UnderGround Forums
 

DantheWolfMan UnderGround >> why?

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

6/26/02 1:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
pluxor
1 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jun-02 01:51 PM
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 49
It's hard to change others opinions, unfortunatly they will just have to learn for themselves. If they don't train for possible encounters including going to the ground, hopefully they'll never face someone who will take them down, or they in turn ever need to take someone down. But this is highly unlikely. Otherwise, I'm content with Tony's explaination, and I totally agree with Hissho.
6/26/02 2:29 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 33
I should say, or rather point out what I am not saying, and that is that we should go to ground (if we can help it) if we are not doing so for a superior tactical purpose (i.e. controlling an uncontrollable antagonist...whether it be to effect arrest, ground and pound him, or temporarily immobize him so that a weapon can be deployed). If we do, knee to belly, knee to neck, controlling his hands/arms, hopefully leaving at least one of ours free to use a weapon or to help disengage are the way to go. If we end up on the bottom, use everything you have to get the heck out of there.....here at least the people that criticize sport grappling are absolutely correct. But grappling as a whole is often condemned for such sport reasons and this misses the bigger picture....that grappling CAN be "tactical grappling," and that cops at least have a need to be able to look at grappling situations in the field tactically. This will be very different from judo, or BJJ or MMA, but many of the skills and most of the attributes developed in such training do apply. I don't think, or at least I hope it isnt the case, that Tony is saying anything different.
6/26/02 4:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rinpoche
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 26-Jun-02
Member Since: 24-Apr-02
Posts: 10
The statistics are fine when you say that "62% of altercations with the LAPD go to the ground". Of course they do. Cops job is to get the guy on the ground and cuff him. Stating the statistic that 95% of all atercations go to the ground is made up and false. It is a gross misuse of the LAPD statistics, and is patently false in it's assumptions. I have always seen this presented in such a way to make it seem like it is referring to every street altercation between civillians. There is no possible way to study this accurately, and my own limited experience tells me this is false. What I think is dangerous about using statistics this way is that they are used to sell sporting systems as great self defsnes systems. There is nothing wrong with sport, but it is not self defense. Grappling is very important. Stand up grappling, ground grappling, and many variations are all good things to know and very applicable. But stay off the ground if humanly possible.
6/27/02 3:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
C Fighter
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 0
Pluxor ... here's a hypothetical scenario for you. Please take no offense, but try to visualize the reality of it. I think it will make the issue you are contemplating a little more clear. CF You are unarmed. I am your opponent. You see I have a knife on my belt. You don't know my skills ... I could be an escrima fighter. I could be also trained in BJJ. There are 2 guys behind me sitting on the curb. You don't know if they are with me or not. Your car is behind me, so this means you have to get passed me to drive away. As you approach the car, I step in front of you, and draw my knife, and tell you I hate your freakin' race and I'm going to slice you up. Now, do you still want to take me to the ground as your FIRST and PRIMARY objective?
6/27/02 9:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 27-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 34
Okay, CF, which martial art would you recommend to deal with this circumstance? The appropriate response would be a bullet to your head and the same to the other two if they decide to step up. Besides that, walking away (or running). What exactly are you looking for? Kicks? Strikes? Standing locks? Or perhaps something like Aikido, which SPECIALIZES in multiple opponents (right...) Or say Pluxor draws his own stick or knife and goes at it? With three (probably) armed opponents?? NO martial art is effective against multiple opponents, except projectile weapons where you can reach out and touch them before they can touch you(so hope THEY are not also so armed...). ALL are fraught with tactical problems against multiple opponents in equal or greater measure with those of a ground based method. It all depends on what happens.... Since the range as you have set forth is near contact distance, there is nothing to say that, despite the best standing techniques in defense or evasion, it still WON'T go to the ground. Or that taking you to the ground immediately and explosively, at the same time hammering your head on the pavement by dropping his knee on your face, at the same time controlling the knife hand, taking that knife and sticking it into your throat WILL NOT be a primary objective and pretty damn effective. Get out of the mindset that groundfighting is ONLY sport grappling. What if it goes to ground on the first grab-n'-stab and he has ignored or shortchanged his groundwork in the Internet-expert inspired belief that it is no good against multiple opponents or is not realistic for streetfighting? He can look forward to being UNABLE to effectively respond at all, or perhaps reverse and get away, because he lacks a developed knowledge of the ground. I don't mean some occasional lie-to-himself-for-peace-of-mind groundwork to pretend he's "well rounded," I mean serious study and practice to develop more than a minimal skill level and a familiarity with the type of fighting that will be required in such circumstances so that the proper responses occur naturally under stress.
6/30/02 4:50 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truart
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 5
Hello all, The most important question Mr. Blauer ever shared with me was..."How did we get here?" The scenario dictates the response- TCMS maxim Hisho, you quote some interesting statistics, but all those fights already happened and the statistics cant really tell you if that was the BEST way to end those fights...just that they eneded that way. from an LEO perspective, with a limited amount of training time per officer, I would want to spend most of the time dedicated to groundfighting learning how to prevent going there. As far as "prone cuffing" goes....I live by the premise, Control first, then Handcuff, then search. A complex motor skill takedown to handcuffing position is at best very difficult to execute while the fight is still "out of control". By the time I execute a takedown to prone cuffing I have already established a point of domination on the suspect and I am in "control" therefore I dont consider that particular segment of the incident a groundfight (although it could become one if I lose control through incident or accident). This is where ground combat training comes in...when things are out of control In general, prevention is always preferred to crisis intervention, so I like to focus on the former but still work on the latter. The environment and circumstances that lead to the fight have a lot to say about where the fight ends. Coach Blauer's research in this area has brought realistic ground combat training to military an Law enforcement units all over the world. I will finish my post with a quote from his PDR manual. "...do not have an emotional attachment to any particular range..." Tony Torres Va Beach, Va BTS LEO Team / PDR Team www.tonyblauer.com
6/30/02 6:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 36
Tony, The statistics are LAPD's. Are you not aware of them? Your right, taking somebody down and controlling him prone may not be the best way. I can think of few live arrests of violently resisting subjects that ended "the best way." You should teach for reality, not for what the hoped for best possible outcome is. Very few trainers seem to do this. Training to "not go there" for the ground is mentally disarming your LEO students...they need to know when it is appropriate, when it IS the best thing to do, and how BEST to manage it when it gets there. Since they absolutely WILL be taking the most serious resistors/assaulters to the ground, or ending up there in these incidents, it needs to be a major concern in any combatives training. You wrote: "By the time I execute a takedown to prone cuffing I have already established a point of domination on the suspect and I am in "control" therefore I dont consider that particular segment of the incident a groundfight (although it could become one if I lose control through incident or accident). This is where ground combat training comes in...when things are out of control." Part of our problem is terminology. Your first sentence is exactly what I am saying, with the exception that I disagree that a groundfight begins/ground combat training comes in when things "get out of control." The groundfight begins the minute he goes prone and you are on top of him in any configuration, the usual one being the "knee ride" mentioned above. Why? Because if you do not CONTINUE to properly control it you are in danger of it turning into your kind of groundfight, where you do not have dominant position and it is getting out of control. The groundfight should be geared toward things NOT getting out of control in the first place, and if they seem to be going that way to either disengage or to raise the level of force. It should also include training for what to do when it does get out of control and you get caught someplace you don't wanna be. By emphasizing only the latter section, you are skipping what are the more important preventative measures.
6/30/02 8:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tony Blauer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 107
Blauer Tactical Systems, Inc.
Guys, allow me to re-orient this thread... A lot has been shared and most of it true...perpective rules all our ideas, however, perspective is lost in threads... A lot of the disagreement (or apparent disagreement) I would write off to semantics. I bet if we were all in the same room discussing this, most would realize we are saying the same thing using differnet words. Now the re-orient: Hissho, your opening line to Mr. TOrres about the LAPD statistics seemed sarcastic. I'm not a big fan of statistics either, but that doesnt make our opinions erroneous. In fact all Mr. Torres was stating was that 'we' the audience...dont know how the fight started, and that information changes everything. Predisposing an officer to go to the ground is not the same as teaching that officer how to control the opponent on the ground. And if your belief system, inspired by statistics, tells you all fights go to the ground then you are also missing out on other areas of training. Its no secret that conventional DT systems and LEO SOP do not teach effective tactical communication skills, accurate pre-c0ontact resistance cues, how to tactically penetrate the reactionary gap...but as luck & fate would have it...STATISTICALLY this is NOT an issue because MOST ARRESTS involve PASSIVE RESISTORS. That was the point MR. Torres was trying to allude to...if we knew the circumstances around the research we could better evaluate. Conventional training does not address serious agression and leaves a lot of holes and windows of opportunity for a motivated resistor. Again, I think if the two of you were discussing this in person you'd see youre both philosophizing about the same issue with different words and time-lines. Thats the problem with forums and typing... :-) There are two distinct opponents in LEO's arrest & control moment: the passive resistors and the aggresive resistors. TOny Torres, who aisde from his DT & Combatives & martial arts training & teahing is not a theorizing, since he has been in many street altercations as a LEO. Our training modules address most Murphy moments. So in a dialogue with no demos (here & now) groundfight means two differnet things to both Hissho and TOrres. In our methodolgy (TCMS) our training is based on counter ambush policy (or lack of) so when we say 'groundfight' we mean, the opponent has forced the fight to the ground. You use the term gorundfigth generically as to mean 'any' situation on the ground... Some important thoghts: 1. In the interst of educaiton, I want everyone to create 'contentions' or 'points of strategy' so that there is a thread of cohesion that would help steer the threads. 2. Also, once again, Aliases are really cute, but I dont like them here, in my forum, so please use your real names, it adds credibility to your opinions. 3. Before you post, add a new SEQUE PHRASE so we know where the thread is going...often someone will post #12 after reading the first question no relaizing that the thread has changed direction 3 times...this makes it difficult fo rhtose reading from A - Z. TOny
6/30/02 10:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jun-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 37
Tony, No sarcasm was intended. It is a legitimate question; I admit to being a little surprised that it seems you guys are not familiar with the LAPD study and the parameters under which the statistics were developed. The stats basically break down the types of arrests that LAPD officers made during the year 1988, I believe. Of course in the overwhelming majority of circumstances you will not go to the ground because either no resistance is encountered, or minimal resistance is encountered and shut down with conventional tactics. This is nothing new to anyone working the road. What the LAPD stats reveal, however, is that when "the fight is on," so to speak, 95% of the time it took on one of five patterns: - Officer grabbed the subject, subject pulled his arm away and officers reacted most often with joint locks...most frequent final subduing act in this instance was taking the suspect to the ground (46%). - Subject ran at the officer and swung punches and kicks..followed most often by officer's baton strikes (or almost as often taking him to the ground) and the most frequent fiinaol act was taking the suspect to the ground (35%). - Subject refused to assume searching position as ordered, followed most often by a lock with the most frequent final act being taking the subject to the ground (36.5%). - Foot pursuit followed by officer taking subject to ground (40%), and again the most frequent final act in this case was taking the suspect to the ground (39.5%). - Subject assumed fighting stance but did not attack. Most frequent second act was sticking the guy (38%) and the most frequent final act was the same (41%). And I quote: "In addition, nearly two thirds of the 1988 altercations (62%) ended with the officer AND the subject on the ground with the officer applying a lock and then cuffing." (From a copy of the LAPD handout passed out at the ASLET USe of Force Training Seminar, Los Angeles Airport Hilton and Towers July 10-12 1997.) Being an LEO myself in patrol and SWAT assignments as well as a field DT instructor and a ground control tactics instructor for my department, I know the difference between passive resistance and active aggressors. I can say without reservation that my experience in the field is consistent with this study. Of the altercations against active resistance and assaultive suspects, it virtually always went to the ground, and that was the most realistic means of controlling the suspect at the time, both when I was alone and most often when I had cover. I agree that this argument is pretty much in semantics, but I consider it an important point: while you may train the ground fight as the result of ambush where the suspect has forced the fight to the ground....a situation wherein ground combatives are vital...I do see any situation where the suspect is grounded and you are in some measure off your feet, either still fighting or trying to control him as still ground fighting. Why? Because even if you are on top the fight is very much still on. Situations such as this can turn on a dime, particularly with the limited ground control ability of most officers. If not schooled in the ability to maintain dominant position and ground fight for CONTROL (all part of current non-LEO ground fighting methods) you could very quickly end up in a ground fight for your LIFE. Chris LeBlanc Vancouver, WA PD
6/30/02 11:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tony Blauer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 30-Jun-02 11:31 PM
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 108
Blauer Tactical Systems, Inc.
Thanks Chris, I agree with your comments and as Ive said we're all saying the same thing, the thread meanders, which is why I have asked people in general to stay focused. My comments and writing philosophy in this forum tends to lean toward the analytical and philosophical as oppossed to the technical, so when I write something like the 'scenario dictates' , some people cant grasp that that's really the truth in life. This thread became diluted when people mixed techinque, tactics and theory. As for the LAPD study, of course we've heard of it, but our methodolgy doesnt need to integrate it because we are always starting from the worst case scenario, further, and this resonates with your philosophy, "fights can turn on a dime", where we disagree witht the study is the contentions and over emphasis with the ground work. We still want the LEO to win and the dirt bag to give up quick...we just feel that grappling and groundfighting are very different and if that's your message, again, we're saying thesame thing differently. My company teaches a specific & necessary niche...that does not preculde appreciation for other necessary training phases...we're just specialists. You cant preplan the fight a year earlier in an academy. You can train technique, but you still must adapt in the real moment. Also, asking about training applications or methods and asking me 'WHY?' are very different questions . When someone asks me or someone on my team 'why?' they are asking about philosophy, until they ask 'how?' or 'what if'? Thats what this thread is about...why? Again, we train for the same event...and as my company motto contends...in combat, only the result counts! Our approach to the ground is simple and was stated in the first answer" DOnt go there if you dont have to." That answers it all. Because conscientious training would force there to be answers for all eventualities, therefore, we dont go to the ground if we dont have to (predisposing) but certainly train to control the opponent on the ground if we must. The strategic epiphany being this: if (statistically) you know you will likely be on the ground you get to look at how SOP and conventional training ALSO factors into the result. If changing something in the SOP MIGHT change the outcome.... it is both intelligent and tactical to explore this. That's where we differ slighlty. But that comes back to the simplicity of "How'd we get there?" or more accurately, "why did we get there?". Therefore, if you decide you'd RATHER be on your feet (or close to them) in a real fight, thats youre prerogative, its also a strategic option. Thats our training paradigm, we train for stability, train to force the fight to stay up, train to take your opponent to the ground and remain mobile...etc. Thanks for all your input and professioanlism, Train hard & stay safe. TOny
7/1/02 12:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Jul-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 38
Tony, I can appreciate your comments. I too do not expect statistics to necessarily reflect reality. But considering the number of LAPD officers, the work they do, and the suspects they encounter, dismissing them as simply one version of reality is irresponsible. It also begs the question: HOW are you avoiding the ground? HOW does an officer, either in attempting to effect an arrest against a violently resisting subject, or in defending against a violent ambush, control that suspect? If you advocate something different from taking the suspect down thru whatever means, and prone cuffing, I am very curious as to what it is. A prone suspect in not a controlled suspect simply because he is down and you are up....control measures are still needed beyond that point. I took Mr. Torres comment to mean that you do go to prone cuffing, but that you establish control before that. While it is common sense to have your suspect under control before cuffing, HOW are your effecting that control? At what point do you teach contact with the suspect? How is that contact established and cuffing completed? I your classes do not teach suspect control, but rather simply the life-and-death fight aspect, where controlling the bad guy means far less than simply damaging him, getting to your weapon and shooting him, then you are right, we are talking about two different kinds of engagements, both of which officers need to know how to handle. Things like that blend in reality.
7/1/02 1:06 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tony Blauer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 01-Jul-02 01:56 AM
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 110
Blauer Tactical Systems, Inc.
Chris thanks for the reply. Im not sure why you imply that Ive dismissed the LAPD research. Just because Im not 'all over it' doesnt mean Ive dismissed the research, the numbers may be accurate but they just dont apply to my training and I dont happen to agree with the thesis contention as it leads to assumptions. Futher, there are a lot of expercienced LEO's I know that dont subscribe to it either. Its simply a matter of perspective (as I indicated in my first reply to you). I need ot address this as you keep bringing up the stats but never reflect on MY PREMISE: that the SOP and tactics USED BY LAPD in the study WILL INFLUENCE the results. Ive said that over & over and its key. If the message is simply 'you better include groundfigthing in your training' then I agree. If the message is all fights eventually go to the ground, so why not get their first' then I disagree and you may argue, but that is what I observe in many LAPD inspired prgrams, a predispostion to go to the ground where mobility, awareness, perimeter security, tool transition are all restrcitied by the 'ground range'... So while you say you appreciate my comments, I dont think youve given the requisite time to my replies to weigh & consider, to intuit where Im coming from...no disresepct intended. I teach my methods the world over to both soldiers and cops and trainers, all of them have tools and SOP, and ROE's from their units or agencies when they come into my class - what I teach does not detract from their toolbox it only enhances it. (Reread what Fletch FJJ828 worte about his training with me), again this is still a case of technique vs philosophy. We focus more on the life & death apsects...of course we touch on all areas, but we do so to show how the scenario can switch in a nano second, on the dime - as I stated a couple of times, we are specialists, teaching LEO's & trainers how to win the 'out-of-control- fight... Also there are many many very good training systems out there (especially within the grappling methods: Gracie, Machado, Shamrock etc) who all have tweaked their MA program to address the LEO arena, so our focus is taking trainers who have the SOP foundation and showing them the Murphy moments and conversions... As to some of your specific questions about our methods, when it comes to military or LEO strategies I am very particular with what I discuss in this forum or other open forums and as this is the Mental Edge and not a LEO forum I'd rather not get into tactics and methods here. I trust you respect that. Hopefully we'll get a chance to meet at a conference or seminar. Until then stay safe. Sincerely, Tony
7/9/02 1:34 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jul-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 40
To All, It was pretty clear in this thread and in the private e-mail conversation Tony and I had afterwards that we were not "connecting." Much of the problem, I see now, was semantic, and due to the limitation of the medium. I had purchased one of Tony's tapes before this conversation even began, because I like to put my money where my mouth is and wanted to get a glimpse of his system, and he conversation was an outgrowth of my interest. The tape I got was "Groundfighting vs. the Armed Assailant." Let me just say Tony is very much teaching reality. Starting with what was only an ad for High Gear, I was pleasantly surprised to see so much similar to what we have experienced at VPD in our DT force-on-force drills and our SWAT Close Quarters Confrontation program, and to what I have experienced in the field. The things demonstrated ARE what comes out under stress, time and again, scenario after scenario, fight after fight. When you train this way, you get better at operating under stress with things that will work and will save your life. Watching what he does, far more than talking about it on the Internet, showed me that we are very much coming from a similar place in our ideas of what makes good training. The groundfighting portion covered many of the questions I had, in terms of top control position on prone/supine subjects, in this case armed individuals. It is geared to civilians but the crossover is clear...the big picture stuff, the strategy and tactics for dealing with such situations, is well illustrated by what he is doing, and exactly what I meant when I was trying to state my point. I now better understand where he is coming from, in the sense that the people he is teaching will be for the most part rank-and-file. Even most SWAT operators are not skilled martial artists able to translate training to practical application. Instead they need to concentrate on the mindset and big picture strategies that Tony concentrates on, while practicing a few high percentage tactics that adapt well to different situations. Tony doesn't do what he is actually, physically doing justice, though, because what he does, whether you call it groundfighting, ground control, or whatever, is some very good stuff. Hissho/Kit LeBlanc
7/9/02 4:49 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FJJ828
13 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jul-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 154
NAPLES BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU L.L.C.
Hissho, Glad we are on the same page after all. I teach DT and work SWAT as well. This place is a wealth of information for sure. Welcome to the Mental Edge.
7/9/02 6:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Hissho
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jul-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 41
FJJ, Just stating the facts as I see 'em. I felt that the way the thread went, it was my professional obligation to clear the air. The last part of my post above is pretty garbled. I was trying to say that when Tony says he doesn't deal with techniques, he doesn't do what he teaches justice. There is a big difference between "technical strategies," or sound tactics, so to speak, and rote "if this--do that." The latter don't work under stress and the storm of real violence. The former, which as he characterized it can be seen as "more desirable" vs. "less desirable" ( "the economics of violence"...this stuff must just come naturally to him ;) ) is spot on and what I was trying to convey, if not very successfully. I am thinking of getting another vid now....
7/9/02 9:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tony Blauer
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 09-Jul-02
Member Since: 01-Jan-01
Posts: 124
Blauer Tactical Systems, Inc.
Classy reply Chris, thanks I appreciate the time you took both as a warrior and as a man to investigate (you purchased a video and watched with an open mind) and then to revisit our dialogue and this thread. Stay safe and looking forward to meeting you one day soon. Tony

| Share | Email | Subscribe | Check IPs

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.