Yamaarashi
12/09/2007 6:25am,
Hey guys,
Well I just returned from a 5 day MSD (military self defence course) and thought I would share my thoughts with you. I took several pages of notes throughout the course and after letting my thoughts crystallise for a couple of days I think I can give a fairly unbiased and accurate report. Firstly, I feel it is important to note before I go any further that this is an introductory course, only 4 days of which were learning (5th day was assessment). Teaching people with no hand to hand combat experience a whole lot within 4 days is always going to be a hard task, but I think the MSD course does it pretty well, with a few exceptions. Here is a day by day breakdown:
Day 1
The morning of our first day was very much classroom based, covering such topics as physiological and psychological effects on the individual in combat situations, ROE (rules of engagement) and vital/vulnerable parts of the body. All good solid stuff beginners in our environment need to know and an excellent way to start the course. Late morning we got on the mats and were shown a 'fence' stance and a shell stance (your typical fight gone wrong stance with head covered). This was combined with lots of work on verbal communication - escalation and de escalation of a situation and such. A very necessary part of the course I felt, because these skills enable one to work more easily within the ROE rather than having the ROE work against them. We finished the day learning elbows, knees and headbutting, all good solid stuff. After the first day I was quite happy with what they were teaching, it was all solid stuff for beginners in our profession.
Day 2
The second day was very much dominated by grappling. Most of it was quite good but there were a couple of glaring examples of poor technique selection. We were shown a double leg takedown which was excellent - easy to learn and execute using gross motor skills and with a good margin of error. The single leg takedown was, however, slow and clumsy, it had too many working parts and for myself let alone a beginner it is definately not suitable for an aggressive opponent. The two takedowns we learnt from the clinch I was definately not happy with. The critical point in both of them required a knowledge of kuzushi which many of the instructors didn't have, so god help the students trying to learn it. Against a larger/more experienced/more aggressive opponent the techniques leave the defender dangerously exposed to several throws or even just being wrestled to the ground.
After this was the groundwork and it was mostly good with different positions, simples escapes and reversals, however there were some notable flaws. There were two chokes taught, one being the cross lapel from guard. It's a great choke if the person is wearing a sturdy shirt or jacket, but considering our areas of operation in recent times (generally very hot and tropical climates) it isn't so useful because most people are wearing t-shirts or something more flimsy to keep the heat off. The second choke taught (pulling them into your guard with a guillotine) is generally in my experience very hard to apply against a resisting opponent because they simply pull their head up out of it when you try to wrap your arm around. I question why hadaka jime or something similar wasn't taught - it is very easy and very effective. Most of the groundwork we were shown assumes that the person becomes docile as soon as you have their back, definately wrong and quite ludicrous. Soldiers can't afford to make assumptions like this.
The rationale behind some of the techniques was mind boggling. We were told we must have our arms up when taking them down into the mount so they can't hit us. Considering the mount gives you far superior position and the assistance of gravity I question why we weren't taught to take advantage of the position rather than simply having our hands in the air.
I was told at one point in the day to stop ukemi because I hadn't been taught it there. I told one of the instructors quietly between classes that I'd do my best but it's somewhat hard to just switch off 7 years of ingrained training. He told me "just do it" and went on to say that ukemi is useless and ineffective and that it is only found in martial arts because "that's the way it has always been done". I was quite blown away by that level of ignorance - especially considering he was one of the instructors in charge. I was also told several times to slow down and concentrate on my technique and that I used too much strength. The instructors didn't know my background, so I don't blame them for thinking I was going too fast (most of the ground techniques we did I learnt 5 years ago or more), but I was surprised at their lack of knowledge in momentum and the general dynamics of grappling, which would have shown them I wasn't going fast at all.
Overall day 2 was still quite good, I was just beginning to become disappointed in the level of instructor knowledge.
Day 3
Here is where things took a turn for the worse. We began with weapon retention which for the most part was excellent, I don't think anymore needs to be said. Our defence against having someone grab at our already drawn pistol was, however, ludicrous. As they step forward, we were told to step back and just move the pistol around in short, sharp movements. There was no kick or push to get them back. A situation serious enough to warrant drawing a weapon means that you are planning on using it, yet this is showing the opponent that it is ok to keep trying and you won't use it. Terrible.
This led into knife awareness and attacks. It began well - they showed us numerous pictures and videos on the reality of being assaulted with an edged weapon. Yet the knife defenses they showed us were iffy at best and downright stupid at worst. For an overhead stab it was a crossblock, yet when it was demonstrated his arms were too low and half the knife would be embedded in his skull. The rest of the counter was not bad per se - it was just needlessly long with a notable gap in it that I felt was a bit unsafe. The defence for a straight knife thrust was as far as I am concerned, insane. Hey it would be ok if the soldier is wearing body armour, but what about getting assaulted in a bar? Considering how much time soldiers spend out on the booze having a technique ingrained in them that relies on wearing armour will leave them dead without it.
The second defence also included the defender driving their opponent back and down to the ground. My partner was not doing this properly - he was merely pushing me backwards. I was told I was a bad training partner and it was my job to go down and make him look good. Wow, just wow was all I could think. He can't do it properly and I am supposed to encourage that by being compliant? I was not impressed.
Day 4
We spent day 4 doing a decent amount of revision but also did PoW handling and pistol/rifle disarms. The PoW handling was all good, no problems there at all. Likewise with the disarms. As far as the disarms went, there were things I felt that could have been improved, but as the instructors said in reality alot of it is going to be luck. Having someone draw a weapon on you is at best a bad situation, and you will have to rely on your ability to talk through it and react at the right time. The technical side of it was good enough, I would definately trust those techniques in real life.
Day 5
As said before, day 5 was assessment.
In addition to this, every day involved reflex training and scenarios. The reflex training I thought was sub par, because the person in the middle had far too much time and had a good idea of what attack was coming at them. There was nothing reflexive about it and very importantly the attacks generally weren't hard enough. From my point of view, if I was teaching a course like this I would want to expose the students to what real violence feels like - the force of the blows, the speed, and the subsequent adrenalin response that overcomes the body. This was sadly lacking and thus the students missed what I feel is a vital experience.
The scenario training was quite interesting, sometimes good and sometimes bad. The people were generally wearing big padded suits, so their strikes and such were woefully slow and not at all realistic, they were also extremely easy to take down. The scenarios themselves were not bad, they exposed students to having to think on their feet and react in real time, with a bit more reality on the attackers side they would have been the perfect training tool.
Overall it was a decent course. In 4 days you can't teach a whole lot, but they covered all bases well enough without giving bias to anything. The problems were generally lack of instructor knowledge (they were physical trainers who are taught the MSD techniques, it would be akin to myself teaching naginata kata - I have no background in weapons and generally know only the techniques themselves) and a general lack of reality. Another thing I also really did not like was the "softly softly" approach of the course. If someone unknowingly added anything to a technique that made it more forceful, they were told not to do it because the opponent might get hurt. We had to always be conscious of the media. People generally don't pick fights with an armed soldier on a whim, and if someone is attacking me with a weapon, I really don't care about their safety, I care about mine. That sort of approach I feel puts soldiers in danger.
Well I just returned from a 5 day MSD (military self defence course) and thought I would share my thoughts with you. I took several pages of notes throughout the course and after letting my thoughts crystallise for a couple of days I think I can give a fairly unbiased and accurate report. Firstly, I feel it is important to note before I go any further that this is an introductory course, only 4 days of which were learning (5th day was assessment). Teaching people with no hand to hand combat experience a whole lot within 4 days is always going to be a hard task, but I think the MSD course does it pretty well, with a few exceptions. Here is a day by day breakdown:
Day 1
The morning of our first day was very much classroom based, covering such topics as physiological and psychological effects on the individual in combat situations, ROE (rules of engagement) and vital/vulnerable parts of the body. All good solid stuff beginners in our environment need to know and an excellent way to start the course. Late morning we got on the mats and were shown a 'fence' stance and a shell stance (your typical fight gone wrong stance with head covered). This was combined with lots of work on verbal communication - escalation and de escalation of a situation and such. A very necessary part of the course I felt, because these skills enable one to work more easily within the ROE rather than having the ROE work against them. We finished the day learning elbows, knees and headbutting, all good solid stuff. After the first day I was quite happy with what they were teaching, it was all solid stuff for beginners in our profession.
Day 2
The second day was very much dominated by grappling. Most of it was quite good but there were a couple of glaring examples of poor technique selection. We were shown a double leg takedown which was excellent - easy to learn and execute using gross motor skills and with a good margin of error. The single leg takedown was, however, slow and clumsy, it had too many working parts and for myself let alone a beginner it is definately not suitable for an aggressive opponent. The two takedowns we learnt from the clinch I was definately not happy with. The critical point in both of them required a knowledge of kuzushi which many of the instructors didn't have, so god help the students trying to learn it. Against a larger/more experienced/more aggressive opponent the techniques leave the defender dangerously exposed to several throws or even just being wrestled to the ground.
After this was the groundwork and it was mostly good with different positions, simples escapes and reversals, however there were some notable flaws. There were two chokes taught, one being the cross lapel from guard. It's a great choke if the person is wearing a sturdy shirt or jacket, but considering our areas of operation in recent times (generally very hot and tropical climates) it isn't so useful because most people are wearing t-shirts or something more flimsy to keep the heat off. The second choke taught (pulling them into your guard with a guillotine) is generally in my experience very hard to apply against a resisting opponent because they simply pull their head up out of it when you try to wrap your arm around. I question why hadaka jime or something similar wasn't taught - it is very easy and very effective. Most of the groundwork we were shown assumes that the person becomes docile as soon as you have their back, definately wrong and quite ludicrous. Soldiers can't afford to make assumptions like this.
The rationale behind some of the techniques was mind boggling. We were told we must have our arms up when taking them down into the mount so they can't hit us. Considering the mount gives you far superior position and the assistance of gravity I question why we weren't taught to take advantage of the position rather than simply having our hands in the air.
I was told at one point in the day to stop ukemi because I hadn't been taught it there. I told one of the instructors quietly between classes that I'd do my best but it's somewhat hard to just switch off 7 years of ingrained training. He told me "just do it" and went on to say that ukemi is useless and ineffective and that it is only found in martial arts because "that's the way it has always been done". I was quite blown away by that level of ignorance - especially considering he was one of the instructors in charge. I was also told several times to slow down and concentrate on my technique and that I used too much strength. The instructors didn't know my background, so I don't blame them for thinking I was going too fast (most of the ground techniques we did I learnt 5 years ago or more), but I was surprised at their lack of knowledge in momentum and the general dynamics of grappling, which would have shown them I wasn't going fast at all.
Overall day 2 was still quite good, I was just beginning to become disappointed in the level of instructor knowledge.
Day 3
Here is where things took a turn for the worse. We began with weapon retention which for the most part was excellent, I don't think anymore needs to be said. Our defence against having someone grab at our already drawn pistol was, however, ludicrous. As they step forward, we were told to step back and just move the pistol around in short, sharp movements. There was no kick or push to get them back. A situation serious enough to warrant drawing a weapon means that you are planning on using it, yet this is showing the opponent that it is ok to keep trying and you won't use it. Terrible.
This led into knife awareness and attacks. It began well - they showed us numerous pictures and videos on the reality of being assaulted with an edged weapon. Yet the knife defenses they showed us were iffy at best and downright stupid at worst. For an overhead stab it was a crossblock, yet when it was demonstrated his arms were too low and half the knife would be embedded in his skull. The rest of the counter was not bad per se - it was just needlessly long with a notable gap in it that I felt was a bit unsafe. The defence for a straight knife thrust was as far as I am concerned, insane. Hey it would be ok if the soldier is wearing body armour, but what about getting assaulted in a bar? Considering how much time soldiers spend out on the booze having a technique ingrained in them that relies on wearing armour will leave them dead without it.
The second defence also included the defender driving their opponent back and down to the ground. My partner was not doing this properly - he was merely pushing me backwards. I was told I was a bad training partner and it was my job to go down and make him look good. Wow, just wow was all I could think. He can't do it properly and I am supposed to encourage that by being compliant? I was not impressed.
Day 4
We spent day 4 doing a decent amount of revision but also did PoW handling and pistol/rifle disarms. The PoW handling was all good, no problems there at all. Likewise with the disarms. As far as the disarms went, there were things I felt that could have been improved, but as the instructors said in reality alot of it is going to be luck. Having someone draw a weapon on you is at best a bad situation, and you will have to rely on your ability to talk through it and react at the right time. The technical side of it was good enough, I would definately trust those techniques in real life.
Day 5
As said before, day 5 was assessment.
In addition to this, every day involved reflex training and scenarios. The reflex training I thought was sub par, because the person in the middle had far too much time and had a good idea of what attack was coming at them. There was nothing reflexive about it and very importantly the attacks generally weren't hard enough. From my point of view, if I was teaching a course like this I would want to expose the students to what real violence feels like - the force of the blows, the speed, and the subsequent adrenalin response that overcomes the body. This was sadly lacking and thus the students missed what I feel is a vital experience.
The scenario training was quite interesting, sometimes good and sometimes bad. The people were generally wearing big padded suits, so their strikes and such were woefully slow and not at all realistic, they were also extremely easy to take down. The scenarios themselves were not bad, they exposed students to having to think on their feet and react in real time, with a bit more reality on the attackers side they would have been the perfect training tool.
Overall it was a decent course. In 4 days you can't teach a whole lot, but they covered all bases well enough without giving bias to anything. The problems were generally lack of instructor knowledge (they were physical trainers who are taught the MSD techniques, it would be akin to myself teaching naginata kata - I have no background in weapons and generally know only the techniques themselves) and a general lack of reality. Another thing I also really did not like was the "softly softly" approach of the course. If someone unknowingly added anything to a technique that made it more forceful, they were told not to do it because the opponent might get hurt. We had to always be conscious of the media. People generally don't pick fights with an armed soldier on a whim, and if someone is attacking me with a weapon, I really don't care about their safety, I care about mine. That sort of approach I feel puts soldiers in danger.