The pre-emptive strike - Mick Coup

[** Serge **]

Sat Feb 24, 2007 :


The pre-emptive strike has long been the classic example of true asymmetrical combat - ending conflict before it actually fully starts.

Warfare has long proved the value of striking first, especially where a disparity of force exists. Within the realms of personal combat - essentially war in a microcosm - it presents arguably the absolute most efficient means of ensuring survival in the face of danger.

Actually achieving the pre-emptive strike is a matter of timing, surprise and commitment - against an active and aggressive individual this is no mean task, overall it is most probable that he is the one being pre-emptive in his actions and intentions, and you are starting with a severe handicap.

Tempering execution with justifications can often be the major hurdle, being too quick to strike is a poor solution - striking too late is usually not an issue, as in such scenarios you're on the receiving end at this point!

In a more defensively-focused scenario, such as what is often encountered in a law enforcement or security role, the pre-emptive strike is a highly viable tool to engage a subject intent on climbing the force continuum 'ladder'.

Effectively stopping progressive conflict in its tracks, one clean strike can actually offer a lower injury potential than other more involved efforts, this would always be argued against however, as striking is almost always looked upon as being 'excessive' by those that are never in a position to need it!

So for the cop, or bouncer, the conflict scenarios that are presented are often virtually tailor-made for pre-emption - especially when dealing with subjects not yet operating in an actively aggressive state, but who are obviously soon going to be!

For the average citizen, such circumstances can be less ideal - when selected by an aggressive predator, the 'interview' can be very one-sided - not favourably - and very different to whatever is encountered during training.

Using deceptive and distracting verbal ploys can be a complete waste of time - which is always in short supply - and possibly even counter-productive if you simply end up distracting yourself in the process! Simply put, often aggressors do not care what you say to them, if they actually register it at all - if there is some form of two-way dialogue then definitely control it, but if you are simply being 'barked' and 'growled' at, forget any such notion. That ship has sailed, prepare to get physical.

Under high stress, the functional 'fight-flight' prioritisation that the brain undergoes gives little regard for either the creation or comprehension of verbal commands. This can manifest as both a greatly diminished ability to utilise clever verbal ploys on your part, and an equally negative ability to understand them on his part! Therefore, attempting to pause his 'gameplan' with a view to then hitting his 'stop button' using such means can fail dramatically - again, you can only talk to those who can, and are prepared to, listen in the first place.

For the security professional or everyday individual engaged with a less aggressive subject on a verbal level, someone who is potentially in the process of preparing to initiate a violent assault using subterfuge of some form, there is such an opportunity. Should real justification be present, the chance to strike first must be exploited to full effect - second place is no place.

Getting that first, and hopefully last, shot off is - dare I say it - relatively 'easy' against an agitated drunk or similar, especially when stone cold sober and having a degree of confidence based upon experience and exposure. I use the term 'easy' only following the word 'relatively' - it's still no simple act, but a whole load better than trying the same against a more aware and active individual.

In such scenarios, where a person is 'in your face' and 'having none of it' it can be virtually impossible to use classic 'line up' tactics, and any clean shot you would hope to engage with can be ruined by constant and dynamic proximity shift, the fending off of the individual in order to maintain some situational control and a reactionary gap of sorts, and the lack of a firm base to deliver the blow from. Add to this the 'hair-trigger' state that the aggressor will most likely be in, and it becomes a vastly more difficult act to land a telling pre-emptive strike.

Take any verbal options out of this, because undoubtedly they will be ineffective, and instead look at some physical pre-cursor - from the likely position you will find yourself in, you should have very easy and direct access to the aggressor's face seeing as your hands should be up and out to control space. From this 'hands up and out' posture, suddenly and immediately propel one hand - without any telegraphic movement and engage the visual cortex, use the shoulder to power this forward-only movement, which will have the effect of 'chambering' the other shoulder.

The hand can be used in a 'long gouge' configuration where the fingers align with the ear and the thumb is driven into the eye for maximum 'flinch' inducement, or simply used to obstruct vision by covering the face - this is a surprising effective method! Either will 'pause' any gameplan long enough to fire a heavy and accurate, pre-emptive strike - due to being chambered and indexed - without as much need for being 'non-telegraphic' as it is this factor that often lets down such strikes, either spoiling the pre-emptive effect, or reducing impact - or both.


Do you think having ones hands up, in a so-called passive stance, can in some situations escalate a potential conflict ?
Are they some scenarios where you wouldnt use it ?

Sun Feb 25, 2007 :


Personally I would always have my hands up in some form of non-aggressive configuration, for as long as I perceived an actual or potential threat to my person.

A common mistake is to be obviously combative, or downright aggressive as the positional default - this can in limited scenarios be useful but is often simply inflammatory, so a more subtle approach is advisable where subterfuge or de-escalation is required. There are many forms, certainly nothing revolutionary when you consider, for example, that at least 20 years ago the FBI were recommending agents adopt what they called a 'field interview stance' to control proximity and to get the hands where they can be utilsed for defensive and offensive purposes if needed.

Incidentally I term this an 'active' posture, as I am in the optimum position to deliver some form of offensive action, like having a pistol in the aim. Done properly this doesn't have to appear threatening at all, yet your tools are immediately available without further positioning - and are usually far more accessible than those of the aggressor.

I classify a 'passive' posture as being when in some form of completely non-combative position, and start many drills from here - immediately transitioning to either an 'active' offensive or 'reactive' counter-offensive posture depending on the scenario.

One thing I don't recommend is trying to bodily shove someone back out of your personal space, and using commands such as 'get back' etc tend to work when you are armed with a 12-gauge, but you'll often get a ...'or what?' as an unarmed citizen and then you've played your hand already - that window for effective pre-emption might have just closed.

The objective is to maintain a reactionary gap, not to manhandle someone who might not allow such a thing anyway - push yourself away, as you know you can do this regardless of any disparity of force, therefore it is a high-percentage probabilty, not just a possibility dependant upon mass and strength. Think in terms of a standing 'sprawl' type move! This tactic achieves the objective, cannot be viewed as aggressive by witnesses and if the subject engages you again he is building your case for a pre-emptive strike - demonstrating and arming you with more of what the police term 'impact factors' which are used to justify any use of force.


I found that when I simply placed my open hand over their face, covering their eyes, they would almost fall backwards and some actually fell over !

Mon Feb 26, 2007


Absolutely ,

Even the toughest most committed man wants to see what's going on before making his move, so it hits the 'pause button' just fine, interrupting the OODA loop for a moment - long enough to find the 'stop button' and put an end to the problem.

As I mentioned in my initial post, a perfect pre-emptive strike needs to be non-telegraphic, powerful and accurate to do it's job - immediately end conflict.

Here often lies the problem, having the words non-telegraphic and powerful in the same sentence is a non-starter usually, they can cancel each other out.

Sticking your hand over someone's eyes before you hit them sounds almost too easy, but it absolutely guarantees a non-telegraphic blow. Think about it and redefine your idea of 'non-telegraphic' for a moment - forget about all that 'hand moves first stuff' in this instance, who cares when your hand moves if the target can't see it! This is truly 'non-telegraphic' isn't it? You've also created a great index effect, having your hand in contact with the face, and the act of reaching out with one arm chambers the other one perfectly for that split-second later shot.

It can take great commitment to go for a clean and clear pre-emptive blow, and all the variable factors can screw it up in a big way. It takes virtually zero effort to suddenly reach up and engage the face, even from an unstable base as you're getting shoved around, or fending someone off. Your hands are usually only inches away - it'd be almost rude not to!

Personally, as has been detailed many times, I used to 'casually' go for the eye, and then 'slot' them as they flinched - this approach isn't for everyone, which should be considered when training. Always consider your personal limitations, not just your perceived capabilities.

Do you have any preference concerning the "ideal" strike-to-follow that flinch-causing move ?
Did you achieve any immediate K.O. hitting somebody with your palmstrike?If you got it, where did you hit precisely ?
I've read your opinion about going for 3 "specific" areas in the face, namely "the jaw line" "the eyebrows socket" "side of the neck", so should the "i don't care anymore if it is telegraphed now" strike be deilivered to one of this
ideal targets ?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 :

I'd recommend a straight shot, following the shortest path to target the chin/jaw, eye socket or cheekbone - or a hooking shot to engage the side of the head and neck.

Knockouts using the open hand are very effective - just make sure it's the heel of the hand making contact, the palm will have a damping effect reducing the all-important brain-shake.

Have you found that people bring their hands up instinctively if you interfere with their eyes ?

I am assuming in a real encounter this could put obstacles in a potentially clear path to point H1. Therefore pushing you towards a hooking shot to outflank their hands/arms.
( As an aside, I have been toying with a boxing style stance, as opposed to a relatively passive fence stance, from which my lead hand and snap out a fast slap to the eye  as a distraction before the big bomb comes in from the right - the prescription repeated as necessary )

Tue Feb 27, 2007 :

From a contact management perspective, which is when a pre-emptive strike is best utilised, you'd be best having your hands out from your body, trying to control the 'no man's land' between you and the aggressor - before he does!

If I was aiming to hurt you, and you were stood with your hands held close to your body, I'd be tempted to leave you a tip afterwards as thanks for giving me so many open angles of attack! Having your hands up creates obstacles, something for me to first negotiate.

Think of a military base in a hostile environment - they don't just lock the gates and rely on the walls to protect them, they send out patrols to dominate the ground around and deny opportunities for the enemy to set up attacks. Without this approach, it would only be a matter of time - the same applies to personal combat, which is why every method of fighting from day one has had some form of 'guard' up front.

Regarding the actual effect of a gouge, the emphasis is always on the strike and as such there is only a brief delay - a split second - before the blow lands.

The immediate action is usually - and I've done a fair bit of this to know, I assure you! - to move the head away, with a secondary and later action of bringing the hand(s) to the head. Basically you should have hit the guy before this happens!

If you're not so quick, for whatever reason, then I wholeheartedly recommend sticking with a hooking blow as your pre-emptive default just in case.


I have read your post where you say attempts at engaging an adversaries brain with deceptive/distractive ploys can fail either because the individual doesn't want to or is unable to listen to you. Also there is the risk of distracting yourself in the process. My question is : if you are being growled at, isn't the adversary engaging his own brain in that moment enabling a window of opportunity if it is deemed appropriate
Or does a person have to be a bit calmer and more cognitive thinking about what they are saying to carry that effect ? Don't know if my question is answerable.

Thu Jul 26, 2012 :

Every question is answerable - either with "it depends..." or "I don't know..."

In this case, as usual, it's the former, considering that absolutely everything is both circumstantial and situational. This doesn't make things quite as neat as many would like, but no form of human interaction is ever going to be - the moment this becomes understood and, more importantly, accepted, everything takes on a much more realistic tint.

Mostly this 'stuff' we practice and present can only really address 'percentages' to be able put it into a deliverable package - absolutely everything is possible, all kinds of crazy fluke low-percentile events can occur, but by the very nature of this it cannot really be trained, and it is this element that we are interested in.

One of the points that I was trying to make regarding the post you reference is simply that nothing in this particular scenario is as cut and dried as some would like it to be, and that within a lot of current/accepted methodology there are huge inconsistencies and gaping holes that really do not stand up to even rudimentary online critical examination - never mind the kind of 'critique' some amped-up thug is going to subject them to on the day.

The very notion of being 'pre-emptive' is subject to some skewed thinking usually - just ask a simple question...who started it? If the answer is 'the other guy' which it should be, then you're being 'reactive' and the sooner you can apprecate this, the better.

The guy that corners you in a nightclub bathroom, when you're seperated from your group, might be doing so because an hour ago you spilled his drink, stepped on his foot - whatever - and his fragile manhood was so sleighted, not to mention the steady intake of alcohol and cocaine since then, plus verbal input from his group, that he is well ahead of you when it comes to being 'pre-emptive' and you are playing a very late game indeed.

This sounds like a fairly extreme scenario to be sure - but this very situation plays out every Saturday night without fail at clubs across the world I guarantee, with the most trivial incidents being escalated into violence for no reason other than stimulant-fuelled ego as the root cause.

So it's absolutely correct that someone growling in your face, posturing and making threats, will be occupying his own thought processes, but bear in mind, his game plan is most likely already 'turning and burning' regarding the violent outcome he has planned, and he's possibly only looking for that 'permission' trigger to execute it. You're still playing 'catch-up' in this instance, which is why some of the 'classic' ploys may well find that their window of effectiveness has sailed.

To reiterate my biggest criticism of these 'ploys' once more, generally in my opinion anyone you can 'sucker' so easily and drop so cleanly, doesn't need 'dropping' at all...unless you just want notches on your belt and a tough-guy reputation.

Mick Coup - © - http://www.corecombatives.com/