techniques are also seen as a specific answer to a specific problem, as in, "If he does X, I'll use technique X+1." The specific problem here, of course, is that the only specific in violence is, again, injury. Matching technique for technique may work in the ring, but it doesn't mean a damn thing to a serial killer.

You've seen us prop up the straw man of technique and set him ablaze on many occasions, but is he really as worthless as we make him sound? No--techniques are not as bad as we make them out to be; they have their uses in the training cycle, just not at the beginning.

A typical technique involves striking several targets to cause injury and set up favorable conditions for one or more joint breaks and perhaps a throw followed by one or two additional targets once he's down.

In theory, this gives the practitioner a framework within which to experience an advanced joint break/throw combo; in practice, the combo tends to vanish from the practitioner's repertoire, never to be seen again.

Why?

Because they learn the joint break/throw in a context that they never see again. Without the specific preconditions for the technique, they never travel down that branch of the decision tree.

They can always 'force it', e.g., when someone says, "Hey, remember that one throw?" they can reproduce it, but it will never come out spontaneously in free fight. And that means it is lost to them in actual violence.

This is why the assembly process (teaching a single target and illustrating how to get to it and wreck it from multiple angles) is superior to learning techniques.

Does this mean techniques are worthless, or even detrimental?

No.

It just means that techniques are suboptimal for training the uninitiated; for the more advanced practitioner, however, they're a gold mine and crucible rolled into one. When used properly in the training cycle, techniques allow you to mint your own gold bricks as you will. And then hit people in the head with them.

Once you've learned and mastered the bulk of the targets on the human body, as well as rudimentary joint breaking and the basics that underlie throwing (drop and hip throws), you're ready for techniques. Once you reach this point you know how to injure people--reliably, permanently, and without hesitation--but your efficiency is wanting.

Rhythm and timing are the names of your personal hobgoblins and technique is the chain with which you will make them your servants.

Techniques, as practiced by those well steeped in the basics, give you a framework within which to hammer out specific problems in rhythm and timing. It's not the break or the throw or even the striking sequence that is novel--it's purely how they're interrelated and how to pull off the rhythm and timing required to execute it all flawlessly, with little effort.

Therefore, techniques are a professionalizing tool. They are only useful at the top end, and worthless at the bottom. Techniques should only ever be used to teach rhythm and timing--not targets, joint breaks or throws. These must be mastered on their own, stripped of any context save injury. Only then will techniques be illuminating instead of confounding.

Remaining 2008 Self Defense Live Classes Now Just $497

2008-09-07T17:17:00.000-07:00

Last April a client in England was so amazed with the results of a private Target-Focus Training training we did for his company, he offered to 'sponsor' a public class both in London and Sydney, Australia.

Even with him picking up $1,000 of the $1,497 cost, we never imagined both classes would fill so quickly. There wasn't even time for a quick follow-up note before we had to cut registration off.

And it's was because of this man's unexpected generosity that we decided to reciprocate with a second class at both locations.

But now we're going even further... picking up $1,000 of the tab for 3 more self defense classes in the US as well.

It's 5 new training dates, each covering the complete TFT System... everything needed to keep you alive in a violent life-or-death confrontation including...

Hand-to-hand lethal combat,
Guns, knives, clubs and other weapons,
Multiple attackers,
And much, much more.

...and all for just $497 each!

But the best way to understand why this training is totally different from anything you've ever seen, heard or experienced before, is to read this new, first-hand account we just received from an attendee at the last class we held.

Go here to read what one recent attendee felt about his experience!

Here's the schedule that's been announced:

Sydney, Australia #1: Sep 12-14 SOLD OUT
Sydney, Australia: #2: Sep 19-21 Open
Las Vegas, Nevada: Oct 11-12 Open
Miami (Hollywood), Florida: Nov 1-2 Open
London, England #2: Nov 14-16 Open
London, England #1: Nov 21-23 SOLD OUT
San Diego, California: Dec 6-7 Open

More than 50 people have already registered in just the first 2 days. You can get complete details here.

Or you just might want to go directly to the self defense page and register now while you still can.

Tim Larkin,
Creator, Target-Focus Training

PS. Questions about any classes? Email Vonnie or call her at 360-582-9578 (9-5 US Pacific time).

If something works in violence...

2008-09-02T15:20:00.000-07:00

...it works because of injury.

(Or capitulation, but we'll get to that in a minute.)

What happens if someone gets hit by a truck? Well, more often than not they get killed. The faster the truck is going, the more likely that outcome. The question is, why?

The truck has lots of kinetic energy. It has the structure to transfer that kE and the momentum to push it all the way through. When this wallop exceeds the elasticity ratings of the tissues involved, we get a flying skinbag of broken bones and soup.

What if you put a gun to somebody's head and pull the trigger? Well, same story on a smaller scale--the bullet has the kE and structure necessary to destroy human tissue. In this case, the skull and brain, which can very easily result in death.

How about an axe handle to the head, as hard as you can? Same deal.

If we take the axe handle out of the equation we lose some of the things that make all three of these injury examples obvious:

Supplied, 'free' structure (steel frame of the truck, hard pointy-metal bullet, solid oak)

Supplied, 'free' acceleration (gasoline, gunpowder, leverage)

(In the case of the axe handle, the 'free' acceleration comes from the axe handle acting as a lever with small rotation at the grippy end being amplified into big rotation at the business end, upping the kE.)

So what does this mean for 'empty-hand' violence? It means that if we pay attention to structure (by consciously supplying it) and throw our entire mass at the man (to up our kE) and get both of these to the point where they can exceed the rated elasticity of soft tissue, we can do the same thing a truck, bullet or axe handle does with our bare hands: cause injury.

The last little thing we need to concentrate on is targeting, for while the truck, the bullet and the axe handle will wreck whatever it hits (flesh and bone alike), we won't. So we need a vulnerable target, like the throat, to make our efforts count.

Another reason these three examples are obvious to people is because they understand, unconsciously, that trucks, bullets and axe handles treat everyone the same--with utter dispassion. Asocially.

(It's also interesting to note that all three are also operated by people who can be rendered nonfunctional...)

But somehow, folks believe that if you take any of those tools away, a magical transmogrification occurs--because it's down to just you and me, the physical and physiological rules that govern the above interactions are null and void. The magnitude is gone (trucks hit a LOT harder and bullets go much, much faster than you can) but the basic rules are still in play. If I stomp on your neck as hard as I can, you die.

If we take the three examples (trucks, bullets and axe handles), the physical laws of the universe don't care who is running them--an untrained person, a martial artist, a combat sports athlete or someone trained through TFT. It's going to suck getting hit by the truck, or shot, or whacked no matter who's doing it.

The same goes for 'empty-hand.' It doesn't matter who gets it right..

If it's got penetration and rotation through a target,
it's going to end in injury.

(There is no patent on the knuckle sandwich.) Whether it was the untrained guy 'getting lucky' and hitting a target, or the martial artist chucking the self-defense angle and just wading in or the combat sports athlete disregarding the rules of competition--anyone who does anything that works gets it done because of penetration, rotation and most importantly, injury.

(Or capitulation, as I said above. In antisocial situations people sometimes quit when confronted with violence, whether it's being done to them or just threatened. Expecting or hoping people will quit is a crapshoot--not something you want to bet your life on.)

So what's my point?

My point is that there is no beef between TFT and martial artists/combat sports athletes. All training, all styles, all approaches have the potential to work in violence.

But when they do work they work because of the base principles we outline for you every time you train with us. With TFT we get rid of the 'potential' and go for the concrete. We get you focused on doing the work of a bullet with your bare hands.

And that's making injury a reality, then reverse-engineering everything backward from there.

4-Day Mastery Symposium, August 14-17

2008-08-26T14:38:00.000-07:00

Our latest four-day training, at the San Diego Center, for TFT Mastery Program members was an unqualified success! With more than 50 clients attending from literally all over the globe for 16 sessions taught by 10 different instructors on topics ranging from no-hands fighting to multi-man situations to 'how to kill without hurting yourself' (and everything in between), it was a terrific four days of advanced training.

In addition, a record five people completed their three-year training and assessment for Trained Fighter certification (equivalent to a martial arts black belt) at the event. I have to say, they nailed the test and kicked a lot of ass in the process. They definitely raised the bar for the next group...

The instructor cadre enjoyed themselves immensely--it's a great privilege to work with so many dedicated and hard-working people all at once. I find it very motivating and really do wish the entire Mastery Program roster lived locally so I could work with them several times a week.

In light of that, we're looking in to holding the 4-Day training twice a year--in April and October--to give Mastery clients more opportunities for advanced training as well as letting us see you more often!

Already looking forward to next year,

Chris

The War Face

2008-08-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

Most warrior traditions have, as part of their training, the development of the war face -- an intimidating, if not terrifying, visage. A furious look with eyes bugged or scrunched, brows furrowed, mouth wide to bear teeth, sometimes even a protruding tongue. It's designed to let the enemy know you mean business and get them to crap their pants before you set to work on them. Ofttimes it's combined with a blood-curdling shout, growl or scream. (This display of aggressive intent can also help 'psych-up' the user, as human emotion and the physical expression of that emotion are a two-way street; that is, while being happy makes you smile, smiling makes you feel happy.) Such displays are, however, a ridiculous waste of effort.

The war face is an attempt at communication. As you all know, in violence we're not trying to communicate anything to anybody -- we just want to shut off a human brain. Not frighten it, or let it know how angry we are, or how maybe this time we really really mean it and we're coming over there to get serious actually maybe this time. It's dragging social convention into violence. If you bark and snarl at a serial killer, he'll stab you in the neck while you're busy trying to intimidate him.

We don't want to communicate -- we just want to interface with targets as hard as we can.

On the mats, there are a lot of people who think that looking mean shows they mean business -- that you have intent. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I see people making the angry face, I know they're really afraid. They're trying to cover it up with a modified fear face. But they're not fooling anyone but themselves. I can tell someone has intent not by the look on their face, but by how they're interfacing with targets. Period. Either you're moving like a predator or you're moving like a timid forest creature. Sometimes it's like a cornered forest creature, all angry snarl and desperate speed. The squirrel trying to convince himself it's okay to take the peanut out of the proffering hand.

Recently, at the San Diego Center, I had the pleasure of seeing a positive example of what I'm talking about:

We had two new people getting a demo and some assembly on at the Center. At the end I asked Luke (Instructor) and Bruce (Group 2) to roll through some free fighting to show where all that target assembly ends up. Luke was absolutely savaging Bruce (as often happens when we know we're on stage), delivering a beating that was both brilliant and ugly at the same time, literally doing things I'd never seen (or dreamed of) before. I felt the warmth of a predator's appreciation.

And then I looked at Luke's face.

In the midst of all that furious action it was the singular dead spot. Flat. Slack. He looked, for want of a better term, bored. Only the eyes were alive, intent on each target in rapid succession.

As it should be.

While it warmed my heart to see such perfect execution, I could only imagine what such an apparent incongruity looked like to the uninitiated. Chilling, probably, as everyone can recognize the lack of compassion, or communication via the angry face, the human component set aside for a moment of base savagery. It was the face of the serial killer -- emotionless, done with talk, here now only for the purpose of violence.

And it says, to the initiated, far more than the angry face ever could.

Sydney Self Defense Class #2

2008-07-31T15:04:00.000-07:00

You may remember the announcement a couple months ago about the classes in London & Sydney...

How both sold out before I'd even been able to get out a follow up on them.

And how it was a problem because I'd promised a couple groups in both locations we'd let them promote the classes, never imagining every spot would be gone before they could do anything.

And how many others had sent emails saying they were still checking to see if they could get off work those days.

Class 2 in Sydney is on

Well, since the weekend following both classes was available we started working feverishly to secure a facility that could host both classes for both weekends. And in a story with more plot twists than a James Patterson novel, we've finally locked in a 2nd live training date for September in Australia.

Here are the details:

Dates: September 19-21, one week after the existing September 12-14 class date

Location: a southwestern suburb of Sydney, a quick 9.5km ride from the airport (we'll provide details once your registration is complete)
Facility: a terrific place with approximately 200 square meters of matted floor space (that's over 2,150 square feet for those of us who can't give up our feet & inches)

Price: the same as for class #1 -- $497. We decided that since our client/sponsor underwrote the cost of the first class and since we'd already be there, we'd reciprocate by holding the second at the same sponsored rate. If you haven't read the original email I sent explaining how this all came about, you can find it here:

Space is still limited This time we've already reserved about 1/3 of the spots for those groups I mentioned to promote to their folks so that leaves around 25 available.

Which isn't a lot, I know.

And it means if you had wanted to get into the first class but missed out, you won't want to make that mistake again.

Listen. The following weekend is the only one that works. And it'll be at least a year before we return (it's actually been two since we were in either Australia or England). And we certainly aren't expecting another sponsorship deal like this unusual one.

So use the link below and click on any of the links there that read, "Register for Sydney Now."

And one last thing.

Even if you're far from Sydney, you just might want to consider joining some of the others who are traveling great distances to take advantage of this amazing 1-time rate.

PS. London? Well, we're still working on a 2nd date there. Nabbing a location that can handle 30-40 people with the floor surface we require (judo-type mats) and that gives us run-of-the-facility access for 2 consecutive 3-day weekends isn't an easy find.

Firearms vs. Monkey Politics -- The Graphic Example

2008-07-09T10:41:00.000-07:00

Here's an unfortunate video that underscores two of the cornerstones of TFT:

1) Understanding the difference between antisocial posturing (monkey politics) and asocial violence (killing), and

2) Making sure that if you're going to lay hands on someone you know how to put them down so they can't get back up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV3dLrukBM0

Of course, it also illustrates the fact that firearms come pre-packaged with all the requirements for striking -- a good whallop of kinetic energy and complete follow-through, just add vital target.

It's just another horrible, preventable example of what can happen when one person reads the situation as antisocial, a contest for pecking order, while the other is willing to cross all those lines and go straight for the kill.

This is why we spend so much time on those two topics -- how to effect that kill with your bare hands and understanding when it's appropriate vs. the 99.9% of the times it flat-out isn't.

In either case -- walking away or putting the other man down -- the life you save just might be your own.

Firearms and Monkey Politics

2008-07-01T15:14:00.000-07:00

Everyone recognizes the lethal power of firearms--so much so that something as simple as showing one can change people's minds. Guns are often the exclamation point at the end of an argument.

If what you know how to do with our bare hands is the same, ultimately, as the work of a bullet, wouldn't it also follow that you could somehow convince people to do what you say in the same fashion? Can you not inspire that same mortal fear and get things done without having to use what you know?

Can you 'flash the gun' of knowledge?

Most people see the progression in use of force with bare hands being the least effective, sticks and knives being better, and firearms being the end-all be-all. This makes obvious sense, as most people are completely untrained in the use of their bare hands and so work at that level is entirely inefficient and haphazard. Knives and sticks amplify effort and magnify trauma, allowing even the untrained to do potentially lethal damage. Firearms pre-package the requirements for injury, needing nothing more than a trigger-pull and an intersecting vector to get the job done.

To truly understand violence as universal and equivalent, no matter what the circumstance or tool, you have to ditch the idea of progression and see the firearm not as the end of the line but as an excellent example of what's required in violence, period.

This is why we are fond of saying the goal of violence is to do the work of a bullet with your bare hands.

Understanding this--truly and viscerally--is the key to making violence universal and equivalent. You want the end result to be identical whether you shot him, stabbed him, or broke him with a stick or 'just' your bare hands. In each case you want him non-functional.

All of those various methods are really one idea--striking. They are all the delivery of the largest amount of kinetic energy you can muster through vulnerable anatomy. The knife, stick and the ends of your skeleton all driven by your entire mass in motion; the bullet driven by energy stored in chemical bonds. Striking someone with a fist or a bullet can be equivalent acts if you know what you're doing. Ultimately, shooting someone is just striking them at range.

In the world of equivalent violence, the only advantage that firearms have are a reduction in personal effort and an increase in range.

Outside of that world, in the world of the antisocial--primate domination games or 'monkey politics'--firearms do have one aspect that we cannot replicate with our bare hands--the universal transmission of implied intent. They can convey the instantaneous understanding of mortal threat.

Of course, this is not a recommended use of the tool, as you just might succeed in intimidating someone who is willing to kill you... and then it's on and you're a half-step behind.

Waving a gun around screams, “Do what I say/go away or I will kill you,” in every language possible, all at once.

But what happens when someone trains with us and learns how to replicate the work of a bullet with their bare hands, learns the universality and equivalency of violence but still wants to play at monkey politics?

How do you wave that 'gun' around?

They've learned all this new cool stuff, eye-opening and mind-blowing, and it looks like the Final Word in monkey politics--visually, violence and primate dominance can look the same if you squint a little:

- Monkey slapping with one primate whaling away while the other goes fetal

- Destruction where one person puts the other down and keeps him there.

Violence appears to be a great tool for getting this done--it entirely truncates the back-and-forth so often seen in monkey politics. So how do you wave that 'gun' around?

You can't verbally warn them--talk is cheap. Your words aren't going to stun them like flashing a real gun would.

How about if you 'go easy' or slap them around for the purposes of dominance? Without 'really' hurting them?

This is a very dangerous conceit. The sad fact is, there is no way to wave your knowledge or intent around in a way that would do the work of showing a gun. Knowing how to do violence regardless of the circumstance or tool is like having an invisible gun. If you said to a group of people, “I have an invisible gun,” they would all laugh at you or think you were insane. If you shot one of them dead, everything would change. Then they would know.

This is the essential problem of violence in monkey politics. Telling people you know how to do it isn't going to have an effect. Demonstrating it hypothetically for the purpose of example, "See, I could do this," just leads to argument. It's all just wind and noise until you stomp somebody down and curb them in front of everybody else. That's the sound of the invisible gun going off--unmistakable, instantly recognized the world over.

But ultimately 'unwavable'--there's no way to show it without doing it. And that makes it entirely unsuitable for the needs of monkey politics.

PS. This also gives us a non-ambiguous answer to the question, "When do I use violence?" The answer: "Anytime you would pull out a gun and empty the clip into someone." Burns off a lot of crap, doesn't it?

Targeting: Secret To Self Defense Success?

2008-06-24T14:50:00.000-07:00

Most people only give lip service to them. Or pretty much ignore them altogether.

But are targets really... the magic bullet?

Before we get into what targets are and what they can do for you, let's go over some things they're not:

Targets are not 'weak points'

To say that targets are 'weak points' is to imply that it is 'easier' to break them. This misunderstanding leads to unfortunate outcomes - believing that it is 'easier' to cause injury to a target will lead you to give less than your all when you go after one. It's going to take everything you have, all the time, whether you're lacerating a cornea or tearing a hip out of its socket. To do any less is deadly tomfoolery.

Another problem associated with thinking of targets as 'weak points' is that it implies that if only you could strengthen them, you could make yourself impervious to harm. By extension that would make a bigger, stronger man's 'weak points' less weak than a smaller, weaker man. This is a load of poppycock. Take the skull, for example: resilient, flexible, and hard as all get-out. And easily obviated with a judicious application of concrete and gravity. Or a tire iron. Or something as simple-stupid (and ancient) as a stone in the fist.

Targets are not 'pressure points'

Call me old-fashioned, but I think of 'pressure points' as places on the human body where, if properly squashed, one can staunch serious, life-threatening bleeding. Period.

Thinking of targets as 'pressure points' implies that simple 'pressure' (pushing, pinching, squeezing or poking) will have some kind of desired effect. Does it hurt to have any of those things happen to a target? Of course it does - we've all been on the bad end of that sort of treatment during mat time. But the difference between pain and injury is an insurmountable gulf. Each can each exist independent of the other. While pain can be a result of injury, injury is never a result of pain. In short, pain and injury are two very separate things. Whether or not something 'hurts' him is immaterial - breaking things is everything.

Pain compliance and submission are not things to bet your life on - rendering parts of him useless is.

We also end up with the same problem of thinking in terms of 'weak points' - a reduction in effort. If you really think you can simply pinch-poke-squeeze instead of giving it your all, you're screwed. The magnitude of success is directly proportional to the magnitude of effort. Giving it your all gets you everything. 'Poking a pressure point' gets you nothing.

Targets are not 'mystical energy nodes'

Is there overlap between the target list and an acupuncture diagram? Sure. And there's also overlap between the target list and sports medicine. So I guess it's up to you to pick one.

Chi is notoriously fickle when it comes to the laboratory. Somehow it always manages to defy detection - truly, it is mysterious. I think it's safe to say that something undetectable and mysterious counts for nothing in violence.

Thinking of targets as 'mystical energy nodes' also gets us back to the 'pressure/weak point' problem - thinking that it's 'easy' to cause a life-wagering change in them. Once again by tapping, squeezing or even zapping your own chi at them. This is magic. Magic is fun at nightclubs and little kids' birthday parties - but you don't want it in the operating room, the cockpit, or the nuclear power plant. Or in your own head and hands when your life depends on what you do next.

If you want to try and pinch off his chi when your life is on the line, go for it and best of luck to you. I'll send flowers to your loved ones.

The only energy I'll bet my life on is kinetic.

The difference between what targets aren't and are is the same as the difference between a 'strike chart' and what we have, a target list.

A 'strike chart' shows places to touch. A target list is a litany of destruction.

Thinking of targets as places you touch, rather than destroy, leads directly to a lack of injury. This is due to a belief that 'hitting the target' is sufficient for results. But you can hit the target and not cause an injury. That's because injury doesn't come from touching or 'hitting' the target. Injury comes from blasting everything you are through the target to make it come out the other side.

So what exactly is a target?

Targets are places where injuries occur

Targets are prone to injury when people collide with people and people collide with the ground. They are the parts of the human body that turn up time and time again in sports medicine literature. This is distinct from trauma medicine in general - while a shattered femur is indeed an excellent injury, it does not tend to happen when people run into each other and then fall down.

Another way to look at this is that targets are virtual injuries. You need to visualize this in three dimensions, not as a dot on the skin. The 'knee target' is a potential broken knee, bend backwards or sideways all wrong and loud. It's falling and not being able to get back up. The 'spleen target' is broken ribs and a bruised (or ruptured) organ. It's the inability to breath and internal bleeding that can lead to shock. That's what those targets mean to me, that's what I see when I look at them, on you, standing at the lunch counter.

Targets are virtual injuries much like Schroedinger's Cat. It's not dead or alive until you tear open the box and check. Possibilities are a lot of nothing until you make them into certainties.

Targets are an anatomical structure that can be crushed, ruptured, broken or otherwise rendered useless

That's not to say they are 'weak' - we've covered that idea - but that they are important to normal functioning. Contrast this idea with 'socking someone in the pec.' Painful? Sure. Any guy worth his antisocial salt has both given and taken this kind of abuse when amongst friends or siblings. But socking the pec doesn't make something important stop working. Targets are the important places in the body. The eyes, the throat, the organs of generation, joints, motor nerves, etc. - these are things the body can't do without if it's going to run around and function at peak performance. Like kicking the legs out from under a chair: kick out one and it's a wobbly stool, kick out two and you can't even sit in it anymore. Snap the back rest off and it's no longer a chair. If you start by tearing the seat cushion off, well, it's still a chair (albeit an uncomfortable one). You want to wreck the important things. Those would be targets.

Targets are the entry point for a vector

This is really, really important. If you get nothing else from this rant, remember this:

A target is not a dot on the skin. It's an entry wound. And every decent entry wound has an exit wound. With a tunnel of wreckage between the two. This is what bullets do. And so must you.
The targets on the target list are aim-points for the vector of your body weight in motion. You are going to throw yourself through them, to make whatever tool you're using come out the other side. We don't bother showing this on the target list - though, come to think of it, that would be the most excellent way to get this across. A rotating, translucent 3-D model of the human body with vectors blown through all the targets. Instead of 'dots on the skin' each target would be a cluster of arrows poking through the body. Take a moment (now, or later) to visualize this. The body should look like St. Sebastian or Toshiro Mifune at the end of Throne of Blood.

Most people look at targets and see a point, a circle or dot that could be drawn on the skin that means 'hit here'. When you look at a target it should look like vector-infested 3-D exploded view of sundered anatomy complete with a precognitive overlay, a short-term view into the future where he's folded and broken, the virtual injury made suddenly real. (A dot on the knee looks very different from a broken knee.)

This is what I see when I look through a target - I fold space with my mind like Stephen Hawking. I see the vectors, the way through from here to the injury just on the other side of the veil of time. (And, yes, I'm waxing hyberbolic here.)

Don't merely open Schroedinger's cat box and check. Stomp on the box with the kitten in it. Just to be sure. Because targets aren't injuries until you make them so. And seeing them as dots on the skin is an awfully long way off target.

Can Bigger-Stronger-Faster Make a Difference in Self-Defense?

2008-06-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

The answer depends on who's doing the injuring and who's getting injured...

These are great attributes to have, if you know what to do with them:

If you have more mass, you can hit harder. If you have more strength, you can hang on nice and tight for joint breaks, and send people flying with throws. If you're quick, you can get in and get it done before he even knows what's happening. So, yeah, those things can make a difference for you if you have them.

If you don't, if you're not bigger or stronger or faster than most people (and let's be honest, most of us aren't) then that's where proper training makes a huge difference. You need training to know how to throw your 140 pounds through someone to get same results that a 240-pound guy gets accidentally. You need training in leverage and timing to break joints and send people flying as if you were amazingly strong. You need training that gets you to act earlier in the sequence of events rather than later if you're slow.

Notice that those attributes are helpful for doing violence, and that we can make up for deficits with proper training--but being bigger, stronger and faster do nothing to make you (or him) immune to violence.

Size, strength, speed and other assets of physical conditioning can help you absorb non-specific trauma--in other words, it can help you 'take a punch'--this fact can be seen in MMA or combat sports competitions. But no one--no matter how big, strong, fast and tough they are--can take injury as we define it. As the criminal sociopath defines it. No one can take a gouged eye, a crushed throat, or a broken knee.

The best example of this can be seen in American football. When a player gets his leg bent backwards until the knee snaps, what we have is a highly trained and highly developed athlete taking a crippling, game-ending (for him) injury. If bigger-stronger-faster conferred immunity to physical harm, these guys would have it. But they don't. They break just like the rest of us.

In the end, bigger-stronger-faster are positives for causing injury, but do nothing to protect you from it. As long as you take this idea the right way, it's a lot of good news, actually.

If you have those attributes, you just need a little training to put them to good use.

If you don't have those attributes, you just need a little training to learn how to make up for them.

If the other guy has those attributes, it does nothing to protect him from you. No matter how big, strong, or fast he looks, he breaks just like everybody else. He might be able to 'take a punch' (and probably more than just one) but you're not going to punch him. You're going to gouge out his eye, crush his throat, and tear out his knee. You're going to do the things to him that nobody can take, the things that work regardless of size, strength or speed--no matter who has them or who doesn't.

Speed: The Last Thing You Need For Self-Defense

2008-06-10T15:36:00.000-07:00

Speed.

In Target-Focus Training, we make you train slow, or, at least not as fast as you could go if you went full-bore.

In order to understand why we do this, we need to look at what's required to achieve our goal of injuring an attacker.

Debilitating injury is the result of an interrelated chain of factors:

You have to drive your entire mass through a target and follow all the way through with your full force and effort.

A shorthand way of stating this is:

Penetrate & rotate through a target at speed.
So that's what it takes to crush a throat, gouge an eye, rupture a kidney or break a knee. All well and good until you try to figure out how to train for that.

If you keep it all as is, your 'training' is actually maiming. Every training regimen has to remove one or more of those elements in order to train without putting the practitioners in the hospital. (At least on a daily basis.)

So if you're going to go fast when you train, you have to lose something else. But what?

Take away the follow-through.

Almost no one goes here. You still have bodyweight on a target at speed--train like this & even without the follow-through someone's going to lose an eye.

Take away the target.

This is a typical padded-up sparring session. If we make the target indistinct, we can run around and hit each other pretty hard--but the minute it all lines up right, someone's screwed. You're also training to cause generic, non-specific trauma: bumps, bruises, lacerations, etc., and not the kind that results in a reliable state-change in the man.

Take away the bodyweight.

This is a slap-fight. You're swatting at targets... but without your mass, there's nothing to compress the tissue, and effect the kind of volume change that breaks, tears, and ruptures anatomy. Some targets, like the eyes, throat and groin can still be injured practicing like this, which is why they'll almost always end up 'off limits' for safety.

The problem is that the result you're really gunning for is only ever going to occur through accident--when all the elements are present at speed. In other words, if you remove anything else other than speed, you're not training to get the results you need in violence.

And the funny part is that speed is the one thing everyone walks in the door with. It's the only thing on the list that you don't have to train.

The other elements... yes. No one walks in with good targeting, or the ability to control their mass such that they can drive it like a battering ram while maintaining balance, or the proper mechanics to really sink it with complete follow through. These things have to be learned.

And once you learn them, you just add the speed--which you already had to begin with--and you end up with injury, any time, every time.

Chris Ranck-Buhr
TFT Master Instructor

Fighting Through Injury

2008-06-03T18:13:00.000-07:00

Semantics can be a funny thing--reference the title, above: On the one hand, it could mean 'fighting on even though one is injured' or 'enduring in the face of adversity.' On the other hand it could mean 'using injury as a tool when fighting' or 'dirty pool.' Chances are you read it one way, and not the other; which way you read it, on autopilot, isn't up to me, the message-bearer. How you see it is something that happens entirely inside your own skull.

So, same words, two very different meanings. And no way for me to tell which way it's gone.

An essential problem we have in teaching and training violence is that most people have no real experience with the concept. (This is only a bad thing in the context of training. In the context of daily life, it's a good thing that the vast majority of people never experience violence to the degree we mean when we say the word... unlike, say, the population of Rwanda.) It is the never-ending job of the instructor to clue people in, give them physical examples to connect to the words, and to do our best to connect it to everyday experiences. (Like mentioning the 'funny bone' when we talk about nerve targets--nearly everyone's whacked their ulnar nerve hard enough to momentarily kill their hand.) Recently, however, it occurred to me that when speaking of the difference between sport and violence, martial arts and murder, competition and destruction, we've been coming from the wrong side of the argument.

While most people have not experienced life-changing violence, many have, at one time or another, experienced injury in sport. Whether as adults or children, we've all taken a hard hit, been knocked ass-over-tea-kettle, and/or had the wind knocked out of us. We've been contused, lacerated, pulled muscles, tweaked joints and taken a bump on the head that made us see stars. And we've all gotten back up, shook it off, walked it off, and pressed on and fought through for personal honor, for toughness, for the team, or maybe just because we didn't want to miss out on all the fun.

As nasty as some of those things may have felt, or seemed, or been they were not injuries as we must define them for violence--if you were able to push through and overcome the physical symptoms with force of will you were definitely hurt (perhaps even enough to make someone else quit) but you were not injured the way we mean it when we're talking violence.

If you've lived a full enough life to experience the above, you've probably had the misfortune of seeing the other side of it--people broken in such a way that no force of will, no matter how strong, can change the state they find themselves in. They're out cold, or flopping around incoherent, or screaming nonsensically; the match is stopped, the game is paused as medical personnel rush to the fallen's aid. They don't walk off the field triumphantly, they're carried to the hospital.

At a recent live training I recognized some 'sporting types' among the clients--people who were wearing gear associated with martial arts, full-contact and no-holds-barred-style competitions. It can be hard to make our case to such people--when I say 'violence' and 'injury' they nod like they know but it's very often a different picture they see in their head. They see the hard-won results they know can only be achieved in the ring through bigger-faster-stronger, and they are usually skeptical of injury as a show-stopper if only because of the number of times they themselves have 'fought through injury' and won the match in spite of their 'injuries.'

Instead of my usual competition vs. destruction rant I simply asked the question:

"How many of you have taken a hit, had the wind knocked out of you, seen stars, had something hurt like crazy in a game or match and yet you were able to fight through it, keep playing, continue to compete, etc.?"

Most people raised their hands. I was actually a little bit surprised by that. So far so good.

Then I asked:

"How many of you have seen someone go down in a match or game such that they couldn't get back up, the refs went crazy trying to stop the game so medical personnel could get to them, and they had to leave the field on a stretcher and go straight to the hospital?"

Fewer people raised their hands, but still a goodly amount.

"Okay," I said, "In violence, we're only ever interested in the second one."

And then I added, "Because, as you all know, you can shake off the first one, no problem."

I swear my third eye was blinded by all the psychic light bulbs going off. Everybody got it. Everybody. And I didn't even have to argue the point.

Best of all, the most hardcore of the competitors lost their skepticism and became acutely interested in getting to work.

The Intervening Terror

2008-05-27T17:22:00.001-07:00

I've found that people are intensely more interested in the phantom fury surrounding violence rather than the violence itself.

And so we'll go there, if only to get over it and get into what truly matters.

So what is this 'intervening terror?' This is the not inconsiderable space between where you are when you realize there's mortal trouble and putting everything you've got through a ruptured spleen. Or an avulsed eye. Or a broken neck. It's the space between NOW and INJURY.

Those who do not understand violence, how it works, what it means, what's at stake often have no real conception of this space--they tend to be far more interested at looking at the whole affair as a contest or a dance or indeed magic.

Those who understand violence are horrified by the idea of making a competition of it, after all, now we're going to play dice for your life? It would be laughable if it weren't so awful. But achieving that understanding, refusing to compete and being resolute in what's required leaves you with a newfound terror, that intervening terror. There's a no-man's land that must be crossed and it is in this space that you can die.

On either side of the gulf things are clean and mechanical. On the nice side we have your daily life and social interactions. We have what amounts to masses of luxurious boredom. On the other side we have an injured man, little better than a sleeping one for all the trouble he's going to cause.

It's the in-between that can keep you up nights.

Let's take it to the extreme for analysis: he's got a gun. Maybe there's several of them, with guns. On one side, there was you, a second ago, happily oblivious that such things could be. Across from where you are now is an armed man with an active brain riding around in a fully-functional body. It's all up for grabs. Anybody can get it right--anybody can die here. Will it be you? Will it be him? Both? Neither? You are smack-dab in the middle of the intervening terror. Oh, how you pine for the certitude of either side. Anything, anything but this yawning awfulness you find yourself mired in.

When do you go? Now? Then? How about now now?

Luckily, I have the answer for you:

I don't know. But you do.

Unfortunately, it's not the kind of answer you were hoping for. Sorry. But I'm a firm believer in reality over sugar-coated magical thinking.

So what's with the 'I wanna slap a Zen master' answer? I can't know--I won't be there. You will. And you'll have to live (or die) with your decision. Just remember that the only arbiter of success in violence is survival--that means if you walk out alive, you did the Right Thing. Period.

Still, it keeps you up at night. How will you function in there? What will you do? Will you do the Right Thing?

As I said above, when someone truly understands violence, what's at stake, the magic dance of competition melts like a Dali landscape into an expanse of pure nightmare. No matter how long you run, there's always more stretching endlessly ahead...

But this is an illusion. Remember that on either side things are mundane and strictly mechanical. Easily parsed with social skills or the sundering of precious anatomy. So here's the deal: keep it simple. Stay out of the no-man's land of uncertainty, or, failing that, keep your time there as brief as possible. Either keep it social, play the game, work it out or cross over like a bullet would and smash something vital.

That's all there is. That's were the certainty lies. Anything else is just telling yourself ghost stories before bedtime and giving yourself fitful nightmares.

And that wraps us around to training--the only thing that really matters. If there's nothing we can do about the intervening terror or in the intervening terror but resolve to keep to either side, then that's where we have to spend our effort and energy. On training.

You all are (or should be) facile in the social realm so we don't have to spend time there. Instead, make training a small habit, soak and absorb.

Just as you smile and hold doors as a habit, work the other side with just as much steady diligence. Showing teeth and breaking knees are two sides of the same coin, pressed together to minimize the space between.