Home of the National Tactical Invitational

American Tactical Shooting Association

To view us online, visit http://www.teddytactical.com/

---

Monthly Lecture: 12-2004

TRAINING SCHOOLS
AND THE SOURCE OF METHODOLOGY

By: Skip Gochenour

Premise: Current training schools in fighting arts have, in recent years, touted the concept of integrated “systems” using various tools and grappling. Some even profess techniques designed to be useful across a range of weapons systems. This premise is neither new nor innovative. It is as old as the concept of fighting schools. In the past, as today, techniques for the employment of weapons systems designed for use by the individual flow from the work and thinking of private training schools and made their way into the government agent’s lexicon.

There are traditions that speak of the history of weapons carrying:

• We shake hands with our right hand so those we encounter ca see our hand is not holding a weapon
• A man offers a lady his right arm in escort because his edged weapons were traditionally carried on his left side.
• A mans coat buttons left over right so it can be opened with the left hand, allowing quicker access to weapons by his right hand.

ANTIQUITY: THE GREEKS AND ROMANS

GREEKS

There is little information about the source of training with individual arms as employed by the Greeks. Trainers were elected from the populace. Aristotle went so far as to comment there was as much need to teach the proper use of the sword or dagger as there was the proper method of walking or throwing an object. Employment of such weapons was self evident when the weapon was taken in hand.

Grappling:

• Was recognized as a fundamental part of fighting skill.
• There were schools and constant practice in these techniques.
• The need for the skill was derived from common fighting experience.

Spears

• Spears were the primary weapon of the Greeks
• They came in two forms, one for throwing and one for thrusting.
• Even duels were fought with the initial action involving spears.

Swords and daggers

• Greeks used “short swords” because their fighting techniques involved closing with the enemy.
• One general commented that their swords were short because they liked fighting close to their enemy.

Here we see the origins of an integrated fighting system. The recognition, based on experience, that a fight was likely to go to the ground brought about an emphasis on grappling as well as weapons use techniques.

Hoplites

• Were comprised of ordinary men, mostly farmers, who by nature wished to fight in brutal circumstance.
• Their fighting techniques relied predominately on brute strength and unshakeable nerve.
• They revered men of exceptional courage and studied them as an inspiration.
• They rejected projectile weapons because they required much study to master and constant practice to maintain proficiency. Contact weapons did not.
• Xenophon referred to their fighting technique as a “work of enthusiasm rather than art.”

While the Greeks spent a lot of time on drill and formation, they spent little time in training with personal weapons. Kind of like the military of today.

Training

• Later in Greek history there were some private fighting schools.
• Plato commented that fencing with swords came from private instructors hired by the wealthy with money and leisure to pursue the art.
• Plato also suggested the development of rules regarding fight training and using established masters as arbiters.
• Nichias commented that for exercise and when the lines (of battle) broke and individual combat ensued, experts would prevail over even multiple assailants.

Here we see the beginnings of technique driven fighting.

ROMANS

Unlike the Greeks, the Romans appreciated the value of skill with personal weapons. They developed standing armies that developed into a social class. Schools were established for gladiators.

Schools

• Julius Caesar established rules for individual combat.
• Left handed gladiators were regarded as particularly fearsome.
• Schools became fashionable, even attended by women.
• Gladiators were contracted to teach techniques to the military.
• Vegetius warned that only certain men should be allowed to visit the barracks of fighters. Smiths. Blacksmiths, butchers and hunters were allowed to associate with fighters. “Occupations appropriate to women’s quarters were not allowed; bakers, confectioner and weavers.

We see the origin of private schools developing the most effective techniques with personal weapons and grappling and transferring them to the government retainers.

MEDIEVAL PERIOD

During this period personal weapons took on a token of majesty. Freemen “of sword age” were allowed to go about armed.

Here we see the combining of two qualities that have been the continuing hall mark of personal weapons bearing, freemen and maturity.

Beowulf contributes to the lore of the good man and his personal arms. His sword “Hrunting” will not perform except when he is on the side of right.

Beowulf defines a warrior and a soldier. The former is a paid retainer who receives coins for his skills. The later is self-motivated with his own agenda. He operates with restraint. He decides the form of victory. He is distinguished from the hired killer by the things he will not stop to.

Beowulf was undoubtedly an American!

Knights

• Evolved a set of standards.
• Developed a code of honor.
• They were to be honest, protect the weak and show compassion for a fallen enemy.
• Knights were selected by other knights who saw these resident qualities.

A further evolution of the restraint concept in fighting.

Jousting

• Knights trained others in preparation to knighthood.
• Jousts were used as a means of keeping skills intact when actual fighting was not available.
• Jousts brought about an international brotherhood of trained fighters. They were international events.
• Eventually to reduce the number of injuries, special rules and equipment was developed, followed by techniques that were only of value in jousts.
• Cross over lances, collapsible armor.

Road to the duel

• Eventually knights needed money and continued practice outside the joust.
• They took up the practice of holding passages, like bridges, and demanding a fight or submission, usually with some payment.

RENAISSANCE

As technology and the economy blossomed in the Renaissance, personal weapons became more available. More people had the money and leisure to pursue training, making the training school a profitable enterprise.

Until the Renaissance, trainers used the lessons learned from their personal life experience to provide their pupils with a hodge-podge of largely disconnected skills. The students were dangerous, but lacked a complete system for the use of various personal weapons and individual confrontation techniques.

During this time trainers were often military people with the form of experience associated with war fighting. Students were enamored with the idea that an individual with “actual combat experience” was the font of the one way to fight.

Does this sound familiar?

LEICHTENAUER AND TALHOFFER

Johannes Leichtenauer was from Nuremberg. He traveled Europe studying the various techniques that were being taught at schools. As a result of his studies he developed techniques structured around concepts that were easily transferred from one weapons system to another.

His system involved attacks and defenses in the same move.

He developed a concept of “avoidance”, be where the blade is not. Acknowledging that you can do that by backing away, he counseled that it was much better to close the distance and get inside the effective use of the weapons system by stepping to the 45 as you delivered your own blow.

And someone convinced you all this stuff was new!

Hans Talhoffer from Swabia practiced and taught an “integrated fighting system” that covered the range of personal weapons including swords, daggers, sticks and wrestling.

He also contributed the distinction between those who train and those with spirit for the fight.

“Princes and Lords learn to survive with this art, in earnest and in play. But if you are fearful, then you should not learn to fence, because a despondent heart will always be defeated, regardless of all skill.”

Fully 1/3 of Talhoffer’s book involved grappling.

GIACOMO DI GRASSI

He contributed the concept of analyzing the actual movements of a fight. He realized that speed, balance and thinking during a fight could be enhanced through training.

THE CHAMPIONS

Trial by combat developed along the thinking the God would not tolerate a wrong, and was always on the side of right. Hence, accusations of criminal conduct were, for a time settled by a duel.

Eventually, scoundrels who were particularly skilled with personal weapons took advantage of their lesser skilled citizens. Champions were allowed to be hired. Professional fighters eventually came together to resolve the “truth” of the accusations. Elaborate rules were developed to be sure the fight was “fair” and that all parties got a fair trial.

That concept evolved into the modern day trial system.

As a system of governance developed the state took on the role of arbiter in criminal accusations. That left personal wrongs and affronts to be dealt with by the parties involved. Dueling became the answer.

DUELING

For centuries, especially on continental Europe, dueling was in vogue. Personal affronts, real or imagined, were an occasion for a demand of satisfaction through arms. Europe especially was awash in schools of dueling.

As time passed, techniques evolved around specific weapons that were practical only in choreographed, rules driven events. Duels, as practiced by Europeans were ritualized affairs of murder.

An Englishman named George Silver found the practice not only abhorrent and dishonorable, but pointed out that the skills taught in such schools, and the weapons used were of little value in defense of ones life in a criminal assault. He advocated a system of fighting that was designed to defend against criminal assault as well as weapons systems practical to such fights.

Here we see the constant argument that continues to today. Throughout the history of personal combat there are examples of debates over the “best” weapon. Schools were formed around the “best” technique that was particularly suited to a specific style of weapon. Schools then and now tie their marketing strategy to convincing those with marginal experience at immediate and explosive criminal violence that their “best” and “best” will lead them to prevail.

Dueling was a ritualized, choreographed, rule driven, appointment event engaged in by decent men who could be generally counted on to perform within those confines. Violent criminal assault, as observed by George Silver was, and is, quite another matter.

Still, fate has its intervention. There are accounts of duels between experienced fencers and men of no skill that did not go as expected. In one instance a fight master was approached by a man with no experience with a sword and informed he must fight a duel the next day with an accomplished swordsman. The trainer gave him one hour’s instruction, carefully explaining the favorite first move of the experienced practitioner. The trainer counseled that the nimrod would have only a second to determine his fate. The trainer left, expecting to hear of the demise of his newest student directly. The next day the student came to him explaining that upon the command to commence, he instantly and explosively executed the one move he had been shown, nearly severing the sword hand of his opponent.

Will and determination has its role in a fight.

THE PERFECT GRIP AND STANCE

During the course of dueling, schools were convinced they could identify and perfect the grip and stance that would lead to the thrust that could not be parried.

Weapons systems may change but pursuit of guaranteed survival is ever-lived.

By the 1700’s most trainers gave up on the idea of a magical technique and pursued a “complete system” that taught a group of techniques that allowed the student to move from one technique to another as the circumstances dictated. The quest then became to tie the perfect “system” with the “master stroke”.

I think I heard this before?

THE FEAR FACTOR

Fighting, whether in a ritualized form or an unexpected violent encounter, is a by-product of intimidation. Intimidation is designed to subjugate. Free men will not be subjugated. There are people who spend their lives looking for the next thing by which to be intimidated. They seek subjugation. They enjoy freedom at the expense of others. Intimidation is a malignancy of self-absorption.

Free men, confident men, of spirit, find intimidation to be a putrid infection of the soul. Acts of intimidation anger and enrage them. Good men possess the strength of will to discipline the anger and rage and channel it into controlled, meaningful action.

Aristotle may have been referring more to rejection of intimidation and subjugation when he said there was no need to train a man to use a sword, as it came to him as naturally as walking.

TRAINING CONCEPTS TODAY

In the United States today, training schools devoted to the use of personal weapons for self-defense are ubiquitous. The last quarter century has seen an explosion in the number.

Trainers seem to follow familiar patterns of the past. Some establish their credentials through past association with military or police experience. Students still naturally assume there is some direct correlation between military and police mission training and the form of encounter they will experience.

Some make the circuit of many other schools and select components of those schools and melt them into a curriculum of their own.

Some find a particular weapons platform they like and develop techniques around that platform that are sexy and dazzling.

Some use their exceptional talents to perform outstanding feats on a competition circuit and then teach those techniques.

Some develop systems that allow integration of an array of personal weapons systems.

Some mix grappling skills with their weapons training skills.

Some do all of the above.

Consistent with long past history, these training schools are private schools. Techniques they develop migrate from the private sector to the government sector. As in the past, government entities pay more attention to technology and execution of formation drills than they do proficiency with personal weapons systems.

With occasional exception, the schools of today are well capable of preparing a student to operate personal weapons systems including in dynamic environments.

Mixing live fire with FoF, a form of sparring or jousting, students can learn to execute the techniques they have been taught. This forum can even be used to teach the student to keep thinking and evaluating his opponent’s next move.

What is important to add to the learning process is the rejection of intimidation and subjugation.

As Talfoffer pointed out, a despairing heart can not triumph even with all the skills in place.

ATSA STUDY GROUP

NOVEMBER 20, 2004

DOT EXERCISE

Pit 4

Props: (2) IDPA targets with ATSA Dots sprayed on.

Purpose: to allow the practitioner to use the relationship between the intended impact area and a visualization of the sighting system as a cue for the degree of trigger finesse to be accomplished.

Process: A series of impact zones varying in size from 1 ½” to 6”x6” are engaged at differing distances. The practitioner sees the relationship between the impact area and the various parts of the rear of the gun and uses those relationships as a cue for the degree of finesse required for trigger actuation. In each string (7) to (10) shots are fired as rapidly as the practitioner can maintain 90% of his hits in the target area. Impacts should be throughout the impact zone. One hole groups means that the practitioner is shooting to slowly and seeing a much more precise traditional sight picture than is required.

String 1 3 yds. 1 ½ “ dot.

At this range, the outer edges of the rear sight should be approximately even with the outer edges of the dot.

String 2 5 yds. Lower left 3” dot.

At this range the outside edges of the slide of an auto-pistol should be approximately even with outside diameter of the dot.

String 3 7 yds. Middle right 3” dot.

At this range the outer edges of the rear sight should be approximately even with the outside diameter of the dot.

String 4 10 yds. Middle left 3” dot.

At this range the inside edges of the rear sight window should be even with the outside diameter of the dot.

String 5 15 yds. Upper right 3” dot.

At this range the outer edges of the front sight should be approximately even with the outside diameter of the dot.

String 6 20 yds. Upper left 3” dot.

At this range the dot should be on the top dead center of the front sight.

String 7 25 yds. Head shot 6”x6” square.

At this range the outer edges of the rear sight should be approximately even with the outer diameter of the head.

Note: each of the described visualizations of “sight picture” are approximate and will vary slightly depending on the specific weapon and affixed sight system. The practitioner will learn that the visualizations described are sufficient to maintain impacts within the designated impact zone. The purpose of the drill is to condition the practitioner to use the relationship between the size of the impact area and the visualization of the sights as an indicator of the degree of trigger finesse required to make a hit in the impact area. Distance is irrelevant.

ATSA STUDY GROUP

NOVEMBER 20, 2004

DOT DRILL PRACTICAL EXERCISE

Pit 2

Props: (5) IDPA targets and stands.

Purpose: To allow the practitioner to practice the target to sight visualization exercise across distance.

Process: The practitioner, on the signal “gun” does a presentation of the weapon from concealed carry and engages each target with a minimum of two rounds to the designated impact zones. Practitioner is responsible for getting of the line of force as is practically required and maintaining a 360 check.

The practitioner will get (3) runs at the exercise.

T-1 3 yds. Impact zone is the ocular window of the target.

T-2 7 yds. Impact zone is the center 8” scoring zone of the target.

T-3 15 yds. Impact zone is the 8” center scoring zone of the target.

T-4 25 yds. Impact zone is the center 8” scoring zone on the target.

T-5 40 yds. Impact zone is the entire target.

ATSA STUDY GROUP

NOVEMBER 20, 2004

DOT EXERCISE WHILE MOVING

Pit 3

Props: (3) IDPA targets and stands. (2) targets are marked with ATSA strike zones.

Purpose: To allow the practitioner to practice using the designated impact zone as an indicator of the degree of finesse required for trigger actuation and the required sight visualization.

Process: Practitioner is placed at the edge of the lateral berm on either side of the pit. He is 20 yds from the target array. Targets are placed side by side with approximately (5) ft. between targets. On the signal “gun” the practitioner does a presentation from concealed carry and begins moving along a diagonal line that goes from his location to the deepest corner of the opposite lateral berm. As he is able to place a minimum of two shots into the designated impact zone on each target he does so while in continuous motion.

T-1 Impact zone is the 8” scoring zone of the target.

T-2 Impact zone is the CT.

T-3 Impact zone is the ocular window.

ATSA STUDY GROUP

NOVEMBER 20, 2004

HOUSE EXERCISE

Pit-The L House

Props: Various hostile and friendly targets and stands. Targets have the ATSA scoring zones on the rear of the targets.

Purpose: To allow the practitioner to practice dot drills in a dynamic environment.

Process: Practitioner is taken into the house and told to engage hostiles and avoid injury to and friendlies.

ATSA STUDY GROUP

NOVEMBER 20, 2004

FOF

Pit Indoor Range

Props: Airsoft guns, Sims guns and Sawed off.

Purpose: to allow the practitioner to practice confronting VCA who are instrumental/expressive motivated.