Scott, I was wondering if you could clarify
something I read a while ago on the Amerross
forum. The statement was "It's a Ross maxim to
maintain contact with the opponent until the threat
is neutralized." I was wondering if this statement
held for any context (Military CQB, Sport, Civilian
Self-defence, etc.) or was related to a specific
theater of conflict. Are there situations where (lets
say you and your opponent are striking unattached
and then flow into the clinch) where a ROSS
practitioner would break contact and return to a
longer range? And I was also curious about why
ROSS prefers to "saturate intention", basically
getting the opponent to the ground, rather than vital
target striking. I don't know if your Fisticuffs
series answers these questions; watching
Shockability and IOUF kind of spawned them.
Scott, I was wondering if you could clarify
With ROSS your the BOSS ;-)
Let me know if these responses fit the bill.
1. RE: unbreaking contact. "Unbreaking Contact" refers to more than physical contact. It alludes to, as you astutely tie the connection, "Saturation of Intention." I'll address this point in response to your second question. Disengaging the enemy remains the goal of (civilian) defensive tactics and (military) combatives. Both (law enforcement) Subject Control and (athletic) Combat Sport exclude this goal, since in both strategies actors attempt to "secure" the threat.
There exist exceptions to this tactic [Unbreaking Contact] in both Subject Control and Combat Sport. In Subject Control, disengaging the subject to access implements, communication, non-combatants, or other combatants frequently presents themselves as necessary tactics. In Combat Sport, disengaging the opponent in order to fatigue his energy, to create an opportunity, or to await an opportunity present themselves as viable tactics. The benefit of "Unbreaking Contact" lay in the exclusion this tactic has held in conventional 'collide and deflect' tactics, typical of "point sparring" mentality. Most people fight like pinballs, bouncing off of others and the environment without control. Most people fight as if one or two or three strikes or grappling maneuvers suffices for ending the conflict. Many people due to this ineffective, one-dimensional training protocol lack an understanding of how to receive sudden, sustained force, as well as how to administer sudden, sustained force. Training with the "Unbreaking Contact" protocol allows one to appreciate a more comprehensive rhythm to combat, regardless of venue.
2. RE: the absence of the protocol of "Vital Targetting" - Even with 40 or 50 years of training, fighting with the INTENTION to access minute, specific locations, with fine motor skills, possesses slim to no chance of survivability and effectiveness. Before the pressure point gumballs and cape-wearing esoteric Wonder Twins attack my statement... "with the INTENTION." Under the stress of combat's chaos, fine motor skills deteriorate immediately... no matter how many decades of skill repetition.
With SHOCK ENGINEERING as the protocol, one seizes the opponent's "will" to fight - a mechanism presented in-depth in FISTICUFFS, sending the opponent into the VORTEX while elevating oneself into the ZONE.
One finds an amazingly powerful BY-PRODUCT of SHOCK ENGINEERING: Collateral Damage, or "incidental trauma." When one establishes the protocol of attacking the opponent's "opportunity" and "intention," rather than gaming with the counter/counter-counter chessmatch of "abilities," one incidentally accesses traumatic zones, vulnerable areas, painful points of the body... TARGET FIXATION happens often when one INTENDS to access one of these areas, and as a result, one becomes unaware of the passing fight variables... one lacks proper attentional strength to be present in the fight. Again, see FISTICUFFS for an in-depth presentation of this material.
I'm glad to read you're really engaging my articles. Your insightful questions demonstrate that you've latched on to key principles.
That's excellent, just what I was looking for. The
pinball metaphor really made sense to me....I've
noticed in sparring against opponents who are at
or above the ability level that I am (unless you are
lucky enough to slip in with an overwhelming blitz),
that there tends to be a flurry when you both
engage, and then a backing off/catching your wind
period, which continues throughout the round.
Even in grappling , there tends to be these active
vs. stalling periods. I need to work on my ability to
produce and receive force in a relaxed fashion....by
the way, your breathing tape has made a big
difference in the way I pace myself in a variety of
Brian, I just wanted to quickly revisit this topic.
Consider the "Control-Pause" as a "Tactical Stall" to normalize respiration (when facing aerobic debt in a ballistic phase of the fight), as well as recover heart rate to a level where complex and fine motor skills are accessible to you.
You're talking about the "retention" pause after
exhalation, right? On the breathing tape, retention
after inhalation and exhalation are shown, so I'm
just making sure.
And by the way, I was reading about your current
weighted uphill Fartlek/Tabata sprinting for "mental
toughness" on the Amerross forum and have
concluded you're either nuts or in extremely good
/you're either nuts or in extremely good shape.... /
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive :-)