Vie Sauvage et Survie
Techniques et savoirs de survie => Survie en milieu urbain => Discussion démarrée par: Eric Lem le 15 décembre 2009 à 19:54:30
-
L’acronyme « S.W.A.M.P. » est un outil visant à développer la puissance de frappe dans un contexte précis de protection personnelle.
Cet acronyme, créé par John Watson, un des élèves de Peter Robins, reprend en fait 5 principes que nous allons développer un peu plus loin.
L’intérêt de cet acronyme est qu’il envisage la puissance de frappe dans un contexte de « rue » et non pas dans un contexte « sportif ».
Parmi les 5 principes repris dans le « SWAMP », l’emphase est mise aussi bien sur la création de puissance « pure » que sur l’importance de la prise de décision et de la préparation mentale.
Tous ces principes sont interdépendants, chacun d’entre eux supporte et repose en même temps sur tous les autres.
Analysons tout ça d’un peu plus près :
« S » comme Stay Relaxed
On commence par le principe qui est probablement le plus difficile à appliquer en situation.
Il s’agit non pas de rester cool, détendu et souriant quand quelqu’un veut vous arracher la tête, mais simplement d’utiliser son corps au maximum de ses capacités.
Le but est de développer l’explosivité de la frappe.
Or, il est impossible d’être « explosif » quand vos muscles sont déjà sous tension.
Pour que le corps puisse bouger de façon fluide tout en gardant une grande économie de mouvement, les muscles doivent être relâchés.
Selon moi il y a deux clés pour arriver à développer cette relaxation musculaire :
- La concentration : se concentrer sur le fait de rester relax et sur le fait « d’exploser » dès qu’on initie sa frappe
- L’entrainement en scénario : qui vous permet de tester cette concentration de façon à la fois réaliste et sûre, tout en vous désensibilisant aux rushes d’adrénaline provoqué par une situation d’altercation.
« W » comme Weapon First.
Voilà un point qui montre avec une belle clarté la différence entre approche « sportive » et approche « réaliste ».
Le but du « W » est de développer le côté non-télégraphique de la frappe, principalement dans un contexte de frappe préemptive.
Si je décide de frapper de la main droite, je vais me concentrer pour que la première partie de mon corps à bouger soit justement ma main droite.
Qu’est-ce que ça implique ?
Qu’en agissant de la sorte, je donne le moins d’indice possible sur ma volonté de frapper car je supprime la tendance naturelle à « armer » mon coup.
Il ne s’agit donc pas de rechercher la puissance « pure » à tout prix, mais bien de maximiser mes chances de toucher et surtout de le faire sans que mon adversaire ne s’y attende.
Comme disait Bob Kasper: “Let him feel the technique before he sees it”.
Quand l’adversaire ne voit pas partir l’attaque, il n’a pas le temps de s’y préparer et les dégâts causés se trouvent ainsi maximisés.
“A” comme Acceleration.
Dès que la première technique est initiée, je vais accélérer mon mouvement le plus possible et continuer à accélérer pendant toute la durée du combat.
L’accélération crée la vitesse, la vitesse réduit le temps de « latence » entre deux techniques et la rapidité des enchainements contribue à submerger complètement mon adversaire, qui n’a tout simplement plus le temps de s’adapter à la situation.
On retombe d’ailleurs sur notre « S » de tout à l’heure… le fait d’avoir les muscles relâchés est LE facteur clé qui permet de se mouvoir avec vitesse et fluidité.
« M » comme Move (in the direction of the strike)
Les trois premiers points que nous venons de voir (« S », « W » et « A ») visent surtout à travailler sur le coté explosif et imprévisible de la frappe.
En agissant de cette façon, on augmente ses chances de toucher un adversaire qui ne s’y attend pas.
Cependant, le fait de ne pas « armer » nous prive d’une partie de la puissance qu’on pourrait mettre dans la frappe.
Le « M » vise justement à corriger cela : en bougeant dans la direction de la frappe, nous y ajoutons de la « masse » en déplaçant notre propre poids de corps.
La frappe part donc de façon ultra-rapide, sans appel, et une fois le mouvement initié, le poids du corps, arrivant dans la même direction, va augmenter l’impact.
« P » comme Plunge (you bodyweight into the target).
Il s’agit de diriger toute l’énergie de votre corps en mouvement directement dans la frappe avant que la masse (le poids de mon corps) ne se stabilise.
Le « M » va me propulser, littéralement, dans la direction de la frappe, le « P » est la rotation du corps qui me permet physiquement de transférer l’énergie générée par mon corps en mouvement dans la frappe que je suis en train d’exécuter, avant que cette énergie ne se dissipe.
Il est donc primordial que ces deux principes agissent de concert.
Si j’initie le « P » trop tard, le mouvement initié par « M » est terminé et je perds le bénéfice de l’énergie dégagée.
Si j’initie le « P » trop tôt, je télégraphie ma frappe et vais donc à l’encontre du principe « W ».
Si je cherche, p.ex. à frapper mon adversaire au visage, ma frappe ne doit pas s’arrêter à hauteur du visage mais doit être envoyée pour traverser ma cible.
L’énergie ne doit pas s’arrêter au premier contact, elle doit passer à travers ma cible.
Pour parvenir à appliquer ce principe, il faut en respecter deux autres à savoir : « W » et « M ».
Il faut que mon « arme » bouge en premier et que le poids de mon corps suive immédiatement, dans la même direction.
Ensuite la rotation du buste et le transfert de l’énergie vers l’arme et à travers la cible vont créer la puissance dont j’ai besoin.
Il ne s’agit évidemment pas de LA méthode à Mimille pour cogner comme un train, il existe d’autres principes, tout aussi valables et qui donnent de bons résultats.
Cependant, comme je le disais en intro, le « SWAMP » est intéressant dans notre recherche spécifique, car il travaille aussi bien sur la création de puissance pure que sur le fait de toucher son adversaire avec un maximum de vitesse et de surprise.
Un autre aspect intéressant du « SWAMP » est sa faculté à être appliqué quel que soit le style de base de l’utilisateur, ses principes s’appliqueront aussi bien à un Boxeur qu’à un Karatéka ou à un pratiquant de Krav-Maga.
La connaissance théorique de ces principes ne fera cependant pas de vous un meilleur frappeur, les principes développés dans le « SWAMP » doivent être travaillés, travaillés et retravaillés jusqu’à ce qu’ils soient devenus une deuxième nature.
Bon entraînement à tous, ;)
Rico
-
C'est en lisant des trucs comme ça que je prend conscience de la valeur de ce que je pratique :love:
-
En Krav Maga on dit que "le bras entraine le corps" (à ce moment là on se situe entre le "A" et le "M"). Le bras part en premier et il entraine tout le corps derrière lui.
Et surtout ne pas oublier de mettre la hanche (comme quand le pied écrase la cigarette) en fin de geste, afin de donner le maximun de puissance au coup.
A +.
Ciao.
-
SWAMP
How To Make The First Strike Your Last
By Bob Kasper, ©1996
A few years back I wrote an article which focused on the basic principles of close quarters combat. In that article I gave a brief overview of SCOPE which is an acronym for Simplicity, Control, Offense, Power, and Effectiveness. Each of these principles is as equally important as the other. Take one away and you’ll have a hole in your combative skills.
One principle which I feel needs to be emphasized is Power. No matter how fast or aggressive you are if you do not possess power in your execution of technique, you’re going to fail in stopping your assailant. Executing simplistic, effective techniques will all be in vain unless there is a substantial amount of juice behind those techniques. Peter Robins said the first thing to do in a violent encounter is to "take away the intention." Hit them hard enough, and they’ll completely forget why they were even there. The following are my five principles of power that I developed based on my decades of study in the martial arts. I use these whenever I teach a technique. Follow these and make your first strike the last.
A while back my Instructors had the assignment to come up with an acronym for these five principles of power development. John Watson came up with SWAMP.
S - stay relaxed
W - weapon first
A - acceleration
M - move in the direction of the strike
P - plunge your body weight into the technique.
Stay relaxed. Of all of the power principles this is probably the hardest to develop. I’m not advocating to stay relaxed when someone is all over you trying to end your breathing habits. It is learning to use your body at maximum proficiency. Staying relaxed is essential for your body to move swiftly and economically. Explosive movement doesn’t come from stiff, tense muscles. You need to stay loose. The key word here is concentration. Concentrate on being relaxed before you explode into the technique. You’ll find your movements to be much more dynamic.
Weapon first. This is another one of those hard to develop techniques. We want to throw the weapon first so to not telegraph our intentions. Let him feel the technique before he sees it. This is most important when executing a pre-emptive strike, which should be 100% of the time if possible. Although follow up strikes do tend to be a little more difficult when moving the weapon first, this is no reason not to try. Following this principle as often as possible will make your technique delivery much faster and more powerful.
Acceleration. Acceleration is simply speed. Once you move do so as fast as your body can and don’t stop until it’s over. This is most important on that initial strike. Here we go back to the first principle of staying relaxed. Tense muscles move slower. Stay relaxed and throw that strike as fast as possible and the results will speak for themselves. When you throw a technique, throw it fast. Accelerate, and keep accelerating until it’s over.
Move in the direction of the strike. During a GHCA Assault I observed our AIs teaching the unarmed section of our combatives training. I stopped the class several times to point out the fact that their bodies were moving in the same direction as the strike. Bodies were turning into edge hand blows as well as moving upward with chin-jabs. You can’t move mass into a blow when that same mass is moving in a different direction.
Plunge your body weight into the technique. In order to do this you must be applying two other principles: Moving the weapon first and moving in the direction of the strike. If you’re not moving the weapon first your body is going to move and set before the strike lands and results in your weight settling before the weapon strikes. No mass, no power. If you’re not moving in the direction of the strike there is no mass there to plunge. Plunging means throwing all of your body weight directly into the strike before your mass settles.
Each of these principles supports the other. Take one away and you’ll have a dramatic loss in explosive power. This is especially important in non-telegraphing, pre-emptive strikes. Students have a tendency to want to wind a technique up to get as much power as possible. That’s good! But if you’re telegraphing your initial strike, all the power in the world isn’t going to help when you’re on your back in a daze. The key in pre-emptive is delivering explosive power when they’re not expecting it. And the only way to do that is to follow the SWAMP principles.
As instructors we want to repeat these principles prior to each power development session. Let them sink in so the student can police his own training. We then want to watch for missing principles. Is the student’s weight landing after the strike hits, or is it landing before the strike? Is he turning his body into the strike, or is he still, or is he moving away? Are both of his legs moving with his body, or is he leaving his leg lagging behind? Is he loose and moving smoothly, or is he tense and choppy? Is his weapon moving first, or is his hip, leg, arm, torso, etc. moving first? Make sure you show him what he was doing wrong before you show him how to do it right. Unless he sees his mistake, he will think he is doing it right. Watch, detect, analyze, and correct. Hit ‘em first, hit ‘em fast, hit ‘em hard.
Note: I’d like to thank John Watson for coming up with this great acronym. It fits perfectly. Webster defines swamp as "overwhelm." This is exactly what we want to do. SWAMP their ass.
-
Je savais bien que ça allait te parler mon Sergio... ;)
-
;D
Maintenant, sérieusement, cela peut se discuter, Rico.
Le principe du S.W.A.M.P a été et est toujours, essentiellement, un acronyme didactique.
Mais, très honnêtement, il n'a pas été exactement suivi à la lettre, ni par C.O.D.A, ni par le Gung Ho, ni ( après ) par Mc Cann.
Il n'a jamais été cautionné par Cestari ( par exemple ).
On a constaté ( il y a déjà des lustres ) que si ce principe pédagogique est très utile pour faire comprendre certains sous-principes, il est, de manière réaliste, très difficile à respecter pratiquement.
Cela a d'ailleurs été soulevé par bien des personnes moins bien intentionnées à l'égard du courant proche des combatives issus de la WWII. Même après avoir été informé du pourquoi et du comment de l'usage de cet acronyme, les détracteurs ont toujours bien veillé ( et c'est de bonne guerre ) à souligner qu'il était idiot d'instruire sur base d'un principe finalement irréaliste.
Ce qui a entrainé certains instructeurs à réformer leur cursus et à faire l'impasse sur le S.W.A.M.P au profit d'autres principes.
Ainsi Kelly Mc Cann ( Crucible ) nomme maintenant trois principes généraux :
* More Mass
* More Velocity
* Over longer distance
Qui en sous-tendent d'autres :
* Stay loose
* Vault in the direction of your strike
* Develop your footwork and timing
* Load and unload violently
* Visualize every strike passing through the attacker
Quel est le vice caché du S.W.A.M.P ?
Il est quasi impossible de délivrer l'arme ( W. ) avant que le corps ne bouge ( A.M.P ).
Le plus doué arrivera à faire cohabiter W. & A.M.P sur le même temps. La plupart obtiendront l'A.M.P avant de pouvoir passer l'arme.
Cela suffit-il à jeter le principe aux oubliettes ?
Chacun sera maitre de son choix. Le principe est très accrocheur et remplit donc bien sa mission.
Pour notre part, et depuis toujours, nous invoquons le Drop Step ( leu Droppe Steppeu, selon Pat' ;) ) qui, à lui seul, suffit amplement, dans sa pratique, à aligner les évidences physiques comme principes actifs.
Tous ces principes apparaissant comme différents, voire antagonistes ( Artifice, Shock, Vehemence - S.W.A.M.P - Drop Step & Torque - Do your worst, fast and first ), ne sont que variations sur de mêmes thèmes s'appuyant tous, mais une nouvelle fois, sur le principe majeur vital de la construction du mindset et du forward spirit.
Tout est dans tout. C'est le Fuck'em up Waza de Carl, le hit him 'til he gets heavy de Bert Poe, le Kill the son of a bitch de Nelson, le situational self offense de Mc Cann, le Donner, sans compter de Fred.
http://www.urbancombatives.com/fairbairns_concepts.htm
(http://www.urbancombatives.com/artifice.gif)
-
Frapper avec le hara ou le tanden suffit comme principe pour avoir une puissance maximale.
C'est plus simple a retenir, et ca contient tous les autres "principes" en essence.
Pas besoin d'élan, le coup est lourd et "rentre" à l'intérieur.
Du fait qu'on frappe avec le hara, tout le corps est impliqué.
Du fait qu'on frappe avec le hara, le haut du corps est relaxé (vitesse maximale) et les os s'alignent automatiquement (pénétration max), et ce sont les jambes (plus gros groupe musculaire) qui frappent (puissance max).
De plus, grâce au hara on ne perds pas son équilibre, on ne tombe pas dans la chute, on peut frapper depuis quasiment n'importe quelle position.
De toute manière, faut pas se leurrer non plus, la puissance de frappe ne fait pas tout, loin de la. Il faut aussi savoir :
* ou frapper
* comment frapper (la manière de faire rentrer la frappe a l'intérieur du corps)
* quand frapper
Et a trop se focaliser dessus on peut tomber dans un coté bourrin et se priver de beaucoup d'autres opportunités.
-
J'ai été (encore) bluffé par PP lors du dernier stage par son petit éducatif suivant.
Il tend le bras en statique pour te toucher le torse avec le bout de ses doigts. Ensuite, il replie juste les premières phalanges et en gardant le contact vient te percuter le torse.
Tout çà en statique, pas de Drop Step, pas de mouvement de hanche, pas armement du coup. Juste l'intention et le tout le poids du corps dans le bras. Je peux vous assurer qu'il fait mouche à chaque fois.
Ceux qui y sont passés aussi, est ce que je me plante dans l'analyse?
Stéphane
-
http://itodyaso.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/cypress-swamp1.jpg
il faut donner a l'agresseur ce sentiment d'etre perdu.
le noyer sous les informations.
en etant tres detendu, il ne va rien se passer , tu es mon ami et comme tu es grand et fort...(pour le s)
et la normalemnt si tu n'es pas manchot tes mains doivent se trouver deja dans l'axe mais surtout pas predire se que tu vas faire(pour le w)
ensuite tu m'es tous ce que tu as dans l'acceleration comme si ta vie en dépendait et c'est le cas (pour le a)
briser la distance, creer le pont , aller de l'avant envahir l'espace de l'autre (pour le m)
et enfin finaliser ses techniques , de toutes façons c'est tous ce qui te reste a faire maintenant que tu es pret de lui c'est pas pour lui faire un big hug, tout le corp est present(pour le p)
je trouve pour ma part que cela si prête bien et offre de bonnes solutions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJaVWd9ecQ
-
Frapper avec le hara ou le tanden suffit comme principe pour avoir une puissance maximale.
C'est plus simple a retenir, et ca contient tous les autres "principes" en essence.
Je ne suis pas d'accord : l'important c'est de frapper en accord avec ses chakras. C'est seulement lorsque les sept fondamentaux sont alignés que le kundalini peut s'exprimer. :closedeyes:
Sur le plan pratique, j'ai toujours trouvé que la notion "d'onde de choc" telle qu'elle est expliqué par Hiroo Mochizuki et recherché dans le Yoseikan budo était une démarche permettant d'augmenter en pratique sa puissance de frappe.
Quelqu'un aurait-il une expérience importante à nous faire partager sur ce point ? :huh:
-
+1 avec killbith_2!! Je pense qu'une rotation faites correctement augmente considérablement la puissance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfGvjbg6t4
j'ai pas d'expérience importante sur le sujet mais je connais des gens qui ont fait des stages avec Hiroo Mochizuki, ils sont ressortis complètement bluffé par ce ptit gars de 70 balai et 60 kilos ;#
-
alors pour faire court et tres simple. 8)
plusieurs fois j'ai fait des essais ::) sur differentes façons de frapper, periode karateka avec toutes les attitudes que cela peut avoir et bien c'est :down: sorti du tatami.
je me suis aperçu que un coup reçu dans ta bouche peut importe la façon dont il est donné et bien ça fait mal.
les coups les plus efficaces que j'ai vu en live c'est des frappes qu'un coup de mes amis pikey ;#
tout etait dedans la ruse le coup et le bruit du corps par terre.
je sais ce que tu penses eric :lol:
-
Je pense qu'une rotation faites correctement augmente considérablement la puissance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfGvjbg6t4
Il me semble que nous sommes beaucoup ici à avoir poussé quelques milliers de "gyaku tsuki" et autre dans le vide, sur des makiwaras, sur des sacs, sur des paos, sur des gens. Et c'est vrai que dans le shotokan traditionnel on résume (pour simplifier) par des trucs comme "rotation des hanches"...ou même par "frapper avec le haras". Ce n'est pas vraiment pédagogique et le risque c'est d'avoir les lombaires ou les genoux au Père Lachaise avant d'avoir assimilé le message (sous réserve qu'il y en ait eu un).
plusieurs fois j'ai fait des essais {$default_roll_eyes_smiley} sur differentes façons de frapper, periode karateka avec toutes les attitudes que cela peut avoir et bien c'est Thumb Down sorti du tatami.
Je suis assez d'accord avec toi : les conditions réelles ne sont pas toujours conformes à ce que l'on voudrait qu'elles soient. Et placer un Oi tsuki parfait (jun tsuki, passavant...) n'est pas du tout facile même en salle. Mais il ne faudrait pas jeter le bébé avec l'eau du bain.
Si on prends la peine de visionner la vidéo : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfGvjbg6t4
On assiste à la présentation d'un principe d'utilisation du corps, pas à une technique précise. Ce principe est d'application général (coups, projections, main nue, main armée, service de tennis...). Comme Mochizuki filsa été formé au karaté wado ryu et à l'aikijutsu/jujitsu/kenjutsu...les techniques sont issus de ces méthodes. Mais le principe est d'application plus vaste, sans restriction.
A l'époque de l'élaboration du Yoseikan budo, Hiroo Mochizuki n'avait pas hésité sur le plan technique à remettre en causes les positions statiques, le hikite, le manque de protection lors de la frappe...privilégiant l'application d'un principe général (celui exposé sur la vidéo) sur le détail technique (hikite bas sur la hanche (shoto) ou plus haut par exemple (goju)...). Il n'était pas attaché à la forme, mais au fond.
Ce faisant, il me semble que cette méthode était en avance sur l'époque et pas si éloigné de ce que la vidéo que tu présentais tentait d'exposer.
je me suis aperçu que un coup reçu dans ta bouche peut importe la façon dont il est donné et bien ça fait mal.
Oui, mais c'est comme pour une TUG 9.3*62 : dedans cela fait plus mal (et abondance de mauvaiseté de nuit pas en la circonstance et par analogie avec ceux qui ont des cous de lutteur : cela passe du classe III), à coté cela ne fait rien (comme d'hab), a proximité des cibles principales cela fait plus de dégâts que du 22lr (et c'est toujours mieux que rien).
Mais je ne suis persuadé de rien, j'écoute même attentivement les arguments contraires, si cela va au delà des dénégations.
;)
-
Un peu HS, mais pas tant que cela :
Regarding 'speed' of strikes, the faster the better from a velocity point of view - with a constant acceleration, not a steady rate of movement.
Attempted over-penetration is the main culprit for slowing strikes down, and is highly counter-productive concerning impact-generation. Very often, people hit and retract as two separate movements, even if there is the briefest of pauses between these movements, it doesn't produce the same impactive effect as 'bouncing' the blow out of the target in one movement that simply changes direction upon impact, actually using the recoil to do so.
Another 'speed' issue is that of landing the blow, of being quick enough to get a strike 'on target' cleanly.
There is a sliding scale between truly non-telegraphic, and truly powerful - you cannot have both, though some will always argue this out of ignorance or ego, there will always be a compromise.
Where you set the pointer on this scale is down to you, and depends on what you need at the time - circumstances and situations are great for giving clues as to requirements, if you can actually look at the problem before deciding upon an answer, which proves difficult for some!
Usually only the first blow needs to be non-telegraphic, from a 'contact management' angle - after this there should be constant motion, so everything is 'telegraphed' from there on in.
Sparring actually sets the 'non-telegraphing' bar far higher than fighting, mainly due to the on/off nature of the engagements - basically multiple mini-fights that are 'paused' and reset - and the greater starting range that must first be breached, against a vigilant and prepared adversary.
You can also look at what 'non-telegraphic' actually is - most would say it's when there are no giveaway movements to pre-warn your target. Consider an alternative definition - maybe there can be a whole load of 'winding-up' and chambering to facilitate that essential power, so long as the target doesn't see it...
This is where 'interrupting' with a hand over the eyes, or a thumb in the eye, works perfectly and allows a full-bore follow-up blow to land a split second later with a far higher success rate than without using it.
Such a tactic requires no power, no extreme velocity and can therefore be perfectly non-telegraphic - actually the action of pushing a hand lightly onto someone's face, with shoulder protraction as the driving movement, chambers the other hand beautifully. Not to mention you have a superb index and distraction effect included as a bonus.
-
Il y a surement un message sous-jacent, mais... j'ai pas compris un traitre mot de ton post.. :blink:.
Il manquerait pas une partie ??
-
Pour notre part, et depuis toujours, nous invoquons le Drop Step ( leu Droppe Steppeu, selon Pat' ;) )
ttttttttttttttt, bien que brusseler (bon fortement matiné US, il est vrai) tu prononces très mal. C'est dreeeeeeeeeuuuuuuuuppppppp staiiiiiiiiip de la meuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhh ;D
qui, à lui seul, suffit amplement, dans sa pratique, à aligner les évidences physiques comme principes actifs.
Franchement, drop step et forward drive plus visualisation de l'énergie traversant le coprs de l'opposant étaient déjà des principes essentiels de ma précédente vie de Karateka et je ne trouve rien à y jeter.
De plus ce sont des principes qui restent assez faciles à acquérir par mes élèves.
J'y rajoute deux autres qui sont déterminants pour moi :
- frappes à des niveaux différents pour saturer le systèmes nerveux
- se désaxer dès que possible pour sortir d'une dead line réflexe et enchaîner vers d'autres opposants.
-
Dans mon post, Rico ?
Non, dans un post disparu d'un nouveau qui sous entendait qu'on était un peu des mythos qui faisaient de la flûte et que c'était bien beau de s'entraîner mais rien ne valait la réalité de la confontration réelle.
Enfin, c'est comme çà que je l'ai perçu
-
Non, dans un post disparu d'un nouveau ...
Exact, c'était bien de ça que je parlais... ;)
-
Alors justement la relaxation avant de frapper, c'est bien mon soucis :(
Pour les gugus qui font un peu de muscu comme moi, la relaxation est inversement proportionnelle à mon gain de force sous les barres...
Le seul moyen que j'ai trouvé pour gagner en vitesse et relaxation dans mes bras, c'est d'arrêter de pousser des barres. C'est flagrant.
Ya pas une autre solution ?
-
Si.
Ne pas se focaliser sur le problème ;D
Un autre courant combatives, plus proche de Fairbairn, avance le fait que, stressé et en combat, nous serons probablement crispé et " raide ".
Ce courant conseille , dès lors, d'oeuvrer de manière différente et de trouver la puissance dans d'autres facteurs ( gros torque, grand transfert de poids ).
-
Bonjour,
Afin d'alimenter un peu la discussion, et suite au stage de Lee Morrison et celui à L'Isle sur Sorgue :
Utilisez vous les mêmes mécanismes générateurs de puissance pour les frappes linéaires et pour les frappes circulaires lorsqu'on est à courte distance (distance de bras, disons 1m)?
Pourquoi cette question ?
En ce moment, je travaille plus particulièrement les coups circulaires (baffes, marteau, manchettes...) à courte distance sans téléphonage aucun. La cible étant une patte d'ours à hauteur du visage et placé sur la tranche (donc coup circulaire). Et certain principes générateurs ne sont pas très efficaces à courte distance avec ces techniques.
Je me penche/m'interroge en particulier sur le "vlamm" du pieds avant sur le parquet qu'affectionnent Lee et, semble-t-il, Pat...et qui en fait n'est pas qu'une diversion.
Des infos ? Des pistes? Des explications?
J'arrive à reproduire avec un gain de pêche mais j'aimerais comprendre le principe.
-
Le principe est le transfert de poids de corps.
Même sil le déplacement corporel est infime, ce transfert permet de transmettre partiellement celui-ci dans/derrière la frappe.
Si c'est bien exécuté, le transmetteur se trouve momentanément en situation de rupture d'équilibre. Ce claquement du pied n'est qu'un indice sonore indiquant qu'il retrouve celui-ci dès la frappe distribuée, un poil de moment après.
Ce claquement de pied est tout-à-fait lié à un choix personnel. J'ai tendance à conseiller aux structures osseuses plus légères et fragiles de ne pas opérer ce claquement violent, mais de bien se récupérer en douceur, de se regrouper au niveau de l'équilibre, et d'à nouveau retransférer son poids corporel dans la jambe arrière. De manière à pouvoir enchaîner.
On en revient donc à opérer un mouvement fluide de balancier avant, arrière, avant, arrière, etc ... de façon souple et non traumatique pour les ligaments, tendons, cartilages et articulations.
-
Le principe est le transfert de poids de corps.
Même sil le déplacement corporel est infime, ce transfert permet de transmettre partiellement celui-ci dans/derrière la frappe.
Merci Serge pour ta réponse claire. :up:
Si c'est bien exécuté, le transmetteur se trouve momentanément en situation de rupture d'équilibre.
C'est l'acceptation du déséquilibre qui me gênait le plus initialement.
Ce claquement du pied n'est qu'un indice sonore indiquant qu'il retrouve celui-ci dès la frappe distribuée, un poil de moment après.
Il n'y a pas d'effet "raidisseur/contraction" des segments du fait de l'onde choc remontant du sol?
Ce claquement de pied est tout-à-fait lié à un choix personnel. J'ai tendance à conseiller aux structures osseuses plus légères et fragiles de ne pas opérer ce claquement violent, mais de bien se récupérer en douceur, de se regrouper au niveau de l'équilibre, et d'à nouveau retransférer son poids corporel dans la jambe arrière. De manière à pouvoir enchaîner.
Yes. Et puis parfois on recherche la discrétion.
MERKI !
-
Salut,
Je voulais signaler que sur le torque et également le transfert de poids, il y a beaucoup à prendre dans les techniques sportives.
Les britanniques sont particulièrement bien placés pour avoir inventé le Golf, le Tennis, et le Cricket ;)
Le swing en golf : exactement le principe double hip que Peter Consterdine enseigne :
Bob Toski Analysis of Tiger Woods' Golf Swing http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=FR&hl=fr&v=CS5KFDhytEA
Le revers en tennis :
Nadal Backhand - ProStrokes 2.0 Slow-Motion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnfsKxLkWlM
Rafael Nadal - Backhand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e6EcxFkeyk
Rafael Nadal - Backhand Close Up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtA6JWsbXa8
Le swing en Base-ball :
Bryce Harper Area Code Games 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb2-W9R_CCQ
et également le lancer du disque http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziv92hm43R8
Et l'excellente synthèse de Peter Consterdine pour la SD :
Delivering your punch: shoulder and hip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ySW_mvNdqo
-
There's a whole lot of 'stuff' out there being zealously touted as virtually sacrosanct by some, without any objective dissection or critical examination.
The SWAMP acronym used to collectively describe five power-generation principles, for impactive techniques, certainly fits this bill - as far as being accepted at face value and being apparently beyond reproach.
As is common with a lot of dogma, even if you point out blindingly obvious flaws and failings, using logic, reason - not forgetting a pinch of actual proof here and there - you often end up simply ineffectually butting heads with what people 'want' to be the case.
Some go so far as to try and re-write, retro-fit, re-interpret...or just plain bend the laws of physics, to desperately 'win' an argument about their beloved 'stuff' rather than actually be right, or wrong, whatever - and facilitate progress of some sort.
Prove me wrong on some issue that I'm invested in - actually prove mind you, don't just tell me I'm wrong - and it might well 'sting' a little at first, but I'll thank you for it ultimately, since I just made some progress...right there...and I guarantee I'll take that and run with it some more.
Personally I care not one iota about 'correct' lineage, pedigree, or emotional loyalty to any system or personality - I care about results, about performance, and my loyalty is to those I teach and present to, not some historical or contemporary individual who I've placed upon some pedestal.
I prefer the results-based approach found in sports and athletics to the style/system/personality-based approach found in martial arts - and I firmly class a great deal of the 'combatives/RBSD' systems as being nothing more than dressed-up martial arts to be honest, despite the usual claims to the contrary. In actual fact, it's hard to type some of the above with a straight face - for instance....system?
Since when did the majority of these 'collections' of set-piece techniques, that could be fairly accurately compared to either low-percentile 'party-trick gimmicks' or else over-prepared 'field goal kicks' ever present themselves in a systematic fashion? Like having a garage full of spare parts and fancy trim, but no actual and cohesive vehicle to bolt it all onto...in my opinion.
How about the term 'combatives' that is used altogether too-much it would seem...to the point that it appears to have become a noun, not just an adjective any more!
I laugh out loud at some of the discussions by the 'combatives' crowd on occasion, that often berate combat sports, or martial arts, and try and distinguish the 'C' word as being a seperate and distinct entity...a 'style' to itself basically, with people arguing about what it is, what it isn't, and if it is being done correctly! Stating "We don't do karate, we do combatives..." is exactly like saying "I don't drive a Ford, I drive a car..." since anything can be 'combative' in application, or 'sportive' for that matter - it's a context-thing after all, simply depending upon how you train and intend to use it.
Utter nonsense - if 'combative' means ready to fight, the term 'combatives' merely indicates the means and processes utilised to achieve this fight as I see it. When a cop writes a statement after arresting a violent individual, and includes "...the suspect became combative..." does he mean that all of a sudden he was set upon with chin-jabs and axe-hand strikes?
Personally I also use the term to describe the system I present, since I feel it accurately describes the purpose of the material I present, but when talking to certain guys I steel myself for their eye-rolling response, since I know that it unfortunately associates me with the WWII Commando re-enactment society, and similar 'deadly' types. What I find really amusing, especially when listening to these 'types' discuss the failings of combat sports in particular, is that MMA, Muay Thai, etc, are far more combative, more often, than they will ever be...
Don't even get me started on the 'reality' part of 'RBSD' which is often anything-but! This really stretches the limits on some occasion - again hilarious, in my opinion, when you discover the 'uber-hardcore' reality training they so proudly utilise, is nowhere near as 'reality-based' as an actual man, a fully-resisting, fully-active adversary trying to knock you senseless in a ring or octagon, for real, in what they tend to refer to as being 'only' a sport...
I've obviously got some fairly strong views and opinions concerning this sort of thing, and I've certainly been crossed-off a few Christmas-card lists as a result of voicing them...poor me - how sad...too bad! The thing is, I'm more than happy to personally stand right behind each and every one of them, and prove them theoretically, technically...even tactically if it comes down to it...that's the great thing about a little objective reason and logic behind you, as a by-product of critical thinking, rather than just wanting or hoping to be right...
I appreciate the above was a little long-winded, however it's a scene that should be set I feel - and 'critical thinking' is something that should be used a lot more than it would appear to be...this being said, if it were then it would severely impact upon a great deal of very dubious material out there...most likely being castastrophic for those that 'hard sell' it so loudly...
Finally, to address SWAMP with a little of this 'critical thinking' stuff is a relatively simple exercise - it's all laid out plain as day in Bob Kasper's original article, included below...but rather than just read the article, you need to witness the 'SWAMP' principle in action, by individuals of apparent reknown, and also take a look at the 'sales-pitch/arguments' used by these self-same experts - with just a modicum of objective analysis, and comparison, it becomes plainly obvious that what SWAMP is meant to be, isn't what is actually done, and neither is it what it's claimed it to be by those that push it as being effective.
Here's the original article - pay particular attention to all the 'power-development/delivery' references used throughout:
--------------------
SWAMP
How To Make The First Strike Your Last By Bob Kasper, ©1996
A few years back I wrote an article which focused on the basic principles of close quarters combat. In that article I gave a brief overview of SCOPE which is an acronym for Simplicity, Control, Offense, Power, and Effectiveness. Each of these principles is as equally important as the other. Take one away and you’ll have a hole in your combative skills.
One principle which I feel needs to be emphasized is Power. No matter how fast or aggressive you are if you do not possess power in your execution of technique, you’re going to fail in stopping your assailant. Executing simplistic, effective techniques will all be in vain unless there is a substantial amount of juice behind those techniques. Peter Robins said the first thing to do in a violent encounter is to "take away the intention." Hit them hard enough, and they’ll completely forget why they were even there. The following are my five principles of power that I developed based on my decades of study in the martial arts. I use these whenever I teach a technique. Follow these and make your first strike the last.
A while back my Instructors had the assignment to come up with an acronym for these five principles of power development. John Watson came up with SWAMP.
S - stay relaxed
W - weapon first
A - acceleration
M - move in the direction of the strike
P - plunge your body weight into the technique.
Stay relaxed. Of all of the power principles this is probably the hardest to develop. I’m not advocating to stay relaxed when someone is all over you trying to end your breathing habits. It is learning to use your body at maximum proficiency. Staying relaxed is essential for your body to move swiftly and economically. Explosive movement doesn’t come from stiff, tense muscles. You need to stay loose. The key word here is concentration. Concentrate on being relaxed before you explode into the technique. You’ll find your movements to be much more dynamic.
Weapon first. This is another one of those hard to develop techniques. We want to throw the weapon first so to not telegraph our intentions. Let him feel the technique before he sees it. This is most important when executing a pre-emptive strike, which should be 100% of the time if possible. Although follow up strikes do tend to be a little more difficult when moving the weapon first, this is no reason not to try. Following this principle as often as possible will make your technique delivery much faster and more powerful.
Acceleration. Acceleration is simply speed. Once you move do so as fast as your body can and don’t stop until it’s over. This is most important on that initial strike. Here we go back to the first principle of staying relaxed. Tense muscles move slower. Stay relaxed and throw that strike as fast as possible and the results will speak for themselves. When you throw a technique, throw it fast. Accelerate, and keep accelerating until it’s over.
Move in the direction of the strike. During a GHCA Assault I observed our AIs teaching the unarmed section of our combatives training. I stopped the class several times to point out the fact that their bodies were moving in the same direction as the strike. Bodies were turning into edge hand blows as well as moving upward with chin-jabs. You can’t move mass into a blow when that same mass is moving in a different direction.
Plunge your body weight into the technique. In order to do this you must be applying two other principles: Moving the weapon first and moving in the direction of the strike. If you’re not moving the weapon first your body is going to move and set before the strike lands and results in your weight settling before the weapon strikes. No mass, no power. If you’re not moving in the direction of the strike there is no mass there to plunge. Plunging means throwing all of your body weight directly into the strike before your mass settles.
Each of these principles supports the other. Take one away and you’ll have a dramatic loss in explosive power. This is especially important in non-telegraphing, pre-emptive strikes. Students have a tendency to want to wind a technique up to get as much power as possible. That’s good! But if you’re telegraphing your initial strike, all the power in the world isn’t going to help when you’re on your back in a daze. The key in pre-emptive is delivering explosive power when they’re not expecting it. And the only way to do that is to follow the SWAMP principles.
As instructors we want to repeat these principles prior to each power development session. Let them sink in so the student can police his own training. We then want to watch for missing principles. Is the student’s weight landing after the strike hits, or is it landing before the strike? Is he turning his body into the strike, or is he still, or is he moving away? Are both of his legs moving with his body, or is he leaving his leg lagging behind? Is he loose and moving smoothly, or is he tense and choppy? Is his weapon moving first, or is his hip, leg, arm, torso, etc. moving first? Make sure you show him what he was doing wrong before you show him how to do it right. Unless he sees his mistake, he will think he is doing it right. Watch, detect, analyze, and correct. Hit ‘em first, hit ‘em fast, hit ‘em hard.
Note: I’d like to thank John Watson for coming up with this great acronym. It fits perfectly. Webster defines swamp as "overwhelm." This is exactly what we want to do. SWAMP their ass.
--------------------
First off, I'm not a big fan of acronyms in general - they can get a little forced at times it seems...almost like a cool word was thought of first, then the other elements were an afterthought....
"Right, the acronym is going to be A.X.E because I like the tough way it sounds! So I need an 'A' to start....hmmm....pass the dictionary...aardvark, apple, awesome..."
Anyway, as I mentioned above - Kasper clearly states on multiple occasions that SWAMP is all about power - how to develop it, and how to deliver it.
Now he does make it sound very neat, and on first inspection he seems to say mostly the right things, and a lot of people buy into it because of this - saves them having to think for themselves. Quite often, within posts and articles, people refer to their power delivery 'method' as utilising the SWAMP principle, either on a personal or system level. Together with that other panacea of power, the infamous 'drop-step' technique, that's the power-stuff covered, all taken care of...apparently.
To cover it point by point:
Stay Relaxed - actually, this is very good advice. Nobody ever got very far trying to drive with the parking brake applied after all. To get optimal power, you need optimal accelleration - not just speed - and this will only happen if you're relaxed in all the right places...but the problem with this is those that only practice the equivalent of a 'tennis serve' where they have the luxury of preparation, but can't perform - because they don't practice - spontaneously. But, as a general principle, it's hard to fault - although it might be a little ambitious when in the thick of things...
Weapon First - this is by far the biggest flaw in the whole of the SWAMP ideal. It's all about generating maximum power don't forget - apparently - and quite simply, you are never going to generate maximum power by moving the weapon first. Period. Of course the zealous out there, when this is presented to them, often claim "...but this is more of a concept, not a physical action..." or else "...it's for pre-emptive blows to increase speed..." and all the other desperate excuses...anything to avoid simply admitting that it's wrong. Don't believe me? Easy - get a tennis ball, go outside, and see how far you can throw it 'ball first' as per SWAMP's 'weapon first' principle - be prepared to be underwhelmed. Maximum force is actually generated by sequential movement of body components, that accumulate and compound force prior to any ultimate release. So think 'weapon last' and you'll be on the right track. Actually - hilariously - the major advocates of SWAMP out there most certainly do not move any weapon first, although they claim that they do, with numerous video clips to blatently prove otherwise!
I'm of the opinion that if you want a gun to go 'bang' when you pull the trigger - not 'click' instead - you have to load the thing...and chamber a round - and the same applies to any power strike. All the obsession with being 'non-telegraphic' is redundant at actual fighting range - not sparring/duelling, in an actual dynamic setting, so the extra nanosecond required to chamber and fire a punch, for example? No big deal whatsoever.
Accelleration - another sound principle, can't argue with it. It should be noted however, that accelleration is 'changing speed' and in this case it should be increasing throughout the entire duration of travel - in practice people tend to attain and then maintain a constant velocity, like reaching the speed limit in your car and holding. This isn't a SWAMP flaw however, just thought I'd throw it in anyway - incidentally I use fancy 'motion-analysis' software on occasion, for higher-level coaching, and this issue becomes apparent.
Move in the Direction of the Strike - this is possibly the next most apparent flaw with SWAMP, not as a principle - it is fairly crucial to achieve maximum power delivery actually, and the principle is more accurately described as 'translation' in a physics/geometry sense. The flaw really lies with the appalling demonstrations by the SWAMP advocates, where quite often the exact opposite occurs - especially when the 'drop step' is included by default. Move in the direction of the strike, using the drop step to apply an uppercut or chin-jab...good luck with that...
Plunge Your Bodyweight into the Strike - this competes with the above 'direction' principle for being absolutely and utterly sound in concept, but completely ignored in application by those that so boldly claim otherwise. Again, all captured on various video clips for posterity - often with some instructor expertly extolling the effectiveness of SWAMP, stressing how the bodyweight must plunge into the strike, etc, and then clearly demonstrating glancing blows, that plainly hit 'across' the target surface, not 'into' it.
SWAMP could certainly be valid as a principle if 'weapon first' was simply changed to 'weapon last' and the rest of the component principles were actually executed as claimed...but I won't hold my breath waiting for any of this to happen...
Or, alternatively, abandon the 'maximum power' ideal, and leave it for non-telegraphic, opening-shot, pre-emptive blows only...but it's one or the other...you can't just change the purpose as you see fit to match your argument.
As it was originally detailed and described, by Bob Kasper in his own words, it's wrong, plain and simple.
Mick Coup - http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showpost.php?p=185738&postcount=2 - 01.05.2012
-
Regardless of application by "combatives" guys, I think SWAMP can be used as a power generation method.
I pretty-much agree, and four out of the five SWAMP principles are right on the money - it's just a shame that the die-hard SWAMP advocates don't seem to be able to actually do these four as claimed!
To my mind, the 'weapon-first' nonsense completely invalidates the SWAMP deal as a whole, and this is the only point I raise really - as it is 'sold' as a combined concept, a whole, that is given a cool-sounding acronym to bind it together, it is wrong - surely if you have to start re-writing it, cherry-picking it, or back-peddling as some attempt, this is proof?
There's often a significant degree of emotional investment in certain practices, or personalities, that can create either an unconscious 'blind-spot' that hides obvious issues - or else someone has a lot of 'other' investment, and consciously chooses to ignore the bleedin' obvious...
With regards impact, everything - every movement - generates power, but I feel that people are too quick to draw a 'that will do' line under it, and not compare it to what could be generated by better means. Is it me, or isn't this 'training' stuff about continually striving for improvements, either within our own attributes and performance, or within the material we utilise? If you reckon that you hit hard hard enough, or shoot straight enough, and 'that will do' as-is, then good for you...congratualations on finding a nice hobby...
I come across this as a 'defence' of my fairly 'steadfast' rebuttals all the time. People will reference some 'name' on an instructional clip and point out that he is using SWAMP, and/or the drop step, or some other flawed dogma, and insist "...there...you see...he hits really hard..." and then go on clinging to the classic 'appeal to authority' approach as the sole 'proof' of their belief.
Point out that this 'hero' isn't hitting weapon-first at all, despite what he might be insisting, and is actually the reason why he has some power, but he's wasting plenty by clipping the target - not 'plunging' as he also claims - with the clue being that if the 'tool' is no longer in contact with the target surface, but still continuing on it's orginal path, you can say 'plunge' until you are blue in the face, but this is a glancing blow...like it or not. Then see the body, feet, head, etc, moving in different directions - for example, moving to your right whilst throwing a right cross...ending up punching yourself away from the target, or dropping into an upward travelling blow...this sort of thing... Any translation in component-movement cannot be exact - not with the way a human body is bolted together - but it shouldn't be significantly converging or diverging, or else the force you generate obstructs itself, or is split - more wastage...
So the 'hard hitting' used to prove SWAMP, etc, actually is hard hitting - it just isn't anywhere near 'hardest' hitting, as it claims to be. Without viable comparison, opinions are hardly objective are they? One thing that I do like to remind people of in such 'debates' is that these video clips are only visual...how the f**k do you know how hard someone is actually impacting a target, to base a realsitic conclusion upon? Does it look hard? This is as reliable as judging taste by sound! It's all-too easy to confuse effort with effect in such matters, and be convinced that something must be effective because of how much effort was expended - especially when hitting bags and BOBs...
As for the drop step, I often got the impression that people were thinking so hard about the step they forgot about the punch.
This is absolutely the case I feel - I've seen some truly absurd demonstrations of the drop step that almost defy belief...from world class experts no less! Every martial art I've ever come across has a version of this particular technique, a lunge that accelerates body mass by a combination of removing the support of one leg, and driving with the other. To understand it, not only identifies when it is a good idea to employ...and it's not all the time, everytime, as some would insist...and how to achieve the desired effect in a fairly subtle fashion, without even moving the feet even.
I'm torn between my absolute favourite 'drop step' demonstration being the 'lift the knee as high as possible to the front, stamp on the floor as hard as possible...wait...then hit the target...' or the 'leave the knee exactly where it is, bring your foot up behind you to your ass, kick the floor as hard as you can...wait...then hit the target...' and the jury is still out - but both are pretty amusing...
Mick Coup - http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showpost.php?p=185794&postcount=7 - 02.05.2012
-
I first heard of SWAMP via Kelly McCann's combatives videos and later attended the Sudden Violence course at Crucible.
The big thing I always keep in mind with World War 2 combatives is the context in which they were designed -- DURING WORLD WAR II:
- Limited amount of time to train (16 hours IIRC).
- Limited to no amount of time to sustain.
- The student is the "average trained person" (draftees possibly).
- Limited to no safety gear.
- Students must be physically able to deploy after completing the training (read -- avoid injuries).
I can see how within the above context, a nation sending hundreds of thousands of people off to war with a limited amount of time to train them that World War 2 combatives may have been the best solution.
However, I don't believe these moves to be some kind of panacea for any situation one is likely to encounter.
Also, and as everyone here knows, if you can't spar it, it's just masturbation -- it feels good but doesn't lead to much.
Stan,
Regarding McCann's use of SWAMP, he's one of the worst culprits in my opinion for 'hard-selling' the notion but failing to execute it as claimed. He seems to hit with some force, but this isn't because of the principles of SWAMP at all...can't be...because contrary to what he says, he doesn't physically use them! This can be plainly seen in many of his DVD offerings - says it...doesn't do it. What's that all about?
He could hit a lot harder in my opinion, and just plain...better... I know he's held in high regard by a great deal of people - beyond critique it would seem almost - and this is probably for a whole host of very valid reasons, but I really feel he should steer well away from giving instruction and expert advice concerning effective 'body mechanics' based on the mess I've seen him make so far...
I agree regarding the WWII stuff in the main - to regard it as being the evolutionary pinnacle of personal combative methods is utterly ludricrous...but a common sentiment it would appear. Imagine applying this thought process elsewhere...medicine perhaps? Fans argue that the human body hasn't evolved, so it's all been done - and to a point this is true - but if this is the case, in athletics and sports, etc, it would appear that progress is still being made with these unevolved bodies?
Along these lines, as a relevant comparison, consider the 'high jump' track and field event, and the evolution of better and better techniques - not to mention the absence of becoming so invested in a method, for whatever reason, that you are unwilling to change...
Typically, high jumpers used either a scissor-jump or just leaped straight-on. Now I'm betting some fairly impressive heights were achieved like this - but was either of these methods adopted as being 'it' and any attempt of progress resisted with cries of "...but the world champion does it like this..." perhaps?
Of course not - this is sports, with measurable results, not martial arts...with great expectations...
Then came the Eastern Cut-Off, the Western Roll, and the Straddle techniques...each yielding better and better results. Athletes wanted the best material to work with, and sought it out - if you couldn't teach them the Straddle jump? Goodbye! No clinging to old news purely out of sentiment, and once Fosbury invented the 'flop' technique...same happened again...
Where are the world class high-jumpers still using the Western Roll method now? In 1936, Cornelius Johnson jumped 6' 8" with it, so I suppose that's what the current high jumpers should be using - look how effective it obviously is, after all? Guys are hitting 8' these days with the Fosbury Flop...I rest my case.
Compare this to the 'combatives' industry - it's a whole different story isn't it?
Guys like Fairbairn, Sykes, Applegate, etc, are placed on impossibly high pedestals in my opinion - lionised and held beyond reproach, critique, question, whatever, and zealously defended from anything but awed reference. For their services to the free world, I have immense respect for them, and what they were involved in - same as for my late Grandfather who was wounded in-action during WWII, and every veteran of that era...but this respect does not extend to believing that any of them were never wrong about anything, or the final word on anything! This isn't respect, it's blind loyalty - spelled...S...T...U...P...I...D...
On the one hand, stories abound of these deadly elderly men, taking on all-comers who were generally younger and fitter, often experienced combat veterans, and defeating them with ease using brutally effective techniques requiring almost no effort.
On the other hand, via old footage you see these same individuals in action looking decidedly...ordinary? I'll go out on a limb to even say uncoordinated and off-balance...harsh critique of these titans of combatives from a mere mortal I appreciate, but this is how it looks to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhUdT...92E00B62F7DB8C
Presenting this argument oftens changes a few things. The stories are amended somewhat, and it's usually pointed out that in the clips they were old men... Strange that the 'age' issue was originally used as a boast! Which is it to be I wonder, that they were amazing and could still do the business whilst old men in the stories, or that the reason they look a little 'off' is because they were old men in the clips?
When the age thing rears up, I refer the WWII fans to my friend Steve Morris...who is 68:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTGNf...feature=relmfu
Generally the reply is that Steve's a phenomenon, so it doesn't count - but apparently the other guys were too...hence the tall tales?
Incidentally, Steve is a phenomenon certainly - and his profile/bio is worth perusing! I don't agree with everything he says, but there is no doubting his encyclopedic knowledge of fighting and the science that surrounds it, not to mention his constant research, and physically I can't imagine what he must have been like in his prime, such is his ability at 68...
As far as the WWII combatives material is concerned, and the manner which it was taught, I feel a few points should be considered...
It's often said that 'combatives' is so simple, whatever is learned in the lesson can be used that day in the parking lot, or words to that effect. I'm fairly certain I've been guilty of issuing this statement myself - to my embarrassment - and it's nonsense in the main. The only way this could be accurate would be if you drilled, and drilled, some singular highest-percentile technique or tactic for the entirety of a session, and then the exact same circumstance presented itself for real later! I could simplify speaking German to 'ein bier bitte' but you'd be lost if you landed in Germany straight afterwards, unless you were in a bar!
I feel a lot of this is leveraged from the amount of time allotted to such training during the wartime special-unit training efforts - I've even heard "combatives is so effective, it can be learnt in only eight hours..." which goes so far as to prove just how ignorant some folk really are about the whole military training 'thing' and what it entails!
Getting only eight hours of training in a subject is no testimony as to how effective the material is at all - it simply proves how low-priority the subject-matter actually is! I'm fairly certain that the various commandos got a lot more than eight hours of instruction covering navigation and communications...
As far as the choice of material - the chin-jabs and edge-of-hand blows, etc, well I'm of the opinion that if anything, such sessions might have been 'interest-periods' more than anything more 'crucial' and that most of the recruits were already versed in boxing and wrestling to a degree, so a few 'dirty tricks' were instead added for special occasions - not for in-fight use at all. This is speculative obviously - but what isn't, however, is taking the 'WWII' material and failing to see a cohesive 'fighting-system' anywhere. Rather a 'collection' of low-percentile techniques, and set-piece sequences - like a bad martial art.
As for the material being 'battle-tested' and 'proven in combat' etc, as far as I know combat statistics tend not to extend towards such specifics, but I would put everything I own on simple punches to the head, penalty kicks to the balls, and bar-room headbutts being far more prominent during any hand-to-hand engagements than any altogether more esoteric 'axe-hand' blows...
This is all a little harsh and disrespectful I suppose - and I wholeheartedly don't wish to level it at those late pioneers of their time at all, since I truly doubt they'd be inclined to cling on to outdated material themselves, just for the sake of nostalgia, like their fan club insists upon doing - these are the ones I'm being harsh and disrespectful to...because they earn and deserve such treatment...
In my opinion, of course...
Mick Coup - http://www.totalprotectioninteractive.com/forum/showpost.php?p=185798&postcount=9 - 02.05.2012