Uping The Ante

Thanks to Joe Mullings for his reminder in the "Are MMA Cops Better" thread regarding Coach Blauer's comment:

"Don't look at what the Good Guy player is doing, look at what the bad guy player is doing."

Consider using that as a filter when deciding on an end user and their application of a tactic.
-----

This is a bit rhetorical, but how can you plan for a specific tactic to use unless you have "what if'ed" it to death?

But we also have to remember that a lot of the bad guys out there don't play by the same rules that we do. And they are getting more creative.

Going to the extreme for a few examples (but applicable for military/homeland security training in our current world environment), 1) terrorists use small explosions or attacks to draw people into a certain area to investigate and then let loose with the major attack they were hoping for all along; 2) They place IEDs in dead animals, on donkey carts, in childrens dolls; 3) Blow up taxis and their own people as well as bystanders just to "injure" the enemy at the least; 4) generate indescriminate fire in crowded areas, 5) Suicide bombers are driving truckloads of explosives into military compounds; and so on.

These are only a selection of things they do now. Imagine how creative they are trying to get. We need to keep uping the ante on our "what-ifs" before they get an idea we haven't at least thought of first. And we can't leave any option or potential out because we might think it is too crazy or improbable. If we can think it is an option, so can they - and they have probably imagined worse.

While I am still a newbie to the whole PDR and SPEAR program, I clearly see how vital it is to the entire spectrum of personal and professional readiness. Here's wishing that the coming year 2004 brings more people into the light bulb moment.

Jason D

JD,

"This is a bit rhetorical, but how can you plan for a specific tactic to use unless you have "what if'ed" it to death?

But we also have to remember that a lot of the bad guys out there don't play by the same rules that we do. And they are getting more creative. "

As an instructor, the "what if's" are always interesting to deal with. It is correct to ask the question, it is also up to the person to decide what is probable and what is possible. Anything is possible, as you point out in the balance of your posting, more and more is possible.

You bring up some of the more recent examples of approaches of those that continue to bring terror to the streets of the world. These attacks are realistically not in the realm of your control. They are in the hands of a higher agency(s) whose responsibility is to ferret out these possible attacks. You can do very little about it. To believe any other way would make you neurotic :)

Coach has the phrase "Homeland Security begins at home".....nice. Make it happen. The likelihood of you being attacked by a terrorist is probbaly less likely than you being assaulted at Walmart, or a home invasion, or just a typical potential attack in a parking garage or shopping mall.

I share with my students that they should prepare themselves for probable, not possible attacks. (Remember primary attacks from PDR curriculum?)Then if you have more time, expand out to stretching into the possible.....or.......spend more time to get deeper into the probable :)

Studying and teaching you have to decide what you will become most proficient at protecting given the amount of training time that you have at your disposal.


Best Wishes

Joe Mullings

www.amma.tv

Hey Joe what are the primary attacks from the PDR
curriculum?
Thankyou, Shane

Good post Jason, good reply Joe.

The PDR program's filter for: POSSIBLE vs. PROBABLE is of course
relative.

Jason's line:

"We need to keep uping the ante on our "what-ifs" before they get
an idea we haven't at least thought of first."

and Joe's summary:

"Studying and teaching you have to decide what you will become
most proficient at protecting given the amount of training time
that you have at your disposal."

Both are accurate. Both Joe & Jason teach self-defense. But Jason
also works in the security arena, his concerns must include more
than the average citzen's.

As I wrote earleir, its all relative to one's skill & ability and of
course one's station in life [the scenario] whcih determines the
W.I.N. training choice.

Tony

FYI "W.I.N." is Lou Holtz's WHATS IMPORTANT NOW acronym.

Shane,

The PRIMARY ATTACKS can be different. We refer to them
offically as PIA's or PRIMARY INITIATION ATTACKS. The term and
rationale has specific meaning to those who study the SPEAR
SYSTEM.

Understanding a PIA is furhter refined using the PROBABLE (vs
possible) theory.

A PIA (should) always be relative to your scenario and the PRIMARY
ATTACKS are discerned through a proprietary formula called
DEMYSTIFICATION OF THE STREET ATTACK.

Using the ECT drill (Emotional Climate Training & the
Demystifcation formula) you would refine your PIA's relative to
your job, your scenario and the culture youre training in.)

This explanation isnt meant to make it sound all top secret, just
some background, and an understanding that there is a 'PDR
language' . Sometimes people feel we're talking in code here :-)
we're not, its just like physics or math, when you dont understand
the format its all foreign sounding.

There's also a limit to what I feel we should inject in this forum as
much of it requires the ALIVE drills to make sense of the
explanation.

That's the SUBSTANCE behind the SUBJECT.

Now back to your question: The fundamental primary attacks we
start everyone with at each learning phase are: SUCKER PUNCH,
TACKLE & VIOLENT SHOVE, as these attacks often intiate any &
every street attack.

Tony

Tony thankyou very much for your reply. I find myself
becoming more interested in your work the more
I learn about it.Thanks again Tony for your time.

Good article to read re this thread:

cut & paste in our browser:

http://www.imakenews.com/blauertactical/
e_article000216569.cfm

TOny